Where are you on Dawkins Scale? (17 Viewers)

[Martin]

bes, this is not the thread for your improv

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Lawnchair Bes]

that is how it happened, honestly

 

[Lawnchair Bes]

i figured a "better" person also meant a more learned person and in the process of fulfilling my end of the bargain it occurred that i had no more reasons to believe

 

[Martin]

that is how it happened, honestly

I'm glad you brought this up actually, follow me into this thread.

 

[Dinsdale]

What I dont understand is this piece of logic:

It's impossible that the univers exists by and of itself, so therefore there must have been a God that created the universe.

But, when you apply the same logic to god, and ask who then created God, they say "Oh, no, no, no, no, no, noone created God, he just exists because he is God".


Double standards. If it's possible that God just exists why isnt it possible that the universe just exists, without anyone creating it?

I had some issues with this too. Now I interpret it as follows. On the fundamental level, the concept of god is no different from the concept of the most fundamental physical law of nature. Both can be viewed as entities that have no space/time-character, so they must transcend the universe (for the universe is defined by space and time). The difference is, one is static (natural law), and one is variable, or has a "personality" as some like to call it (god).

The starting point is that a)the universe has a beginning (this is commonly accepted as a fact nowadays) and that b) everything that we can observe and that has a beginning (thus, the universe also) is subject to the principle of causality. So, if you want to define something that caused the universe, it must obviously transcend the universe (space and time), and thus also transcend the principle of causality.

Anybody feel free to question what I just said, because I just made it up myself.

But without god, the universe created us. So what's the difference, one thing that we can't explain or another thing we can't.

Assuming that by "universe" you mean "the most fundamental law of nature":not much if you ask me.

Name one thing that exist and you have no evidence for it.

You're asking a very weird question, because the basis for assuming something exists is of course evidence. Anyhow, I'll show you why your statement is a fallacy, by giving an example. Before Thompson discovered the electron there was no evidence for subatomic particles. So, if your reasoning is true, people back then could have rightly said subatomic particles do not exist.

not correct. There is a decent theory that explains very well the beginning of the univers. It's called big bang and there is more evidence for it being true by the magnitude of 1000 than for existence of god. IF you can explain something using what is known (ie natural), unknown (or supernatural) is unnecessary.

Big Bang Theory doesn't necessarily exclude the existence of god, because it doesn't explain what caused this big bang itself. Unless you're assuming that the most fundamental natural law is just that big bangs happen with some kind of regularity.

Scientists will keep their mind open, but they will not ignore the evidence (or lack of it )

All I'm trying to point out is that this is the only fair position to take. Neither 1 or 7 can be called reasonable.

 

[Lawnchair Bes]

You're asking a very weird question, because the basis for assuming something exists is of course evidence. Anyhow, I'll show you why you statement is a fallacy, by giving an example. Before Thompson discovered the electron there was no evidence for subatomic particles. So, if your reasoning is true, people back then could have rightly said subatomic particles do not exist.

Thank you, that is exactly right, keep in mind though, no one lived their life based on the assumption that electrons existed or that something MUST have been there. they went round and about using their current knowledge to explain their observations, which is what atheists do. they did experiments to find what was there (mind you, not the electron) and once they found it, they tested it a few times saw that it explained a lot and decided to keep it.

 

[Alen]

Interesting how this poll is shaping up. ;

It's shaping up as i expected.

It does make your statement wrong... the one that this forum is consisted of 90% atheists.

 

[Dinsdale]

Thank you, that is exactly right, keep in mind though, no one lived their life based on the assumption that electrons existed or that something MUST have been there. they went round and about using their current knowledge to explain their observations, which is what atheists do. they did experiments to find what was there (mind you, not the electron) and once they found it, they tested it a few times saw that it explained a lot and decided to keep it.

You're confusing atheists with scientists. Scientists, when doing their work, don't even care about the question whether god exists, because there cannot be made any statement concerning god which is falsiable (scientific).

 

[rounder]

what does that do for them? make them sleep at night? is that what you need to sleep at night? ignorance? first of all, i doubt there are any reggina fans out there that "believe" reggina will win seria a and if there are, they are disillusioned much like you. there are optimists and pessimists and everyone enjoys a win a feels bad during a defeat.

Remember the year Porto won the Champions league. Wouldn't you say that a Porto fan that believed that they would iwn the C.L is a delusioned fan. I mean, at least 10 teams had better squads than Porto before the C.L started.

My friend, a Porto fan, had faith that they would win the CL. But he was delusioned right, like me? His team won in the end and that's what faith is. Any realistic Porto fan would shut down the chances of Porto making it to the final, let alone win the whole thing. Sometimes in life it's not about beng logical and reasonable, it's just about having some faith and believing.

 

[Ahmed]

delusionaL

 

[Zé Tahir]

Could you give some examples of things you prayed for that came true? If they're not too personal. And it would be all the more fun if they were things that were unlikely to happen unless god made it happen.


gray, that's interesting.

I could give you examples but there's no way of me proving to you (the unbelieving) that they happened as a result of prayer.

Prayer is not a mathematical thing lol.

 

[rounder]

It's shaping up as i expected.

It does make your statement wrong... the one that this forum is consisted of 90% atheists.

At one point I had about 5 or 6 people attacking theism and no one defending it. I assumed that the rest of the forum would consist of 90 percent atheists.

 

[Lawnchair Bes]

You're confusing atheists with scientists. Scientists, when doing their work, don't even care about the question whether god exists, because there cannot be made any statement concerning god which is falsiable (scientific).

that's the thing though, all scientific hypothesis and all other scientific work have no need for the "god coefficient". if god exists he has to live by the same rules we all do.

 

[Lawnchair Bes]

At one point I had about 5 or 6 people attacking theism and no one defending it. I assumed that the rest of the forum would consist of 90 percent atheists.

that's just another example of the stupidity of your extrapolations

 

[Vinman]

I wonder what this poll is gonna look like in a month.

do you even have to ask ??

 

[Lawnchair Bes]

My friend, a Porto fan, had faith that they would win the CL. But he was delusioned right, like me? His team won in the end and that's what faith is. Any realistic Porto fan would shut down the chances of Porto making it to the final, let alone win the whole thing. Sometimes in life it's not about beng logical and reasonable, it's just about having some faith and believing.

yo stupid, it's not like one enjoyed it less than the other, once they won. and it's not like the faith made them win

 

[Dinsdale]

that's the thing though, all scientific hypothesis and all other scientific work have no need for the "god coefficient".

So it says nothing about the existence of god. You can believe in god and still be a damn good scientist.

if god exists he has to live by the same rules we all do.

It's the opposite.

 

[Lawnchair Bes]

So it says nothing about the existence of god. You can believe in god and still be a damn good scientist.



It's the opposite.

ok, but keep in mind that all of our scientific work is based on the "simplest explanation" principle, adding a step that does not change things, for god, is redundant

 

[mikhail]

#1, but I went through enough religious debates in my time here to last several lifetimes, so I'll leave it at that.

Those were fun, man.

Could you give some examples of things you prayed for that came true? If they're not too personal. And it would be all the more fun if they were things that were unlikely to happen unless god made it happen.

Do people really think that they should pray for stuff they want or need? If their deity knows all, they don't need to tell him, and if they have to offer him something for it to happen, he's hardly that generous.

 

[*aca*]

I had some issues with this too. Now I interpret it as follows. On the fundamental level, the concept of god is no different from the concept of the most fundamental physical law of nature. Both can be viewed as entities that have no space/time-character, so they must transcend the universe (for the universe is defined by space and time). The difference is, one is static (natural law), and one is variable, or has a "personality" as some like to call it (god).

Any concept of natural law is based in fact (or if you prefer, evidence). There is nothing transcendental about it.

natural laws are observable and we can confirm their existence.Personality of the variable (god) is just that - personal. Made up. imagined. rinse & repeat.

The starting point is that a)the universe has a beginning (this is commonly accepted as a fact nowadays) and that b) everything that we can observe and that has a beginning (thus, the universe also) is subject to the principle of causality. So, if you want to define something that caused the universe, it must obviously transcend the universe (space and time), and thus also transcend the principle of causality.

If everything is subject to principle of causality, there is no reason to exclude idea of god from it. Saying that god is outside space & time means nothing. I could say that the universe was created by the celestial tea-pot that is outside space & time.

Anybody feel free to question what I just said, because I just made it up myself.

Aquinas did it many many years ago

You're asking a very weird question, because the basis for assuming something exists is of course evidence. Anyhow, I'll show you why your statement is a fallacy, by giving an example. Before Thompson discovered the electron there was no evidence for subatomic particles. So, if your reasoning is true, people back then could have rightly said subatomic particles do not exist.

http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

it's a short essay. People at that ted all right to say that subatomic particles do not exist because there was no evidence of their existence. Simple, no ?

Big Bang Theory doesn't necessarily exclude the existence of god, because it doesn't explain what caused this big bang itself. Unless you're assuming that the most fundamental natural law is just that big bangs happen with some kind of regularity.

well, one of the big bang sub theories speculates that after every big bang comes big crunch. It is possible that big bang occurred unlimited number of times in the past, with universe expanding to the extent that everything start reversing back and everything ends in the big crunch to pre big bang state (this is rather crude explanation, but that is what it is in the nutshell).

Also, Big Bang and the causation of the event are very, very well explained. Big Bang is NOT something out of nothing. I can suggest couple of books if you are interested. Alternatively, google is your best friend

All I'm trying to point out is that this is the only fair position to take. Neither 1 or 7 can be called reasonable.

Agreed The only thing is that no rational person can put the odds at 50-50. Evidence for god is simply non-existent.