Is God really real? page 55

1458 posts

Flag Post

Anyway, God is like the Big Bang theory. Remember, it’s simply a theory.

The word “theory” is used differently in science than it is in outside of it. A scientific theory is something that has a LARGE body of evidence and tries to explain some aspect of the world. Evolution is a fact – an observation -, and the theory of evolution by natural selection tries to explain how it happens. It makes a bunch of predictions, and we make tests to see if those predictions are fulfilled. If they are not, then our theory is bogus – if they are confirmed over and over, then our theory gets more and more trust from us, but, of course, never quite reaching the status of ‘absolute truth’ (a concept that David Hume and Karl Popper obliterated).

This is exactly what happened with the Big Bang theory – it is supported by an amazing body of facts and observations. We KNOW that the universe was a lot smaller back then, condensed into a very small amount of space (which was all space there was), and the theory explains how its expansion and inflation worked (basically, the development of the universe from that time on – we don’t know what happened before it).

‘Theory’ is the highest ranking possible in science. This is how science works. There is simply no room for debate or opinions here. Just for facts, observations, and tests.

P.S. The existence of God is merely an unfalsifiable hypothesis (though you can disprove a God with specific characteristics, by modus tollens).

I saw what it did with my own eyes. (…) Why would I lie? I can definitely say the Holy Spirit exists.

Don’t you think it’s funny that all 4.200 religions in the world have believers who say the exact same thing? e.g. a Hindu will say “I saw Krisha with my own eyes – why would I lie? I can definitely say it exists! I felt it in my heart!” – how can you know that you are correct, and not the Hindu or the Nordic? How lucky you are… to have been taught the right religion, among all others!
Yeah, sounds like bullshit, right?

Not to mention the amount of people who have seen alien spaceships flying around.

 
Flag Post

The most intelligent cannot solve this undying puzzle.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Potshot30:

The most intelligent cannot solve this undying puzzle.

I really wish I could just say “that begs the question,” and you understand what I mean, but there’s such a profound march against logic in our society that I wonder if it’s a conspiracy at this point.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Potshot30:

The most intelligent cannot solve this undying puzzle.

What puzzle? It’s just an emergent anthromorphic fantasy from a combination of the storytelling nature of our brains, and as BSG said, the existiantial fear of death and a life moved by forces beyond the individual’s control.

There’s no magic here.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Necero:

Where did you get to observe evolution?? You’ve been alive for a million years?

Don’t need to be alive that long. Just use a species with a short life-cycle and watch for a few hundred generations, and extrapolate from there.

Drosophila flies are usually used for such experiments, because they are cheap, plentiful, and every lab supply has them in stock. They are used for a wide range of other experiments so very easy to get ahold of.

This book studies how drosophila have evolved during the time we’ve been using them in the laboratory, and thusly serve as a rare example of longer-term evolutionary traits evolving under observational conditions. It has emerged precisely because we’ve been studying them so intimately for so long.

And doesn’t the “scientific truth” change every hundred years or so depending on what kind of new discoveries are being made? I’m sure the flatness of the earth was a scientific truth once aswell.

Flatness of the earth was a religious truth not a scientific one. Whilst scientific knowledge does change regularly, it builds upon what came before. It cannot invalidate the laws that came before. If your study appears to invalidate a law, your study is obviously flawed.

As such the change that does occur is typically of the order of refinining what came before. Finding exceptions and explaining those exceptions.

With the Earth as an example, we may discover how it is not a sphere, but we will never discover that it is not spherical.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Necero:

Where did you get to observe evolution?? You’ve been alive for a million years?

And doesn’t the “scientific truth” change every hundred years or so depending on what kind of new discoveries are being made? I’m sure the flatness of the earth was a scientific truth once aswell.

“I don’t actually know anything about science or the history of science, or the ever rising tide of scientific inquiry and peer review. Instead, I am comparing the ever improving body of science that functionally predicts the results of many tests, and likewise fails to predict but then illuminates so many other questions, with the pits of subjective truth that fail to functionally describe a consistent universe because I’m struggling to let go of my security blanket.”

The theists unnecessary need to reconcile their faith with science and logic reveals how much their beliefs are about feeling like something makes sense to them in the universe instead of being philosophically or morally exalted.

 
Flag Post

Very relative… now someone remove this…

 
Flag Post

Where did you get to observe evolution??

Here and here.
You have been royally owned.

 
Flag Post

Nothing’s going to turn into a dragon. Too many very specific mutations would be required, several of which violate the laws of physics. Mutation is random, sometimes beneficial, sometimes detrimental. There’s no great ‘plan’ for what a given organism is going to evolve into, down the line.

 
Flag Post
A lizard getting a larger head…nice, when it turns into a dragon in another 30 years let me know okay?

It’s statements like these that illustrate the misunderstanding people have about evolution. They expect unrealistic outcomes based on an inaccurate conception of what the theory states. I too would think something claiming a fish turns into a whale in a few dozen generations is ridiculous, or a synonymous example. I think what this all comes down to is people don’t know what the hell they’re talking about, but blindly follow the pack screaming it’s not true because they have this very old book of sheppard’s tales that state everything was created as is.

‘Course, none of this is about whether God (the Christian god) or any other gods exist. Evolution, nor anything else in this world, disproves the existence of one. You can’t disprove a negative statement, you can only show that it’s not in the cards we have. Religious people usually try to blow up this statement to something along the lines of, "if we know even 1% of all the information in the universe, then might not God be in the other 99%? The problem with that line of thought is you can apply it to any imaginary creature and see how fallacious it is. Might unicorns exist, and we haven’t discovered them yet? It’s even more preposterous if you want to claim this unproven assertion is the cause behind literally everything, which is a positive statement we CAN disprove.

There’s one thing I know for certain. Of every single answer to a question we’ve ever found, in the history of humankind, there is one consistency among them: that answer has never been God. The realm of where God can exist in rational thought is slowly being reduced to 0, requiring apologetics to continually excuse previously held beliefs.

We can never say something doesn’t exist in the context of a certain claim. There are no grounds to make that statement. However, doing the opposite is absurdity. The most any honest person can do is look at all the data and not find evidence indicating that might be a possible explanation. Assuming the existence of an entirely unproven entity and acting accordingly is, putting it bluntly, stupidity. Pascal’s Wager is the most well known example of this stupidity, and that stupidity is evidence in how many don’t see the fallacious nature behind it.

 
Flag Post

Do you feel smart when you say dumb things like that, because you shouldn’t. Do people actually read the wikipedia of evolution and go “Nah, I think I’m smarter than a bunch of scientists. Where’s the evidence!” I mean, how profoundly silly are you going to feel if you ever learn more than looking past your nose some day? Don’t be so naive. I know people brought you up to think your opinions matter, but they really don’t when it comes to studying what is and isn’t.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Necero:

“I too would think something claiming a fish turns into a whale in a few dozen generations is ridiculous,”

Change “a few dozen generations” to “10 million years” and it can be put into biology books as facts. That’s basically what evolution rests on.

We have overwhelming evidence that this occurs. Fossil records, dating, retroviruses, lab experiments, natural observation, adaptation, understanding of how reproduction occurs…it all points to evolution. Creatures change over time. Given enough time between two points, there will be a visible difference, what we would refer to as speciation. There’s no set point one species becomes another.

Tell me where the red turns to blue.

http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/x/red-to-blue-3617781.jpg
http://boredzo.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/blue-to-red.png

 
Flag Post

Genetic sequencing literally proves evolution without a shadow of a doubt. It’s like finding pokemon cards inside of animals’ cells that tell us who came before and what comes after. I hope you’re all smart enough to not confuse the way pokemon evolve with my point. You don’t find all of the pieces that make up the next animal in the previous one with a few minor changes and go “Eh, different animals.”

Speciation happens over a very short period of time, too. The squirrels 20 miles north and south of my current location are unlikely able to mate with the squirrels in my area, and it’s almost guaranteed when we talk about southern squirrels vs northern squirrels. Same with rabbits, bacteria and other large and fast populous creatures: because genes are changing in small ways that, over time, make the two animals distinctly different and lacking in the information that would be necessary for their offspring to develop. If you think this is as far as evolution goes, it’s just micro, you have zero imagination or research skills.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Necero:
Originally posted by TheBSG:

Do you feel smart when you say dumb things like that, because you shouldn’t. Do people actually read the wikipedia of evolution and go “Nah, I think I’m smarter than a bunch of scientists. Where’s the evidence!” I mean, how profoundly silly are you going to feel if you ever learn more than looking past your nose some day? Don’t be so naive. I know people brought you up to think your opinions matter, but they really don’t when it comes to studying what is and isn’t.

scientists change their minds constantly, what’s a fact one day is medieval nonsense the next.

Yeah, I’d rather believe in a book that hasn’t changed at all since people were shitting in the streets and fucking their near relatives to “purify their blood.” I love how you can misunderstand critical ever-improving scientific inquiry and make the claim that science is inconsistent while using a computer that is able to communicate with me and maintain synched data rates due to quantum entanglement and information processing. But all of the science that made it possible for you to deny it’s effectiveness is different from biology and evolutionary studies, right?

By the way, at no point in any period of history has science went “Oh shit, all of that we just said? Completely false.” It’s never happened. “We used to think the world was flat, BSG!” until we used science to determine that it isn’t. “Science says XYZ is bad for you but they used to say it was good!” That’s not science and in fact if you were truly scientifically literate those articles and pop-ed studies would be disregarded and wouldn’t be cited in morning news broadcasts to sound informed. Every time we’ve figured out something new about the universe, it only illuminated the information we had prior. Every time a hypothesis has been wrong, the truth has been more wild than we can imagine. It’s like you’re saying that because someone decided that there’s a better way to figure something out that figuring things out is impossible.

 
Flag Post

Because that was my point.

 
Flag Post

Keep hanging on dearly to that security blanket and quoting the least relevant or critical parts of my post to avoid having to maintain any kind of logical consistency when I don’t even think that you have to abandon your religious security blanket to start talking logical sense.

 
Flag Post

No, I have many non-scientific beliefs. I also have many scientific understandings that make me incredibly uncomfortable and do not appease any of my personal beliefs or agendas. Also, repeating your ignorance about science over and over again won’t make that science. Shit, I even have lots of criticisms of the modern scientific industry/climate. That doesn’t mean that our measurements of the cosmic microwave radiation is false and invalidates our understanding of the big bang. Any information that ends up discrediting the big bang will include explanation for redshifting. You don’t sweep redshifting under the rug. It exists. The explanation for it implies the big bang. We don’t need to observe the big bang to identify that it could have happened and if it did in a particular way it’d result in the measurements we make today. Science isn’t a guessing game or a dogma. Nor does it give me security in the way you imply, and in fact kind of gives me the opposite feeling of wonder and uncertainty.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Necero:

Claiming that everything you believe is science is your security blanket, but at the end of the day believing in evolution or big bang requires faith since it has not been observed, screaming science over and over will not change that.

Your god has not been observed either. There’s no pictures of him. I can’t go look at him. He won’t speak to me. Yet, we have people, of different religions, all claiming their god speaks to them. It would be a bit contradictory for all of these people who have been told by their god that their god is the only god, and that they’re all right, which leaves us with they’re all wrong instead. That’s as far as your evidence for god goes…personal, unsubstantiated testimonies on feelings.

Which not-so-ironically, we can explain perfectly with neuroscience, because our brains function in a specific way and imagining can make us feel emotions, for the exact same way we can have feelings for fictional characters in books or movies.

 
Flag Post

[BTW Kasic I’m super lazy, please correct me when I’m remembering a paper I read 5 years ago and am trying to get across an idea that I clearly am not an expert on. You seem to actually look up what you’re talking about >.>]

 
Flag Post

Hahaha, what you just said wouldn’t make sense for any other truth statement but ones we’ll never be able to confirm because they’re made up. This is what the Flying Spaghetti Monster organization is trying to teach people like you. That logic you just advocated is liable to make a person believe whatever the manipulator desires. It’s a forced naivety. Because there’s no origin or reasoning behind the belief, faith is required and could be used to validate any argument. How individual Christian sects distinguish between their various interpretations all while advocating faith perplexes me. Either you agree and disagree with the truthiness of a given statement, or you don’t know about it. Having faith in something you acknowledge you don’t know about and then claiming its truth is batshit insane and you know it. Nothing else in the world works that way except ponzi schemes.

I really want to know how a religion of philosophy and morality became so dogmatic that whether someone died and came back to life for your sins or not becomes such a stopping point that we have to deny the scientific method in order for a particular theology to be true, meanwhile the deep philosophical points made in the book are secondary to it’s literal reality and thus correctness of its followers. What about evolution threatens the remarkably complex parable of Samson? At what point does a character’s name not being Jesus make a Sumarian tale about self improvement useless? How does Christianity negate scientific discovery when neither are trying to address the other? Why do religious people need their fantasy world to be real in order to mine good ideas from it?

 
Flag Post
God knows that we do not have to see Him inorder for us to believe that He exists.

Which does absolutely nothing to prove that he exists.

Bow down to your god, milk jug! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YymNb-pr-Pc

Ever heard the word faith before? A religious person needs to have faith.

Faith literally means to accept something without due reason. A religious person needs to have faith because there’s no evidence for what they believe. Thus, they can only believe because they believe because they believe it’s true because they believe it’s true because they believe it’s true…wait, that sounds like they’re trying to convince themselves. Hmm.

all religions except Islam have some elements of worshipping the creation in them.

No. Not even close. There are thousands of different religions that have been in the world at one point or another, and of each of those, thousands if not tens of thousands of divisions within those. And even if your statement were true, that does nothing to prove a supernatural entity exists.

If you study them with a mindset free from arrogance you will see which one is the truth.

Which of course is your religion, right? I’m the one being arrogant huh.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Necero:

You’re too hung up on christianity.

The same applies for all religions.

 
Flag Post
I was merely pointing out that it is irrelevant because seeing Him is not required to believe.

Except we’re not talking about whether or not people believe in them, and how. We’re talking about whether gods exist. Whether people believe in a god or not is what’s actually irrelevant to the question. Saying that they do is an appeal to popularity fallacy.

This is your opinion as a disbeliever.

It’s my understanding as someone who can read a dictionary and can apply logical reasoning as to why we have separate words for different things. If it were not faith, you wouldn’t have to believe on merit. It would be proven and there would be no reason for anyone to need to have faith.

The fact that faith is so espoused is in itself definitive proof that religion does not have solid evidence for their claims. If they could prove their beliefs in a logical manner, they would do so and we would all be of that religion. There wouldn’t be an argument.

Nope, Islam is unlike any other religion. It’s the only one which is truly monotheistic.

No, not really. But this isn’t relevant to the topic.

 
Flag Post

I’m sure you regularly question your assumptions and scrutinize your logic in order to make sure the God you’re worshiping is the right one. I’m sure you use some kind of an accurate measuring device to weigh all of the beliefs against yours, even the ones lost to time. I’m certain there’s a coherent reason you believe in one particularly unsupported and fantastical belief over others, and it’s called “faith.” That’s a good word for it, and keeps you from having to actually defend or rationalize your position. Consistency is required for everyone but you.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Necero:

If God wanted to He could make us all muslims.

Show how he has the ability to do that. In order to do so, you’ll need to give us proof that your god is real, and has real, tangible power, as opposed to the power of an Enid Blyton story’s central character.

After all Enid Blyton’s story has already been sent to us by the book. Let’s pick “the faraway tree” as an example. The tree is real, and is inhabited by thousands of what we would consider magical creatures. Home to a town and stretches from the ground all the way up into the clouds. The uppermost branches literally wrap around the clouds and hold them in place.

We know it is real, because the book tells us it is.