Total Posts:98|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Science eliminates the need for God

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 6:52:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I hear this often and it's very misguided.

First, God isn't defined as "the mystical force that explains the unknown". Anyone that uses God to explain a gap in human knowledge is ignorant.

Secondly, HOW something functions isn't an explanation for its existence. Otherwise we could walk up to any designed object, take it apart, notice how each part functions, and conclude that the designer for that object does not exist.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 7:24:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 6:52:34 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I hear this often and it's very misguided.

First, God isn't defined as "the mystical force that explains the unknown". Anyone that uses God to explain a gap in human knowledge is ignorant.

Secondly, HOW something functions isn't an explanation for its existence. Otherwise we could walk up to any designed object, take it apart, notice how each part functions, and conclude that the designer for that object does not exist.

Science is incomplete and changes all the time. Science is a man made tool of inductive logic in a narrow scope. I haven't found any scientifically deducted fact that negates or nullifies God.

And Science doesn't say God doesn't exist.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 7:52:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 6:52:34 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I hear this often and it's very misguided.

I agree, Ben. God is a terrible explanation for anything. As an explanation, God satisfies the incurious (who probably didn't care in the first place), while offering insufficient detail for the curious -- and no accountability to either.

However if gods aren't needed to explain the world, there's also no real demonstration they're needed for anything else either.

It's not clear that religion is necessary in the first place, since any physical, social or psychological benefit that can be achieved with religion, can also be achieved without it, using (for example) art, science or law.

And even if we hold that religion is desirable, there are popular faiths without gods, or with gods but without theology; and a god without theology is little more than an abstract ideal anyway.

So perhaps it's truer to say that science has demonstrated that we don't need gods.
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 7:53:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 7:52:29 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/28/2015 6:52:34 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I hear this often and it's very misguided.

I agree, Ben. God is a terrible explanation for anything. As an explanation, God satisfies the incurious (who probably didn't care in the first place), while offering insufficient detail for the curious -- and no accountability to either.

However if gods aren't needed to explain the world, there's also no real demonstration they're needed for anything else either.

It's not clear that religion is necessary in the first place, since any physical, social or psychological benefit that can be achieved with religion, can also be achieved without it, using (for example) art, science or law.

And even if we hold that religion is desirable, there are popular faiths without gods, or with gods but without theology; and a god without theology is little more than an abstract ideal anyway.

So perhaps it's truer to say that science has demonstrated that we don't need gods.

Exactly when did it do this? I'm just curious.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
tracer
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 7:56:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 6:52:34 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I hear this often and it's very misguided.

First, God isn't defined as "the mystical force that explains the unknown". Anyone that uses God to explain a gap in human knowledge is ignorant.

Secondly, HOW something functions isn't an explanation for its existence. Otherwise we could walk up to any designed object, take it apart, notice how each part functions, and conclude that the designer for that object does not exist. : :

If God is the creator of everything, then he's the one where science and math came from.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 8:11:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 7:53:47 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/28/2015 7:52:29 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/28/2015 6:52:34 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I hear this often and it's very misguided.

I agree, Ben. God is a terrible explanation for anything. As an explanation, God satisfies the incurious (who probably didn't care in the first place), while offering insufficient detail for the curious -- and no accountability to either.

However if gods aren't needed to explain the world, there's also no real demonstration they're needed for anything else either.

It's not clear that religion is necessary in the first place, since any physical, social or psychological benefit that can be achieved with religion, can also be achieved without it, using (for example) art, science or law.

And even if we hold that religion is desirable, there are popular faiths without gods, or with gods but without theology; and a god without theology is little more than an abstract ideal anyway.

So perhaps it's truer to say that science has demonstrated that we don't need gods.

Exactly when did it do this? I'm just curious.

It proved this when Science cures/prevents disease while religion encourages it (faith healing etc.).
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 8:14:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 6:52:34 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I hear this often and it's very misguided.

First, God isn't defined as "the mystical force that explains the unknown". Anyone that uses God to explain a gap in human knowledge is ignorant.

Secondly, HOW something functions isn't an explanation for its existence. Otherwise we could walk up to any designed object, take it apart, notice how each part functions, and conclude that the designer for that object does not exist.

You contradict yourself. If you say those who use the God of the gaps fallacy are ignorant then explain to me w/o concluding God as to why things are the way they are.
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 8:16:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 7:53:47 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/28/2015 7:52:29 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/28/2015 6:52:34 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I hear this often and it's very misguided.

I agree, Ben. God is a terrible explanation for anything. As an explanation, God satisfies the incurious (who probably didn't care in the first place), while offering insufficient detail for the curious -- and no accountability to either.

However if gods aren't needed to explain the world, there's also no real demonstration they're needed for anything else either.

It's not clear that religion is necessary in the first place, since any physical, social or psychological benefit that can be achieved with religion, can also be achieved without it, using (for example) art, science or law.

And even if we hold that religion is desirable, there are popular faiths without gods, or with gods but without theology; and a god without theology is little more than an abstract ideal anyway.

So perhaps it's truer to say that science has demonstrated that we don't need gods.

Exactly when did it do this? I'm just curious.

Well, he's being a little hasty. As soon as the other 6.9 billion people on Earth are informed that science has demonstrated that we don't need gods, everything will be cool.

Ahem.... at least for those who only need God to "Explain the world" and nothing else.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 8:19:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 7:53:47 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/28/2015 7:52:29 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/28/2015 6:52:34 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I hear this often and it's very misguided.
I agree, Ben. God is a terrible explanation for anything. As an explanation, God satisfies the incurious (who probably didn't care in the first place), while offering insufficient detail for the curious -- and no accountability to either.
However if gods aren't needed to explain the world, there's also no real demonstration they're needed for anything else either.
It's not clear that religion is necessary in the first place, since any physical, social or psychological benefit that can be achieved with religion, can also be achieved without it, using (for example) art, science or law.
And even if we hold that religion is desirable, there are popular faiths without gods, or with gods but without theology; and a god without theology is little more than an abstract ideal anyway.
So perhaps it's truer to say that science has demonstrated that we don't need gods.
Exactly when did it do this? I'm just curious.

No, Annanicole, you're expressing skepticism -- which is perfectly respectable, and you should feel free to admit it. :)

Astronomy, cosmology and biology have done for most traditional humanocentric mythologies, Annanicole. I think they were the first nails in the theological coffin. But I think the last nails were hammered in among the social sciences: anthropology, sociology and psychology. We understand pretty well how religiosity occurs, how it expresses in theism, and how people delude themselves.

Of course, it takes time for theologians to catch up.

But in the meantime, let me pose it in a weaker form: is there some benefit you think religion provides which can only be provided by theism?

Because, firstly, I think most arguments about the benefits of religion aren't arguments for theism, but for a community-owned moral sense, mutual support and fellowship, cultural cohesion, psychological soothing, a shared mythology and idealistic art. That can either be offered by nontheistic religions (Buddhism, Deism or nontheistic Quakerism, for example), or by secular practices.

Secondly, most of the other things theism was supposed to have done: defend the righteous, heal the sick, protect land, crops and the rule of law, and provide a secure national identity -- have been debunked by science as ineffective or replaceable with better practices.

So what is it you think makes not just religion, but theological religion -- a faith with stories about gods -- necessary?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 8:20:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 8:14:38 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 6:52:34 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I hear this often and it's very misguided.

First, God isn't defined as "the mystical force that explains the unknown". Anyone that uses God to explain a gap in human knowledge is ignorant.

Secondly, HOW something functions isn't an explanation for its existence. Otherwise we could walk up to any designed object, take it apart, notice how each part functions, and conclude that the designer for that object does not exist.

You contradict yourself. If you say those who use the God of the gaps fallacy are ignorant then explain to me w/o concluding God as to why things are the way they are.

An omniscient omnipowerful God who created the universe would be the designer of nature. How things in nature interact would only explain how God made things.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 8:26:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 7:52:29 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/28/2015 6:52:34 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I hear this often and it's very misguided.

I agree, Ben. God is a terrible explanation for anything. As an explanation, God satisfies the incurious (who probably didn't care in the first place), while offering insufficient detail for the curious -- and no accountability to either.

However if gods aren't needed to explain the world, there's also no real demonstration they're needed for anything else either.

It's not clear that religion is necessary in the first place, since any physical, social or psychological benefit that can be achieved with religion, can also be achieved without it, using (for example) art, science or law.

And even if we hold that religion is desirable, there are popular faiths without gods, or with gods but without theology; and a god without theology is little more than an abstract ideal anyway.

So perhaps it's truer to say that science has demonstrated that we don't need gods.

I disagree with your conclusion that science has demonstrated that we don't need God. If you found a designed artifact, took it apart, and discovered how it functioned, would this eliminate the need for the designer of the artifact? Of course not. All I'm saying is that science, in principle, can't eliminate the need for God by enlightening HOW things work.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 8:32:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 8:14:38 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 6:52:34 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I hear this often and it's very misguided.

First, God isn't defined as "the mystical force that explains the unknown". Anyone that uses God to explain a gap in human knowledge is ignorant.

Secondly, HOW something functions isn't an explanation for its existence. Otherwise we could walk up to any designed object, take it apart, notice how each part functions, and conclude that the designer for that object does not exist.

You contradict yourself. If you say those who use the God of the gaps fallacy are ignorant then explain to me w/o concluding God as to why things are the way they are.

I've set out to negate the claim that "science eliminates the need for God". I haven't made any claim that things are the way they are because of God. That's a different claim.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 8:43:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 8:32:43 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/28/2015 8:14:38 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 6:52:34 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I hear this often and it's very misguided.

First, God isn't defined as "the mystical force that explains the unknown". Anyone that uses God to explain a gap in human knowledge is ignorant.

Secondly, HOW something functions isn't an explanation for its existence. Otherwise we could walk up to any designed object, take it apart, notice how each part functions, and conclude that the designer for that object does not exist.

You contradict yourself. If you say those who use the God of the gaps fallacy are ignorant then explain to me w/o concluding God as to why things are the way they are.

I've set out to negate the claim that "science eliminates the need for God". I haven't made any claim that things are the way they are because of God. That's a different claim.

Yes, it's a claim you'll eventually make. So for the sake of the OP i'm applying its logic to what I hope to be an accurate strawman of you and I want your opinion first.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 8:51:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 8:26:30 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/28/2015 7:52:29 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/28/2015 6:52:34 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I hear this often and it's very misguided.
I agree, Ben. God is a terrible explanation for anything.
However if gods aren't needed to explain the world, there's also no real demonstration they're needed for anything else either.
So perhaps it's truer to say that science has demonstrated that we don't need gods.

I disagree with your conclusion that science has demonstrated that we don't need God. If you found a designed artifact, took it apart, and discovered how it functioned, would this eliminate the need for the designer of the artifact? Of course not.

For argument's sake, let's assume that the universe were created by some intelligent metaphysical agency, Ben.

Does it follow that this agency:
* Created our universe purposefully? Could it not be the byproduct of something else?
* Is aware of humanity?
* Cares about humanity?
* Wants a relationship with humanity?
* Feels responsible for humanity to the extent that it has a benign destiny planned for our species?
* Has ever communicated with humanity?
* Is anxious to ensure the continuity of humanity as a species, or of individual human lives?

Essentially, even if you accept it, an intelligent cosmology is not support for any theology at all -- it's at best a physics/Science Fiction conjecture.

I think the contention you support is actually the reverse: IF you feel you need something to worship -- something as big, powerful, responsible and benign as possible -- THEN you should treat the universe as its creation and learn more about its creation to inform your theology.

But that begs the question: DO you really need something to worship, and WHY must it be something like that?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 8:52:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 8:43:59 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 8:32:43 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/28/2015 8:14:38 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 6:52:34 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I hear this often and it's very misguided.

First, God isn't defined as "the mystical force that explains the unknown". Anyone that uses God to explain a gap in human knowledge is ignorant.

Secondly, HOW something functions isn't an explanation for its existence. Otherwise we could walk up to any designed object, take it apart, notice how each part functions, and conclude that the designer for that object does not exist.

You contradict yourself. If you say those who use the God of the gaps fallacy are ignorant then explain to me w/o concluding God as to why things are the way they are.

I've set out to negate the claim that "science eliminates the need for God". I haven't made any claim that things are the way they are because of God. That's a different claim.

Yes, it's a claim you'll eventually make. So for the sake of the OP i'm applying its logic to what I hope to be an accurate strawman of you and I want your opinion first.

No because all I've set out to show is that science doesn't eliminate the need for God.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 8:54:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 8:20:45 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/28/2015 8:14:38 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 6:52:34 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I hear this often and it's very misguided.

First, God isn't defined as "the mystical force that explains the unknown". Anyone that uses God to explain a gap in human knowledge is ignorant.

Secondly, HOW something functions isn't an explanation for its existence. Otherwise we could walk up to any designed object, take it apart, notice how each part functions, and conclude that the designer for that object does not exist.

You contradict yourself. If you say those who use the God of the gaps fallacy are ignorant then explain to me w/o concluding God as to why things are the way they are.

An omniscient omnipowerful God who created the universe would be the designer of nature. How things in nature interact would only explain how God made things.

So, you admit you have nothing to explain the gap. You go from "God exists" to "therefore nature exists (or would reflect?)" But your usual MO being that you take Gods existence as a given. You don't even bother to explain how the nature of the universe may prove God exists or what he's like; you just merely posit all is design (except the designer of course). Yet your only source of knowledge of this comes from nature. You special plea to a being that refutes "designer" logic to back up your absurd claim to an unknowable realm. It's really boring.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 8:56:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 8:52:27 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/28/2015 8:43:59 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 8:32:43 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/28/2015 8:14:38 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 6:52:34 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I hear this often and it's very misguided.

First, God isn't defined as "the mystical force that explains the unknown". Anyone that uses God to explain a gap in human knowledge is ignorant.

Secondly, HOW something functions isn't an explanation for its existence. Otherwise we could walk up to any designed object, take it apart, notice how each part functions, and conclude that the designer for that object does not exist.

You contradict yourself. If you say those who use the God of the gaps fallacy are ignorant then explain to me w/o concluding God as to why things are the way they are.

I've set out to negate the claim that "science eliminates the need for God". I haven't made any claim that things are the way they are because of God. That's a different claim.

Yes, it's a claim you'll eventually make. So for the sake of the OP i'm applying its logic to what I hope to be an accurate strawman of you and I want your opinion first.

No because all I've set out to show is that science doesn't eliminate the need for God.

lol you're going to prove a negative? On a concept that can't be consistently/logically defined? You haven't even begun to understand science if this isn't one of your old public mental masturbation sessions.

I mean come on now, the OP is my sig, and has been for a while. You clearly don't know what it means.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 9:11:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 8:51:02 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/28/2015 8:26:30 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/28/2015 7:52:29 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/28/2015 6:52:34 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I hear this often and it's very misguided.
I agree, Ben. God is a terrible explanation for anything.
However if gods aren't needed to explain the world, there's also no real demonstration they're needed for anything else either.
So perhaps it's truer to say that science has demonstrated that we don't need gods.

I disagree with your conclusion that science has demonstrated that we don't need God. If you found a designed artifact, took it apart, and discovered how it functioned, would this eliminate the need for the designer of the artifact? Of course not.

For argument's sake, let's assume that the universe were created by some intelligent metaphysical agency, Ben.

Does it follow that this agency:
* Created our universe purposefully? Could it not be the byproduct of something else?
* Is aware of humanity?
* Cares about humanity?
* Wants a relationship with humanity?
* Feels responsible for humanity to the extent that it has a benign destiny planned for our species?
* Has ever communicated with humanity?
* Is anxious to ensure the continuity of humanity as a species, or of individual human lives?

We'd have to see what inferences can be made based on the available data. Most of your questions, I believe, most plausibly have a yes answer. Why? Because a binding, objective moral code is logically incompatible with the notion that human beings are inherently purposeless. Empirically and rationally, morality is objective. Therefore human beings are not inherently purposeless. If that's the case, God - or some agency capable of giving purpose - must exist.

Essentially, even if you accept it, an intelligent cosmology is not support for any theology at all -- it's at best a physics/Science Fiction conjecture.

I think the contention you support is actually the reverse: IF you feel you need something to worship -- something as big, powerful, responsible and benign as possible -- THEN you should treat the universe as its creation and learn more about its creation to inform your theology.

But that begs the question: DO you really need something to worship, and WHY must it be something like that?

If God is of perfect moral character, I think he is worthy of reverent admiration. Otherwise, no, I wouldn't see any reason to.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 9:14:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 8:56:40 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 8:52:27 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/28/2015 8:43:59 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 8:32:43 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/28/2015 8:14:38 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 6:52:34 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I hear this often and it's very misguided.

First, God isn't defined as "the mystical force that explains the unknown". Anyone that uses God to explain a gap in human knowledge is ignorant.

Secondly, HOW something functions isn't an explanation for its existence. Otherwise we could walk up to any designed object, take it apart, notice how each part functions, and conclude that the designer for that object does not exist.

You contradict yourself. If you say those who use the God of the gaps fallacy are ignorant then explain to me w/o concluding God as to why things are the way they are.

I've set out to negate the claim that "science eliminates the need for God". I haven't made any claim that things are the way they are because of God. That's a different claim.

Yes, it's a claim you'll eventually make. So for the sake of the OP i'm applying its logic to what I hope to be an accurate strawman of you and I want your opinion first.

No because all I've set out to show is that science doesn't eliminate the need for God.

lol you're going to prove a negative? On a concept that can't be consistently/logically defined? You haven't even begun to understand science if this isn't one of your old public mental masturbation sessions.

I mean come on now, the OP is my sig, and has been for a while. You clearly don't know what it means.

It's a negating claim, not a negative one. If you found a computer lying in the street, took it apart, learned how it worked, and concluded that nobody was necessary for designing the computer would you be correct? Why or why not? Now take that logic and apply it to the title.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 9:22:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 8:54:07 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 8:20:45 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/28/2015 8:14:38 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 6:52:34 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I hear this often and it's very misguided.

First, God isn't defined as "the mystical force that explains the unknown". Anyone that uses God to explain a gap in human knowledge is ignorant.

Secondly, HOW something functions isn't an explanation for its existence. Otherwise we could walk up to any designed object, take it apart, notice how each part functions, and conclude that the designer for that object does not exist.

You contradict yourself. If you say those who use the God of the gaps fallacy are ignorant then explain to me w/o concluding God as to why things are the way they are.

An omniscient omnipowerful God who created the universe would be the designer of nature. How things in nature interact would only explain how God made things.

So, you admit you have nothing to explain the gap. You go from "God exists" to "therefore nature exists (or would reflect?)" But your usual MO being that you take Gods existence as a given. You don't even bother to explain how the nature of the universe may prove God exists or what he's like; you just merely posit all is design (except the designer of course). Yet your only source of knowledge of this comes from nature. You special plea to a being that refutes "designer" logic to back up your absurd claim to an unknowable realm. It's really boring.

I don't see how explaining nature removes the evidence of a creator. To explain the nature of reality many are turning to hypotheses that posit extra deminsions, extra worlds, that this world is a hologram of another, that things in reality don't exist till measurement, ect.

All these explainations are alternative to God to account for our reality appearing to be finite, created, composed of discrete non substantial or immaterial units.

Explaining the composition of a painting doesn't remove the need of Rembrandt. Suggesting the painting is the rare but inevitable result of a canvas falling through a tornado of brush and egg tempura is the real stretch of one's imagination.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 9:24:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 9:14:50 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

It's a negating claim, not a negative one. If you found a computer lying in the street, took it apart, learned how it worked, and concluded that nobody was necessary for designing the computer would you be correct? Why or why not? Now take that logic and apply it to the title.

Ah so it is a public sesh. FYI you're negating a strawman. No one worth paying attention to says you can scientifically disprove God. God is not a cohesive concept, science can't touch what is beyond the natural realm.

You use a natural metaphor to explain a concept that has no basis in nature. You fail. Your understanding of science is flawed so how can I apply the strawOP to a failed understanding? You gotta help me, I'm not capable of the mental gymnastics you are!
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 9:30:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 8:19:39 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/28/2015 7:53:47 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/28/2015 7:52:29 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/28/2015 6:52:34 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I hear this often and it's very misguided.
I agree, Ben. God is a terrible explanation for anything. As an explanation, God satisfies the incurious (who probably didn't care in the first place), while offering insufficient detail for the curious -- and no accountability to either.
However if gods aren't needed to explain the world, there's also no real demonstration they're needed for anything else either.
It's not clear that religion is necessary in the first place, since any physical, social or psychological benefit that can be achieved with religion, can also be achieved without it, using (for example) art, science or law.
And even if we hold that religion is desirable, there are popular faiths without gods, or with gods but without theology; and a god without theology is little more than an abstract ideal anyway.
So perhaps it's truer to say that science has demonstrated that we don't need gods.
Exactly when did it do this? I'm just curious.

No, Annanicole, you're expressing skepticism -- which is perfectly respectable, and you should feel free to admit it. :)

No, not in this case. I was merely curious. Remember, the question was, "Exactly when did it do this? I'm just curious." There was no answer. I just wondered when you would claim this event happened.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 9:30:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 9:24:04 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 9:14:50 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

It's a negating claim, not a negative one. If you found a computer lying in the street, took it apart, learned how it worked, and concluded that nobody was necessary for designing the computer would you be correct? Why or why not? Now take that logic and apply it to the title.

Ah so it is a public sesh. FYI you're negating a strawman. No one worth paying attention to says you can scientifically disprove God. God is not a cohesive concept, science can't touch what is beyond the natural realm.

This isn't directed at anyone who says that you can scientifically disprove God. It's directed at people who say that science has eliminated the need for God.

You use a natural metaphor to explain a concept that has no basis in nature. You fail. Your understanding of science is flawed so how can I apply the strawOP to a failed understanding? You gotta help me, I'm not capable of the mental gymnastics you are!

Why assert that God would not have any basis in nature? Why is the OP a straw man? Why is my understanding of science flawed?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 9:30:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 8:19:39 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/28/2015 7:53:47 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/28/2015 7:52:29 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/28/2015 6:52:34 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I hear this often and it's very misguided.
I agree, Ben. God is a terrible explanation for anything. As an explanation, God satisfies the incurious (who probably didn't care in the first place), while offering insufficient detail for the curious -- and no accountability to either.
However if gods aren't needed to explain the world, there's also no real demonstration they're needed for anything else either.
It's not clear that religion is necessary in the first place, since any physical, social or psychological benefit that can be achieved with religion, can also be achieved without it, using (for example) art, science or law.
And even if we hold that religion is desirable, there are popular faiths without gods, or with gods but without theology; and a god without theology is little more than an abstract ideal anyway.
So perhaps it's truer to say that science has demonstrated that we don't need gods.
Exactly when did it do this? I'm just curious.

No, Annanicole, you're expressing skepticism -- which is perfectly respectable, and you should feel free to admit it. :)

Astronomy, cosmology and biology have done for most traditional humanocentric mythologies, Annanicole. I think they were the first nails in the theological coffin. But I think the last nails were hammered in among the social sciences: anthropology, sociology and psychology. We understand pretty well how religiosity occurs, how it expresses in theism, and how people delude themselves.

Of course, it takes time for theologians to catch up.

But in the meantime, let me pose it in a weaker form: is there some benefit you think religion provides which can only be provided by theism?

Salvation of the fallen soul.


Because, firstly, I think most arguments about the benefits of religion aren't arguments for theism, but for a community-owned moral sense, mutual support and fellowship, cultural cohesion, psychological soothing, a shared mythology and idealistic art. That can either be offered by nontheistic religions (Buddhism, Deism or nontheistic Quakerism, for example), or by secular practices.

Secondly, most of the other things theism was supposed to have done: defend the righteous, heal the sick, protect land, crops and the rule of law, and provide a secure national identity -- have been debunked by science as ineffective or replaceable with better practices.

So what is it you think makes not just religion, but theological religion -- a faith with stories about gods -- necessary?
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 9:34:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 9:22:51 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/28/2015 8:54:07 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 8:20:45 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/28/2015 8:14:38 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 6:52:34 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I hear this often and it's very misguided.

First, God isn't defined as "the mystical force that explains the unknown". Anyone that uses God to explain a gap in human knowledge is ignorant.

Secondly, HOW something functions isn't an explanation for its existence. Otherwise we could walk up to any designed object, take it apart, notice how each part functions, and conclude that the designer for that object does not exist.

You contradict yourself. If you say those who use the God of the gaps fallacy are ignorant then explain to me w/o concluding God as to why things are the way they are.

An omniscient omnipowerful God who created the universe would be the designer of nature. How things in nature interact would only explain how God made things.

So, you admit you have nothing to explain the gap. You go from "God exists" to "therefore nature exists (or would reflect?)" But your usual MO being that you take Gods existence as a given. You don't even bother to explain how the nature of the universe may prove God exists or what he's like; you just merely posit all is design (except the designer of course). Yet your only source of knowledge of this comes from nature. You special plea to a being that refutes "designer" logic to back up your absurd claim to an unknowable realm. It's really boring.

I don't see how explaining nature removes the evidence of a creator. To explain the nature of reality many are turning to hypotheses that posit extra deminsions, extra worlds, that this world is a hologram of another, that things in reality don't exist till measurement, ect.

Explaining nature (science) can neither prove nor disprove God. But that's the point, atheists aren't making a positive claim like you are. This fool OP thinks the 2 are necessarily in conflict, this is a strawman at its highest. Everyone should know God can morph to accommodate science and progress, the Catholic Church has done it well. Hey it's what my sig is about ;)

All these explainations are alternative to God to account for our reality appearing to be finite, created, composed of discrete non substantial or immaterial units.

I don't see how our mortality proves immortality exists outside of our fairy tails.

Explaining the composition of a painting doesn't remove the need of Rembrandt. Suggesting the painting is the rare but inevitable result of a canvas falling through a tornado of brush and egg tempura is the real stretch of one's imagination.

Perhaps the tornado goes on in the mind of the painter, not the canvas itself. That tornado being one of neuro-chemicals and endorphins going on in the brain of the painter doing his craft. But in order for one to have an imagination one needs time to think; time is not something your God exists in. Could your God have made a thought before space and time began?
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 9:35:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 8:11:45 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 7:53:47 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/28/2015 7:52:29 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/28/2015 6:52:34 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I hear this often and it's very misguided.

I agree, Ben. God is a terrible explanation for anything. As an explanation, God satisfies the incurious (who probably didn't care in the first place), while offering insufficient detail for the curious -- and no accountability to either.

However if gods aren't needed to explain the world, there's also no real demonstration they're needed for anything else either.

It's not clear that religion is necessary in the first place, since any physical, social or psychological benefit that can be achieved with religion, can also be achieved without it, using (for example) art, science or law.

And even if we hold that religion is desirable, there are popular faiths without gods, or with gods but without theology; and a god without theology is little more than an abstract ideal anyway.

So perhaps it's truer to say that science has demonstrated that we don't need gods.

Exactly when did it do this? I'm just curious.

It proved this when Science cures/prevents disease while religion encourages it (faith healing etc.).

That simply disproves faith healing, which could have been just as easily (and more quickly) proven by the NT itself. The NT - not science - is the main reason that I have never believed in such a farce.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 9:37:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 9:24:04 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 9:14:50 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

It's a negating claim, not a negative one. If you found a computer lying in the street, took it apart, learned how it worked, and concluded that nobody was necessary for designing the computer would you be correct? Why or why not? Now take that logic and apply it to the title.

Ah so it is a public sesh. FYI you're negating a strawman. No one worth paying attention to says you can scientifically disprove God. God is not a cohesive concept, science can't touch what is beyond the natural realm.


Where is the logic in 'science can't touch what is beyound the natural' therefore there is nothing beyound the natural.

Let's even assume there is nothing beyound the natural where is the logic in thinking science, as a domain of knowledge, is aware of all natural things?

Argument from ignorance is all your sig is.

You use a natural metaphor to explain a concept that has no basis in nature. You fail. Your understanding of science is flawed so how can I apply the strawOP to a failed understanding? You gotta help me, I'm not capable of the mental gymnastics you are!
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 9:44:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 9:37:35 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/28/2015 9:24:04 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 9:14:50 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

It's a negating claim, not a negative one. If you found a computer lying in the street, took it apart, learned how it worked, and concluded that nobody was necessary for designing the computer would you be correct? Why or why not? Now take that logic and apply it to the title.

Ah so it is a public sesh. FYI you're negating a strawman. No one worth paying attention to says you can scientifically disprove God. God is not a cohesive concept, science can't touch what is beyond the natural realm.


Where is the logic in 'science can't touch what is beyound the natural' therefore there is nothing beyound the natural.

Of course that's not what I'm saying. You can't prove what lies beyond, especially not with science, yet you still make claims. That is the point. One could potentially prove what exists with science. No one can prove/verify any supernatural claim. If they could there wouldn't be as many religions.

Let's even assume there is nothing beyound the natural where is the logic in thinking science, as a domain of knowledge, is aware of all natural things?

We could potentially become aware of all natural things. Just need the resources to explore/test.

Argument from ignorance is all your sig is.

Argument from assumption is all your belief is.
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 9:44:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Those without spiritual experience cannot tell us who have it anything worth listening to: why would a carpenter listen to farmer about how to build a house? You atheists are all without knowledge of God or spiritual reality and all your claims are based on others like yourselves without spiritual experience or knowledge. Your views are not credible but as Einstein too complained, atheists are egotists on parade, people who claim to be "scientific" but are the farthest from using the Scientific Method in their religiously held atheist belief system. Yes, atheism is a fundamentalist religious belief system that unites the atheist with the fundie Evangelical in denial of any facts contradicting the cherish belief system. Fact: Atheism is based on ignorance of spiritual phenomena. Fact: Atheism is not logical as it shares the same Fatal Flaw as does Muhammadanism, both want to freeze human knowledge at one point in history, 7th Century for Muhammadans, today's date for atheists, both unthinking about the historical fact that knowledge doesn't sit still but increases over time and what what known in the 7th Century about the world has been increased thousands of times over and what we know at our time now will be seen as primitive by future generations who have even greater knowledge. Increased knowledge isn't helping the atheist cause is it? Now that the human brain has been programmed for spiritual experience and where did that come from, atheists if there's no spirit to detect?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 9:44:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 9:34:54 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 9:22:51 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/28/2015 8:54:07 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 8:20:45 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/28/2015 8:14:38 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 6:52:34 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I hear this often and it's very misguided.

First, God isn't defined as "the mystical force that explains the unknown". Anyone that uses God to explain a gap in human knowledge is ignorant.

Secondly, HOW something functions isn't an explanation for its existence. Otherwise we could walk up to any designed object, take it apart, notice how each part functions, and conclude that the designer for that object does not exist.

You contradict yourself. If you say those who use the God of the gaps fallacy are ignorant then explain to me w/o concluding God as to why things are the way they are.

An omniscient omnipowerful God who created the universe would be the designer of nature. How things in nature interact would only explain how God made things.

So, you admit you have nothing to explain the gap. You go from "God exists" to "therefore nature exists (or would reflect?)" But your usual MO being that you take Gods existence as a given. You don't even bother to explain how the nature of the universe may prove God exists or what he's like; you just merely posit all is design (except the designer of course). Yet your only source of knowledge of this comes from nature. You special plea to a being that refutes "designer" logic to back up your absurd claim to an unknowable realm. It's really boring.

I don't see how explaining nature removes the evidence of a creator. To explain the nature of reality many are turning to hypotheses that posit extra deminsions, extra worlds, that this world is a hologram of another, that things in reality don't exist till measurement, ect.

Explaining nature (science) can neither prove nor disprove God. But that's the point, atheists aren't making a positive claim like you are. This fool OP thinks the 2 are necessarily in conflict, this is a strawman at its highest. Everyone should know God can morph to accommodate science and progress, the Catholic Church has done it well. Hey it's what my sig is about ;)

All these explainations are alternative to God to account for our reality appearing to be finite, created, composed of discrete non substantial or immaterial units.

I don't see how our mortality proves immortality exists outside of our fairy tails.

Explaining the composition of a painting doesn't remove the need of Rembrandt. Suggesting the painting is the rare but inevitable result of a canvas falling through a tornado of brush and egg tempura is the real stretch of one's imagination.

Perhaps the tornado goes on in the mind of the painter, not the canvas itself. That tornado being one of neuro-chemicals and endorphins going on in the brain of the painter doing his craft. But in order for one to have an imagination one needs time to think; time is not something your God exists in. Could your God have made a thought before space and time began?

You are assuming this spacetime is the only one God could exist in yet you say yourself it had a beginning.

I think you misunderstand that God exists in this time and existed when this time did not. How do you get God doesn't exist in time from that?