Finally, proof there is no God.

[turbobloke]

Moonhawk said:

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.

Quite so, hence faith.

[killingjoker]

turbobloke said:

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.

Is there a 'god'? Hahahaha, stoppit... i can't breathe for laughing so much.
I can see tangible proof of things with science but religion can't seem to provide any proof of a 'god' at all.
Anyway, carry on as this is very entertaining and i have said my bit anyway. Helpful input and all that

[Moonhawk]

turbobloke said:

Moonhawk said:

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.

Quite so, hence faith.

So the whole 'science cannot address "why" questions' was a red herring.

[turbobloke]

killingjoker said:

turbobloke said:

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.

Is there a 'god'? Hahahaha, stoppit...

Where in my post did I discuss that question - nowhere, I've been posting around the nature of scientific enquiry and what the limitations of the scientific method are.

killingjoker said:

i can't breathe for laughing so much.

Be careful not to pull a muscle

killingjoker said:

I can see tangible proof of things with science...

You can see answers to 'how' questions - when questions are asked using the language of science (how) then the scientific method has a chance of providing an answer. Science has no means of addressing 'why' questions, when the form of question addresses fundamental issues of meaning and purpose.

killingjoker said:

but religion can't seem to provide any proof of a 'god' at all.

Surely that's self-evident? If religion could provide such proof, everyone above a reasonably low level of cognitive ability would be a theist.

killingjoker said:

Anyway, carry on as this is very entertaining and i have said my bit anyway.

That's what an online public forum is all about

killingjoker said:

Helpful input and all that

It's all grist to the mill.

[turbobloke]

Moonhawk said:

turbobloke said:

Moonhawk said:

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.

Quite so, hence faith.

So the whole 'science cannot address "why" questions' was a red herring.

How on earth do you reach that conclusion? That post was about what religion can and cannot address. I was agreeing with you that while science cannot achieve disproof of God, nor can religion achieve proof. Your red herring response makes no sense.

Science cannot address 'why' questions of meaning and purpose, only 'how' questions about mechanism and process.

There are no fish of any colour involved. My post was in answer to the erroneous point that science can disprove the existence of a God or 'win' the argument with religion. Science has no means of doing so, but then religion has no means of proof either.

It appears that you're desperate to find a winner in terms of science vs religion and there isn't one. Science cannot disprove God, religion cannot prove God.

[Derek Smith]

Moonhawk said:

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.

Assuming we are moving on from why to meaning and purpose: there is no valid answer because it would depend on a being being responsible for the creation and having a reason for doing so. None of us have any evidence of this being so any 'explanation' - the idea is farcical - is impossible to fathom.

Implicit in such questions is the belief that there must be a reason for the world to exist with an ultimate purpose in relation to you. This is a stupendous conceit. Why you? Why does there have to be, from your point of view, a purpose? Given the size of the universe, why should you be important to it? Mind you, the universe is observer centric so a person is important. What is irrelevant is who that person is.

Why should a god value you more than a mouse, the one eaten by a cat? If there was a purpose, then the purpose of the mouse was to be prey to a cat.

To suggest we are the ultimate, the whole reason the universe was created . . . well! Anything less and we are just taking up space.

Religion cannot give meaning and purpose. Even if we accept the very questionable premise that they exist. It would require a god and no one has any idea who or what it is. Without knowing what any specific god is, we cannot know or define a purpose.

Any bloke who tells you otherwise is selling something, probably a religion. Or something else he's made.

I'll accept the possibility of a god. I know all religions are man-made, and have been bastardised over the years. So to believe any of them, or that they hold the answer to life, the universe and everything is illogical.

I'm not an atheist. I'm an areligionist. I'm open to ideas, other than that any bloke knows of any purpose for everything.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

I have to say, and this is purely a personal view, that I have no interest in "why?" questions. I don't care why we're here, and I'm not bothered about understanding the point of my existence.

Why am I here? That's no more a matter for debate than "Why does a nail go rusty outside?" We know how, oxidation of ferrous metal and all that, but what's the point? Why does it happen. What's the benefit? What's the purpose? To be honest, I just don't care.

I am endless fascinate by how things happen. But why....meh.

[Moonhawk]

turbobloke said:

How on earth do you reach that conclusion? That post was about what religion can and cannot address. I was agreeing with you that while science cannot achieve disproof of God, nor can religion achieve proof. Your red herring response makes no sense.

Hang on a sec - "Proof of god" wasn't the question that was being discussed in our sub thread. It was whether science can provide answers to "why" questions.

I suggested that religion cannot answer these questions either - and you seemed to agree with your "quite so" statement above.

turbobloke said:

Science cannot address 'why' questions of meaning and purpose, only 'how' questions about mechanism and process.

Neither can religion - all it can do is speculate and assert.

turbobloke said:

There are no fish of any colour involved. My post was in answer to the erroneous point that science can disprove the existence of a God or 'win' the argument with religion. Science has no means of doing so, but then religion has no means of proof either.

I never asserted that science can disprove god - I even stated categorically that it cannot earlier in the thread - but we weren't discussing the question of the "existence of god".

turbobloke said:

It appears that you're desperate to find a winner in terms of science vs religion and there isn't one. Science cannot disprove God, religion cannot prove God.

I am attempting to do no such thing - merely pointing out that far from giving answers to questions that science cannot answer - religion in fact does no such thing - it merely speculates and asserts.

[supertouring]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I was not interested in others opinions, after all, they have already shown the lack of mental capacity to make rational decisions by becoming religious.

I was just interested why you thought it was only the religious that could do good things in this life?

[NWTony]

Just off on a tangent, but are there any "why" questions that cannot be phrased as "how" questions?

"Why do you you love your children"? can be rephrased as "How has it arisen that you love your children"? without meaningful difference in the answer?

Is the whole "why" thing important or a complete red herring? As the previous quote indicated there is no why to things unless you predetermine a purpose. A mountain has no why unless you first state that a thing has a purpose and in order for a thing to have a purpose, you must impart one onto it? I think what I'm saying is that first you have to have state God and then you need answer to why? The idea of God arises first then the need for why emerges from it? So if you don't say God then you don't need to answer "why".

Hmmmm. I may be getting too deep or possibly just out of my depth

[otolith]

I see no reason to believe that anyone not already swayed by evidence for the non-supernatural origins of life will have their mind changed by any further evidence. They are immune to reason.

[turbobloke]

NWTony said:

Just off on a tangent, but are there any "why" questions that cannot be phrased as "how" questions?

"Why do you you love your children"? can be rephrased as "How has it arisen that you love your children"? without meaningful difference in the answer?

Is the whole "why" thing important or a complete red herring?

It's not, the language matters

There are questions that should be phrased 'how' and questions that should be 'why' but in common parlance the two are confused.

When dealing in matters of law we're reasonably accustomed to words that have a meaning in everyday life and another in law. Lawyers will be aware self-evidently, due to their work involving legalese day in and day out. The word 'determine' for example, this usually means to cause something to happen in a certain way or establish by research. In law it can mean 'come to an end' but I would defer to lawyers on the precise wording.

If somebody asks a question which science is expected or asked to answer then the language needs to be precise within the meaning and scope of the scientific method. Such questions should begin 'how' not why. When a person asks 'why does this apple fall to the ground' the strict answer to the question as phrased is 'because you let go' whereas 'how did the apple fall to the ground' will get an answer around there being an unopposed force of gravity etc.

In religion the issues of meaning and purpose are important (to theists) and to explore these issues the questions asked should begin 'why' as in 'why does the universe exist'. How the universe came into existence is a matter for science, why it exists is a matter for religion, and I already acknowledged that atheists will see the question to be pointless and have no truck with religion. That's not disputed, but to theists it has a point and the question is meaningful. Science cannot do anything to resolve these two contradictory positions.

There are no coloured fish around.

[Moonhawk]

turbobloke said:

In religion the issues of meaning and purpose are important (to theists) and to explore these issues the questions asked should begin 'why' as in 'why does the universe exist'. How the universe came into existence is a matter for science, why it exists is a matter for religion, and I already acknowledged that atheists will see the question to be pointless and have no truck with religion. That's not disputed, but to theists it has a point and the question is meaningfuk. Science cannot do anything to resolve these two contradictory positions.

But again - religion gets you no closer to the answers to "why" questions than science does.

You appear to be suggesting that religion picks up and answers the questions that science cannot answer - but this is clearly not the case.

Is it a case that some people just don't like to admit they don't know and so will accept any answer - even if that answer is incorrect or meaningless.

Q: Why is the sky blue?
A: Buttered scones.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

NWTony said:

"Why do you you love your children"? can be rephrased as "How has it arisen that you love your children"? without meaningful difference in the answer?

I disagree.

If someone asked my how I loved my children, I'd think the answer was something to do with neurons and electric firing and endorphins and all that stuff. The evolutionary reasons behind it. The physical responses that go on in response to love. That's interesting

If someone asked me why, I'd say because they're great. That's of no interest to anyone else.

[turbobloke]

Moonhawk said:

turbobloke said:

In religion the issues of meaning and purpose are important (to theists) and to explore these issues the questions asked should begin 'why' as in 'why does the universe exist'. How the universe came into existence is a matter for science, why it exists is a matter for religion, and I already acknowledged that atheists will see the question to be pointless and have no truck with religion. That's not disputed, but to theists it has a point and the question is meaningfuk. Science cannot do anything to resolve these two contradictory positions.

But again - religion gets you no closer to the answers to "why" questions than science does.

And again - I have never claimed otherwise.

Moonhawk said:

Q: Why is the sky blue?
A: Buttered scones.

Yes neat humour there, but the question is misphrased if a scientific response is sought.

How the sky comes to appear blue is related intially to the spectrum of sunlight containing certain wavelengths of emr, then scattering of that light at different wavelengths to different degrees by particles of various sizes in the atmosphere. From there we can go to chemical reactions on the surface of the retina and the nature of nerve impulses along the optic nerve. At the point where the brain enters the scene, buttered scones could be apt

Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 4th March 16:58

[Mrr T]

turbobloke said:

How on earth do you reach that conclusion? That post was about what religion can and cannot address. I was agreeing with you that while science cannot achieve disproof of God, nor can religion achieve proof. Your red herring response makes no sense.

How about if God put in an appearance? That would count as proof.

[turbobloke]

"You appear to be suggesting that religion picks up and answers the questions that science cannot answer - but this is clearly not the case."

By way of a separate response for emphasis, that is not the case. The appearance you claim is - with respect - your misperception, it has nothing to do with what I've posted.

The point I'm making is around the scientific method and what questions science can resolve and those it cannot, and the potential confusion that can arise from language appropriate to the scientific method as opposed to common parlance in everyday life. The legalese analogy in my previous post may not be perfect but it's not too bad.

I have made no claim as to religion providing any answers in the formal sense, since to atheists religion offers nothing and certainly no answers, whereas to theists it provides what is to them a satisfactory response to the fundamental 'why' questions such as 'why does the universe exist'.

Theists find meaning and purpose from religion, atheists don't consider questions of meaning and purpose to have any relevance as per the RD comments cited earlier by Burwood. Take another look there if you wish.

[turbobloke]

Mrr T said:

turbobloke said:

How on earth do you reach that conclusion? That post was about what religion can and cannot address. I was agreeing with you that while science cannot achieve disproof of God, nor can religion achieve proof. Your red herring response makes no sense.

How about if God put in an appearance? That would count as proof.

Watch out for highly advanced aliens with false ID

[Moonhawk]

turbobloke said:

Moonhawk said:

turbobloke said:

In religion the issues of meaning and purpose are important (to theists) and to explore these issues the questions asked should begin 'why' as in 'why does the universe exist'. How the universe came into existence is a matter for science, why it exists is a matter for religion, and I already acknowledged that atheists will see the question to be pointless and have no truck with religion. That's not disputed, but to theists it has a point and the question is meaningfuk. Science cannot do anything to resolve these two contradictory positions.

But again - religion gets you no closer to the answers to "why" questions than science does.

And again - I have never claimed otherwise.

Moonhawk said:

Q: Why is the sky blue?
A: Buttered scones.

Yes neat humour there, but the question is misphrased if a scientific response is sought.

How the sky comes to be appear blue is related intially to the spectrum of sunlight containing certain wavelengths of emr, then scattering of that light at different wavelengths to different degrees by particles of various sizes in the atmosphere. From there we can go to chemical reactions on the surface of the retina and the nature of nerve impulses along the optic nerve. At the point where the brain enters the scene, buttered scones could be apt

I never said you have - but can you now understand why I think the question is a red herring.

If neither science nor religion answers "why" questions - then there seems to have been no purpose in highlighting the fact that science doesn't.

Highlighting that fact hasn't moved the discussion on at all.....science doesn't answer "why" questions, but neither does religion......um ok....now what?

Perhaps my "blue sky" example is a little facetious - but it does illustrate the point that just because you attempt to answer a "why" question - doesn't mean the answer you give is correct or meaningful.

Also - I never stipulated that I was after a scientific response. I am aware of the physical and chemical mechanisms involved in making the sky appear blue to us - so don't require an answer on the "how".

[ATG]

Moonhawk said:

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.

Yes and there's nothing wrong with that. Pretty much by definition that is satisfactory for someone with religious faith. It only seems like a problem or a short coming if you mistakenly think that religion is trying to be a science.