P
porkscratchings
Guest
Hooray!!
My thoughts exactly.
The bridge can be proven to work, whereas religion depends on faith without proof.
- Status
My thoughts exactly.
The bridge can be proven to work, whereas religion depends on faith without proof.
G
Grateful4mercy
Guest
And you really believe this is a fair comparison? How about comparing God to something a little larger than a bridge? Can you give me the exact mass of Mars? How did you measure it?Hooray!!
My thoughts exactly.
The bridge can be proven to work, whereas religion depends on faith without proof.
How is it we are somehow able to ‘know’ all there is to know about a universe 16 billion light years across from our vantage point on one insignificant ball of dirt in one corner of an unremarkable galaxy? The egos of some are beyond measure.
I’m a lay person when it comes to science, so you will have to forgive my ignorance. Please answer one simple question. Is there such a thing as infinite anything? Can you prove it to me. It seems that infinity is the common ‘cop out’ whenever science is confronted with philosophy. “If you had an infinite number of ______ then you could ______” From my point of view, that only helps to prove God exists. If I had an infinite number of universes, then one of them absolutely, without a doubt, contains God. And from that universe he controls all the others. Problem solved.
For me, all the science in the world will never answer the only question that matters…the question ‘Why?’
E
exoflare
Guest
Well, that’s your assumption.Hooray!!
My thoughts exactly.
The bridge can be proven to work, whereas religion depends on faith without proof.
P
porkscratchings
Guest
We use a tape measure to measure a person for a dress - why don’t u argue ’ that’s not a fair comparison’?
We know something is true by measuring it. Otherwise how do we know when we go to buy a pint of milk, we’re getting what we paid for?
The bridge analogy is a measure of belief - why we can trust in a bridge to work but not God. The bridge can be tested and measured up to do its job properly. Religious claims of God cannot stand up to this test. Or any test.
I have no ego beyond my faith in my own ignorance so I don’t even try to impose my ‘God’ on someone else. Compare this to the ego of the religious who think they, and only they, have all the answers.
Infinity is and is not. It exists in math but i’m not sure if it exists in real life. Maybe we say the universe is infinite only because we haven’t been able to get to the end of it yet. Maybe it is our own human limitations that makes the universe seem like infinite to us…
Science is not ‘confronted’ with philosophy - science tries to answer to the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ and philosophy tries to answer the ‘why’ to why stuff happen. Science and philosophy are just different ways of looking at something.I gotta admit, it’s the ‘why’ and the ‘how’ that interest me, and I’m not bothered about the ‘why’.
“If you had an infinite number of ______ then you could ______” - can be argued using math. If u then say that the above proves God exists, this falls outside math. What exactly are u then using to prove God? And if u can’t prove it to urself, how can u prove it to me?
M
Mirdath
Guest
You’d limit God to being less than and contained by the thing you claim he created, just like that?
G
Grateful4mercy
Guest
Why not? I live in the house I built, why wouldnt God? Is he homeless? Is he not in Heaven? I’m pretty sure he created that as well.
H
Hellisreal
Guest
Foxes have dens and birds of the sky have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to rest his head
(or something like that- going on memory now)
M
Mirdath
Guest
Can a God be caged? If God is contained by (or ‘exists in’) a particular universe, his existence is contingent upon that universe’s existence, while if he is supposed to be the Creator it should be the other way around. Further, this would-be God’s powers are constrained by the boundaries of that universe, and his presence limited to inside space-time. A being is limited by what it exists in, what comprises its frame of reference. How is such a godlet in any way truly divine? What you’re describing is a circus tiger.
Many thanks for restating the modal ontological argument like that though – I hadn’t considered this approach to defeating it! New stuff!
G
Grateful4mercy
Guest
I’m pretty sure you have only convinced yourself, at this point. I still don’t see how the house and occupant are dependent on each other. You are building an argument that I didn’t make. I said that from the pristine existence of Heaven, he controls the infinite number of additional universes, hardly sounds caged. It actually sounds BIGGER than the normal, single universe argument. But you can take away from it what you will, it seems you have at least agreed that God is somewhere.Can a God be caged? If God is contained by (or ‘exists in’) a particular universe, his existence is contingent upon that universe’s existence, while if he is supposed to be the Creator it should be the other way around. Further, this would-be God’s powers are constrained by the boundaries of that universe, and his presence limited to inside space-time. A being is limited by what it exists in, what comprises its frame of reference. How is such a godlet in any way truly divine? What you’re describing is a circus tiger.
Many thanks for restating the modal ontological argument like that though – I hadn’t considered this approach to defeating it! New stuff!
M
Mirdath
Guest
My point is not ‘there is no God’ but ‘proofs, or those shown so far, are insufficient’. The problem of containment, while maybe not intended, is a direct consequence of your postulating that in an infinite number of universes, one must needs possess (connotation of ownership intended, for what else is it?) a deity. Cart before the horse – it’s putting this unknown universe ahead of God.
And no, for the record, I remain agnostic.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
An atheist is perfectly happy with not having an answer to everything, and will never apply God as the answer to anything, as there is no proof (via scientific method) that God exists. Meaning, applying God as the answer only complicates the scientific method, as one would first have to prove via scientific method that God exists. And no one has done this.
As for faith in someone because their knowledge and experience is greater than your own…that is not the same as faith in God. An atheist will get a second opinion re: a dr.'s advice or diagnosis. Why? For the same reason that a theist would. People trust that a dr. has expert knowledge and experience, but realize or maybe even hope that another dr. knows or has experienced something more that will bring a more favorable outcome to any prescribed treatment.
To say that a scientist (atheist or not) trusts that anything coming from the scientific community is valid is an incorrect assumption. What a scientist trusts is that the scientific method used by all in the science fields has been adhered to, therefore, any conclusions made are sound. Which, sometimes people fudge for many reasons, and scientists realize this. But there is trust that the fudge will be found by those who verify and review the scientific claims of another. It is a system that isn’t perfect, but it works well.
In short, a scientist, atheist or theist or whatever-ist, realizes that a scientific theory can and will change based on more knowledge and experience being applied to the theory. Science does not replace God. I think that is a fallacy that theists believe of atheists. And it just is not true.
Faith in God in no way resembles faith in science. No one believes that science is perfect or infallible. Several someones, maybe not you, has repeatedly performed the same tests that have repeatedly shown the same outcome, all in the very human world of sight, touch, sound, smell and hearing. These senses, and instruments that enhance those senses are what scientists use. For me, the argument against this is that there certainly must be more to our universe than what is familiar to ourselves. I find that belief in our s own species, with our extremely limited knowledge and experience, as the absolute proof for anything and everything that has, does, or will exist in the entire universe to be very limited and very illogical.
That isn’t to say that I don’t find the applied sciences to be very interesting and useful and scientific discoveries to sometimes be absolutely astounding. I just don’t find that science replaces God. And I don’t expect that science is going to prove my faith.
As for faith in someone because their knowledge and experience is greater than your own…that is not the same as faith in God. An atheist will get a second opinion re: a dr.'s advice or diagnosis. Why? For the same reason that a theist would. People trust that a dr. has expert knowledge and experience, but realize or maybe even hope that another dr. knows or has experienced something more that will bring a more favorable outcome to any prescribed treatment.
To say that a scientist (atheist or not) trusts that anything coming from the scientific community is valid is an incorrect assumption. What a scientist trusts is that the scientific method used by all in the science fields has been adhered to, therefore, any conclusions made are sound. Which, sometimes people fudge for many reasons, and scientists realize this. But there is trust that the fudge will be found by those who verify and review the scientific claims of another. It is a system that isn’t perfect, but it works well.
In short, a scientist, atheist or theist or whatever-ist, realizes that a scientific theory can and will change based on more knowledge and experience being applied to the theory. Science does not replace God. I think that is a fallacy that theists believe of atheists. And it just is not true.
Faith in God in no way resembles faith in science. No one believes that science is perfect or infallible. Several someones, maybe not you, has repeatedly performed the same tests that have repeatedly shown the same outcome, all in the very human world of sight, touch, sound, smell and hearing. These senses, and instruments that enhance those senses are what scientists use. For me, the argument against this is that there certainly must be more to our universe than what is familiar to ourselves. I find that belief in our s own species, with our extremely limited knowledge and experience, as the absolute proof for anything and everything that has, does, or will exist in the entire universe to be very limited and very illogical.
That isn’t to say that I don’t find the applied sciences to be very interesting and useful and scientific discoveries to sometimes be absolutely astounding. I just don’t find that science replaces God. And I don’t expect that science is going to prove my faith.
M
Mirdath
Guest
Thank you
F
Fisher
Guest
How to Stump an Atheist ?
Ask an atheist if he or she believes in the existence of aliens? If they answer, “no,” then ask them how do they know that? Have they gone to all the other galaxies throughout the universe? The truth is that no atheist can reasonably deny the existence of alien life. To do so would be utter ignorance. If an atheist answers, “yes,” then they have contradicted their claim that there is no God. Is not God an Alien? By every definition of the word, God is an alien, i.e., He is not of this earth. For an atheist to profess believe is alien life, while simultaneously denying the existence of God, is utter hypocrisy and foolishness.
Ask an atheist if he or she believes in the existence of aliens? If they answer, “no,” then ask them how do they know that? Have they gone to all the other galaxies throughout the universe? The truth is that no atheist can reasonably deny the existence of alien life. To do so would be utter ignorance. If an atheist answers, “yes,” then they have contradicted their claim that there is no God. Is not God an Alien? By every definition of the word, God is an alien, i.e., He is not of this earth. For an atheist to profess believe is alien life, while simultaneously denying the existence of God, is utter hypocrisy and foolishness.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Oh, I don’t know about God being alien. I mean, if you believe that God created this Earth, doesn’t that make Him more intimate with this creation than you or I?
G
Grateful4mercy
Guest
My apologies. I have taken a bit of information for granted instead of making myself more clear. My argument was a rebuttal to the ‘infinite monkeys can write Hamlet’ posit. In a nutshell I was saying that if you allow that anything is possible if given an infinite number of anything (in this case universes) then you must accept that one of those proposed universes can contain God. You cannot discount that possibility, thus using infinity as a solution to any creation equation must also cause God to become one of the solutions.
I would like to make it known that I do NOT subscribe to the infinite universe theory, but if you dig into the ‘vacuum fluctuation’ crowd you will see many people who do. I believe it is a crutch used to support poor theories of creation that attempt to discount God as creator.
Personally, I have no problem with containment. God is in his Heaven. That doesn’t mean he is limited to only that place or time. It is simply a human understanding of existence. It has been said by poets (please help me remember who) that all of God and his Angels we’re contained within a pea, yet it didn’t show the slightest bulge from the mass of it.
BTW, I totally agree with you. God is unknowable with our tiny minds, but my heart tells me he is here and I pray that I am serving him well.
M
Mirdath
Guest
If indeed you have in fact managed to stump an atheist with this, I’m amazed your chosen victim was capable of holding a conversation at all.
The existence of extraterrestrials is currently unknown (unless you’re Erich von Daniken). One may say ‘yes, I think they’re out there’ or ‘no, I don’t think there are any aliens’ without making a fool or a hypocrite out of himself. Interestingly and anecdotally, the latter view seems more prevalent among Christians than anyone else.
Next step, let’s assume we think there probably are ETs (I personally do think it fairly likely; the universe is a big, old place – but this comes with other problems: what if everyone else died out and we’re it?). ‘God is an alien’. Sure, technically, but we’re talking about little green men, not God. God’s an entirely different discussion. In the religious frame of mind, we are talking about the created, not the Creator; and for the purposes of this discussion, the Creator is irrelevant. We’re here, after all, and we don’t necessarily accept the existence of a divine Creator; why should the existence of other species on other worlds change anything? It is neither foolish nor hypocritical.
On the other hand, if we don’t think there are ETs, well, so far the evidence we have supports that! Can you point to an alien and say ‘hey, this proves you wrong’? Didn’t think so.
This ‘argument’ (I hesitate to dignify it with that term, even in quotes) is utterly ridiculous.
G
Grateful4mercy
Guest
I can’t quite agree with this statement given the shear number of atheists that try to disprove our faith using their knowledge of the universe. They obviously think they have reasoned God out of existence through science.
S
Sixtus
Guest
Mirdath posted:
You go faster with Yugo
M
Mirdath
Guest
Well, they can
Give an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters – or sit one monkey down at a typewriter for a Very Long, Potentially Infinite Time – and I guarantee you will see Shakespeare. It works because you’re working with a finite number of permutations of a finite set of letters, but you have infinite resources. Of course, the odds are extremely low; I’m probably getting the math wrong (it’s been a while), but on a keyboard with just the twenty-six letters, you’ll get the phrase ‘to be or not to be’ one out of, oh, 4360000000000000000000000 times.This assumes that God is in the possibility set. The monkeys’ twenty-six letter keyboard does not include an interrobang key, after all, yet they can produce infinite sequences of letters. So first you’d have to show that God is possible
If that’s accomplished, we’re still left with the problem of containment – and with the problem of explaining how all these other universes God didn’t create came around.Sure, think what you like – multiple universes, as far as I know, are in much the same state scientifically speaking as the aliens I mentioned in my post above. However, I do take issue with your referring to ‘poor theories of creation’, seeing as ‘God did it’ isn’t even a theory. Sure, I don’t know if science will ever explain it, but that’s no reason to denigrate the effort.
Yeah, I don’t think we’re up to it without a little help – which explains why I’m where I’m at, I guess
A few do; they are in no way representative of the rest of the non-theists. ‘I have no reason to believe this’ isn’t an attempt to disprove God through science.
S
Suat
Guest
Most atheists I know (myself included) think that there is a high probability that life exists elsewhere in the universe. Most would agree also that there is no evidence for that yet, but that given the sheer number of galaxies out there, the chances of another world having conditions that are suitable for the evolution of life are high. That said, the probability of encountering another intelligent life form is low. There is a large difference between saying that it is probable that life evolved on another planet and saying that an omnipotent, omniscience being that created the universe exists. They are two completely different things that would arise in different ways and cannot be compared. Unless you are confining your God to the same laws that humans are restricted to: i.e. limited by the laws of the natural world. In which case, it would no longer be a god.
- Status