Finally, proof there is no God.
Discussion
vanordinaire said:
The only thing that differentiates science and (any)religion is the belief that 'God' is a being.
Instead, if you looked at god as a concept from which the laws of 'nature' or 'science' originate, then most of the religious texts would make sense to scientists and the science would make sense to religious people. On this basis neither would have any reason to try to disprove the other.
I think you might be confusing god with religion. If there is a god then that would not vindicate all or any religion. They are all constructs, designed for the purposes of the creator of the religion.Instead, if you looked at god as a concept from which the laws of 'nature' or 'science' originate, then most of the religious texts would make sense to scientists and the science would make sense to religious people. On this basis neither would have any reason to try to disprove the other.
One only has to look at this rather manic statement:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
to realise that each person, according to some, creates their own religion, going into a supermarket and filling their basket with stuff they like - chocolate, lots of buns and sticky stuff - and leaving the broccoli.Given the number of people who claim to be religious, there's every possibility that one is right, spot on, about god and what she or he wants from us. However, just the one, and the odds are that person does not contribute to PH.
What the immediately above quote supports is that morality changes and the driver of this has been secular society. We are frequently told that if there were no religions, normally meant as a religion, then there would be no morality but, as even a cursory reading will show, the bible is so far behind current morals that to those bods on the hills looking after their sheep we would seem like gods, with our strange ways, like (sometimes) treating women as people.
I'd just like to point out that it is religion that deals in absolutes. The examples of this are legion. It is science that investigates. There was a fascinating programme on TV a couple of days ago on the origin of the solar system where the assumption that the planets had 'always' been in their present location was challenged. It showed what is so good about the scientific method. People were challenging their colleagues and, for some, themselves.
I can see nothing more arrogant than creating your own religion.
Derek Smith said:
I can see nothing more arrogant than creating your own religion.
Manic, Derek? Is that the word you actually intended to use or are you going to blame that on fat fingers?
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 5th March 08:34
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I like an argument. I enjoy confronting beliefs with evidence. It makes one think. Further, it is good for my work. At 9.00am I've got an article to write so I'll be off-line for an hour or so. But I'll start with my brain already turning. The old way of mine, sitting in front of a blank screen, meant an hour wasted normally as I'd have to ditch the work I did.
Manic - I choose my words carefully in the main, and I did so there. Can't you see that to, as you suggest, create your own religion is rather arrogant and, let's face it, weird. You are saying that everyone else is wrong and you are the only one to know your god. If you don't worship your chosen deity then all you have is a moral system, like the rest of us. It's not really a religion if you invent your own, don't you see that?
Manic, yep, I'll run with that given your posts on here. You are, I fear, becoming increasingly wild.
Just to add, if you don't want me and others to challenge your thoughts - I can't quite bring myself to say beliefs - then can't you see that putting them on a thread means that they almost certainly will be. You know the rules.
It's gone 9.00. I'm off for a while.
jmorgan said:
Moonhawk said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Doesn't matter - it will still be verifiable and falsifiable using scientific techniques of the day - that is the key point.It is often said that any technology sufficiently advanced from our own would be indistinguishable from magic - and i'd go along with that. The key point is however that it is still just technology - and not magic.
Moonhawk said:
Doesn't matter - it will still be verifiable and falsifiable using scientific techniques of the day - that is the key point.
Besides - we know artificially seeding other worlds is possible - in fact we have likely already done it ourselves, so it is entirely consistent with current scientific knowledge.
Some people think past the science of today and of this world. You cannot base your philosophy or imagination or culture or beliefs on what we scientifically understand today, there is a whole lot more to life than science!Besides - we know artificially seeding other worlds is possible - in fact we have likely already done it ourselves, so it is entirely consistent with current scientific knowledge.
Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 5th March 07:55
Scientists themselves must sometimes be radical and suggest things that test or challenge current commonly held perceptions. That's why beliefs and faith should not be stamped out.
Moonhawk said:
Yep - but the fact that people don't understand something doesn't change the fundamental nature of it.
It is often said that any technology sufficiently advanced from our own would be indistinguishable from magic - and i'd go along with that. The key point is however that it is still just technology - and not magic.
It is often said....It is often said that any technology sufficiently advanced from our own would be indistinguishable from magic - and i'd go along with that. The key point is however that it is still just technology - and not magic.
I see that written a lot and wonder at the origin and the way it was intended (crops up on a lot of woo forums for UFO malarkey). I know what you mean though but I wonder how true it is. A questing mind might look at something and reason its origin and path to that state within theories that that person is familiar with or might have an inkling of, yet if that something is too far removed then magic would be my last port of call, more it happens but we have yet to understand it. Big bang for example. There is a lot about it but no on is tagging it as magic.
If you see what I mean.
jmorgan said:
It is often said....
I see that written a lot and wonder at the origin and the way it was intended (crops up on a lot of woo forums for UFO malarkey). I know what you mean though but I wonder how true it is. A questing mind might look at something and reason its origin and path to that state within theories that that person is familiar with or might have an inkling of, yet if that something is too far removed then magic would be my last port of call, more it happens but we have yet to understand it. Big bang for example. There is a lot about it but no on is tagging it as magic.
If you see what I mean.
Arthur Clarke came up with it.I see that written a lot and wonder at the origin and the way it was intended (crops up on a lot of woo forums for UFO malarkey). I know what you mean though but I wonder how true it is. A questing mind might look at something and reason its origin and path to that state within theories that that person is familiar with or might have an inkling of, yet if that something is too far removed then magic would be my last port of call, more it happens but we have yet to understand it. Big bang for example. There is a lot about it but no on is tagging it as magic.
If you see what I mean.
HTH
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Scientists dont believe anything until its proven with evidence though. There is no 'faith' in scientific ideas. They are just ideas until proven right or wrong. People who feel the need to fill the gaps in with their own ideas may as well be on their own and not subscribe to the organised religion they like the most or were told as a child.
Personally, I believe that god is a giant snail. Its just as valid an idea as any other religion.
Do you agree that if you were born in the middle east, to a muslim family, you would be a muslim? You may be this already, I dont know, but the point is, do you agree that you subscribe to the relgion of those around you?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Of course scientists have to think beyond current technology and science - thinking about not only what is possible now - but what could be possible in the future. It's no accident that many things once considered science fiction have now become science fact.The key point however is that when a scientist does something radical and suggests an alternative to, or challenges current thinking - what they suggest will still be verifiable and just as importantly, falsifiable.
Moonhawk said:
The key point however is that when a scientist does something radical and suggests an alternative to, or challenges current thinking - what they suggest will still be verifiable and just as importantly, falsifiable.
Except string thoery. Oh and climate science...And nutritional science....
Certain aspects of medical science seem to fail in this as well....
Oh and evolution.....
This science thingy - not quite all it's cracked up to be is it
Jinx said:
Except string thoery. Oh and climate science...
And nutritional science....
Certain aspects of medical science seem to fail in this as well....
Oh and evolution.....
This science thingy - not quite all it's cracked up to be is it
All are verifiable and/or falsifiable. Whether they have all be verified or falsified is another question.And nutritional science....
Certain aspects of medical science seem to fail in this as well....
Oh and evolution.....
This science thingy - not quite all it's cracked up to be is it
Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 5th March 10:20
Moonhawk said:
All are verifiable and/or falsifiable. Whether they have all be verified or falsified is another question.
Hence the smilies - my point was science isn't always conducted scientifically - so religions being scientific is a little too much to ask sometimes. Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 5th March 10:20
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Let's differentiate between the two vastly different themes of this thread:God, gods: do they it exist?
What evidence can there be for non existence of something? As you say, I'm contradicting opinion, not fact. I've said that I do not think there is a god but I'm willing to be proved wrong. However, the most likely source of proof is science. When it finds a miracle then everyone will have to be convinced.
Religions: can any one be proved wrong and are any of them right?
I have mentioned history, I have mentioned the bible, and I have yet to have a challenge on my conclusion that all religions are man-made. I can back up the history of religions, I can back up what is in the bible and, in particular, how the christian bible came about, and until someone challenges my conclusion about all religions being man-made, I've got nothing to confront.
Religion is belief in a man-made system. I know of no evidence to suggest one is 'better' than another, or that a particular one is the only true one. Indeed, on your own admission, many people invent their own. Now that is evidence against religion.
The christian bible contains much in the way of strictures that in the modern world would be considered a serious crime, and more, much more, that would be considered immoral. Some is good advice, but to follow that and just ignore the impact of the rest is not to follow a religion but to make ones own or - and this is what most people seem to do - just behave in a manner you think appropriate. Follow one's own morals and, above all, to yourself be true.
If Shakespeare can come up with guidance for life then what's so special about Jesus. Mind you, the real bloke in the NT is Paul.
Show me a miracle and I'll be convinced. But pilchards into herrings? Do me a favour.
Einion Yrth said:
Moonhawk said:
Jinx said:
string theory.
verifiable and/or falsifiable.Take the laser as an example. Einstein laid the theoretical foundations describing the laser in 1917, but it wasn't until 11 years later that experimental evidence was gathered which demonstrated the effect was real. Practical applications for the laser came much much later.
It makes me sad that things like this are going on in the world;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3116...
Yet people still argue about a magic 'creator' being the cause of it all.
As many have tried to explain, Religion stands still and doesnt want progress. Science is the opposite;
"The data so far has confirmed that our theory is really really good, which is frustrating because we know it's not!" Prof Shears says. "We know it can't explain a lot of the Universe.
So instead of trying to test the truth of this theory, what we really want to do now is break it - to show where it stops reflecting reality. That's the only way we're going to make progress."
Utterly Fantastic.
Chopping peoples heads off because they insulted a cartoon - less than fantastic.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3116...
Yet people still argue about a magic 'creator' being the cause of it all.
As many have tried to explain, Religion stands still and doesnt want progress. Science is the opposite;
"The data so far has confirmed that our theory is really really good, which is frustrating because we know it's not!" Prof Shears says. "We know it can't explain a lot of the Universe.
So instead of trying to test the truth of this theory, what we really want to do now is break it - to show where it stops reflecting reality. That's the only way we're going to make progress."
Utterly Fantastic.
Chopping peoples heads off because they insulted a cartoon - less than fantastic.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff