NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, the article is very interesting although a bit long. It seems that although science can not prove that God exists, it can't prove he doesn't and many scientists believe in God.

"Hoodbhoy ends by saying that God is neither dead nor about to die. There is still plenty of "space for a science-friendly God as well as for 'deeply religious non-believers' like Einstein ... Unsure of why they happen to exist, humans are likely to scour the heavens forever in search of meaning."

So, read the article and comment. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356376,00.html

If there is a God, I bet He likes tacos. :)

I think it's possible that their is a deistic God, like a 'universal force' or whatnot, but a theistic God in the Abrahamic sense, like a personal God who cares if you mutilate the genitalia of your children, or what food you eat, or what gender you screw, well that is almost completely ridiculous and impossible given well... reality.

If there is a God, I bet He likes tacos. :)

OR

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:rvCAKckeh1VhkM:http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/moarcheez-mike.jpg

soo....+1 for Agnostics?

The phraseology of the question is interesting. He didn't asked if you believed in God, or didn't believe in God, but asked whether you considered that God might be "possible". Therein, "I don't know" would be synonymous with "yes" as, if you don't know, you consider it possible.

I rather liked this:

Healing the schism

Kauffman, director of the Institute for Biocomplexity and Informatics at the University of Calgary, takes a slightly New Age tack, saying we must "heal" the schism between science and religion by "reinventing the sacred" and evolving from a supernatural God to a "new sense of a fully natural God as our chosen symbol for the ceaseless creativity in the natural universe."

That's roughly where I'm at. Humans will never understand the entire universe. We should have respect, not contempt, for a universe which defies us.

Even a bit of private worship isn't out of the question. :)

I rather liked this:



That's roughly where I'm at. Humans will never understand the entire universe. We should have respect, not contempt, for a universe which defies us.

Even a bit of private worship isn't out of the question. :)

I'm tired and can't think of the antithesis of reason. Isn't that what you are suggesting?

I'm tired and can't think of the antithesis of reason. Isn't that what you are suggesting?

Mmm, more that we should not have unbounded faith in reason. When we start thinking of reason as the solution to all problems, we're barely better than blind believers.

Science is a struggle between facts and reason, between a universe which is a certain way, and minds which try to reduce that "being" to laws, to explain the past and predict the future.

We should have enough faith in reason to carry on trying to understand. But it is sheer hubris to look at the knowledge gained by science, and to conclude that the universe is our bitch.

We should have enough faith in reason to carry on trying to understand. But it is sheer hubris to look at the knowledge gained by science, and to conclude that the universe is our bitch.

And like a bitch, the universe will continue to kick our ass time after time and we will forgive her time after time. :p

If there is a God, I bet He likes tacos. :)

Beetle tacos?

The phraseology of the question is interesting. He didn't asked if you believed in God, or didn't believe in God, but asked whether you considered that God might be "possible". Therein, "I don't know" would be synonymous with "yes" as, if you don't know, you consider it possible.

Yeah, that bothered me too. I chose "yes" because I think it's possible, but since the poll contains an (irrational) "I don't know" it gives the impression that I actively believe in a god... which I don't.

Beetle tacos?

And/or cat burritos.
http://newmedia.funnyjunk.com/pictures/kitten-burrito-in-a-spinach-tortilla.jpg

The phraseology of the question is interesting. He didn't asked if you believed in God, or didn't believe in God, but asked whether you considered that God might be "possible". Therein, "I don't know" would be synonymous with "yes" as, if you don't know, you consider it possible.

Probably because that's the only type of question that yields a hopeful result for a believer. Hearing a scientist or (respected) philosopher say "well, it's not impossible" is always good for a headline. :p

soo....+1 for Agnostics?
Yes.


And, to answer the OP, yes, it is possible that God exists. It's just that the nature of our descriptions about the world as we observe it will just fail to correspond conclusively to God knowledge.

many scientists believe in God

sure, though this must always be footnoted as being massively smaller than the percentage in society at large, and diminishing to effectively none as you look farther up the hierarchy of scientific prestige. also, the majority of the minority that do believe flat out reject the various personal gods and religious institutions out there, and fall back to a more aristotelean conception.

sure, though this must always be footnoted as being massively smaller than the percentage in society at large, and diminishing to effectively none as you look farther up the hierarchy of scientific prestige. also, the majority of the minority that do believe flat out reject the various personal gods and religious institutions out there, and fall back to a more aristotelean conception.

Yes, thus my earlier statement identifying the difference between deism and theism. I believe after Einstein made the famous comment 'God does not play dice with the universe', that comment was jumped all over by Christians, much to the exacerbation of Einstein who meant it in a deistic sense.

It is possible that a 'God' or 'universal force' exists? Sure, but it would be an impersonal force if that were the case, and wouldn't care and interact with humans, thus destroying the theistic argument for a 'specific' God like in Abrahamic religion.

It's just that the nature of our descriptions about the world as we observe it will just fail to correspond conclusively to God knowledge.

...or even to sentences which conform to the conditions under which alone a sentence can be literally significant, to quote Ayer (from memory). :p

...or even to sentences which conform to the conditions under which alone a sentence can be literally significant, to quote Ayer (from memory). :p
Are you making fun of me? (I don't know what that means in this context, or indeed any context.) :(

Yeah, that bothered me too. I chose "yes" because I think it's possible, but since the poll contains an (irrational) "I don't know" it gives the impression that I actively believe in a god... which I don't.

Why is it "irrational" for a person to say, "I don't know," about God or any other subject? Maybe they don't have enough knowledge about the subject or are still evaluating what they do know and how they feel.

If you ask me how I feel about the death penalty I'll tell you, "I'm not sure." why? I'm still evaluating how I feel about the pros and cons and there is nothing irrational about that.

An "I don't know" does not give the impression that you believe or do not believe in a God. It only implies that you have not mad a decision at this time. You are evaluating it.

Are you making fun of me? (I don't know what that means in this context, or indeed any context.) :(

No, I agree with you. I just thought I'd take your statement a step farther. I was quoting from "The Elimination of Metaphysics."

Edit: if you meant the use of ":p," that's just habit - I tend to stick one on there when being humorous in general. Sorry about that.

Probably because that's the only type of question that yields a hopeful result for a believer. Hearing a scientist or (respected) philosopher say "well, it's not impossible" is always good for a headline. :p

Or the respected philosopher is saying "I have not yet reached a conclusion. It is possible God exists but it is also possible God does not exist. I need to do further research." So, what is wrong with that?

It is possible that a 'God' or 'universal force' exists? Sure, but it would be an impersonal force if that were the case, and wouldn't care and interact with humans, thus destroying the theistic argument for a 'specific' God like in Abrahamic religion.

Can you be sure of that? Do you have any scientific proof that if God does exist, God would be an "impersonal force?" I thought not.

Or the respected philosopher is saying "I have not yet reached a conclusion. It is possible God exists but it is also possible God does not exist. I need to do further research." So, what is wrong with that?

Nothing's wrong with that. The law of noncontradiction supports him. :p

Can you be sure of that? Do you have any scientific proof that if God does exist, God would be an "impersonal force?" I thought not.

Oh come on, read the Bible or the Koran then? What are the chances of that kinda God existing? Of course I can't be completely sure, but if the only argument you have left is a tiny sliver of hope then your argument is already dead and buried.

Yeah, that bothered me too. I chose "yes" because I think it's possible, but since the poll contains an (irrational) "I don't know" it gives the impression that I actively believe in a god... which I don't.
I disagree. I voted "yes" because I believe it's possible for God to exist. I don't know if God exists. But I think it's also possible (and quite agnostic, just agnostic in a different way than I am) to believe that one does not know if it's possible for God to exist.

No, I agree with you. I just thought I'd take your statement a step farther. I was quoting from "The Elimination of Metaphysics."

Edit: if you meant the use of ":p," that's just habit - I tend to stick one on there when being humorous in general. Sorry about that.
Oh, it's okay. :D

Oh come on, read the Bible or the Koran then? What are the chances of that kinda God existing? Of course I can't be completely sure, but if the only argument you have left is a tiny sliver of hope then your argument is already dead and buried.

The question does not ask if the God of the Bible or the Koran could exist, it asks if God could exist. As you "can't be completely sure" then you must agree that is is possible. So, why are you attacking me? I never said God exists, I only asked the question, is it possible he does? Obviously you feel it is possible and there is nothing wrong or right about that conclusion.

Oh come on, read the Bible or the Koran then? What are the chances of that kinda God existing? Of course I can't be completely sure, but if the only argument you have left is a tiny sliver of hope then your argument is already dead and buried.

Your post's wording seemed as if you were willing to stipulate god in the hypothetical, but not the possibility of a 'personal' god, which is a bit puzzling. Einstein's assertion that the Bible's morality is "childish" is certainly an interesting subject unto itself, though, isn't it? :p

Oh come on, read the Bible or the Koran then? What are the chances of that kinda God existing? Of course I can't be completely sure, but if the only argument you have left is a tiny sliver of hope then your argument is already dead and buried.

Ahh, the argument is not dead and buried. You see, the winning argument rose from the tomb and reigns. Logically speaking, its the only valid reason for a faith like Christianity to exist.

The question does not ask if the God of the Bible or the Koran could exist, it asks if God could exist. As you "can't be completely sure" then you must agree that is is possible. So, why are you attacking me? I never said God exists, I only asked the question, is it possible he does? Obviously you feed it is possible and there is nothing wrong or right about that conclusion.
It is possible that 'he' exists, but if so it would an impersonal 'force' rather than the Being one usually associates with 'God'. The idea of a personal God who intervenes in human affairs and cares about us is ridiculously improbable and the stuff of hopeful thinking and fairy tales to children.

Ahh, the argument is not dead and buried. You see, the winning argument rose from the tomb and reigns. Logically speaking, its the only valid reason for a faith like Christianity to exist.

Because one man existed over 2000 years old in Bronze Age Palestine, whose true salvation would take thousands of years to reach the whole world? So this benevolent God watched for thousands of years while humanity was brutalized by the ravages of our conditions, and the only response he could muster from his obviously capacious heart was to end some lowly human to Bronze Age Palestine? :rolleyes: If that's all you've got then I rest my case.

Ahh, the argument is not dead and buried. You see, the winning argument rose from the tomb and reigns. Logically speaking, its the only valid reason for a faith like Christianity to exist.

The question is not if the God of Christianity, the God of Islam, or the God of any other specific religion exists. The question is, "Is it possible God exists." There is a huge difference between the questions.

The question is not if the God of Christianity, the God of Islam, or the God of any other specific religion exists. The question is, "Is it possible God exists." There is a huge difference between the questions.

By 'God' do you mean a personal God?

Ahh, the argument is not dead and buried. You see, the winning argument rose from the tomb and reigns. Logically speaking, its the only valid reason for a faith like Christianity to exist.

And what about other religions? What about those religions that are not Christian? Is their belief that God exists or may exist any less than the Christian belief that God exists? I though not.

Because one man existed over 2000 years old in Bronze Age Palestine, whose true salvation would take thousands of years to reach the whole world? So this benevolent God watched for thousands of years while humanity was brutalized by the ravages of our conditions, and the only response he could muster from his obviously capacious heart was to end some lowly human to Bronze Age Palestine? :rolleyes: If that's all you've got then I rest my case.

Do you know of anyone else who could raise people from dead? Or raise himself from the dead, and promise a release from a bondage greater than anything any human can put on each other? You are looking at it in a mocking way.I follow a God who cared enough about people like you and I that He would come and live as a human. Why? Because, as Paul explained, it provided a way out for us from our temptations and heart aches, and troubles in life. There is enemy attestation of Jesus doing miracles, wondrous miracles at that. 3 billion people believe in him as something more than just a man from Bronze age Palestine. And until you choose to understand and know Him on a personal level, then you can never understand why He is so important.I used to be in your shoes. Trust me, I know all the objections. I used to make fun of Christians, because I thought they were stupid for believing in a zombie. But then guess what? I was at my end, and I looked to Jesus, and found something that nothing else in this world has been able to offer me. You may scoff and go about your witty rebuttals, but the fact of the matter is that Jesus is more than just another man. He is more than just a desert prophet, who spoke good things. Its up to all of you, to decide if you want to find out what He really is. And I tell you this much, once you cross the line, its mighty hard to turn back. These are truly the most exciting days of my life.

And what about other religions? What about those religions that are not Christian? Is their belief that God exists or may exist any less than the Christian belief that God exists? I though not.

There can only be one way. You don't honestly think that everyone can be right, do you?

And what about other religions? What about those religions that are not Christian? Is their belief that God exists or may exist any less than the Christian belief that God exists? I though not.

Well the infinite variety of human religions can ONLY be explained as the innate flaws of humanity. After all their are many many religions all claiming to have an objective monopoly on universal truth, and as such if a personal God is to exist only ONE of these religions can be correct.

So the question is thus, either 'God' is downright schizophrenic, or their is no specific God who is objectively the only true God, because if it were true that only ONE GOD existed then that would be represented down below in human religion which would be monolithic, human religion has variety and is NOT monolithic so a personal God CANNOT EXIST.

Well, either you believe in some kind of revelation or you don't. Personally, I don't hear voices (from a burning bush or anything else) except from another human being.

It's possible to answer the question of the existence of a deity through scientific examination. The content is in the area of evolution. If a sequence of mutations exists that exceeds the level of chance, then there was a "first cause" and we can assume this is a deity. If not, then everything happened by chance and there wasn't a divine plan. Unfortunately, determining both chance and actual rates of change requires DNA analysis of all species beyond a monocellular level. This means examining fossils and we have a huge missing data problem. Perhaps in another thousand years..........In the meantime, let's all keep the faith around the ability of viruses, nuclear weapons, meteor collisions, pollution, etc. to be the likely source of human extermination.

There can only be one way. You don't honestly think that everyone can be right, do you?

and what makes you the right one?

snip
facepalms

Christianity accurately appeals to the human condition, I'll give you that. But that doesn't make it true, it only makes it an accurate reflection of material conditions, nothing more.

By 'God' do you mean a personal God?

How do you define God? A higher power? A being that can intervene in your life? Different religions define God in different ways but each one assumes there is a power that is higher than man, So, do you believe it is possible there is a God? There are more than two choices to the question in the OP.

I think it's possible that their is a deistic God, like a 'universal force' or whatnot, but a theistic God in the Abrahamic sense, like a personal God who cares if you mutilate the genitalia of your children, or what food you eat, or what gender you screw, well that is almost completely ridiculous and impossible given well... reality.

I believe in god. But I don't believe that god is the kind of petty asshole some fundamentalist Abrahamists describe their deity as.

How do you define God? A higher power? A being that can intervene in your life? Different religions define God in different ways but each one assumes there is a power that is higher than man, So, do you believe it is possible there is a God? There is more than two choices to the question in the OP.

What I am saying is that a 'universal force' or other deistic manifestation may well exist, and indeed many Enlightened people thought that, but even then that was never the point because such a 'force' was completely impersonal and was simply a representation of the cosmos in it's infinite complexity. If anything deism is the 'awe' that modern science, the Hubble telescope, was brought to humanity, it's about knowing how small and insignificant we are, not how important we are.

Theism on the other hand appeals to the worst in human nature, it appeals to the three 'S's, self-pity, self-hatred and self-righteousness, both blind arrogance of thinking WE in all our infinite smallness are important, but and also blind humbleness and in thinking we are nothing but dust to the Almighty Dictator God of the Universe. If anything that kinda mindset is the guide to the worst excesses of human atrocity.

There can only be one way. You don't honestly think that everyone can be right, do you?

The question is not is "this God right, and is this God wrong." The question is, Do you believe that God could exist?" That God could be the Cristian God, one of the Roman gods, one of the Greek gods, or any other God. This is not about "The one true God."

and what makes you the right one?

This attitude started the Inquisition, and we all know what the results of that were.

The question is not is "this God right, and is this God wrong." The question is, Do you believe that God could exist?" That God could be the Cristian God, one of the Roman gods, one of the Greek gods, or any other God. This is not about "The one true God."

You obviously completely ignored my last statement regarding this position of yours, so I'll quote it again:

Well the infinite variety of human religions can ONLY be explained as the innate flaws of humanity. After all their are many many religions all claiming to have an objective monopoly on universal truth, and as such if a personal God is to exist only ONE of these religions can be correct.

So the question is thus, either 'God' is downright schizophrenic, or their is no specific God who is objectively the only true God, because if it were true that only ONE GOD existed then that would be represented down below in human religion which would be monolithic, human religion has variety and is NOT monolithic so a personal God CANNOT EXIST.

So which is it, it's either a personal specific God, in which case you'll have to choose between the myriad Gods and religions all claiming they are right and everyone else is wrong. Or you'll have to say that you believe in a deistic entity, in which case it doesn't matter if you believe in him or not, seeing as such an entity is simply a representation of the cosmos, and not a self-conscious personality which can send you to Heaven etc, such an entity is merely a representation of the human condition in wishing not to die, specifically the inability of a pre-frontal cortex to comprehend a consciousness without our consciousness in it.

Try to imagine life without your own consciousness, can you do it? That's why religion exists, nothing more.

What I am saying is that a 'universal force' or other deistic manifestation may well exist, and indeed many Enlightened people thought that,

So what you are saying is:
1. God may exist.
2. I am a Unitarian,

Nothing wrong with that.

So what you are saying is:
1. God may exist.
2. I am a Unitarian,

Nothing wrong with that.
No, my point is that even if you are a deist, that's not a very 'uplifting' belief to hold as theism is. Deism, much like atheism, holds no special rewards (or bribes as I call them) for believing, it only offers pure scientific truth and observation of the cosmos, and viewing our own insignificant place in this infinetely complex universe. It takes courage to be such, while to be a Christian or whatever is nothing as Christianity appeals with the most briberies and demagoguery that any common serf would fall for it, certainly nothing to be proud of.

You obviously completely ignored my last statement regarding this position of yours, so I'll quote it again:

That quote is not mine and you know it. If you want to continue this discussion I would appreciate it if you would not attribute what others have said to me. :mad:

That quote is not mine and you know it. If you want to continue this discussion I would appreciate it if you would not attribute what others have said to me. :mad:

I didn't, I attributed to myself as I clearly pointed out, I quoted it because you clearly did not read it the first time and it related directly to the point you made.

And like a bitch, the universe will continue to kick our ass time after time and we will forgive her time after time. :p

Perhaps I look at it from the "bitch" point of view.

Everyone likes Charlie Brown better than Lucy, right? Now ... which one seems happier ..? :p

Hey! I don't think that there is a chance there is a God but that there IS with 100% assurity that there is a God. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The God who made everything and knows all. How can I believe this? Well, I'm not really one for theological debates but if you really want to know I can name off tons of evidence. But I don't need to tell you this stuff. Look around you! God's finger prints are everywhere.

Do you know of anyone else who could raise people from dead?

doctors

doctors

T-Virus.

Everyone likes Charlie Brown better than Lucy, right? Now ... which one seems happier ..? :p

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:vWLTElThTmh1-M:http://www.fullfondos.com/dibujos/snoopie/snoopie.jpg

But I don't need to tell you this stuff. Look around you! God's finger prints are everywhere.

That is going to make CSI's job much harder. He really needs to follow proper evidence handling procedures. *nod*

Do you know of anyone else who could raise people from dead? Or raise himself from the dead, and promise a release from a bondage greater than anything any human can put on each other? You are looking at it in a mocking way.I follow a God who cared enough about people like you and I that He would come and live as a human. Why? Because, as Paul explained, it provided a way out for us from our temptations and heart aches, and troubles in life. There is enemy attestation of Jesus doing miracles, wondrous miracles at that. 3 billion people believe in him as something more than just a man from Bronze age Palestine. And until you choose to understand and know Him on a personal level, then you can never understand why He is so important.

I'll stop you there, because you seem to have done a segue from talking about a living person who died, and talking about Jesus like he's still alive.

So without the doublespeak: is Jesus alive? Or dead?

Well, the article is very interesting although a bit long. It seems that although science can not prove that God exists, it can't prove he doesn't and many scientists believe in God.

"Hoodbhoy ends by saying that God is neither dead nor about to die. There is still plenty of "space for a science-friendly God as well as for 'deeply religious non-believers' like Einstein ... Unsure of why they happen to exist, humans are likely to scour the heavens forever in search of meaning."

So, read the article and comment. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356376,00.html

Wow. Science cant disprove God. In other news, water is wet.


You get bored of telling us that if we dont buy into nationalistic propaganda we hate the troops, and this is what you come up with?

Hey! I don't think that there is a chance there is a God but that there IS with 100% assurity that there is a God. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The God who made everything and knows all. How can I believe this? Well, I'm not really one for theological debates but if you really want to know I can name off tons of evidence. But I don't need to tell you this stuff. Look around you! God's finger prints are everywhere.
I know. That's what makes it so hard to tell. If everything is made by God, what independent means exist to verify it?

If a sequence of mutations exists that exceeds the level of chance, then there was a "first cause" and we can assume this is a deity. If not, then everything happened by chance and there wasn't a divine plan.

Just because we exist, doesn't mean that there has to be a reasonable chance of it occurring. If this planet wasn't just right for us to come into existence we wouldn't have and we wouldn't be here discussing how unlikely it is.

That is going to make CSI's job much harder. He really needs to follow proper evidence handling procedures. *nod*

Taco cat agrees

http://darisa.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/taco-cat.jpg

I know. That's what makes it so hard to tell. If everything is made by God, what independent means exist to verify it?

Consumer Reports. *nod*

Taco cat agrees

http://darisa.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/taco-cat.jpg

Clearly the work of Intelligent Design. *nod* :)

So without the doublespeak: is Jesus alive? Or dead?

Not the question. Go to the OP for the question. This isn't about Jesus or any other God or Savior.

Sure, its possible there is a god. Its equally possible there isnt one. The least likely situation however is the idea of a "personal god" supported by dogmatic religions like Christianity and Islam.

Sure, its possible there is a god. Its equally possible there isnt one. The least likely situation however is the idea of a "personal god" supported by dogmatic religions like Christianity and Islam.
One hilarious possibility is that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob exists, but the Holy Bible is a massive fabrication, and the people who believe in it are going to Hell because they believe in the most blasphemous things. (The Bible makes God out to be morally ambiguous at best.)

One hilarious possibility is that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob exists, but the Holy Bible is a massive fabrication, and the people who believe in it are going to Hell because they believe in the most blasphemous things. (The Bible makes God out to be morally ambiguous at best.)

Not being a follower of Abrahamic religions, and a better person then most of them, I wouldnt wish "hell" on anyone.

Not the question. Go to the OP for the question. This isn't about Jesus or any other God or Savior.

It's not about god?

What the hell is it about then? Yes, I did read the OP and most of the article. No, I can't tell what it's about, with the word "god" taken out.

Poll doesn't make a lot of sense either ... "is it possible that something exists?"

If that WAS the question, I would like to change my vote to WTF ? :D

It is incredibly arrogant to assume a personal god exists.

It is less, albeit still, arrogant to believe a deistic god exists.

It all comes down to a matter of, "Wow, we're so awesome we couldn't possibly have occurred out of random chance! We're too good for anything less than an almighty force CREATING us!"

No, science can't prove a god exists. It's hard to prove something that doesn't exist does. All science can do is repeatedly shatter all the silliness religions use to show evidence of their god until the point where it becomes extremely and undeniably apparently that theistic belief is illogic, irrational, and inane. Sadly, this will take a very long period of time, but the end result will be glorious.

It is less, albeit still, arrogant to believe a deistic god exists.


How so?


Anyone who is really a deist will still usually believe that the world in its current state was created by chance.

When we start thinking of reason as the solution to all problems, we're barely better than blind believers.

This makes no sense whatsoever. How is reason blind, pray tell?

How so?


Anyone who is really a deist will still usually believe that the world in its current state was created by chance.

Because you're supposing a greater being came out of nothing and created everything. That kinda goes against the idea of idle chance and thus is arrogant.

This makes no sense whatsoever. How is reason blind, pray tell?

Reason is blind because without relevant context anything will make rational sense. You need experience, or else reason will essentially perform a square dance with you as the unwilling partner.

No, science can't prove a god exists. It's hard to prove something that doesn't exist does. All science can do is repeatedly shatter all the silliness religions use to show evidence of their god until the point where it becomes extremely and undeniably apparently that theistic belief is illogic, irrational, and inane. Sadly, this will take a very long period of time, but the end result will be glorious.
Actually, it's really hard to prove God exists or not because because the notion is supernatural, and Creation is taken to be evidence of His existence, so there are no independent ways that we could ever fathom to verify it.

Imagine that God is greater than the greatest thing you can possibly imagine. That's God, and that's something we can't fathom by definition.

i won't comment on yet another article raising the same questions, but there IS a VERY big universe out there. certainly big enough for both science AND 'god'.

(and fanatics of EVERY stripe, tend to have very little understanding of either)

=^^=
.../\...

How so?


Anyone who is really a deist will still usually believe that the world in its current state was created by chance.

Maybe to a degree, but as I said previously deism is the result of an awe and appreciation of our small and insignificant part in the infinite vastness of the universe.

The theistic notion is highly arrogant because it's the claim YOU know the mind of God, and it is massively self-aggrandizing.

Again, theism is the result of the human inability of the pre-frontal cortex to comprehend an existance without it's own consciousness, it's a purely biological reasoning for religion and theism.

Deism on the other hand comes from that awe at our own smallness, not an amazingly arrogant self-centered view of humankind peddled by Christian conspiracy theorists.

The scientific view of the universe is far more vast, more awe inspiring, than the narrow dogmatic and unbelievable fairy tales of the theistic hucksterists.

Actually, it's really hard to prove God exists or not because because the notion is supernatural, and Creation is taken to be evidence of His existence, so there are no independent ways that we could ever fathom to verify it.

Imagine that God is greater than the greatest thing you can possibly imagine. That's God, and that's something we can't fathom by definition.

What would be compelling evidence of a creator and creation? If science can create life, would that suffice for independent verification?

Your question is pointless in that it only addresses whether humans can perceive of something existing, and, considering our imaginations, pretty much anything can possibly exist, whether improbable or not.

Anyone who voted 'no' is either extremely arrogant in saying they know the whole of the universe, or has taken your use of 'God' to represent a personal deity of the Abrahamic religion and oppose its possible existence, which may be a fair opinion.

Well, the article is very interesting although a bit long. It seems that although science can not prove that God exists, it can't prove he doesn't and many scientists believe in God.

Many doctors smoke but that doesn't say anything about whether tobacco is bad for you or not. ;)

My view would be that science can't actually prove there is no God, but the evidence seems to be pointing that way. The fact that every major religion claimed to know how the world came into existence and have all turned out to be utterly wrong is certainly evidence against them, even if it isn't evidence against a vague deist conception of God.

Do you know of anyone else who could raise people from dead?

Lucian of Samosata

Hey! I don't think that there is a chance there is a God but that there IS with 100% assurity that there is a God. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The God who made everything and knows all. How can I believe this? Well, I'm not really one for theological debates but if you really want to know I can name off tons of evidence. But I don't need to tell you this stuff. Look around you! God's finger prints are everywhere.

go cause frankly I don't believe you

My view would be that science can't actually prove there is no God, but the evidence seems to be pointing that way. The fact that every major religion claimed to know how the world came into existence and have all turned out to be utterly wrong is certainly evidence against them, even if it isn't evidence against a vague deist conception of God.

yeah, the extent to which the benefit of the doubt is expected to be extended in the case of gods is really a bit much.

