Finally, proof there is no God.
Discussion
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. 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.A: Buttered scones.
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
Beyond that, buttered scones.
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. 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.
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.I was just interested why you thought it was only the religious that could do good things in this life?
Also - nice kop-out!
Second comment, where did I say only religious people do good things?
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 4th March 19:51
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.
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. 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.
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.
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? 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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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. 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 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!".
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.
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........
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.
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 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!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.
So you are almost absolutely certain that life cannot be created, that we will never be able to create life through 'artificial' methods?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff