Religion and faith

[boobatuba]

I'm a number 7. I have no problem explaining logically why there can not be a God.

Well I would love to hear your explanation, if you're up for it?

Certainly. I'll start with the easiest one.

The truth about creation (which, of course, we don't really know) only has two options:

1. The complexity of life and the universe did arise completely spontaneously and without any intelligence. Nature created all the complexity we see today.
2. An intelligent creator created all of the complexity that we see today because complexity requires intelligence to create it.

The advantage of the first option is that it is self-contained. The complexity arose spontaneously. No other explanation is required.

The problem with the second option is that it immediately creates an impossibility. If complexity cannot arise without intelligence, then we immediately must ask, "Who created the intelligent creator?" The creator could not spring into existence if complexity requires intelligence. Therefore, God is impossible.

 

[Ha'kiv]

Well, perhaps in a way you were right. If we agree that claiming anything with absolute certainty is silly, then "less silly" and "more silly" is like larger and smaller infinities.

 

[thestrangequark]

^[addressing boobatuba] If the universe is linear.

 

[boobatuba]

^[addressing boobatuba] If the universe is linear.

Is there any logical reason to believe that it isn't?

 

[thestrangequark]

^[addressing boobatuba] If the universe is linear.

Is there any logical reason to believe that it isn't?

Yes. As far as my understanding goes (though I admit that it's limited) all properties of physics are time-symmetrical with the exception of entropy. There are only two indicators that time may be linear, and one of them is a very unsound bit of evidence indeed: entropy and our own perception of linear time.

 

[Ha'kiv]

An intelligent creator created all of the complexity that we see today because complexity requires intelligence to create it.

You assume they use reason to obtain their faith. They do not believe simply because they think complexity requires intelligence to create it. Their argument is simply "An intelligent creator created all of the complexity that we see today". Why? It does not matter why - they simply believe it. Can you still disprove god without the second part of that argument?

 

[Ha'kiv]

There are only two indicators that time may be linear, and one of them is a very unsound bit of evidence indeed: entropy and our own perception of linear time.

I think we're safe to say entropy is the only one.

 

[Deckerd]

It's like a wormhole from one side to the other. I took that motherfucker.

I was thinking about starting a thread about that very thing John, using you as my prize exhibit. Would you mind?

 

[Scout101]

I don't believe any position other than 6 makes any sense (including number 7).

It's impossible to rule it out 100%,but there's also no reason at all to believe there IS a God, so better off staying at 99.9999999% sure and going about your business as usual.

Option 7 is just about as big a religious leap as option 1, and with exactly the same level of proof. Anything less than 6 is just wishful thinking and wanting something to be true despite a severe lack of evidence...

 

[boobatuba]

An intelligent creator created all of the complexity that we see today because complexity requires intelligence to create it.

You assume they use reason to obtain their faith. They do not believe simply because they think complexity requires intelligence to create it. Their argument is simply "An intelligent creator created all of the complexity that we see today". Why? It does not matter why - they simply believe it. Can you still disprove god without the second part of that argument?

Let's try another one.

There is no scientific evidence that God exists or has ever existed.

If you think about it as a rational person, this lack of evidence is startling. There is not one bit of empirical evidence indicating that today's God, nor any other contemporary God, nor any God of the past, exists. In addition we know that:

1. If we had scientific proof of God's existence, we would talk about the "science of God" rather than "faith in God".
2. If we had scientific proof of God's existence, the study of God would be a scientific endeavor rather than a theological one.
3. If we had scientific proof of God's existence, all religious people would be aligning on the God that had been scientifically proven to exist. Instead there are thousands of Gods and religions.

The reason for this lack of evidence is easy for any unbiased observer to see. The reason why there is no empirical evidence for God is because God is imaginary.

For example:

• God has never left any physical evidence of his existence on earth.
• None of Jesus' "miracles" left any physical evidence either.
• God has never spoken to modern man, for example by taking over all the television stations and broadcasting a rational message to everyone.
• The resurrected Jesus has never appeared to anyone.
• The Bible we have is provably incorrect and is obviously the work of primitive men rather than God.
• When we analyze prayer with statistics, we find no evidence that God is "answering prayers" despite assurances in the Bible that he does.
• Huge, amazing atrocities like the Holocaust and AIDS occur without any response from God.
• And so on…

Can we agree that there is no empirical evidence showing that God exists? Such a lack of scientific evidence doesn't absolutely disprove the existence of God, but it's very difficult to ignore.

ETA: Yeah, what Scout said. Count me as a 6.999999999999. But that's close enough to 7 for me.

 

[Ha'kiv]

...doesn't absolutely disprove the existence of God...

Our point exactly. It does not absolutely disprove the existence of God, or god, as it is impossible to do so.

ETA: Yeah, what Scout said. Count me as a 6.999999999999. But that's close enough to 7 for me.

The ",9999999" is basically what 6 is all about. 7 is 100%.

 

[thestrangequark]

[*]If we had scientific proof of God's existence, the study of God would be a scientific endeavor rather than a theological one.

Have you ever read Contact? One of the things I loved about that book was the notion that perhaps the two aren't mutually exclusive. Perhaps science is the study of god, and we just don't know it. (Of course the god in that book is something undefined -- I'm not talking of the Judeo-Christian notion of God, or any other specific religious notion, for that matter.) Bearing in mind that an extremely sleep deprived 6 on the scale is writing this, I'd say that 7 is less scientific than 6.

 

[Ha'kiv]

Sure, if god happens to = universe. However faith and science are basically opposites. To quote Tim,
"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed - faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved."

 

[boobatuba]

...doesn't absolutely disprove the existence of God...

Our point exactly. It does not absolutely disprove the existence of God, or god, as it is impossible to do so.

While it's not impossible to prove a negative (a commonly held fallacy), this sort of argument is consistently used by theists to explain their belief.

Every effort to find God has shown nothing. Theists then use excuses such as "non-believers can't experience God." They introduce limits into the argument that make it impossible to prove a negative. If I, an unbeliever, am unable to experience God, then it is impossible for me to prove he doesn't exist because every proof I give is explained away as simply me being an unbeliever and incapable of experiencing God.

When the opposing view refuses to acknowledge inductive reasoning, how do you prove a negative?

1. If God existed, then there would be evidence.
2. There is no evidence of God.
3. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

 

[thestrangequark]

Sure, if god happens to = universe. However faith and science are basically opposites. To quote Tim,
"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed - faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved."

That's not the point Sagan was making in the book. He was saying that god might not have to be an entity of faith, but could, perceivably be an entity of science.

And I've been thinking of posting it since I looked into the thread, and since you quoted it, that gives me the perfect excuse. When I first heard this awhile back I thought, "THIS IS WHAT IT'S LIKE IN MY HEAD ALL THE TIME!

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhGuXCuDb1U[/yt]

 

[Ha'kiv]

I could listen to this until the end of time. I don't like this video though.
http://youtu.be/V0W7Jbc_Vhw <- best

"Do you know what they call alternative medicine that's been proved to work? Medicine."

 

[thestrangequark]

^I've always liked the video, thought it was well done. My sister just went to see him (front row) in Seattle the other night. And as an added bonus went for beers with him after the show and accidentally groped Neil Gaiman. Man, I am jealous of that evening.

 

[Ha'kiv]

^I've always liked the video, thought it was well done. My sister just went to see him (front row) in Seattle the other night. And as an added bonus went for beers with him after the show and accidentally groped Neil Gaiman. Man, I am jealous of that evening.

What possible reason could you have for not murdering her besides the DNA she's carrying on her body?

 

[thestrangequark]

^Eh...it wasn't her fault. I'm sure she would've taken me instead of her boyfriend, but that's difficult as I am 3,000 miles from Seattle at the moment. She was sure to send me a text or a tweet or something assuring that she at least spoke about me with him.

 

[Shaytan]

Unsurprisingly strong atheist. I also hate with passion all religions.