Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 415. (Read 845654 times)
...and not 1 shred of evidence.
I will not watch that video because I know the Bible is full of holes. Still there is some truth in it (like the law against sodomy).
Bible not full of holes. Readers full of holes in their reading of it.
Those volumes are far from perfection.
But how would you ever know that without seeking out God's word? Don't be complacent.
I'm an idiot.
Factually,
You are the only person that keeps mentioning sodomy.
No one in this thread replies to arguments. This thread is a joke.
If you don't watch the video, how do you know you won't enjoy it? IT'S FUNNY.
Using your own argument, that would mean that 'god the father' could not exist since he would first need to make the universe and then his son (to be a father). Regardless, I can equally assert that spaghetti exists only because the FSM created it in his own image, the same way christians insist they are created in god's image. No more contradiction. Bottom line is, that when it comes to god, there's no (scientific) way to (prove or) disprove it's existance, regardless of which god(s) your are talking about, which is the whole premise behind Russell's teapot. (Just for sake of argument, you cannot view the entire solar system through the Hubble telescope at once, nevermind a teapot god that may wish to remain undiscovered.)
With all due respect, this discussion only digressed somewhat to semantics since you were implying these terms mean something they do not. I am not arbitrarily saying anything and have already linked sources to the validity my assertions. If you insist you can arbitrarily give words their meanings, then I suppose I have nothing left say.
With all due respect, this discussion only digressed somewhat to semantics since you were implying these terms mean something they do not. I am not arbitrarily saying anything and have already linked sources to the validity my assertions. If you insist you can arbitrarily give words their meanings, then I suppose I have nothing left say.
I'm hardly arbitrarily giving words meaning when I quote the definition of 'god' from a dictionary reference and then apply that definition in context. But, then again, I'm not attempting to prove the existence of God, I'm simply arguing that the FSM is a bad analogy. It's a bad analogy specifically because analogies only work if the characteristics of the things being compared are similar.
Am I missing the point of the analogy? I thought these things were always brought up in the same abstract vein; that is, you can't prove god exists any more than you can disprove there is a teapot/FSM/whatever-else. The analogy isn't about which mythical creature exists or what properties and powers it may or may not have, it's about the existence of mythical creatures period. From this view, I think the analogy is fine.
It's not fine because god is not a 'creature.' Again, the problem with the analogy is that it tries to back a theist into a corner that doesn't exist by assuming that empiricism is the only means by which you can prove the existence of God when what we're really exploring is a totally abstract concept. It simply doesn't work. Imagine if I likened, for example, the abstract laws of mathematics to a "mythical creature" or the FSM or a space teapot. Would you let me get away with such an analogy?
FSM or the 'Teapot' aren't creatures either. They're gods. Analogy seems find to me.
So you're telling me the FSM is not made of spaghetti, can't fly, and is not a monster, all of which would invoke conditionality and therefore render it impossible of being a monotheistic god? And when Richard Dawkins asks us to imagine the assertion of a teapot existing in some unknown extra-planetary orbit that he's talking about an abstract teapot around some abstract orbit?
The ways in which we are asked to consider the FSM and teapot are irrelevant to the debate about the existence of God. They aren't asserted to be some conditional form, like Jesus, that an omnipotent God would be able to assume if it chose. The FSM and teapot would make better analogies for Jesus than God.
So yes, it's a bad analogy. It's a dead argument before it even gets off the ground. You're better off just arguing against the assertion of what God actually is according to whoever it is you're arguing against.
Just had to chime in here... While I understand your points about the abstraction of god, I think you're reading into the details too much. I think the FSM/teapot analogy is totally valid. The whole point of it is merely to show that it is illogical to assume that anything extraordinary exists without seeing evidence for it. By assuming an entity exists (for which there is no evidence, or even no possible way to even test for its existence), you logically have to also assume that any other such entities are just as likely to exist, and therefore just as valid. It doesn't prove or disprove the existence of god, as much as it shows that assuming such things is illogical and counter-productive.
This thread sure has given me a laugh, and taught me a thing or two. I'm not religious, but I do find it funny listening to religious people try and validate their views by alternately cherry-picking science and quoting the Bible. BADecker - you are probably the worst offender in this respect, one minute you're saying things like: "Machine Universe proves the existence of God", "Evolution is a scientific impossibility" etc, and the next you're quoting Bible passages to back up your claims! Most religious people accept that their beliefs are not provable, that's why they call it "faith" when you believe weird stuff with no evidence.
The fact that some of you seem to be looking to science to rationalise your religious views strikes me as refreshing in a way, as it suggests that you're questioning your views and retaining at least a little open-mindedness. Try and lose the confirmation bias, and you might get somewhere!
I will not watch that video because I know the Bible is full of holes. Still there is some truth in it (like the law against sodomy).
Bible not full of holes. Readers full of holes in their reading of it.
I am generally ignorant.
Herbert Spencer's book First Principles is far from nonsense; rather, it is a famous agnostic treatise and I suggest you get familiar with it before placing it in the same category as sodomy.
Herbert Spencer's book First Principles is far from nonsense; rather, it is a famous agnostic treatise and I suggest you get familiar with it before placing it in the same category as sodomy.
I posted the link because it's funny and relevant to this thread. Each christian has to pick and choose the parts of the bible they believe in and the parts they ignore.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8ZF_R_j0OY
Factually,
You are the only one who wants to talk about sodomy in this thread.
And you won't reply to my arguments, nor to Spencer's, so who is acting ignorantly?
I will not watch that video because I know the Bible is full of holes. Still there is some truth in it (like the law against sodomy).
I am generally ignorant.
Herbert Spencer's book First Principles is far from nonsense; rather, it is a famous agnostic treatise and I suggest you get familiar with it before placing it in the same category as sodomy.
Herbert Spencer's book First Principles is far from nonsense; rather, it is a famous agnostic treatise and I suggest you get familiar with it before placing it in the same category as sodomy.
I posted the link because it's funny and relevant to this thread. Each christian has to pick and choose the parts of the bible they believe in and the parts they ignore.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8ZF_R_j0OY
This entire thread is nonsense. Who are you to say what nonsense is allowed?
Do you know what you are doing?
Herbert Spencer's book First Principles is far from nonsense; rather, it is a famous agnostic treatise and I suggest you get familiar with it before placing it in the same category as sodomy.
This entire thread is nonsense. Who are you to say what nonsense is allowed?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8ZF_R_j0OY
Using your own argument, that would mean that 'god the father' could not exist since he would first need to make the universe and then his son (to be a father). Regardless, I can equally assert that spaghetti exists only because the FSM created it in his own image, the same way christians insist they are created in god's image. No more contradiction. Bottom line is, that when it comes to god, there's no (scientific) way to (prove or) disprove it's existance, regardless of which god(s) your are talking about, which is the whole premise behind Russell's teapot. (Just for sake of argument, you cannot view the entire solar system through the Hubble telescope at once, nevermind a teapot god that may wish to remain undiscovered.)
With all due respect, this discussion only digressed somewhat to semantics since you were implying these terms mean something they do not. I am not arbitrarily saying anything and have already linked sources to the validity my assertions. If you insist you can arbitrarily give words their meanings, then I suppose I have nothing left say.
With all due respect, this discussion only digressed somewhat to semantics since you were implying these terms mean something they do not. I am not arbitrarily saying anything and have already linked sources to the validity my assertions. If you insist you can arbitrarily give words their meanings, then I suppose I have nothing left say.
I'm hardly arbitrarily giving words meaning when I quote the definition of 'god' from a dictionary reference and then apply that definition in context. But, then again, I'm not attempting to prove the existence of God, I'm simply arguing that the FSM is a bad analogy. It's a bad analogy specifically because analogies only work if the characteristics of the things being compared are similar.
Am I missing the point of the analogy? I thought these things were always brought up in the same abstract vein; that is, you can't prove god exists any more than you can disprove there is a teapot/FSM/whatever-else. The analogy isn't about which mythical creature exists or what properties and powers it may or may not have, it's about the existence of mythical creatures period. From this view, I think the analogy is fine.
It's not fine because god is not a 'creature.' Again, the problem with the analogy is that it tries to back a theist into a corner that doesn't exist by assuming that empiricism is the only means by which you can prove the existence of God when what we're really exploring is a totally abstract concept. It simply doesn't work. Imagine if I likened, for example, the abstract laws of mathematics to a "mythical creature" or the FSM or a space teapot. Would you let me get away with such an analogy?
FSM or the 'Teapot' aren't creatures either. They're gods. Analogy seems find to me.
So you're telling me the FSM is not made of spaghetti, can't fly, and is not a monster, all of which would invoke conditionality and therefore render it impossible of being a monotheistic god? And when Richard Dawkins asks us to imagine the assertion of a teapot existing in some unknown extra-planetary orbit that he's talking about an abstract teapot around some abstract orbit?
The ways in which we are asked to consider the FSM and teapot are irrelevant to the debate about the existence of God. They aren't asserted to be some conditional form, like Jesus, that an omnipotent God would be able to assume if it chose. The FSM and teapot would make better analogies for Jesus than God.
So yes, it's a bad analogy. It's a dead argument before it even gets off the ground. You're better off just arguing against the assertion of what God actually is according to whoever it is you're arguing against.
The big flood that was supposed to have killed everything on the planet.
Why doesn't the Bible talk about Atlantis and Lemuria? And why does mainstream science ALSO ignore this?
Food for thought.
Why do you think it doesn't (re: Atlantis, at least)?
The Hebrews remember a single deluge only, but there were many previous ones.
In this book you will find information about the huge towers in the Korean Sea discovered in 1998; underwater footage of the same was televised in April to an amazed viewing audience. Sadly, conventional scholars showed no such enthusiasm for a discovery that threatened to demolish their precoinceived notions of prehistory.
http://books.google.com/books?id=9tCybZagbqkC&pg=PA304&lpg=PA304&dq=lemuria+laser+sonar&source=bl&ots=kOZNJZQLAZ&sig=mMfCsp8J_lKDoivY98GXUL8NCBk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1RJZVO2wEYOmyATy-YJw&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=lemuria%20laser%20sonar&f=false
Using your own argument, that would mean that 'god the father' could not exist since he would first need to make the universe and then his son (to be a father). Regardless, I can equally assert that spaghetti exists only because the FSM created it in his own image, the same way christians insist they are created in god's image. No more contradiction. Bottom line is, that when it comes to god, there's no (scientific) way to (prove or) disprove it's existance, regardless of which god(s) your are talking about, which is the whole premise behind Russell's teapot. (Just for sake of argument, you cannot view the entire solar system through the Hubble telescope at once, nevermind a teapot god that may wish to remain undiscovered.)
With all due respect, this discussion only digressed somewhat to semantics since you were implying these terms mean something they do not. I am not arbitrarily saying anything and have already linked sources to the validity my assertions. If you insist you can arbitrarily give words their meanings, then I suppose I have nothing left say.
With all due respect, this discussion only digressed somewhat to semantics since you were implying these terms mean something they do not. I am not arbitrarily saying anything and have already linked sources to the validity my assertions. If you insist you can arbitrarily give words their meanings, then I suppose I have nothing left say.
I'm hardly arbitrarily giving words meaning when I quote the definition of 'god' from a dictionary reference and then apply that definition in context. But, then again, I'm not attempting to prove the existence of God, I'm simply arguing that the FSM is a bad analogy. It's a bad analogy specifically because analogies only work if the characteristics of the things being compared are similar.
Am I missing the point of the analogy? I thought these things were always brought up in the same abstract vein; that is, you can't prove god exists any more than you can disprove there is a teapot/FSM/whatever-else. The analogy isn't about which mythical creature exists or what properties and powers it may or may not have, it's about the existence of mythical creatures period. From this view, I think the analogy is fine.
It's not fine because god is not a 'creature.' Again, the problem with the analogy is that it tries to back a theist into a corner that doesn't exist by assuming that empiricism is the only means by which you can prove the existence of God when what we're really exploring is a totally abstract concept. It simply doesn't work. Imagine if I likened, for example, the abstract laws of mathematics to a "mythical creature" or the FSM or a space teapot. Would you let me get away with such an analogy?
FSM or the 'Teapot' aren't creatures either. They're gods. Analogy seems find to me.
This one is too funny not to post it here!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8ZF_R_j0OY
FUCK ME IN THE ASS CAUSE I LOVE JESUS!
THE GOOD LORD WOULD WANT IT THAT WAY.....
Everyone knows it's the sex that god can't see!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8ZF_R_j0OY
FUCK ME IN THE ASS CAUSE I LOVE JESUS!
THE GOOD LORD WOULD WANT IT THAT WAY.....
Everyone knows it's the sex that god can't see!
God exists? The complexity of our planet who demonstrate a thorough tectonic, who not only created this Universe, but also continue to maintain it until today ...
So you do not believe in God?
Why doesn't the Bible talk about Atlantis and Lemuria? And why does mainstream science ALSO ignore this?
Food for thought.
Food for thought.
For the same reason mainstream science doesn't go looking for Hansel and Gretel. For the same reason we don't look to the sky for giant beanstocks....
Will you be the first to propose a reasonable explanation for the AECES top 40?
What about the phrase from Socrates/Plato that mentions "you remember a single deluge only, but there were many previous ones"; how can that be explained?
So Plato was repeating to us a myth as though it were a fact?
Nowadays, science is validating certain elements of the ancient "myths" left and right! If you think that ancient stories cannot help explain modern mysteries then you should propose an answer for Triton's retrograde orbit, and you may as well explain the evidence for the soul and the mechanism of creation while you are at it.
So I am here to tell you: it is very instructive to read Spencer and understand his point that there is a kernel of truth in everything.
Will you do the reading to find out where science and religion truly meet?
Quote from: Herbert Spencer
the disagreements between [Science and Religion] have been consequences of their incompleteness; and as they reach their final forms they come into harmony.
Your assertions about science: How do they stand up to the true nature of that system?
Science has yet to justify its religious propositions about Space, Time, Matter, Motion, and Force (see Spencer's First Principles).
There are even religious propositions in mathematics:
Quote
Gödel wrote the following reply to Russell’s assertion in his autobiography, “Gödel turned out to be an unadulterated Platonist, and apparently believed that an eternal ‘not’ was laid up in heaven, where virtuous logicians might hope to meet it hereafter.”
Concerning my “unadulterated” Platonism, it is no more “unadulterated” than Russel’s own in 1921 when in the Introduction [to Mathematical Philosophy, 1919, p. 169] he said “[Logic is concerned with the real world just as truly as zoology, though with its more abstract and general features.]” At that time evidently Russell had met the “not’ even in this world, but later on under the influence of Wittgenstein he chose to overlook it. [112]
http://kevincarmody.com/math/goedel.htmlConcerning my “unadulterated” Platonism, it is no more “unadulterated” than Russel’s own in 1921 when in the Introduction [to Mathematical Philosophy, 1919, p. 169] he said “[Logic is concerned with the real world just as truly as zoology, though with its more abstract and general features.]” At that time evidently Russell had met the “not’ even in this world, but later on under the influence of Wittgenstein he chose to overlook it. [112]
Quote from: Herbert Spencer
the beliefs which Science has forced upon Religion, have been intrinsically more religious than those which they supplanted.
http://www.constitution.org/hs/first_prin.htm Why doesn't the Bible talk about Atlantis and Lemuria? And why does mainstream science ALSO ignore this?
Food for thought.
Food for thought.
For the same reason mainstream science doesn't go looking for Hansel and Gretel. For the same reason we don't look to the sky for giant beanstocks....
The big flood that was supposed to have killed everything on the planet.
Why doesn't the Bible talk about Atlantis and Lemuria? And why does mainstream science ALSO ignore this?
Food for thought.
Atlantis = pre-flood, worldwide population. Lemuria = science fiction.
Get a copy of the Bible in your native language. Get as modern of a translation as you can, one that emulates the language that you use. Read the Gospels, the first 4 books of the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Then read Genesis, the first book of the Old Testament. Then read the whole New Testament except the Revelation.
Get all of the above firmly set in your mind. Then read the whole Bible over several times, reading the Gospels more frequently.
Get all of the above firmly set in your mind. Then read the whole Bible over several times, reading the Gospels more frequently.
The big flood that was supposed to have killed everything on the planet.
Why doesn't the Bible talk about Atlantis and Lemuria? And why does mainstream science ALSO ignore this?
Food for thought.
Why do you think it doesn't (re: Atlantis, at least)?
The big flood that was supposed to have killed everything on the planet.
Why doesn't the Bible talk about Atlantis and Lemuria? And why does mainstream science ALSO ignore this?
Food for thought.
Jump to: