NationStates Jolt Archive

There are many people on this forums who would insist that there is no God becasue it cannot be explained by any kind of scinetific process. Who would essentially claim that there is no meaning to the universe, and that the universe just 'is', with no meaning or anything behind it. However to claim this is not scientific. It is philosophical, and no more defensable than any claim that there is a God. The idea that the universe has no meaning and life has no meaning etc is a philosophical idea, not a scientific one. And just because science cant explain any meaning that there may or may not be, that doesnt instantly mean there is no meaning. In short, the idea that the universe has no meaning is about as sceintific as the idea that it does. IE not at all

There are many people on this forums who would insist that there is no God becasue it cannot be explained by any kind of scinetific process. Who would essentially claim that there is no meaning to the universe, and that the universe just 'is', with no meaning or anything behind it. However to claim this is not scientific. It is philosophical, and no more defensable than any claim that there is a God. The idea that the universe has no meaning and life has no meaning etc is a philosophical idea, not a scientific one. And just because science cant explain any meaning that there may or may not be, that doesnt instantly mean there is no meaning. In short, the idea that the universe has no meaning is about as sceintific as the idea that it does. IE not at all

I object tot he idea that life has no meaning without God. As sentient creatures, we determine our own meaning, with or without God.

Hence free will even for the religious.

The idea that the universe has no meaning and life has no meaning etc is a philosophical idea, not a scientific one.
Until such time as concrete proof of any suggested meaning can be produced, I'm afraid it is a scientific idea, or at least a philosophical idea with some basis in the sciences.

It's the same both ways. Science cannot disprove God's existance, nor can science prove God's existance.

Which makes religious people ultimately smarter. The Universe is already explained. They know everything. Science can't explain everything. Which means anyone who follows science is ultimately dumber, since everything is not explained.

Science is the new religion guys. The problem with science is that it's just as bad as the Catholic church was in the 1400s. Science is on a witch-hunt, and their target is Religion.

(and this is coming from an atheist... oh god, what's the world coming to...)

Science doesnt explain everythingl

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

There are many people on this forums who would insist that there is no God becasue it cannot be explained by any kind of scinetific process. Who would essentially claim that there is no meaning to the universe, and that the universe just 'is', with no meaning or anything behind it. However to claim this is not scientific. It is philosophical, and no more defensable than any claim that there is a God. The idea that the universe has no meaning and life has no meaning etc is a philosophical idea, not a scientific one. And just because science cant explain any meaning that there may or may not be, that doesnt instantly mean there is no meaning. In short, the idea that the universe has no meaning is about as sceintific as the idea that it does. IE not at all

You are correct that it is an unwarranted leap, but I haven't seen anyone say "Science can't explain God, therefore he doesn't exist". What I have seen is people saying "Science can explain everything we need it to without resorting to God, and moreoever science has largely refuted the idea that God can interact with the world, therefore God is an unnecessary concept." This is a fairly reasonable concept, although I would debate the idea that "Science can explain everything we need it to without resorting to God", and it is not the same argument that you are making a strawman.

It's the same both ways. Science cannot disprove God's existance, nor can science prove God's existance.

Which makes religious people ultimately smarter. The Universe is already explained. They know everything. Science can't explain everything. Which means anyone who follows science is ultimately dumber, since everything is not explained.

Science is the new religion guys. The problem with science is that it's just as bad as the Catholic church was in the 1400s. Science is on a witch-hunt, and their target is Religion.

(and this is coming from an atheist... oh god, what's the world coming to...)

Absolutely and categorically false. The difference is that science's main goal is to prove the science that came before is false. There is no greater achievement in science. Religion states that all truths held are eternal.

Big huge difference.

Science is the new religion guys. The problem with science is that it's just as bad as the Catholic church was in the 1400s. Science is on a witch-hunt, and their target is Religion.
Science isn't on any witch-hunt. Science is the system of acquiring knowledge, not the people involved in it. You could say that the scientific community is staging a witch-hunt against religion, but as far as I know, the scientific community is roughly the same percentage religious as the rest of the world. I don't see the witch-hunt you speak of.

Absolutely and categorically false. The difference is that science's main goal is to prove the science that came before is false. There is no greater achievement in science. Religion states that all truths held are eternal.

Big huge difference.

lol, I was kidding about Science being dumber than Religion...

I wasn't about Science being on a witch hunt.

Science isn't on any witch-hunt. Science is the system of acquiring knowledge, not the people involved in it. You could say that the scientific community is staging a witch-hunt against religion, but as far as I know, the scientific community is roughly the same percentage religious as the rest of the world. I don't see the witch-hunt you speak of.

The Scientific Community, at this time, is on a movement against the 'moral' opposition that those who believe in Religion hold. While some of the Scientific Community is only in it for the Science and therefore are NOT part of the crusade (much like some who believe in the Christian God did not participate in the Crusades, but only wanted religion so that it benefitted all), the rest of the Scientific Community is on a movement to marginalize the other side of the debate, demeaning them as idiots, retards, and religious fanatics.

It's the same both ways. Science cannot disprove God's existance, nor can science prove God's existance.

Which makes religious people ultimately smarter. The Universe is already explained. They know everything. Science can't explain everything. Which means anyone who follows science is ultimately dumber, since everything is not explained.

Science is the new religion guys. The problem with science is that it's just as bad as the Catholic church was in the 1400s. Science is on a witch-hunt, and their target is Religion.

(and this is coming from an atheist... oh god, what's the world coming to...)

Explaining things with 'God did it' doesn't make anyone smarter, nor is it at all helpful. Science expands our knowledge of how things works, allowing us to do more things and learn further. Saying 'God did it' gives us nothing other than a fuzzy feeling to select people.

If someone wondered why people got sick and was contented with the answer of 'God did it' we would never have figured out viruses and bacteria or how to fight them.

EDIT: Ah, you were kidding about that. Nevermind.

Yeah, science can't explain some things, like why stupid people keep posting these retarded threads and perpetuating ridiculous arguments such as this.

PS: 400.

There are many people on this forums who would insist that there is no God becasue it cannot be explained by any kind of scinetific process.
I say that god cannot be proven scientifically because god is a supernatural being and science examines the natural, not the supernatural.

Who would essentially claim that there is no meaning to the universe, and that the universe just 'is', with no meaning or anything behind it.
Why does there have to be some extra meaning? Why can't we just live? At the same time, why do you assume that the universe is meaningless without a god? Perhaps there is a meaning we don't see? Perhaps we are to find our own meaning? Perhaps science doesn't even deal with this at all?

However to claim this is not scientific. It is philosophical, and no more defensable than any claim that there is a God. The idea that the universe has no meaning and life has no meaning etc is a philosophical idea, not a scientific one.
The idea that the universe has a meaning isn't scientific either, what's your point? Science does not dictate meaning that is not the "job" of science. Nor does this inability of science to explain the meaning of the universe automatically mean that there is a god or that this god that must be there is the christian god.

Until such time as concrete proof of any suggested meaning can be produced, I'm afraid it is a scientific idea, or at least a philosophical idea with some basis in the sciences.

No, to claim the universe just is a philosophical idea, with no proof whatsoever. Absence of proof is not proof of absence

Why would science need to explain everything? Why can't science say it knows better than a religous explaination when it does. Why can't science just say I don't know. Why make up an explaination when science does not know? One made up answer is God brought existance into existance. If he did prove it becuase we all know what comes next. This God that brought everything into existance wants to see these laws in enforced everywhere. Another made up explaination is God created life. Than of course we all know what follows next. Every time God comes up in some made up explanation what follows next is the silly superstitous agenda of the believer.

Face it. No religion can prove thier made up stuff exists becuase all that made up stuff does not exist.

It's the same both ways. Science cannot disprove God's existance, nor can science prove God's existance.

Which makes religious people ultimately smarter. The Universe is already explained. They know everything. Science can't explain everything. Which means anyone who follows science is ultimately dumber, since everything is not explained.
That has to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard anyone say. "God did it" is hardly an explanation for anything.

Science is the new religion guys. The problem with science is that it's just as bad as the Catholic church was in the 1400s. Science is on a witch-hunt, and their target is Religion.
Yes, I'm sure that's it. :rolleyes:

(and this is coming from an atheist... oh god, what's the world coming to...)
The more you claim this the more I doubt it's true...

That should be "Science doesn't explain everything yet"

I say that god cannot be proven scientifically because god is a supernatural being and science examines the natural, not the supernatural.


Indeed. So for people to claim "the universe just is, and has no meaning" is not scientific.


Why does there have to be some extra meaning? Why can't we just live? At the same time, why do you assume that the universe is meaningless without a god? Perhaps there is a meaning we don't see? Perhaps we are to find our own meaning? Perhaps science doesn't even deal with this at all?


Maybe there doesnt have to be some extra meaning, but the point is science has very little to say about it.


The idea that the universe has a meaning isn't scientific either, what's your point?

That no one can claim that scinence is the be all and end all and that religion is obsolete.


Science does not dictate meaning that is not the "job" of science. Nor does this inability of science to explain the meaning of the universe automatically mean that there is a god or that this god that must be there is the christian god.

I did not say that the inablity to discover meaning means there is a God or that that God is the Christian God. Do not put words into my mouth

That should be "Science doesn't explain everything yet"

No, it cannot explain everything. It cannot explain whether or not the universe has any meaning because that is not a scinetific enquiry. It is a philosophical one.

The Scientific Community, at this time, is on a movement against the 'moral' opposition that those who believe in Religion hold. While some of the Scientific Community is only in it for the Science and therefore are NOT part of the crusade (much like some who believe in the Christian God did not participate in the Crusades, but only wanted religion so that it benefitted all), the rest of the Scientific Community is on a movement to marginalize the other side of the debate, demeaning them as idiots, retards, and religious fanatics.
Perhaps an example?
I haven't seen much of this coming from the scientific community. I have seen a few extreme people on each side getting into spats, but it seems to me that the majority of the scientific community isn't trying to demean anyone.
Surely, if the entire scientific community were doing this, it would be in their journals, in their universities, in their research foundations? I don't see it happening.

Indeed. So for people to claim "the universe just is, and has no meaning" is not scientific.

Maybe there doesnt have to be some extra meaning, but the point is science has very little to say about it.
And any actual scientist will agree with you. What's your point?

That no one can claim that scinence is the be all and end all and that religion is obsolete.
That depends what the religion is used for. The universe doesn't need a god for it to come into existence, it could have happened naturally, on its own. So if you're looking to religion to explain how we got here, then it is obsolete.

As for my last comment, that's usually where these sorts of topics end up going.

Yeah, science can't explain some things, like why stupid people keep posting these retarded threads and perpetuating ridiculous arguments such as this.


This isnt a rediculous arguement. To claim that science can explain everything is to be Nhilistic. Which is not a scientific postition

That has to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard anyone say. "God did it" is hardly an explanation for anything.

Read on, and you might find that you're the one being stupid :)

The more you claim this the more I doubt it's true...

Then keep on doubting. I'm still right.

No, it cannot explain everything. It cannot explain whether or not the universe has any meaning because that is not a scinetific enquiry. It is a philosophical one.
That's like saying that the hammer can't do everything because it can't cut a log. Of course it doesn't, that's why we have saws.

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

There are many people on this forums who would insist that there is no God because it cannot be explained by any kind of scientific process. Who would essentially claim that there is no meaning to the universe, and that the universe just 'is', with no meaning or anything behind it. However to claim this is not scientific. It is philosophical, and no more defensible than any claim that there is a God. The idea that the universe has no meaning and life has no meaning etc. is a philosophical idea, not a scientific one. And just because science cant explain any meaning that there may or may not be, that doesn't instantly mean there is no meaning. In short, the idea that the universe has no meaning is about as scientific as the idea that it does. IE not at all

Jesus fucking Christ, and I thought we had cleared this up in the "I see stupid people" thread - Science's purpose is to find HOW life came about, it isn't up to them to find MEANING for the existence of life.

The MEANING of life is done via philosophy and and religion, they're the ones who search through and help people find a meaning to their existence - for some, they feel the need that they must be classed as "SPECIAL" or "DIFFERENT" by believing in some deity, but for many, they don't need that meaning because most have lives too busy to sit around pontificating about such trivial matters.

Read on, and you might find that you're the one being stupid :)
How mature. I did read your speil. Science is not seeking to replace religion or go on a witchunt. Your education in science is obviously severely lacking.

Then keep on doubting. I'm still right.
You're still right? I don't think you're an atheist based on your postings. You're misrepresenting yourself.

This isnt a rediculous arguement. To claim that science can explain everything is to be Nhilistic. Which is not a scientific postition
I just don't give a shit what the world was or was not made for. All I know is that I'm here now, and that's all I care to know.

I hate all this pseudo-intellectual philosophical crap that the Matrix has been encouraging. If I wanted to talk about that BS, I'd go to my philosophy class, but I hardly ever do. So, meh.

This isnt a rediculous arguement. To claim that science can explain everything is to be Nhilistic. Which is not a scientific postition
Umm, I'm not so sure about that. Many of the people I've heard claiming that science explains everything, including what our morals and purpose should be, appeared to believe that there were morals and purpose. Not divine morals and purpose, but morals and purpose nonetheless.

Not that I agree with them.

It's the same both ways. Science cannot disprove God's existance, nor can science prove God's existance.

Which makes religious people ultimately smarter.

How the hell does that work?:mp5:

Umm, I'm not so sure about that. Many of the people I've heard claiming that science explains everything, including what our morals and purpose should be, appeared to believe that there were morals and purpose. Not divine morals and purpose, but morals and purpose nonetheless.
That is true, there are evolutionary arguments for the existence of morals. It makes more sense than the religious arguments for them generally, as not all morals are universal.

Note: I haven't heard any scientific arguments for purpose.

How the hell does that work?:mp5:
It doesn't.

Well, science can't explain everything. The basis of science itself is philosophy, but the standards by which science works cannot be proven (material monism, reliability). IMO, objective standards of truth do not exist. Only perspectives, of which science is one, do. I must emphasize that I don't reject science at all, just the aura of superior truth around it. Science is useful not because it is Absolute truth but because so far, it has yielded useful results when used properly.

If God does exist, He doesn't make himself a significant part of the world that I know. He hasn't become necessary for any mysteries that I've stumbled across. Nearly everything has a perfectly good reason for happening without God being involved with new things being discovered every day. That is not to say that God doesn't exist, I just don't see the need for Him to exist. So, I'm agnostic. I'd be pleasantly surprised if He did exist and I'd have many questions to ask Him. Such as, do You ever get jealous over the popularity of Your Son? And why did you make my feet so that when I stretch them out a certain way, they kind of pop out of place rather painfully? Was that necessary in the grand scheme of things?

Umm, I'm not so sure about that. Many of the people I've heard claiming that science explains everything, including what our morals and purpose should be, appeared to believe that there were morals and purpose. Not divine morals and purpose, but morals and purpose nonetheless.

Not that I agree with them.

Name one person who claims that science explains everything.

I vehemently disagree. Likening science to religion is rather shortsighted, IMO. For one thing, scientists don't go around flying airplanes into buildings, bombing cars/themselves, or even enforcing their views upon an entire country - more specifically, those who do not choose to partake in their belief-system. If you think I'm targeting a single religion here, let it be known that what I say applies to all religions.
I don't have a problem with people of faith. If it makes you a better person, that's absolutely fine with me. It's none of my business to tell you what to believe in. Science however, is not based on belief. It is based on empirically verifiable observations. You simply cannot deny that the Earth revolves around the Sun if it has been experimentally determined. To do so would be to delude yourself.
I suggest all posters take a look at Godel's Incompleteness Theorem(s). Essentially, it states that no logical system can describe itself fully without invoking an axiom (~ assumption) outside said system.
As for the meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything...well let's just say that the OP didn't think too much about it before posting. Without meaning to offend anyone, it is incredibly foolish to assume that meaning can only be assigned in the presence of a supernatural being. Or if you're a nihilist, who's to say that the Universe has any meaning at all (or even has to, for that matter)? We humans have an unnatural tendency to elevate ourselves beyond everything else. It's hard for people to come to terms with the fact that they're made of the same elements as everything else they have experienced thus far. There is nothing special about `life' - our designation for trillions upon trillions of electrical impulses and pseudo-random current flowing through just as many nodes (read: conglomerations of atoms and molecules). Imagine for a moment that we as a species have managed to design a self-modifying (learning) computer program with an intelligence superior enough to makes us seem like braindead ants. Would this AI really be any different from us? Does this AI have a "meaning" at all?
The recent intelligent design vs. evolution fiasco is a farce if I ever saw one. I'm not saying that people don't have a right to believe in a God - however, they should not corrupt the scientific method by enforcing their beliefs on the rest of the world. Redefining "Science" is hardly what I'd call rational.

This concludes my rant.

Forget God.

Science cannot explain free will.

Of course, some will complain that science "disproves" free will, because science explains the world in terms of deterministic laws. But science can never disprove free will, because there can be no falsifiable test of whether or not human beings act freely.

Science is very helpful in constructing limits on freedom, in psychological and social-scientific terms. But it can never close off the possibility that a person decides to act freely.

So, it remains an open question. I think that's a good thing.

Forget God.

Science cannot explain free will.

Of course, some will complain that science "disproves" free will, because science explains the world in terms of deterministic laws. But science can never disprove free will, because there can be no falsifiable test of whether or not human beings act freely.

Science is very helpful in constructing limits on freedom, in psychological and social-scientific terms. But it can never close off the possibility that a person decides to act freely.

So, it remains an open question. I think that's a good thing.

Well, you can do a thought experiment :) If I know everything about you, absolutely everything that makes you you, every gene, every meaning of that gene, every experience, what it meant to you, can I predict what you'll do in a given situation?

And broaden that out, if I know everything about the universe, every force on every part of every atom, can I predict everything that'll happen, including to every individual?

You have to see free will in that sort of context.

Elgesh']Well, you can do a thought experiment :) If I know everything about you, absolutely everything that makes you you, every gene, every meaning of that gene, every experience, what it meant to you, can I predict what you'll do in a given situation?

And broaden that out, if I know everything about the universe, every force on every part of every atom, can I predict everything that'll happen, including to every individual?

You have to see free will in that sort of context.
Quantum indeterminnacy mucks things up though, by causing things to be unpredictable even while totally unconnected to free will.

There are many people on this forums who would insist that there is no God becasue it cannot be explained by any kind of scinetific process.

Actually, no there aren't. I don't know of a single regular poster in General who claims that God doesn't exist because science doesn't explain God. Most of the atheist/agnostic posters simply point out that God is either logically impossible or scientifically unnecessary, and the fact that science gives us no evidence of God is like the cherry on top of the sundae.


Who would essentially claim that there is no meaning to the universe, and that the universe just 'is', with no meaning or anything behind it. However to claim this is not scientific. It is philosophical, and no more defensable than any claim that there is a God.

Claiming that morality is a human construct, and therefore that morality does not have an "objective" reality outside of human society, is not "philosophical," it is factual. This is distinct from the claim that "there is no meaning in the universe," of course, since each individual will find their own meanings in each aspect of reality that they experience.

It's kind of like saying, "there is no objective moral meaning inherent in strawberry ice cream." That is a true statement. Some people may attribute moral significance to the eating of strawberry ice cream, while other people may not.


The idea that the universe has no meaning and life has no meaning etc is a philosophical idea, not a scientific one. And just because science cant explain any meaning that there may or may not be, that doesnt instantly mean there is no meaning. In short, the idea that the universe has no meaning is about as sceintific as the idea that it does. IE not at all
1) Even if science could disprove the existence of "God" (which it cannot, because "God" is supernatural and therefore outside the realm of science), that has nothing to do with proving or disproving "the meaning of the universe."

2) The idea that the universe has no objective "meaning" is simply a statement of fact. "Meaning" is something that human beings attribute to things. The universe does not innately contain "meaning," it contains qualities to which human beings attach various degrees and types of importance. The "meaning" of the universe is contained within the beings who are observing the universe, not within the universe itself.

The Scientific Community, at this time, is on a movement against the 'moral' opposition that those who believe in Religion hold.

Sorry, but this is just rubbish.

As other users have pointed out, the percentage religious observers versus non-religious is about the same 'in' science, and 'outside' science.

Some scientist may have an agenda.... but the scientific community no more wishes to prove/disprove god than does the rest of the community.

Name one person who claims that science explains everything.

Brenchley. Do I win?

Name one person who claims that science explains everything.

Nikola Tesla.

There are many people on this forums who would insist that there is no God becasue it cannot be explained by any kind of scinetific process. Who would essentially claim that there is no meaning to the universe, and that the universe just 'is', with no meaning or anything behind it. However to claim this is not scientific. It is philosophical, and no more defensable than any claim that there is a God. The idea that the universe has no meaning and life has no meaning etc is a philosophical idea, not a scientific one. And just because science cant explain any meaning that there may or may not be, that doesnt instantly mean there is no meaning. In short, the idea that the universe has no meaning is about as sceintific as the idea that it does. IE not at all
You sound like Pascal.

There is not some great scientific Movement to eliminate religion. There are a few people with agendas of their own that like to go around spouting "retards", "delusional" and all that other friendly stuff. While these people often claim to be scientific thinkers, more often they are simply regurgitating what they've been told without actually giving it any thought themselves (ironically, much like the religious people they claim are detrimental to society.)

To honestly think that the Scientist Hivemind is out to get you because you're religious is as paranoid as all those people out there who think the Religious Hivemind is out to get them because they're atheists/agnostics. It's a good way to feed a martyr complex, but there's very little truth behind it.

To honestly think that the Scientist Hivemind is out to get you because you're religious is as paranoid as all those people out there who think the Religious Hivemind is out to get them because they're atheists/agnostics. It's a good way to feed a martyr complex, but there's very little truth behind it.

True 'dat.

Also, we have a Hivemind now? Are there dues? If you don't have the wetware to link up, can you get a newsletter or something?

Science can't explain why there are no unicorns, therefor science sux! :mad:

I watched an old show with Robin Williams yesterday... Man did I laugh. At one point he touched the subject religion:

"Don't you think that "Let there be light" could be a clever metaphore for the big bang?"
In a hilarious redneck voice: "No. God just went "Click.""

Science can't prove everything, but it can prove how electrons move and how substances react with eachother, and that's enough to create a computer!

Elgesh']Well, you can do a thought experiment :) If I know everything about you, absolutely everything that makes you you, every gene, every meaning of that gene, every experience, what it meant to you, can I predict what you'll do in a given situation?

And broaden that out, if I know everything about the universe, every force on every part of every atom, can I predict everything that'll happen, including to every individual?

You have to see free will in that sort of context.

Sure. But that's not a scientific test.

You can never prove free will. But you can never disprove it either. And unlike God, there are very good practical reasons to believe you have free will.

Come on, why waste time talking about whether God exists? No one can prove or disprove whether God exists or not at this point (although i have to say the bible sucks...come on, Noah's Ark! That's freaking impossible! The bible i read even says the exact size of the boat! Way to small) And if God (or Gods) does/do exist then yay!~ we go to heaven. If they don't exist then so what? People should focus on how to live on earth and not how to get into heaven. And i don't think you go to hell for not believing in God...What about all the people before Christ (like the Classical Greeks) and what about all the Indian/Chinese/Japanese/Arabian/ etc people who believe in other religions?

Why can't this madness stop! For gods sake people, give it a rest! I've seen more threads on ID/Creationism vs Science in the last four days than in a year on these forums.

This argument will never be settled, mainly because each side is set in their beliefs and believe the other side to be wrong/idiots/atheists/worshippers of the flying spaghetti monster and as such this thread, like all others will devolve into argument after counterargument, usually better spelt on the scientists side, and end nothing.

Why, oh why, OP, did you have to start this off again?

Why, oh why, OP, did you have to start this off again?

Because this is the General forum and debating is what it's for?

Seriously, complaining about Evo / Creation in the General forum is like complaining about squares in the rectangle forum.

Science doesnt explain everything
But at least it does better than religion, whose explanatory capabilities are on a par with fairy tales.

There are many people on this forums who would insist that there is no God becasue it cannot be explained by any kind of scinetific process.I think there are relatively few of those. Indeed, I've never heard of any. You're correct about the scientific method, however.
The scientific method can't be used to 'explain' god, because it's not possible to observe Gods, and even if it were possible, Gods aren't bound by the mechanisms of the universe, so observations wouldn't mean anything.

I'm sure very few people would deny the existence of divinity if we could observe it. Regardless of how useless such observations would otherwise be.Who would essentially claim that there is no meaning to the universe, and that the universe just 'is', with no meaning or anything behind it. However to claim this is not scientific. It is philosophical, and no more defensable than any claim that there is a God.Again you use this 'many' word. I think you need to define it a little better. For example, does many mean more than 2? If so, then you're surely correct. IF you mean more than perhaps 10% of the global population, then you're surely wrong. At least if statistics are to be believed.
There really aren't that many atheists, and the vast majority of them are agnostics. Which means they don't make any assumptions about this.

But other than that, you are indeed correct. The scientific method can't be used to determine whether there's some sort of intent or motivation behind the universe. If there is, it would have to have been there before the universe came to be, and that means it's beyond the universe itself. And the scientific method can't be applied to anything beyond the universe.The idea that the universe has no meaning and life has no meaning etc is a philosophical idea, not a scientific one. And just because science cant explain any meaning that there may or may not be, that doesnt instantly mean there is no meaning. In short, the idea that the universe has no meaning is about as sceintific as the idea that it does. IE not at allExactly. Incidentially, you seem to operate with the assumption that humanists, materialists & that crowd, are all nihilists. Is that really the case?

Also, you seem to make a very good case against religion. Because if you substitute atheist for theist, the argument you make becomes even better. After all, these hardcore atheists you're criticising don't believe in something we don't know anything about. Theists, on the other hand, believe in something even though there's absolutely no reason to do so.

Sure. But that's not a scientific test.

You can never prove free will. But you can never disprove it either. And unlike God, there are very good practical reasons to believe you have free will.

What are the practical reason for belief in free will? I'm not being a jerk, I'd seriously like to hear what you have to say! (doing final year psychology at uni, and we're reviewing consciousness et al - not for grades, but as a pastime).

I always thought the deal was that we need the _illusion_ of free will, and that there were practical reasons to believe _that_, but no real reason to think we actually _possess_ free will?

(and I'm not sure what you mean by 'that's not a scientific test.'? Do you mean the reasoning is flawed, or just that it's impractical?)

Until such time as concrete proof of any suggested meaning can be produced, I'm afraid it is a scientific idea, or at least a philosophical idea with some basis in the sciences.

I'm sorry, postulating any idea in absense of empirical data is purely philosophical, and not scientific.

Elgesh']What are the practical reason for belief in free will? I'm not being a jerk, I'd seriously like to hear what you have to say! (doing final year psychology at uni, and we're reviewing consciousness et al - not for grades, but as a pastime).

I always thought the deal was that we need the _illusion_ of free will, and that there were practical reasons to believe _that_, but no real reason to think we actually _possess_ free will?

(and I'm not sure what you mean by 'that's not a scientific test.'? Do you mean the reasoning is flawed, or just that it's impractical?)
Not everything is knowable. For example, you can't know all the properties of a photon.

Various cause & effect constallations quickly get so staggeringly complex, that they result in a whole range of outcomes, where no outcome is more likely than another.

Thus, the default veiw must be that until proven otherwise, the universe is, to a lage extent, based on randomness.

As a consequence, it's impossible for us (right now) to determine whether consious decisions are predefined. It's highly unlikely we'll ever be able to work out if they truely are predefined.

Yet to the human intellect, it often appears that we do make conscious choices. We daily make decisions that we equally well could have made differently. For example, I didn't bother to answer the phone half an hour ago. I've since decided to move the phone closer to where I'm sitting.

Humans also act quite differently under similar circumstances. One radical leftwinger (an anarchist) chose to go to war in Iraq. A number of others didn't. Their motivations were similar, yet the decisions they arrived at was radically different.

So we have at least some observational evidence to suggest free will exists, and we have fuck-all to suggest otherwise.

As for practical reasons? Well... I, for one, would be very unhappy if I wasn't responsible for deciding when & where I chose to masturbate. In fact, I'd feel thoroughly violated.

Not everything is knowable. For example, you can't know all the properties of a photon.

Various cause & effect constallations quickly get so staggeringly complex, that they result in a whole range of outcomes, where no outcome is more likely than another.

Thus, the default veiw must be that until proven otherwise, the universe is, to a lage extent, based on randomness.

As a consequence, it's impossible for us (right now) to determine whether consious decisions are predefined. It's highly unlikely we'll ever be able to work out if they truely are predefined.

Yet to the human intellect, it often appears that we do make conscious choices. We daily make decisions that we equally well could have made differently. For example, I didn't bother to answer the phone half an hour ago. I've since decided to move the phone closer to where I'm sitting.

Humans also act quite differently under similar circumstances. One radical leftwinger (an anarchist) chose to go to war in Iraq. A number of others didn't. Their motivations were similar, yet the decisions they arrived at was radically different.

So we have at least some observational evidence to suggest free will exists, and we have fuck-all to suggest otherwise.

As for practical reasons? Well... I, for one, would be very unhappy if I wasn't responsible for deciding when & where I chose to masturbate. In fact, I'd feel thoroughly violated.

I think the first part of this focuses too much on the practical difficulties (impossibilities?) of actually knowing _everything_ at one given point in time; that's not really the important bit of a thought experiment, it's to question the _principle_ of (in this case) 'does complete knowledge mean 100% accurate predictions? Where does free will fit in here?' Like I say, I'm not sure of the answer, so... blegh, whatever!

Free Will because different people do different things despite some similarities in outlook? Well... I don't think that's _very_ convincing, it just says that no group is truly homogenous. Surely you have to look at the level of the individual?

But then again, free will because I as an individual _could_ have done xxx differently (but, um... didn't)? Well... I think that's certainly the illusion of free will, but I don't think it's any evidence for free will per se...

And as for masturbation... lookit tension, arousal, _arousal_, boredom, time of day and body-focussed attention, expectations and context, environment, culture etc etc... I hate to say this, but wanking could easily be thought of as a situational/control behaviour!

Groo... you're right... that's _not a happy thought, is it?:eek: :(

Why can't this madness stop! For gods sake people, give it a rest! I've seen more threads on ID/Creationism vs Science in the last four days than in a year on these forums.

This argument will never be settled, mainly because each side is set in their beliefs and believe the other side to be wrong/idiots/atheists/worshippers of the flying spaghetti monster and as such this thread, like all others will devolve into argument after counterargument, usually better spelt on the scientists side, and end nothing.

Why, oh why, OP, did you have to start this off again?

This isnt an arguement about ID/creationism vs Science. Its a philosophical discussion.

The idea that science explains everything, that everything that exists is empirically measurable is not a scientific postion. It is a philosophical one. Specificly Nihilism, the idea that this is all we have. Science cannot claim that just because this is all it can examine that this is all there is. To claim so is not scientific, but speculative

No, to claim the universe just is a philosophical idea, with no proof whatsoever. Absence of proof is not proof of absence

Incorrect.

Although I compliment you on your taste in cartoons, in many cases, It is indeed proof of absence.

To prove something as being positive, ie; real, or to exist, there must be proof or at least evidence of its existance.
Take the fantasy type dragon....we have literary traces of them, but no skeletons, or fossilized remains of them.
Ergo, they do not exist, and likely, never have.

Take Iraq...we have no evidence that Saddam Hussein possesed WMD's, post 1995.
No traces have been found of any such items.
Ergo, the US government has ceased all searches for them.
In the minds of the US government, absence of evidence equated to evidence of absence.

In the case of God, no shred of proof, no matter how small, no matter how minute, can be presented, that can even realitvely show the presence of God.
If this were a trial, any reasonable court would be forced to rule that God does not exist.

I vehemently disagree. Likening science to religion is rather shortsighted, IMO. For one thing, scientists don't go around flying airplanes into buildings, bombing cars/themselves, or even enforcing their views upon an entire country - more specifically, those who do not choose to partake in their belief-system. If you think I'm targeting a single religion here, let it be known that what I say applies to all religions.

Not at all relevent to the discussion. Do not refer to again

Incorrect.

Although I compliment you on your taste in cartoons, in many cases, It is indeed proof of absence.

To prove something as being positive, ie; real, or to exist, there must be proof or at least evidence of its existance.
Take the fantasy type dragon....we have literary traces of them, but no skeletons, or fossilized remains of them.
Ergo, they do not exist, and likely, never have.

Take Iraq...we have no evidence that Saddam Hussein possesed WMD's, post 1995.
No traces have been found of any such items.
Ergo, the US government has ceased all searches for them.
In the minds of the US government, absence of evidence equated to evidence of absence.

In the case of God, no shred of proof, no matter how small, no matter how minute, can be presented, that can even realitvely show the presence of God.
If this were a trial, any reasonable court would be forced to rule that God does not exist.

Firstly, there are many arguable proofs for the existance of God, from philosophical arguements to holy texts. While you may believe these to be inacurate, it is impossible to prove them inacruate by their nature

Secondly, for a very long time there was no evidence that blood was what circulated around the body, but that it was believed to be air. Therfore at that time would it be sicneificly correct to state that air cuiculated through the body

Thirdly, in many cases, is not all cases. And it does not work with God. Why, because God's non existance is just as unscienfific as God's existance. You cannot empircally prove it. Before you say "the burden of proof is on the postive" or "it is impossible to prove a negative" think carefully. This is not scinece we are talking about in terms of God. But philosophy. Science cannot examine the supernatural. Science examines the natural. Just because science cannot examine something does not mean that that something does not exist.

Firstly, there are many arguable proofs for the existance of God, from philosophical arguements to holy texts. While you may believe these to be inacurate, it is impossible to prove them inacruate by their nature

Again incorrect.
Not only are most of these texts you refer to, possessed of innacurate accounts of events that may, or may not have transpired, thier dates of origin cannot even be accurately determined.
This means that the reliability of the testamonials within, are seriously questionable.
To think that a text, reputed to by penned by a witness to Jesus' supposed ressurection, 200 years after the authors death, contains accurate info, is probably an unsafe guess.

Secondly, for a very long time there was no evidence that blood was what circulated around the body, but that it was believed to be air. Therfore at that time would it be sicneificly correct to state that air cuiculated through the body

Umm..until the very first human cut himself on a rock......then bam! evidence of blood.

Thirdly, in many cases, is not all cases. And it does not work with God. Why, because God's non existance is just as unscienfific as God's existance. You cannot empircally prove it. Before you say "the burden of proof is on the postive" or "it is impossible to prove a negative" think carefully. This is not scinece we are talking about in terms of God. But philosophy. Science cannot examine the supernatural. Science examines the natural. Just because science cannot examine something does not mean that that something does not exist.

Thats very nice, but life isnt always "if a tree falls in the woods..."

If you enter a room, 12x12, and search for a pink bunny....and after a thourough search of the room, you find no bunny.....it is fallacy to assume the bunny might still be there.

Think of it as a trial.

If we were to put god existance on trial, and even one tiny shred of evidence would be enough to sway the judge, the verdict would be "does not exist".

Science cannot examine the supernatural. Science examines the natural. Just because science cannot examine something does not mean that that something does not exist.

<coughs> well, um... science does examine the supernatural. Quite a lot. Some of the natural phenomena we take for granted today - magnetism, mental illnesses, and nowadays even certain parapsychological and psi effects - were once thought supernatual.

New paradigms and new technologies emerged in a response to examining 'the supernatural', and explaining it in a scientific framework!

In the case of the existence or not of a divinity though, you're righht, we're _waaayy_ too primitive to come up with a way to 'scientifically' test for it!

But that doesn't mean we _never_ will be :)

Elgesh']I think the first part of this focuses too much on the practical difficulties (impossibilities?) of actually knowing everything at one given point in time; that's not really the important bit of a thought experiment, it's to question the principle of (in this case) 'does complete knowledge mean 100% accurate predictions? Where does free will fit in here?' Like I say, I'm not sure of the answer, so... blegh, whatever!It is actually a bit important to consider whether everything is knowable (and if the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle holds water, then it is impossible, not just difficult).
If everything can be known, then yes. Everything would be predictable, at least in general terms.
Likewise, chaos theory is worth considering. The principle here is that some cause-effect relations are so complex that only an outcome can be predicted, and not which particular outcome.

Both of these things speaks in favour of free will, because though circumstances surely dictates the frames within which free will operates, it allows that we decide for ourselves how to act within that framework. For example, I like my dog. Obviously, I'm not gonna toss my dog out the window in a little while instead of feeding it. Whether I could do it is irrelevant to this discussion, because though I probably could, it's not an action I'll consider. Emotional ties - a combination of my memories & chemicals affecting my brain - dictates that the frame within which I act doesn't encompass just any action. Defenestrating my dog, or cooking it for dinner, falls outside the courses of action available to me.
However, such things does not dictate whether I feed my dog ten minutes earlier or later. My dog doesn't even influence that very much. We both know I'll feed it before it starves, so begging isn't something I pay attention to.Free Will because different people do different things despite some similarities in outlook? Well... I don't think that's very convincing, it just says that no group is truly homogenous. Surely you have to look at the level of the individual? I didn't say it was very convincing. I don't think it is. It does, however, support that even though circumstances - general outlook (which we don't know how arises) & similar intent - doesn't determine what actions someone takes. Operating with the staggering amount of unknowns that we are, I think my example (and it's a real life example) is a very good one. But as evidence, it's hardly convincing. It is, after all, just one minor observation. Regardless of how much it supports free will, and seemingly contradicts determinism, it's not proof of anything.But then again, free will because I as an individual could have done xxx differently (but, um... didn't)? Well... I think that's certainly the illusion of free will, but I don't think it's any evidence for free will per se...If you stop thinking of events where your actions would have changed things in a major way, but instead think of minor decisions you've made, and will make, within half an hour, you'll better be able to determine how big a role you think your free will played.
Still, it's a logical falacy to assume you can do anything differently just because it feels that way. That's why I used the anarchist example. There we had a group of people acting from very similar circumstances & very similar reasoning, yet the actions were nog just slightly different, as one would suspect because the people in question aren't exact duplicates in duplicate realities. Their actions were exact opposites. It's not proof by any measure, but it - to the best of our knowledge - contradicts determinism, and it - again, to the best of our knowledge - supports free will.And as for masturbation... lookit tension, arousal, arousal, boredom, time of day and body-focussed attention, expectations and context, environment, culture etc etc... I hate to say this, but wanking could easily be thought of as a situational/control behaviour!

Groo... you're right... that's not a happy thought, is it? :eek: :(Let's please stop discussing this particular bit, or something might go limp :(

Mmm, cheers, food for thought there!

I'm still unconvinced/undecided on whether we have free will, but you've certainly given me more principles to think about :)

<note the lack of references to wang-testing. I'd hate to help cause meltdown in anyone's pocket rocket>

Secondly, for a very long time there was no evidence that blood was what circulated around the body

...Other than that it came out if you cut someone, and people tended to die if they ran out of it?

...Other than that it came out if you cut someone, and people tended to die if they ran out of it?

No, he's right - we didn't believe it was _blood_ that circulated through the body for a good long while. Knew we _had_ blood, but didn't know it circulated.

Elgesh']No, he's right - we didn't believe it was _blood_ that circulated through the body for a good long while. Knew we _had_ blood, but didn't know it circulated.

Last I checked, though, nobody ever believed it was air...They believed blood was pumped away from the heart and sucked back again, like the tides.

Again incorrect.
Not only are most of these texts you refer to, possessed of innacurate accounts of events that may, or may not have transpired, thier dates of origin cannot even be accurately determined.
This means that the reliability of the testamonials within, are seriously questionable.
To think that a text, reputed to by penned by a witness to Jesus' supposed ressurection, 200 years after the authors death, contains accurate info, is probably an unsafe guess.

I can prove to you that its much closer than that but that would be hijacking this thread. If you want a discussion on the acuracy of the gospels I suggest you make another thread


Thats very nice, but life isnt always "if a tree falls in the woods..."

If you enter a room, 12x12, and search for a pink bunny....and after a thourough search of the room, you find no bunny.....it is fallacy to assume the bunny might still be there.

Think of it as a trial.

If we were to put god existance on trial, and even one tiny shred of evidence would be enough to sway the judge, the verdict would be "does not exist
"

You still dont understand. Lets say I put a copy of "Snow falling on Ceaders" into a room, on its own. I then claim that it has a great deal of metophorical imagery, social commentary and political message woven into the story. However the scientist can find no evidence of this. He sees a series of pieces of a carbon based chemical bound together by adhesive chemicals, with various markings on them made with a possibly lead based chemical of a darker coulor. Science cannot be used to examine whether or not there is a God in the same way that it cannot be used to analyise art. Its not the sort of thing it is capable of analysing. God is supernatural. Science explains the natural

Elgesh']<coughs> well, um... science does examine the supernatural. Quite a lot. Some of the natural phenomena we take for granted today - magnetism, mental illnesses, and nowadays even certain parapsychological and psi effects - were once thought supernatual.

New paradigms and new technologies emerged in a response to examining 'the supernatural', and explaining it in a scientific framework!

In the case of the existence or not of a divinity though, you're righht, we're _waaayy_ too primitive to come up with a way to 'scientifically' test for it!

But that doesn't mean we _never_ will be :)

No, scinece cant test for a God. Because God exists beyond the universe. And science can only test what is this universe.

No, scinece cant test for a God. Because God exists beyond the universe. And science can only test what is this universe.

Well, that's debatable, but as a point of _belief_ I can accept it.

And thanks for ignoring the rest of my post, I only put it in to amuse myself, after all :p <j/k>

Elgesh']Well, that's debatable, but as a point of _belief_ I can accept it.

And thanks for ignoring the rest of my post, I only put it in to amuse myself, after all :p <j/k>

I ignored it because it was irrelvent to my point. Those things were

A) within the universe and
B) only considered to be supernatural, not actually supernatural

I ignored it because it was irrelvent to my point. Those things were

A) within the universe and
B) only considered to be supernatural, not actually supernatural

lol! well, what if the force/entity you think of as 'God' turns out to only be considered supernatural, not actually supernatural?!

I'm not saying he/it/they will, I'm saying it's a possibility - witness the other 'supernatural' phenomena that have become quite explicable and 'within the universe'.

True 'dat.

Also, we have a Hivemind now? Are there dues? If you don't have the wetware to link up, can you get a newsletter or something?

There is a newsletter for the Scientist Hivemind, yes. It's quite a good newsletter too. The catch is that it's delivered by an ex-military hunter-killer robot with a logic processor of dubious functionality. The general consenus is that the robot is completely batty and in need of a system overhaul, but no one is brave enough to try getting close enough to tinker with its innards. So when you receive the newsletter, you take your chances and hope that the delivery boy will spare your life. Honestly, it's much easier to go for the iBrain! Implant Lite if you're strapped for cash, or if you're a little more financially well-off, I would recommend for a full Cyborg Super Soldier of the Scientific Secret Society Kit.

Elgesh']Well, that's debatable, but as a point of _belief_ I can accept it.

And thanks for ignoring the rest of my post, I only put it in to amuse myself, after all :p <j/k>I hate to say it, but the bits of the post that went ignored, wasn't relevant. The scientific method can't possibly be applied to something beyond the natural. If something isn't bound by the mechanisms of this universe, then our scientific method can't be applied to it. It doesn't even matter if we can observe it. The point is that science only can help us understand things that abide by the mechanisms of the universe. Politics are completely beyond science, for example. Not because they're supernatural, but because opinions aren't dependent on the laws of nature. It's incredibly simple.

Some of the things we once believed to be supernatural, ei. stuff that not only aren't dependent on the laws of nature, but breaks those laws, have since been demonstrated to be operating within the laws of nature. Mental illnesses is a great example.

However, our lack of knowledge doesn't mean we'll one day be possible to apply the scientific method to god. God is, by the very definition of divinity, independent of the universe, and not only not bound by the mechanisms within it, but actually the creator of said mechanisms.
That means, that even IF we could observe the guy, our observations would never be evidence of anything, because Divinity can do whatever the hell it wants. So even if we positively knew there was a God (if he, for example, teleported the lot of us beyond space, told us about himself, and teleported us back again), we would never be able to accurately describe him using science.

Elgesh']lol! well, what if the force/entity you think of as 'God' turns out to only be considered supernatural, not actually supernatural?!

I'm not saying he/it/they will, I'm saying it's a possibility - witness the other 'supernatural' phenomena that have become quite explicable and 'within the universe'.

Well let me put it this way. If someone is medically dead and then returns to life and that is discovered for us all for that to happen (IE possible for us all to be returned from the dead) then lets just say that I would be very impressed and deeply saddend at all the needless loss of life before.

Well let me put it this way. If someone is medically dead and then returns to life and that is discovered for us all for that to happen (IE possible for us all to be returned from the dead) then lets just say that I would be very impressed and deeply saddend at all the needless loss of life before.

People who are clinically dead have been returned to life under medical circumstances.

Not dead and rotting people, mind you.

People who are clinically dead have been returned to life under medical circumstances.

Not dead and rotting people, mind you.

People who have been dead for three days? With the medical equipment of 2000 years ago?

People who have been dead for three days? With the medical equipment of 2000 years ago?
No, but people who have been clinically dead for several hours were revived using medical equipment of the late 20th century.

No, but people who have been clinically dead for several hours were revived using medical equipment of the late 20th century.

So how would you explain it if someone rose from the dead 2000 years ago after having been dead for three days with no medical assistance

So how would you explain it if someone rose from the dead 2000 years ago after having been dead for three days with no medical assistance

I would explain it by saying it didn't happen.

Next please!

So how would you explain it if someone rose from the dead 2000 years ago after having been dead for three days with no medical assistance


You're making the mistake of thinking that you have to prove something, Neo.

Religion is not a matter of proof, nor does it explain everything, either.

It's a matter of faith.

Why don't you follow the advice, and render unto Caesar what is Caesar's?

There are many people on this forums who would insist that there is no God becasue it cannot be explained by any kind of scinetific process. Who would essentially claim that there is no meaning to the universe, and that the universe just 'is', with no meaning or anything behind it. However to claim this is not scientific. It is philosophical, and no more defensable than any claim that there is a God. The idea that the universe has no meaning and life has no meaning etc is a philosophical idea, not a scientific one. And just because science cant explain any meaning that there may or may not be, that doesnt instantly mean there is no meaning. In short, the idea that the universe has no meaning is about as sceintific as the idea that it does. IE not at all

While I believe in god, I wouldn't say life would be meaningless if he didn't exist. Although, you're right, evolution doesn't have any more scientific evidence then creationism. You know how life would have to start with evolution? Spontaneous generation. At some point in time a group of proteins had to assemble from nothing in order to form a DNA molecule. The probability of that happening even in a closed system is over 10^70. (Which is more then the estimated number of atoms in the universe) As well, that's not entirely impossible, there is the 0.000000000001 (far more 0s then that, but I'm lazy) that it would eventually happen, but it also bears the question, does a DNA molecule constitute life? If having all of the right chemicals in a body constituted life, then why can't we create a frankenstein's monster? Why can't I take a freshly killed person, do all of the neccesary repairs to be what would be a fully operational body, and jolt it back to life? The thing is, as many things as science can explain, the complexity of the human mind and the universe are two things it hasn't even begun to understand. It bears the ideas of metaphysics, the questions of what constitutes life and how they would origionate. Philosophical explanations of the physical, if we could actually find scientific principles to understand what constitutes life, then we could start getting somewhere in an explanation as to where we came from. As of right now, one explanation violates basic physical principles and tries to do it scientifically, and the other violates basic physical principles and tries to do it based on faith. I personally choose to put my faith in the theory that's supposed to be based on faith where it has no scientific evidence rather then put my faith in a theory that's supposed to be based on science and has no scientific evidence. However that's a personal choice.

At some point in time a group of proteins had to assemble from nothing in order to form a DNA molecule. The probability of that happening even in a closed system is over 10^70. (Which is more then the estimated number of atoms in the universe) As well, that's not entirely impossible, there is the 0.000000000001 (far more 0s then that, but I'm lazy) that it would eventually happen,

I will not bother to check your figures - but just have to ask...
By the same probability calculations - how probable is it that something as complex as God came into existence ? Isn't that probability several orders of magnitude smaller ?

While I believe in god, I wouldn't say life would be meaningless if he didn't exist. Although, you're right, evolution doesn't have any more scientific evidence then creationism. You know how life would have to start with evolution? Spontaneous generation. At some point in time a group of proteins had to assemble from nothing in order to form a DNA molecule. The probability of that happening even in a closed system is over 10^70. (Which is more then the estimated number of atoms in the universe) As well, that's not entirely impossible, there is the 0.000000000001 (far more 0s then that, but I'm lazy) that it would eventually happen, but it also bears the question, does a DNA molecule constitute life? If having all of the right chemicals in a body constituted life, then why can't we create a frankenstein's monster? Why can't I take a freshly killed person, do all of the neccesary repairs to be what would be a fully operational body, and jolt it back to life? The thing is, as many things as science can explain, the complexity of the human mind and the universe are two things it hasn't even begun to understand. It bears the ideas of metaphysics, the questions of what constitutes life and how they would origionate. Philosophical explanations of the physical, if we could actually find scientific principles to understand what constitutes life, then we could start getting somewhere in an explanation as to where we came from. As of right now, one explanation violates basic physical principles and tries to do it scientifically, and the other violates basic physical principles and tries to do it based on faith. I personally choose to put my faith in the theory that's supposed to be based on faith where it has no scientific evidence rather then put my faith in a theory that's supposed to be based on science and has no scientific evidence. However that's a personal choice.

The odds you gave are bullshit, talkorigins have a very good article debunking it. What's more, you're arguing against abiogenisis, not evolution.

To summarise it those are the odds of a modern bacteria being formed spontaneously, no scientist in their right mind would suggest that. I believe the current theory is that nuclei, cytoplasm etc were originally distict entities but then formed into cells much later.

Oh, and there is quite a bit of scientific evidence for evolution and none what so ever for creationism. If you've got any more questions about evolution I'll try to answer them.

Here's the article debunking the abiogenisis odds claim. talk origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html)

While I believe in god, I wouldn't say life would be meaningless if he didn't exist. Although, you're right, evolution doesn't have any more scientific evidence then creationism.

Can people please stop jumping to the conclusion that this is an evo/creo thread. Its a philophical one

<Snip>
Oh my.. You should really consider asking to get your school money back.

Can people please stop jumping to the conclusion that this is an evo/creo thread. Its a philophical one

*cries*

But he started it!!!

Can people please stop jumping to the conclusion that this is an evo/creo thread. Its a philophical one

Science has its place in how we explain the observable world and the mechanisms behind it.

Theology is to do with origins, the start of people-dom, and part of the search for why.

Art and creativity is how we respond to the findings, conjectures, and implicit world views emerging from both of these traditions.

Which is the most human activity?

Elgesh']Science has its place in how we explain the observable world and the mechanisms behind it.

Theology is to do with origins, the start of people-dom, and part of the search for why.

Art and creativity is how we respond to the findings, conjectures, and implicit world views emerging from both of these traditions.

Which is the most human activity?

42!!!!

*demands cookie*

42!!!!

*demands cookie*

Douglas Addams has _so-o-o-o_ much to answer for! :p

Elgesh']Douglas Addams has _so-o-o-o_ much to answer for! :p

I WANT MY COOKIE DAMMIT!!!

Since people ignored this last time I will post it again


Thats very nice, but life isnt always "if a tree falls in the woods..."

If you enter a room, 12x12, and search for a pink bunny....and after a thourough search of the room, you find no bunny.....it is fallacy to assume the bunny might still be there.

Think of it as a trial.

If we were to put god existance on trial, and even one tiny shred of evidence would be enough to sway the judge, the verdict would be "does not exist
"

You still dont understand. Lets say I put a copy of "Snow falling on Ceaders" into a room, on its own. I then claim that it has a great deal of metophorical imagery, social commentary and political message woven into the story. However the scientist can find no evidence of this. He sees a series of pieces of a carbon based chemical bound together by adhesive chemicals, with various markings on them made with a possibly lead based chemical of a darker coulor. Science cannot be used to examine whether or not there is a God in the same way that it cannot be used to analyise art. Its not the sort of thing it is capable of analysing. God is supernatural. Science explains the natural

Since people ignored this last time I will post it again

You still dont understand. Lets say I put a copy of "Snow falling on Ceaders" into a room, on its own. I then claim that it has a great deal of metophorical imagery, social commentary and political message woven into the story. However the scientist can find no evidence of this. He sees a series of pieces of a carbon based chemical bound together by adhesive chemicals, with various markings on them made with a possibly lead based chemical of a darker coulor. Science cannot be used to examine whether or not there is a God in the same way that it cannot be used to analyise art. Its not the sort of thing it is capable of analysing. God is supernatural. Science explains the natural

But you don't understand our view either. He's saying that there's no reason to assume that there is a god because there is no proof. That doesn't mean there is no god but it does mean that the logical position is to say that as far as we know at present there is no god. If you follow the view that the absense of evidence is irrelevant then you should give equal credence to God, G_d, Allah, the Chief Jed, the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

But you don't understand our view either. He's saying that there's no reason to assume that there is a god because there is no proof. That doesn't mean there is no god but it does mean that the logical position is to say that as far as we know at present there is no god. If you follow the view that the absense of evidence is irrelevant then you should give equal credence to God, G_d, Allah, the Chief Jed, the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Equal credence and equal lack of credence. The postion that there is no God is not scientific. Nor is the postion that there is a God. They are both philosophical postions to be discussed and debated. Science has nothing to say about them

But you don't understand our view either. He's saying that there's no reason to assume that there is a god because there is no proof. That doesn't mean there is no god but it does mean that the logical position is to say that as far as we know at present there is no god. If you follow the view that the absense of evidence is irrelevant then you should give equal credence to God, G_d, Allah, the Chief Jed, the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Well said. <tosses him a small, late cookie... made of butter and fairymagic>

Equal credence and equal lack of credence.

Not true - the position that there is a God (or multiple gods) involves more assumptions than that there is not/are none.

But you are right: science does not take a position where the (non)existence of God is concerned.

Elgesh']<coughs> well, um... science does examine the supernatural. Quite a lot. Some of the natural phenomena we take for granted today - magnetism, mental illnesses, and nowadays even certain parapsychological and psi effects - were once thought supernatual.

New paradigms and new technologies emerged in a response to examining 'the supernatural', and explaining it in a scientific framework!

In the case of the existence or not of a divinity though, you're righht, we're _waaayy_ too primitive to come up with a way to 'scientifically' test for it!

But that doesn't mean we _never_ will be :)
Magnetism and ESP were never genuinely supernatural. They were hyped as supernatural in the 19th Century, when hiring a magician to perform in your parlour was considered the epitome of entertainment amongst the gentry in Europe and the eastern part of North America (the equivalent in the West being the travelling entertainer with his wagon of mystical wonders who would go from town to town performing miracles for a small fee). In much the same way, today we lump things that we don't understand, or fascinate us, or don't want to have to deal with together as 'new age'.

Mental illness was only considered supernatural in that demons inhabited a person who was ill --it is the demons who are supernatural, not the illness.

Supernatural refers to phenomena science cannot examine, not things it can, since if it can, they are by definition natural.

EDIT: I meant the definition of science, not of supernatural.

Soz i have just read this tread for the first time i have to say the following things

1. If god was proved to existes then free will, could not exist, due to the aww god would create. This would be immoral, and therefore against God. God wants people to chose to go to heaven.

2. Einsten said " sceince with out religon is dumb, reglion without sceince is blind" Science and region work togther, people just dont c it yet

3. as to the question to ppl in other reglions not going to heaven, Everyone is given the chance and the knowlege they need. And any1 who doesnt get all help they need will be judged on that basisic

And someone said before it natural for us to better ourself, and rise. well THAT is God working

Soz i have just read this tread for the first time i have to say the following things

1. If god was proved to existes then free will, could not exist, due to the aww god would create. This would be immoral, and therefore against God. God wants people to chose to go to heaven.

*snip*

Awe is contrary to free will?

Not true - the position that there is a God (or multiple gods) involves more assumptions than that there is not/are none.


No it involves the same number of presumptions, just negatively based. Due to their nature (IE being outside the universe) that actually is important

I am trying to say that ppl would be so over powered by God that the choice would no be able to happen, therfore bye bye free will

Elgesh']Well said. <tosses him a small, late cookie... made of butter and fairymagic>

YAY! Cookie!!

*eats cookie happily*

Magnetism and ESP were never genuinely supernatural...
Supernatural refers to phenomena science cannot examine, not things it can, since if it can, they are by definition natural.

EDIT: I meant the definition of science, not of supernatural.

I really made that post to point out that science has often 'examined the supernatural', in response to a post that implied it never had. If there's a god, and he's anything like his PR, he would of course be supernatural, and transcend our reason/logic/cause and effect concepts etc. He would be literally inexplicable.

"Science:
Science is just like religion except it has better explanations for when it gets things wrong"
Terry Pratchet

sorry if I end up covering points that have already been made I got a little bored after about the 27th post of circular arguments. Some of the hipocrasy in these posts are very amusing, I especialy like the "this thread is stupid; you are stupid, let me straighten you out on a few points." posts. Does that also make me hipocritical, perhaps belief in a superior argument when dealing with metaphysics (and yes scientists do deal with them to even if science does not) is folly, who judges who is right, empirical standards can't prove you right and God remains silent, on this side of infinity anyway.

But enough of that this post is getting long.
Do science and religion cover the same ground?
I believe not science cannot talk of morality
and religion cannot talk about the subtle mechanics of the universe, the closest it comes for mortals is to say that with faith you can accomplish more. As there is no reason why scientists have more or less faith then any others claiming 'them' to be on a witch hunt is weak.

Where they do conflict is on truth claims. Science claims to be able to prove things (actually if you look at the fine print it dosen't) this is not the case it indicates likelyhoods, sometimes it re-writes its own laws. Sometimes it ignores better information in favour of comfy models (see mann's law of shifting paridigms).

Religion also proves nothing it asks for belief a belief which will be proved true come the next life. Miracales? In an age of education we know that anything can be explained away by those who want to.

No one can force you to believe but you, that's how it works for both systems. Free will people have to chose to accept god. Theories, if all scientists agreed on their findings then progress would slow, disagrement is important in driving forward understanding.

Neither is essential.
Religion: Aethists can exist and be happy
Science: we had a species before we had a science, we even had technology though it improved more slowly.

It is also worth remebering how many good christians are scientists and vice versa.

Of corse no one's perfect; Gregor Mendel?

p.s 5pts if you can guess my discipline and belief system :)

I am trying to say that ppl would be so over powered by God that the choice would no be able to happen, therfore bye bye free will
But if God gave free will, then how can it be lost?

(Going off-topic, I know.)

I am trying to say that ppl would be so over powered by God that the choice would no be able to happen, therfore bye bye free will

*waves*

*points to self and legion of bloody-minded atheists*

*wanders off in search of more cookies*

Elgesh']I really made that post to point out that science has often 'examined the supernatural', in response to a post that implied it never had. If there's a god, and he's anything like his PR, he would of course be supernatural, and transcend our reason/logic/cause and effect concepts etc. He would be literally inexplicable.
Well, I really made my post to show off my knowledge of 19th Century parlour tricks.

Oh well. ;)

The term 'supernatural' is one of the most abused of the 20th Century. Makes for good television, though.

thats what i am saying he cant take it away! so he can not show himself. Plus humans change we dont stay the same! we can be nice one mintue and horriable the next so what is given, does not always stay

On the subjects of mircles, if god created the unives then y can he raise a sea? or produce food? just because u cant come up with a logical reasion does not mean it can not happen. and btw i am a engineer...

and hi Randomlittleisland

and btw i am a engineer...
Holy dyslexic Batman, how did you pass any test?

thats what i am saying he cant take it away! so he can not show himself. Plus humans change we dont stay the same! we can be nice one mintue and horriable the next so what is given, does not always stay
If he gave it, it should not be lost even if he does show himself. Humans are not constant, but God is. God gives free will, not us. Can what is given by God change?

I think free will is given by God not making decisions for us. It has nothing to do with his presence.

yeh i am dyslexic which does not make me dumb! OK let me try an say this, god does not change we do, IF u say a man with a gun to ur head would u listen to him, even if u didt b4?

thats what i am saying he cant take it away! so he can not show himself. Plus humans change we dont stay the same! we can be nice one mintue and horriable the next so what is given, does not always stay

On the subjects of mircles, if god created the unives then y can he raise a sea? or produce food? just because u cant come up with a logical reasion does not mean it can not happen. and btw i am a engineer...

and hi Randomlittleisland

The logic is that if God created the Universe then He also created the laws of nature. Before the Big Bang there is no reason to assume that the same laws applied so God could have casued the Big Bang. However, to perform miracles would breaks the laws of nature and so wouls screw up the Universe completely. For this reason while it is reasonable to accept the possibility of a deity it is much harder to accept the possibility of miracles, in the same way you say that God can't manifest without compromising free-will He couldn't perform miracles without compromising the basic rules which hold the Universe together.

If he gave it, it should not be lost even if he does show himself. Humans are not constant, but God is. God gives free will, not us. Can what is given by God change?

I think free will is given by God not making decisions for us. It has nothing to do with his presence.

I think he's working on the paradox of omipotence: God couldn't create a rock that he couldn't lift without compromsing that omnipotence. This is just a guess though.

Read my bit about the gun? Power effects us!

yeh i am dyslexic which does not make me dumb! OK let me try an say this, god does not change we do, IF u say a man with a gun to ur head would u listen to him, even if u didt b4?

It would depend on the person and on what the gunman was saying.

Even in that circumstance the victim would have free will to refuse the gunman's demand.

OK let me try an say this, god does not change we do, IF u say a man with a gun to ur head would u listen to him, even if u didt b4?
If a man had a gun to my head, I would be more inclined to listen to him. I am changable. I'm not sure what this has to do with the discussion.

Ok now replace that gun with the most powerfull image u can think of and times that by 100, what to die now?

So how would you explain it if someone rose from the dead 2000 years ago after having been dead for three days with no medical assistance

Well, he wasn't really dead, he just looked dead :p

If a man had a gun to my head, I would be more inclined to listen to him. I am changable. I'm not sure what this has to do with the discussion.

Going off topic soz

But god can prove himself because it would be imoral

Ok now replace that gun with the most powerfull image u can think of and times that by 100, what to die now?

But I would still be able to choose, just because I would be unlikely to refuse his demands doesn't mean I could. In the same way that I could choose to kill my friends and family because of free will but I would never want to.

Well, he wasn't really dead, he just looked dead :p

Maybe he had a stunt double? :D

But I would still be able to choose, just because I would be unlikely to refuse his demands doesn't mean I could. In the same way that I could choose to kill my friends and family because of free will but I would never want to.

Do u kno what u would be picking?

Do u kno what u would be picking?

Um, 42?

Um, 42?

well no,

let me guess u want another cookiee rite?

Um, 42?
<pats pockets for buttermagic cookies...> damn, I'm coming up empty...

There are many people on this forums who would insist that there is no God becasue it cannot be explained by any kind of scinetific process. Who would essentially claim that there is no meaning to the universe, and that the universe just 'is', with no meaning or anything behind it. However to claim this is not scientific. It is philosophical, and no more defensable than any claim that there is a God. The idea that the universe has no meaning and life has no meaning etc is a philosophical idea, not a scientific one. And just because science cant explain any meaning that there may or may not be, that doesnt instantly mean there is no meaning. In short, the idea that the universe has no meaning is about as sceintific as the idea that it does. IE not at all

- didn't bother to read the whole thread... but

As far as my understanding goes, the purpose of science is not to "explain everything" but infact the exact opposite. Science is meant to explain specific, testable, and empirical concepts. What it can't explain is what it can't explain, simple as that. Leave that department for religion if you so desire.

well no,

let me guess u want another cookiee rite?

*nods eagerly*

- didn't bother to read the whole thread... but

As far as my understanding goes, the purpose of science is not to "explain everything" but infact the exact opposite. Science is meant to explain specific, testable, and empirical concepts. What it can't explain is what it can't explain, simple as that. Leave that department for religion if you so desire.

Well said!!

*nods eagerly*

*laughs* only if u good..

So how would you explain it if someone rose from the dead 2000 years ago after having been dead for three days with no medical assistance
I would explain it by pointing out that "original conception of the resurrection of Jesus was spiritual in nature and did not involve his flesh."
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/

*laughs* only if u good..

Well there go my chances of getting a cookie. :(

Oh, and in answer to the point you made before I got distracted I still say that humans are quite capable of making completely moronic descisions. Look at the number of Japanese soldiers who killed themselves at the end of WW2 rather than suffer the shame of defeat, or even the original assinini: two assassins once jumped off a tower and died simply to demonstrate their unquestioning obedience to their superiors. There would also be people who insisted that it was an optical illusion/mirage/trick/strangely shaped vegetable.

The universe is because it just is. It just happened that way. And then science can ask if we are really here...

Do u kno what u would be picking?

somethings are worth cosmic anhilation like being able to na na na na na to the almighty

Well there go my chances of getting a cookie. :(

Oh, and in answer to the point you made before I got distracted I still say that humans are quite capable of making completely moronic descisions. Look at the number of Japanese soldiers who killed themselves at the end of WW2 rather than suffer the shame of defeat, or even the original assinini: two assassins once jumped off a tower and died simply to demonstrate their unquestioning obedience to their superiors. There would also be people who insisted that it was an optical illusion/mirage/trick/strangely shaped vegetable.

For making a good arugument

*hands over a cookie*

But listen to me, it is not just death it death for the whole afterlife. U spend the rest of ur life in a place where there is no comfort and happeness, FOREVER. Ur not dumb when u notice this! If something was powerfull enough to kno ur every thought could send u to such a place? Do u really want to tell me, that ur decision is going to be true to u?

While I believe in god, I wouldn't say life would be meaningless if he didn't exist. Although, you're right, evolution doesn't have any more scientific evidence then creationism.

Bollocks. You can't compare evolution to creationism, evolution is a theory on how the species *EVOLVED*, wich we know happened what with all those fossils, we can even proof evolution to be something that takes place (breeding of dog species eg), while creatisionism is a belief, it doesn't fullfill any of the needs to qualify as a scientific theory.

You know how life would have to start with evolution? Spontaneous generation. At some point in time a group of proteins had to assemble from nothing in order to form a DNA molecule.

See http://www.resa.net/nasa/origins_life.htm

I quote:

Abiotic Production of Organic Molecules
The classic experiment demonstrating the mechanisms by which inorganic elements could combine to form the precursors of organic chemicals was the 1950 experiment by Stanley Miller. He undertook experiments designed to find out how lightning--reproduced by repeated electric discharges--might have affected the primitive earth atmosphere. He discharged an electric spark into a mixture thought to resemble the primordial composition of the atmosphere. In a water receptacle, designed to model an ancient ocean, amino acids appeared. Amino acids are widely regarded as the building blocks of life.

Although the primitive atmosphere is no longer believed to be as rich in hydrogen as once thought, the discovery that the Murchison meteorite contains the same amino acids obtained by Miller, and even in the same relative proportions, suggests strongly that his results are relevant.The Beginnings of Life on Earth

Others have made similar experiments. A group at the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at the University of California, San Diego, exposed sulfur-bearing molecules like those thought to have been present before the Earth formed to low levels of light. The presence of the light was enough to generate organic compounds - molecules containing carbon, which form the chemical basis of life as we know it. Meteorite Reveals Life Not Difficult to Make

The new compounds had a distinct isotopic (atomic makeup) signature, not normally found on Earth. In fact, the peculiar part is that these isotopes have only been found one other time, in compounds removed from the Murchison meteorite.

Reading can be fun :p

The probability of that happening even in a closed system is over 10^70. (Which is more then the estimated number of atoms in the universe) As well, that's not entirely impossible, there is the 0.000000000001 (far more 0s then that, but I'm lazy) that it would eventually happen, but it also bears the question, does a DNA molecule constitute life?

You don't need to magicly form a DNA molecule (btw, DNA isn't a molecule), there's alot more to life then DNA, oh, and why don't you mention RNA?

If having all of the right chemicals in a body constituted life, then why can't we create a frankenstein's monster? Why can't I take a freshly killed person, do all of the neccesary repairs to be what would be a fully operational body, and jolt it back to life?

Well, because of cell decay, for starters. We can animate a dead body by the application of electrical currents, but reviving a dead cell is beyond our grasp.

The thing is, as many things as science can explain, the complexity of the human mind and the universe are two things it hasn't even begun to understand. It bears the ideas of metaphysics, the questions of what constitutes life and how they would origionate. Philosophical explanations of the physical, if we could actually find scientific principles to understand what constitutes life, then we could start getting somewhere in an explanation as to where we came from. As of right now, one explanation violates basic physical principles and tries to do it scientifically, and the other violates basic physical principles and tries to do it based on faith.

Euh... err.... what? Translation?

I personally choose to put my faith in the theory that's supposed to be based on faith where it has no scientific evidence rather then put my faith in a theory that's supposed to be based on science and has no scientific evidence.

You really should read some books (or atleast some articles, visit nasa eg) on how primitive life might have originated, it's not because we can't recreate it in a lab that we can't put the pieces together and form a theory based on observed events (see the article i linked above). Believing in "God created us" simply doesn't solve the question anyway, it just takes away the focus of the question, and a truly inquisitive mind would then logicly ask where God came from.

Assuming that God exists, why would he have created us, does he control our lives? Do we have free will in a world with a devine being? After all, wasn't Judas predestined to betray Jesus and thus deprived of free will?

The alternative of life having formed under random chance is on the other hand simple, and reduces our very existance to a mere accident, wich some people can not cope with in the same way i can't come with the very idea of a deity being involved. There are many things in religions that bring more questions to me then that they awnser, and the awnsers it provides conflicts with my own thoughtproccess, my very being conflicts with the idea of a deity.

But listen to me, it is not just death it death for the whole afterlife. U spend the rest of ur life in a place where there is no comfort and happeness, FOREVER. Ur not dumb when u notice this! If something was powerfull enough to kno ur every thought could send u to such a place? Do u really want to tell me, that ur decision is going to be true to u?
Thing is... you're dead. There is no comfort, no happiness --those are things of the flesh.

The only choices we get are those we make before we die.

EDIT: I think what you're suggesting is that God would be such a powerful overwhelming Truth that we could not but choose to be with him? But, as I said before, he also gives us free will to make our own choice.

People who have been dead for three days? With the medical equipment of 2000 years ago?

As you point out, medicine 2000 years ago might not be able to do all the things medicine can do today...

It is not TOO hard to suppose that, even if the crucifixion story IS true, the victim of a crucifixion might - after suffering oxygen starvation through being suffocated by the suspended position - slip into a comatose state that APPEARS dead.

Such a body wouldn't even react to pain... so a spear thrust proves nothing.

So - medicine of 2000 years ago MIGHT call a man dead, when he was not.

And, rising from a coma is not nearly the same as rising from the ACTUAL dead.

For making a good arugument

*hands over a cookie*

But listen to me, it is not just death it death for the whole afterlife. U spend the rest of ur life in a place where there is no comfort and happeness, FOREVER. Ur not dumb when u notice this! If something was powerfull enough to kno ur every thought could send u to such a place? Do u really want to tell me, that ur decision is going to be true to u?

I never said that I wouldn't believe, if God appeared in front of me then it would be childish and foolish to deny his existance. I was just making the point that not only would I be able to choose not to beleive if I wanted to but that there would inevitably be some people who wouldn't for various reasons.

Science + Religion = Church of Scientology/Raelians

Nuff said.

And someone said before it natural for us to better ourself, and rise. well THAT is God working

Then we wouldn't be free to chose to better ourselves but forced into it by some deity and thus not free of will & thought

somethings are worth cosmic anhilation like being able to na na na na na to the almighty

I was planning on the old hand buzzer gag myself but each to there own.:p

oh btw i am christian

For making a good arugument

*hands over a cookie*

But listen to me, it is not just death it death for the whole afterlife. U spend the rest of ur life in a place where there is no comfort and happeness, FOREVER. Ur not dumb when u notice this! If something was powerfull enough to kno ur every thought could send u to such a place? Do u really want to tell me, that ur decision is going to be true to u?Uhm, dyslexia is fine, but would you mind dropping the IM-speak? I'd be very grateful.

Anyway, what makes you think there is an afterlife? And what makes you think there is a God for that matter? And.. What makes you think we'd all worthship the guy if he made himself known?

Personally I'd have to assume that the bible was correct, and under those circumstances, my first cause of action would be to try to kick God's ass. That would be worth going to Hell for in my opinion.

And do you really want an afterlife? Eternal undeath sounds very, very scary to me. Just look at some of the senior citizens around you. Surely many of them feel that they've lived as long as they should. I know many of them here feel that way. Try adding an aeon on that & imagine how you'd feel. I'd say odds are you'd be utterly bunkers after 200 years or so.

No it involves the same number of presumptions, just negatively based. Due to their nature (IE being outside the universe) that actually is important

I agree with your main contention.... that there are some things science can never answer... the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle makes this manifest...

However, this particular post is in error.

If we assume a world where ONLY the observable happens, that is a LOGICAL assumption, from the objective evidence presented every day.

Thus, to assume 'no god' is to assume nothing 'extra'.

Assuming there IS a 'god', requires that the component 'god' be added to the observable mundane world. Thus, assuming their IS a 'god', requires MORE assumptions tham assuming 'no god'.

But, NEITHER is very scientific - the ONLY 'scientific' approach is to neither accept NOR dismiss the concept of 'god', until compelling evidence is presented, one way OR the other.

*waves*

*points to self and legion of bloody-minded atheists*

*wanders off in search of more cookies*

*Hides his cookiejar*

I never said that I wouldn't believe, if God appeared in front of me then it would be childish and foolish to deny his existance. I was just making the point that not only would I be able to choose not to beleive if I wanted to but that there would inevitably be some people who wouldn't for various reasons.

I am trying to say that if God was infront of u, nothing would be ur choice. Like if tomorrow if an new flash comes out, with unquestiable proof that god exists and if u dont accept him, it could mean the end? Would a lot of ppl not be changed by this?

This mean it was not free will and faith which caused this change

I-M speak?

*Hides his cookiejar*

*watches with amusement as Kefren carefully hides now empty cookie jar*

As you point out, medicine 2000 years ago might not be able to do all the things medicine can do today...

It is not TOO hard to suppose that, even if the crucifixion story IS true, the victim of a crucifixion might - after suffering oxygen starvation through being suffocated by the suspended position - slip into a comatose state that APPEARS dead.

Such a body wouldn't even react to pain... so a spear thrust proves nothing.

So - medicine of 2000 years ago MIGHT call a man dead, when he was not.

And, rising from a coma is not nearly the same as rising from the ACTUAL dead.

A spear thrust to a percied side where blood and water are produced as seperate liquids is medically dead. This doesnt happen to someone who is alive.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/jesusdidntdie.html

If he gave it, it should not be lost even if he does show himself. Humans are not constant, but God is. God gives free will, not us. Can what is given by God change?

I think free will is given by God not making decisions for us. It has nothing to do with his presence.

If god gave us free will, then why did Judas betray Jesus as he was supposebly predestined to do?

I-M speak?
IM speak is using characters instead of words.
y = why
u = you
ur = you are
etc.

I-M speak?

Instant Messenger. tuff like u=you, ur=your etc.

I-M speak?

Instant Messenger. Stuff like u=you, ur=your etc.

If god gave us free will, then why did Judas betray Jesus as he was supposebly predestined to do?

He had already made the choice. It just had to happen. To explain from Stephen Hawkings perspective "are we predistined, yes. But since we cant see the future it doesnt matter"

Uhm, dyslexia is fine, but would you mind dropping the IM-speak? I'd be very grateful.

Anyway, what makes you think there is an afterlife? And what makes you think there is a God for that matter? And.. What makes you think we'd all worthship the guy if he made himself known?

Personally I'd have to assume that the bible was correct, and under those circumstances, my first cause of action would be to try to kick God's ass. That would be worth going to Hell for in my opinion.

And do you really want an afterlife? Eternal undeath sounds very, very scary to me. Just look at some of the senior citizens around you. Surely many of them feel that they've lived as long as they should. I know many of them here feel that way. Try adding an aeon on that & imagine how you'd feel. I'd say odds are you'd be utterly bunkers after 200 years or so.

We the bible say u would not all turn to him even if he made himself know but he still can effect freewill, i have spent 5 posts trying to explan this. I really dont want an afterlife, but i have no choice in the matter do i? With or without god.

Plus think to yourself, are you sure you knon how bad hell is?

Ok now replace that gun with the most powerfull image u can think of and times that by 100, what to die now?

If i die i die, it won't make a big difference for the world, and i won't be arround to complain about my own death anyways. The very essense of what makes me, my mind, would cease to exist. As for your point, your point is we should fear god? Even if he did exist i see no reason why i should fear him, nor respect him, judging from the fcked up creatures we are

Maybe he had a stunt double? :D

ZOMG! They were twins! *looks shocked*

If god gave us free will, then why did Judas betray Jesus as he was supposebly predestined to do?
Predestined or prophecised? I suspect the latter, in the context of the prophecy adapted to include the names of the participants for the current round.

Judas acted with free will --it was he who made the choice.

We the bible say u would not all turn to him even if he made himself know but he still can effect freewill, i have spent 5 posts trying to explan this. I really dont want an afterlife, but i have no choice in the matter do i? With or without god.

Plus think to urself, are u sure u kno how bad hell is?

I know how bad Hell is supposed to be but as I don't believe in it I'm not worried. Thanks for the concern though.:)


Well, I'm off now. Goodnight all if I don't see you all later.

If i die i die, it won't make a big difference for the world, and i won't be arround to complain about my own death anyways. The very essense of what makes me, my mind, would cease to exist. As for your point, your point is we should fear god? Even if he did exist i see no reason why i should fear him, nor respect him, judging from the fcked up creatures we are

I sorry but we made us messed up, not god. And i am not going to go into why he shouldbe feared if u haven pick it up from what i have been saying theres no point in me wasting my time.

And i would like to say sorry if my posts are hard to read

For making a good arugument

*hands over a cookie*

But listen to me, it is not just death it death for the whole afterlife. U spend the rest of ur life in a place where there is no comfort and happeness, FOREVER. Ur not dumb when u notice this! If something was powerfull enough to kno ur every thought could send u to such a place? Do u really want to tell me, that ur decision is going to be true to u?

Such a being would be rather sadistic & sick in the skull (or tentacles). And yes, i'm a stubborn ahole, to quote a movie "It's better to rule in Hell, then to serve in Heaven"

if you were in heaven you would be happy, there are no tears there. Basicly you would want to be there and it would not be labourous to you

Such a being would be rather sadistic & sick in the skull (or tentacles). And yes, i'm a stubborn ahole, to quote a movie "It's better to rule in Hell, then to serve in Heaven"

That's John Milton. "Better to reign in hell than serve in heav'n."

A spear thrust to a percied side where blood and water are produced as seperate liquids is medically dead. This doesnt happen to someone who is alive.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/jesusdidntdie.html

You might want to look into 'pulmonary edema', my friend.

It involves a fluid build-up in the lungs, and MOST of the symptoms (shortness of breath, a suffocation feeling, wheezing, coughing, restlessness) would be undetectable in a man being crucified.

A spear thrust that punctured even the tip of the lung, could thus liberate blood from tissue, and 'water' from the lung.

That's John Milton. "Better to reign in hell than serve in heav'n."

and just to say i was once like that

I sorry but we made us messed up, not god. And i am not going to go into why he shouldbe feared if u haven pick it up from what i have been saying theres no point in me wasting my time.

And i would like to say sorry if my posts are hard to readI don't see how proof of God would interfere with free will. Not only is the guy supposed to be omnipotent (so he should be able to decide whether we have free will, regardless of circumstances), but people like myself, for example, would most likely remain entirely unimpressed by a God. I refuse to let divine thingies dictate my behaviour, because the mere thought of it is anathema to my personal freedom - as you also seem to believe. So I see no reason to let myself be affected by a divine being, outside the very real possibility that I'd go to war against it.

And now for something completely different: I didn't mean for you to apologise for spelling & such. I'm not very eloquent myself. I only asked if you'd mind not using annoying IM shorthand, like U, r, ur and so on. And it wasn't an order or anything like that, just a request. It makes your posts harder to read, as I'm not used to IM speak.

Edit: By the way, what do you mean by "We messed us up"?

If god gave us free will, then why did Judas betray Jesus as he was supposebly predestined to do?

Because Judas is the real hero of the Bible.

I mean - what was Jesus' sacrifice? He offered his life for the cause, KNOWING that he would be resurrected, and KNOWING that he would be the 'King of Heaven' for all eternity.

Judas, on the other hand, had to 'betray' his best friend... because his best friend had TOLD him that was how it would happen. Judas had to see the man he loved... the man he KNEW was Christ, die....

And, for his part in this. he is denied access to Jesus for eternity, denied access to 'heaven' for eternity, and condemned to damnation for eternity.

Who 'sacrificed' more?

The world was perfect in the garden of eve. then our sin destroyed it. Suffering, greed and injustice all are all fault

Umm actually I kind of agree with you Neo Danube, although I'm sure that far more people on this thread will not. As someone who believes in God (already I can sense rolled eyes and presumptions at my stupidity) I don't go around badmouthing science. In fact I have a lot to thank it for. But if ever I mention that I believe in God I get several people knocking me down as an idiot. When someone says that they don't believe in God I don't knock them down: they are entitled to their opinion. I've discovered this from my personal experience and not everybody's experiences are the same so don't try any clever retorts about how just because I think it doesn't mean it's true. That's what I think the person who said that science 'was on a witch hunt against religion' was on about: how it's okay to flaw religion but not science.

The world was perfect in the garden of eve. then our sin destroyed it. Suffering, greed and injustice all are all faultIf God is omnipotent, then surely he could have simply erased A&E's memories & insights granted by the apple. And surely he could have disabled the walking snake's ability to speak.

And if he's omniscient, surely he knew exactly what would happen long before he created our muddy ancestors.

I sorry but we made us messed up, not god. And i am not going to go into why he shouldbe feared if u haven pick it up from what i have been saying theres no point in me wasting my time.

And i would like to say sorry if my posts are hard to read

Actually, the whole Eden thing, was a 'Kobyashi Maru'... the result was 'fixed' in advance. Eve never had any choice but to eat 'the fruit'.

Go back and read the first few chapters of Genesis carefully, and think about WHAT they 'knew' at the time... what information they had been allowed... and you'll see why man's 'fallen' state, is part of a divine plan.

The world was perfect in the garden of eve. then our sin destroyed it. Suffering, greed and injustice all are all fault
If we were in the garden, why were we not perfect too?

If God is omnipotent, then surely he could have simply erased A&E's memories & insights granted by the apple. And surely he could have disabled the walking snake's ability to speak.


Yes in theory God could have erased their memories. He can do anything. But what would be the point in these 'experiments' with Adam and Eve? They'd probably just go on an on in a loop. He gave them a simple instruction not to eat the fruit of that particular tree. God can at any stage get rid of satan. And he plans to as is written in Revelation. He's just giving us and satan time. How long? Only he knows. If we know then that would defeat the purpose. Can you imagine what would happen if the world believed life would end on a certain date? Any order would go out the window!

If God is omnipotent, then surely he could have simply erased A&E's memories & insights granted by the apple. And surely he could have disabled the walking snake's ability to speak.

And if he's omniscient, surely he knew exactly what would happen long before he created our muddy ancestors.

Because it's a story. The bible didn't arrive by fax from heaven(wish I could remember who said that), so anyone who assumes that everything in it is the exact literal word of god is something of an idiot.

Actually, the whole Eden thing, was a 'Kobyashi Maru'... the result was 'fixed' in advance. Eve never had any choice but to eat 'the fruit'.

Go back and read the first few chapters of Genesis carefully, and think about WHAT they 'knew' at the time... what information they had been allowed... and you'll see why man's 'fallen' state, is part of a divine plan.

what are you trying to say? because God knew what was going he didt give eve the choice?

And we are not in the garden of eden.. so i dont know what your point is about us not being perfect

And yes it is a story. It is written in fairly simple language. Why because not everybody is a literary genius!

Because it's a story. The bible didn't arrive by fax from heaven(wish I could remember who said that), so anyone who assumes that everything in it is the exact literal word of god is something of an idiot.

I think anyone is an idiot not to listen to something which is offering in life and judge it from that

And we are not in the garden of eden.. so i dont know what your point is about us not being perfect
But we supposedly were, when the eating-the-fruit thing happened. If we were perfect, how could we mess it up? And if we were not perfect, how can we be blamed for evils when we were made that way?

But we supposedly were, when the eating-the-fruit thing happened. If we were perfect, how could we mess it up? And if we were not perfect, how can we be blamed for evils when we were made that way?

Good... someone got it.

I wondered if I was being (more than usually) obtuse... :)

But we supposedly were, when the eating-the-fruit thing happened. If we were perfect, how could we mess it up? And if we were not perfect, how can we be blamed for evils when we were made that way?

God give the choice for sin, and it was taken. He did not create sin

Yes in theory God could have erased their memories. He can do anything. But what would be the point in these 'experiments' with Adam and Eve? They'd probably just go on an on in a loop. He gave them a simple instruction not to eat the fruit of that particular tree. God can at any stage get rid of satan. And he plans to as is written in Revelation. He's just giving us and satan time. How long? Only he knows. If we know then that would defeat the purpose. Can you imagine what would happen if the world believed life would end on a certain date? Any order would go out the window!Because God didn't give A&E any frame of reference. They didn't know that a walking, talking snake weren't just as important to obey as God. In other words, he knew what would happen, he could have prevented it, he could have corrected it afterwards and so on & so forth. The only logical conclusion is that god is a ****.Because it's a story. The bible didn't arrive by fax from heaven(wish I could remember who said that), so anyone who assumes that everything in it is the exact literal word of god is something of an idiot.I wish someone would make the Christian litteralists realize that :(

I sorry but we made us messed up, not god. And i am not going to go into why he shouldbe feared if u haven pick it up from what i have been saying theres no point in me wasting my time.

And i would like to say sorry if my posts are hard to read

Yea, but the bible says that we're made in his image, so that means he's a whoring beer guzzling hamburger eating womenising ahole? (Hmm... well, that's what i am :p j/k) You mentioned you were Christian, how do you explain the existance of older cultures & believe systems? Are all those people who lived prior to Jesus's time (and thus, prior to the concept of Christian faith) condemned to eternal damnation?

Does it not bother you that your faith is one of many, that you are using a texts written several generations later by people who might have had their own agenda's, a text that since been translated, transcribed & god know what alternations there have been made to the text along the way?

Do you think you should live in fear of fcking up your afterlife? Why should there be an afterlife?

Is the premise of the afterlife not just a means to keep the poor/less educated/ oppressed people calm & docile? (I'm talking about the past here, not saying you're any of those things)

Is it not more logical to believe that all religion has been created by mankind to influence/control the lives of others?

God give the choice for sin, and it was taken. He did not create sin

I thought he created everything?

That's John Milton. "Better to reign in hell than serve in heav'n."

I remember it from Highlander :p

God give the choice for sin, and it was taken. He did not create sinIf God created everything, including humanity. And if God gave us the ability to decide our own actions.. Then it stands to reason that he also determined what sort of consequences our actions could possibly have. Ergo, God must have created Sin. Otherwise how would it be possible to Sin?

and just to say i was once like that

What made you change? (Seriously, i want to know)

what are you trying to say? because God knew what was going he didt give eve the choice?

And we are not in the garden of eden.. so i dont know what your point is about us not being perfect

No - I'm saying Adam and Eve were taught to obey, then presented with a dissenting voice.

They had not been warned there could even BE a dissenting voice. They had not been exposed to the concept of 'lying'... so they HAD to believe everything they were told.

Also - when 'god' warns against eating the fruit, if you look at the text, EVE hasn't even been 'made' yet.

Lastly, maybe Eve should have known that disobeying 'god' was evil? But, how COULD she know that, BEFORE she ate the fruit of the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil"? She couldn't....

Thus, there was never any way to PASS that 'test'.

Because God didn't give A&E any frame of reference. They didn't know that a walking, talking snake weren't just as important to obey as God. In other words, he knew what would happen, he could have prevented it, he could have corrected it afterwards and so on & so forth. The only logical conclusion is that god is a ****.

How do you know that they didn't know? It's not mentioned but it doesn't mean that they didn't. They didn't do an Adam and Eve reality tv show. And yes if they were meant to be made in God's image then they would've known that God did not look like a snake. The fact is that there were many animals in the garden but none of them looked like God.

Because Judas is the real hero of the Bible.

I mean - what was Jesus' sacrifice? He offered his life for the cause, KNOWING that he would be resurrected, and KNOWING that he would be the 'King of Heaven' for all eternity.

Judas, on the other hand, had to 'betray' his best friend... because his best friend had TOLD him that was how it would happen. Judas had to see the man he loved... the man he KNEW was Christ, die....

And, for his part in this. he is denied access to Jesus for eternity, denied access to 'heaven' for eternity, and condemned to damnation for eternity.

Who 'sacrificed' more?

That's what i was hinting at ;)

...In other words, he knew what would happen, he could have prevented it, he could have corrected it afterwards and so on & so forth. The only logical conclusion is that god is a ****.

You owe me a new keyboard.

This one has eggnog in it....

God give the choice for sin, and it was taken. He did not create sin
Then we are not to blame for exercising choice.

If God is omnipotent, then surely he could have simply erased A&E's memories & insights granted by the apple. And surely he could have disabled the walking snake's ability to speak.

And if he's omniscient, surely he knew exactly what would happen long before he created our muddy ancestors.

*me points* Look! It's logic! :p

That's what i was hinting at ;)

Just reinforcing the point, my friend. :)

Yes in theory God could have erased their memories. He can do anything. But what would be the point in these 'experiments' with Adam and Eve? They'd probably just go on an on in a loop. He gave them a simple instruction not to eat the fruit of that particular tree. God can at any stage get rid of satan. And he plans to as is written in Revelation. He's just giving us and satan time. How long? Only he knows. If we know then that would defeat the purpose. Can you imagine what would happen if the world believed life would end on a certain date? Any order would go out the window!

My bets are 2032, that's when all the current unix machine's clock'll go bonkers :p
As for the existance of Satan & God, assuming that God reprisents goodness, and Satan evilness, then God can *NOT* destroy satan, because they're both the oposites of eachother, yin-yang and all that jazz, you know.... If eighter one ceases to exist they both would disapear.

The god concept is ilogical

You owe me a new keyboard.

This one has eggnog in it....Hehe, Fiddles did the same to me. I guess it's one of those things that goes around :p

Yea, but the bible says that we're made in his image, so that means he's a whoring beer guzzling hamburger eating womenising ahole? (Hmm... well, that's what i am :p j/k) You mentioned you were Christian, how do you explain the existance of older cultures & believe systems? Are all those people who lived prior to Jesus's time (and thus, prior to the concept of Christian faith) condemned to eternal damnation?

Does it not bother you that your faith is one of many, that you are using a texts written several generations later by people who might have had their own agenda's, a text that since been translated, transcribed & god know what alternations there have been made to the text along the way?

Do you think you should live in fear of fcking up your afterlife? Why should there be an afterlife?

Is the premise of the afterlife not just a means to keep the poor/less educated/ oppressed people calm & docile? (I'm talking about the past here, not saying you're any of those things)

Is it not more logical to believe that all religion has been created by mankind to influence/control the lives of others?

OK *takes deep breath*

I agree God might be seen to be harsh with this idea of hell. But listen, there is no one fairer. God sent jesus to save us not to say *sorry mate you did not know my son, bye bye". Therfore before his son was born, he would have judged you on how you lived. I am VERY dishearten by other regions suffering for not coming to christ. But everyone will get the change. The bible clearly says "i am the light, the truth and no one come to the father exept though me"

And i am not scaried of the afterlife. Because my sins have been forgive by the only one who can forgive them. So i have no fear in what comes next because i know who hold the answer.

I think anyone is an idiot not to listen to something which is offering in life and judge it from that

What do you mean?

Because Judas is the real hero of the Bible.

I mean - what was Jesus' sacrifice? He offered his life for the cause, KNOWING that he would be resurrected, and KNOWING that he would be the 'King of Heaven' for all eternity.

Judas, on the other hand, had to 'betray' his best friend... because his best friend had TOLD him that was how it would happen. Judas had to see the man he loved... the man he KNEW was Christ, die....

And, for his part in this. he is denied access to Jesus for eternity, denied access to 'heaven' for eternity, and condemned to damnation for eternity.

Who 'sacrificed' more?

Judas? The real hero? Correct me if I'm wrong but where does it say that Jesus knew that he would be king of all heaven etc? As far as I can see all he knew was that he had to be crucified for the sins of the world. And yes even if he did know then he didn't do it so that he could reap the rewards in heaven. He was without sin and so to do it for a selfish, greedy motive like that would be sinning. The fact is that he did it for others, for people who hated him.

And Judas is not 'have to' betray him. He had already organised and negotiated prior to Jesus making aware that he knew what he would do. And Judas did not realise what he did until after Jesus' death and he couldn't live with it so he used his bribe money to buy a field to hang himself in.

God give the choice for sin, and it was taken. He did not create sin

By creating the choice he did create sin

That's what i was hinting at ;)
Just to say, please read the bible about Gods son dying. He prayed for it not to happen and on the cross he thought that god have left him. In otherwords, he didt take upon it lightly and it wasnt easy

What do you mean?

Please i cant explan this but roughly, it will cost you to igore this, but nothing to be explaned.

Try reading a bible even if you dont belive it.You have nothing to loose but could gain true life

My bets are 2032, that's when all the current unix machine's clock'll go bonkers :p
As for the existance of Satan & God, assuming that God reprisents goodness, and Satan evilness, then God can *NOT* destroy satan, because they're both the oposites of eachother, yin-yang and all that jazz, you know.... If eighter one ceases to exist they both would disapear.

The god concept is ilogical

Your whole 'ying-yang' argument and how neither can exist without the other is completely not biblically related. There is no mention of good being dependent on evil is like a number of movie plots.

Please i cant explan this but roughly, it will cost you to igore this, but nothing to be explaned.

Try reading a bible even if you dont belive it.You have nothing to loose but could gain true lifeI think you'll find that pretty much all of have read it, and some have probably read it more times than you ;)

What made you change? (Seriously, i want to know)

To answer this is very hard. My heart changed, because i needed it too.

At one point in my life i would have gunned down anyone who belive in God. I built up barriers around my self. then something happen that uprooted by life. Theses barriers came down. i was not longer blind to god and understood what i had to do

Your whole 'ying-yang' argument and how neither can exist without the other is completely not biblically related. There is no mention of good being dependent on evil is like a number of movie plots.Yups. It's not biblical at all.. But neither is God & Satan in general. I mean, one is thoroughly evil & the other is omnipresent benevolence... How does THAT work exactly?

I think you'll find that pretty much all of have read it, and some have probably read it more times than you ;)
I dont doubt it, were you open to it when you are reading it?

OK *takes deep breath*

I agree God might be seen to be harsh with this idea of hell. But listen, there is no one fairer. God sent jesus to save us not to say *sorry mate you did not know my son, bye bye". Therfore before his son was born, he would have judged you on how you lived. I am VERY dishearten by other regions suffering for not coming to christ. But everyone will get the change. The bible clearly says "i am the light, the truth and no one come to the father exept though me"

And i am not scaried of the afterlife. Because my sins have been forgive by the only one who can forgive them. So i have no fear in what comes next because i know who hold the answer.

Did you, or did you not, entertain the idea, or think about the possibility, that religion is a manmade belief made to influence, control and otherwise oppress other people, and that the origins of religion might be in the lack of a sound legal system in ancient civilisations?

Think about it, people who sin (what are the 7 deadly sins again?) will be punished and sent to hell, while people who don't will go to heaven, the very basis of this is a scare tactic to keep people in check.

How do you explain other religions such as islam, hindo, shinto and who knows what? Are they wrong? Will they all go to hell? Some of those religions are older then yours, why would yours be correct? If Jesus truly was the son of god, then why are there other religions in the first place?

Yups. It's not biblical at all.. But neither is God & Satan in general. I mean, one is thoroughly evil & the other is omnipresent benevolence... How does THAT work exactly?

well i dont know most of them words so pass

By creating the choice he did create sin

Not really. Sin is the action of rebellion against God. I suppose its arguable that a state defines the concept of rebellion aganist its priciples by the nature of the state, but it doesnt actually create the rebellion.

Yups. It's not biblical at all.. But neither is God & Satan in general. I mean, one is thoroughly evil & the other is omnipresent benevolence... How does THAT work exactly?

Sigh... Your still thinking within the box. Nobody can imagine pure love or a person who never does wrong because we've never seen one. Nor can we really get how bad Satan is. Take any evil dictator and they don't even come near the mark. Many aspects of the Bible are impossible for our minds to imagine, for example eternity as everything in this world comes to an end. But if there are smarter people, and indeed smarter species, then surely there is someone who 'gets' it, who is infinitely smarter than everyone else. Imagine how impossible some concepts must be for say a dog? We can't get some things, we just have to accept that somebody else does.

How do you explain other religions such as islam, hindo, shinto and who knows what? Are they wrong? Will they all go to hell? Some of those religions are older then yours, why would yours be correct? If Jesus truly was the son of god, then why are there other religions in the first place?

While it is true that Christianity has only existed since Christ (hence the name) if you look at the Bible you will see that people beleived in and acted on their belief in God long before Jesus. Other religions exist as mans idea to get to God. Christianity is God's idea to get to man.

Just to say, please read the bible about Gods son dying. He prayed for it not to happen and on the cross he thought that god have left him. In otherwords, he didt take upon it lightly and it wasnt easy

Sorry if i don't believe everything that's written in a book several generations after the facts.

Did you, or did you not, entertain the idea, or think about the possibility, that religion is a manmade belief made to influence, control and otherwise oppress other people, and that the origins of religion might be in the lack of a sound legal system in ancient civilisations?

Think about it, people who sin (what are the 7 deadly sins again?) will be punished and sent to hell, while people who don't will go to heaven, the very basis of this is a scare tactic to keep people in check.

How do you explain other religions such as islam, hindo, shinto and who knows what? Are they wrong? Will they all go to hell? Some of those religions are older then yours, why would yours be correct? If Jesus truly was the son of god, then why are there other religions in the first place?

What was my first thoughts, its too perfect. But then if nothing else i trusted in my self, these feeling i was having were telling me something was right. I started from them, which was how i knew i was heading in the right way.

And in the end if this is all a stunt, which it is not, what do i lose by leading a healty life? which is the reasion i think theres are from a god. Because there are good and stop some of the hurting

Sorry if i don't believe everything that's written in a book several generations after the facts.

I dont see why? Most histoical books are written 100's of years after the event does that make them less true? NO. whereas the gospial was written 60 year after it happen

Please i cant explan this but roughly, it will cost you to igore this, but nothing to be explaned.

Try reading a bible even if you dont belive it.You have nothing to loose but could gain true life

I take offence at that last line, who are you to judge wether or not my life is "true"?
I am at peace with my own mortality, i'm am aware i will die, and i even welcome death. I believe that when i die, people should celebrate my life, by having a party (while i go into the incinerator, on the tune of AC/DC highway to Hell), remembering the good times we had, i don't want people to mourn me, i don't want no religious items on my grave, i don't want a grave.

I'm at peace with my mortality, i'm at peace with the world, and i'm sound if mind, i enjoy every day of my life to the fullest that sociaty allows me to.

I have no boundraries to my freedom other then my own morals, i am not bound to any religious notion of an afterlife, basicly, my mind is free, free of fear, free of worries and free to explore all the questions one's mind can come up with.

Can you say the same?

Your whole 'ying-yang' argument and how neither can exist without the other is completely not biblically related. There is no mention of good being dependent on evil is like a number of movie plots.

How can one know what good is, if he doesn't know what's evil?

I take offence at that last line, who are you to judge wether or not my life is "true"?
I am at peace with my own mortality, i'm am aware i will die, and i even welcome death. I believe that when i die, people should celebrate my life, by having a party (while i go into the incinerator, on the tune of AC/DC highway to Hell), remembering the good times we had, i don't want people to mourn me, i don't want no religious items on my grave, i don't want a grave.

I'm at peace with my mortality, i'm at peace with the world, and i'm sound if mind, i enjoy every day of my life to the fullest that sociaty allows me to.

I have no boundraries to my freedom other then my own morals, i am not bound to any religious notion of an afterlife, basicly, my mind is free, free of fear, free of worries and free to explore all the questions one's mind can come up with.

Can you say the same?

I am sorry you took ofence it was not meant, i was refering to a church sence of truth. I can say i am free in everyway and much more

To answer this is very hard. My heart changed, because i needed it too.

At one point in my life i would have gunned down anyone who belive in God. I built up barriers around my self. then something happen that uprooted by life. Theses barriers came down. i was not longer blind to god and understood what i had to do

The problem for me is that i can't accept the concept of a god, it's too ilogical (maybe i watched to much Star Trek as a kid & i turned into a vulcan :p )

I dont doubt it, were you open to it when you are reading it?

Yea, i was in the Johns :p

Did you, or did you not, entertain the idea, or think about the possibility, that religion is a manmade belief made to influence, control and otherwise oppress other people, and that the origins of religion might be in the lack of a sound legal system in ancient civilisations?

Think about it, people who sin (what are the 7 deadly sins again?) will be punished and sent to hell, while people who don't will go to heaven, the very basis of this is a scare tactic to keep people in check.

How do you explain other religions such as islam, hindo, shinto and who knows what? Are they wrong? Will they all go to hell? Some of those religions are older then yours, why would yours be correct? If Jesus truly was the son of god, then why are there other religions in the first place?

If it is a manmade book then it was comprised by incredibly intelligent people over, I presume many generations. Writing was rare way back when. You couldn't just pick up a pen or computer any time you wished! So, no I don't think it is a control method. The Bible is far more complex than any of those religious books. Heck, as far as I know it's the only one that actually explains any sort of creation. And Islam is not older... it has Abraham in it therefore it had to have been created after the Bible. (Yes I am aware that it can be argued the other way). Seven deadly sins? As far as I'm aware there's no mention, at least no stressed emphasis on them in the bible. What do you mean if he was the son of God then why are there other religions in the first place? That question makes no sense to me.

The problem for me is that i can't accept the concept of a god, it's too ilogical (maybe i watched to much Star Trek as a kid & i turned into a vulcan :p )

Trust me i understand there your coming from, i have been there and i still have a problems with some texts. Tell me what do you most find ilogical?

Sigh... Your still thinking within the box. Nobody can imagine pure love or a person who never does wrong because we've never seen one. Nor can we really get how bad Satan is. Take any evil dictator and they don't even come near the mark. Many aspects of the Bible are impossible for our minds to imagine, for example eternity as everything in this world comes to an end. But if there are smarter people, and indeed smarter species, then surely there is someone who 'gets' it, who is infinitely smarter than everyone else. Imagine how impossible some concepts must be for say a dog? We can't get some things, we just have to accept that somebody else does.
I'm not sure I understood that, but I suspect you're just being dodgy.

And if there's some sort of box within which I concieve my ideas & form my opinions, and God exists, then who is responsible for that box?

In any case, what I said was almost math. If you have X space, and it's full of solid gold, then where in that space would you fit any amount of rancid meat?

It's perfectly similar to God (benevolence) being omnipresent, yet leaving room for Satan (malevolence). Either one isn't there, the proporties of these entities are wrong, or none of them exist (cancel eachother out).

Sigh... Your still thinking within the box. Nobody can imagine pure love or a person who never does wrong because we've never seen one. Nor can we really get how bad Satan is. Take any evil dictator and they don't even come near the mark. Many aspects of the Bible are impossible for our minds to imagine, for example eternity as everything in this world comes to an end. But if there are smarter people, and indeed smarter species, then surely there is someone who 'gets' it, who is infinitely smarter than everyone else. Imagine how impossible some concepts must be for say a dog? We can't get some things, we just have to accept that somebody else does.

I disagree, the basis of moral comes from our own self, morals, the concept of good & evil, these are creations of our own self, just take a look at history to see how some things might seem good at one time and evil in another time (remember the Spanish Inquisition? They believed they were doing the work of god, and thus good deeds). The concept of eternal life isn't hard to imagine, that's why i refuse to believe in it, because eternal existance is *hell*. The suggestion that we should accept some theory because we can't understand it is also a fallacy, because there are other, more logical, and thus more understandable theories out there, and if you remember Occam's razor, then you would remember that the most simple explication/solution is often the correct one.

Inventing a diety to explain ones existance & fear of his own mortality doesn't take away ones mortality nor the questions, it merely hides them.

I take offence at that last line, who are you to judge wether or not my life is "true"?
I am at peace with my own mortality, i'm am aware i will die, and i even welcome death. I believe that when i die, people should celebrate my life, by having a party (while i go into the incinerator, on the tune of AC/DC highway to Hell), remembering the good times we had, i don't want people to mourn me, i don't want no religious items on my grave, i don't want a grave.

I'm at peace with my mortality, i'm at peace with the world, and i'm sound if mind, i enjoy every day of my life to the fullest that sociaty allows me to.

I have no boundraries to my freedom other then my own morals, i am not bound to any religious notion of an afterlife, basicly, my mind is free, free of fear, free of worries and free to explore all the questions one's mind can come up with.

Can you say the same?


I say enjoy it while it lasts.

You think religion has something to do with the way you're buried? Honestly I couldn't care because my physical body won't matter any more. And you won't care either because if, according to my religion, you don't repent then you'll be in Hell and that is the worst place imaginable. And guess what? You'll be there for eternity. No hope. I know it sounds bleak and pessimistic but it's the truth. I don't mind sacrificing this short period on earth for an eternity in heaven. Here and now will no longer matter then. You probably think that when you die you'll just cease any consciousness, like in a dreamless sleep. If only.

While it is true that Christianity has only existed since Christ (hence the name) if you look at the Bible you will see that people beleived in and acted on their belief in God long before Jesus. Other religions exist as mans idea to get to God. Christianity is God's idea to get to man.

Sorry, but that's ilogical, why wait several million years in our existance to send his son? Who is to say Ra never revealed himself, or Osiris, to the ancient Egyptians?
If Christianity was the one true faith, is it not logical to assume it would also be one of the oldest, if not the oldest? If god really wanted to make his word known to man, why wait so long?

I dont see why? Most histoical books are written 100's of years after the event does that make them less true? NO. whereas the gospial was written 60 year after it happen

The difference is most historical books have factual proof.
For instance, we can proof the volcano in Pompei errupted, yet we can't proof Jesus, as depicted/described in the bible existed, even though the romans were notorious for their writings (as were the greek, the egyptians....)

I know of no text from during Jesus's life that tells of his existance, keep in mind that 60 years in that time was likely to be atleast 2 generations past

I disagree, the basis of moral comes from our own self, morals, the concept of good & evil, these are creations of our own self, just take a look at history to see how some things might seem good at one time and evil in another time (remember the Spanish Inquisition? They believed they were doing the work of god, and thus good deeds). The concept of eternal life isn't hard to imagine, that's why i refuse to believe in it, because eternal existance is *hell*. The suggestion that we should accept some theory because we can't understand it is also a fallacy, because there are other, more logical, and thus more understandable theories out there, and if you remember Occam's razor, then you would remember that the most simple explication/solution is often the correct one.

Inventing a diety to explain ones existance & fear of his own mortality doesn't take away ones mortality nor the questions, it merely hides them.

I don't think that the Spanish inquisition was right. Many people and generations have abused the Bible for their own aims. Imagine an eternal life in a place where there is no disease, no suffering, a place that you are guaranteed to like that you won't get sick of? What's there not to like?

I disagree, the basis of moral comes from our own self, morals, the concept of good & evil, these are creations of our own self, just take a look at history to see how some things might seem good at one time and evil in another time (remember the Spanish Inquisition? They believed they were doing the work of god, and thus good deeds). The concept of eternal life isn't hard to imagine, that's why i refuse to believe in it, because eternal existance is *hell*. The suggestion that we should accept some theory because we can't understand it is also a fallacy, because there are other, more logical, and thus more understandable theories out there, and if you remember Occam's razor, then you would remember that the most simple explication/solution is often the correct one.

Inventing a diety to explain ones existance & fear of his own mortality doesn't take away ones mortality nor the questions, it merely hides them.

OK so if i say that killing was good, doest make it any less evil does it? they has to be some greater ideal of right and wrong and this given to us by god

Sorry, but that's ilogical, why wait several million years in our existance to send his son? Who is to say Ra never revealed himself, or Osiris, to the ancient Egyptians?
If Christianity was the one true faith, is it not logical to assume it would also be one of the oldest, if not the oldest? If god really wanted to make his word known to man, why wait so long?

He did reveal his will to us. Look at the old Testement.

The difference is most historical books have factual proof.
For instance, we can proof the volcano in Pompei errupted, yet we can't proof Jesus, as depicted/described in the bible existed, even though the romans were notorious for their writings (as were the greek, the egyptians....)

I know of no text from during Jesus's life that tells of his existance, keep in mind that 60 years in that time was likely to be atleast 2 generations past

So because there is no proof it cant be true right?

Well just to add that there is proof to back some of the bible clams. like texts written by roman solders, and digging in areas as also bought up some proof. the problem is none of this proof makes it any more logical so people dont belive

The difference is most historical books have factual proof.
For instance, we can proof the volcano in Pompei errupted, yet we can't proof Jesus, as depicted/described in the bible existed, even though the romans were notorious for their writings (as were the greek, the egyptians....)

I know of no text from during Jesus's life that tells of his existance, keep in mind that 60 years in that time was likely to be atleast 2 generations past

I don't know any text from his time either: that's not to say that there wasn't. How many people have historical records from 2000 years ago? The fact that the bible has lasted so long is a credit to it. Can you prove that any man existed 2000 years ago unless they were a king or general etc.? Or even 1000 years ago? And there are aspects of the Bible that can be proven true. Just not all of it. Locations actually exist etc. And yes it's obvious that Pompeii did erupt, but that's not the point. And how come you believe these Egyptian and Roman writings but not the bible? This shows a huge bias on your part. It also backs up the biblical idea that even if God did reveal himself to people, some still wouldn't believe. So what's the point in having all this stuff that backs it up? If there were all these obvious clues more would possibly believe but then that would mean less choice wouldn't it?

He did reveal his will to us. Look at the old Testement.

So the Old Testament is an accurate depiction of God's will?

Crap, now I have to give up shellfish.

If it is a manmade book then it was comprised by incredibly intelligent people over, I presume many generations. Writing was rare way back when. You couldn't just pick up a pen or computer any time you wished! So, no I don't think it is a control method. The Bible is far more complex than any of those religious books. Heck, as far as I know it's the only one that actually explains any sort of creation. And Islam is not older... it has Abraham in it therefore it had to have been created after the Bible. (Yes I am aware that it can be argued the other way). Seven deadly sins? As far as I'm aware there's no mention, at least no stressed emphasis on them in the bible. What do you mean if he was the son of God then why are there other religions in the first place? That question makes no sense to me.

1: I never said that the islam faith is older
2: I don't believe writing was as rare as you make it out to be, we have written texts far older then the bible, and alot of older cultures had high education standards
3: i don't know all the sins, i don't know the bible (the last time i read anything from the bible was when i was 10, it's arround that age i started questioning faith, i was raised in a catholic way, yet i refused to fullfill the rituals (lack of a better word) when i was 12)
4: If Jesus was the son of God, sent to spread the word of God, why wait so long?

Trust me i understand there your coming from, i have been there and i still have a problems with some texts. Tell me what do you most find ilogical?

The concept of an eternal soul
The concept of heaven & hell
The concept of god
The idea that a god like being created us

Let's start with those

OK so if i say that killing was good, doest make it any less evil does it? they has to be some greater ideal of right and wrong and this given to us by god
But isn't killing less evil if you believe an afterlife is the one "true life", because then you are simply being hastened to it, or hastening others to it?

Killing is ony "evil" if you believe only in a life of the flesh, because that is what ends when the killing happens.

1: I never said that the islam faith is older
2: I don't believe writing was as rare as you make it out to be, we have written texts far older then the bible, and alot of older cultures had high education standards
3: i don't know all the sins, i don't know the bible (the last time i read anything from the bible was when i was 10, it's arround that age i started questioning faith, i was raised in a catholic way, yet i refused to fullfill the rituals (lack of a better word) when i was 12)
4: If Jesus was the son of God, sent to spread the word of God, why wait so long?

1) Fair enough
2) It wasn't that rare it just wasn't that common either.
3) I never said that I agreed with Catholocism. No offence to Catholics but I don't think that their principals are right. They worship saints and Mary but isn't one of the commandments (sorry for the quote) II. "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand [generations] of those who love me and keep my commandments." so that among other things is a total contradiction to their religion.
4) Time is irrelevant. God had eternity to do something.

3: i don't know all the sins, i don't know the bible (the last time i read anything from the bible was when i was 10, it's arround that age i started questioning faith, i was raised in a catholic way, yet i refused to fullfill the rituals (lack of a better word) when i was 12)

The 7 deadly sins came from Aristotlean Virtue Theory, the basis of Catholic morality.

I say enjoy it while it lasts.

You think religion has something to do with the way you're buried? Honestly I couldn't care because my physical body won't matter any more. And you won't care either because if, according to my religion, you don't repent then you'll be in Hell and that is the worst place imaginable. And guess what? You'll be there for eternity. No hope. I know it sounds bleak and pessimistic but it's the truth. I don't mind sacrificing this short period on earth for an eternity in heaven. Here and now will no longer matter then. You probably think that when you die you'll just cease any consciousness, like in a dreamless sleep. If only.
Supposing that's how it's gonna be, what do you think of it? How does it make you feel?

I say enjoy it while it lasts.

You think religion has something to do with the way you're buried? Honestly I couldn't care because my physical body won't matter any more. And you won't care either because if, according to my religion, you don't repent then you'll be in Hell and that is the worst place imaginable. And guess what? You'll be there for eternity. No hope. I know it sounds bleak and pessimistic but it's the truth. I don't mind sacrificing this short period on earth for an eternity in heaven. Here and now will no longer matter then. You probably think that when you die you'll just cease any consciousness, like in a dreamless sleep. If only.

I couldn't care less what they do with my remains, i'm dead, i cease to exist, i do not believe that anything of me will keep on existing, i do not believe in the existance of heaven or hell.

The only way i can explain the concept of heaven & hell is that they are manmade constructs aimed at keeping us in check and taking away our fear of death.

I do not need said constructs to live a moral life, nor do i fear death. The idea that our minds (you would probably use the word soul) are eternal is illogical, the mind exists solely in the confines of our brains.

I don't think that the Spanish inquisition was right. Many people and generations have abused the Bible for their own aims. Imagine an eternal life in a place where there is no disease, no suffering, a place that you are guaranteed to like that you won't get sick of? What's there not to like?

Suffering is what reminds us of our existance, what you describe sounds more like an eternal coma then a free life.

The concept of an eternal soul
The concept of heaven & hell
The concept of god
The idea that a god like being created us

Let's start with those

ok this is going to take a while

eternal soul- i belive that what you feel, what you are, you being can not die. I think it the very nature itself, i mean what would our body mean without it?
heaven & hell - both build for free fill. God created humans to be with him. Heaven is his home. Hell, because god gave us free will he made hell for those who chooses it.

The concept of god? oh dear..... please expand for me
God creating us- the answer i am sure one day will be true. But do you think it could happen by chance

Supposing that's how it's gonna be, what do you think of it? How does it make you feel?

I don't like the idea that when we're born we're doomed, but I don't really have a choice do I? I did not create the world so I cannot change that fact.

OK so if i say that killing was good, doest make it any less evil does it? they has to be some greater ideal of right and wrong and this given to us by god

Human history seems to disagree with you, all we do is kill eachother, it's what we humans do best. The Inka's believed in ritual sacrifice, as did numerous other cultures, they killed for their gods, and there was nothing imoral to it according to them, how do you explain that? You simply can not use *our* morals in other cultures because morality isn't fixed.

Suffering is what reminds us of our existance, what you describe sounds more like an eternal coma then a free life.

Okay so my description of heaven isn't good. I don't claim to know what it's like because I've never been there. And yes how can everyone like it? I don't know! I'm not saying I know, but God does.

He did reveal his will to us. Look at the old Testement.

Well then he should get a new press agency because history teaches us he's been misinterprated *ALOT* :p

I don't like the idea that when we're born we're doomed, but I don't really have a choice do I? I did not create the world so I cannot change that fact.

I created the world.

You weren't born doomed and you're not doomed now.

There, feel better?

I created the world.

You weren't born doomed and you're not doomed now.

There, feel better?

Eh, no.

Eh, no.

Why not? I've just given you the Good News.

Human history seems to disagree with you, all we do is kill eachother, it's what we humans do best. The Inka's believed in ritual sacrifice, as did numerous other cultures, they killed for their gods, and there was nothing imoral to it according to them, how do you explain that? You simply can not use *our* morals in other cultures because morality isn't fixed.

So i cant say i think that was wrong? because that would be my morals right?