2 edits
Musings can be taken seriously. People can live their lives based on the serious considerations to things they have mused upon.
its fine for people to muse. but thats all it is. musings have cannot be taken as serious ideas or theories until they are backed up with solid evidence.
SETI is a search for intelligent life in outer space. No evidence. But some musings have led some serious scientists to persuade someones that time, money and energy should be invested into something they muse should be. That is there may be another civilization out there of intelligent life.
There is probably zero solid evidence that extra terrestrial intelligent life is sending us radio signals to say "We're here. We're here !"
there is simply zero evidence that a god created the universe.
Some people have mused that may be the case. No evidence of it.
And saying there is no evidence for God I don't take seriously.
People who claim that mean the a priori have made a decision of will power that nothing will qualify as a clue to a Supreme Creator or Ultimate Governor's existence.
Proof, maybe none. Evidence ? Your saying none I count as denial.
Wishful thinking on your part. Nothing more.
if there is zero evidence then god is obsolete. if he is not needed to explain the universe then he (in the scientific sense) is obsolete.
If your saying the science rests on a philosophy of science which cannot itself be proved by the scientific method.
You have a kind of belief that the scientific method will yield to us a true representation of reality. That is an assumption that you must decide upon up front in order to do science. No scientific method can be devised to prove that science will give you a true representation of reality because that would be circular reasoning.
This is just your way of displaying contempt for the quite valid belief that a Supreme Creator outside of time and space brought the universe into existence.
"if you listen to the talk again and take out the word god and put in the words giant spaghetti monster it doesn't make any more or less sense. this tells you how relevant god is.
Trivialization and ridicule, you think, somehow makes you appear to be reasoning very intelligently.
Your complaint implies only professional scientists can entertain the big questions of life.
Me:
" We know God could not have created the universe because that would violate the separation of church and state. "
you:
sorry, this doesn't make any sense to me.
We all have the right to contemplate the big questions of life. And if some untrained child who knows no science has an intuitive sense that there is a God who created all things, that is legitimate.
Your arrogance suggests that only Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking will be able to tell us if God exists, is nonsense.
me:
"In musing on the great truths of life and being there is nothing wrong with considering a possible explanation for why things exists rather than nothing, is an all powerful creating God."
you:
yes i agree, its good to muse. i have a good imagination and love sci-fi so have created all sorts of fantastical ideas for the universe.
Go tell that to the people taking seriously the search for extra terrestrial intelligence. Tell them how you too are fond of a good sci fi story.
I have Jesus Christ in history, His words, His testimony, His influence. And what He said about God I think I should take seriously.
If Christ is not Son of God then above all other people who have lived, He deserves am academy award for acting the part the best.
So while you jolly on about the flying spaghetti monster, thinking you're so clever, some of us consider not only the evidence of a definite beginning to the cosmos but the life lived and words spoken by one Jesus.
Others have every right to consider someone else. I consider Jesus Christ as a manifestation of the reality of God on this earth.
That is not my problem that you have zero evidence for a flying spaghetti monster. I do not have zero evidence for a Creator of immense power and knowledge whom I will call God. And I have ample evidence for the impact on history of the certain Jesus of Nazareth who said and ACTED as though He were the Son of God.
but i know they have zero evidence and are no more likely than the flying spaghetti monster.
It is not my problem that you have no evidence for a flying spaghetti monster or a invisible pink unicorn or what ever other contemptuous fancy you might parrot in order to ridicule the God for whom evidence does exist.
I think the blind fantastical leap you are making is that everything came into existence uncaused by nothing. That there is no intelligence behind the function of your own brain's design by which you make arguments at all, is a fantastical leap of nonsense, I think.
to make the leap and start saying my fantastical ideas could be true because science doesnt have an answer would be wrong, wouldnt you agree?
You go ahead and believe that your mind and your brain tumbled out of the chaos with no purposeful design regarding it. You go ahead and believe that. I say your own mind is evidence for a creating intelligence. I call the Creator God.
Actually, I think modern science is confirming God's existence more and more rather than making the belief obsolete.
No it wasn't. Your comments are stupid.
robert jastrows comment was stupid.
Your comments have some stupidity to them, I think.
Because NATURE had a beginning. So what BEGAN Nature could be rightfully be called "supernatural".
why invoke the supernatural because we dont know. its no better than invoking the supernatural before we knew what thunder and lightning was. correct?
me:
The complain that a God has been "invented" is just your expression of dislike for any other philosophy but atheism. Maybe people realize about God and not "invent" God.
you:
this is all wrong. its not an expression of dislike. this implies my opinions are formed by my emotions.
I reject that too. Your emotions are involved. Forget about thinking you can persuade me of some pristine objectivity.
Your opinions are fortified with personal likes and dislikes and well influenced by your emotions. You can dislike an idea in a cool and objective way as a façade.
And scientists also have things that they like to believe and things that they dislike to believe as well.
Ie. Einstien's Cosmological Constant which he said was the biggest blunder of his career. He just liked the idea of an eternal steady state universe. And if I recall rightly told Hubble that he hated what Hubble showed him about a universe appearing to have a beginning. Fortunately, he could see that about himself and make adjustmemts.
Some people like you not only lack the training but also the realization that you too have things which your emotions prefer to like or prefer to dislike.
Probably the problem you have with a Creator God is a problem with authority. Some people assume authority as invested in a Beginner just has to be despotic and tyrannical when they want to consider they must answer to no one but themselves for their lives.
Don't waste your energy trying to make a convincing façade that you are 100% unemotionally objective about the existence of God.
If space, time, matter and nature had a beginning then that is evidence that Something or Someone outside of the cosmos has great power to bring about the universe.
my claim that god is invented is based on the fact that their is zero evidence for a god. it is logical to claim god is invented and not an emotional response.
One explanation for this evidence is an all powerful and knowledgeable Creator God. That is also one with WILL in order to WILL the moment of the beginning of creation.
I think science should study as far as they can to figure this out. But if it turns out the we come to a wall then we'll just have to accept that. It doesn't diminish our dignity as human beings. And it sure does not circumvent many future exciting years of research and discovery.
I don't think evidence for God will disappear given another 1,000 years of technological advancement. Some things just do not change.
The smugness with which some people like you assume all who went before were excusably ignorant and could believe in God, will appear as arrogant in 300 years from now. And some of us will still regard evidence for a Beginner and Governor of the creation is a serious consideration.
If all of them have been invented that is not proof that God does not exist.
i have a question for you. what percentage of gods do you think have been invented?
And that brings me to an important point. Since we all who do believe in God probably inject our own ideas about God, it behooves is to get to know God intimately.
Christ seemed focused upon that. And I think He also best exemplified Someone who was maximally intimate with "the Father".
Originally posted by sonship"Because nature had a beginning"Musings can be taken seriously. People can live their lives based on the serious considerations to things they have mused upon.
its fine for people to muse. but thats all it is. musings have cannot be taken as serious ideas or theories until they are backed up with solid evidence.
SETI is a search for intelligent life in outer spac ...[text shortened]... ified Someone who was maximally intimate with [b]"the Father".[/b]
A quote to ponder on this -
"Since events before the Big Bang can have no observational consequences, we might as well cut them out and say that Time started at the Big Bang.So, it is a matter of a real beginning, or just a beginning of the part that can actually be studied scientifically?
-Stephen Hawking
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by googlefudgeOn second thoughts the take down may take a little longer than that... I forgot how much time it takes to do a transcript off a video so as to be able to do a proper point by point.
Yeah, I listened to the whole thing and am planning to do a point by point take down this evening.
Some of what he said was a misunderstanding of the science, some was semantics, and some was just flat out wrong.
Nothing there to remotely challenge my position or change my mind.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by sonship"trivialization, ridicule, arrogance, think im clever, contemptuous, more ridicule, stupidity, smugness"Musings can be taken seriously. People can live their lives based on the serious considerations to things they have mused upon.
its fine for people to muse. but thats all it is. musings have cannot be taken as serious ideas or theories until they are backed up with solid evidence.
SETI is a search for intelligent life in outer spac ...[text shortened]... ified Someone who was maximally intimate with [b]"the Father".[/b]
im getting the impression that things are not going well between us. i have no intention of turning this into a war of words. it feels like you have preconceived idea of the tone of my posts, which are not there or intended.
im happy to reply to your points if you wish. you can keep calling me those things if you want to. but i just wanted to pause to let you know that im not the person you seem to be assuming i am and i certainly did not want to offend you.
1 edit
Originally posted by stellspalfieYou are obviously ignorant of the fact that all natural laws are a creation of God and that includes the first and second laws of thermodynamics. It is those men that are more intelligent than yourself that have discovered them.
my god of gaps comment is totally unrelated to christians ability to do science. im sure there have been and will be lots of good christian scientists. in fact the one bit of the video i liked was where he was telling you christians not to be turned away from science
my god of gaps comment was actually aimed at his point about thermodynamics. he was ...[text shortened]... dont know, where our knowledge becomes speculation, a gap. a gap where your man decides god is.
The Instructor
Originally posted by googlefudge"Science has answered the questions of "are there gods/" and "what
[b]"...and the other theists have no problem accepting obvious science."
I have to disagree, all theists have a problem accepting science.
Science is the method of determining what is or is not real.
It's how we discover how reality works and what reality is.
It's how we tell what exists.
If you claim that a god exists then that ...[text shortened]... en you don't accept the science.
You cannot believe in god and accept science.[/b]
happens when you die?"
The answers are "no" and "you cease to exist". "
no
science has not answered that. how could it? you keep going on how faith is unfalsifiable and therefore not science. and we are ok with that, it is not science.
science is not the only measure one lives one's life. you also love, and eat junk food and do stupid stuff. is richard feynman not accepting science because he makes a life choice to love cats?
"If there were we would have found them by now."
just like we discovered faster than light travel, and a cure for cancer.
"If you believe otherwise then you don't accept the science."
wrong, it's called believing in an idea(l). kinda like scientists try to find gravitons.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"Science has answered the questions of "are there gods/" and "what
happens when you die?"
The answers are "no" and "you cease to exist". "
no
science has not answered that. how could it? you keep going on how faith is unfalsifiable and therefore not science. and we are ok with that, it is not science.
science is not the only measure one li ...[text shortened]... 's called believing in an idea(l). kinda like scientists try to find gravitons.
science has not answered that. how could it? you keep going on how faith
is unfalsifiable and therefore not science. and we are ok with that, it is not science
Actually I don't keep "going on on how faith is unfalsifiable".
Faith is totally falsifiable.
When I do talk about faith I like to be clear which meaning of the word I am
talking about. Because there is more than one.
When I talk about faith I am talking about a belief that is held without sufficient
evidence or reason to justify holding that belief. (or often times despite evidence
and/or reason to disprove that belief).
Now it might seem unfair to have a definition of faith that is defined as being
unjustified. But all belief in the supernatural, afterlives, god/s, ect falls under
this definition of faith. And it is this belief without sufficient justification that
I consider dangerous and objectionable. (in general, there are of course specific
beliefs of various religions that I object to on their merits [or lack thereof] but
my root problem with all religions [and other supernatural beliefs] is the
requirement of faith as defined above.)
Now it is possible that the thing you believe on faith happens to be demonstrably
true. The problem there being that you can't justify that belief and can't distinguish
that belief from an untrue one.
However many/most faith based beliefs are demonstrably wrong.
And the fact that your beliefs can be tested against reality, and the methods you use
for generating beliefs can be tested for their reliability mean that faith is totally
falsifiable. Both as a method for generating/justifying beliefs and for the beliefs
that are generated by it.
science is not the only measure one lives one's life.
I didn't say it was.
Science is the only method of accurately determining the nature of reality.
you also love, and eat junk food and do stupid stuff. is richard feynman not
accepting science because he makes a life choice to love cats?
I think you are confused.
Of course Richard Feynman would not have been rejecting science by deciding to
love cats.
He would be rejecting science if he decided that cat's didn't exist.
"If there were we would have found them by now."
just like we discovered faster than light travel, and a cure for cancer.
"If you believe otherwise then you don't accept the science."
wrong, it's called believing in an idea(l). kinda like scientists try to find gravitons.
Hmmm....
I have a question for you...
Do you think the question as to...
Whether the Earth is an irregular oblate spheroid
OR
a flat disk supported on the backs of 4 giant elephants themselves standing on the
back of a giant star turtle...
has been settled yet?
Or do you think that the jury is still out and that we could discover new evidence
that would demonstrate that the earth is actually "a flat disk supported on the
backs of 4 giant elephants themselves standing on the
back of a giant star turtle..." ?
Originally posted by googlefudge[b]science has not answered that. how could it? you keep going on how faith
is unfalsifiable and therefore not science. and we are ok with that, it is not science
Actually I don't keep "going on on how faith is unfalsifiable".
Faith is totally falsifiable.
When I do talk about faith I like to be clear which meaning of the wor ...[text shortened]... nt elephants themselves standing on the
back of a giant star turtle..."[/i] ?[/b]"Faith is totally falsifiable. "
how? how can you prove false a claim that "there is a supreme being outside our universe watching us" ?
"And it is this belief without sufficient justification that
I consider dangerous and objectionable."
yet people do that every day in various degrees. we believe our spouses will not cheat on us. we believe that we won't get killed on our way to work. We trust our loved ones actually love us. Believing in god simply needs a little more faith.
"However many/most faith based beliefs are demonstrably wrong."
and moderates have no problem with those. i know the global flood is a BS story. i dismiss it. if you prove somehow that jesus was not the son of god, i will review my faith on that issue too.
"Science is the only method of accurately determining the nature of reality."
yes, and this sets faith apart from it. kind of like poetry is not a science.
"I have a question for you..."
not really sure what your endgame is with this question, but i will bite: there are some theories that appear to be 100% "settled" as you put it and will not change with future gained knowledge.
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziAll well and good, but the bottom line is this: Why, if a real god inspired these religions, are these religions based on really stupid fairy tales? If a REAL god inspired all these Abrahamic religions, why would it not step in and say, look, you want to tell that flood nonsense, fine. But just be sure to make it clear at the start that this is what COULD happen if I chose to do the flood. Not that it ever really happened or ever would happen. And that creation story you want to include, that is not how creation happened. It happened through evolution and Earth really is 5 billion years old. Just make sure you tell them this is YOUR idea of what creation is, not mine.
"Faith is totally falsifiable. "
how? how can you prove false a claim that "there is a supreme being outside our universe watching us" ?
"And it is this belief without sufficient justification that
I consider dangerous and objectionable."
yet people do that every day in various degrees. we believe our spouses will not cheat on us. we believe that w be 100% "settled" as you put it and will not change with future gained knowledge.
So why does that kind of religious editing not happen? The obvious answer:
Because a god was not the inspiration for any of it. That if there was a real god out there, it had nothing to do with the creation of the Abrahamic religions.
If a real god started a religion, it would do it with truth not fairy tales.
All these religions were started by men who PROJECTED what they thought a real god would be like. Talk about presuming to know the mind of a god. These men were the poster boys for presumption.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by sonshipokay, ill guess from you lack of response to my last post that everythings cool. ill have a crack at your post.Musings can be taken seriously. People can live their lives based on the serious considerations to things they have mused upon.
its fine for people to muse. but thats all it is. musings have cannot be taken as serious ideas or theories until they are backed up with solid evidence.
SETI is a search for intelligent life in outer spac ...[text shortened]... ified Someone who was maximally intimate with [b]"the Father".[/b]
"Musings can be taken seriously. People can live their lives based on the serious considerations to things they have mused upon."
but we are not talking about people living their lives. we are talking about the laws that govern the universe. when it comes to musing on these things the musing needs to eventually be substantiated with evidence and proof.
SETI is a search for intelligent life in outer space. No evidence. But some musings have led some serious scientists to persuade someones that time, money and energy should be invested into something they muse should be. That is there may be another civilization out there of intelligent life.
i have no control over the scientific community and i dont by default agree with everything done under the science 'umbrella'. i dont know enough about seti to comment, the search for life may bring about an improvement in the technology they used for deep space searching or it might be a waste of time, i have no idea.
There is probably zero solid evidence that extra terrestrial intelligent life is sending us radio signals to say "We're here. We're here !"
Some people have mused that may be the case. No evidence of it.
possibly, i dont really know a huge amount about this. like ive said, the technology (which i think they are turning the earth into one huge listening device) could be used for other things like listening to stars, black holes...im guessing. but these things are rarely done just for the fun of it, especially considering the amount of money they will need in donations.
And saying there is no evidence for God I don't take seriously.
People who claim that mean the a priori have made a decision of will power that nothing will qualify as a clue to a Supreme Creator or Ultimate Governor's existence.
there simply is no evidence. give me one bit of solid evidence.
nf your saying the science rests on a philosophy of science which cannot itself be proved by the scientific method.
i dont know what this means, what is a philosophy of science? why does it need to rest on anything?
You have a kind of belief that the scientific method will yield to us a true representation of reality. That is an assumption that you must decide upon up front in order to do science. No scientific method can be devised to prove that science will give you a true representation of reality because that would be circular reasoning.
this is basically stating that we are possibly assuming science is correct and starting from there.
well yes obviously, but as its the only thing we have that seems to be logical and can be calculated accurately and we have nothing else that comes close to giving is a tangible understanding of anything. its safe to say science is our best shot. its better than randomly guessing at answers dont you think?
Trivialization and ridicule, you think, somehow makes you appear to be reasoning very intelligently.
i apologize again. do you find me comparing god to a spaghetti monster offensive? how else can i word it? scientifically the two are equally as likely. how else can i say that god is insignificant so far in science with out offending?
Your complaint implies only professional scientists can entertain the big questions of life.
no, anybody can entertain ideas. but taking them to the point where people should take them seriously they need the maths and physics to add up. most people who can do this are highly qualified scientists.
We all have the right to contemplate the big questions of life. And if some untrained child who knows no science has an intuitive sense that there is a God who created all things, that is legitimate.
yes we do, i totally agree. i only differ in that i think the kid would be crazy if he started to believe his intuition is a reality without any additional evidence and proof.
right im off to get the kids. ill try to answer your other points later.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by ZahlanziWell the endgame is me demonstrating your arguments are wrong, but any good
"I have a question for you..."
not really sure what your endgame is with this question, but i will bite: there are some theories that appear to be 100% "settled" as you put it and will not change with future gained knowledge.
debate strategy does that.
Ok so I will take your answer to mean that you don't believe that we could or are
about to find evidence that we live on Terry Pratchett's Discworld.
Great.
Now I would hope that the reason for this is that we have overwhelming evidence
that the planet we live in is (roughly speaking) a ball in space.
And while we continue to make improvements ...
http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm
We are never going to find that the Earth is not a ball in space.
That has been proven.
Now working out that the Earth is roughly speaking a sphere is easy.
We've known that for millennia and you can see the effects with your own eyes.
However by applying reason, mathematics and the scientific method, we can tackle
harder and less obvious problems and build up bodies of evidence as to how they work.
We have been doing this rigorously for about 150 yrs.
As we progress the scope and probability for our theories being wrong diminishes.
And we have now ridiculously accurate models of the universe that completely explain what is happening at a fundamental level in our everyday lives.
"Sean Carroll Refutes Supernatural Beliefs":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1ypyVjSaj4w
"Science and Religion Can’t Be Reconciled" by Sean Carroll:
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/05/i_won_t_take_money_from_templeton_science_and_religion_can_t_be_reconciled.html
And those models of the universe that explain on a fundamental level how we work DO NOT INCLUDE GOD/S.
They do not include souls, afterlives, god/s, magic, fairies, demons... ect. ect.
We have descriptions of the universe and explanations of it's function that do not need or include god and those descriptions are backed by huge volumes of evidence.
And so in the same way that we can be sure that we wont discover tomorrow that we actually live on Terry Pratchett's Discworld... We can also be sure that we have no souls, there is no afterlife, and that there are no gods.
This is a question settled beyond reasonable doubt and will not change with future gained knowledge.