Religion

[1984Echoes]

3 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

... but when the majority of the world believes in a god, doesn't that ....

Do you mean, like...

When EVERYONE in the world thought this planet was flat?

Because if a majority believes it, it must be true, right?

[1984Echoes]

5 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

...  rejecting the notion of the existence of a god...

PS:

The rejection of the existence of a god is due to the fact that it is ALL mankind-created. Through story-telling. Through fabrication. And through the evolution of Sun spirit to Sun God to the One God to Jesus, son of god.

[MIguy]

11 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

Your average agnostic probably would.  Not sure about the average atheist.  I mean right off the bat, they are rejecting the notion of the existence of a god.  They have no evidence that a god does not exist.  I certainly understand the idea of starting with the null hypothesis, but when the majority of the world believes in a god, doesn't that become the null?  

A person who rejects god doesn't think they have all the answers, they just know and understand that you don't need to prove something doesn't exist, you need to prove that it does.  Science continues studying and trying to understand just how the universe came to be and can offer evidence to back up their generally agreed upon theory.   What research is being conducted to back up the belief in a god and what evidence can be offered to support it? 

[Tiger337]

16 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

Do you mean, like...

When EVERYONE in the world thought this planet was flat?

Because if a majority believes it, it must be true, right?

Right, the null hypothesis was that it was flat which is perfectable reasonable given the knowledge at the time.  This null hyposthesis was rejected by science.  

[1984Echoes]

24 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

..., but when the majority of the world believes in a god, doesn't that...

I'll give one more example... more-religion-based than prior example:

I believe most religious texts state that the universe revolves around Earth. Not just the bible, but other religions and ancient mythologies as well. 400 years ago, everyone believed this. At least the majority did.

The church did. In fact the church burned alive Giordano Bruno in 1600 in Rome, as a heretic, because he espoused that the Earth revolved around the sun, not the other way around.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Giordano-Bruno

But the majority (at that time) believed the universe revolved around the Earth so, it must be true, right?

 

 

Edited December 2, 2023 by 1984Echoes

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, casimir said:

Your never ending defense of Al Avila.

Now, come on, wasn't Al the blind squirrel who found Casey Mize and Spencer Torkelson?

[Tiger337]

Just now, 1984Echoes said:

I'll give one more example... more-religion-based than prior example:

I believe most religious texts state that the universe revolves around Earth. Not just the bible, but other religions and ancient mythologies as well. 400 everyone believed this. At least the majority did.

The church did. In fact the church burned alive Giordano Bruno in 1600 in Rome, as a heretic, because he espoused that the Earth revolved around the sun, not the other way around.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Giordano-Bruno

But the majority (at that time) believed the universe revolved around the Earth so, it must be true, right?

Correct, the null hypothesis was that the universe revolved around the earth which was a perfectly reasonable assumption and science rejected that.  

[1984Echoes]

1 minute ago, chasfh said:

Now, come on, wasn't Al the blind squirrel who found Casey Mize and Spencer Torkelson?

And also Reese Olson and Kerry Carpenter and Jake Rogers and Parker Meadows and Garrett Hill and Jason Foley and Colt Keith and Matt Manning and Joey Wentz (errr, scratch that...), and Beau Brieske and Alex Faedo and Jace Jung...

You know, for full disclosure...

😉

[1984Echoes]

4 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

... science rejected that.  

Science also has rejected god.

[Tiger337]

5 minutes ago, MIguy said:

A person who rejects god doesn't think they have all the answers, they just know and understand that you don't need to prove something doesn't exist, you need to prove that it does.  Science continues studying and trying to understand just how the universe came to be and can offer evidence to back up their generally agreed upon theory.   What research is being conducted to back up the belief in a god and what evidence can be offered to support it? 

I don't think it's possible to prove that the earth just sprung up naturally.  This notion that this beautiful and scientific earth just happened by accident without any help fron an intelligent creator seems just as bold as assuming that there was some sort of creator with a plan.  I am definitely more science based than faith based and I don't think anyone truely knows why we are here, but I don't think the motion of a planned creation is outrageous.   

[Tiger337]

2 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

Science also has rejected god.

No, it hasn't.  

[MIguy]

Just now, Tiger337 said:

I don't think it's possible to prove that the earth just sprung up naturally.  This notion that this beautiful and scientific earth just happened by accident without any help fron an intelligent creator seems just as bold as assuming that there was some sort of creator with a plan.  I am definitely more science based than faith based and I don't think anyone truely knows why we are here, but I don't think the motion of a planned creation is outrageous.   

