Total Posts:76|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Science Vs. God

Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2012 8:30:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I am very curious, to hear the logic behind science hindering the plausibility of God.

I love science, and always enjoy hearing the particulars of God's work; However it confuses me how people make the connection, that since we've discoved the particulars of a certain part of our world(universe), that God is no longer needed, or can no longer be accredited for it's being..

So, if you can explain to me, how it follows that since we gain insight on the workings of our universe, that God is ruled out?
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2012 8:33:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I would go further to say that science proves God's existence,

1 - We recently found the Higgs-Boson particle
2 - It is known as the God Particle
3 - Since the God particle exists, God exists, checkmate atheists!

(/trolling)
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
TheJackel
Posts: 508
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2012 8:54:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/6/2012 8:30:53 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
I am very curious, to hear the logic behind science hindering the plausibility of God.

I love science, and always enjoy hearing the particulars of God's work; However it confuses me how people make the connection, that since we've discoved the particulars of a certain part of our world(universe), that God is no longer needed, or can no longer be accredited for it's being..

So, if you can explain to me, how it follows that since we gain insight on the workings of our universe, that God is ruled out?

Science doesn't address the concept of GOD.. Pretty hard to test for an absolute negative. Now could there have been and intelligent being, or species that could have induced a big bang? Perhaps... It's not something ruled out by science in that context. However science does show us some important things. Things such as the conscious state can't exist without cause. So in knowing that, a conscious entity or species can not solve the true question of why we are all here.. Well the answer is hidden in blatant open site. It is reality itself, or existence itself and we study it every day, and we are literally of it ourselves. .. The question that is unanswered is exactly how we got here, and how existence / reality works to which allowed us to even be possible in the first place.
think41self
Posts: 41
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2012 9:02:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/6/2012 8:30:53 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
I am very curious, to hear the logic behind science hindering the plausibility of God.

I love science, and always enjoy hearing the particulars of God's work; However it confuses me how people make the connection, that since we've discoved the particulars of a certain part of our world(universe), that God is no longer needed, or can no longer be accredited for it's being..

So, if you can explain to me, how it follows that since we gain insight on the workings of our universe, that God is ruled out?

God is a concept used when there is no explanation. This concept of god has been used A long time since gods were created. The concept of god has evolved from being the cause of everything such as rain, lightning, thunder, and slowly has decreased or evolved into our current ideology as creator of the universe. Before he accounted for everything, now just the universe. Soon he will be nonexistent.
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2012 10:26:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/6/2012 8:30:53 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
I am very curious, to hear the logic behind science hindering the plausibility of God.

I love science, and always enjoy hearing the particulars of God's work; However it confuses me how people make the connection, that since we've discoved the particulars of a certain part of our world(universe), that God is no longer needed, or can no longer be accredited for it's being..

Because if it doesn't follow the 'Genesis Account for Creation', then it's pretty obvious we can rule that deity off the list of possible (and that is saying a lot) supernatural entities.
So, if you can explain to me, how it follows that since we gain insight on the workings of our universe, that God is ruled out?
Nothing that religion has constructed accurately follows our knowledge surrounding the coming of the Universe, life on Earth, and its systematic betterment.
turn down for h'what
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2012 11:42:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/6/2012 8:30:53 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
I am very curious, to hear the logic behind science hindering the plausibility of God.

I love science, and always enjoy hearing the particulars of God's work; However it confuses me how people make the connection, that since we've discoved the particulars of a certain part of our world(universe), that God is no longer needed, or can no longer be accredited for it's being..

So, if you can explain to me, how it follows that since we gain insight on the workings of our universe, that God is ruled out?

It can only discredit certain Gods.

For instance, if you say "God created the world in seven days and the universe was created 10,000 years ago" then using empirical evidence we can show God's existence is statistically significant (the induction equivalent of proof).
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 1:00:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/6/2012 8:30:53 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
I am very curious, to hear the logic behind science hindering the plausibility of God.

I love science, and always enjoy hearing the particulars of God's work; However it confuses me how people make the connection, that since we've discoved the particulars of a certain part of our world(universe), that God is no longer needed, or can no longer be accredited for it's being..

So, if you can explain to me, how it follows that since we gain insight on the workings of our universe, that God is ruled out?

I think the more important question is: "why believe in God?"
You tell me something that I can't hear, see, smell, taste, or feel in any way exists and you ask me to believe in it on faith? Especially when religious experiences have been explained and shown not to be supernatural. I read the Bible and it is clear how inaccurate it is. Also how do we even choose what deity we believe in? No religion has more credibility than the next, so why should I believe in your god specifically? It seems pretty clear to me that everything has a natural explanation even if we don't know it yet. While I cannot rightfully say that there is no god, I see no reason to believe there is.
slo1
Posts: 4,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 9:15:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/6/2012 8:30:53 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
I am very curious, to hear the logic behind science hindering the plausibility of God.

I love science, and always enjoy hearing the particulars of God's work; However it confuses me how people make the connection, that since we've discoved the particulars of a certain part of our world(universe), that God is no longer needed, or can no longer be accredited for it's being..

So, if you can explain to me, how it follows that since we gain insight on the workings of our universe, that God is ruled out?

I think that you may have it in reverse. The sects that believe in a literal translation of the bible continuously discount science. An amazing large chunk of Americans believe in a 10,000 year old earth.

The incompatibility of science and God has tended and continues to be championed by the more strict forms of religion.

There are many who fall in your camp and Einstein's that the "watch maker" created it and put it in motion and there is no disconnect.

I know of very few atheists that are atheists because of science. Those I know tended to realize the absurdity of religion and how completely ridiculous it is that then causes the move towards using science as the process to explain the world. In a way God gets thrown out with the bath water.
TheAsylum
Posts: 772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 9:20:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/6/2012 8:30:53 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
I am very curious, to hear the logic behind science hindering the plausibility of God.

I love science, and always enjoy hearing the particulars of God's work; However it confuses me how people make the connection, that since we've discoved the particulars of a certain part of our world(universe), that God is no longer needed, or can no longer be accredited for it's being..

So, if you can explain to me, how it follows that since we gain insight on the workings of our universe, that God is ruled out?

He is never ruled out, but only in the minds of men. They will heed one day.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 12:28:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/6/2012 9:02:31 PM, think41self wrote:
At 9/6/2012 8:30:53 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
I am very curious, to hear the logic behind science hindering the plausibility of God.

I love science, and always enjoy hearing the particulars of God's work; However it confuses me how people make the connection, that since we've discoved the particulars of a certain part of our world(universe), that God is no longer needed, or can no longer be accredited for it's being..

So, if you can explain to me, how it follows that since we gain insight on the workings of our universe, that God is ruled out?

God is a concept used when there is no explanation. This concept of god has been used A long time since gods were created. The concept of god has evolved from being the cause of everything such as rain, lightning, thunder, and slowly has decreased or evolved into our current ideology as creator of the universe. Before he accounted for everything, now just the universe. Soon he will be nonexistent.


So, where did they get the concept of God? and how would something they've never seen, be more plausible then a natural answer.. especially since they never experienced anything super-natural..
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 12:35:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Just a question:
If science is so great how come scientists seek to prove it in error? or Isn't 95% of science just to establish correlation?
TheAsylum
Posts: 772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 12:39:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/7/2012 12:35:16 PM, logicrules wrote:
Just a question:
If science is so great how come scientists seek to prove it in error? or Isn't 95% of science just to establish correlation?:

I know right, they seek, falliability. Then they see nothing wrong in that picture.
slo1
Posts: 4,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 12:49:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/7/2012 12:39:19 PM, TheAsylum wrote:
At 9/7/2012 12:35:16 PM, logicrules wrote:
Just a question:
If science is so great how come scientists seek to prove it in error? or Isn't 95% of science just to establish correlation?:

I know right, they seek, falliability. Then they see nothing wrong in that picture.

That is not, "seeking fallibility". It is humility to understand that there is always another plausible explanation to causation and that humans are fail-able, unlike most religious leaders that proclaim to have complete understanding to the mysteries of life.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 12:50:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Exactly what others have said. It can only disprove certain types of God.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
TheAsylum
Posts: 772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 12:53:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/7/2012 12:49:47 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/7/2012 12:39:19 PM, TheAsylum wrote:
At 9/7/2012 12:35:16 PM, logicrules wrote:
Just a question:
If science is so great how come scientists seek to prove it in error? or Isn't 95% of science just to establish correlation?:

I know right, they seek, falliability. Then they see nothing wrong in that picture.

That is not, "seeking fallibility". It is humility to understand that there is always another plausible explanation to causation and that humans are fail-able, unlike most religious leaders that proclaim to have complete understanding to the mysteries of life.

You prove what I said and humility is hardly the means.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 12:59:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/7/2012 12:49:47 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/7/2012 12:39:19 PM, TheAsylum wrote:
At 9/7/2012 12:35:16 PM, logicrules wrote:
Just a question:
If science is so great how come scientists seek to prove it in error? or Isn't 95% of science just to establish correlation?:

I know right, they seek, falliability. Then they see nothing wrong in that picture.

That is not, "seeking fallibility". It is humility to understand that there is always another plausible explanation to causation and that humans are fail-able, unlike most religious leaders that proclaim to have complete understanding to the mysteries of life.

If there is a better explanation doesn't that explicitly mean the current explanation is in error? If it were not in error, why would anyone look? Let me try this....not trying to agitate here.

Louis Pasture discovered a method to pasteurize (our term now). This pasteurization kills all Bacteria. When I was young, not all milk sold was Pasteurized, and we didnt have alot of problems. Now, all milk is. Is in not probable that, unintentionally and through ignorance, we have destroyed necessary bacteria for our health...say something that breaks down unneeded cholesterol?
slo1
Posts: 4,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 1:25:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/7/2012 12:59:40 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 9/7/2012 12:49:47 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/7/2012 12:39:19 PM, TheAsylum wrote:
At 9/7/2012 12:35:16 PM, logicrules wrote:
Just a question:
If science is so great how come scientists seek to prove it in error? or Isn't 95% of science just to establish correlation?:

I know right, they seek, falliability. Then they see nothing wrong in that picture.

That is not, "seeking fallibility". It is humility to understand that there is always another plausible explanation to causation and that humans are fail-able, unlike most religious leaders that proclaim to have complete understanding to the mysteries of life.

If there is a better explanation doesn't that explicitly mean the current explanation is in error? If it were not in error, why would anyone look? Let me try this....not trying to agitate here.

Louis Pasture discovered a method to pasteurize (our term now). This pasteurization kills all Bacteria. When I was young, not all milk sold was Pasteurized, and we didnt have alot of problems. Now, all milk is. Is in not probable that, unintentionally and through ignorance, we have destroyed necessary bacteria for our health...say something that breaks down unneeded cholesterol?

I'm not certain what that has to do with, "seeking fallibility" or "proving it in error"
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 1:42:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/7/2012 12:39:19 PM, TheAsylum wrote:
At 9/7/2012 12:35:16 PM, logicrules wrote:
Just a question:
If science is so great how come scientists seek to prove it in error? or Isn't 95% of science just to establish correlation?:

I know right, they seek, falliability. Then they see nothing wrong in that picture.

You refuse to acknowledge fallibility, and see nothing wrong with that picture.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 2:22:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/7/2012 1:25:09 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/7/2012 12:59:40 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 9/7/2012 12:49:47 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/7/2012 12:39:19 PM, TheAsylum wrote:
At 9/7/2012 12:35:16 PM, logicrules wrote:
Just a question:
If science is so great how come scientists seek to prove it in error? or Isn't 95% of science just to establish correlation?:

I know right, they seek, falliability. Then they see nothing wrong in that picture.

That is not, "seeking fallibility". It is humility to understand that there is always another plausible explanation to causation and that humans are fail-able, unlike most religious leaders that proclaim to have complete understanding to the mysteries of life.

If there is a better explanation doesn't that explicitly mean the current explanation is in error? If it were not in error, why would anyone look? Let me try this....not trying to agitate here.

Louis Pasture discovered a method to pasteurize (our term now). This pasteurization kills all Bacteria. When I was young, not all milk sold was Pasteurized, and we didnt have alot of problems. Now, all milk is. Is in not probable that, unintentionally and through ignorance, we have destroyed necessary bacteria for our health...say something that breaks down unneeded cholesterol?

I'm not certain what that has to do with, "seeking fallibility" or "proving it in error"

If you accept that a procedure or scientific therum is for the greater good, yet it is in reality far more harmful than the perceived ill it attempted to remedy (blood letting) one is not seeking one is Forcing...Doing the vary thing one claims to oppose. Point...seeking error is fine, passing laws restricting or modifying behaviour, or worse medicating, is totalitarian.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 3:23:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
God has always been used as an explanation for something that science alone can now explain. Volcanos erupting used to be thought of as caused by God's anger, now we know exactly how it happens. Lightning bolts were thought to be caused by a God figure, we know now exactly how that happens. The list can go on forever....The point is it's purely psychological why humans posit a God as an explanation for things. This is proven by the fact that science explanations have trumped God explanations for as long as humans can go back. The God explanation simply has no credibility anymore. If every time something happened I said "x" did it, and every time I was proven wrong, it would be logical to assume that "x" is not a good explanation for things based on history.

Using God as an explanation for things has proven to be a faulty explanation. Even when it comes to evil supernatural beings, before we knew about viruses, people thought that sickness was due to demons. All you have to due is look at human history to learn why supernatural explanations are psychological, and have no basis in realty. Just like we can safely say the sun will come out tomorrow because of history, we can say that God explanations are hooey because of history, and science rules. It's really that simple...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 3:26:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/7/2012 12:28:47 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 9/6/2012 9:02:31 PM, think41self wrote:
At 9/6/2012 8:30:53 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
I am very curious, to hear the logic behind science hindering the plausibility of God.

I love science, and always enjoy hearing the particulars of God's work; However it confuses me how people make the connection, that since we've discoved the particulars of a certain part of our world(universe), that God is no longer needed, or can no longer be accredited for it's being..

So, if you can explain to me, how it follows that since we gain insight on the workings of our universe, that God is ruled out?

God is a concept used when there is no explanation. This concept of god has been used A long time since gods were created. The concept of god has evolved from being the cause of everything such as rain, lightning, thunder, and slowly has decreased or evolved into our current ideology as creator of the universe. Before he accounted for everything, now just the universe. Soon he will be nonexistent.


So, where did they get the concept of God? and how would something they've never seen, be more plausible then a natural answer.. especially since they never experienced anything super-natural..

Wow, you are kidding me right? It's so obvious why human beings would posit Gods as explanations for things before they get the real answer lol
TheAsylum
Posts: 772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 3:27:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Wow, you are kidding me right? It's so obvious why human beings would posit Gods as explanations for things before they get the real answer lol:

Why would it be obvious? Please, explain.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 3:28:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/7/2012 3:23:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
God has always been used as an explanation for something that science alone can now explain. Volcanos erupting used to be thought of as caused by God's anger, now we know exactly how it happens. Lightning bolts were thought to be caused by a God figure, we know now exactly how that happens. The list can go on forever....The point is it's purely psychological why humans posit a God as an explanation for things. This is proven by the fact that science explanations have trumped God explanations for as long as humans can go back. The God explanation simply has no credibility anymore. If every time something happened I said "x" did it, and every time I was proven wrong, it would be logical to assume that "x" is not a good explanation for things based on history.

Using God as an explanation for things has proven to be a faulty explanation. Even when it comes to evil supernatural beings, before we knew about viruses, people thought that sickness was due to demons. All you have to due is look at human history to learn why supernatural explanations are psychological, and have no basis in realty. Just like we can safely say the sun will come out tomorrow because of history, we can say that God explanations are hooey because of history, and science rules. It's really that simple...

So now science is God...because the certitude is the same?
think41self
Posts: 41
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 3:34:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/7/2012 12:28:47 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 9/6/2012 9:02:31 PM, think41self wrote:
At 9/6/2012 8:30:53 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
I am very curious, to hear the logic behind science hindering the plausibility of God.

I love science, and always enjoy hearing the particulars of God's work; However it confuses me how people make the connection, that since we've discoved the particulars of a certain part of our world(universe), that God is no longer needed, or can no longer be accredited for it's being..

So, if you can explain to me, how it follows that since we gain insight on the workings of our universe, that God is ruled out?

God is a concept used when there is no explanation. This concept of god has been used A long time since gods were created. The concept of god has evolved from being the cause of everything such as rain, lightning, thunder, and slowly has decreased or evolved into our current ideology as creator of the universe. Before he accounted for everything, now just the universe. Soon he will be nonexistent.


So, where did they get the concept of God? and how would something they've never seen, be more plausible then a natural answer.. especially since they never experienced anything super-natural..

The concept of god needs no actual supernatural act. The natural sometimes seems supernatural, such as lightning, thunder, tornadoes, earthquakes and the like. When you have a group of primitive people with limited technology you tend to have supernatural explanations for the unknown. It is that simple. In earlier times, they were just as inquisitive as we are, their curiosity, minus technology, only allowed them to see a supernatural source for natural things and if these supernatural sources did natural things then they also could have created the universe.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 3:37:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/7/2012 3:28:37 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 9/7/2012 3:23:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
God has always been used as an explanation for something that science alone can now explain. Volcanos erupting used to be thought of as caused by God's anger, now we know exactly how it happens. Lightning bolts were thought to be caused by a God figure, we know now exactly how that happens. The list can go on forever....The point is it's purely psychological why humans posit a God as an explanation for things. This is proven by the fact that science explanations have trumped God explanations for as long as humans can go back. The God explanation simply has no credibility anymore. If every time something happened I said "x" did it, and every time I was proven wrong, it would be logical to assume that "x" is not a good explanation for things based on history.

Using God as an explanation for things has proven to be a faulty explanation. Even when it comes to evil supernatural beings, before we knew about viruses, people thought that sickness was due to demons. All you have to due is look at human history to learn why supernatural explanations are psychological, and have no basis in realty. Just like we can safely say the sun will come out tomorrow because of history, we can say that God explanations are hooey because of history, and science rules. It's really that simple...

So now science is God...because the certitude is the same?

Science isn't conscious, so no, science cannot be God. Have you gone mad?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 3:37:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/7/2012 3:27:57 PM, TheAsylum wrote:
Wow, you are kidding me right? It's so obvious why human beings would posit Gods as explanations for things before they get the real answer lol:

Why would it be obvious? Please, explain.

If this is ScottyDouglas, I think you owe me more explanations than I owe you..
TheAsylum
Posts: 772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 3:38:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The concept of god needs no actual supernatural act. The natural sometimes seems supernatural, such as lightning, thunder, tornadoes, earthquakes and the like. When you have a group of primitive people with limited technology you tend to have supernatural explanations for the unknown. It is that simple. In earlier times, they were just as inquisitive as we are, their curiosity, minus technology, only allowed them to see a supernatural source for natural things and if these supernatural sources did natural things then they also could have created the universe.:

I see natural things that seem abnormal or supernatural but I never think it is some kind of God or supernatural cause, I just figure that it was natural. I believe in God and I think that way.
TheAsylum
Posts: 772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 3:39:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/7/2012 3:37:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/7/2012 3:27:57 PM, TheAsylum wrote:
Wow, you are kidding me right? It's so obvious why human beings would posit Gods as explanations for things before they get the real answer lol:

Why would it be obvious? Please, explain.

If this is ScottyDouglas, I think you owe me more explanations than I owe you..

Nah..not really...but I am sorry. You got a Win.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 3:40:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/7/2012 3:39:41 PM, TheAsylum wrote:
At 9/7/2012 3:37:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/7/2012 3:27:57 PM, TheAsylum wrote:
Wow, you are kidding me right? It's so obvious why human beings would posit Gods as explanations for things before they get the real answer lol:

Why would it be obvious? Please, explain.

If this is ScottyDouglas, I think you owe me more explanations than I owe you..

Nah..not really...but I am sorry. You got a Win.

I'm just curious, why did you not finish the debate?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 3:42:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/7/2012 3:38:10 PM, TheAsylum wrote:
The concept of god needs no actual supernatural act. The natural sometimes seems supernatural, such as lightning, thunder, tornadoes, earthquakes and the like. When you have a group of primitive people with limited technology you tend to have supernatural explanations for the unknown. It is that simple. In earlier times, they were just as inquisitive as we are, their curiosity, minus technology, only allowed them to see a supernatural source for natural things and if these supernatural sources did natural things then they also could have created the universe.:

I see natural things that seem abnormal or supernatural but I never think it is some kind of God or supernatural cause, I just figure that it was natural. I believe in God and I think that way.

He was speaking about primitive people in earlier times, not modern people like you who know about science.