loaf Posted September 25, 2008 Author Share Posted September 25, 2008 (which still demands a degree of faith) Not faith in the supernatural... perhaps a deference and trust in scientific opinion, is that what you mean? ...can rule out a divine hand in everything. I can see that God/s would be quite entertained by getting something started and then seeing where it all ends. Well, apart from that being an example of humanity's lack of imagination and simply projecting a human's need of puerile amusement onto 'unseen agents' as mentioned before, it would make me even less inclined to devote my life to worshipping something that just created me 'for a laugh'... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyboarder Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Not faith in the supernatural... perhaps a deference and trust in scientific opinion, is that what you mean? It's as good as the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 If science is faith it is a very unusual sort of faith - science is the best available explanation of the best available evidence. There are two sides to that statement - the explanation, and the evidence - and both are expected to change as new evidence is found and as people's imaginations come up with better explanations for that evidence. The whole idea is based on the limits of current ideas and the hopes for new ones and how to explain those new ideas (whether how to do a new experiment or to explain some results) as clearly as possible to allow others to undertake experiments etc which replicate the results found. If people don't believe the results they can go off and do the experiments themselves - they may get different results or even the same results but come up with another explanation of why they got them - Scientific theories are only good if they can be shown to be wrong - falsified. If you had two different theories which predicted exactly the same results in every circumstance you would not be able to tell them apart and would have to decide which one is "best" on faith. I honestly cannot think of any examples where science was like this - other than some early theories for electron shells, but here the similarity was due to the mathematics. Two different methods were used - matrix and one I cannot remember at the moment (VinnieK?) - these looked very different, but underlying them was the same principle just expressed differently. Any scientist will have faith in his given experiments and theories, but that amounts to nothing if the results or refinements contradict them - and science is about getting refinements and results. Religious faith is very different from this - it demands that people accept the statements just because they believe - Why do you believe in the divinity of Christ, or the miracle of the Turin Shrould, or the cure of Lourdes or whatever - the religious answer because of faith. Evidence, competing theories and ideas are discounted - "I'm not interested in these ideas - I believe it was done by the grace of God." Religion is closed, denying, insisting that Holy Writ is correct by faith - I really ask where is the scientiific method like that. It is the antithesis of science which by definition has to be open, questioning and attempting to understand where current ideas fail so new, more complete ideas can be found. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loaf Posted September 26, 2008 Author Share Posted September 26, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimcalagon Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 for truth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 I voted but no category really fits my belief that there is no God. I believe the chance that there is a God is basically zero but I cannot say I “know” there is no god. It is very hard to prove the non existence of something Even if there was ever proved to be a God I could not bring myself to worship that God. What sort of malevolent creature would bring in and allow all the suffering in the world, the starvation and poverty? Why would you “create” such diseases as Leukaemia, Cancer, diseases which effect young kids from a very young age? Why would you “create” water born and other parasites that in less developed parts of the world kill millions? Why would you allow “man made” and natural disasters that kill hundreds of thousands? Why would you allow man to create and do evil deeds? Presumably this God is sitting their thinking, “The Holacaust, that was down to me didn’t I do well there” The stock answer seems to be to test “our” faith or they are the consequences of mans “free will”. Well if they are a test of faith then it seems a big price to pay to pamper this Gods ego so it can sit on high smug in the belief that “Yep they still adore me” . If they are a consequence of mans ” free will “ then as this God is meant to have created us again it is surely fairly malevolent to have created us with these “evil” traits. Surely it would have been no more trouble to create us as 100% nice beings totally incapable of malevolence To put it simply as understand it if there is a God anything and everything horrible, evil, malicious etc etc is down to him. Again if this God exists it had the power to create with out these but chose not. It chose to introduce all this suffering into the world and this is the entity we are all meant to bow down and worship! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 If God cannot create a world with both free will and no evil then do not call him omnipotent, if he can create such a world and has not do not call him omnibenevolent. He's weak, or evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 'And on the last day mankind was cast into the pit of eternal damnation and there was much wailing and moaning' 'Mankind cried out..Oh God we didn't know, we didn't know? And God replied....'Well ya fukin know now!!' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimcalagon Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 'And on the last day mankind was cast into the pit of eternal damnation and there was much wailing and moaning' 'Mankind cried out..Oh God we didn't know, we didn't know? And God replied....'Well ya fukin know now!!' Oh its worse than that - most people know about the parable of the prodigal son - God rejoicing at the repentence of a single sinner, but for some reason Thessolonians is rather less well known. Why are some of those people wailing and gnashing their teeth in the flames of damnation? - Could it be because God deliberately manipulated their free will so that they wouldn't repent? Any apologists fancy having a go justifying 2 Thess. 2:11-12? 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimcalagon Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 'And on the last day mankind was cast into the pit of eternal damnation and there was much wailing and moaning' 'Mankind cried out..Oh God we didn't know, we didn't know? And God replied....'Well ya fukin know now!!' Oh its worse than that - most people know about the parable of the prodigal son - God rejoicing at the repentence of a single sinner, but for some reason Thessolonians is rather less well known. Why are some of those people wailing and gnashing their teeth in the flames of damnation? - Could it be because God deliberately manipulated their free will so that they wouldn't repent? Any apologists fancy having a go justifying 2 Thess. 2:11-12? 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. Easy to explain - God is all powerful and loving and likes to set tests for his beloved children in which the initial conditions are strongly weighted to make the children fail the test, ensuring that his children endure everlasting torment. Just like any loving parent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 There is no spoon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyboarder Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 If science is faith it is a very unusual sort of faith - science is the best available explanation of the best available evidence. I was specifically referring to evolutionary theory, which as far as I'm aware remains theoretical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted September 27, 2008 Share Posted September 27, 2008 If science is faith it is a very unusual sort of faith - science is the best available explanation of the best available evidence. I was specifically referring to evolutionary theory, which as far as I'm aware remains theoretical. Since you appeared on here, I've started questioning evolution too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loaf Posted September 27, 2008 Author Share Posted September 27, 2008 I was specifically referring to evolutionary theory, which as far as I'm aware remains theoretical. You keep using that word... In science, the word 'theory' has a very strict definition. It means something that can be tested and supported with available evidence, can be used to make accurate predictions about phenomena and has yet to be disproved. Gravity is still a theory, yet we can demonstrate the theory and make accurate predictions with it all the time. In science, things don't magically become 'facts' when we're satisfied that they work. No, they remain theoretical and subject to scrutiny. You were probably thinking 'hypothesis', which in science is conjecture, guesswork, undemonstrated thinking. Evolution is not a hypothesis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.