Do you believe in God?

[Sach]

Unfortunately, the near-uniform 3 degree Kelvin temperature of deep space is pretty convincing evidence for the Big Bang.

How so?

 

[niky]

It's the afterglow, baby. Big Bang Theory predicts residual radiation from the event itself, redshifted into the microwave region... and the discovery of the Cosmic Background Radiation... which just happens to be microwave... is one of the things that led to the wider acceptance of the Big Bang Theory over the alternatives.

-

The nice thing about science is that if your theory is correct, it can predict discoveries that haven't been made yet... and if it's incorrect, it's discarded. That's the history of science in a nutshell. New paradigms opening new avenues of knowledge.

Whereas with religion, even if evidence contradicts accepted dogma, it takes a very long time for the dogma to be corrected... and sometimes, never.

 

[TankAss95]

Indeed - it takes as much belief to believe there in God as it does to believe there is no God. It takes no belief not to believe in God, by definition.

I agree, but it ain't so simple as that.

A belief in God to the believer is not on par with the celestial teapot, but rather a belief with infinite difference. God is an explanation for the ultimate questions: the first cause for example. The belief in God is more like a worldview rather than anything else.

 

[Sach]

It's the afterglow, baby. Big Bang Theory predicts residual radiation from the event itself, redshifted into the microwave region... and the discovery of the Cosmic Background Radiation... which just happens to be microwave... is one of the things that led to the wider acceptance of the Big Bang Theory over the alternatives.

-

The nice thing about science is that if your theory is correct, it can predict discoveries that haven't been made yet... and if it's incorrect, it's discarded. That's the history of science in a nutshell. New paradigms opening new avenues of knowledge.

Whereas with religion, even if evidence contradicts accepted dogma, it takes a very long time for the dogma to be corrected... and sometimes, never.

Contradictory evidence? Like the Horizon Problem? Are you going to pretend that it has been resolved?


And while we're on the scientific method, before you talk about inflationary theory as an answer to the problem, it must be understood that the theory is derived from mathematics, not actual events with evidence. It's a number put in place to try to solve the Horizon Problem, nothing more. It suggests a workaround, but in no way is there actual evidence that there was such a period of expansive events at the time required for this explanation during the Bang.

I'm not arguing for God here, I'm arguing against the foolish inclination of many scientists to put all of their eggs into one basket simply because alternative mathematical answers haven't been postulated. But in the case of the 3º Kelvin background, there are actually a couple of alternatives that exist because there is in fact a problem with the explanation of it being derived from a 'Big Bang'.

 

[TankAss95]

Contradictory evidence? Like the Horizon Problem? Are you going to pretend that it has been resolved?

The Big Bang model leaves more questions rather than answers, especially when evidence is being brought forward that everything, even the quantum vacuum (or whatever it's called) had a origin.

Either:
1) The Universe was created out of nothing.
2) The Universe is eternal.
3) A transcendent creator brought the universe into existence.

I'm no philosopher myself, but many are turning to the conclusion that 3) is most likely. 1) has always been rejected and 2) has less scientific backing than before and has always had philosophical paradoxes and problems anyway.

 

[Sach]

Interesting too that theories just like this are perfect examples of parallels in science to "non-falsifiable" evidence that gets criticized in this thread a lot. It's as falsifiable as God being real is. You are waiting for evidence to affect change to your current theory, one that puts a theoretical missing piece of the puzzle in place, which is really no different. God can easily be disproved with the occurrence of any number of determinate events.


Dark matter - another perfect example. The only difference between scientific faith and spiritual faith is that one puts a numerical value in place where an answer is missing.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

And why would he (God) be this? Funny that a limited being like Sagan could think he can impose boundaries on the possibilities of a limitless entity (God). For a man of science, this is not a very logical reasoning. Since when does any God have to play by the rules of human understanding?






Because what if that's how God operates? What if the bible states the truth about God, and what if the only way to know the creator of life is through an act of faith? What if a knowledge and relationship with a living god is the highest thing that a human being can hope to attain while on Earth?

You just stated that you admit you can't prove that these things are not true, so whether the biblical explanation of the workings of faith are satisfactorily up to your subjective standards is really completely irrelevant if they are in fact true. You said you can't disprove God, so you can't write the authors of the bible off in good conscience either. You've admitted there's a possibility of God's existence and have thereby also opened up the possibility of an atheist belief being completely misguided, again thereby stating in your very own words that faith could be meaningful under the construct of something like the Biblical model of theism.

You're trying to drive a wedge in a gap that is so small it may as well not exist. You're ignoring the entire point of what many of us have tried to explain. We are all very well aware that we can't disprove God, or in fact, disprove anything, in the absence of any data relative to the claim.

That does not, however, open the door to giving equal consideration to the "authors of the bible", as you put it. You completely ignore something very simple.

As functioning, reasoning entities, we, based on experience, can estimate the likelihood of certain things being true based on observation, experience, and experimentation. The crushing, overwhelming unlikelihood of the existence of a limitless diety given the absolute lack of evidence is what allows me to, as you put it, "write off the authors of the bible in good conscience".

As for your reasoning for why faith is good ...

You replied to a question with a hypothesis. Moreover, you stated a hypothesis for which there is no possible evidence.

Not an answer.

I agree, but it ain't so simple as that.

A belief in God to the believer is not on par with the celestial teapot, but rather a belief with infinite difference. God is an explanation for the ultimate questions: the first cause for example. The belief in God is more like a worldview rather than anything else.

This is true. In a believer's perspective, his belief is sacred - but only because the doctrines of his belief tell him this is so. If God is an attempt at an answer to the ultimate questions, by all dispassionate standards, he is a miserably poor answer.

The likely counter is that "the doctrines of science tell us that science is true", given the context of our discussion so far, but I'll forestall that argument by repeating that science relies on the evidence of observation, something religion does not have in its corner.

The Big Bang model leaves more questions rather than answers, especially when evidence is being brought forward that everything, even the quantum vacuum (or whatever it's called) had a origin.

Either:
1) The Universe was created out of nothing.
2) The Universe is eternal.
3) A transcendent creator brought the universe into existence.

I'm no philosopher myself, but many are turning to the conclusion that 3) is most likely. 1) has always been rejected and 2) has less scientific backing than before and has always had philosophical paradoxes and problems anyway.

Old rhetorical failure. A set of entirely false alternatives. In no way are these the only three options for the origin of the universe. Also worth mentioning: the "many" you describe who are "turning" to option 3 aren't in fact "turning" to it at all. I defy you to show me droves of people previously convinced of the scientific model(s) of the origin of the universe who are suddenly throwing it by the wayside in favor of divine origin. It's just not happening.

Interesting too that theories just like this are perfect examples of parallels in science to "non-falsifiable" evidence that gets criticized in this thread a lot. It's as falsifiable as God being real is. You are waiting for evidence to affect change to your current theory, one that puts a theoretical missing piece of the puzzle in place, which is really no different. God can easily be disproved with the occurrence of any number of determinate events.


Dark matter - another perfect example. The only difference between scientific faith and spiritual faith is that one puts a numerical value in place where an answer is missing.

You are completely mischaracterizing what "non-falsifiable" means ... that is, if you truly believe the statement I highlighted. First of all, yes, the Big Bang is a falsifiable idea. You have pointed out several counter-claims which have at least a certain amount of credibility. That doesn't have any relation whatsoever to the falsifiability of the existence of God. It is not falsifiable because it cannot be examined through observation and analysis. As such, it is not an answer, nor, really is it a candidate to be an answer.

 

[dylansan]

The Big Bang model leaves more questions rather than answers, especially when evidence is being brought forward that everything, even the quantum vacuum (or whatever it's called) had a origin.

Either:
1) The Universe was created out of nothing.
2) The Universe is eternal.
3) A transcendent creator brought the universe into existence.

I'm no philosopher myself, but many are turning to the conclusion that 3) is most likely. 1) has always been rejected and 2) has less scientific backing than before and has always had philosophical paradoxes and problems anyway.

What?

First of all, 3 is 1, but with the addition of a creator, whose existence also has to be explained.

Secondly, If 2 is not acceptable because things can't exist eternally, how does that work with 3? If that's not the paradox, what is?

If you are going to point out again that "God exists outside of time" then I have to ask why the universe itself can't be the same way. Perhaps time is just an aspect of our known universe, but what lies beyond is timeless? That would be like your God, but without the paradoxical omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence that have to be explained.

Finally, the amount of support for these propositions has no bearing on their accuracy, only their logical and factual basis does. And somehow I don't think people are turning towards 3 in this age. If anything, people are gradually believing less and less in the supernatural, and some believers are compensating with violence and outcries. I'd like to see some data about who's changing their views, if you have it.

 

[niky]

The only difference between scientific faith and spiritual faith is that one puts a numerical value in place where an answer is missing.

The big difference is on the value placed on evidence.

In the end, the Big Bang theory may be disproven, but Steady State comes nowhere near close to answering questions that the Big Bang Theory answers. And the answer: "Creation" doesn't explain anything, and doesn't make any predictions about what the Universe should look like. Well... Creation myth explains what the authors of that myth thought the Universe was like, but they've been proven woefully wrong, already... so that's a non-starter.

In the end, picking at Inflationary Theory is picking at nits in something that works out better than anything else that has been conceived so far. And if something better comes along that explains the current expansion, background radiation and other features of the Universe, guess what? That becomes the accepted theory, instead.

There is no faith in science. In case you missed it, a few pages ago, there is only levels of confidence and trust.

Theoreticians can weave fanciful stories and calculations all day long, but if those formulae cannot accurately predict real world events, then they're worth less than the paper they're written on. Fortunately, with a few exceptions, they do.

In the end, our incomplete understanding of the Universe may simply hinge on us being too stupid to perform the complex mathematics involved.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

The only difference between scientific faith and spiritual faith is that one puts a numerical value in place where an answer is missing.

The big difference is on the value placed on evidence.

In the end, the Big Bang theory may be disproven, but Steady State comes nowhere near close to answering questions that the Big Bang Theory answers. And the answer: "Creation" doesn't explain anything, and doesn't make any predictions about what the Universe should look like. Well... Creation myth explains what the authors of that myth thought the Universe was like, but they've been proven woefully wrong, already... so that's a non-starter.

In the end, picking at Inflationary Theory is picking at nits in something that works out better than anything else that has been conceived so far. And if something better comes along that explains the current expansion, background radiation and other features of the Universe, guess what? That becomes the accepted theory, instead.

There is no faith in science. In case you missed it, a few pages ago, there is only levels of confidence and trust.

Theoreticians can weave fanciful stories and calculations all day long, but if those formulae cannot accurately predict real world events, then they're worth less than the paper they're written on. Fortunately, with a few exceptions, they do.

In the end, our incomplete understanding of the Universe may simply hinge on us being too stupid to perform the complex mathematics involved.

Couldn't have said it better Niky. One thing to add though - meant to include this in my first reply.

Sach, the bit Niky and I are quoting demonstrates not just a misunderstanding of falsifiability and the definition of evidence, but of mathematics. You ought to read back a few posts to several replies to Tankass regarding the role of mathematics in science.

Where science uses math to answer a question, or, as you put it "put a numerical value where an answer is missing", it isn't just a meaningless gesture. Yes, a numerical value is an arbitrary assignation, but it's assigned to a physical constant, in a progressively linked and differentially consistent continuum of such values. As such, it's an abstract, linked to reality by the nature of the system. It is not random fiat.

By contrast, in the same situation, where there is no answer, religion offers "God!!" without any link to observable reality whatsoever. THIS is an answer by fiat, which, again, is not an answer.

 

[Famine]

That is an opinion, nothing more.

No, it's a definitive statement. The Judeo-Islamo-Christian supreme being is non-falsifiable. Anything that does not meet the criteria of falsifiability - deliberately so, in this case - cannot be considered evidence of any kind. It is, in fact, the definition of evidence.

I agree, but it ain't so simple as that.

A belief in God to the believer is not on par with the celestial teapot, but rather a belief with infinite difference. God is an explanation for the ultimate questions: the first cause for example. The belief in God is more like a worldview rather than anything else.

The same applies to the FSM/IPU - both of which are rather exaggerated examples of Russell's Teapot.

An explanation that requires the invokation of a non-falsifiable entity or force (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem) is not an explanation. It's a wish, or a belief.

 

[Sach]

The big difference is on the value placed on evidence.

An even bigger difference is the subjectivity people choose to exercise when critiquing the evidence. Keep your science hat on here -

In theory, a person could describe evidence that is 100% accurate concerning a matter involving spirituality, which you would write off immediately simply because you can't verify such content of an 'intangible' nature. However, that does not discredit the validity of it, does it? Again, in theory it could be 100% true. The fact that you cannot disprove it, or lack the instruments to test it does not make it any less so!

Well... Creation myth explains what the authors of that myth thought the Universe was like, but they've been proven woefully wrong, already... so that's a non-starter.

"Woefully wrong", that's a strong statement. One that I wouldn't consider without evidence showing it to be as such, just to be fair.

In the end, picking at Inflationary Theory is picking at nits in something that works out better than anything else that has been conceived so far. And if something better comes along that explains the current expansion, background radiation and other features of the Universe, guess what? That becomes the accepted theory, instead.

Perfect example - The first bolded part is your subjective response to a criticism that completely unravels the theory of the constant 3ºK temperature being observed. Is it really nitpicking if it can undermind the whole theory itself?


2nd part - "Works out better than anything else". Fantastic, so you put a mathematical jigsaw piece in a placeholder, and pretended that numbers equated to actual physical events somehow, and you're willing to consider this to be sufficient.

Or more specifically, you basically had a puzzle that was missing a piece, and you traced the outline of that missing piece onto something else, cut it out, and then filled it in. Problem solved, right?

There is no faith in science. In case you missed it, a few pages ago, there is only levels of confidence and trust.

Faith is inherently trusting that something is true. You cannot prove it, but you carry out actions on its behalf in an act of trust. Why do you hear this all the time: "We did (x) because we trusted that God called us to do it...".

Theoreticians can weave fanciful stories and calculations all day long, but if those formulae cannot accurately predict real world events, then they're worth less than the paper they're written on.

You worded it even better than I did. Right, and namely the example I posed concerning the Kelvin constant. It proves nothing of actual events. It's a mathematical jigsaw placeholder, and does not correspond in any way to a single real world event that we have observed or predicted. It can only be used to form hypotheses on things we speculate to have happened which we hope can explain the shortcomings of our understanding.

In the end, our incomplete understanding of the Universe may simply hinge on us being too stupid to perform the complex mathematics involved.

Interesting that mathematics, which constructs its formulas based on reasoning and logic, would ultimately be the very essence of what reality is, yet somehow the possibility of a design is left out.

You're trying to drive a wedge in a gap that is so small it may as well not exist. You're ignoring the entire point of what many of us have tried to explain. We are all very well aware that we can't disprove God, or in fact, disprove anything, in the absence of any data relative to the claim.

Not really. You're being obnoxiously biased to state that the only data worth considering is that which is physically or scientifically testable, when in fact matters of spirituality are quite the opposite. It's like saying you are going to conduct an acidity test using a power drill. You are using ineffective technology, essentially.

There is a fundamental difference between saying something can't be tested, and saying that something is worthless because it can't be tested. Science does not do that, you do. Science makes up theories all day that serve as placeholders until the point that they can actually be tested. Yet they aren't worthless?

That does not, however, open the door to giving equal consideration to the "authors of the bible", as you put it. You completely ignore something very simple.

Again, you are in no position to even comment on the validity of these matters, as you have written them off without even using the proper means to test them.

The crushing, overwhelming unlikelihood of the existence of a limitless diety given the absolute lack of evidence is what allows me to, as you put it, "write off the authors of the bible in good conscience".

It really lends no credence to your argument to use descriptions like "crushing, and overwhelming..."


Please, explain to me why an infinite and limitless deity cannot exist, and how you can do this in a crushing and overwhelming manner... when you have no evidence.

As for your reasoning for why faith is good ...

You replied to a question with a hypothesis. Moreover, you stated a hypothesis for which there is no possible evidence.

Not an answer.

So the guy who holds science as the definitive says that hypotheses are not sufficient. I find that somehow interesting... and I would agree, if you haven't taken the time to test said hypotheses (hint).

This is true. In a believer's perspective, his belief is sacred - but only because the doctrines of his belief tell him this is so.

Again, you choose to fall short to limitation. It's funny that people take something so immense like the existence God and write it off with mere one-liners. I don't know a single Christian who would say that their beliefs are not based on an active an participatory relationship with a cognizant deity.

If God is an attempt at an answer to the ultimate questions, by all dispassionate standards, he is a miserably poor answer.

That's one opinion, but that's as far as it can get concerning credibility.

The likely counter is that "the doctrines of science tell us that science is true", given the context of our discussion so far, but I'll forestall that argument by repeating that science relies on the evidence of observation, something religion does not have in its corner.

Again, spiritual matters of deism (Christianity, as an example) involve a participatory relationship. Things are being observed and tested continually.

You are completely mischaracterizing what "non-falsifiable" means ... that is, if you truly believe the statement I highlighted. First of all, yes, the Big Bang is a falsifiable idea. You have pointed out several counter-claims which have at least a certain amount of credibility. That doesn't have any relation whatsoever to the falsifiability of the existence of God. It is not falsifiable because it cannot be examined through observation and analysis. As such, it is not an answer, nor, really is it a candidate to be an answer.

My friend, you simply have not taken the time to allow yourself to be open to the evidence that does exist. I am one of many stubborn, free-thinking, often cynical, and remotely intelligent people who nonetheless have a 'belief' (it is something much more) in a deity based on observed and repeated events. We have observed, and analyzed these things, countless times. Because you choose to write off the data is really irrelevant.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

Faith is inherently trusting that something is true. You cannot prove it, but you carry out actions on its behalf in an act of trust. Why do you hear this all the time: "We did (x) because we trusted that God called us to do it...".

Incorrect definition. AGAIN. There is a proper definition for faith, which disambiguates it from knowledge, trust, and belief, and it's this:

Faith is belief without evidence.

Even the bible definies it as such.

As for why we hear such things all the time? There is no divine 'why', there is only the human 'why'. You probably didn't consider this in your original equation, but consider this.

x = kill hundreds of thousands of people for disagreeing with us

That's just as likely, and historic terms, far more common, than this:

x = love our neighbors as we love ourselves


How's that for testing the validity of religion?

Not really. You're being obnoxiously biased to state that the only data worth considering is that which is physically or scientifically testable, when in fact matters of spirituality are quite the opposite. It's like saying you are going to conduct an acidity test using a power drill. You are using ineffective technology, essentially.

There is a fundamental difference between saying something can't be tested, and saying that something is worthless because it can't be tested. Science does not do that, you do. Science makes up theories all day that serve as placeholders until the point that they can actually be tested. Yet they aren't worthless?

Science considers nothing worthwhile unless it's testable. If you think science has a different agenda - or really, any agenda at all, you're simply wrong. Science makes up nothing - it hypothesizes things, then seeks to prove them. If it fails to do so, it fails to do so, and moves on. The worth of these hypotheses are eventually judged by their fortitude.

Matters of spirituality are not objectively testable. This is a simple fact. Their only merit is personal and internal, which is not salient to a discussion of the existence of God.

Again, you are in no position to even comment on the validity of these matters, as you have written them off without even using the proper means to test them.

Please, by all means, claim this again when you know my background in these matters, and examine my previous contributions to this discussion. I have written them off after years of inundation in their specifics.

Also, you say you have proper means to test them?

Let's hear it. I'm fascinated.

It really lends no credence to your argument to use descriptions like "crushing, and overwhelming..."

Does it lend more credence beyond what I've already stated? No. Is it true? Yes. You have yet to offer anything to dissuade me.

Please, explain to me why an infinite and limitless deity cannot exist, and how you can do this in a crushing and overwhelming manner... when you have no evidence.

As many of us have repeated, ad infinitum, by the laws of logic, no can can prove the nonexistence of anything. The non-existence of something cannot be proven by evidence because there is nothing that could be considered potential evidence for its existence in the first place. However, in the absence of postive evidence for the existence of God, there is no option left but a lack of belief.

So the guy who holds science as the definitive says that hypotheses are not sufficient. I find that somehow interesting... and I would agree, if you haven't taken the time to test said hypotheses (hint).

Now you misunderstand the idea of a 'hypothesis'. No hypothesis is sufficient to answer a question. A hypothesis is a proposition. It, itself, must be testable to be an answer to anything. Now show me how to test your hypothesis.

Also, show me where I said that I hold science as the ultimate definitive. I didn't, haven't, and have taken pains to clarify that I'm not doing so. Many avenues of human endeavor aren't scientific, but are completely valid on their face.

Again, you choose to fall short to limitation. It's funny that people take something so immense like the existence God and write it off with mere one-liners. I don't know a single Christian who would say that their beliefs are not based on an active an participatory relationship with a cognizant deity.

Few probably exist. That doesn't make the scarcity of such believers evidence of their correctness.

No one is trying to write such an idea off with a "one-liner" either. If you think any of us haven't invested quite a bit of effort into developing our views, you'd, again, be wrong.

That's one opinion, but that's as far as it can get concerning credibility.

It's not an opinion. This is the second time you've mislabeled something as "opinion".

When I say "by all dispassionate standards", I divorce myself from bias, which anyone making a claim of the existence of God fails to do. Show me a reputable standard not borne of religion that explains the origin of the universe by supernatural means.

Then, give evidence for that claim.

Again, spiritual matters of deism (Christianity, as an example) involve a participatory relationship. Things are being observed and tested continually.

Observed by the participant. 'Tested' by the participant (describe to me that method of testing, please). There is absolutely no outside affirmation based upon verifiable shared experience and observation. Give me verifiable positive evidence to the contrary. Even courts of law are beginning to realize that "eyewitness testimony" is essentially invalid.

My friend, you simply have not taken the time to allow yourself to be open to the evidence that does exist. I am one of many stubborn, free-thinking, often cynical, and remotely intelligent people who nonetheless have a 'belief' (it is something much more) in a deity based on observed and repeated events. We have observed, and analyzed these things, countless times. Because you choose to write off the data is really irrelevant.

Name that evidence. Name those observed and repeated events that are verifiable outside of your independent claims.

You may personally decide that my "choice" to dismiss your belief is irrelevant, and really, it is.

What you personally decide, though, has no bearing on what we, as a species, can actually know based upon what we can actually see.

 

[niky]

An even bigger difference is the subjectivity people choose to exercise when critiquing the evidence. Keep your science hat on here -

In theory, a person could describe evidence that is 100% accurate concerning a matter involving spirituality, which you would write off immediately simply because you can't verify such content of an 'intangible' nature. However, that does not discredit the validity of it, does it? Again, in theory it could be 100% true. The fact that you cannot disprove it, or lack the instruments to test it does not make it any less so!

The purely subjective, which is not demonstrable or transferable to others in blind testing, cannot be taken as evidence of anything.

I know where you're going with this. We had this discussion months ago, in this very thread. You're talking to someone with a wealth of acutely disturbing subjective experiences.

But a purely subjective experience with no concrete proof is merely that. Subjective. Is it valid in the sense that it occurred? Yes. Is it proof of anything? Ah. There's the sticking point. You can claim it proves a personal belief, but if the science provides other answers, do you actually have the strength to admit that it isn't what you thought it was? That it was a snark, not a boojum?

"Woefully wrong", that's a strong statement. One that I wouldn't consider without evidence showing it to be as such, just to be fair.

The fact that the Universe is not geocentric, and that the Earth isn't flat... those are pretty good examples of evidence, now, aren't they? As is the fact that I don't have an ounce of Jewish blood in me.

Perfect example - The first bolded part is your subjective response to a criticism that completely unravels the theory of the constant 3ºK temperature being observed. Is it really nitpicking if it can undermind the whole theory itself?

Completely subjective is your total dismissal of Inflationary Theory because it explains away the discrepancies between the classic Big Bang and observational data. And I already admitted that if another theory proves more compelling, the Big Bang goes in the dustbin.

2nd part - "Works out better than anything else". Fantastic, so you put a mathematical jigsaw piece in a placeholder, and pretended that numbers equated to actual physical events somehow, and you're willing to consider this to be sufficient.

Or more specifically, you basically had a puzzle that was missing a piece, and you traced the outline of that missing piece onto something else, cut it out, and then filled it in. Problem solved, right?

If only the Universe were as simple as you pretend it is.

Faith is inherently trusting that something is true. You cannot prove it, but you carry out actions on its behalf in an act of trust. Why do you hear this all the time: "We did (x) because we trusted that God called us to do it...".

Also covered last time we talked. Faith is trust without the object or person being trusted showing the consistency to earn that trust. It's blind trust. Trust in science is not blind. It demands results, and moreso, it demands accurate results.

Interesting that mathematics, which constructs its formulas based on reasoning and logic, would ultimately be the very essence of what reality is, yet somehow the possibility of a design is left out.

Has anyone said design is impossible? The problem is, rather, it's impossible to prove whether design on the grand scale is true or not... and when the words "Intelligent Design" are uttered, it is often a placeholder (neat word that) indicating that the person invoking it doesn't understand the mechanism involved.

Once the mechanism is understood, then what? Invoke "Intelligent Design" to explain the mechanism underlying that? That leads you to changing the story ad infinitum, as Creationists do when faced with problems of Evolution... picking ever smaller nits ever further back in the chain of cause and effect after they've been proven wrong at one point... instead of coming up with their own compelling mechanism of action to explain not who did it, but how.

Science doesn't care about the who. It cares about the how. Therein lies the fundamental disconnect between science and religion. Religion fights with science because it doesn't understand how, but simply takes things for granted. Science doesn't really care who, because, as stated before, science knows it can't explain the intangible and unobservable.

-

Math is accepted because you can't fake math. Whichever God you pray to, or don't, the mathematics is the same.

 

[Liquid]

Whichever God you pray to, or don't, the mathematics is the same.

HoF.

I really like that quote.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

A few more important points:

Perfect example - The first bolded part is your subjective response to a criticism that completely unravels the theory of the constant 3ºK temperature being observed. Is it really nitpicking if it can undermind the whole theory itself?


2nd part - "Works out better than anything else". Fantastic, so you put a mathematical jigsaw piece in a placeholder, and pretended that numbers equated to actual physical events somehow, and you're willing to consider this to be sufficient.

Or more specifically, you basically had a puzzle that was missing a piece, and you traced the outline of that missing piece onto something else, cut it out, and then filled it in. Problem solved, right?

1st Point: No, it's not neccessarily nitpicking. Without looking into the claim further, I'd hold that it's an attempt at honest science, which you've arrested for your own means.

Provide your own alternative from a faith-based persepctive.

2nd point: "Works out better than anything else" is, given what we can observe, the best we can do. To be clear, that's a far measure better than any faith system can do. Science, and its method, admits this up front in its own methodology. For the third time, reference my clarification of how mathematics work, within science. No one "pretends" anything when mathematical values are representative of existing constants.

Your puzzle analogy is rather fascinating, because your original, more ambiguous description is, absurdly, closer to reality.

Your "clarification" (inventing a properly-fit puzzle piece out of whole cloth) is basically a definition of God, not mathematics. In fact, it's the most literal "God of the Gaps" argument I've heard to date.

 

[BobK]

Please, explain to me why an infinite and limitless deity cannot exist, and how you can do this in a crushing and overwhelming manner... when you have no evidence.

Why are you asking for an explanation for something that nobody currently involved in this discussion has asserted in the first place? He said unlikely to exist, not "cannot exist". Big difference.

 

[Exorcet]

In theory, a person could describe evidence that is 100% accurate concerning a matter involving spirituality, which you would write off immediately simply because you can't verify such content of an 'intangible' nature. However, that does not discredit the validity of it, does it? Again, in theory it could be 100% true. The fact that you cannot disprove it, or lack the instruments to test it does not make it any less so!

Quarks are intangible. Higgs boson is intangible and has not even been discovered. In fact, the entire history of quantum mechanics makes the above reasoning invalid. Spiritual claims fail because they are not based on any evidence.

2nd part - "Works out better than anything else". Fantastic, so you put a mathematical jigsaw piece in a placeholder, and pretended that numbers equated to actual physical events somehow, and you're willing to consider this to be sufficient.

There is no somehow. Math describes how the universe works. Using math is basically the same as seeing it happen. If this was not the case, science would not be able to predict anything.

Or more specifically, you basically had a puzzle that was missing a piece, and you traced the outline of that missing piece onto something else, cut it out, and then filled it in. Problem solved, right?

Then why is astronomy not a dead field? The problem isn't solved, we just found out what basically happened. Now we need to fill in more details. And while all of that is going on, everyone is remaining open minded and ready to accept completely different ideas. But only if they make sense.

 

[Sach]

Sorry guys, too busy to read through every post and comment on every specificity, so I'm not going to attempt to. I'll just focus on the main points.


The validity of spiritual matters can be tested. They are tested with the spirit, the heart, the soul, or whatever you would call it. Claims of such a nature can be confirmed or denied in this way, tested, and repeated, etc. A shared innate sense of moral right and wrong is but one evidence of this.


This fact represents the fundamental disagreement I have with you all, in addition to the fact that you erroneously use science as a conclusive form of reasoning in a world that also operates with a spiritual element.


And again, Christianity is a dynamic relationship with a cognizant being, not an attempt to explain the unknown. I do not use it in this way. If others do, they do not speak for me, and I personally feel that they are wrong to do so. I do not ignore the consistencies of the natural world, however I am not so foolish as many to also deny the pervasive existence of matters concerning the spirit.


I am also not so arrogant as the lot of you to write off that which you cannot disprove by using one-liner statements. You have also clearly not approached the possibility of the existence of God with any real logic, otherwise you wouldn't continually exercise the folly of writing it off due to the lack of human capacity to grasp or fully test it.


The very definition of God goes beyond anything that you can use here to disprove it. God can't exist because of formula (x) or because methods (x) can't test it? Formula (x) can't even exist without God, and so on. It's equivalent to saying that the true height of the Empire State building doesn't exist because you only have a meter stick by which to test it, and anything that is longer than a meter is worthless. So your argument that there exists evidence indicating the possibility of God to be unlikely is invalidated in the face of actual logic concerning the parameters by which you are attempting to make this assessment.


To say that there is crushing, and overwhelming, evidence against this is really utterly foolish. Any evidence you have is limited. All you have are black and white colors, and are attempting to discredit the value of the entire spectrum.


Pi is infinite. So why can God not also be? What about the Golden Proportion? Are you also not aware that it represents infinity itself because it is infinitely divisible upon itself? Is it not the fingerprint of life on Earth? Therefore infinity is present in the workings of life itself, yet you ignore this. What about the Fibonacci Sequence? Convenient, isn't it? What about the presence of gravity? The fingerprint of order is present throughout the entire universe. We wouldn't be able to study it if it wasn't. To reduce existence to the product of millions of chaotic parameters is an inaccurate observation.


And then there is the existence of spiritual matters. It is in man's nature to go his own way and deny his calling in this regard, and many of you are quick to follow suit by dismissing matters of the heart on the grounds that they are not testable by scientific means. You are asleep to an enormous part of life that goes above and beyond the limitations of scientific study. Whether you follow your own folly to your grave in denying this is irrelevant. It disproves nothing, and contrarily follows suit with the Bible's teachings on free will. Additionally, many of the things proposed here by non-believers are exactly in line with what the Bible says you will do.


Lastly, I am one of you, truly. By and large, I think the way that you do, but I cannot deny the validity of transcendent things that I have experienced firsthand. I'm sorry if you have not been able to, for whatever reasons, but I cannot agree with you when you say that these things do not exist, because though by nature I am inclined to view these situations just like you would, I have numerous times experienced the presence of God in irrefutable ways. For me it's like saying no matter how much I am naturally inclined to believe that Pi stops at 3.14, I have observed that it continues beyond my own limitations of testing it. This is how clear my experiences concerning the validity of faith have been. It's somewhat unfortunate, but I will not apologize for the fact that the existence of God, the mechanism of faith, and the understanding of such matters in your own life are by design a paradox.

 

[TankAss95]

^Amen brother. 👍

 

[huskeR32]

The validity of spiritual matters can be tested.

Please provide once specific instance of this. Just one.

They are tested with the spirit, the heart, the soul, or whatever you would call it. Claims of such a nature can be confirmed or denied in this way, tested, and repeated, etc. A shared innate sense of moral right and wrong is but one evidence of this.

This has been thoroughly debunked many times in this thread. A shared innate sense of morality can just as plausibly come from non-religious influences upon our species.

I am also not so arrogant as the lot of you to write off that which you cannot disprove by using one-liner statements. You have also clearly not approached the possibility of the existence of God with any real logic, otherwise you wouldn't continually exercise the folly of writing it off due to the lack of human capacity to grasp or fully test it.

Look up the definition of logic, then rethink which group you want to make that claim about.

The very definition of God goes beyond anything that you can use here to disprove it.

That doesn't make his existence any more true. This has been pointed out so many times already.

God can't exist because of formula (x) or because methods (x) can't test it? Formula (x) can't even exist without God, and so on. It's equivalent to saying that the true height of the Empire State building doesn't exist because you only have a meter stick by which to test it, and anything that is longer than a meter is worthless. So your argument that there exists evidence indicating the possibility of God to be unlikely is invalidated in the face of actual logic concerning the parameters by which you are attempting to make this assessment.

Also, this has been said many, many, many times already. Most atheists, especially in this thread, aren't unequivocally stating that god doesn't exist, or that it's impossible for him to exist. Rather, we say, until proof of god's existence comes along, we will choose to not believe. We won't rule it out 100%, but we won't believe. Big difference.

To say that there is crushing, and overwhelming, evidence against this is really utterly foolish. Any evidence you have is limited. All you have are black and white colors, and are attempting to discredit the value of the entire spectrum.

As worded, I somewhat agree with you here. Since there's no direct evidence against god (for reasons that have been explained over and over again), let's change the wording:

There is a crushing and overwhelming lack of evidence for the existence of god. Any theist with the ability to think critically will have to agree with that.

Lastly, I am one of you, truly. By and large, I think the way that you do, but I cannot deny the validity of transcendent things that I have experienced firsthand. I'm sorry if you have not been able to, for whatever reasons, but I cannot agree with you when you say that these things do not exist, because though by nature I am inclined to view these situations just like you would, I have numerous times experienced the presence of God in irrefutable ways.

Another thing that has been said, over and over again: Personal experiences, feelings and emotions are not proof of anything. If you can't provide some tangible, measurable artifact from those experiences, then there's no reason to interpret them as anything other than figments of your imagination.

I believe, without any doubt in my mind, that my fiance is the greatest woman who has ever lived. I have many firsthand experiences that convince me of this. Does that make it universally true for all people? Absolutely not.

 

[Exorcet]

The validity of spiritual matters can be tested. They are tested with the spirit, the heart, the soul, or whatever you would call it. Claims of such a nature can be confirmed or denied in this way, tested, and repeated, etc. A shared innate sense of moral right and wrong is but one evidence of this.

Examples? If they can be tested, they can be verified. Two decades believing in God brought me nothing. It was only when I was willing to accept the answer before thinking about the question that God was a valid answer.

This fact represents the fundamental disagreement I have with you all, in addition to the fact that you erroneously use science as a conclusive form of reasoning in a world that also operates with a spiritual element.

If you can't explain it, something is wrong. Science isn't limited to spiritual matters. Anything that is self consistent is subject to science. I assume that your belief is based on some form of consistency, or else it could be attributed to chance. If that's the case, you should be able to explain it scientifically. And before anyone even attempts to discuss the "evidence" it would be nice to verify the underlying mechanisms like "the soul". Why are you assuming that souls even exist?

And again, Christianity is a dynamic relationship with a cognizant being

It's not a good one. The guy never answers. This is my own "spiritual" experience. What accounts for the discrepancy between our accounts? Is mine as valid as yours? Why?

I am also not so arrogant as the lot of you to write off that which you cannot disprove by using one-liner statements. You have also clearly not approached the possibility of the existence of God with any real logic, otherwise you wouldn't continually exercise the folly of writing it off due to the lack of human capacity to grasp or fully test it.

You are misunderstanding. The instances of people claiming that God is not real, end statement, are few. The consistent position of those who continually post in this thread that don't believe has been that there is no evidence for God. Despite that, they listen to alternate explanations. These explanations may be easily shot down, but that says more about the explanations that the people who dismiss them.

The very definition of God goes beyond anything that you can use here to disprove it. God can't exist because of formula (x) or because methods (x) can't test it? Formula (x) can't even exist without God, and so on. It's equivalent to saying that the true height of the Empire State building doesn't exist because you only have a meter stick by which to test it, and anything that is longer than a meter is worthless. So your argument that there exists evidence indicating the possibility of God to be unlikely is invalidated in the face of actual logic concerning the parameters by which you are attempting to make this assessment.

Then basically, God can't be proven. So why believe?

To say that there is crushing, and overwhelming, evidence against this is really utterly foolish. Any evidence you have is limited. All you have are black and white colors, and are attempting to discredit the value of the entire spectrum.

It's about having something instead of not having anything at all. The side that has something has the stronger position.

Pi is infinite. So why can God not also be? What about the Golden Proportion? Are you also not aware that it represents infinity itself because it is infinitely divisible upon itself? Is it not the fingerprint of life on Earth? Therefore infinity is present in the workings of life itself, yet you ignore this. What about the Fibonacci Sequence? Convenient, isn't it? What about the presence of gravity? The fingerprint of order is present throughout the entire universe. We wouldn't be able to study it if it wasn't. To reduce existence to the product of millions of chaotic parameters is an inaccurate observation.

Pi is a number. It appears in equations. No one cares that it may be infinite. God is something that people talk about, but appears no where else.

There is no fingerprint of order brought about by some being. We're only here to study these things because the universe didn't turn out hostile to any and all possible forms of life. How God is taken from that, I don't know.

And then there is the existence of spiritual matters. It is in man's nature to go his own way and deny his calling in this regard, and many of you are quick to follow suit by dismissing matters of the heart on the grounds that they are not testable by scientific means. You are asleep to an enormous part of life that goes above and beyond the limitations of scientific study. Whether you follow your own folly to your grave in denying this is irrelevant. It disproves nothing, and contrarily follows suit with the Bible's teachings on free will. Additionally, many of the things proposed here by non-believers are exactly in line with what the Bible says you will do.

What are these spiritual matters? They've been mentioned quite a few times. I can't really recall a time when they were actually explained.

The Bible may be correct on describing the behavior of non believers, maybe the writers took it from experience. That doesn't prove anything about God though.

Lastly, I am one of you, truly. By and large, I think the way that you do, but I cannot deny the validity of transcendent things that I have experienced firsthand. I'm sorry if you have not been able to, for whatever reasons, but I cannot agree with you when you say that these things do not exist, because though by nature I am inclined to view these situations just like you would, I have numerous times experienced the presence of God in irrefutable ways. For me it's like saying no matter how much I am naturally inclined to believe that Pi stops at 3.14, I have observed that it continues beyond my own limitations of testing it. This is how clear my experiences concerning the validity of faith have been. It's somewhat unfortunate, but I will not apologize for the fact that the existence of God, the mechanism of faith, and the understanding of such matters in your own life are by design a paradox.

And I've observed nothing of the sort. Something I have observed is explanations of the "divine" and "spiritual" that make much more sense than the explanations their followers usually present.

 

[Dennisch]

I think the last 50 pages add nothing to the thread.

 

[Sach]

Please provide once specific instance of this. Just one.

God is good. I have tested this.

This has been thoroughly debunked many times in this thread. A shared innate sense of morality can just as plausibly come from non-religious influences upon our species.

Once again, descriptive words misplaced. There's a difference between something being debunked, and offering an alternative solution.

As worded, I somewhat agree with you here. Since there's no direct evidence against god (for reasons that have been explained over and over again), let's change the wording:

There is a crushing and overwhelming lack of evidence for the existence of god. Any theist with the ability to think critically will have to agree with that.

I have shown your statement to be inaccurate with both my previous statements, and the fact that I exist as a critically thinking theist who disagrees.

Another thing that has been said, over and over again: Personal experiences, feelings and emotions are not proof of anything.

They most certainly are. How can you possibly know a single thing if not through a personal experience?

If you can't provide some tangible, measurable artifact from those experiences, then there's no reason to interpret them as anything other than figments of your imagination.

Interesting that they have been observed simultaneously by other people.

I believe, without any doubt in my mind, that my fiance is the greatest woman who has ever lived. I have many firsthand experiences that convince me of this. Does that make it universally true for all people? Absolutely not.

While this statement seems to parallel the statement that says that God exists, it is not even remotely close to the same thing. Once again, I will not apologize for its paradoxical nature.

 

[Exorcet]

God is good. I have tested this.

If that's all it takes, I can say that God isn't there. I tested that.

Conclusive or no?

 

[Sach]

If that's all it takes, I can say that God isn't there. I tested that.

Conclusive or no?

Inaccurate, yes. I would suggest a revision of your methods of testing.

 

[Dennisch]

Inaccurate, yes. I would suggest a revision of your methods of testing.

How does your method work?


Btw.

If that's all it takes, I can say that God isn't there. I tested that.

Conclusive or no?

I think this is accurate.

 

[Sach]

How does your method work?

It involves an exchange with God concerning my thinking, my actions, and how my life lines up with His purposes. It is fundamentally based around an acknowledgment of His presence, and His ultimate authority over all things.

 

[Dennisch]

It involves an exchange with God concerning my thinking, my actions, and how my life lines up with His purposes. It is fundamentally based around an acknowledgment of His presence, and His ultimate authority over all things.

So you have spoken to God. And he said something back?

 

[Sach]

So you have spoken to God. And he said something back?

I haven't personally heard a voice, no, but on numerous occasions I have verified things about my life's events through the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

Edit: In addition to the verification (testing) of things about God's character, again, through the intervention of the Holy Spirit.