It might not be possible to ever fully understand exactly what happened 14 billion years ago but we have a bunch of evidence that supports the big bang theory.  

What I don't understand is how someone can reject the big bang theory because they just can't wrap their heads around it while at the same time being perfectly fine with accepting that some magical being did something and created everything.  

[1984Echoes]

11 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

No, it hasn't.  

Yes, it has.

Are you telling me that SCIENCE ACCEPTS that "god" created the universe? Because that's a falsehood. It's a straight-up lie.

That "god" created Homo Sapiens? No, science rejects that. It also rejects that god directed evolution.

Note: I did NOT say that religion rejects science... and in fact, any believer must come to terms with what science has PROVEN. Religious believers must reconcile with science, not the other way around.

Proven, that the Earth is NOT flat, that the universe does NOT revolve around the earth, that Homo Sapiens evolved and was NOT "created" by any god or god-like entity, that Earth DID spring up naturally in the natural evolution of the universe (which is 13.7 Billion years old, Earth is 4.5 Billion years old so it ABSOLUTELY was created in the same natural process that created our Sun, Mercury, Mars, Saturn & Pluto...).

And yes, science rejects "god".

Sorry.

 

 

Edited December 2, 2023 by 1984Echoes

[Tiger337]

2 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

Yes, it has.

Are you telling me that SCIENCE ACCEPTS that "god" created the universe? Because that's a falsehood. It's a straight-up lie.

That "god" created Homo Sapiens? No, science rejects that. It also rejects that god directed evolution.

Note: I did NOT say that religion rejects science... and in fact, any believer must come to terms with what science has PROVEN. Religious believers must reconcile with science, not the other way around.

Proven, that the Earth is NOT flat, that the universe does NOT revolve around the earth, that Homo Sapiens evolved and was NOT "created" by any god or god-like entity, that Earth DID spring up naturally in the natural evolution of the universe (which is 13.7 Billion years old, Earth is 4.5 Billion years old so it ABSOLUTELY was created in the same natural process that created our Sun, Mercury, Mars, Saturn & Pluto...).

And yes, science rejects "god".

Sorry.

 

 

Science does not reject god.  It just has more evidence for natural creation than planned creation.  Perhaps both could be true though.  

[1984Echoes]

5 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

Science does not reject god.  It just has more evidence for natural creation than planned creation.  Perhaps both could be true though.  

That's called "reaching for straws".

Science has ZERO evidence for "planned creation" because there is no such evidence.

Except for humankind's story-telling fabrications.

Sorry, but science rejects god.

[Tiger337]

1 hour ago, 1984Echoes said:

That's called "reaching for straws".

Science has ZERO evidence for "planned creation" because there is no such evidence.

Except for humankind's story-telling fabrications.

Sorry, but science rejects god.

I think the existence of science itself is some of the best evidence that there may be a god.  

[gehringer_2]

There is no such thing as 'Science' in that sense - there are only individual Scientists and like any other group you will find a variety of views. In my experience of the scientific community you may not find many fans of organized dogmas, but a lot of agnosticism about transcendental questions.

[oblong]

2 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

Science does not reject god.  It just has more evidence for natural creation than planned creation.  Perhaps both could be true though.  

Science doesn’t care about God. Science wants to know what happened and how.  If there’s a who involved so be it. But not necessary.  

[1984Echoes]

19 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

There is no such thing as 'Science' in that sense - there are only individual Scientists and like ...

What are you TALKING about?

The individual scientist matters ZERO in science, and you KNOW that.

One scientist may offer a scientific theory, any scientific theory... which does NOT matter at all...

It is the 1,000's of tests OF that theory that matter. That prove or disprove a theory. That establish a preponderance of evidence that prove or disprove that theory. Newton's Theory of Gravity is awesome. Brilliant. But it matters not one whit versus the preponderance of tests, evidence, etc... that PROVE the Theory of Gravity.

And what Newton "BELIEVED", about ANYTHING, not counting Gravity, changes NOT ONE THING about the Theory of Gravity.

[1984Echoes]

28 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

I think the existence of science itself is some of the best evidence that there may be a god.  

I'm sorry, not to be rude, but...

That statement is completely and totally laughable.

The existence of science is NO evidence, whatsoever, of a god. None.

[MIguy]

[gehringer_2]

33 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

What are you TALKING about?

The individual scientist matters ZERO in science, and you KNOW that.

One scientist may offer a scientific theory, any scientific theory... which does NOT matter at all...

It is the 1,000's of tests OF that theory that matter. That prove or disprove a theory. That establish a preponderance of evidence that prove or disprove that theory. Newton's Theory of Gravity is awesome. Brilliant. But it matters not one whit versus the preponderance of tests, evidence, etc... that PROVE the Theory of Gravity.

And what Newton "BELIEVED", about ANYTHING, not counting Gravity, changes NOT ONE THING about the Theory of Gravity.

I would say your view of what both Science and range of beliefs about God/Deism are  narrow. There is no fundamental contradiction between any finding of Science and the possibility that there are higher order existences. The scientific rejection of supernatural intervention in human affairs does not speak to any number of more fundamental questions.  Metaphysical propositions such as  teleology, the origin and nature of will/volition, are not subjects that Science has been able to speak to. The latter question is one we may be getting closer to, but the fundamental paradox between the determinism of chemistry and physics vs the fact that no human being alive believes they have no will of the their own so far remains.

Edited December 3, 2023 by gehringer_2

[Tiger337]

46 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

I'm sorry, not to be rude, but...

That statement is completely and totally laughable.

The existence of science is NO evidence, whatsoever, of a god. None.

Not to be rude, but your arrogance and dismissiveness of everybody that disagrees with you is laughable.  

Did all the wonderful laws of science just happen magically?  I use math and science all the time and I prefer it to religion.  I can't prove or disprove the existence of a higher power, so I stick to science which works my purposes.   But when I see how nicely laws of science work sometimes, it makes me wonder why they work.  Was it planned that way or do they just work magically?  Or maybe they don't work so great and humans just think they work because their experience in the universe is limited.  

[1984Echoes]

25 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

... narrow: ...The scientific rejection of supernatural intervention in human affairs does not speak to any number of more fundamental questions. 

... Metaphysical propositions such as teleology, the origin and nature of will/volition, ... but the fundamental paradox between the determinism of chemistry and physics vs the fact that no human being alive believes they have no will of the their own so far remains.

I would not use narrow.

More along the lines of black and white. This works, That doesn't. This is true. That is false.

Teleology? Not a mystery to me. Every living being's purpose? To propagate its DNA. Human teleology? Self-defined, I've already stated as such above in a previous post.

Origin and nature of will/volition? I don't believe in "fate". I don't believe in pre-determination. I'll throw a couple more back at ya': Origin of the ability to speak, origin of language, origin of dreams. These are all biochemical or physical abilities that evolved. Dreams? The development of language parallels the meaning/ interpretation we can give to our dreams. Free will? I make my own choices, every day.

Is that too narrow, or more aptly black and white? I don't discount gray areas, although certain areas are a lot less gray than others. IE: Heliocentrism is black and white for me. I don't see any gray area in whether the sun revolves around Earth or the Earth revolves around the sun. I may have a very narrow viewpoint in heliocentrism but I don't see ANY problem with that narrow viewpoint. Other areas, as I've said, are a whole lot more gray and much more open to interpretation, opinions, beliefs, etc.... Teleology? Yeah, I get that there's a WHOLE lot more gray area in that then my simple black and white definition (you can call that flippant if you want, I get it...). I was just being... flippant? Narrow? Black and white? However, I DO recognize the grayness of teleology and the more expansive room for ideas....

[1984Echoes]

8 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

... your arrogance and dismissiveness of everybody that disagrees with you is laughable....

So what you're telling me is that I MUST agree with you, if we have a difference of opinion, otherwise I am arrogant and dismissive? I MUST accept someone else's beliefs, NO MATTER WHAT, otherwise I am arrogant and dismissive?

Because you understand that I am NOT going to change my opinion, no matter how upset you get. I am NOT going to acknowledge the existence of a god when I know there is none. I DO dismiss the existence of any god, as upset as you want to get about that.

But let's flip that on its head. I have offered a hundred (just a WAG) different opinions than yours. Why I believe there is no god. And in YOUR arrogance and YOUR dismissiveness, you've dismissed EVERY thing I've said... with: But it's God. 

It's pretty comical how hypocritical believers are. They do EXACTLY what you accuse me of doing. Arrogantly, and dismissively. You have been dismissing my every post for the past 3 pages.

My recommendation: Look in the mirror.

 

7 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

...   Did all the wonderful laws of science just happen magically?  

But that's EXACTLY what you're proposing. That some magical creature called "god", a creature CREATED in the imagination of humankind, is the MAGICAL CREATOR of science.