What would you do if it were proven...?

[warpspeedpetey]

And God is a response for that which is unknown to humans. What makes you think you are so different ‘at heart’ from humans 500 years ago? There were thousands of Gods that tailored to their civilizations. They labeled almost everything as god (rain, sun, rainbows, floods, earthquakes, 1000s of dead fish washing ashore, the complexity of biology). Now those easy buttons has been washed away and all that is left which hasn’t been answered is the very beginning, if there was one.

The G-d of the Gaps argument? Really? Please, someone kill me now. If we are going to have to listen to fairy tales, this one is much better.
**
Atheism of the Gaps**. Over the centuries people haven’t yet been able to explain how G-ds miraculous events might have occurred, so to explain the gaps in their knowledge they have denied that G-d really exists. This effect has resulted in the disappearance of Penn, Teller, Chris Angel, David Blaine, David Copperfield and The Amazing Johnathon. Though Johnathon only faded out of existence momentarily, since it doesn’t take long to figure his act out.

 

[cathoichelp]

The G-d of the Gaps argument? Really? Please, someone kill me now. If we are going to have to listen to fairy tales, this one is much better.
**
Atheism of the Gaps**. Over the centuries people haven’t yet been able to explain how G-ds miraculous events might have occurred, so to explain the gaps in their knowledge they have denied that G-d really exists. This effect has resulted in the disappearance of Penn, Teller, Chris Angel, David Blaine, David Copperfield and The Amazing Johnathon. Though Johnathon only faded out of existence momentarily, since it doesn’t take long to figure his act out.

hahahahahahahahahaha

 

[valentino]

HonestQuestion: I’ll make my question easier.you said the idea of God is incredible.I say that scientists today say there doesnt have to be a God.this is what they want me to believe.In the beginning there was nothing.Absolutely nothing.then something occurred.From nothing an atom appeared.This atom was so dense(in fact it contains everything thats in this universe) that it exploded.over time this unrandom order became ordered(which goes against the laws of physics).the earth rotates around the sun is orderly.It doesnt crash into the sun.Finally through this process man came to be with the mind that could (scientists tell us)and will sometime in the future discover how we came to be.Remember there is no mind in this first particle.Scientists have no explaination how this particle got there or how it could possibly get us to where we are today.So rather than take the time to seek and study God they rather seek God through the study of science which cannot explain the first particle and never will be able to explain the first particle.God tells us this first particle or thing was He HImself.

 

[honestquestions]

Really? Please, someone kill me now. If we are going to have to listen to fairy tales…

Fairy tales? So you deny my claim that humans once believed the rainbow and tsunamis were a sign from god, until they then discovered the natural explanations?

Over the centuries people haven’t yet been able to explain how G-ds miraculous events might have occurred, so to explain the gaps in their knowledge they have denied that G-d really exists.

They haven’t? You deny that people believed God designed each and every snowflake because it looked so beautifully designed under a microscope?
Which of the following is the explanation regarding the intricate design of a snowflake?

A) God did it.

B) The basic ice crystal shape is a hexagonal prism with basal faces {0001} on top and bottom and six prism faces {1010} around the sides. Here, basal and prism faces mean macroscopically flat, stepped surfaces (vicinals) with orientations that are practically indis- tinguishable from basal or prism orientations. When the surrounding temperature is between about -12 and -18 °C and the supersaturation exceeds several percent, this basic shape can only exist when the crystal is small; when the crystal exceeds a certain size, it grows into a six-branched crystal, as sketched in the sequence of Figure 3b-f. Each branch points in an a-axis direction between adjacent prism faces. Most branches are ideal- ized here as being bound by a top basal face, two leading prism faces on either side of the leading vertex (i.e., outermost tip), two parallel side prism faces, and a tapered, largely noncrystallographic backside that is thinner near the tip than it is near the center of the crystal. Visible ribs often run along some of the growth directions, whereas some lines are parallel to the prism faces.16 These and other features are marked on the crystals in Figure 2. On dendritic crystals, sidebranches sprout from the side vertex of a branch and then grow along an a-axis. The growth rate R and growth direction of each face are defined to be normal to the surface (Figure 4a). Finally, the names of the crystal forms are from Magono and Lee17 (ML): “sector plates” are crystals with wide sectorlike (i.e., pie-slice shape) branches (Plb in ML); “broad branch crystals” also have wide branches, but the side faces are roughly parallel and longer (Plc); “stellar crystals” have long, narrow branches (Pld); “dendrites” are crystals with side- branches (Ple); and “fernlike dendrites” have a high density of sidebranches (P1f). Some variations to these forms are discussed later…

 

[honestquestions]

HonestQuestion: I’ll make my question easier.you said the idea of God is incredible.I say that scientists today say there doesnt have to be a God.this is what they want me to believe.In the beginning there was nothing.Absolutely nothing.then something occurred.From nothing an atom appeared.This atom was so dense(in fact it contains everything thats in this universe) that it exploded.over time this unrandom order became ordered(which goes against the laws of physics).the earth rotates around the sun is orderly.It doesnt crash into the sun.Finally through this process man came to be with the mind that could (scientists tell us)and will sometime in the future discover how we came to be.Remember there is no mind in this first particle.Scientists have no explaination how this particle got there or how it could possibly get us to where we are today.So rather than take the time to seek and study God they rather seek God through the study of science which cannot explain the first particle and never will be able to explain the first particle.God tells us this first particle or thing was He HImself.

In summary, because there is not a definitive and any seemingly possibility of a good scientific answer at this time, therefore you think there must be a god which will fill in the gaps? But the very definition you give god makes it special so that itself also does not need to be created. I think there was also a time in the 1800s when people thought there is no seemingly possibility that humans and animals were not directly created by a creator, but then we discovered evolution and a DNA code. What you are asking is a deep question, and I suggest you listen to some of the theories at this time:
youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

 

[mark_avery]

I think to carry on as usual,either way,and try to be a better person!!could answer such a question.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Fairy tales? So you deny my claim that humans once believed the rainbow and tsunamis were a sign from god, until they then discovered the natural explanations?

First one has to have a concept of G-d prior to assigning Him responsibility for a physical phenomenon. What else would you call a story easily disprovable? Usually we call them fairy-tales.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

In summary, because there is not a definitive and any seemingly possibility of a good scientific answer at this time, therefore you think there must be a god which will fill in the gaps?

He is not referring to any gap in scientific knowledge, he is referring to a basic logical flaw in the claim. A=notA, Some-thing=No-thing.

But the very definition you give god makes it special so that itself also does not need to be created.

G-d doesn’t need a cause because there is no such thing as an existent nothing, there is no way for Him to have a cause, it is the same logical contradiction I demonstrated above. Existence is therefore a logical necessity. There is literally no alternative but for there to be a G-d who is defined as the act of existing. If our concept of G-d was contingent on anything else, it wouldn’t be G-d would it? It would just be another creation. So the definition of G-d isn’t because it is convenient, but simply because that is where the logic leads.

 

[honestquestions]

First one has to have a concept of G-d prior to assigning Him responsibility for a physical phenomenon. What else would you call a story easily disprovable? Usually we call them fairy-tales.

What did you just de-convert?! Yes, we call them fairy tales. As time goes on, more and more of what Catholics once had as beliefs in Gods creation has been dis-proven, and instead given scientific natural explanations…

 

[honestquestions]

G-d doesn’t need a cause because there is no such thing as an existent nothing, there is no way for Him to have a cause, it is the same logical contradiction I demonstrated above. Existence is therefore a logical necessity. There is literally no alternative but for there to be a G-d who is defined as the act of existing. If our concept of G-d was contingent on anything else, it wouldn’t be G-d would it? It would just be another creation. So the definition of G-d isn’t because it is convenient, but simply because that is where the logic leads.

The universe doesn’t need a cause because there is no such thing as an existent nothing, there is no way for it to have a cause, it is the same logical contradiction I demonstrated above. Existence is therefore a logical necessity. There is literally no alternative but for there to be a universe that is defined as the act of existing. If our concept of the universe was contingent on anything else, it wouldn’t be the universe would it? It would just be another creation. So the definition of the universe isn’t because it is convenient, but simply because that is where the logic leads.

Why do you leave out ‘o’ in God?

 

[John21652]

What did you just de-convert?! Yes, we call them fairy tales. As time goes on, more and more of what Catholics once had as beliefs in Gods creation has been dis-proven, and instead given scientific natural explanations…

Like what? Darwinism? Still a hypothesis. What else can you name that Catholics “once had as beliefs…”?

Have a read about the Vatican’s Academy of Sciences before you go sprouting non-sensical anti-Catholic gibberish. Like the article says, science can’t tell you what’s right or wrong.

 

[Shredderbeam]

I’d probably join Catholic World Mission, or some similar missionary organization.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

What did you just de-convert?! Yes, we call them fairy tales. As time goes on, more and more of what Catholics once had as beliefs in Gods creation has been dis-proven, and instead given scientific natural explanations…

Examples, please? And as for God’s creation and ‘scientific natural explanations’, I fail to see any way they cannot co-exist. You’re acting as though a theory like ‘evolution’ somehow cancels out the idea of God. . .and it doesn’t. What if God USED His creation and the WAY He used it was through what some call ‘evolution?’ (Evolution, itself, is not completely understood either and is still theoretical.)

Because when it comes right down to it, my ‘scientist’ friend, ‘something’ doesn’t come from ‘nothing.’ If it all started with the ‘big bang’, where did the matter for that originate anyway? Why not God?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

What did you just de-convert?! Yes, we call them fairy tales. As time goes on, more and more of what Catholics once had as beliefs in Gods creation has been dis-proven, and instead given scientific natural explanations…

This is really just a restatement of Atheism of the Gaps…If you don’t know how it works, that means it didn’t happen. Saying that science explains away G-d is no different than saying that the printing press explains away a books author.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The universe doesn’t need a cause because there is no such thing as an existent nothing, there is no way for it to have a cause, it is the same logical contradiction I demonstrated above.

Your changes make this a non-sequitir. You might as well have replaced the word G-d with “blue”, or “chair”, or “soliloquy”.

Existence is therefore a logical necessity. There is literally no alternative but for there to be a universe that is defined as the act of existing. If our concept of the universe was contingent on anything else, it wouldn’t be the universe would it? It would just be another creation. So the definition of the universe isn’t because it is convenient, but simply because that is where the logic leads.

What did I tell you about quoting? Those are not my words, it is dishonest to quote them in such a way as to make it appear as though those are my words. I can handle invincible ignorance, but I won’t tolerate dishonest tactics. Since you have been told about this before, it is clearly not a mistake.

Why do you leave out ‘o’ in God?

Its my preference.

 

[Betterave]

A little unsure of why that makes him an idiot. “He explained that since the intelligent design movement uses ambiguous references to an unspecified “Intelligent Designer”, any conceivable entity may fulfill that role, even a Flying Spaghetti Monster.”

…er, yeah: but that’s dumb! See below.

Other religions believe this or that god created the universe, are you saying they are idiots too? (rather, have idiotic beliefs?)

Nope, I clearly never said that.

I guess he is saying the FSM is equally absurd to the Christian/Abrahamic God, while it would not be hard to argue, even by an atheist, that the FSM is a bit more absurd than the Christian/Abrahamic God. But that’s why it’s so funny!

More than a bit, for the very obvious reasons that have already been mentioned. And that’s why it’s so dumb (not funny)!

If he just made up some kind of normal-ish sounding deity, it wouldn’t be so funny. Spaghetti? Pastafarianism? It’s quite clever to me. What would be idiotic is to not get that.

It wouldn’t be so dumb, I think you should say.

Dang, last night I was looking forward to signing on today with this awesome rebuttal, quoting some dictionaries or something, but alas, neither of those words, nor their synonyms, are in the others’ definition The best I can do is say that to me, everything supernatural is implausible/unlikely/unbelievable/far-fetched/doubtful. (And one of the definitions of supernatural is related to or attributed to a deity.) Surely you find some things described as supernatural implausible?
YES.
You don’t have to limit yourself to that definition, you can use “not of natural world: relating to or attributed to phenomena that cannot be explained by natural laws” or whatever you want.) Assuming you do consider some supernatural things implausible, will you allow that the words are inextricably linked?

NO. Of course not. That’s makes no sense. What kind of “link” is that? You might as well say “some propositions are implausible; therefore the words ‘proposition’ and ‘implausible’ are inextricably linked.” What’s the point of saying something like that??

When did you ask me to identify flaws with your religion? Did I miss that post? Don’t get me wrong, I would loooove to - just give me the go ahead, but I think it would be rude of me to list the specific flaws in Catholocism on CAF. Debating certain topics yes, but not in the philosophy forum.

I’ll let you find where I asked you to identify flaws. So go ahead, just like cathoichelp. But as I said to her(?), just give me one flaw for starters, pick your favorite, and try to avoid straw man arguments.

I suppose you didn’t technically ask me to argue atheism, but since I am an atheist, wouldn’t giving you the rationality of my views be doing just that?

No; “Catholicism is flawed” does not imply “atheism is true” (any more than “atheism is flawed” would imply “Catholicism is true.”)

Being pretty new to CAF, and being very opinionated on my views of atheism, I have tried to avoid steering the threads off topic, but I wasn’t one of the ones doing that to this thread, and no one seems to be complaining about the fact that it is, nor that it is basically a discussion on a banned topic, I would be more than willing to dis your religion (politely and with explanation, not just for kicks) and elaborate on my views, which happen to be atheistic, if that’s what you want. Shall we go there?
Ahhh here I go again, adding nothing of substance to this thread. One of these days I will. One of these days…

Let’s go there. Let’s get to some substance.

 

[Betterave]

I would never deny a claim because it sounds too incredible, though my skeptic radar would rise. I would simply ask for demonstrable evidence.

With due respect, I don’t believe you. For starters, you often are not in a position to ask for demonstrable evidence; therefore, often, you would NOT “simply ask for demonstrable evidence.”

You are missing the point with the FSM. Ok, you’ve heard of it and it was deliberate (doesn’t mean it couldn’t actually end up being true). Suppose I mention something else with sincerity that has not been known to have been constructed by others, and I’m telling you that you must follow me to meet this person who is the real God. Would you believe me or not?

With due respect, I think you’ve already demonstrated that you are a person with a bit of a shaky grasp on reality/rationality, so I certainly wouldn’t just believe you. I would treat you with respect, however, I’d listen to your sincere claims, and I’d be happy to discuss them with you. Without more information, however, it is absurd to jump straight to the question, “would you believe me or not?”

 

[samiam1611]

I’m done talking about the FSM. We just have different senses of humor is all. Can we agree to disagree that you think it’s dumb, and I think it’s funny?
I know you did not say others’ beliefs are idiotic. That’s why I formed it as a question.

That’s makes no sense. What kind of “link” is that? You might as well say “some propositions are implausible; therefore the words ‘proposition’ and ‘implausible’ are inextricably linked.” What’s the point of saying something like that??

I stand by my statement. It is not the same as saying proposition. For one thing, proposition is a broad term. You can propose marriage to your significant other. You can propose that you and and your friends go to the movies Friday night instead of the party that your other friend proposed. Certain propositions can be implausible for sure but saying they are inextricably linked is flat out wrong. They’re just not mutually exclusive.
If I may quote Wikipedia, the supernatural is anything above or beyond what one holds to be natural or exists outside natural law and the observable universe. (Although I was using it more as an adjective.)
Apparently it is necessary for me to distinguish implausible from impossible. I am not saying supernatural things could not possibly be true. One of the synonyms for implausible is questionable. Here I go again, going to quote Wikipedia. “Science limits its explanations for phenomena to natural explanations, a process known as methodological naturalism, and cannot consider supernatural explanations, as they cannot be investigated empirically.” I limit my beliefs to things that science can at least potentially explain, even if that explanation has not been found yet. Since supernatural things cannot be proven in a scientifc manner, I remain doubful of the truth of certain claims. That’s just me though. Things that are implausible to me may not be to you if you do not require scientific explanation. But if we can both agree that a given event is of a supernatural nature, I hope you also agree that the validity of that event is implausible. Not impossible ok? Implausible. Questionable. Doubtful.

I’ll let you find where I asked you to identify flaws. So go ahead, just like cathoichelp. But as I said to her(?), just give me one flaw for starters, pick your favorite, and try to avoid straw man arguments.

Let’s go there. Let’s get to some substance.

I will do this later on tonight. I do not have time to proofread this so I ask that you cut me some slack if I said something not-too-smart or have some typos. I have to go to work now. Stay tuned.

 

[samiam1611]

I’m sorry, do you want me to pick out a certain teaching of the Church that I disagree with (aka find flawed) or do you want me to comment on a more general level? For instance: the prohibition of artificial birth control, or the [in]fallibility of the pope? I wouldn’t necessarily pick those things, just want to give examples. I don’t want to write a big long thing and you be like ummm that’s not what I meant.
One last thing you sure it’s ok to do that here? here meaning this thread, this sub-forum.

 

[Betterave]

I’m sorry, do you want me to pick out a certain teaching of the Church that I disagree with (aka find flawed) or do you want me to comment on a more general level? For instance: the prohibition of artificial birth control, or the [in]fallibility of the pope? I wouldn’t necessarily pick those things, just want to give examples. I don’t want to write a big long thing and you be like ummm that’s not what I meant.
One last thing you sure it’s ok to do that here? here meaning this thread, this sub-forum.

The thread is about a hypothetical: “What would you do if it were proven…?” I think this little digression is relevant because some people have replied: “It has been proven…!” The latter claim, however, is questionable. But since we might not recognize that it is questionable, this may have implications for how we should treat the hypothetical question. If we see that subjective certainty about God/Catholicism crumbles when subjected to objective analysis, then the “if it were proven” of the original question becomes something with regard to which we might need to look askance. So I see nothing wrong with you picking out a certain Catholic teaching and saying what grounds your certainty that it is wrong. (cathoichelp seems to have changed her mind about undertaking this task.) Then we can attempt to examine what is *really *the case, beyond the fact of your subjective convictions.