Finally, proof there is no God.

[turbobloke]

Moonhawk said:

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.

That's exactly the point I've been making when occasionally dipping in on this thread.

Those are not 'why' questions they are 'how' questions and relate to mechanism not meaning or purpose.

How did the universe arise - science, why did the universe arise - not science but religion.

How did life begin - science, why is not science.

The 'why' questions are questions of meaning and purpose not mechanism (as explained previously). When people use language loosely and ask 'why' it's important to remember that in a scientific question they mean 'how'

Why is the sky blue should be how is the sky blue.

Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 4th March 12:31

[Derek Smith]

ATG said:

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?

Many intelligent clear-thinking people thinking one way does not suggest the simplistic reasons for non-belief are flawed. The psychology of belief in religion that gives clear support for the obvious being ignored. And intelligence is not a defence against some of them.

It is a conceit to suggest that because a person is intelligent and clear thinking they are not susceptible to self deceit. In fact, in certain cases just the opposite because these people know their superiority, have been told of it often enough and they have a well-paid job to prove how clever they are. Yet these are often the people that fraudsters have such fun with.

Gut instinct is, of course, the biggest trap for any decisions. It is female intuition, common sense, the obvious, and science proves on a daily basis that the obvious is so very wrong.

All abrahamic religions are man-made. That is demonstrable. That, to me, and to any believer in the abrahamic religions, shows they are wrong. But whether this is due to original sin or the evidence of history showing that any power base will be modified, corrupted if you will, for selfish reasons.

Why go for you intestines when you can find all the evidence you need in science? History is the ultimate evidence against gut feelings.

[Moonhawk]

turbobloke said:

That's exactly the point I've been making when occasionally dipping in on this thread.

Those are not 'why' questions they are 'how' questions and relate to mechanism not meaning or purpose.

How did the universe arise - science, why did the universe arise - not science but religion.

How did life begin - science, why is not science.

The 'why' questions are questions of meaning and purpose not mechanism (as explained previously). when people use language loosely and ask 'why' it's important to remember than in a scientific question they mean 'why'

Why is the sky blue should be how is the sky blue.

Perhaps they are badly worded "how" questions. But that then leads on to the question - do "why" questions have meaning? Perhaps every "why" question is simply a badly worded "how" when you go right back to first principles. There may be no "why".

[turbobloke]

Derek Smith said:

Why go for you intestines when you can find all the evidence you need in science?

That is categorically not correct!

Science cannot answer 'why' questions...it simply cannot (for the n'th time).

If a person asks 'why was the universe created and why did life form within it' there is absolutely nothing in the weaponry of science, the scientific method, that can approach an answer to those questions.

Atheists are satisfied that there may not be any meaning or purpose.

Theisrs are satisfied that the existence of God provides meaning and purpose.

Choose your side and sit down for a pint, but don't for even half a second think that science can answer questions of meaning and purpose.

[MarshPhantom]

Why are we here? Pure fluke.

What is the meaning of life? There isn't one.

Next.

[turbobloke]

Moonhawk said:

Perhaps every "why" question is simply a badly worded "how" when you go right back to first principles. There may be no "why".

Not at all, questioning the meaning and purpose of existence is not badly worded.

Atheists soe no meaning or purpose, at least nothing linked to a divine being.

Theists see meaning and purpose linked to a divine being.

Science cannot tell you which is correct.

Where a mechanism is sought then how is the correct form of quesiton and science can get to work.

[turbobloke]

MarshPhantom said:

Why are we here? Pure fluke.

What is the meaning of life? There isn't one.

Next.

Yes that's the atheist position and it's an acceptable position of course but it cannot be proved to be correct, or disproved, by the scientific method.

[Moonhawk]

turbobloke said:

Science cannot tell you which is correct.

But neither can religion. Religion can no more answer a "why" question than science can.....all it does is speculate on what may be the meaning (and many religions disagree on what that meaning is).

[killingjoker]

turbobloke said:

MarshPhantom said:

Why are we here? Pure fluke.

What is the meaning of life? There isn't one.

Next.

Yes that's the atheist position and it's an acceptable position of course but it cannot be proved to be correct, or disproved, by the scientific method.

But it makes a lot more fking sense than there being a mythical sky fairy.

[turbobloke]

killingjoker said:

turbobloke said:

MarshPhantom said:

Why are we here? Pure fluke.

What is the meaning of life? There isn't one.

Next.

Yes that's the atheist position and it's an acceptable position of course but it cannot be proved to be correct, or disproved, by the scientific method.

But it makes a lot more fking sense than there being a mythical sky fairy.

To atheists yes it does, to theists it doesn't.

What I've been posting about concerns science, and what it can/cannot do, no more and no less.

[Mrr T]

turbobloke said:

MarshPhantom said:

Why are we here? Pure fluke.

What is the meaning of life? There isn't one.

Next.

Yes that's the atheist position and it's an acceptable position of course but it cannot be proved to be correct, or disproved, by the scientific method.

I am a bit of a pendant but I disagree.

Its a fundamental of the scientific method that you can a) never prove the negative, and b) even the positive may not be the truth but our best current understanding.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

VK, still awaiting your answer to this.

[cymtriks]

WinstonWolf said:

Nope, but some people think he's not real and *God* is

The logic fail in that astounds me. The only difference between you and I is that I've rejected one more god than you.

You are confused because you have chosen to understand only what you want to understand. When shown this you are confused due to this false understanding. The logic fail is all yours.

I'll go through it step by step.

The OP claimed that a theory on the origin of life proved that there was no need for a creator.

I pointed out (perfectly correctly and without any reference to belief, faith or the Bible) that it could equally well show evidence of a divine plan.

You appear to read the OP as proof and my correction of the OP as wrong. This is because you only read what you want to read and what you want to read is that anything, anything at all, connected to religion is automatically wrong.

Then the thread diverged, somehow, to the Ark and the flood.

I pointed out (again perfectly correctly and without any reference to belief or faith, though with references to the Bible in a purely source material context) that a large flood probably did happen in the right place at the right time and that the account of the animals being taken aboard makes sense at the level of a bronze age tribal leader organising a quick evacuation of his farmland.

You appear to have read this as some kind of statement that God exists. This is, again, because you only read what you want to read. If you had actually read it you would see that it is a perfectly reasonable attempt to describe a historical basis for the flood story.

[johnxjsc1985]

MarshPhantom said:

Why are we here? Pure fluke.

What is the meaning of life? There isn't one.

Next.

its as good a reason as anything else on here.

[Derek Smith]

turbobloke said:

That is categorically not correct!

Science cannot answer 'why' questions...it simply cannot (for the n'th time).

If a person asks 'why was the universe created and why did life form within it' there is absolutely nothing in the weaponry of science, the scientific method, that can approach an answer to those questions.

Atheists are satisfied that there may not be any meaning or purpose.

Theisrs are satisfied that the existence of God provides meaning and purpose.

Choose your side and sit down for a pint, but don't for even half a second think that science can answer questions of meaning and purpose.

So why do the planets circle the sun? Can only an invented being provide the answer? Or could, for instance, Newton and Einstein?

Why is the meat and drink of science. Of course it is, that's what it does. Observation shows evolution, science answers why it happens.

If people want to believe there is a purpose to the universe and that they know what it is, then OK. Nothing I can say will make they doubt their assurance. Not that I would try, not that I would bother. However, there is a certain arrogance in this. Followers of various religions believe that their answer is the only right one. Logic suggests this is wrong, or do I mean gut feeling.

If religions are man-made, and they quite obviously are, then the revealed purpose is similarly man-made. So those who believe that they know the reason for existence are merely repeating what some other bloke - almost always a bloke - has said. Some bloke who often was writing at a time when it meant scratching on wax.

So why is the speciality of science. It provides reasons for things happening. That much is obvious.

No one provides a reason for existence, not even religion. I've read the bible and there is no suggestion in it of a reason why it was created other than as a moment's caprice. Are we just the puppet of this being? That's a terrible thought.

If you or some other believer thinks that their religion provides an answer to the most fundamental of questions, then you or they are kidding your/themselves. You have invented you answer. It might be right, but, let's face it, the odds against that are astronomical. There is no answer. What's the problem in accepting that?

The rather odd thing is that most people invent their own religion in the sense that they follow some of the tenets of some sect and discard others. In essence, the ultimate conceit.

There might be a god. I don't know but in this I am joined by every person alive, dead or to be born. I find this infuriating. I'd like to know, but have to accept that I never will. However, the odds against any religion being right are so long as to be zero in practice.

I am not an atheist, agnostic or any other group. I just don't believe in any religion, even the one I invented when I was a kid.

[WinstonWolf]

cymtriks said:

WinstonWolf said:

Nope, but some people think he's not real and *God* is

The logic fail in that astounds me. The only difference between you and I is that I've rejected one more god than you.

You are confused because you have chosen to understand only what you want to understand. When shown this you are confused due to this false understanding. The logic fail is all yours.

I'll go through it step by step.

The OP claimed that a theory on the origin of life proved that there was no need for a creator.

I pointed out (perfectly correctly and without any reference to belief, faith or the Bible) that it could equally well show evidence of a divine plan.

You appear to read the OP as proof and my correction of the OP as wrong. This is because you only read what you want to read and what you want to read is that anything, anything at all, connected to religion is automatically wrong.

Then the thread diverged, somehow, to the Ark and the flood.

I pointed out (again perfectly correctly and without any reference to belief or faith, though with references to the Bible in a purely source material context) that a large flood probably did happen in the right place at the right time and that the account of the animals being taken aboard makes sense at the level of a bronze age tribal leader organising a quick evacuation of his farmland.

You appear to have read this as some kind of statement that God exists. This is, again, because you only read what you want to read. If you had actually read it you would see that it is a perfectly reasonable attempt to describe a historical basis for the flood story.

I am confused because you seem to think any of that matters...

The only difference between an atheist and a believer is the rejection of one more god...

[turbobloke]

Derek Smith said:

turbobloke said:

That is categorically not correct!

Science cannot answer 'why' questions...it simply cannot (for the n'th time).

If a person asks 'why was the universe created and why did life form within it' there is absolutely nothing in the weaponry of science, the scientific method, that can approach an answer to those questions.

Atheists are satisfied that there may not be any meaning or purpose.

Theisrs are satisfied that the existence of God provides meaning and purpose.

Choose your side and sit down for a pint, but don't for even half a second think that science can answer questions of meaning and purpose.

So why do the planets circle the sun? Can only an invented being provide the answer? Or could, for instance, Newton and Einstein?

That's not why, it's how. How do the planets circle the Sun is answerable as you say within classical Newtonian physics and within the wider scope of General Relativity.

You're clearly still stuck when it comes to differentiating between questions of mechanism (how) and questions of meaning and purpose (why). How do the planets circle the Sun, that's a scientific question. Science can address fundamental questions of the how variety e.g. how did the universe begin, but not why the universe bagan.

As myself and others indicated earler, atheists are content with there being no meaning or purpose, theists are not. Either way, science cannot tackle questions of meaning or purpose. When you said "why go for you(r) intestines when you can find all the evidence you need in science?" it was and is categorically wrong because science cannot offer anything whatsoever in answer to the fundamental questions of meaning and purpose around the origin of the universe and life within it.

There's little point repeating the essential and irreducible difference between these two types of question. If you still don't get it we can go back to debating precisely how bad CMD is.

[Burwood]

turbobloke said:

Derek Smith said:

turbobloke said:

That is categorically not correct!

Science cannot answer 'why' questions...it simply cannot (for the n'th time).

If a person asks 'why was the universe created and why did life form within it' there is absolutely nothing in the weaponry of science, the scientific method, that can approach an answer to those questions.

Atheists are satisfied that there may not be any meaning or purpose.

Theisrs are satisfied that the existence of God provides meaning and purpose.

Choose your side and sit down for a pint, but don't for even half a second think that science can answer questions of meaning and purpose.

So why do the planets circle the sun? Can only an invented being provide the answer? Or could, for instance, Newton and Einstein?

That's not why, it's how. How do the planets circle the Sun is answerable as you say within classical Newtonian physics and within the wider scope of General Relativity.

You're clearly still stuck when it comes to differentiating between questions of mechanism (how) and questions of meaning and purpose (why). How do the planets circle the Sun, that's a scientific question. Science can address fundamental questions of the how variety e.g. how did the universe begin, but not why the universe bagan.

As myself and others indicated earler, atheists are content with there being no meaning or purpose, theists are not. Either way, science cannot tackle questions of meaning or purpose. When you said "why go for you(r) intestines when you can find all the evidence you need in science?" it was and is categorically wrong because science cannot offer anything whatsoever in answer to the fundamental questions of meaning and purpose around the origin of the universe and life within it.

There's little point repeating the essential and irreducible difference between these two types of question. If you still don't get it we can go back to debating precisely how bad CMD is.

Nice Turbo

RICHARD DAWKINS: Science is working on the problem of the antecedent factors that lead to our existence. Now, “why” in any further sense than that, why in the sense of purpose is, in my opinion, not a meaningful question. You cannot ask a question like “Why down mountains exist?” as though mountains have some kind of purpose.

And again…

RICHARD DAWKINS: “Why?” is a silly question. “Why?” is a silly question. You can ask, “What are the factors that led to something coming into existence?” That’s a sensible question. But “What is the purpose universe?” is a silly question. It has no meaning.

[turbobloke]

Burwood said:

turbobloke said:

Derek Smith said:

turbobloke said:

That is categorically not correct!

Science cannot answer 'why' questions...it simply cannot (for the n'th time).

If a person asks 'why was the universe created and why did life form within it' there is absolutely nothing in the weaponry of science, the scientific method, that can approach an answer to those questions.

Atheists are satisfied that there may not be any meaning or purpose.

Theisrs are satisfied that the existence of God provides meaning and purpose.

Choose your side and sit down for a pint, but don't for even half a second think that science can answer questions of meaning and purpose.

So why do the planets circle the sun? Can only an invented being provide the answer? Or could, for instance, Newton and Einstein?

That's not why, it's how. How do the planets circle the Sun is answerable as you say within classical Newtonian physics and within the wider scope of General Relativity.

You're clearly still stuck when it comes to differentiating between questions of mechanism (how) and questions of meaning and purpose (why). How do the planets circle the Sun, that's a scientific question. Science can address fundamental questions of the how variety e.g. how did the universe begin, but not why the universe bagan.

As myself and others indicated earler, atheists are content with there being no meaning or purpose, theists are not. Either way, science cannot tackle questions of meaning or purpose. When you said "why go for you(r) intestines when you can find all the evidence you need in science?" it was and is categorically wrong because science cannot offer anything whatsoever in answer to the fundamental questions of meaning and purpose around the origin of the universe and life within it.

There's little point repeating the essential and irreducible difference between these two types of question. If you still don't get it we can go back to debating precisely how bad CMD is.

Nice Turbo

RICHARD DAWKINS: Science is working on the problem of the antecedent factors that lead to our existence. Now, “why” in any further sense than that, why in the sense of purpose is, in my opinion, not a meaningful question. You cannot ask a question like “Why down mountains exist?” as though mountains have some kind of purpose.

And again…

RICHARD DAWKINS: “Why?” is a silly question. “Why?” is a silly question. You can ask, “What are the factors that led to something coming into existence?” That’s a sensible question. But “What is the purpose universe?” is a silly question. It has no meaning.

Indeed.

And there we have the atheist proposition. The theist proposition is that 'why' is not a silly question, it's a meaningful question.

Science is never going to adjudicate on that point. It has no means to do so.

[Moonhawk]

turbobloke said:

As myself and others indicated earler, atheists are content with there being no meaning or purpose, theists are not. Either way, science cannot tackle questions of meaning or purpose.

But ultimately - neither can religion.

The best religion can do is to assume "why" questions have meaning or are valid and speculate on, or assert what the answers to those questions may be.