Log in

View Full Version : Re: Questions for Theists to Answer


simmo
November 20th, 2008, 11:18 AM
I'm glad that some people do take these issues somewhat seriously at least. It is easy to brush thoughts about God aside, or to joke about it, but that doesn't really get anywhere.

So, I will try to answer some of the objections that were posted in "Questions For Theists to Answer". First, let me say that I believe in one God and that Jesus Christ is his son. He suffered and died to take the punishment of sins, and we are saved from that punishment if we believe in that sacrifice for us. I am not a Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or believer in another religion.

Q: Why does the universe need a reason to have been made?
Q: Can you prove that your god exists?
A: I thought I would try and tackle these questions together. The first question, I think, is a bit strange to me. Either the universe was made or it wasn't. Isn't that what should be asked? "Was the universe made?" not "Do we have to believe that it was made?" Similarly, for the second question, it does take faith to believe in God whom we cannot see, but if you take the approach that you're not going to believe in God unless his existence can be "proven" then you will not know one way or the other.

There is ample evidence in what we see around us for the existence of God. We cannot observe him directly, but his creation expresses what he is like, and I am persuaded that no other explanation can adequately explain how it is that we are here. This is clear even to simple folk, but the more I know about creation, the more amazing it is to me. I cannot accept that we just happened, and this is essentially the best explanation that scientists can come up with. The intricate detail and beauty of creation persuade me that a creator's hand was at work, and when one considers the sheer odds of something as amazing as our bodies just happening, even if enough time is thrown in the mix, it is ludicrous to conclude that it happened by chance. Imagine, say, an intricate sand castle with towers, a moat and turrets. If you saw one, would you think, "That must have just happened. Eventually, the odds are that one will appear." Of course, that is an unreasonable thought. Sand castles don't appear out of nowhere, they are made by intelligent people. A lump of sand will not turn into a sand castle, no matter how much time it has. It is much, much more likely to be washed away or trodden on or something rather than form some complicated, orderly structure. Isn't it more reasonable, then, to think that there is a creator than to believe that nature just happened?

No, I cannot prove that God exists beyond all doubt, but I also cannot prove that you aren't living in the Matrix. We live accepting what seems right to us, making many assumptions, but really there is no way to grow in confidence unless we put our faith or trust in something or someone. It is the same with God. Jesus said that faith is like a mustard seed. It starts out one of the smallest of seeds, but grows into a plant bigger than all other herbs. It does matter what you put your trust in. Trust in the wrong object will lead to disillusionment rather than conviction, but it is the experience of Christians throughout the ages that faith in Jesus leads to a stronger and stronger assurance of God's love, even in the face of tribulations.

Hmm, I've only answered the first two questions. Maybe I'll get to the others some other time.

Tsar Phalanxia
November 20th, 2008, 11:31 AM
Woah. Smeone actually answered them. Awesome.
This is clear even to simple folk, but the more I know about creation, the more amazing it is to me. I cannot accept that we just happened, and this is essentially the best explanation that scientists can come up with. The intricate detail and beauty of creation persuade me that a creator's hand was at work, and when one considers the sheer odds of something as amazing as our bodies just happening, even if enough time is thrown in the mix, it is ludicrous to conclude that it happened by chance.
Ah, but if you're looking for a needle in a haystack, you won't be able to find it if you're sitting on the needle. If the planet was not hospitable, and intelligent creatures had not evolved, then this planet would be no different from the vast majority of planets in the universe, i.e. not able to support intelligent life that would be able to observe how lucky that planet was. Also, your idea suggests that everything is PERFECTLY designed, ioncluding humans. We're not. For example, we have an appendix, we have terrible backbone posture and we covered in hair for no reason. These are all things that would assume to have been left out by a designer, due to them using up resaources, but are expected in terms of evolution.


No, I cannot prove that God exists beyond all doubt, but I also cannot prove that you aren't living in the Matrix. We live accepting what seems right to us, making many assumptions, but really there is no way to grow in confidence unless we put our faith or trust in something or someone. It is the same with God. Jesus said that faith is like a mustard seed. It starts out one of the smallest of seeds, but grows into a plant bigger than all other herbs. It does matter what you put your trust in. Trust in the wrong object will lead to disillusionment rather than conviction, but it is the experience of Christians throughout the ages that faith in Jesus leads to a stronger and stronger assurance of God's love, even in the face of tribulations.
Likewise, I can't prove that Santa Clause exists, or that he doesn't, but I don't believe in him because the facts are overwhelmingly in favour his not existence. You alkso seem to place particular emphasis on Christianity; so why is that Muslims, Buddhists, Zoroastrians and Pagans all seem to be happy in their life? You can't call yourself religious unless you've explored the possibilities of these religions, and considered the pros, cons and theology of each religion, and atheism, otherwise you're just indoctrinated.

fosley
November 20th, 2008, 04:47 PM
Imagine, say, an intricate sand castle with towers, a moat and turrets. If you saw one, would you think, "That must have just happened. Eventually, the odds are that one will appear."Bad analogy. When I see a sand castle, I know with reasonable conviction it was created by a human for two reasons. First, I've seen humans build many sand castles before. Second, I know humans build the full-scale castles that sand castles are modeled after, so even if I'd never seen a sand castle before I could be reasonably certain a human created it.

Furthermore, I've never seen any other species capable of creating castles or sand castles, so through deduction I can safely assume it was a human, not a bird, fish or platypus, who made it.

With living things, there are two sides of looking at it. On the one hand, I have seen many living things created through unintelligent actions such as sex, cell division or just hanging out waiting for the bees. On the other hand, I've never seen anyone or anything create even one animal, much less a billion species of animals, in a short period of time out of thin air, so I really have no reason to assume that's where we came from.

So while I agree that humans and similar animals are far too complex to have spontaneously popped into existence, and therefore must assume that's not what happened, this assumption doesn't mean I have to assume some god was involved. The idea that the complex evolved over periods of time from the simple is not new and is shown in many areas of our lives.

The only thing hard to swallow about abiogenesis is the part where we went from random elements to self-replicating patterns. As soon as the object can self-replicate, and there can be errors in the replication, evolution is the natural consequence.

You talk about very low odds, but I think you've missed the magnitude of how many places didn't spawn life. Out of an estimated 10^21 stars in the known universe, thousands to millions of objects floating around each of those stars, untold numbers of chemical interactions every second on each of those objects, and some nine billion years (that's roughly 3 * 10^17 seconds) of time, is it really so far-fetched to think that one of them has a place with the right elements at the right temperature to allow a single, randomly-formed element with the property of self-replication?

bouchie
November 20th, 2008, 10:03 PM
The first question, I think, is a bit strange to me. Either the universe was made or it wasn't. Isn't that what should be asked? We have asked that. It's been answered with a BANG!

"Do we have to believe that it was made?" I think most people agree that the universe was made. How it was made is where the answers differ.


There is ample evidence in what we see around us for the existence of God. We cannot observe him directly, but his creation expresses what he is like, and I am persuaded that no other explanation can adequately explain how it is that we are here. No, there is the interpretation of a God being there. However, most of the evidence out there, usually from direct observation and experimentation, leads us to conclude that the existence of a God is, at best, highly improbable.

This is clear even to simple folk, but the more I know about creation, the more amazing it is to me. In a sense, I agree - I am constantly impressed by how the world works, how the creatures on it interact with it and how the world interacts with the other celestial bodies. But the beauty and the harmony of this system is not something that was applied by God. Rather, it was an imperfect system, interacting as it normally does and the element of uncertainty caused some incredible things to happen. I find the imperfection of the universe more beautiful than the perfection of God. Quite possibly because, I think the universe is more real.
I cannot accept that we just happened, and this is essentially the best explanation that scientists can come up with. The intricate detail and beauty of creation persuade me that a creator's hand was at work, and when one considers the sheer odds of something as amazing as our bodies just happening, even if enough time is thrown in the mix, it is ludicrous to conclude that it happened by chance. Ludricous, perhaps. But not impossible. We must also look back at the evolution of the God idea and realize that as our knowledge base grew and societies began to form, the god-figure had less and less of a figure.

I await the time when religion and science truly join - when the universe is acknowldged as God.

Imagine, say, an intricate sand castle with towers, a moat and turrets. If you saw one, would you think, "That must have just happened. Eventually, the odds are that one will appear." Of course, that is an unreasonable thought. Sand castles don't appear out of nowhere, they are made by intelligent people. Something with form created something with form (a human built the sandcastle). How does that extend to a formless being creating something that is formed. That's always been a problem for me - how does something 'perfect' create something 'imperfect'.

Isn't it more reasonable, then, to think that there is a creator than to believe that nature just happened? Not really, no.

No, I cannot prove that God exists beyond all doubt, but I also cannot prove that you aren't living in the Matrix. We live accepting what seems right to us, making many assumptions, but really there is no way to grow in confidence unless we put our faith or trust in something or someone. Humanism - the faith in people. Trust in us - trust in yourself. Simple enough really. Plus, all the emotions such as love, trust, kindness and the like are expressed more authentically by the humanist than the Christian. They do it because God commands it (or at least suggests it) - we do it for the sake of those emotions.

Cheers.

Tsar Phalanxia
November 20th, 2008, 10:18 PM
I find the imperfection of the universe more beautiful than the perfection of God. Quite possibly because, I think the universe is more real.

http://www.lolwut.com/pics/fuckingawesome.jpg
I can think of no other way to describe that quote.

Dr Goofy Mofo
November 20th, 2008, 10:31 PM
We have asked that. It's been answered with a BANG!

LOL!!!

And faith in oneself and others is what I use! Why do I need to go elsewhere?

rmw
November 21st, 2008, 01:08 AM
All right, here's a question I've been pondering for awhile: for an after-life to exist, does that also require a god to exist? In other words, can you have an after-life without any sort of deity? (This of course, presumes life after death--a topic for debate in and of itself.)

fosley
November 21st, 2008, 01:42 AM
Why would you need a god for an afterlife? If we have some type of soul that moves to another world after we die, why would the physics behind that transformation require a god any more than the physics behind this world?

This is my problem with the whole idea of "supernatural". At some level, physics describes how everything works. Gods, ghosts, spirits and the like are all bound by those physics. So there might be something above our level of nature, but ultimately anything that exists is natural. Unless we define God = Reality, god is just another guy. Maybe he/she/it created our spacetime, maybe not. Likewise, if there is an afterlife, maybe a god did it, maybe not. But there's no more reason to say "clearly an afterlife could only be created by a god" than to say "clearly a snowflake is far too ordered to be created by anything but a god".

sailor
November 21st, 2008, 02:03 AM
"clearly a snowflake is far too ordered to be created by anything but a god".

That's nice. You know the saying about giving something any attention at all, even if it's negative, will just increase the problem & provoke it?

Bad site.

I think we give this type of thing just entirely too much time, thought, attention, and emotion in the answering of them. But, that's my opinion. I'd just move on and do other things. Obviously the fundie mentality is just nutz. I suppose it is the path of some to try to talk rationally to them, but they are sick. So why talk sensibly to people who are out-of-their mind zealot zombies who've given their power to the pulpit, which is just another word for satan. The irony of the jesus trip is that those most pious are often the worst offenders of any word of truth at all.

Give them a rest. Karma usually gets these buggers in the end. :icon_rolleyes:

Let them eat cake.

fosley
November 21st, 2008, 02:17 AM
Because I used to be one of those fundie zealot zombies?

sailor
November 21st, 2008, 02:23 AM
Because I used to be one of those fundie zealot zombies?

Well, love. Then that is YOUR karma to care because you can relate and then understand where they are coming from and try to help.

I have never been one. I was an atheist, though, remember. That is why it is fun to care and try to transform people. Because we possibly erroneously believe we are similar to them and can show them the light somehow. It's kind of arrogant of proselytizers like us, isn't it?

Teachers...lol.

Dr Goofy Mofo
November 21st, 2008, 02:26 AM
My Karma is broken I do good things and bad things happen to me!

sailor
November 21st, 2008, 02:30 AM
My Karma is broken I do good things and bad things happen to me!

I think you may suffer from a severe case of Murphy's Law, there pal.

The path to hell is paved with what?

Dr Goofy Mofo
November 21st, 2008, 02:35 AM
I think you may suffer from a severe case of Murphy's Law, there pal.

The path to hell is paved with what?

That could be! I hope it is homemade chocolate chip cookies!

rmw
November 21st, 2008, 02:35 AM
My Karma is broken I do good things and bad things happen to me!

Maybe you did something in a past life to warrant bad karma. Did you off Lincoln? ;)

sailor
November 21st, 2008, 03:29 AM
That could be! I hope it is homemade chocolate chip cookies!

Like I said....*trails off*

:icon_eek:

Dr Goofy Mofo
November 21st, 2008, 03:35 AM
HOLY CRAP IT JUST HIT MY LIKE THE SMELL OF HOT GARBAGE ON A SUMMERS DAY!

That was like mind blowing S7S!

sailor
November 21st, 2008, 07:23 AM
Glad to be of service to you, my liege.

What other things need fixing that I might alter accordingly?

bouchie
November 21st, 2008, 02:43 PM
All right, here's a question I've been pondering for awhile: for an after-life to exist, does that also require a god to exist? For an after-life to exist, you have to have a life first. Praying, worshipping and doing eveything in the name of a deity - I don't call that living. I believe in living authentically, in the Heideggarian sense - without the Nazi/ultra-nationalistic connotations.

So there might be something above our level of nature, but ultimately anything that exists is natural. Unless we define God = Reality, god is just another guy. Sorry fosley, just trying to understand this point. To me, it sounds like you're saying that if we define God as all of reality, than all of reality is supernatural.

But there's no more reason to say "clearly an afterlife could only be created by a god" than to say "clearly a snowflake is far too ordered to be created by anything but a god". Good point - they make just as much sense and have just as much proof.

My Karma is broken I do good things and bad things happen to me! I don't know if I should send you to a shaman or a mechanic...

Good line: "My karma ran over your dogma."
That and, "Well besides that Mrs. Lincoln, did you enjoy the play?"

PS: Tsar - did you just use a hentai picture to describe how you feel?

Tsar Phalanxia
November 21st, 2008, 03:38 PM
PS: Tsar - did you just use a hentai picture to describe how you feel?

Ehm, I think so. I'm not really sure.

tagnostic
November 21st, 2008, 07:25 PM
i have inertial karma,
i do things
and
nothing happens

sam the moderately wize
November 22nd, 2008, 11:33 AM
I live inside a kama bubble.
I do things and the people around me get the results.
It's good for a while but gets annoying when all you ever get is neutrality.

tagnostic
November 22nd, 2008, 11:35 AM
yeah,
new
trality
gets
old

fosley
November 22nd, 2008, 11:22 PM
Sorry fosley, just trying to understand this point. To me, it sounds like you're saying that if we define God as all of reality, than all of reality is supernatural.What I meant was that unless god = reality, god isn't special. If god = reality, I think that makes god pretty special, but then it doesn't really mean anything either, because we have all of reality whether we define it as god or not.

Because god isn't special, we don't explicitly need god for anything to exist. If we define god = reality, then obviously we need god for everything to exist, but that's a rather redundant statement by definition.

bouchie
November 23rd, 2008, 01:38 AM
To fosley: fair enough. I figured that would be your response.

And I agree with it - it makes sense.

Al Farabi
December 7th, 2008, 03:41 PM
What I meant was that unless god = reality, god isn't special. If god = reality, I think that makes god pretty special, but then it doesn't really mean anything either, because we have all of reality whether we define it as god or not.

Because god isn't special, we don't explicitly need god for anything to exist. If we define god = reality, then obviously we need god for everything to exist, but that's a rather redundant statement by definition.

Wait wait wait wait. If God /= reality, God /= necessary? That is not a very helpful or meaningful statement at all. What about neutrons? They are not all of reality, and yet they are pretty needed.

And this seems to ignore the idea of God as Initial Cause. We need a reason that the Big Bang went Boom, don't we?

Additionally, some would argue that while God pervades all things, they are not representative of Him. If you spill your coffee on a piece of paper, there is coffee IN the paper, inseperably, but the paper is not now coffee.

tagnostic
December 7th, 2008, 03:52 PM
Wait wait wait wait. If God /= reality, God /= necessary? That is not a very helpful or meaningful statement at all. What about neutrons? They are not all of reality, and yet they are pretty needed.

neutrons aren't real?
the residents of
Hiroshima will be
happy to here that


And this seems to ignore the idea of God as Initial Cause. We need a reason that the Big Bang went Boom, don't we?

and with science someday we will know that reason


Additionally, some would argue that while God pervades all things, they are not representative of Him. If you spill your coffee on a piece of paper, there is coffee IN the paper, inseperably, but the paper is not now coffee.

and by the same token,
no matter how you absorb
superstition, and how much
it permeates your world view
it doesn't make it any more reality

Al Farabi
December 7th, 2008, 04:39 PM
neutrons aren't real?
the residents of
Hiroshima will be
happy to here that

I didn't say that neutrons aren't real, I said they aren't reality. I'm saying things besides neutrons exist, but neutrons are necessary for those things to exist. I was making the point that a similar thing can be said about God. Things other than God exist, but not independently of God. Just because there are things that aren't God, does not mean that God is not necessary.
Just because there are things that aren't neutrons doesn't mean that neutrons aren't necessary.

Bit clearer?

and with science someday we will know that reason

That sounds like faith to me. Why is faith in science more acceptable than faith in God? I never said Science was less valid than faith; In fact I think that they dovetail nicely.



and by the same token,
no matter how you absorb
superstition, and how much
it permeates your world view
it doesn't make it any more reality

Well said. I was actually just trying to explain by example, but this was a very nice response. That said, if my worldview is that we can learn about the universe through science, and that the inexplicable first cause could be explained by the existance of things outside matter, and your worldview is the same except that you don't try to fill in the first cause at all, and simply have faith that in the end science will hand it to you, which of us is using their reason and which of us is unquestioningly following the doctrine handed to them?

Tsar Phalanxia
December 7th, 2008, 05:41 PM
I didn't say that neutrons aren't real, I said they aren't reality. I'm saying things besides neutrons exist, but neutrons are necessary for those things to exist. Ia was making the point that a similar thing can be said about God. Things other than God exist, but not independently of God. Just because there are things that aren't God, does not mean that God is not necessary.
Just because there are things that aren't neutrons doesn't mean that neutrons aren't necessary.

Aha, but we have verified evidence that neutrons exist, and not only that, but we can proof they can exist (Sciki, will you do the honours?) You can't say the same thing about God.


That sounds like faith to me. Why is faith in science more acceptable than faith in God? I never said Science was less valid than faith; In fact I think that they dovetail nicely.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Classical-Definition-of-Kno.svg

Religion exclusively occupies the right side of the diagram, as there is no proof it is true. On the contrary, science can exist on both areas of the divide, as you can have a hypothesis which is false, a hypothesis which is true, something which is true but you have not considered, and something which is true and which you know. So faith in science is a misnomer, as science can occupy the whole of the diagram, and is not limited to faith.

It's refreshing to discuss this with an intelligent and rational person, rather than some of the pillocks we get in the hatemail ^_^

Btw, if you;re a Christian, why is your name in Arabic (I presume it's Arabic), unless you're an Arab Christian?

Al Farabi
December 7th, 2008, 06:18 PM
Aha, but we have verified evidence that neutrons exist, and not only that, but we can proof they can exist (Sciki, will you do the honours?) You can't say the same thing about God.

Firstly, I think that there is more or less proof that God can exist, if simply in logic. Addmittedly there is no proof that He does, but it is unquestionable that he CAN. It would not be hard for an all powerful being to leave little to no evidence of his presence. Until God's existance has been proven or disproven completely, everyone is just gonna accept the fact that it's possible.

Additionally, I would guess (I don't actually know...more research needed) that neutrons have never been observed directly. All of the evidence that is available seems to be through indirect interactions. This is no more fundementally known than anything about God, especially for the majority of the population, who are not inolved directly in any research, and know only what they read (like say, christians with the bible).



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Classical-Definition-of-Kno.svg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Classical-Definition-of-Kno.svg)

Religion exclusively occupies the right side of the diagram, as there is no proof it is true. On the contrary, science can exist on both areas of the divide, as you can have a hypothesis which is false, a hypothesis which is true, something which is true but you have not considered, and something which is true and which you know. So faith in science is a misnomer, as science can occupy the whole of the diagram, and is not limited to faith.

Actually, I think you misunderstand the diagram. The left side represents all that is true. The right side represents all that we THINK is true. The overlapping segment is when what we think is true is also what is true. Knowledge is when this happens, and it is also justified.

Anything that we know, or think, or opine, or posit, is in either the right half or the middle, including religion, science, intuition, common sense, and crazy stuff you imagined while on LSD. We don't have access to any of the information in the left half, except where it overlaps with the right.

Plato said that for something to be knowledge it must be justified, believed and true. You can't know anything that you don't also believe.

As long as we are holding with a platonic model (which we are if we stick to that diagram), I might as well add that plato believed that it was possible to 'know' the supreme Good though pure contemplation and the study of the natural world.

Or, in simpler terms, that science can lead to God.

It's refreshing to discuss this with an intelligent and rational person, rather than some of the pillocks we get in the hatemail ^_^

Btw, if you;re a Christian, why is your name in Arabic (I presume it's Arabic), unless you're an Arab Christian?

Well thank you! I love a good theological debate, and I like to think I'm pretty open to new ideas. I'm not here to convert anyone, I just wanna talk about stuff and hopefully gain some insight.

And on my name: Al Farabi was a 9th century C.E. neo-platonist and one of the greatest scientists and philosophers of the muslim tradition. He heavily influenced much of western christian thought. I greatly respect him, so I took the name. I also like having the name of a great philosopher :P

tagnostic
December 7th, 2008, 06:25 PM
I hereby nominate
Al Farabi
for our
Resident Deist Apologist
RDA

loving this

Al Farabi
December 7th, 2008, 07:20 PM
Haha well thank you! I can't think of a more honourable job than inciting people to thought about their beliefs. Someone has to defend faith here...it was getting the crap beaten out of it!

sudikics
December 7th, 2008, 07:31 PM
(Sciki, will you do the honours?)
Haha, thanks Tsar.

One method for finding the atomic number of a group of atoms is to fire them in a straight line and place a magnetic field on one side of them. The degree to which the path of the atom curves determines its mass and therefore its atomic number.

When researchers performed these tests, it worked almost perfectly. I say "almost" because there was an anomoly int he data: some atoms were curving more than they should. This meant that they had more mass. However, their charge distributions matched those of their real atomic numbers. These observations led directly to the discovery of a massive chargeless particle in the nucleus of an atom: the neutron.

Al Farabi
December 7th, 2008, 07:56 PM
These observations led directly to the discovery of a massive chargeless particle in the nucleus of an atom: the neutron.

Ah, but was it really a discovery? Or was it an inferrance?

I think what REALLY happened here, was they noted the mass difference, and said "hmm, what would explain this? Our theory seems strong in all other aspects...I KNOW! What about a charge neutral subatomic particle? That would fix the math!"

The fact that the theory produces accurate predictions does not mean it is correct, but we believe that it is true on faith, and see that it holds with the rest of our beliefs about matter, and so we hold it as fact. There could easily be a new discovery that completely invalidates the existance of the neutron, if it is a stronger theory, and does not include it.

Did you know, for example, that accurate predictions concerning earth were producable with the geocentric model of the universe? Copernicus had to try to show that his theory was stronger, and dedicated a large amount of On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres.

Part of what science means is that until there is a complete, absolutely harmonious model of the universe, there will always be a chance that any or every theory could be tossed into obsolescence at any moment by a new discovery.

You just have to have faith that your current interpretation of experimental results is accurate, and be ready to change it. You do not have Truth yet, and may never.

This is exactly, exactly, the spirit of theology. You have to have faith that your interpretation of holy texts is accurate, but be ready to change it when necessary. I do not have God's Truth, and may (read: likely will) never.

That is how you get to complete knowledge in science, and how you get to complete knowledge of God in theology.

Both are a quest to reach an understanding of the universe that matches the truth of the universe.

Which is why I think that they are both not only noble pursuits, but necessary as well.

tagnostic
December 7th, 2008, 08:05 PM
that was awesome,
it also implies that
you are at heart an
agnostic, admitting
that you might not
ever really know.:icon_cool:

Al Farabi
December 7th, 2008, 08:20 PM
that was awesome,
it also implies that
you are at heart an
agnostic, admitting
that you might not
ever really know.:icon_cool:

The difference between me and an agnostic (and you and an agnostic for that matter, I would guess) is that while accepting that we may never know for sure, we both still believe, fundementally, that when all is said and done, we will be proved right about God.

tagnostic
December 7th, 2008, 08:27 PM
The difference between me and an agnostic (and you and an agnostic for that matter, I would guess) is that while accepting that we may never know for sure, we both still believe, fundementally, that when all is said and done, we will be proved right about God.

hehehehe
i believe that when all is said and done
it will have been said and done
and that all your have
said and done

you'll be the 2nd to know
if there was a why it was done

Loki
December 8th, 2008, 03:48 AM
Well - I'll happily hold my hands up and shout...

"I don't know!"

I just don't know! I want to know, and it drives me mad not knowing!

But splod saw to that with hops and barley. And other things :D

sudikics
December 8th, 2008, 05:36 PM
Ah, but was it really a discovery? Or was it an inferrance?
They inferred its existence, calculated what its properties must be, looked for a particle with those properties, and then found one in the nucleus, right where they thought it should be.
I think what REALLY happened here, was they noted the mass difference, and said "hmm, what would explain this? Our theory seems strong in all other aspects...I KNOW! What about a charge neutral subatomic particle? That would fix the math!"

The fact that the theory produces accurate predictions does not mean it is correct, but we believe that it is true on faith,
Wrong. We have evidence that it is true. Therefore, it's a belief. That's how empirical science works.
and see that it holds with the rest of our beliefs about matter, and so we hold it as fact.
We can use our observations and predictions to make further observations about the universe. The same is not true abotu faith.

http://miscellanea.wellingtongrey.net/comics/2007-01-15-science-vs-faith.png
There could easily be a new discovery that completely invalidates the existance of the neutron, if it is a stronger theory, and does not include it.
True, but that exactly how science works. Nothing is ever 100% certain. We never are pompous enough to assert that we know the Truth. We are always learning. Consider the hubris it takes to say that God did it.
Did you know, for example, that accurate predictions concerning earth were producable with the geocentric model of the universe? Copernicus had to try to show that his theory was stronger, and dedicated a large amount of On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres.
Yes, true, because theories require proof. We did end up proving the helio-centric model. One method of proof was paralax, wich shows that for the entire universe to revolve around the earth, given the distances to other stars, the unverse would have to move faster than the speed of light. (Note: this is not the original proof, btu just one of them.) Another piece of proof was when we actually launched satellites into space and observed heliocentrism.
Part of what science means is that until there is a complete, absolutely harmonious model of the universe, there will always be a chance that any or every theory could be tossed into obsolescence at any moment by a new discovery.
Exactly. Scienc eis very humbling. We don't know a millionth of one percent abotu anything.
You just have to have faith that your current interpretation of experimental results is accurate, and be ready to change it. You do not have Truth yet, and may never.
My money's on never.
This is exactly, exactly, the spirit of theology. You have to have faith that your interpretation of holy texts is accurate, but be ready to change it when necessary. I do not have God's Truth, and may (read: likely will) never.
The first part is correct: ultimately, science and religion both strive to explain the universe around us. The difference: scienific theories are not taken on faith. They have tons of evidence supporting them. A major aspect of religion is faith, where there is no evidence supporting your claims. Therein leis the difference.
That is how you get to complete knowledge in science, and how you get to complete knowledge of God in theology.

Both are a quest to reach an understanding of the universe that matches the truth of the universe.
That last sentecne is rather poetic. Very nice.
Which is why I think that they are both not only noble pursuits, but necessary as well.
Except one has a track record of being right, and the other, by definition, has little-to-no evidence supporting it.

fosley
December 8th, 2008, 07:26 PM
Wait wait wait wait. If God /= reality, God /= necessary? That is not a very helpful or meaningful statement at all. What about neutrons? They are not all of reality, and yet they are pretty needed.I'm not saying that it's impossible for a god to exist, or to be an integral part of something. What I'm saying is that we can't logically prove that a god is required for there to be an afterlife, unless we define "god" in such a way that said god exists by defintion, but at this point it's a silly word game and nothing more. (To be fair, there are other definitions, such as god = "the foundation of all afterlives", that would satify my point as well as god = reality.)

And this seems to ignore the idea of God as Initial Cause. We need a reason that the Big Bang went Boom, don't we?First, a possibly symantec issue: there doesn't have to be an intent behind it. Volcanos erupt, killing thousands of people, and they do so without intent. Second, First Cause is dumb. If God caused the Big Bang, what caused God? This argument applies equally whether we say the cause of the Big Bang was God or some non-God phenomenon, but the point is that God doesn't solve anything, because God isn't exempt from scientific questioning.

More importantly, if we define "god" as "the creator of the Big Bang", we may someday find that God is the cosmic equivilant of a stone landing in a river, and our universe is just a 4D ripple through the water. And, in fact, we've done just that for countless other definitions of "god". The Sun is just a giant ball of thermonuclear fun, the wind is caused by fluctuating temperatures, and disease is caused by microscopic organisms. Why should the cause behind the Big Bang be any different?

And if we define "god" in such a way that God doesn't turn into a pile of molten rock after undergoing rigorous scrutiny, such as "all of reality" or "the absolute first cause of all other causes, assuming reality isn't literally nested infinity layers deep", we introduce two new problems. First, until we can conclusively determine the foundation of reality, we can't really know the nature of God, so any attempts at such things as a bible are bound to fail. Second, it's almost guaranteed that we've excluded god from knowing anything about us, or caring, so why should be concerned with pleasing God?

Additionally, some would argue that while God pervades all things, they are not representative of Him. If you spill your coffee on a piece of paper, there is coffee IN the paper, inseperably, but the paper is not now coffee.But if God is merely coffee on a piece of paper somewhere, why should we assume, without knowing anything about the brand or flavor of coffee, or even whether the coffee is black or has sugar and cream, that God is required for something else in the world?

Tsar Phalanxia
December 8th, 2008, 07:56 PM
Actually, the sun works via a process of fusion, not fission. >.>

fosley
December 8th, 2008, 08:26 PM
thermonuclear (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/thermonuclear):
1. Of, or relating to the fusion of atomic nuclei at high temperatures
2. Of, or relating to the use of atomic weapons based on such fusion, especially as distinguished from those based on fission

Did I miss something? Nuclear fusion in the Sun is caused by the immense heat which is caused by the immense pressure which is caused by gravity, no?

Tsar Phalanxia
December 8th, 2008, 08:28 PM
My bad. Sorry.

tagnostic
December 8th, 2008, 10:32 PM
afk brb
gone fission

Tsar Phalanxia
December 8th, 2008, 10:36 PM
For nuclear submarines?

tagnostic
December 8th, 2008, 10:39 PM
For nuclear submarines?

rofl
i'm using Hula Girls for bait
and 50 ton test line
hang on, its a
fighter

Tsar Phalanxia
December 8th, 2008, 10:45 PM
i'm using Hula Girls for bait
r

Fire the torpedo!

tagnostic
December 8th, 2008, 10:48 PM
Fire the torpedo!

torpedoes
don't reach
the beach
(reels more line in)

Loki
December 8th, 2008, 11:20 PM
Sod the torps.


We have Trident :D

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=wxrWz9XVvls

tagnostic
December 8th, 2008, 11:45 PM
ours is a little
different (http://www.tridentgum.com/)
:icon_eek:

Tsar Phalanxia
December 9th, 2008, 09:22 AM
We make that too (Cadbury's own it)

Loki
December 9th, 2008, 10:42 AM
We make that too (Cadbury's own it)

hahaha - but does it give you that "Just been to the dentists - my teeth are so clean" feeling like Plutonium?

fosley
December 12th, 2008, 04:11 AM
I hate going to the dentist. Always have that floride crap that's all gritty and feels like I just chewed a mouthful of dirt. :(

rmw
December 12th, 2008, 02:17 PM
I hate going to the dentist. Always have that floride crap that's all gritty and feels like I just chewed a mouthful of dirt. :(

Same here. Plus, every time I go, I always have cavities. :icon_mad:

Sister Faith
December 13th, 2008, 10:29 PM
Same here. Plus, every time I go, I always have cavities. :icon_mad:

Wait til you're my age. The cavities get bigger! :icon_eek: (Just had a tooth pulled last week :icon_cry:)

Tsar Phalanxia
December 14th, 2008, 11:42 AM
My teeth are shiny clean ^_^
Although, I have no adult teeth back some of the molars, which means that during my greedy youth, when I pulled out some of my teeth for tooth fairy money, no adult teeth moved into replace them. Which means I have gaps where three of my pre-molars should be.

sudikics
December 14th, 2008, 01:29 PM
*punches Tsar's teeth out in anger*

Tsar Phalanxia
December 14th, 2008, 02:07 PM
Why? Do you use false teeth?
(Ow)

Sister Faith
December 14th, 2008, 08:15 PM
when I pulled out some of my teeth for tooth fairy money

:icon_eek: You really pulled some teeth for tooth fairy money?

Wish I had the balls to do it. I could have saved myself a hefty dentist bill.:icon_evil:

Tsar Phalanxia
December 14th, 2008, 10:43 PM
Yep. They were already wobbly, but I yanked them out. 15 < A lifetime of annoying gaps in teeth.

Sister Faith
December 14th, 2008, 11:12 PM
Yep. They were already wobbly, but I yanked them out. 15 < A lifetime of annoying gaps in teeth.

:icon_lol: You got that much :icon_question::icon_exclaim:
How many did you pull out for X's sake? :icon_eek:

Tsar Phalanxia
December 14th, 2008, 11:15 PM
Only three, and quite far back. If you feel in your teeth the one which directly changes from being a point to a flathead, and one behind that one, I pulled out the two on the bottom and the one on top right. So I don't look like a hillbilly, but food sometimes gets stuck.

fosley
December 15th, 2008, 05:40 AM
Can't you get braces to pull the molars a little closer so there aren't large gaps?

Al Farabi
December 15th, 2008, 05:46 AM
yup

-۞-
December 20th, 2008, 01:20 PM
Haha well thank you! I can't think of a more honourable job than inciting people to thought about their beliefs. Someone has to defend faith here...it was getting the crap beaten out of it!

And there's a lot of crap in it.
What is left when we've been the crap out of religion? The sack?

Are you defending the sack?