Finally, proof there is no God.
Discussion
johnxjsc1985 said:
I am starting to feel a bit left out of this thread. I don't believe in God, I have never seen an Alien or a UFO and I don't really understand a lot of the stuff the scientists come up with.
Yet I bet when people look up at a clear sky like tonight we all feel a bit insignificant.
For me I am still with science and their honest attempts to understand.
It is science that shows how insignificant we all are. A bit of rock and ice will hit us some time in the future and we will all be killed, unless some of us are elsewhere I suppose. But the universe doesn't care about us.Yet I bet when people look up at a clear sky like tonight we all feel a bit insignificant.
For me I am still with science and their honest attempts to understand.
Yet, and this is quite exciting, this big place is observer centred. So each individual does matter.
Insignificant isn't bad. Much worse if the (probable) fact that you'll be dead in a few years and that's it for you.
Once I became a man I put away childish things: hopefully we'll discard our comfort blankets and accept our fate.
Once again, Derek, your opinion of religious people is wide of the mark. So many religious people I know do not fear God and do not seek the 'comfort' blanket', instead they seek to make this life enjoyable for themselves and for others. Maybe it's time you put aside this childish prejudice?
One point I like to raise: people have suggested that if another intelligent race is found then gods go out of the window.
I would point that we are not the only intelligent race on this planet. Further, whilst those intelligent life forms other than us are not seemingly as intelligent as us, there were other races which were more or less our equal. Some suggest they might well have been more intelligent as it is a conceit to suggest that super intelligence makes you fitter to survive.
There was a discussion on TV some years ago about signals from space and the group discussed how we would recognise an intelligent species should we come across it. (No way that would get on prime time nowadays.) Most of their suggestions were attacked by others, things like adapting their environment and it being pointed out that many tribes that existed at the time had not modified their environment to any extent. Houses were another thing and then nomads were mentioned. It was knockabout stuff.
Someone suggested that Neanderthals were less intelligent that 'us' and this was leapt on by others.
The general consensus was that any description of intelligence would cover great apes, some monkeys, some mammals in the sea and possibly other creatures.
So does that wind it up for gods?
I would point that we are not the only intelligent race on this planet. Further, whilst those intelligent life forms other than us are not seemingly as intelligent as us, there were other races which were more or less our equal. Some suggest they might well have been more intelligent as it is a conceit to suggest that super intelligence makes you fitter to survive.
There was a discussion on TV some years ago about signals from space and the group discussed how we would recognise an intelligent species should we come across it. (No way that would get on prime time nowadays.) Most of their suggestions were attacked by others, things like adapting their environment and it being pointed out that many tribes that existed at the time had not modified their environment to any extent. Houses were another thing and then nomads were mentioned. It was knockabout stuff.
Someone suggested that Neanderthals were less intelligent that 'us' and this was leapt on by others.
The general consensus was that any description of intelligence would cover great apes, some monkeys, some mammals in the sea and possibly other creatures.
So does that wind it up for gods?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
That must be a stance for those with faith. I am happy that there is no god but if you divvy up the proof then I will change my mind. The universe around fits quite well without a superior being, for me that is. And I am quite happy with entropy and all that entails (as the theory is at the moment). Of course, stranger things have happened at sea.
supertouring said:
So, is that many or all or just a select few that you know?
I know religiious people who are horrible people, how does that happen?
Have a poll on PH.I know religiious people who are horrible people, how does that happen?
Religous people - do you do it for this life or the next?
Also make the individuals post so the post count tallies with the vote.
You don't have to be religious to live a decent live or have a conscious what is right or wrong.My wife is catholic and I encouraged her to go to back to church if that is what she wanted.I don't know if there is a God or not it is what you experience in your live or how you feel to find your own way.I nearly died of cancer very lucky to survive and I must admit I have prayed to a higher power.Maybe I was talking to myself I don't know.
I have listened to Richard Dawkins and what he says makes a lot of sense.I have also travelled to Lourdes in France and it did give me a lot of peace and fulfilment.Regarding heaven or hell I think we create this ourself in our lifetime.Where our spirit ends up when we die I don't know that is anybody's guess.>
I have listened to Richard Dawkins and what he says makes a lot of sense.I have also travelled to Lourdes in France and it did give me a lot of peace and fulfilment.Regarding heaven or hell I think we create this ourself in our lifetime.Where our spirit ends up when we die I don't know that is anybody's guess.>
jmorgan said:
That must be a stance for those with faith. I am happy that there is no god but if you divvy up the proof then I will change my mind. The universe around fits quite well without a superior being, for me that is. And I am quite happy with entropy and all that entails (as the theory is at the moment). Of course, stranger things have happened at sea.
Exactly. It is religion that makes the question unanswerable. Science is happy to find and accept an answer - the only caveat is that the data and reasoning that leads to that answer must undergo the same scrutiny as any other. God is not a special case whereby we relax the rules.anonymous said:
[redacted]
They are hardly going to admit that they are selfish twunts who want to screw this world for all they can - but who hope to get into heaven by repenting their sins on their death bed are they? 
Not all religious people are like this of course - that would be ridiculous to suggest - but I have met enough to know they are hardly an insignificant minority.
Moonhawk said:
jmorgan said:
That must be a stance for those with faith. I am happy that there is no god but if you divvy up the proof then I will change my mind. The universe around fits quite well without a superior being, for me that is. And I am quite happy with entropy and all that entails (as the theory is at the moment). Of course, stranger things have happened at sea.
Exactly. It is religion that makes the question unanswerable. Science is happy to find and accept an answer - the only caveat is that the data and reasoning that leads to that answer must undergo the same scrutiny as any other. God is not a special case whereby we relax the rules.I think it is self-evident that some intelligent, otherwise demonstrably clear-thinking people have religious faith. That suggests that the simplistic reasons why religious faith is silly and untenable (many of which have been trotted out on this thread) are are fatally flawed. If you think you've got a simple point that "disproves religion", best to assume you're wrong. Plenty of people have spent a lot of time thinking about this stuff before. All the low hanging fruit had been picked. (Dawkins in my opinion falls into this trap.)
I reckon it all really boils down to gut instinct. For example, does it seem plausible to you that "meaning" is fundamentally absent from existence? I have no problem with that outlook at all. To others it seems fundamentally silly; a deliberate way of avoiding a lot of reasonable questions that science can't answer. Our primary experience of existing is after all dominated by social interaction. Friendship, responsibilities, etc are utterly fundamental to our daily experience. It takes a certain degree of intellectual arrogance to say "all that is obviously the consequences of a bunch of subatomic interactions that are a bit like a game of snooker". I don't have any problem believing that it is, but I can quite understand why others put something like "love" at the very centre of their understanding of existence. It is not first order obviously wrong to do so, and failing to recognise that strikes me as rather blinkered.
And the gut instinct over some fantasy pure dettached logical inference is of course a perfectly normal and fundamental part of the development of Physics. It determines the type of models people think are worth proposing. It sets the bar on the burden of proof. If something seems pretty obvious we're willing to accept it. If it sounds mental, we'll demand some good evidence. QM is an obvious case in point. Can we accept the spooky weirdness? Some can. Some think it has got to be fundamentally flawed.
I reckon it all really boils down to gut instinct. For example, does it seem plausible to you that "meaning" is fundamentally absent from existence? I have no problem with that outlook at all. To others it seems fundamentally silly; a deliberate way of avoiding a lot of reasonable questions that science can't answer. Our primary experience of existing is after all dominated by social interaction. Friendship, responsibilities, etc are utterly fundamental to our daily experience. It takes a certain degree of intellectual arrogance to say "all that is obviously the consequences of a bunch of subatomic interactions that are a bit like a game of snooker". I don't have any problem believing that it is, but I can quite understand why others put something like "love" at the very centre of their understanding of existence. It is not first order obviously wrong to do so, and failing to recognise that strikes me as rather blinkered.
And the gut instinct over some fantasy pure dettached logical inference is of course a perfectly normal and fundamental part of the development of Physics. It determines the type of models people think are worth proposing. It sets the bar on the burden of proof. If something seems pretty obvious we're willing to accept it. If it sounds mental, we'll demand some good evidence. QM is an obvious case in point. Can we accept the spooky weirdness? Some can. Some think it has got to be fundamentally flawed.
jmorgan said:
Which is why I found the claim that was put forward earlier on, that claim that an atheist is closed minded.
I never got that argument - despite it being trotted out pretty much every time this subject comes up. Very few atheists are so opposed to the idea of god that they would deny it's/his existence in spite of evidence to the contrary. I am quite willing to believe in the existence of god - but I do require evidence (as I would for any other extraordinary claim).
Religious adherents on the other hand seem totally opposed to the idea that god may not in fact exist and that he/it is a human construct.
Who has the closed mind?
Moonhawk said:
God is not a special case whereby we relax the rules.
Could you explain what rules might need to be relaxed?Responding as a scientist, the scientific method cannot apply to the existence of a God where the existence relates to meaning or purpose as there is no approach within science to questions which begin 'why'.
How the universe came into being, how life first formed, all of that is capable of scientific analysis. The only way a theist's God gets squeezed out is if they were relying on God to create the universe and life. That's a creationist perspective, surely we're not taking that seriously at this stage?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
What 'reward' is it that requires religious belief though?I could work to make my local neighbourhood, country or even the world a better place, I could help those in need or those with less than I have, I could donate all of my money to helping others, and I could take great satisfaction in the good I am doing, in seeing people better themselves or achieve things they could never have achieved before. I see how all of this could be rewarding, but I would not need to have any faith in God/god/gods to do any of it, and indeed there are many people in the world today who are doing just that.
So what extra 'reward' is a religious person getting from their faith, if it is not either to comfort them, or to ensure their 'soul' is saved after they die?
turbobloke said:
Could you explain what rules might need to be relaxed?
You have kinda anwered your own question in the next paragraph.turbobloke said:
Responding as a scientist, the scientific method cannot apply to the existence of a God where the existence relates to meaning or purpose as there is no approach within science to questions which begin 'why'.
But the question of god starting with "why" is an assumption. We have no information to suggest that the question of god has to start with "why". I would also question the idea that science can't answer "why" questions in all cases:Why does a rainbow form.
Why does the sun appear to track across the sky during the day.
Why does bread go mouldy.
Science has provided answers to all of these questions.
turbobloke said:
How the universe came into being, how life first formed, all of that is capable of scientific analysis. The only way a theist's God gets squeezed out is if they were relying on God to create the universe and life. That's a creationist perspective, surely we're not taking that seriously at this stage?
One would hope not - but the goalposts do seem to get moved quite often and god is often slotted into the gaps in our current understanding (hence the phrase "god of the gaps"). As our understanding of the universe has increased - god has been pushed further and further back. Instead of him creating the earth and life on it fully formed - many religious adherents are still happy to suggest that god is the ultimate creator of the universe. It's still creationism of a sorts - but the timeline has been pushed back.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff