Finally, proof there is no God.

Finally, proof there is no God.

Author
Discussion

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Wednesday 4th March 2015
quotequote all
Moonhawk said:
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 meaningful. 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 wink
I never said you have - but can you now understand why I think the question is a red herring...
In all honesty I cannot, not least because it isn't, as set out many times now. If you're expecting science to answer a question, first make sure it's a question science can answer. Those are the key points from the OP and the resulting posts at which points I offered twopen'orth to the thread.

Beyond that, buttered scones.

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Wednesday 4th March 2015
quotequote all
ATG said:
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.
Exactly.

anonymous-user

53 months

Wednesday 4th March 2015
quotequote all
supertouring said:
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?
First comment - you don't care what others feel about themselves, only about what you feel about them, and your mind is made up about them anyway! Says so much about you, not about anybody else.

Also - nice kop-out! hehe


Second comment, where did I say only religious people do good things?



Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 4th March 19:51

anonymous-user

53 months

Wednesday 4th March 2015
quotequote all
Moonhawk said:
So the whole 'science cannot address "why" questions' was a red herring.
Again, the whole science versus religion argument is a red herring because the two things are not competing concepts.
The main point of many so-called Atheists on here is that they simply do not like religion and do not want other people to be religious, it is them who drag science into this to try to hide behind. It's quite backwards to think that disproving Noah happened exactly as written shows the Bible is entirely a work or fiction, as it is to think 'no God' proves 'no Jesus' or some untested and unproven hypothesis about the reason for life proves anything about anything else at all!
So many attempts to ride the coat-tails of science in order to justify baseless and irrational thoughts, so far only serving to make a mockery of science.

anonymous-user

53 months

Wednesday 4th March 2015
quotequote all
otolith said:
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.
What evidence is there?

Derek Smith

45,512 posts

247 months

Wednesday 4th March 2015
quotequote all
ATG said:
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.
There are no answers to provide. Religion has moved onto pointless answers because science has frustrated its attempts to answer why things happen, which is what science does. It is not even philosophy. Once the limitations of belief in a religion come into play then dogma stops any sensible answers. if there is no religious limitations, then it is not a religion.

A religion limits. That is its prime function. Beliefs are expounded and so discussion and free thought are both emasculated. Like a sport, the first sign it exists is when rules are created.

There is no meaning or purpose in the universe without there being a god and there is no evidence of a god so what discussions on meaning and purpose are is nothing more than Loose Women for men (so to speak).

If religionists want to fool themselves into trying to provide answers then they need science. For scientists to explain the universe they need to exclude religion.

If there is a god/gods then science will find him/her/them, not religionists. The first intimation there is a god/gods will come from scientists. Not only will I have to admit that I thought they were highly unlikely but religionists will have to admit they were wrong as it is extremely unlikely this god/gods can be bothered whether two blokes bugger one-another or a woman is covered from head to feet in black. Or any of the other restrictions that those in charge of religions just love to enforce on others. He won't even bother to point out that a fish is an animal.

All we need for a god/gods to be proved is for one little miracle, one suspension of the laws of the universe, one little feeding of the 5000. God seemed happy enough to do these for all and sundry in the old days but lately he's been a bit reticent. Shame. If someone had their smartphone handy we could have had the first proof of a godlike being.

Religions are politics. Always have been, always will be; this last, probably. So Johnson is as likely to come up with a meaning for the universe as the pope. More likely in fact as it is quite apparent that Johnson is not controlled by anything other than his ego. The popes have the bureaucracy of the vatican councils plus their own ego to limit them.

Just accept the only way there is a meaning or purpose for the universe or an electron is for there to be a god and they just don't seem to exist. So speculation as to M&P is as pointless as trying to work out who might be in a room we know is empty.


Patrick Bateman

12,143 posts

173 months

Wednesday 4th March 2015
quotequote all
I'm just surprised that many people supposedly believe in a god in this country.

///ajd

Original Poster:

8,964 posts

205 months

Wednesday 4th March 2015
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
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?
If you remove all the creationist aspects of a god, what is left?

Is he some sort of caretaker instead? Doesn't sound like he's in charge at all; does he just tell you not to run in the corridors?

Allowing this kind of intepretation speaks volumes for the man made origins of religion.



drainbrain

5,637 posts

110 months

Wednesday 4th March 2015
quotequote all
2 Timothy 2:23

anonymous-user

53 months

Wednesday 4th March 2015
quotequote all
Ajd, and sorry this has been said on many similar threads before, but what if 'God' was actually entirely 'physical'?
What if we are actually the current revision of an original lifeform created by an advanced alien bio-scientist, an alien who actually knows the inevitability of evolution will lead to self-aware beings such as us and beyond?
How would you reflect on our own existence on this planet if it was proven to be a result of a decision by a higher being, a result not of chance but by design and that our existence has a purpose.

rxtx

6,016 posts

209 months

Wednesday 4th March 2015
quotequote all
drainbrain said:
2 Timothy 2:23
Erm, thanks.

Burwood

18,709 posts

245 months

Wednesday 4th March 2015
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
we can play what if all day long and have done for 1000's of years but very simply, why has your god not shown himself. please quote the test theory

Moonhawk

10,730 posts

218 months

Wednesday 4th March 2015
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I personally would have no issue with that. It's basically a derivation of panspermia.

The point is - such an origin would be entirely consistent with current scientific knowledge and would therefore be provable. It wouldn't require us to make huge leaps of faith, make exceptions in our logic or lead to circular arguments.

I also don't buy the "by chance" argument. There is nothing to suggest that life arises "by chance" - life may well be an inevitable consequence or an emergent property of the universe - in much the same way as a lump of rock or a puddle of liquid are.

Edited by Moonhawk on Wednesday 4th March 22:03

Burwood

18,709 posts

245 months

Wednesday 4th March 2015
quotequote all
Moonhawk said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I personally would have no issue with that. It's basically a derivation of panspermia.

The point is - such an origin would be entirely consistent with current scientific knowledge and would therefore be provable. It wouldn't require us to make huge leaps of faith or make exceptions logic to accept.
same here but it wouldn't be a god

///ajd

Original Poster:

8,964 posts

205 months

Wednesday 4th March 2015
quotequote all
cymtriks said:
....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.
Whether you are convinced about the theory or not, one thing it may do is show how life is possible without a creator.

You can say it, but it is rather illogical to turn this around and say it is infact proof of a creator.

It is the equivalent of filming some teenagers in the middle of the night with planks and bits of string in a corn field making crop circles, and saying - "ha, but it is still proof of aliens - some aliens made the teenagers do it!".





anonymous-user

53 months

Wednesday 4th March 2015
quotequote all
Moonhawk said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I personally would have no issue with that. It's basically a derivation of panspermia.

The point is - such an origin would be entirely consistent with current scientific knowledge and would therefore be provable. It wouldn't require us to make huge leaps of faith, make exceptions in our logic or lead to circular arguments.
But 'current' scientific knowledge is not the definitive.
Future scientific knowledge may well prove things which, when measured against current knowledge, appear to us to be mind-blowingly radical!
Imagine proposing today's reality three centuries ago and then extrapolate onwards........

///ajd

Original Poster:

8,964 posts

205 months

Wednesday 4th March 2015
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
If by "higher being" you mean the alien bio-scientist, who himself was a product of evolution rather than being "intelligently created", then why not, in theory.

The issue with such a theory is that in practice there are mountains of concrete (fossil) evidence that we infact evolved from single cell organisms and its predecessors on this very planet, itself a product of the big bang - with no evidence of other more complex / unconventional origins.

As such, the alien bio-scientist can be discounted, unless you suggest he went to the trouble of faking an entire evolutionary background on earth that perfectly covered his tracks and any evidence for him. On a scale of likelihood of 0 (likely) to 7 (not likely) - this is surely 6.99999.





cymtriks

4,560 posts

244 months

Wednesday 4th March 2015
quotequote all
WinstonWolf said:
I am confused because you seem to think any of that matters...
If you are going to argue from an assumed position of intellectual superiority then, yes, it matters.

The statement regarding the OP being wrong (the theory does not disprove a creator, it could equally well be seen as evidence of a creators plan)

..and...

The statement that Noah could have a historical basis

...are not automatically wrong just because you only want to hear one side, and only then when it shouts others down and attempts to ridicule them. See my first sentence.

///ajd

Original Poster:

8,964 posts

205 months

Wednesday 4th March 2015
quotequote all
drainbrain said:
2 Timothy 2:23
Interesting to google that. A religionist would say that, wouldn't they...

"2 Timothy 2:23 - Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels."

Don't question the bible, cos innit.


anonymous-user

53 months

Wednesday 4th March 2015
quotequote all
///ajd said:
If by "higher being" you mean the alien bio-scientist, who himself was a product of evolution rather than being "intelligently created", then why not, in theory.

The issue with such a theory is that in practice there are mountains of concrete (fossil) evidence that we infact evolved from single cell organisms and its predecessors on this very planet, itself a product of the big bang - with no evidence of other more complex / unconventional origins.

As such, the alien bio-scientist can be discounted, unless you suggest he went to the trouble of faking an entire evolutionary background on earth that perfectly covered his tracks and any evidence for him. On a scale of likelihood of 0 (likely) to 7 (not likely) - this is surely 6.99999.
Be careful ajd!
So you are almost absolutely certain that life cannot be created, that we will never be able to create life through 'artificial' methods?