Do you know of anyone else who could raise people from dead?
Asclepius. Hel. Hades. Any ninth level or higher cleric. Anyone who knows CPR.

Or raise himself from the dead,
Odin. Mithra.

and promise a release from a bondage greater than anything any human can put on each other?
Every religious figure of every religion with a Hell ever.

Anyone who knows CPR.

shit, we've gotten so good at bring people back from the dead that we've had to adjust the definition of death a couple times.

This article has a couple of good points ...
You put a magnetic helmet around their heads and they will begin to think they are having a spiritual epiphany. If they suffer from temporal lobe epilepsy, they will show signs of hyperreligiosity, an overexcitement of the brain tissue that leads sufferers to believe they are conversing with God.
+
The cognitive revolution is not going to end up undermining faith in God, it’s going to end up challenging faith in the Bible.
+
First, the self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships. Second, underneath the patina of different religions, people around the world have common moral intuitions. Third, people are equipped to experience the sacred, to have moments of elevated experience when they transcend boundaries and overflow with love. Fourth, God can best be conceived as the nature one experiences at those moments, the unknowable total of all there is.
+
The real challenge is going to come from people who feel the existence of the sacred, but who think that particular religions are just cultural artifacts built on top of universal human traits.
+
In unexpected ways, science and mysticism are joining hands and reinforcing each other. That’s bound to lead to new movements that emphasize self-transcendence but put little stock in divine law or revelation. Orthodox believers are going to have to defend particular doctrines and particular biblical teachings. They’re going to have to defend the idea of a personal God, and explain why specific theologies are true guides for behavior day to day. I’m not qualified to take sides, believe me. I’m just trying to anticipate which way the debate is headed. We’re in the middle of a scientific revolution.

go cause frankly I don't believe you
Woe, ye of little faith ... :D

If there is a God, I bet He likes tacos. :)

And pies. Don´t forget the pies.:)

Because you're supposing a greater being came out of nothing and created everything. That kinda goes against the idea of idle chance and thus is arrogant.

Not really. You suppose that a greater being started it all at some level, possibly being simply creating the atom that resulted in the big bang, and then just watched everything happen from there, without a plan or intervention. It also believes that this higher bein takes no special interest in any species. It still is entirely random that we got this way.

Maybe to a degree, but as I said previously deism is the result of an awe and appreciation of our small and insignificant part in the infinite vastness of the universe.

The theistic notion is highly arrogant because it's the claim YOU know the mind of God, and it is massively self-aggrandizing.

Again, theism is the result of the human inability of the pre-frontal cortex to comprehend an existance without it's own consciousness, it's a purely biological reasoning for religion and theism.

Deism on the other hand comes from that awe at our own smallness, not an amazingly arrogant self-centered view of humankind peddled by Christian conspiracy theorists.

The scientific view of the universe is far more vast, more awe inspiring, than the narrow dogmatic and unbelievable fairy tales of the theistic hucksterists.

This.

Mmm, more that we should not have unbounded faith in reason. When we start thinking of reason as the solution to all problems, we're barely better than blind believers.

Science is a struggle between facts and reason, between a universe which is a certain way, and minds which try to reduce that "being" to laws, to explain the past and predict the future.

We should have enough faith in reason to carry on trying to understand. But it is sheer hubris to look at the knowledge gained by science, and to conclude that the universe is our bitch.

I just have to give props to Nobel Hobos on this one even though it's way back on the first page... Amen and FTW!!! I know too many people who have the kind of hubris stated at the end of the quote (and I'm looking at several NSGers with this too, and I am not afraid to say it!)

/returns to flamewar bunker waiting for the inevitable

possible there is an anthropomorphic creator god who has personality, intelligence, and will? no.

possible there are myriad spiritual beings with vastly greater power than we have, who may or may not be analogous to polytheistic deities? yes.

possible there is a spiritual force like Nirguna Brahman (consciousness beyond qualities) or the Tao? absolutely.

possible the Judeo-Christian God exists? no.