Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 237 Guests and 2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters (30 Days)
Page 2 of 35 < 1 2 3 4 ... 34 35 >
Topic Options
#14798 - 10/25/06 02:28 AM Re: Evidence for God
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
et (1091),
I like your analysis of the above statement.
I don't want to get into a discussion about creation, but I'd appreciate a similar critique of another thread on this forum, God & Science. Start on page one and follow through to the nit-picking parts about the word "fact."
I think many misunderstandings occur because of the way 'fact' is used in discussions about God, reality and science. Your input would be appreciated.
Thanks,
~samwik
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
.
#14799 - 10/25/06 03:45 AM Re: Evidence for God
terrytnewzealand Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 1031
Loc: Whangarei New Zealand
OK Tim. It looks as though you believe God started the whole thing off and then left the universe to get on with things. Is this correct?

From the short time I have spent with Muslims I see a logical problem for believers. The central idea of Islam is submission to the will of God. But if God already knows everything he knows in advance what is going to happen. Therefore everything we can possibly do is actually Allah's will. As a Muslim cleric said regarding the Twin Towers, "God did it". Can you see the logic in his statement?

Top
#14800 - 10/25/06 05:41 PM Re: Evidence for God
RicS Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 03/26/06
Posts: 310
Loc: Sydney, Australia
G'day Tim,

Belief in God is a faith. When I was 16 I had a friend who used maths to prove that God did not exist. It was extremely good maths and there wasn't anyone where we were at the time, and we were in a college with some very very good minds, that could dispute his maths. Was he right or was he just extremely good at maths?

Actually I think Mr Morgan, underestimated the number of graduates, PhDs and teachers here but that doesn't make your argument less likely to be correct. Funnily enough most of the greatest discoveries were made by people in their teens or early twenties. Einstein didn't do anything except some refinement on his basic ideas and some truly silly ideas after the age of 30. Experience isn't everything but it does mean you can often argue better, although not necessarily more politely. Actually age sometimes means that you have far less tolerance for ideas seen many times before.

How about this thought to let you ponder for a while. If you require proof that God exists then, by definition you lack faith in God. If you use your faith in God's existence in an attempt to prove his or her or its existence then you are starting from a position of extreme bias that may prevent you from ever agreeing that your "proofs" are not infallible. So which is it Tim? Do you have no faith in God and you therefore must require proof? Or do you have faith in God and therefore should require no proof?

I do hope you do learn on this website, even in this discussion where the topic is faith based. If you hold the position that God does not exist then really that is a faith in itself. Faith is after all a belief in the absence of absolute proof for that belief. The weight of evidence may or may not be with you in your belief but its still a belief in the end, not an absolute.

The Big Bang is a theory and one that does not fit all the current observations of this universe. It does fit a great deal of them so it is as good as science can get currently until something better comes along. I don't think arguing about the Big Bang really proves God because it is just a theory to explain the observations of the universe as we currently understand it. Since we don't understand all of it, the bit we don't understand, no matter how small provides a gap that anyone can exploit to argue God's existence or lack thereof, imho.

I personally do not accept that you can prove the existence of God by starting with the premises that he does not exist and because you cannot prove that, hey presto, he must exist. But others have already pointed this out.


Regards


Richard
_________________________
Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness

Top
#14801 - 10/25/06 06:38 PM Re: Evidence for God
eternauta Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 10/23/06
Posts: 16
Loc: BC, Canada
Quote:
Originally posted by samwik:
I think many misunderstandings occur because of the way 'fact' is used in discussions about God, reality and science. Your input would be
Hi samwik. I went through that thread as far as I could, but these guys make me sick really. Any discussion about what "fact" means and how scientists use the word "fact" is a waste of time with people like trilobyte and tim because they are not being honest interlocutors.

I'm not a great writer so I won't be able to make a profound analysis fo the meaning of "fact" as good as yours, but I don't think it is necessary to go so deep. We all know what we mean for fact.

They consider something as a fact just because the bible says so, but for them to accept a fact from science, 10,000 millions of experiments are not enough.
_________________________
Pruebas de ADN Paternidad

Top
#14802 - 10/25/06 07:08 PM Re: Evidence for God
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
that is unfortuantely what faith is all about. accepting something just because its part of the religious doctorine and refusal to accept anything that goes against it.

Ive always believed that an unquestioned faith is not worth the paper its not written on.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#14803 - 10/25/06 08:02 PM Re: Evidence for God
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
~my wife's gonna kill me for "wasting" more time on here, but....

et, Cool!
Very good point about the small amount of evidence vs. a large amount of repeatable, independent, etc. evidence.

My focus on the 5th definition (which I contend scientists must use in reference to the fundamental, basic assumptions in ANY theory) is to point out that kind of "fact" is no different than "unquestioned faith." It is "presumed as" true; a speculative assumption (that works incredibly well). However, just because it works so well, there should not be a "refusal to accept anything that goes against it." -de
I'm not saying we should accept anything that "goes against it," just that if you don't want to accept it, one shouldn't be judgmental. In the end, who's to say who's right? Fortunately, before the end, science is a lot more fun and practical.

As you say "We all know what we mean for fact." -et
But, THEY don't know what we mean (sometimes) by "fact" def.#5. Clearing that up early will prevent a lot of misunderstandings and heated debate.
I'm like a dog witha bone, eh?
Thanks again,

~~Samwik
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
#14804 - 10/25/06 10:11 PM Re: Evidence for God
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
did i lose a post?:
I meant to say I was copying my above reply (4:02PM) over onto the God & Science thread. Seems more on topic there and not here.

Please respond to the 4:02PM post over on God & sci.

Sorry,
~S
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
#14805 - 10/26/06 01:15 AM Re: Evidence for God
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
Trilobye, you don't know anything about science. You keep posting stuff relevant to your wholly babble. No science. Just babble.

Top
#14806 - 10/26/06 03:15 AM Re: Evidence for God
eternauta Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 10/23/06
Posts: 16
Loc: BC, Canada
Quote:
Originally posted by TheFallibleFiend:
Trilobye, you don't know anything about science.
That's not too bad. What is VERY bad is that he doesn't want to know.
_________________________
Pruebas de ADN Paternidad

Top
#14807 - 10/26/06 02:39 PM Re: Evidence for God
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
"What is VERY bad is that he doesn't want to know."
Agreed.

Top
#14808 - 10/26/06 04:29 PM Re: Evidence for God
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Let me, if I may, take it one step further.

If one were to assume, for the sake of argument, that TB was correct. That there was a Judeo-Christian god as defined by theology. And that this deity had, in fact, created the universe in six days exactly as defined in Genesis.

Can you imagine how ugly would be TB's welcome at the pearly gates. He is not exactly living his life in the model of anyone that deity would wish to associate with. In fact given his willful and wanton violation of scripture he would likely find himself taking a very short trip to Hades.

Reminds me very much of a quote from William Penn.

"Truth often suffers more by the heat of its defenders, than from the arguments of it opposers."

If the Judeo-Chrisitan deity needs the likes of TB to defend him ... he is in a very sorry state.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#14809 - 10/27/06 05:07 AM Re: Evidence for God
terrytnewzealand Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 1031
Loc: Whangarei New Zealand
DA. In spite of beliefs to the contrary it seems we cannot possibly know what type of person any deity would wish to associate with. It always makes me laugh when I hear a preacher say, "God doesn't want us to be (fill in this space)". How the F... would he know?

Top
#14810 - 10/27/06 08:09 PM Re: Evidence for God
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
I agree with you TNZ ... but TB thinks he does.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#14811 - 11/06/06 12:14 PM Re: Evidence for God
alsy Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 11/05/06
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by Tim:
There is abounding evidence for a Creator God. If you're familiar with Geometry, an indirect proof is when you prove something by proving what it's not. To start this indirect proof, the given information I'm using is the universe and all it contains; I'm trying to prove that there's a God. First, I will assume temporarily that there is no God. So that means that there is no-one or nothing to create the universe and all it contains. But that conflicts the given that there is a universe. Therefore, there is a God that created the universe because there's not not a God.

Top
#14812 - 11/06/06 07:15 PM Re: Evidence for God
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Alsy what you quoted is without a doubt one of the most pathetic attempts at setting up a straw horse and knocking it over with self-deception I have ever seen.

Very simply put the fact that there is a universe is indicative only of the fact that there is a universe. It contains no value judgement as to what or how or when it did or did not begin to exist.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#17506 - 12/28/06 04:43 AM Re: Evidence for God [Re: Tim]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4122
Tim

scientist only "believe" things after someone else proves that something is or isnt.

most are followers - not leaders.

most hide behind the known because its a safe place for them to be.

until leaders come along and use their brains thought capacity to think beyond what can be seen or felt or heard such as a simple atom for example and "prove" its existance the followers
continue to do the safe thing --> follow.

sad part is that many leaders devote their lives to the unseen and accomplish more than any or all of the followers only to be ridiculed by the followers until they have proven the unseen by seeing hearing or feeling it.

how many years passed between the time that atoms were just a theory. and now there are pictures taken of them.

ever heard of quarks ... ever seen one?

scientist believe they exist but where is the proof they ask of you?

in my own personal opinion and belief there is most certainly a GOD , although I cannot see him , I know he is there.

I suppose that when god has found a reason to let us see him then all will know he exist , until then it is the leaders like yourself that GOD reveals himself to in unseen ways.


_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#17508 - 12/28/06 06:11 AM Re: Evidence for God [Re: paul]
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Well Paul I've no doubt you are sincere in your belief. So let me refer you to a book I think you may enjoy. One that actually does a decent job of examining the foundation of your belief system in a reasonably scientific manner.

The author is Dr. Bart D. Ehrman. And lest you think him some rabid Dawkins-type religion basher ... he is chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. NCCH is part of America's so-called bible belt and hardly a hotbed for revisionist thinking. The book is titled "Misquoting Jesus" and is published by Harper (ISBN 978-0-06-073817-4).

After you have read it come on back to the "Not Quite Science" forum and lets examine how much you thought you knew ... you actually knew.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#17512 - 12/28/06 07:41 AM Re: Evidence for God [Re: DA Morgan]
terrytnewzealand Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 1031
Loc: Whangarei New Zealand
Paul wrote:

"I suppose that when god has found a reason to let us see him then all will know he exists."

It's unbelieveable that after all this time he is yet to show us he exists. I'm no Methusalah but I seem to remeber JC saying the people alive in his day would not pass away before he reappeared. Perhaps he did come back and introduce the kingdom of heaven. It's just that nobody noticed.

Top
#17517 - 12/28/06 06:50 PM Re: Evidence for God [Re: terrytnewzealand]
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
TNZ wrote:
"but I seem to remeber JC saying ...."

Read the book I reference above. It is essentially proven that he never actually said it. And that he never actually said much that is attributed to him.

Thus the book's title: "Misquoting Jesus."

It is a truly fascinating read.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#17522 - 12/28/06 09:55 PM Re: Evidence for God [Re: DA Morgan]
terrytnewzealand Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 1031
Loc: Whangarei New Zealand
Thanks DA. I'll try for it at local library. My friends would also be interested.

Top
Page 2 of 35 < 1 2 3 4 ... 34 35 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.