Total Posts:78|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

"Prove God Exists"

Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 1:22:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Why is it that every time people talk about the possibility of a God being needed to create the Big Bang or the first lifeforms for example, people say this despite it being impossible for science to really prove anything exists? No field that looks at nature and works things out about it can prove anything exists, because of the problem of induction. Most people on this forum insist that you can't prove any scientific thesis with 100% accuracy, yet whenever God is a thesis, these same people demand proof of God before they will admit any unnatural explanation of some event in the cosmos. Why is this?
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 2:15:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 1:22:56 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Why is it that every time people talk about the possibility of a God being needed to create the Big Bang or the first lifeforms for example, people say this despite it being impossible for science to really prove anything exists? No field that looks at nature and works things out about it can prove anything exists, because of the problem of induction. Most people on this forum insist that you can't prove any scientific thesis with 100% accuracy, yet whenever God is a thesis, these same people demand proof of God before they will admit any unnatural explanation of some event in the cosmos. Why is this?

Let's say God = Infinity, and evolution (for example) is = 2.3. If you add God to evolution you cannot come up with a solution other than your original problem. God is not quantifiable, and evolution (or any other naturalistic theory) is an attempt to achieve specific answers. Adding God to the problem limits the answer to infinity and undermines the integrity of the theory.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 4:11:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 1:22:56 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Why is it that every time people talk about the possibility of a God being needed to create the Big Bang or the first lifeforms for example, people say this despite it being impossible for science to really prove anything exists? No field that looks at nature and works things out about it can prove anything exists, because of the problem of induction. Most people on this forum insist that you can't prove any scientific thesis with 100% accuracy, yet whenever God is a thesis, these same people demand proof of God before they will admit any unnatural explanation of some event in the cosmos. Why is this?

Its really inexact terminology. When most people ask for proof, including myself at times when I am not concentrating, they really mean demonstrate it with evidence.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 4:15:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 4:11:33 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/12/2014 1:22:56 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Why is it that every time people talk about the possibility of a God being needed to create the Big Bang or the first lifeforms for example, people say this despite it being impossible for science to really prove anything exists? No field that looks at nature and works things out about it can prove anything exists, because of the problem of induction. Most people on this forum insist that you can't prove any scientific thesis with 100% accuracy, yet whenever God is a thesis, these same people demand proof of God before they will admit any unnatural explanation of some event in the cosmos. Why is this?

Its really inexact terminology. When most people ask for proof, ...they really mean demonstrate it with evidence.

But then if things are only true if they are based upon evidence, doesn't that mean atheism is false, since there's no evidence that God does not exist?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 4:22:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 4:15:30 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:11:33 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/12/2014 1:22:56 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Why is it that every time people talk about the possibility of a God being needed to create the Big Bang or the first lifeforms for example, people say this despite it being impossible for science to really prove anything exists? No field that looks at nature and works things out about it can prove anything exists, because of the problem of induction. Most people on this forum insist that you can't prove any scientific thesis with 100% accuracy, yet whenever God is a thesis, these same people demand proof of God before they will admit any unnatural explanation of some event in the cosmos. Why is this?

Its really inexact terminology. When most people ask for proof, ...they really mean demonstrate it with evidence.

But then if things are only true if they are based upon evidence, doesn't that mean atheism is false, since there's no evidence that God does not exist?

Positive claims can only be objectively true if they are base upon evidence. Atheism isnt a positive claim.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 5:44:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 4:22:39 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:15:30 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:11:33 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/12/2014 1:22:56 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Why is it that every time people talk about the possibility of a God being needed to create the Big Bang or the first lifeforms for example, people say this despite it being impossible for science to really prove anything exists? No field that looks at nature and works things out about it can prove anything exists, because of the problem of induction. Most people on this forum insist that you can't prove any scientific thesis with 100% accuracy, yet whenever God is a thesis, these same people demand proof of God before they will admit any unnatural explanation of some event in the cosmos. Why is this?

Its really inexact terminology. When most people ask for proof, ...they really mean demonstrate it with evidence.

But then if things are only true if they are based upon evidence, doesn't that mean atheism is false, since there's no evidence that God does not exist?

Positive claims can only be objectively true if they are base upon evidence.

What evidence supports this positive claim?

Atheism isnt a positive claim.

Yes it is, Atheism and Theism both make positive claims about beliefs.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 6:00:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 5:44:07 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:22:39 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:15:30 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:11:33 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/12/2014 1:22:56 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Why is it that every time people talk about the possibility of a God being needed to create the Big Bang or the first lifeforms for example, people say this despite it being impossible for science to really prove anything exists? No field that looks at nature and works things out about it can prove anything exists, because of the problem of induction. Most people on this forum insist that you can't prove any scientific thesis with 100% accuracy, yet whenever God is a thesis, these same people demand proof of God before they will admit any unnatural explanation of some event in the cosmos. Why is this?

Its really inexact terminology. When most people ask for proof, ...they really mean demonstrate it with evidence.

But then if things are only true if they are based upon evidence, doesn't that mean atheism is false, since there's no evidence that God does not exist?

Positive claims can only be objectively true if they are base upon evidence.

What evidence supports this positive claim?

The definition of objective:.

Atheism isnt a positive claim.

Yes it is, Atheism and Theism both make positive claims about beliefs.

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in god. So no. It makes no positive claims.

I and many, reject all specific Gods that have been posited that I know of, including the (approximately) 10 different variations of Christian Gods due to the lack of internal consistency. In this way, I have objective, demonstrable reasons for doing so. In this way when I, and many others, make a positive claim, there are demonstrable reasons.

However, I do not reject any Gods out of hand for all time, merely that the evidence concerning religion and gods puts the non existance of them (and any others) beyond reasonable doubt(or belief ). In general, that is what most strong atheists believe.

Anyone who does make such a claim (and means exactly that rather than my statement), is making a positive claim, and is wrong.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 8:05:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 6:00:16 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/12/2014 5:44:07 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:22:39 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:15:30 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:11:33 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/12/2014 1:22:56 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Why is it that every time people talk about the possibility of a God being needed to create the Big Bang or the first lifeforms for example, people say this despite it being impossible for science to really prove anything exists? No field that looks at nature and works things out about it can prove anything exists, because of the problem of induction. Most people on this forum insist that you can't prove any scientific thesis with 100% accuracy, yet whenever God is a thesis, these same people demand proof of God before they will admit any unnatural explanation of some event in the cosmos. Why is this?

Its really inexact terminology. When most people ask for proof, ...they really mean demonstrate it with evidence.

But then if things are only true if they are based upon evidence, doesn't that mean atheism is false, since there's no evidence that God does not exist?

Positive claims can only be objectively true if they are base upon evidence.

What evidence supports this positive claim?

The definition of objective:.

Nonsense, the definition of "objective" doesn"t entail that assertion by any stretch of the imagination. It"s strictly a faith based bare assertion.

Atheism isnt a positive claim.

Yes it is, Atheism and Theism both make positive claims about beliefs.

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in god. So no. It makes no positive claims.

Theism is simply a belief in God, they both make a positive claim about the belief of the individual.

I and many, reject all specific Gods that have been posited that I know of, including the (approximately) 10 different variations of Christian Gods due to the lack of internal consistency.

So your belief is based on literalism?

In this way, I have objective, demonstrable reasons for doing so. In this way when I, and many others, make a positive claim, there are demonstrable reasons.

What demonstrable reasons?

However, I do not reject any Gods out of hand for all time, merely that the evidence concerning religion and gods puts the non existance of them (and any others) beyond reasonable doubt(or belief ).

What evidence would that be?

In general, that is what most strong atheists believe.

Anyone who does make such a claim (and means exactly that rather than my statement), is making a positive claim, and is wrong.

Anyone who doesn"t make a claim is making a positive claim? Really?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 8:44:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 1:22:56 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Why is it that every time people talk about the possibility of a God being needed to create the Big Bang or the first lifeforms for example, people say this despite it being impossible for science to really prove anything exists? No field that looks at nature and works things out about it can prove anything exists, because of the problem of induction. Most people on this forum insist that you can't prove any scientific thesis with 100% accuracy, yet whenever God is a thesis, these same people demand proof of God before they will admit any unnatural explanation of some event in the cosmos. Why is this?

Cause proof is used in such an ambiguous way......

They could mean......

1) Proof as in proved mathematics (assuming you agree to what ever axioms you are using)

2) Proof as in with 100% certainty

3) Proof as in beyond reasonable doubt (He was proven guilty of murder)

4) Proof as in talking about justified or non justified belief ( In order to believe in that type of God who have to believe x then y then z and also B, this is implausible)
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 8:47:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 8:44:29 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/12/2014 1:22:56 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Why is it that every time people talk about the possibility of a God being needed to create the Big Bang or the first lifeforms for example, people say this despite it being impossible for science to really prove anything exists? No field that looks at nature and works things out about it can prove anything exists, because of the problem of induction. Most people on this forum insist that you can't prove any scientific thesis with 100% accuracy, yet whenever God is a thesis, these same people demand proof of God before they will admit any unnatural explanation of some event in the cosmos. Why is this?

Cause proof is used in such an ambiguous way......

They could mean......

1) Proof as in proved mathematics (assuming you agree to what ever axioms you are using)

2) Proof as in with 100% certainty

3) Proof as in beyond reasonable doubt (He was proven guilty of murder)

4) Proof as in talking about justified or non justified belief ( In order to believe in that type of God who have to believe x then y then z and also B, this is implausible)
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 2:53:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
not dependent on the mind for existence; actual:a matter of objective fact At 1/12/2014 8:05:20 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 1/12/2014 6:00:16 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/12/2014 5:44:07 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:22:39 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:15:30 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:11:33 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/12/2014 1:22:56 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Why is it that every time people talk about the possibility of a God being needed to create the Big Bang or the first lifeforms for example, people say this despite it being impossible for science to really prove anything exists? No field that looks at nature and works things out about it can prove anything exists, because of the problem of induction. Most people on this forum insist that you can't prove any scientific thesis with 100% accuracy, yet whenever God is a thesis, these same people demand proof of God before they will admit any unnatural explanation of some event in the cosmos. Why is this?

Its really inexact terminology. When most people ask for proof, ...they really mean demonstrate it with evidence.

But then if things are only true if they are based upon evidence, doesn't that mean atheism is false, since there's no evidence that God does not exist?

Positive claims can only be objectively true if they are base upon evidence.

What evidence supports this positive claim?

The definition of objective:.

Nonsense, the definition of "objective" doesn"t entail that assertion by any stretch of the imagination. It"s strictly a faith based bare assertion.

Yes it does.
"not dependent on the mind for existence; actual: a matter of objective fact"

To be objectively true that truth must be determined by things external to the mind: evidence.
Atheism isnt a positive claim.

Yes it is, Atheism and Theism both make positive claims about beliefs.

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in god. So no. It makes no positive claims.

Theism is simply a belief in God, they both make a positive claim about the belief of the individual.

Atheism doesnt assert anything does exist or definitely doesnt. It no more makes a positive claim any more than your aflyingspeghettimonsterism is making a positive claim


I and many, reject all specific Gods that have been posited that I know of, including the (approximately) 10 different variations of Christian Gods due to the lack of internal consistency.

So your belief is based on literalism?

Not really.
In this way, I have objective, demonstrable reasons for doing so. In this way when I, and many others, make a positive claim, there are demonstrable reasons.

What demonstrable reasons?

That is a whole different argument and a very long one.

However, I do not reject any Gods out of hand for all time, merely that the evidence concerning religion and gods puts the non existance of them (and any others) beyond reasonable doubt(or belief ).

What evidence would that be?

Part of a different argument.

In general, that is what most strong atheists believe.

Anyone who does make such a claim (and means exactly that rather than my statement), is making a positive claim, and is wrong.

Anyone who doesn"t make a claim is making a positive claim? Really?

Anyone who is saying any God doesnt exist for certain is making a positive claim.
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 3:24:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 1:22:56 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Why is it that every time people talk about the possibility of a God being needed to create the Big Bang or the first lifeforms for example, people say this despite it being impossible for science to really prove anything exists? No field that looks at nature and works things out about it can prove anything exists, because of the problem of induction. Most people on this forum insist that you can't prove any scientific thesis with 100% accuracy, yet whenever God is a thesis, these same people demand proof of God before they will admit any unnatural explanation of some event in the cosmos. Why is this?

Because there is absolutely no evidence that anything exists outside the natural rules of the universe. In fact, there are countless examples, tens of thousands, where previously misunderstood causes were clarified to be caused by perfectly explainable functions of the observable world. In short one does not need supernatural explanations for natural functions.

The typical Judea Christian God definitely is postulated as an intelligent being that exists in the realm of supernatural. He is speculated as being that had no beginning, has knowledge of all information, and lives outside of time, and can create a complete universe in 7 days.

Then you add on the obvious personification of God with human traits such as envy, vengeance and others and the evidence points to a manufactured concept that emerged over time. Anthropologically speaking the distribution of monotheism probably follows other natural distributions and more diversity and probably explains why there are so many incompatible monotheistic beliefs. Again, all evidence that there are other sources for what people attribute to God.
theta_pinch
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 4:25:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 1:22:56 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Why is it that every time people talk about the possibility of a God being needed to create the Big Bang or the first lifeforms for example, people say this despite it being impossible for science to really prove anything exists? No field that looks at nature and works things out about it can prove anything exists, because of the problem of induction. Most people on this forum insist that you can't prove any scientific thesis with 100% accuracy, yet whenever God is a thesis, these same people demand proof of God before they will admit any unnatural explanation of some event in the cosmos. Why is this?

Because our naturalistic theories can explain everything fine without a God or supernatural forces so there is no reason to arbitrarily add a God to any theory. If a God is to be added to the theory than evidence is needed for that God and his interaction; otherwise it becomes an unwarranted, unnecessary, assumption. In other words: Occams Razor.
Any sufficiently complex phenomenon is indistinguishable from magic--Me

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
Niel deGrasse Tyson
theta_pinch
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 4:27:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Also there have been many cases where God is used to fill a gap in knowledge and then a few decades to centuries later science figures out a completely natural answer. This happens so much that it made the term "God of the Gaps."
Any sufficiently complex phenomenon is indistinguishable from magic--Me

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
Niel deGrasse Tyson
theta_pinch
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 4:35:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
So here's the reasoning: If the theory can already explain something fine with purely naturalistic means; then why add an arbitrary God to it?
Any sufficiently complex phenomenon is indistinguishable from magic--Me

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
Niel deGrasse Tyson
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 4:44:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/13/2014 4:35:58 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
So here's the reasoning: If the theory can already explain something fine with purely naturalistic means; then why add an arbitrary God to it?

Because people don't like that reality doesn't match their narrow, and ultraliteralist beliefs that due to sheer hubris tells them they know for fact that reality is actually something different.
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 5:09:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/13/2014 4:27:10 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
Also there have been many cases where God is used to fill a gap in knowledge and then a few decades to centuries later science figures out a completely natural answer. This happens so much that it made the term "God of the Gaps."

So instead you submit to Atheism-of-the-gaps, that holds since science explains some things, it can surely explain everything.
theta_pinch
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 6:11:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/13/2014 5:09:29 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 1/13/2014 4:27:10 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
Also there have been many cases where God is used to fill a gap in knowledge and then a few decades to centuries later science figures out a completely natural answer. This happens so much that it made the term "God of the Gaps."

So instead you submit to Atheism-of-the-gaps, that holds since science explains some things, it can surely explain everything.

We already have equations for gravity, time, space, matter, energy, and the quantum world; so it seems a reasonable assumption that we will be able to explain everything. Have you ever heard of the theory of everything? Well, it's a theory that can explain pretty much everything. We haven't figured it out yet but we've already unified three of the four fundamental forces so we probably aren't to far away from the theory of everything. The God of the Gaps is unreasonable because it has NEVER worked out; quite the opposite in fact. Science has continued to explain things and religion has continuously had to step back. There's a possibility science won't be able to explain everything but it's more likely than the God of the Gaps.
Any sufficiently complex phenomenon is indistinguishable from magic--Me

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
Niel deGrasse Tyson
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 7:10:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/13/2014 6:11:38 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 1/13/2014 5:09:29 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 1/13/2014 4:27:10 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
Also there have been many cases where God is used to fill a gap in knowledge and then a few decades to centuries later science figures out a completely natural answer. This happens so much that it made the term "God of the Gaps."

So instead you submit to Atheism-of-the-gaps, that holds since science explains some things, it can surely explain everything.

We already have equations for gravity, time, space, matter, energy, and the quantum world; so it seems a reasonable assumption that we will be able to explain everything. Have you ever heard of the theory of everything? Well, it's a theory that can explain pretty much everything. We haven't figured it out yet but we've already unified three of the four fundamental forces so we probably aren't to far away from the theory of everything. The God of the Gaps is unreasonable because it has NEVER worked out; quite the opposite in fact. Science has continued to explain things and religion has continuously had to step back. There's a possibility science won't be able to explain everything but it's more likely than the God of the Gaps.

Yes, physicists have made some big discoveries -- now explain the origin of life, consciousness and morality.

Mind you, I'm still not advancing "God-of-the-Gaps", but my point is the explanatory power of science is limited.
theta_pinch
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 7:34:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/13/2014 7:10:38 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 1/13/2014 6:11:38 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 1/13/2014 5:09:29 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 1/13/2014 4:27:10 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
Also there have been many cases where God is used to fill a gap in knowledge and then a few decades to centuries later science figures out a completely natural answer. This happens so much that it made the term "God of the Gaps."

So instead you submit to Atheism-of-the-gaps, that holds since science explains some things, it can surely explain everything.

We already have equations for gravity, time, space, matter, energy, and the quantum world; so it seems a reasonable assumption that we will be able to explain everything. Have you ever heard of the theory of everything? Well, it's a theory that can explain pretty much everything. We haven't figured it out yet but we've already unified three of the four fundamental forces so we probably aren't to far away from the theory of everything. The God of the Gaps is unreasonable because it has NEVER worked out; quite the opposite in fact. Science has continued to explain things and religion has continuously had to step back. There's a possibility science won't be able to explain everything but it's more likely than the God of the Gaps.

Yes, physicists have made some big discoveries -- now explain the origin of life, consciousness and morality.

Mind you, I'm still not advancing "God-of-the-Gaps", but my point is the explanatory power of science is limited.

For the origin of life look up abiogenesis. Origin of consciousness: neurons produce electrochemical signals which communicate with other neurons similar to the hive mind of bees. These electrochemical signalsare what produce consciousness. Origin of morality: evolution. You see certain behavioural traits can be passed down genetically. A species wants to survive and those with behavioural traits that help the species survive will be more likely to pass those genes down to offspring. For example humans find murder immoral; killing another member of your species will make it harder for the species to survive so those with genes that cause a disposition against murder will be more likely to pass their genes down.
Any sufficiently complex phenomenon is indistinguishable from magic--Me

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
Niel deGrasse Tyson
theta_pinch
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 7:45:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
but yes science's explanatory power is limited, but by the technological capabilities of the time; nothing else.
Any sufficiently complex phenomenon is indistinguishable from magic--Me

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
Niel deGrasse Tyson
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2014 1:01:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/13/2014 7:34:56 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 1/13/2014 7:10:38 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 1/13/2014 6:11:38 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 1/13/2014 5:09:29 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 1/13/2014 4:27:10 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
Also there have been many cases where God is used to fill a gap in knowledge and then a few decades to centuries later science figures out a completely natural answer. This happens so much that it made the term "God of the Gaps."

So instead you submit to Atheism-of-the-gaps, that holds since science explains some things, it can surely explain everything.

We already have equations for gravity, time, space, matter, energy, and the quantum world; so it seems a reasonable assumption that we will be able to explain everything. Have you ever heard of the theory of everything? Well, it's a theory that can explain pretty much everything. We haven't figured it out yet but we've already unified three of the four fundamental forces so we probably aren't to far away from the theory of everything. The God of the Gaps is unreasonable because it has NEVER worked out; quite the opposite in fact. Science has continued to explain things and religion has continuously had to step back. There's a possibility science won't be able to explain everything but it's more likely than the God of the Gaps.

Yes, physicists have made some big discoveries -- now explain the origin of life, consciousness and morality.

Mind you, I'm still not advancing "God-of-the-Gaps", but my point is the explanatory power of science is limited.

For the origin of life look up abiogenesis.
There is zero evidence that abiogenesis ever occurred. Your materialist assumptions just require it to be true.

Origin of consciousness: neurons produce electrochemical signals which communicate with other neurons similar to the hive mind of bees. These electrochemical signalsare what produce consciousness.
So what evidence does neuroscience provide in support of the view that our minds are not immaterial? I'm not convinced that our minds are identical with our brains.

Origin of morality: evolution. You see certain behavioural traits can be passed down genetically. A species wants to survive and those with behavioural traits that help the species survive will be more likely to pass those genes down to offspring. For example humans find murder immoral; killing another member of your species will make it harder for the species to survive so those with genes that cause a disposition against murder will be more likely to pass their genes down.
You're just talking about what's conducive to the flourishing of life on this planet. Why is it "good" to ensure your genes are passed on? Natural science can't tell us that we ought to take actions to ensure the survival of our species.
theta_pinch
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 2:28:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/14/2014 1:01:33 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 1/13/2014 7:34:56 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 1/13/2014 7:10:38 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 1/13/2014 6:11:38 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 1/13/2014 5:09:29 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 1/13/2014 4:27:10 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
Also there have been many cases where God is used to fill a gap in knowledge and then a few decades to centuries later science figures out a completely natural answer. This happens so much that it made the term "God of the Gaps."

So instead you submit to Atheism-of-the-gaps, that holds since science explains some things, it can surely explain everything.

We already have equations for gravity, time, space, matter, energy, and the quantum world; so it seems a reasonable assumption that we will be able to explain everything. Have you ever heard of the theory of everything? Well, it's a theory that can explain pretty much everything. We haven't figured it out yet but we've already unified three of the four fundamental forces so we probably aren't to far away from the theory of everything. The God of the Gaps is unreasonable because it has NEVER worked out; quite the opposite in fact. Science has continued to explain things and religion has continuously had to step back. There's a possibility science won't be able to explain everything but it's more likely than the God of the Gaps.

Yes, physicists have made some big discoveries -- now explain the origin of life, consciousness and morality.

Mind you, I'm still not advancing "God-of-the-Gaps", but my point is the explanatory power of science is limited.

For the origin of life look up abiogenesis.
There is zero evidence that abiogenesis ever occurred. Your materialist assumptions just require it to be true.

Well we do have evidence that it might have happened on early earth because we have been able to simulate the conditions and produce amino acids and RNA with the same conditions present on early earth.
Origin of consciousness: neurons produce electrochemical signals which communicate with other neurons similar to the hive mind of bees. These electrochemical signalsare what produce consciousness.
So what evidence does neuroscience provide in support of the view that our minds are not immaterial? I'm not convinced that our minds are identical with our brains.

Here's evidence are minds are not immaterial: http://www.nbcnews.com...

Origin of morality: evolution. You see certain behavioural traits can be passed down genetically. A species wants to survive and those with behavioural traits that help the species survive will be more likely to pass those genes down to offspring. For example humans find murder immoral; killing another member of your species will make it harder for the species to survive so those with genes that cause a disposition against murder will be more likely to pass their genes down.
You're just talking about what's conducive to the flourishing of life on this planet. Why is it "good" to ensure your genes are passed on? Natural science can't tell us that we ought to take actions to ensure the survival of our species.

It's instinct; the purpose of life is technically to survive and reproduce continuing your species. Why wouldn't it be good to pass your genes down to continue your species?
Any sufficiently complex phenomenon is indistinguishable from magic--Me

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
Niel deGrasse Tyson
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 2:32:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
That experiment is not evidence that our minds aren't immaterial. So what if a man moved another man's finger from stimulating his brain? It doesn't prove anything in regards to consciousness that moving a man's finger by simply grabbing it and picking it up does.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 2:34:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
From the source:

The University of Washington researchers acknowledged that their experiment was conceptually simple. Rao stressed that their signaling system deals only with on-off signals, rather than a person's thoughts. Also, the system can't be used to force subjects to do anything against their will.

Nothing special about this
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 5:48:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/15/2014 2:28:14 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 1/14/2014 1:01:33 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 1/13/2014 7:34:56 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 1/13/2014 7:10:38 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 1/13/2014 6:11:38 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 1/13/2014 5:09:29 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 1/13/2014 4:27:10 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
Also there have been many cases where God is used to fill a gap in knowledge and then a few decades to centuries later science figures out a completely natural answer. This happens so much that it made the term "God of the Gaps."

So instead you submit to Atheism-of-the-gaps, that holds since science explains some things, it can surely explain everything.

We already have equations for gravity, time, space, matter, energy, and the quantum world; so it seems a reasonable assumption that we will be able to explain everything. Have you ever heard of the theory of everything? Well, it's a theory that can explain pretty much everything. We haven't figured it out yet but we've already unified three of the four fundamental forces so we probably aren't to far away from the theory of everything. The God of the Gaps is unreasonable because it has NEVER worked out; quite the opposite in fact. Science has continued to explain things and religion has continuously had to step back. There's a possibility science won't be able to explain everything but it's more likely than the God of the Gaps.

Yes, physicists have made some big discoveries -- now explain the origin of life, consciousness and morality.

Mind you, I'm still not advancing "God-of-the-Gaps", but my point is the explanatory power of science is limited.

For the origin of life look up abiogenesis.
There is zero evidence that abiogenesis ever occurred. Your materialist assumptions just require it to be true.

Well we do have evidence that it might have happened on early earth because we have been able to simulate the conditions and produce amino acids and RNA with the same conditions present on early earth.
Logic dictates that scientists artificially replicating abiogenesis would better support a creator behind the abiogenesis than it taking place by time and chance alone.

Origin of consciousness: neurons produce electrochemical signals which communicate with other neurons similar to the hive mind of bees. These electrochemical signalsare what produce consciousness.
So what evidence does neuroscience provide in support of the view that our minds are not immaterial? I'm not convinced that our minds are identical with our brains.

Here's evidence are minds are not immaterial: http://www.nbcnews.com...
This doesn't refute dualism. See Garrett's response...

Origin of morality: evolution. You see certain behavioural traits can be passed down genetically. A species wants to survive and those with behavioural traits that help the species survive will be more likely to pass those genes down to offspring. For example humans find murder immoral; killing another member of your species will make it harder for the species to survive so those with genes that cause a disposition against murder will be more likely to pass their genes down.
You're just talking about what's conducive to the flourishing of life on this planet. Why is it "good" to ensure your genes are passed on? Natural science can't tell us that we ought to take actions to ensure the survival of our species.

It's instinct; the purpose of life is technically to survive and reproduce continuing your species. Why wouldn't it be good to pass your genes down to continue your species?
The only way that passing on genes can be considered "good" is if you redefine it's meaning, which of course makes your argument circular. Natural science can't tell us that we have a moral duty to take actions that pass on our DNA. It can only tell us what is, not what ought to be.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 6:18:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/15/2014 5:48:43 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 1/15/2014 2:28:14 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
It's instinct; the purpose of life is technically to survive and reproduce continuing your species. Why wouldn't it be good to pass your genes down to continue your species?
The only way that passing on genes can be considered "good" is if you redefine it's meaning, which of course makes your argument circular. Natural science can't tell us that we have a moral duty to take actions that pass on our DNA. It can only tell us what is, not what ought to be.

Interestingly, this is an argument against homosexuality. theta_pinch, is homosexuality bad? Because it is opposes the purpose of life as you defined it.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Pareidolic-Dreamer
Posts: 84
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 8:35:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 4:22:39 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:15:30 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:11:33 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/12/2014 1:22:56 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Why is it that every time people talk about the possibility of a God being needed to create the Big Bang or the first lifeforms for example, people say this despite it being impossible for science to really prove anything exists? No field that looks at nature and works things out about it can prove anything exists, because of the problem of induction. Most people on this forum insist that you can't prove any scientific thesis with 100% accuracy, yet whenever God is a thesis, these same people demand proof of God before they will admit any unnatural explanation of some event in the cosmos. Why is this?

Its really inexact terminology. When most people ask for proof, ...they really mean demonstrate it with evidence.

But then if things are only true if they are based upon evidence, doesn't that mean atheism is false, since there's no evidence that God does not exist?

Positive claims can only be objectively true if they are base upon evidence. Atheism isnt a positive claim.

Pardon me for butting in here, I planned instead on butting in later.
But, I think atheists are positively stating that the Christian God does not exist.
Pareidolic-Dreamer
I see wall people.

When I argue against someone's truths, I always feel like I am arguing just as strongly against my own.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2014 8:15:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/18/2014 8:35:49 PM, Pareidolic-Dreamer wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:22:39 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:15:30 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:11:33 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/12/2014 1:22:56 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Why is it that every time people talk about the possibility of a God being needed to create the Big Bang or the first lifeforms for example, people say this despite it being impossible for science to really prove anything exists? No field that looks at nature and works things out about it can prove anything exists, because of the problem of induction. Most people on this forum insist that you can't prove any scientific thesis with 100% accuracy, yet whenever God is a thesis, these same people demand proof of God before they will admit any unnatural explanation of some event in the cosmos. Why is this?

Its really inexact terminology. When most people ask for proof, ...they really mean demonstrate it with evidence.

But then if things are only true if they are based upon evidence, doesn't that mean atheism is false, since there's no evidence that God does not exist?

Positive claims can only be objectively true if they are base upon evidence. Atheism isnt a positive claim.

Pardon me for butting in here, I planned instead on butting in later.
But, I think atheists are positively stating that the Christian God does not exist.

Please refer to post 7. Making positive claims against specific Gods is possible and can be supported as claims about what those Gods do, how they operate, and what the rules of the universe are have been outlined by the various religions that believe in it and as a result can be logically and objectively falsified.