So it would seem foolish to suddenly proclaim a particular theory is The Final Answer.
I just believe that the theory behind the initiation is definitely lacking something to me, and that is what has led me to believe that there is a superior being.
Quote from: haunted on January 24, 2007, 01:35:24 PMI just believe that the theory behind the initiation is definitely lacking something to me, and that is what has led me to believe that there is a superior being.But if the very thing about the Big Bang that bothers you is 'where it came from', why would it be OK to solve that by proposing a superior being? Aren't we allowed to question where the superior being came from? What sort of physical (or meta-physical or extra-dimensional or whatever) laws allow the superior being to exist? Obviously if it exists, it exists according to some principle(s) that allow it to exist. Are we not allowed to question what sort of physics would make the existence of this superior being possible? And in so questioning, we would quickly end up looking toward the origins of where this superior being came from.Turtles all the way down. Regards,quadz
how does god fit into our scientific understanding of things? science has shown there is absolutely no need for god to explain ANYTHING. why do you think the national academy of sciences (people who know far more than us) have 93% of it's members in disbelief in a god. philosophy of eliminating the infinite regress by something immune to it is not 'evidence'. -------snip--------- paste -------------- although it may not have been very clear, that is, in a sense my point. the majority of the world believes in god, and that does not mean they are right. when there are overwhelming statistics of scientists opposing the concept of god, one must wonder why. why is it that people who study how things are are far more susceptible to disbelief in god? why is it that people who have never studied evolution will almost certainly believe in intelligent design? my point was only that if god existed, science would only help reveal him; yet we see through the consensus of belief among scientists, they are FAR less inclined to believe in god than a non-scientist.
You say "science has shown there is absolutely no need for god to explain ANYTHING." I can't agree with that statement. If it were true, science would be able to explain every occurrence humans (or animals, etc) experience and, unless I've missed a journal or two, that isn't happening. Rather, it's almost as though the more we learn, the more we find we don't know. To throw out the premise there is a guiding force, an overseeing god who (whether or not we understand the concept or not) has/is creating (is/isn't involved) in what we presently perceive to be reality is to throw out what may well prove to be the truth.
It sure does come across you trying to make a point (to reaper?) there is no reason to believe in God because 93% of the national academy of scientists do not. I would say applying that same logic across the board means just because 93% of them don't believe in God doesn't make them right either - is that, in a sense, your point?Just because there happens to be a consensus of belief among scientists (accepting your statement and statistics here) doesn't invalidate that perhaps everything we've learned in science does help reveal him, and the science community (the 93% you refer to here) just can't see it - anymore than at one time science couldn't see (and thus didn't accept) many of the things we take for granted today. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Unless.. you are somehow saying because these 93% disbelieve (because they are scientists) it's irrational to believe in god?
I always thought the only time it was permissable to totally dismiss a premise from being considered as a possible answer was that premise was disproved by fact?
never underestimate the power of zeus
you seem to interpreted "science has shown there is absolutely no need for god to explain ANYTHING" as "science knows EVERYTHING".
of course we don't know the reasoning behind every occurrence in humans/animals. how does this have any relevance to the existence or lack of existence of god?
who's to say it's not a fairy or fairies that's some sort of guiding force of nature instead of god?
Just because there happens to be a consensus of belief among scientists (accepting your statement and statistics here) doesn't invalidate that perhaps everything we've learned in science does help reveal him, and the science community (the 93% you refer to here) just can't see it - anymore than at one time science couldn't see (and thus didn't accept) many of the things we take for granted today. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Unless.. you are somehow saying because these 93% disbelieve (because they are scientists) it's irrational to believe in god?
it's not necessarily irrational, because there is a problem in how did it all start and people simply pick a side (many are actually told what side is right with fear of pain/suffering/etc).
it is unscientific, however, to say something exists without any evidence (hence faith - belief without evidence).
it would be funny to see that scientists, who are among our best and brightest, who traditionally have a goal of intellectual honesty, are somehow god hating heretics.
the world/universe/etc is exactly how you would expect it to be if there was not a god, and this is revealed through science.
of course there's always that possibility he exists, but if you're desperately seeking the truth, it would be intellectually dishonest to say god exists without evidence.
and does not require any explanation of how "he" came about. that's a silly scientific concept
like i said, my disbelief is purely intellectual.
a few quick reasons previously mentioned:there is no evidence, god is far more complex than the universeand only brings about a more difficult problem, why did he exist in this supposed nothingness?,why did it take 13.7 billion years for the all powerful being to create the grateful recipient?evolution is pretty much proven, etc.
Quote from: QuakeDuke on January 24, 2007, 02:11:36 PM I always thought the only time it was permissible to totally dismiss a premise from being considered as a possible answer was that premise was disproved by fact?close.With regard to the scientific method, "fact" is kinda a naughty word.."Generally accepted theory" seems to be slightly more fitting than using the word "fact", since due to the uncertainty principle we can assume that nothing is accurately measurable and thus all of our observations, and the conclusions based upon them, *could* be wrong. thus, nothing can be factual in all circumstances.I have a feeling this is where Dahang's 93% comes in. If a vast majority of the scientific community agrees on something, it gets portrayed as a "fact" even though it's really only a theory with a lot of supporting observations and none that discount it.Only the truly cutting-edge researchers seem to understand that they can't necessarily work on the shoulders of others, and trust those previous conclusions without question. they have to take these "uncertain" theories into account when they compare their data and search it for patterns. Something that seemed quite true one day, could easily be refuted the next by a single disagreeing observation.the difference between these generally accepted scientific "facts" and the new theory that will one day replace them could be something as small as one observation that doesn't obey the "rules"...
I always thought the only time it was permissible to totally dismiss a premise from being considered as a possible answer was that premise was disproved by fact?
on a side note:a scientist should never discount input and observations unless they are completely redundant and unrelated..If it's measurable, and it pertains to the hypothesis in question, then it should be included as data, even if it "breaks" popularly accepted theory.
Quote from: DaHanG on January 24, 2007, 03:31:53 PMnever underestimate the power of zeus Indeed: Lightning bolts have to be created, they don't just appear out of thin air!
Quote from: DaHanGyou seem to interpreted "science has shown there is absolutely no need for god to explain ANYTHING" as "science knows EVERYTHING".How else can I interpret a statement that says "science has shown there is absolutely no need for god to explain ANYTHING"? I would think for it to be true science has shown there is absolutely no need could only be based from one of two positions. We either know everything, or we believe we can know everything and take it as a done deal that current research (into whatever area) will eventually prove our theory to be correct - a postulation I'm not ready to accept - even from a purely scientific standpoint. Too many unknowns involved.
Quote from: DaHanGof course we don't know the reasoning behind every occurrence in humans/animals. how does this have any relevance to the existence or lack of existence of god?It only relates if we presume to equate scientific knowledge as proof of the lack of existence of god. To imply we have "knowledge" that proves the non-existence of god is, by it's very nature saying we have all knowledge, thus knowing all reasoning behind every occurrence etc.
Quote from: DaHanGwho's to say it's not a fairy or fairies that's some sort of guiding force of nature instead of god?If the force is capable of all knowledge (which would be necessary to guide), having all power (necessary to create, maintain), etc that force by it's very definition would be god regardless of what man chose to call it.
Quote from: QuakeDuke on January 24, 2007, 02:11:36 PMJust because there happens to be a consensus of belief among scientists (accepting your statement and statistics here) doesn't invalidate that perhaps everything we've learned in science does help reveal him, and the science community (the 93% you refer to here) just can't see it - anymore than at one time science couldn't see (and thus didn't accept) many of the things we take for granted today. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Unless.. you are somehow saying because these 93% disbelieve (because they are scientists) it's irrational to believe in god?Quote from: DaHanGit's not necessarily irrational, because there is a problem in how did it all start and people simply pick a side (many are actually told what side is right with fear of pain/suffering/etc).I would be the last to disagree with you about the problems of coercion used in any religious / secular system - it's pretty much rampant and part of human nature to control. However, at the risk of offending (and I truly don't mean to offend any) true spirituality, the following of gospel truth is non-violent. It's man who has corrupted the teachings and brought pain/suffering/etc into the equation.
Quote from: DaHanG it is unscientific, however, to say something exists without any evidence (hence faith - belief without evidence). What would you consider evidence to prove faith? Totally inexplicable healing? What?
Quote from: DaHanGthe world/universe/etc is exactly how you would expect it to be if there was not a god, and this is revealed through science.If science has somehow revealed this fact, I guess I must of missed where it was published The world is how I expect it to be based on man's desire to be in control of everything and his willingness to do whatever is necessary to achieve that control, including the destruction of resources and habitat which brings about it's own problems. My view of universe is constantly changing as I learn more and more and I'm totally fascinated by what I learn. As for the case of it being the same as if there was not a god - wouldn't that mean we would have to know how it would/should be if there were a god? For contrast purposes of course.
Quote from: DaHanGof course there's always that possibility he exists, but if you're desperately seeking the truth, it would be intellectually dishonest to say god exists without evidence.What, in your opinion would/could be considered evidence god exists? Does lack of this (perceived / known) evidence prove the non-existence of god?
Quote from: DaHanGand does not require any explanation of how "he" came about. that's a silly scientific conceptI don't know about silly, but I've never taught we should not question or seek such an explanation - I don't believe it's consistent with total biblical teachings to blindly believe.
Quote from: DaHanGlike i said, my disbelief is purely intellectual.Granted and accepted. If it's purely intellectual this means you are open to change, or am I misunderstanding what you are saying? (purely possible )
Quote from: DaHanGa few quick reasons previously mentioned:there is no evidence, god is far more complex than the universeand only brings about a more difficult problem, why did he exist in this supposed nothingness?,why did it take 13.7 billion years for the all powerful being to create the grateful recipient?evolution is pretty much proven, etc.In order above:What would you consider evidence.Granted. God would, by definition alone, have to be much more complex than the universe - this to me would tend to prove, not disprove. Wouldn't be much of a god if he weren't.1)Why would god have to exist in nothingness before what we perceive as the universe came about? 2)Might as well ask why does it take me an hour to do something. Just because I have the power do something in 10 minutes doesn't mean I can't take an hour to do it if I so choose.3)Evolution being a fact (or not depending on one's viewpoint) proves / disproves the existence of god how?Totally on another subject, if I may. Are you a grad student? Where are you going to school?
How else can I interpret a statement that says "science has shown there is absolutely no need for god to explain ANYTHING"? I would think for it to be true