 |
|
 |
 |
 |
Inter-Empire Political Discussion Thread
|
 |
|
 |
 |
"Does God smile upon those who steal XX00 posts?"
And also the blockbusting trilogy by Oolon Kalufid
"Where God went wrong"
"Some more of God's greatest mistakes"
and "Who is this God person anyway?"
Alex
[Message Edited]
           
| |
|
|
|
|
|
"Where God went wrong"
"Some more of God's greatest mistakes" |
|
Well a famous author (dunno who) once said to that question: Biggest mistake of god was to create humans
    
| |
|
|
|
| Come to that anyone know why we bothered to leave the oceans? |
|
Shrinkage. 
  
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| No its not, in science we gather evidence to explain OBSERVED phenomena and constuct theories and models around that evidence. |
|
Yes it is.
The existance of a God cannot be proven by mere observation. Of those who observed Jesus, many said he was God. Many said he wasn't.
The absence of a God cannot be proven by mere observation. Most of us today have not observed Jesus. Is he God? Well to some yes, to others no.
Any objective observer would conclude that neither of those propositions is proven by any OBSERVED scientific evidence. In fact, neither can be proven or disproven by any observed scientific evidence.
Thus, The question of the existance of a God is entirely out of the bounds of scientific study. The idea that those who deny the existence of a God are practicing science, when doing so is arrogant poppycock.
Obviously then, those who claim the existance of a God is practicing science when doing so is equally arrogant poppycock.
In even asking that question, any scientist has stepped out of the realm of science and into the realm of faith. Neither proposition there is a proveable proposition at all.
| PS Science is not a religion, it is misused - undoubtedly |
|
P.S. I never said it was. I said it has become a sort of religion in that we use the word to back us up in inquiries that are not science at all.
| you must have more faith to belive in evolution than to believe in GodNah, I just understand it |
|
That's a pretty arrogant statement. It's about as logically effective as "you're a fool" someone put up earlier.
 
| |
|
Job interview:
Math guy walks in. 54, always.
Accountant walks in. well 54, give or take a bit here and there. but somewhere near 54.
economist walks in shuts the door. "What do you want it to be?"
| |
|
|
|
#212
by Veteran vincible - 4/14/2004 11:41:55 PM
| question of the existance of a God is entirely out of the bounds of scientific study |
|
It depends on your conception of God. Everyone has a different set of qualities and actions that they attribute to their god, and what we can say about the existence of their conception of god depends on the details of how they view god. (It might be more accurate to say that science sets limits on what attributes god might have, but this nonetheless means that science makes a valuable contribution to religon.)
Some people's gods are scientifically provable/disprovable. Other people have a god which might be provable or disprovable in principle, but not with information we currently have available. A few people have a god that is indeed outside the bounds of scientific study but they are not the majority.
(To head off the inevitable argument about the definition of "proof", let's say that a god is "provable" or "disprovable" if we can make a statement about its existence where we are at least as sure we are correct as we are about other well-accepted scientific facts, like for example the existence of atoms.)
An example of a disprovable god, given current knowledge: if I believed that Zeus lived atop Mt. Olympus, then you could prove me wrong by taking me to the top of Mt Olympus by helicopter and showing me that there's no one there.
I would argue that most people's conceptions of the Christian God are provable/disprovable in principle. Many Christians believe in an actively intervening God--for example, they believe in the healing power of prayer. If a carefully tested double-blind study showed that Christian prayer had healing power, and every other type of prayer was shown not to do so, then that would be strong scientific evidence in Christianity's favor (though perhaps not by itself rising to the level of "proof").
For those who believe in a God that actively intervened in evolution, this could in principle be proved if we learned enough about biochemistry to figure out if life evolving spontaneously was possible, inevitable, or unlikely.
If you believe that God created the earth 6000 years ago, and you believe that God is not deliberately deceptive, then this claim is addressable with various pieces scientific evidence pointing to an older earth.
A god that might not be disprovable, even in principle, is the divine clockmaker. If someone believes that god is just the first cause who set the universe in motion then left it alone, that may not be anemable to scientific proof or disproof.
This isn't just an argument about attributes, though--it does indeed have bearing on the argument about "existence." For example, many Christians would see no point in believing in a divine clockmaker, so if certain claims of Christianity were proven wrong, they'd turn atheist rather than modify their conception of God. (This is part of why we have so much fuss over creationism in the schools.)
   
| |
|
|
|
I stated that as soon as you state that God exists or God doesn't exist you are outside the realm of science. Indeed you yourself stated that science deals only with the observable. God isn't observable. Therefore, the question of his existance is outside the realm of science.
You have yet to refute it. In fact, your own statement proves it. You can state the theory of evolution backwards and forwards. Quote DNA, double helixes, induced point mutations, and the like untill you're blue in the face. Still does not refute the above statement. Nor does your knowledge of such make you any higher authority on the question of the existance of a God (which I've already shown BY YOUR OWN STATEMENTS to be outside the realm of science) than say me or Renegade (or any less for that matter) Your pathetic fallacious appeal to authority is now exposed for what it is. And when you add to that the majority of those who have their Ph. D's in the biological sciences (an education level above yours I might add) believe in God and attend church, you'll just have to excuse us unlearned dummies for thinking that perhaps scientists are just as diverse and divided on the issue of God as everyone else and maybe, just maybe, they cannot use their science to answer that question for them. After all, if they could, why would they attend church with the rest of the unlearned according to Exar?
Now I have no issue with the old earth theory. I also have no issue with evolution. I'm not one of those that insists the universe was created in precisely 6 24 hour time periods. Now mind you there is evidence out there that supports the young earth theory, just not enough to convince me. Where I take issue is the idea that either of these theories "scientifically" confirm, or deny the existance of God. Nothing you've stated has refuted that point.
But keep on arrogantly trying to run others down for their education level. Perhaps when you actually achieve an education level you can Lord over someone (Ph. D.) you'll have learned some humility and refrain from doing so.
| |
|
| I would argue that most people's conceptions of the Christian God are provable/disprovable in principle. Many Christians believe in an actively intervening God--for example, they believe in the healing power of prayer. If a carefully tested double-blind study showed that Christian prayer had healing power, and every other type of prayer was shown not to do so, then that would be strong scientific evidence in Christianity's favor (though perhaps not by itself rising to the level of "proof"). |
|
By the way, they have studies that show the Christian prayer group in general did better than the non prayer group. They recovered faster, and dies less often. Not quite the study (christian vs other religions) you mentioned. But again do you attribute that to mere belief and the positive placebo effect, or to God actually intervening? And of course if you do a muslim and Christian prayer study and find the results are identical, does that mean
A. God helped em both, or B
B. The placebo effect is equal in both.
There's no real way to rule out the placebo effect as there's no real way to knowingly say a Sugar Pill type of prayer (Ie a prayer that the patient thought was real but really wasn't). Much as I'd like to claim scientific proof for A, I cannot.
But again your point is well taken.
[Message Edited]
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Quick question, has anybody here read "The Urantia Book?" I've started reading it. More than 2000 pages, and very slow reading. But very interesting stuff. At a VERY basic level it puts God into a universal level.
| |
|
| i zi reckonin dat da h'existance of God iz like da Schrodinger's Cat. Both da h'existance and da non-h'existance of God exists simultaneously, and dat da h'observin' of da God should it ever be attained would detroy either da h'existance or da non-h'existance of God. best den not to do da any h'observin on dis matter az da answer might be devestatin'. anywayz whatz wrong wiv dreams, hope and faith, wherever u iz stickin' it. no h'offence to anyonez. |
|
| now i iz confusing even myself... |
|
HEHE. Sometimes in all your confusion, you get out a gem.
| Quick question, has anybody here read "The Urantia Book?" I've started reading it. More than 2000 pages, and very slow reading. But very interesting stuff. At a VERY basic level it puts God into a universal level. |
|
I think I'll put it on me list.
| |
|
Wow, I came over to this thread for a political discussion and got religion. Maybe I should go over to the religous thread for the politcal discussion.
Can't we all just get along?
My personal feeling is, if someone wants to believe in a god whoever/whatever it is and practice a recognized religion then go ahead. Do it by yourselfs or with like minded indviduals. Having said that, if someone chooses not to believe then that is fine too.
We just need to get along.
Lets go out and have a beer and fight over sensible things like why the leafs suck so bad and most likely will not win another stanley cup for the next 30 years.
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Just my two cents, for all those who denied the existence of God, what will hapen to you when you'll die? cease to exist, puff, no more, the silence, the darkness?
I know in whom I have believed and I have the hope and the blessed assurance that when I die I know where I am going and that is priceless, because I don't fear death. I know where I am going, do you?
Are you afraid of dying? Before I was a Christian I was terrified about death. The question about what will happen to me after I die always scared me, I tried to fill the blank by believeing in alliens, UFOs, in my big celestial brother and other things, but none of them gave me peace or satisfied me, no one.
But the day I accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior, as the payment for my sins, as the only way to get to God, that day the fear of death departed from me. 3 months after I became a Christian I left my country Cuba on a raft, you must know that I CANNOT swim, I prayed before I departed in the raft and I said to God, there are only 2 ways out of this trip, one I make it to the USA, the other I am going home to be with you, I sat on the raft and we starting rowing to the USA, couple of miles into the sea we caught a severe thunderstorm, our small raft no more than 6 feet long and 3 feet wide with 7 people aboard started to swing back and forth, rock side to side, up and down, and you know what, for first time in my life I was not afraid no matter that I was in the middle of the ocean surrounded by water and sharks, I WAS NOT AFRAID, God removed fear from my heart and He gave me peace. So what end for your life will you like the most, dying believing that is a God who loved you so much that he sent his only Son to die for your sins at the cross of Calvary and right now is at the right hand of God interceeding for you, or the other end without a God, without a Hope, without a future, afraid, fearing the unknown? I choose God, because I know He is real.
| |
|
| Hmm...no takers on my question on the Patriot Act? |
|
I'll come down on the side of "Dangerous to civil liberties", but if you want cases and arguments, it will have to wait 'til I can do some homework myself.
Of course, the whole government is heading that way. Last week, a court in Louisania ruled that a policeman can enter a house without a warrant "if he feels threatened" Hmmm...
 
| |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
 |
Copyright 1995-2024 Stardock Corporation. All rights reservered.
Site created by Pixtudio and Stardock, designed by Pixtudio.
|
 |
