NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: Can science and belief work together? Can they even co-exist? Some interesting books on these and other subjects seem to indicate a difference of opinion within the scientific community.

Your thoughts?


Faith, Reason, God and Other Imponderables (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/25/science/25books.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin)


By CORNELIA DEAN
Published: July 25, 2006
Nowadays, when legislation supporting promising scientific research falls to religious opposition, the forces of creationism press school districts to teach doctrine on a par with evolution and even the Big Bang is denounced as out-of-compliance with Bible-based calculations for the age of the earth, scientists have to be brave to talk about religion.

Not to denounce it, but to embrace it.

That is what Francis S. Collins, Owen Gingerich and Joan Roughgarden have done in new books, taking up one side of the stormy argument over whether faith in God can coexist with faith in the scientific method.

With no apology and hardly any arm-waving, they describe their beliefs, how they came to them and how they reconcile them with their work in science.

In “The Language of God,” Dr. Collins, the geneticist who led the American government’s effort to decipher the human genome, describes his own journey from atheism to committed Christianity, a faith he embraced as a young physician.

In “God’s Universe,” Dr. Gingerich, an emeritus professor of astronomy at Harvard, tells how he is “personally persuaded that a superintelligent Creator exists beyond and within the cosmos.”

And in “Evolution and Christian Faith,” Dr. Roughgarden, the child of Episcopal missionaries and now an evolutionary biologist at Stanford, tells of her struggles to fit the individual into the evolutionary picture — an effort complicated in her case by the fact that she is transgender, and therefore has views at odds with some conventional Darwinian thinking about sexual identity.

If his eminence in science were not so unassailable, a fourth author, the biologist E. O. Wilson of Harvard, might also be taking a chance by arguing that religion and science ought to take up arms together to encourage respect for and protection of nature or, as he calls it in his new book, “The Creation.”

Although he writes that he no longer embraces the faith of his childhood — he describes himself as “a secular humanist” — Dr. Wilson shapes his book as a “Letter to a Southern Baptist Pastor,” in hopes that if “religion and science could be united on the common ground of biological conservation, the problem would soon be solved.”

Coming as they do from a milieu in which religious belief of any kind is often dismissed as little more than magical thinking, this is bravery indeed.

But other new books, taking a different approach, also claim the mantle of bravery.

In “Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon,” Daniel C. Dennett, a philosopher and theorist of cognition at Tufts, refers again and again to the “brave” researchers (including himself) who challenge religion. In “The God Delusion,” Richard Dawkins, a professor of the public understanding of science at Oxford, once again likens religious faith to a disease and sets as his goal convincing his readers that atheism is “a brave” aspiration.

Of course, just as the professors of faith cannot prove (except to themselves) that God exists, the advocates for atheism acknowledge that they cannot prove (not yet, anyway ) that God does not exist. Instead, Drs. Dawkins and Dennett sound two major themes: a) the theory of evolution is correct, and creationism and its cousin, intelligent design, are wrong; and b) a field of research called evolutionary psychology can explain why religious belief seems to be universal among Homo sapiens.

But these sermons, which the authors preach with what can fairly be described as religious fervor, are unsatisfying.

Of course there is no credible scientific challenge to Darwinian evolution as an explanation for the diversity and complexity of life on earth. So what? The theory of evolution says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of God. People might argue about what sort of supreme being would work her will through such a seemingly haphazard arrangement, but that is not the same as denying that she exists in the first place.

In any event, as Dr. Gingerich argues, in simultaneously defending evolution and insisting upon atheism, Dr. Dawkins probably “single-handedly makes more converts to intelligent design than any of the leading intelligent design theorists.”

And evolutionary psychology as a prism through which to view contemporary human behavior is open to many challenges. Some have come from critics who dismiss much of it as little more than “Just-So Stories” designed to explain or justify the status quo. So it seems strange to see its logic cited as a weapon against the story-telling aspects of religion.

All of which leads one to ask, who are these books for? The question is easy to answer when it comes to Drs. Collins, Roughgarden or Gingerich. First would be young people raised in religious families, who as they progress through school suddenly confront scientific reality that challenges Sunday morning dogma.

“I have been struck,” Dr. Roughgarden writes, “by how the ‘debate’ over teaching evolution is not about plants and animals but about God and whether science somehow threatens one’s belief in God.”

Or as Dr. Collins put it, when religions require belief in “fundamentally flawed claims” about the world, they force curious and intelligent congregants to reject science, “effectively committing intellectual suicide,” a choice he calls “terrible and unnecessary.” [ This is one of the primary reasons I no longer endorse any particular relgion. ]

But does science require the abandonment of faith? Not necessarily, and certainly not entirely, these authors argue.

Also, people who read these books will realize that it is impossible to tar all scientists with the brush of amorality. The books challenge those who fear that science and ethics may end up at war, a possibility raised by President Bush last week, when he vetoed legislation supporting stem cell research.

On the other hand, as the (atheist) physicist Steven Weinberg has famously put it, and as Drs. Dawkins and Dennett remind their readers, good people tend to do good, evil people tend to do evil, but for a good person to do evil — “that takes religion.”

But it is hard to believe that people who reject science on religious grounds will stick with the Dennett and Dawkins books, filled as they are with denunciation not just of their ideas but of themselves.

This is unfortunate because, as Dr. Roughgarden points out, it is crucial in our society for people of faith, the vast majority of our population, to understand the issues of contemporary science. “I’d love to discuss the moral issues of biotechnology within a community of faith,” she writes. “But most church congregations and their leaders are not prepared for those discussions.”

Perhaps another book, “Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast,” can help bridge that gap. It is by Lewis Wolpert, a biologist at University College London. It has been published in England, and it is to appear in the United States in January.

Dr. Wolpert writes about the way people think about cause and effect, citing among other work experiments on how we reason, how we assess risk, and the rules of thumb and biases that guide us when we make decisions. He is looking into what he calls “causal belief” — the idea that events or conditions we experience have a cause, possibly a supernatural cause.

Human reasoning is “beset with logical problems that include overdependence on authority, overemphasis on coincidence, distortion of the evidence, circular reasoning, use of anecdotes, ignorance of science and failures of logic,” he writes. And whatever these traits may say about acceptance of religion, they have a lot to do with public misunderstanding of science.

So, he concludes, “We have to both respect, if we can, the beliefs of others, and accept the responsibility to try and change them if the evidence for them is weak or scientifically improbable.”

This is where the scientific method comes in. If scientists are prepared to state their hypotheses, describe how they tested them, lay out their data, explain how they analyze their data and the conclusions they draw from their analyses — then it should not matter if they pray to Zeus, Jehovah, the Tooth Fairy, or nobody.

Their work will speak for itself.

Science and religion take place where the other leaves off. Science answers the questions of this universe, religion seeks answers to where science leaves off.

Nothing in science can say one way or the other whether the theories of the big bang, evolution, etc etc are the way god did not intend it. It seeks only what is here, now, and leaves open the question of whether it does it for a REASON or not.

The only time they are at odds with each other is when religion blatantly tries to argue counter to sience, such as the young earth theories. Science has, and will continue, to disprove principles that religion holds as true, and when it does so it is time for religion to recognize that their conception might well be wrong.

Scientific theory can not be dispelled with a simple wave of the hand and a statement of "god did it". God put the dinosaur bones there to fool non believers is....a hypothesis, and I guess as far as hypothesis goes it's as good as any other. But it fails the principles of science, and fails to usurp the theory, backed by evidence, that the earth is billions of years old.

Science and religion can coexist as long as religion realizes that dogma may be overturned by science, and that science does not step on the toes of religion and try to disprove god, as that is beyond science to do.

Reason and faith are incompatible, because it is unreasonable to believe in things for which you lack conclusive evidence.

All i see is a bunch of opinions, no real points are raised in that article at all except from "we are right you are wrong".

All i see is a bunch of opinions.

Well....may I offer a "duh"?

The OP presented one opinion, and started a topic to discuss that opinion, and whether we agree with it, or not.

"Can science and religion coexists" is, by the nature of the question, one of opinion.

Well....may I offer a "duh"?

The OP presented one opinion, and started a topic to discuss that opinion, and whether we agree with it, or not.

"Can science and religion coexists" is, by the nature of the question, one of opinion.

But the article did not explain anything. It just said religion is this, science is this. Not, religion is this because....

Science and religion take place where the other leaves off. Science answers the questions of this universe, religion seeks answers to where science leaves off.

Nothing in science can say one way or the other whether the theories of the big bang, evolution, etc etc are the way god did not intend it. It seeks only what is here, now, and leaves open the question of whether it does it for a REASON or not.

The only time they are at odds with each other is when religion blatantly tries to argue counter to sience, such as the young earth theories. Science has, and will continue, to disprove principles that religion holds as true, and when it does so it is time for religion to recognize that their conception might well be wrong.

Scientific theory can not be dispelled with a simple wave of the hand and a statement of "god did it". God put the dinosaur bones there to fool non believers is....a hypothesis, and I guess as far as hypothesis goes it's as good as any other. But it fails the principles of science, and fails to usurp the theory, backed by evidence, that the earth is billions of years old.

Science and religion can coexist as long as religion realizes that dogma may be overturned by science, and that science does not step on the toes of religion and try to disprove god, as that is beyond science to do.
So would it work better between science and belief if science concerned itself with the "how" and belief with the "why" of things?

Reason and faith are incompatible, because it is unreasonable to believe in things for which you lack conclusive evidence.
Love? Compassion? Courage? Honor? Etc.?

But the article did not explain anything. It just said religion is this, science is this. Not, religion is this because....
That probably makes it a more persuasive article for more people. By not saying anything with which we can disagree (because it didn't really say anything at all), most people are liable to think that the article sounds pretty smart.

I, however, do take issue with one of its points. Since I consider reason and faith incompatible, it does matter to me that the researcher prays to something, because that suggests the researcher is unreasonable.

Reason and faith are incompatible, because it is unreasonable to believe in things for which you lack conclusive evidence.

Speak for yourself. You are in no position of being an authority of what is conclusive or not.
How do you believe if someone loves you? You dont believe in theories (theory of evolution, gravity, relativity, quantum, etc...), which perhaps werent conclusive (i.e. not 100% proven and hence theories, instead of laws) as well?

Speak for yourself. You are in no position of being an authority of what is conclusive or not.
How do you believe if someone loves you? You dont believe in theories (theory of evolution, gravity, relativity, quantum, etc...), which perhaps werent conclusive (i.e. not 100% proven and hence theories, instead of laws) as well?
You have varying levels of confidence based on the available evidence.

But the article did not explain anything. It just said religion is this, science is this. Not, religion is this because....

If it said religion is this and science is that, it wouldnt be a article but a book or maybe an encyclopedia...

Love? Compassion? Courage? Honor? Etc.?

I believe in all those things. It's hard not to - the evidence is strong. Based soley upon their definitions, one can easily find examples of Love, Compassion, Courage and Honor.

But try finding an example of God. Therein lies the rub.

You have varying levels of confidence based on the available evidence.

Believing in God and not believing it are also concepts with "varying levels of confidence based on the available evidence." The evidence being that universe is far too stable and orderly for it to be a product of some random explosion. Surely, this ranks supreme than the explanation of "it's just bunch of meaningless coincidences."

If it said religion is this and science is that, it wouldnt be a article but a book or maybe an encyclopedia...

When i say this or that, i don't mean all of what religion or science is. I mean this for exaple: religion is fundamentally flawed.

That sentence can sum up the whole article, the article basicly repeats itself over and over again.

I believe in all those things. It's hard not to - the evidence is strong. Based soley upon their definitions, one can easily find examples of Love, Compassion, Courage and Honor.

But try finding an example of God. Therein lies the rub.
Ah! Ok. I see your position clearly now. Thanks! :)

I believe in all those things. It's hard not to - the evidence is strong. Based soley upon their definitions, one can easily find examples of Love, Compassion, Courage and Honor.

But try finding an example of God. Therein lies the rub.

Prove them via scientific method, i.e; by producing some sort of measurable results....

Prove them via scientific method, i.e; by producing some sort of measurable results....

You are going no where, all those things can be proved by brain chemistry.

Believing in God and not believing it are also concepts with "varying levels of confidence based on the available evidence." The evidence being that universe is far too stable and orderly for it to be a product of some random explosion. Surely, this ranks supreme than the explanation of "it's just bunch of meaningless coincidences."
Ah! But I could show that all the stability and orderliness of the universe is the natural result of the laws of physics in operation.

When i say this or that, i don't mean all of what religion or science is. I mean this for exaple: religion is fundamentally flawed.

That sentence can sum up the whole article, the article basicly repeats itself over and over again.

Lets first agree on the definition of religion. Is it only like being christian or anything or is it NOT being an atheist?

Lets first agree on the definition of religion. Is it only like being christian or anything or is it NOT being an atheist?

Well i think that article is talking about Christianity. So i'm mainly refering to christianity or any similar articles.

Ah! But I could show that all the stability and orderliness of the universe is the natural result of the laws of physics in operation.

And how did those physics in operation turned out stable themselves? Universe didnt start with those laws. It was at first singularity, which we dont know and dont understand.
And besides, how did the universe appeared anyways?

The ultimate result of naturalism and evolutionary logic is nihilism.

The person has no importance, ideas have no importance, and most of all, God has no importance. Like it or not, but science is undertaking the execution of God.

The religious will never truly accept science because of this, so it is better that they are left behind.

So would it work better between science and belief if science concerned itself with the "how" and belief with the "why" of things?

That may be an easy way of putting it. I think the better way of saying things is, if religion proportes to make claims that are testable by science it should be prepared for science to refute them, as science does it better.

Religion is more than "why", it is also codes of morality and ethics (which can exist outside of religion, secular humanism does that well) which are things that are irrelevant to science. Science is amoral (note, not immoral). Science is as much harnessing the atom to provide clean renewable energy as it is harnessing the atom to wipe out civilizations. SCIENTISTS may lead with their own moral and ethical code, but the development of those codes is not something science deals with.

For any religion to make claims about the universe in a physical sense it must be prepared for science to argue those claims, and attempt to disprove them. It must also recognize that a scientific theory that refutes those claims is not an attack on religion, it is simply what science does. Science does not say THIS IS TRUE, science says "this is what, for now, best explains what we see".

Could god use dinosaur bones to seperate the true believers? Maybe, but that's not the best explination the evidence has, and so science rejects that as an implausable theory, as an ancient earth and evolution explain it better. Science does not attack faith, it simply says "what your faith states about the universe is not supported by evidence."

On the other hand, science does a fairly good job of staying out of religion for (and to risk the No Good Scottsman fallacy) whenever a scientific inquiry delves into questions of ethics, morality, or the "why" of reality, it really stops being science.

You are going no where, all those things can be proved by brain chemistry.

Those changes are results, not causes. You can make someone love another person by altering their brain chemistry?

The ultimate result of naturalism and evolutionary logic is nihilism.

The person has no importance, ideas have no importance, and most of all, God has no importance. Like it or not, but science is undertaking the execution of God.

The religious will never truly accept science because of this, so it is better that they are left behind.

Despite the fact that evolution can not disprove a god in any way, as it does not concern itself with how the universe was made.

And how did those physics in operation turned out stable themselves? Universe didnt start with those laws. It was at first singularity, which we dont know and dont understand.
And besides, how did the universe appeared anyways?
Well, according to M-Theory, the universe was created when two other universes collided ( sometimes called "The Big Bang" ) and formed this one, including all the physical forces which interacted with each other to establish the "stable and orderly" universe we see today.

And how did those physics in operation turned out stable themselves? Universe didnt start with those laws. It was at first singularity, which we dont know and dont understand.
And besides, how did the universe appeared anyways?

The easy scientific answer for that is: what existed before the universe, and that which set the creation of the universe in motion, by definition exists outside the universe, and is not governed by the laws of this universe. Since it is not governed by this universe, it can not be tested within this universe, and science simply can not test it.

Or, to put it simply, maybe it just did. Maybe in the existance before existance universes COULD just spontaniously appear fully formed. We don't know, since we have no way of testing pre existence existence, and applying our scientific laws to a framework that existed before the reality in which those laws operate is pointless.

As I have said in many threads before, you can not run experiments in a reality that is different from the one in which you keep your instruments.

Prove them via scientific method, i.e; by producing some sort of measurable results....

Okay.

Question - Is courage real?
Basic Data - Courage (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/courage)
Hypothesis - Courage exists.
Evidence - Firefighters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefighters) routinely face danger with self-posession, confidence and resolution.
Analysis - There exist individuals exhibiting courage.
Results - Courage exists.

Despite the fact that evolution can not disprove a god in any way, as it does not concern itself with how the universe was made.

It does show that God is completely unnecessary, except for maybe the creation of existence, and presently science is taking care of that.

Science has killed divine providence, it has built the gallows for morality, and it is sharpening the guillotine for religion.

Okay.

Question - Is courage real?
Basic Data - Courage (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/courage)
Hypothesis - Courage exists.
Evidence - Firefighters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefighters) routinely face danger with self-posession, confidence and resolution.
Analysis - There exist individuals exhibiting courage.
Results - Courage exists.

Of course, counter argument: self-posession, confidence and resolution were found not due to courage, but other factors such as ignorance, foolishness, or a lack of intelligence capable of understanding the situation.

Attempts to disprove existence of courage based on the results of testing in this regard.

THAT is science.

Now let's do that on God.

Question - Is God real?
Basic Data - God (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/God)
Hypothesis - God exists.
Evidence - No evidence can be found of a being that is 'perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe.'
Analysis/Results - Without evidence, we cannot satisfactorally prove the hypothesis.

See the simple difference?

Now let's do that on God.

Question - Is God real?
Basic Data - God (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/God)
Hypothesis - God exists.
Evidence - No evidence can be found of a being that is 'perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe.'
Analysis/Results - Without evidence, we cannot satisfactorally prove the hypothesis.

See the simple difference?

Precisely.

Although, for SOME, the argument would go "evidence is that we are in an ordered universe, which must exist by creation, therefore order is evidence"

Of course the scientific response to that is "you can't provide evidence through hypothesis without first applying the same test to your hypothetical"

Which leads to "Question: Can order exist without an intelligent creator"

And then we're back to your problem.

It does show that God is completely unnecessary, except for maybe the creation of existence, and presently science is taking care of that.

Science has killed divine providence, it has built the gallows for morality, and it is sharpening the guillotine for religion.

Science will never DISPROVE god. If anything science may, should certain events arise, create a scientifically valid theory FOR god, but I don't think it could ever disprove it, unless it finds a way of lifting the veil of this reality, which I don't think is possible.

Of course, counter argument: self-posession, confidence and resolution were found not due to courage, but other factors such as ignorance, foolishness, or a lack of intelligence capable of understanding the situation.

Attempts to disprove existence of courage based on the results of testing in this regard.

THAT is science.

Indeed. I have only done one step of the scientific argument on courage - an initial and simplistic one at that. Your counterarguments are the next step, which is trying to disprove me, from which we will discover more.

But I'm not even going there, because I don't care enough about proving courage to My Nordland's latest incarnation. I'm just trying to show the basic difference between proving courage and God.

Science has killed divine providence, it has built the gallows for morality, and it is sharpening the guillotine for religion.

The big bang theory has flaws and contradictions and can't explain how the universe existed only how was at the beginning, other theories such as string theory are all complete speculation and no evidence can be provided for it whatsoever. Morality does not have to exist for there to be a god.

Precisely.

Although, for SOME, the argument would go "evidence is that we are in an ordered universe, which must exist by creation, therefore order is evidence"

Of course the scientific response to that is "you can't provide evidence through hypothesis without first applying the same test to your hypothetical"

Which leads to "Question: Can order exist without an intelligent creator"

And then we're back to your problem.

Except we know order can exist without intelligent intervention. Crystals, snowflakes, sand dunes, stalagtites and mites, these are all order arising from a less ordered medium naturally.

Indeed. I have only done one step of the scientific argument on courage - an initial and simplistic one at that. Your counterarguments are the next step, which is trying to disprove me, from which we will discover more.

But I'm not even going there, because I don't care enough about proving courage to My Nordland's latest incarnation. I'm just trying to show the basic difference between proving courage and God.

Sure, if you define "courage" as a particular mental state, which when individuals are in, will display certain characteristics.

Then you find people that displayed those characteristics, and disprove that they were not caused by other factors, thus indicating the existence of courage.

Now of course it helps when you define what you're looking for by specific parameters first, but then again, that's science. Science could never go about finding "god", the concept is too large for science to tackle. It COULD go about finding evidence of a certain concept of god, such as a giant bowl of spaghetti that flies above the earth.

Science will never DISPROVE god. If anything science may, should certain events arise, create a scientifically valid theory FOR god, but I don't think it could ever disprove it, unless it finds a way of lifting the veil of this reality, which I don't think is possible.

God is not falsifiable, that is why science will never touch it.

However, science could never provide a valid theory for God, as theories are only supported and valuable for their ability to predict, and by its very nature, God is unpredictable.

Nevertheless, it is taking God out of every equation, and the religious want nothing to do with it. Pandering to them only takes the edge off of science.

Except we know order can exist without intelligent intervention. Crystals, snowflakes, sand dunes, stalagtites and mites, these are all order arising from a less ordered medium naturally.

Counterargument: the mediums from which they arose were created intelligently to produce those results and, even appearing "random" at human level, follow certain, intrinsic natural laws of movement, energy and physics, which create those "macro" ordered phenominom.

Again, then you're left with "test if the laws of physics require divinity" and we're back to square 1.

Not saying I believe in it, but merely that's the line of inquiry one could go by until one hits the inevitable dead end.

Nevertheless, it is taking God out of every equation, and the religious want nothing to do with it. Pandering to them only takes the edge off of science.

To which I absolutly agree. However science can not KILL god, because science can not touch god.

It can show how systems can rise and evolve without the divine touch of god (such as evolution versus young earth), and refute specific dogma (young earth, flat earth, geocentric universe) but it can't really disprove GOD.

It can remove the necessity of god from the day to day, year to year, eon to eon functioning of the universe by showing, scientifically, how things happen, but it can not pierce the veil of time before time and existence before existence and show how the whole damned thing got started.

And probably never will.

The big bang theory has flaws and contradictions and can't explain how the universe existed only how was at the beginning, other theories such as string theory are all complete speculation and no evidence can be provided for it whatsoever.

You bring the Big Bang theory to task because it doesn't explain what occurred before the beginning? If you can find any thought that even attempts to explain what occurred before the beginning, I will, from here on out, deny agnosticism, and follow whatever belief you wish me to follow.

As for the string theory, I imagine you understand about as well as me (which is not at all) so perhaps someone else can counter your second statement.

Morality does not have to exist for there to be a god.

Completely agreed, but it makes the worship and adherence to said God a rather superfluous act.

Science has killed divine providence, it has built the gallows for morality, and it is sharpening the guillotine for religion.

How has science "built the gallows" for morality?

To which I absolutly agree. However science can not KILL god, because science can not touch god.

It can show how systems can rise and evolve without the divine touch of god (such as evolution versus young earth), and refute specific dogma (young earth, flat earth, geocentric universe) but it can't really disprove GOD.

It can remove the necessity of god from the day to day, year to year, eon to eon functioning of the universe by showing, scientifically, how things happen, but it can not pierce the veil of time before time and existence before existence and show how the whole damned thing got started.

And probably never will.

It can remove God from existence as we perceive it, and I lack the vocabulary to assign a word for that action. Until then, I will say that science is killing God.

As for your post, I cannot argue.

How has science "built the gallows" for morality?

By continuously showing how almost everything is causally responsible, and nothing is morally responsible.

You bring the Big Bang theory to task because it doesn't explain what occurred before the beginning? If you can find any thought that even attempts to explain what occurred before the beginning, I will, from here on out, deny agnosticism, and follow whatever belief you wish me to follow.

As for the string theory, I imagine you understand about as well as me (which is not at all) so perhaps someone else can counter your second statement.



Completely agreed, but it makes the worship and adherence to said God a rather superfluous act.

Hold on a sec, i think we are on the same brain wave here.

Like you I am a agnostic... I believe that there is probably a God, but not any religious God. My point is, neither science or religion can explain how the universe existed. Which is why science can't proove or disproove god.

I believe that there may be a god as the existance must come from some sort of infinate source. And that this life and this world being able to exist is such a huge coincedence it makes you wonder.

It can remove God from existence as we perceive it, and I lack the vocabulary to assign a word for that action. Until then, I will say that science is killing God.

As for your post, I cannot argue.
Perhaps, but if you ask why most people worship god, they'd respond along the lines of "god created us, gave us all life, and granted us this existence, and so we worship out of thanks".

Now maybe science can say god didn't do it in 6 days 6000 years ago (in fact, science can't even say THAT, science can only say that it's not the explination the evidence supports), but it can't say one way or another if god had a hand in the whole thing.

So yeah, science removes from god the necessity, as I said, for the reasons things work this way now, but it can't say "GOD DIDN'T DO IT!" and that is enough to leave the reasons most worship, more or less intact.

Although, I don't even really believe in the entity, just saying that science can't really remove from the equation the primary purpose of worship, to give thanks for creation, since god may well have created, science can't really say one way or the other.

And that this life and this world being able to exist is such a huge coincedence it makes you wonder.
There's actually something called the weak anthropomorphic principle, which is a counter to the arguments of "if the universe was ANY DIFFERENT none of this would be possible!"

The argument goes "if the universe was any different, we wouldn't know it, and in fact may have been different MANY MANY MANY times, but we simply weren't around to talk about it."

or, to put it another way, you can't talk about how unlikely it is to win the lottery unless you know how many times you intend to play. We can't say how unlikely our existance is, because we don't know how many universes were born, grew, and died, without us to view em.

Like you I am a agnostic... I believe that there is probably a God, but not any religious God. My point is, neither science or religion can explain how the universe existed. Which is why science can't proove or disproove god.

If you believe that there is probably a God, then I refuse to consider you an agnostic (continue to call yourself that if you like, it affects me none).

I am an agnostic because I believe that we can never find evidence of God as we cannot interpret it as such. As a backup, I am also an agnostic because the belief in God is completely worthless, and should be cast away entirely.

I believe that there may be a god as the existance must come from some sort of infinate source. And that this life and this world being able to exist is such a huge coincedence it makes you wonder.

Why believe in an infinite source? Why not accept that there is a beginning?

We can't say how unlikely our existance is, because we don't know how many universes were born, grew, and died, without us to view em.

We can say how unlikely the universe is, by looking at the distance from the earth to the sun... the exact balence of chemicals.... there are tonnes of stuff. There was a figure to predict how many universes it would take to create life itself, forget all the other stuff, and the number was huge... too big to fit in a page. (Can't remember the link, sorry).

Of course, it can't proove god in any way, but it suggests that a God would be more rational to believe in.

Perhaps, but if you ask why most people worship god, they'd respond along the lines of "god created us, gave us all life, and granted us this existence, and so we worship out of thanks".

Now maybe science can say god didn't do it in 6 days 6000 years ago (in fact, science can't even say THAT, science can only say that it's not the explination the evidence supports), but it can't say one way or another if god had a hand in the whole thing.

So yeah, science removes from god the necessity, as I said, for the reasons things work this way now, but it can't say "GOD DIDN'T DO IT!" and that is enough to leave the reasons most worship, more or less intact.

Although, I don't even really believe in the entity, just saying that science can't really remove from the equation the primary purpose of worship, to give thanks for creation, since god may well have created, science can't really say one way or the other.

And those people are justified in their worship how?

If you believe that there is probably a God, then I refuse to consider you an agnostic (continue to call yourself that if you like, it affects me none).

I am an agnostic because I believe that we can never find evidence of God as we cannot interpret it as such. As a backup, I am also an agnostic because the belief in God is completely worthless, and should be cast away entirely.



Why believe in an infinite source? Why not accept that there is a beginning?

I think you have got your definitions mixed up, you are an atheist. An agnostic is someone who is not sure or realises that it is impossible to know for sure. Not someone who believes the belief in God is completely worthless etc...

I am an agnostic because i am not certain of anything.

As to your second question, it's a very complex matter and i'm too tired to debate it now. But remember that any singularity that can end, must also begin. (try to work that out).

Believing in God and not believing it are also concepts with "varying levels of confidence based on the available evidence." The evidence being that universe is far too stable and orderly for it to be a product of some random explosion. Surely, this ranks supreme than the explanation of "it's just bunch of meaningless coincidences."
We've been over this.

You don't have any reason to believe that the universe is stable or orderly relative to the other available options, because you have no idea what the other available options are. As I've explained previously, your pseudo-mathematical explanation only works if you assume that all variables are unrelated and determined randomly, which you most certainly do not know.

And how did those physics in operation turned out stable themselves? Universe didnt start with those laws. It was at first singularity, which we dont know and dont understand.
Exactly. We don't know anything about that singularity, so we shouldn't assume anything at all about what it could or couldn't have created, aside from what we see. It did create the universe in which we live, therefore this is the only universe we know to have been a possible outcome.

And besides, how did the universe appeared anyways?
I don't know. Neither do you. But we're both so far from knowing that neither of us is in a position to fill in the blanks with unsupported suppositions like "God did it".

I think you have got your definitions mixed up, you are an atheist. An agnostic is someone who is not sure or realises that it is impossible to know for sure. Not someone who believes the belief in God is completely worthless etc...

I am an agnostic because i am not certain of anything.

You label yourself an agnostic to try and justify (and apologize for) your belief in God.

I am agnostic because I understand that any statement upon the existence or nonexistence of God is pointless.

As to your second question, it's a very complex matter and i'm too tired to debate it now. But remember that any singularity that can end, must also begin. (try to work that out).

I understand what our observations and a priori expectations say about the universe, but why does that make the idea true?

I think you have got your definitions mixed up, you are an atheist.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

An agnostic is someone who is not sure or realises that it is impossible to know for sure.

But it is perfectly possible to realize that it is impossible to know for sure, but to still believe very strongly one way or the other - right down to thinking that the "other guys" are teh stoopid.

Well, according to M-Theory, the universe was created when two other universes collided ( sometimes called "The Big Bang" ) and formed this one, including all the physical forces which interacted with each other to establish the "stable and orderly" universe we see today.

If universes need previous universes to form, how did the "first" universes form? Circular reasoning. Hence M-Theory can not be a meterialistic (i.e: including nothing supernatural) explanation of the formation of our universe.

But it is perfectly possible to realize that it is impossible to know for sure, but to still believe very strongly one way or the other - right down to thinking that the "other guys" are teh stoopid.

Why the prevalent use renders the term practically worthless.

Isn't faith separable from knowledge?

But it is perfectly possible to realize that it is impossible to know for sure, but to still believe very strongly one way or the other
I think having that combination of thoughts in your head would make you necessarily irrational.

On athiesm, it is simply the opposite of theism. If you believe in god, you're a theist. If you don't - for whatever reason - you're an athiest. That would include people who believe there is no god, people who don't think they have enough evidence to determine one way or the other, and people who just don't care. All of those people are atheists, because they fail to believe in god.

(Dinaverg would be so proud)

Agnostics are people who lack a strong belief either way. Most (possibly all) agnostics would also fall under the broader category of atheist.

You label yourself an agnostic to try and justify (and apologize for) your belief in God.


Wtf? How does labelling yourself an agnostic justify anything. How is it allright for you to strongly believe in the non existance of God but call yourself an agnostic but it isn't allright for me to call my self an agnostic for believing that it is slightly more likely that there is a god (not that i believe for sure).

The easy scientific answer for that is: what existed before the universe, and that which set the creation of the universe in motion, by definition exists outside the universe, and is not governed by the laws of this universe. Since it is not governed by this universe, it can not be tested within this universe, and science simply can not test it.


So we can "know" only our universe. And it is orderly. Hence some intelligent consciousness designing it is more likely than it being the result of infinite coincidences.


Or, to put it simply, maybe it just did. Maybe in the existance before existance universes COULD just spontaniously appear fully formed. We don't know, since we have no way of testing pre existence existence, and applying our scientific laws to a framework that existed before the reality in which those laws operate is pointless.

As I have said in many threads before, you can not run experiments in a reality that is different from the one in which you keep your instruments.

"Maybe it just did" is as much a speculation as arguing for the existance of GOD. So what's next? Looking into our own universe, and for that read my 1st paragraph.

Wtf? How does labelling yourself an agnostic justify anything. How is it allright for you to strongly believe in the non existance of God but call yourself an agnostic but it isn't allright for me to call my self an agnostic for believing that it is slightly more likely that there is a god (not that i believe for sure).

You say "I believe in God but I'm not crazy!"

I say "Meh."

I have often found that science fails to explain many things and offers superficial answers to deep questions. Science cannot explain the creation of the universe. There are no data tables on beauty. Sheet music never protrayes the true richness of the music hidden in the notes. Religion goes beyond science and surpasses it in explaining the wonder of the human condition.

Agnostics are people who lack a strong belief either way. Most (possibly all) agnostics would also fall under the broader category of atheist.

I would say that agnostics lack any belief either way.

Agnosticism is an epistomological belief and making a statement on the existence or nonexistence of God is a contradictory ontological statement.

Okay.

Question - Is courage real?
Basic Data - Courage (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/courage)
Hypothesis - Courage exists.
Evidence - Firefighters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefighters) routinely face danger with self-posession, confidence and resolution.
Analysis - There exist individuals exhibiting courage.
Results - Courage exists.

Evidence is inconclusive. Maybe these Firefighters save other people only for money? Maybe they got some chemical inbalance in their brain and hence cant assess the dangers of the situation properly and hence are saving other people only because they think it's not that dangerous (maybe they think it is as dangerous as bungee jumping). Maybe they are depressed and suicidal and dont care about their lives?

You say "I believe in God but I'm not crazy!"

I say "Meh."

No.... I say, I am not completely certain that there is a god but i find it more likely that there is a god, therefor I am an agnostic.

You say I completely believe that there is absolutely no God whatsoever and all people who believe in god are stupid!!!! However I am an agnostic so that is ok.

I have often found that science fails to explain many things and offers superficial answers to deep questions.

I think your depth finder is off.

So we can "know" only our universe. And it is orderly. Hence some intelligent consciousness designing it is more likely than it being the result of infinite coincidences.

Prove it, what are the odds of an intelligent godlike consciousness developing. No idea? then you have no idea of how to compare it to the idea of near infinite coincidences "just happening". You say it's "more likely" without showing the statistical probability of their being a creator


"Maybe it just did" is as much a speculation as arguing for the existance of GOD. So what's next? Looking into our own universe, and for that read my 1st paragraph.

And look to mine. Prove it. You can no sooner prove to me that god is more likely than random creation as I can prove to you the converse, as we have no way of debating the statistical probability of god existing.

Evidence is inconclusive. Maybe these Firefighters save other people only for money? Maybe they got some chemical inbalance in their brain and hence cant assess the dangers of the situation properly and hence are saving other people only because they think it's not that dangerous (maybe they think it is as dangerous as bungee jumping). Maybe they are depressed and suicidal and dont care about their lives?

IDK, the fire department in my town is volunteer and none of them are nuts. I don't see where you are going with this...

No.... I say, I am not completely certain that there is a god but i find it more likely that there is a god, therefor I am an agnostic.

You say I completely believe that there is absolutely no God whatsoever and all people who believe in god are stupid!!!! However I am an agnostic so that is ok.

Who are any of us to pass judgement. I strongly believe in God and I will not call you stupid for being an athiest. Yet time and time again on these threads I see athiests calling people of the faith dumb. If it has not happend yet on this thread it will soon enough.

We can say how unlikely the universe is, by looking at the distance from the earth to the sun... the exact balence of chemicals.... there are tonnes of stuff. There was a figure to predict how many universes it would take to create life itself, forget all the other stuff, and the number was huge... too big to fit in a page. (Can't remember the link, sorry).


Sure, it's an astronomically huge number, but you don't know how many universes happend already. Maybe it would take a HUGE number of universes, but maybe we've had a huge number of universes come and go already.

I think your depth finder is off.

hey! take a look at my last post! What did I tell ya:D

I think having that combination of thoughts in your head would make you necessarily irrational.

On athiesm, it is simply the opposite of theism. If you believe in god, you're a theist. If you don't - for whatever reason - you're an athiest. That would include people who believe there is no god, people who don't think they have enough evidence to determine one way or the other, and people who just don't care. All of those people are atheists, because they fail to believe in god.

(Dinaverg would be so proud)

Agnostics are people who lack a strong belief either way. Most (possibly all) agnostics would also fall under the broader category of atheist.

You have learned well, young one.

Point of contention though,
Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the (truth) values of certain claims—particularly theological claims regarding the existence of God, gods, or deities—are unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent, and therefore, (some agnostics may go as far to say) irrelevant to life.


We can say how unlikely the universe is, by looking at the distance from the earth to the sun... the exact balence of chemicals.... there are tonnes of stuff. There was a figure to predict how many universes it would take to create life itself, forget all the other stuff, and the number was huge... too big to fit in a page. (Can't remember the link, sorry).

Stupid arguement.

"If Earth was a little farther away, we wouldn't be alive" Uhh...Yeah....So what? The Earth isn't a little farther away, that's why we're here.

Did you hear that guy mention the WAP?

* Weak anthropic principle (WAP): "The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirements that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so." (John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, 1986)
o The Merriam-Webster Dictionary offers this definition: conditions that are observed in the universe must allow the observer to exist.

Prove it, what are the odds of an intelligent godlike consciousness developing. No idea? then you have no idea of how to compare it to the idea of near infinite coincidences "just happening". You say it's "more likely" without showing the statistical probability of their being a creatorAnd look to mine. Prove it. You can no sooner prove to me that god is more likely than random creation as I can prove to you the converse, as we have no way of debating the statistical probability of god existing.

So in other words you cannot prove in using Science. Science is not powerful enough. So why all the hate directed at those who do believe?

No.... I say, I am not completely certain that there is a god but i find it more likely that there is a god, therefor I am an agnostic.

And I say that there is no way for you to find it more likely that there is a god. How can you assign probability to a god?

Your position can be better described as "wanting to believe in God and inventing reasons for its existence, but not wanting to be seen as an intellectual lightweight."

You say I completely believe that there is absolutely no God whatsoever and all people who believe in god are stupid!!!! However I am an agnostic so that is ok.

I say that I don't care if there is a God.

I also will not say that people who believe in God are stupid. I know too many people who believe in God that I respect to say that.

I simply disagree that they can claim the same epistomological ground as me.

Except we know order can exist without intelligent intervention. Crystals, snowflakes, sand dunes, stalagtites and mites, these are all order arising from a less ordered medium naturally.

These arising from less ordered medium naturally is order by itself, that they follow some "guidelines". Again, they arise from less ordered medium, as you said, not from "messyness"....

nearly half the country believes that people of faith are being attacked and persecuted. This forum shows some of those who do the persecuting.

These arising from less ordered medium naturally is order by itself, that they follow some "guidelines". Again, they arise from less ordered medium, as you said, not from "messyness"....

less ordered equals messy no?

hey! take a look at my last post! What did I tell ya:D

Did I call you stupid?

nearly half the country believes that people of faith are being attacked and persecuted. This forum shows some of those who do the persecuting.

More than half the country is completely ignorant, so I don't really care.

nearly half the country believes that people of faith are being attacked and persecuted. This forum shows some of those who do the persecuting.
Uh ... I trust you're not speaking of me "persecuting" anyone. :eek:

Discussing science and how it relates to belief is "persecuting?" :confused:

Did I call you stupid?
no you made a semi-pithy comment about my "depth finder" being off...you know ...one of those smarmy comments that insults my intelligence

COMMENTARY: Can science and belief work together? Can they even co-exist? Some interesting books on these and other subjects seem to indicate a difference of opinion within the scientific community.

Your thoughts?
Yes, they can coexist, as long as one doesn't interfere with the other, much like the falcon and the hawk. Keep religion out of the science lab and keep science out of the church.

It's possible to have a highly scientific mind and still believe in a supernatural force. We can't prove it exists, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it just means we won't know unless the hand of God reaches down and smites the city of Schenectady or something. And even then, I'd bet there'd still be a handful who say it's a "hand-shaped tornado."

I think both sides need to go to neutral corners. Then go home and have a cup of tea.

Uh ... I trust you're not speaking of me "persecuting" anyone. :eek:

Discussing science and how it relates to belief is "persecuting?" :confused:

No, he is referring to me. I say that one cannot make claims to the existence of God, and he thinks I am calling him stupid.

He may be stupid, but not because he believes in God.

More than half the country is completely ignorant, so I don't really care.

You are finding the oldest way to claim that you are correct. The minority often paints the majority as stupid or ignorant instead of dealing with why they think and feel the way that they do. There are reasons why people feel that way that are very fact based indeed. Ever here of the ACLU?:p

Sure, if you define "courage" as a particular mental state, which when individuals are in, will display certain characteristics.

Then you find people that displayed those characteristics, and disprove that they were not caused by other factors, thus indicating the existence of courage.

Now of course it helps when you define what you're looking for by specific parameters first, but then again, that's science. Science could never go about finding "god", the concept is too large for science to tackle. It COULD go about finding evidence of a certain concept of god, such as a giant bowl of spaghetti that flies above the earth.

Also he has failed to show the difference between debating and "proving" god and courage via his method. As you explained in this post:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11438364&postcount=33

He missed the evidence you mentioned. Of course there are responses to this evidence but there are also responses to his evidence about courage. Again, he has failed...

And I say that there is no way for you to find it more likely that there is a god. How can you assign probability to a god?


Yes you can. For example, if you saw some boxes in a forest aranged to make a large tower. You would think that it is more likely that someone placed them there despite there being no proof. You wouldn't say i strongly believe that no one made these boxes into a tower because there is no proof.


Your position can be better described as "wanting to believe in God and inventing reasons for its existence, but not wanting to be seen as an intellectual lightweight."


What reason have i "invented".


I say that I don't care if there is God.


No you literally said I strongly believe there is no god.


I simply disagree that they can claim the same epistomological ground as me.

Even though you have no proof for what you say either.

Uh ... I trust you're not speaking of me "persecuting" anyone. :eek:

Discussing science and how it relates to belief is "persecuting?" :confused:

no, not at all. But when people go around talking about how you cannot prove God so God is not relavent ......folks get upset.

no you made a semi-pithy comment about my "depth finder" being off...you know ...one of those smarmy comments that insults my intelligence

It was a comment that states you are predetermined to look for depth to existence and using your intelligence to invent it.

Intelligence determines how good your inventions are, not your predilection for meaning.

No, he is referring to me. I say that one cannot make claims to the existence of God, and he thinks I am calling him stupid.

He may be stupid, but not because he believes in God.

Your point is not relavent because you cannot disprove God. Therefore any value judgement that you are passing on people who do also reflects on yourself.

You are finding the oldest way to claim that you are correct.

He is correct. Ad hominem.

Counterargument: the mediums from which they arose were created intelligently to produce those results and, even appearing "random" at human level, follow certain, intrinsic natural laws of movement, energy and physics, which create those "macro" ordered phenominom.

Again, then you're left with "test if the laws of physics require divinity" and we're back to square 1.

Not saying I believe in it, but merely that's the line of inquiry one could go by until one hits the inevitable dead end.

Ah again, you answered one step ahead of me. For the 2nd time. I guess I should have read all the thread and then start to chronogically answer posts...

Faith in God has always been the anchor of out society. Science explains things in nature. The spiritual realm is trancedent of science.

It was a comment that states you are predetermined to look for depth to existence and using your intelligence to invent it.

Intelligence determines how good your inventions are, not your predilection for meaning.

So you do not believe that anything has any meaning outside of science? That must be boring and depressing.

You are finding the oldest way to claim that you are correct. The minority often paints the majority as stupid or ignorant instead of dealing with why they think and feel the way that they do. There are reasons why people feel that way that are very fact based indeed. Ever here of the ACLU?:p

No has said I was wrong yet. I don't dispute that people think morality is under attack, nor did I dispute that people in this forum are the kind people think attack morality. I just told you that I don't care what "the people" think and why. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Just a side note here: more Americans believe in the Virgin birth of Christ than believe in humans evolving from an earlier species.

No has said I was wrong yet. I don't dispute that people think morality is under attack, nor did I dispute that people in this forum are the kind people think attack morality. I just told you that I don't care what "the people" think and why. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

ah wikipedia...and a theory that states that majority will is not relavent.....classy

Yes you can. For example, if you saw some boxes in a forest aranged to make a large tower. You would think that it is more likely that someone placed them there despite there being no proof. You wouldn't say i strongly believe that no one made these boxes into a tower because there is no proof.

If I had no concept of "boxes" why would I make that assumption.

What reason have i "invented".

I don't know what reasons you have for believing in a god.

No you literally said I strongly believe there is no god.

You are going to have to quote me.

Even though you have no proof for what you say either.

Only reason and definitions, but I will certainly agree that those are less than conclusive.

Yes you can. For example, if you saw some boxes in a forest aranged to make a large tower. You would think that it is more likely that someone placed them there despite there being no proof. You wouldn't say i strongly believe that no one made these boxes into a tower because there is no proof.

...Now, what if you were someone who's never seen boxes or towers before?

What reason have i "invented".

That there must be some infinite start.

No you literally said I strongly believe there is no god.

When?

Even though you have no proof for what you say either.

Well, he doesn't believe something without a reason, that helps.

Well didn't someone have to have FAITH in the scientific method to find out if it had any credibility in the first place? If they didnt have faith in it I presume they never would have given it a shot.

ah wikipedia...and a theory that states that majority will is not relavent.....classy

Don't like Wiki (feh, probably some stupid reason), try any of these.

http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&hl=en&q=Argumentum+ad+populum&btnG=Google+Search
It's not a theory, it's a logical fallacy.

ah wikipedia...and a theory that states that majority will is not relavent.....classy

I misunderstood his point, but you would be well-served to read his link.

Ever here of the ACLU?:p
The ACL-who? (Sorry, it was punnier in my head.)

I don't know what reasons you have for believing in a god
.

you cannot have "reasons" it is a matter of faith. Much the same as 4% of the population has faith that there is no God.

Just a side note here: more Americans believe in the Virgin birth of Christ than believe in humans evolving from an earlier species.

Just a side note here: More Americans can name the Simpsons than the rights granted in the First Amendment.


...Haven't I been over this with you?

So you do not believe that anything has any meaning outside of science? That must be boring and depressing.

Actually, I think that nothing has a meaning. It is liberating, you ought to try it.

Don't like Wiki (feh, probably some stupid reason), try any of these.

http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&hl=en&q=Argumentum+ad+populum&btnG=Google+Search
It's not a theory, it's a logical fallacy.

I agree that most people can be wrong on an issue but where does that leave you? Asking for a tyranny of the minority?

The ACL-who? (Sorry, it was punnier in my head.)
:D

Just a side note here: More Americans can name the Simpsons than the rights granted in the First Amendment.


...Haven't I been over this with you?

you have no source for that.

I agree that most people can be wrong on an issue but where does that leave you? Asking for a tyranny of the minority?

No, it leaves you not assuming something is correct because a lot of people think it. Which means, yanno, it doesn't matter how many people believe in the virgin birth, or thinking morality is under attack.

you cannot have "reasons" it is a matter of faith. Much the same as 4% of the population has faith that there is no God.

I say that we can have reasons, but they are a product of tradition and a priori preferences.

But this is the closest we have come to agreeing.

you have no source for that.

Ah yes, you said the same thing last time. And then I did this:



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4761294.stm

I agree that most people can be wrong on an issue but where does that leave you? Asking for a tyranny of the minority?

It leaves us casting out majority agreement as justification. On a similar note, we cast out minority agreement.

Anything that distracts us from the merit of an idea on its own is tossed out.

Ah yes, you said the same thing last time. And then I did this:



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4761294.stm

I knew that was coming without reading the last thread.

How can one person blunder into that twice in a row?

By the way, you aren't really entitled to agree with me in this argument.

If I had no concept of "boxes" why would I make that assumption.


You do not need to have encoutered boxes before to realise that the structure of it means it is incredibly unlikely it could have formed naturally.


I don't know what reasons you have for believing in a god.


So how can you make a claim that my reasons have been "invented" when you do not know my reasons. (Oh and Dinaverg, the "must be an infinate source thing" is basicly me saying that it is more likely that there is a God not a reason why, I have reasons for this which i have not stated (can't be bothered).


You are going to have to quote me.


Hmm, looking through i may have mixed you up with another poster, what do you believe then?


Only reason and definitions, but I will certainly agree that those are less than conclusive.

So how can you state that your reasons are any more intelligent then any others.

I knew that was coming without reading the last thread.

How can one person blunder into that twice in a row?

By the way, you aren't really entitled to agree with me in this argument.

I am saying a lot of the same things, huh?...Weird.

You do not need to have encoutered boxes before to realise that the structure of it means it is incredibly unlikely it could have formed naturally.

Actually, you do. How would you know boxes aren't normally like that?

(Oh and Dinaverg, the "must be an infinate source thing" is basicly me saying that it is more likely that there is a God not a reason why, I have reasons for this which i have not stated (can't be bothered).

M'kay.

So how can you state that your reasons are any more intelligent then any others.

Because less than concluisive != meaningless?

You do not need to have encoutered boxes before to realise that the structure of it means it is incredibly unlikely it could have formed naturally.

There's a healthy dose of intelligent design, which is the ultimate apologetic religion.

So how can you make a claim that my reasons have been "invented" when you do not know my reasons. (Oh and Dinaverg, the "must be an infinate source thing" is basicly me saying that it is more likely that there is a God not a reason why, I have reasons for this which i have not stated (can't be bothered).

Because I make a statement upon how reasons can be formed, which precludes many reasons altogether.

Hmm, looking through i may have mixed you up with another poster, what do you believe then?

Like I have said before. I don't believe, as it is a pointless endeavor.

So how can you state that your reasons are any more intelligent then any others.

Intelligence is based upon reason and definitions, in other words, logic.

But I have never said that my reasons are are more intelligent, only that I don't accept your reasons.

I am saying a lot of the same things, huh?...Weird.

We certainly are not too different, but you know that we disagree on what constitutes an agnostic.

There's a healthy dose of intelligent design, which is the ultimate apologetic religion.


This is not intelligent design, i am not attempting to scientifically explain anything, or disproove evolution. I am mainly refering to life and the universe in general, not the flagellem etc...


Because I make a statement upon how reasons can be formed, which precludes many reasons altogether.


What? When did you make a statement on how reasons can be formed?


Like I have said before. I don't believe, as it is a pointless endeavor.


So why are you debating with me?


Intelligence is based upon reason and definitions, in other words, logic.

But I have never said that my reasons are are more intelligent, only that I don't accept your reasons....

...even though you don't know my reasons.

This is not intelligent design, i am not attempting to scientifically explain anything, or disproove evolution. I am mainly refering to life and the universe in general, not the flagellem etc...

It's no better than ID, that much is obvious.

...even though you don't know my reasons.

He knows the conclusion.

It's no better than ID, that much is obvious.


All i was trying to do in the first place is explain why I am able to assign a likelyhood to Gods existance in the first place, I am not attempting to proove God in anyway.


He knows the conclusion.

So you are saying, any reason to believe in a possability of God is stupid.

This is not intelligent design, i am not attempting to scientifically explain anything, or disproove evolution. I am mainly refering to life and the universe in general, not the flagellem etc...

And you are using faulty ID logic.

What? When did you make a statement on how reasons can be formed?

In a response to one of your prior posts:

"I am an agnostic because I believe that we can never find evidence of God as we cannot interpret it as such."

So why are you debating with me.

Why are you debating me?

I never said that there was no god.

...even though you don't know my reasons.

I don't need to know them to know that they are faulty.

And you are using faulty ID logic.


I am not using any sort of ID logic as I am not claiming that i have any sort of proof of God.


In a response to one of your prior posts:

"I am an agnostic because I believe that we can never find evidence of God as we cannot interpret it as such."


I didn't say I have evidence. I, like you, have reasons why i believe it is more likely there is a God. You have reasons for believing what you believe also.


Why are you debating me?

I never said that there was no god.


Ok, forget this bit i'm getting confused, debate as usual.


I don't need to know them to know that they are faulty.

Way to judge.

Let me pose a hypothetical.

Say you suddenly find yourself in a room. No way in or out, no doors or windows, no way to escape. In front of you is a monitor, and a large button, your finger is posed ready to push the button.

Suppose you have magically been given knowledge of certain things in your mind:

1) when you push the button, a number, randomly selected, between 1 and 100 trillion will appear on the monitor.

2) if the right number appears, and there is only one right number, you will be instantly transported back to earth, the moment you disappeared

3) select the wrong number and you will stay in that room

4) you have been rendered ageless, without need for food, water, sleep, air, or heat, and thus this experiment will not conclude until the right number is selected

5) every time the wrong number appears on the screen, you will be stripped of all memory of ever having pushed the button, and appear exactly in the state you were in.

You push the button, it turns up the right number, and you are sent back to earth.

What you do not know is, how many times you pushed the button, since ever time you didn't push the button, you were stripped of your memories of ever having pushed it.

What the IDers tend to say is "getting the exact right number from 1 to 100 trillion is so extremely unlikely as to be practically impossible, and must have been done by an intelligent force."

What the weak anthropic princple says is this:

you have no idea how long you were in that room. you have no idea how many times you pushed that button. You may have pushed it only once, in which case it WAS extremely unlikely. You may have pushed it 1 trillion times, and gotten pretty lucky. Maybe 50 trillion times, and you were due. Maybe 100 trillion which means that getting the right number in 100 trillion times is pretty likely. Maybe you were even extremely UNLUCKLY and pushed in 500 trillion times before you got the right number.

Now how it works for the theory. Every time you push the button, you create a universe. Maybe it's EXTREEMLY unlikely you'll randomly create a universe that's perfect for supporting human life. But if you press it enough, eventually it will happen. And we have NO idea how many times the button has been pushed, since, by definition, we weren't there to see it. I

s it extremely unlikely that the universe would exist just right to create human life? Maybe.

Does that mean that it needs a creator? No, we have no idea how many universes there have been. For all we know, we've been pretty cosmically unlucky, and there have been a lot more universes then there statistically should have been come and go before we came along.

In short, don't say because it's so unlikely that we shouldn't be here since we dont know how many times we haven't been here.

you cannot have "reasons" it is a matter of faith.
Because reason and faith are incompatible. No reasonable person can have faith.

I am not using any sort of ID logic as I am not claiming that i have any sort of proof of God.

Your comment about the boxes was very similar to the faulty ID logic.

I didn't say I have evidence. I, like you, have reasons why i believe it is more likely there is a God. You have reasons for believing what you believe also.

What are your reasons if not comprised of evidence? A priori belief in God?

Way to judge.

I am not allowed to form my own opinons about others beliefs?

I do not know they are faulty because they are yours or for their specific conclusions. I know they are faulty because I am firmly committed to an epistomology that precludes them from being valid.

We've been over this.

You don't have any reason to believe that the universe is stable or orderly relative to the other available options, because you have no idea what the other available options are. As I've explained previously, your pseudo-mathematical explanation only works if you assume that all variables are unrelated and determined randomly, which you most certainly do not know.


Yes, we've been over this and you are repeating yourself and making me repeat myself. Since we dont know any other options and since we know only our universe, our reference point should also be our universe. And our universe is orderly, because it obeys many laws and also follows many patterns.
And while I do not know the mathematical equation of variables of our universe, it is a REASONABLE assumption to think there are many variables, some are interdependant, some are independent.


Exactly. We don't know anything about that singularity, so we shouldn't assume anything at all about what it could or couldn't have created, aside from what we see. It did create the universe in which we live, therefore this is the only universe we know to have been a possible outcome.


From singularity, billion different things arised. From planets, to stars, to black holes to bacteria. It is again a REASONABLE assumption to think that this proccess is very VERY complex and hence depandant on many MANY variables.


I don't know. Neither do you. But we're both so far from knowing that neither of us is in a position to fill in the blanks with unsupported suppositions like "God did it".

As I said, I'm asking what is more likely. And you keep pointing out that we dont know this or that. The working of our universe makes it unlikely that the universe is just an uncontrolled set of coincidences.
And "it happened because this is the only way it could have happened" is even more simplistic than "God did it."

Prove it, what are the odds of an intelligent godlike consciousness developing. No idea? then you have no idea of how to compare it to the idea of near infinite coincidences "just happening". You say it's "more likely" without showing the statistical probability of their being a creator


And look to mine. Prove it. You can no sooner prove to me that god is more likely than random creation as I can prove to you the converse, as we have no way of debating the statistical probability of god existing.

Anology Attempt:

When you look at the blue prints of a skyscraper, what do you assume? And what is more likely?

a. Someone designed it.
b. The ink spilled, an earth quake happened, etc etc....and these blueprints were formed.

Hmmm.

The first religious figure to make it to another celestial body also happened to be the first scientific type to do so.


His name? The Episcopal laypreacher Buzz Aldrin.



Ah guess they can coexist...

Let me pose a hypothetical.

Say you suddenly find yourself in a room. No way in or out, no doors or windows, no way to escape. In front of you is a monitor, and a large button, your finger is posed ready to push the button.

<snip>



The existance of multiple universes is just an assumption....But:

1. The assumption is wrong. There is only one universe. And it developing the way it is, without intervention, is a very LOW possibility (1/Astronomically Huge Number). Hence it is reasonable to suggest that it is designed.

2. The assumption is correct. There are multiple universes:

a. There are SOME universes: The existance of our universe is still unlikely.
b. There are almost infinite, maybe infinite universes: Our universe is a statistical possibility then, yes. However since there are infinite universes, anything is a statistical possibility, including (someone else said this before) a god like intelligence developing and controlling the universe. The possibility of existance of our universe is either same or close to the possibility of existance of a universe where Jesus is what christians believe it is.
And also, while there is a theory which suggest that there might be multiple universes, there is no theory/evidence which suggests what the conditions of these universes are. Those universes might also be as orderly as ours, which might invalidate your "statistical possibility" approach. Saying that most other universes are inorderly is as much speculation as saying they are orderly.
And even if other universes is inorderly, who's to say that there is no macro, cosmic order between orderly and inorderly universes?

In conclusion, debating about other universes and hence saying that our universe is a statistical possibility is inconclusive. So we can only look at our own universe, which is orderly and hence my logic suggests that it is designed.

PS: Count how many times I said orderly and get a cookie...

it is a REASONABLE assumption
Assumptions can't be reasonable. They exist outside of reason.

As I said, I'm asking what is more likely.
As I've said, you don't have any information with which to determine that.

The existance of multiple universes is just an assumption...
The multiple universe argument doesn't need multiple universes to exist in order to be right. It only needs multiple universes to be possible, which you've already accepted by asserting that ours in unlikely.

If ours is unlikely, then either universes generally are unlikely or the odds are that any given universe will differ from the one we have, which makes it a possible universe.

and hence my logic
I haven't seen you use logic yet.

Yes, we've been over this and you are repeating yourself and making me repeat myself. Since we dont know any other options and since we know only our universe, our reference point should also be our universe. And our universe is orderly, because it obeys many laws and also follows many patterns.

OK, so our universe is orderly when compared to our universe when we assume our universe is orderly.

Foolproof logic.

Anology Attempt:

When you look at the blue prints of a skyscraper, what do you assume? And what is more likely?

a. Someone designed it.
b. The ink spilled, an earth quake happened, etc etc....and these blueprints were formed.

The reason you would assume that it was planned is from prior knowledge of skyscrapers, blueprints, and the various geometrical concepts that will be a part of the drawing.

However, this is an irrelevant point, as we have ample evidence that there was no conscious designer, and we don't have to judge the process based solely on the results.