User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 32 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 320

Thread: Why do you believe/disbelieve in god?

  1. #11
    Original Ranter
    Points: 83,174, Level: 70
    Level completed: 31%, Points required for next Level: 1,676
    Overall activity: 7.0%
    Achievements:
    Social1 year registeredTagger Second Class50000 Experience PointsYour first Group
    Conley's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    7385
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    22,475
    Points
    83,174
    Level
    70
    Thanks Given
    4,582
    Thanked 2,491x in 2,002 Posts
    Mentioned
    225 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Burns View Post
    Then what created said creation force? The only logical solution I have seen has been cyclic cosmology. An infinite cycle of big bangs and big crunches is the only way to sidestep the "first mover" problem and seems to be held in great regard and evidence by many physicists.
    Much like the concept of infinite space, I think there are certain concepts that the human mind will never really be able to grasp completely. You make a good point about who created the Creator, and if science accepts the idea of infinite space then I suppose it should also be able to accept the concept that God has always existed. Of course the counter argument to that could be that matter has always existed.

    There are plenty of people who will argue with you based on religion but I prefer a more scientific approach myself. I'm Christian but I don't necessarily disagree with Jews, Muslims, etc. I think we all have different names for the same Creator.

  2. #12
    Original Ranter
    Points: 845, Level: 6
    Level completed: 48%, Points required for next Level: 105
    Overall activity: 1.0%
    Achievements:
    3 months registered500 Experience Points
    Mr. Burns's Avatar Junior Member
    Karma
    13
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    78
    Points
    845
    Level
    6
    Thanks Given
    0
    Thanked 3x in 3 Posts
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Conley View Post
    Science is often wrong though. I don't see cyclic cosmology and the existence of a creative force as being in conflict. Our understanding of physics does suggest that the Big Bang started things, and I've read different ideas as to whether the expansion of the universe is slowing down enough to actually eventually lead to a contraction or not. I haven't kept up on it - you probably know more than I do.

    What is the harm in 'defaulting to a deity'? Isn't it really another way of admitting we don't know and science can never hope to provide all the answers?
    Religion is often wrong. The difference is that science knows when it's wrong and admits openly when it's wrong. And you are still making a burden of proof error. No one will ever disprove god, you are right. Because any time people make a positive assertion about god (as in prayer heals the sick) it is disproved by science. People just change the meaning of god to be amorphous to the point of being indistinguishable from the collective laws that govern our universe.

  3. #13
    Original Ranter
    Points: 845, Level: 6
    Level completed: 48%, Points required for next Level: 105
    Overall activity: 1.0%
    Achievements:
    3 months registered500 Experience Points
    Mr. Burns's Avatar Junior Member
    Karma
    13
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    78
    Points
    845
    Level
    6
    Thanks Given
    0
    Thanked 3x in 3 Posts
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by wingrider View Post
    to err on the side of caution is preffered , I would personally rather believe in a master designer than to belive in random chance,
    Pascal's wager has no bearing on whether or not an deity exists. God does not exist until he is verified in some form, not that he exists until he is disproved. As I have said, people will just change the meaning of god to always be disprovable.

  4. #14
    Original Ranter
    Points: 845, Level: 6
    Level completed: 48%, Points required for next Level: 105
    Overall activity: 1.0%
    Achievements:
    3 months registered500 Experience Points
    Mr. Burns's Avatar Junior Member
    Karma
    13
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    78
    Points
    845
    Level
    6
    Thanks Given
    0
    Thanked 3x in 3 Posts
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Conley View Post
    Much like the concept of infinite space, I think there are certain concepts that the human mind will never really be able to grasp completely. You make a good point about who created the Creator, and if science accepts the idea of infinite space then I suppose it should also be able to accept the concept that God has always existed. Of course the counter argument to that could be that matter has always existed.

    There are plenty of people who will argue with you based on religion but I prefer a more scientific approach myself. I'm Christian but I don't necessarily disagree with Jews, Muslims, etc. I think we all have different names for the same Creator.
    There is a quote about how if you want to understand how stupid humans are, try and grasp infinity. I'm not excluding the concept of infinity for a creator. But it should not be free from the discussion of the universe. Many astrophysicists have theorized that the gradual pull of all celestial objects to a specific region of space correlates with a big crunch, and big bang. The math checks out, but as our planet will not survive that long, it is speculation, as of now.

  5. #15
    Original Ranter
    Points: 83,174, Level: 70
    Level completed: 31%, Points required for next Level: 1,676
    Overall activity: 7.0%
    Achievements:
    Social1 year registeredTagger Second Class50000 Experience PointsYour first Group
    Conley's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    7385
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    22,475
    Points
    83,174
    Level
    70
    Thanks Given
    4,582
    Thanked 2,491x in 2,002 Posts
    Mentioned
    225 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Burns View Post
    Religion is often wrong. The difference is that science knows when it's wrong and admits openly when it's wrong. And you are still making a burden of proof error. No one will ever disprove god, you are right. Because any time people make a positive assertion about god (as in prayer heals the sick) it is disproved by science. People just change the meaning of god to be amorphous to the point of being indistinguishable from the collective laws that govern our universe.
    People are often wrong. Whether they admit to it or not is a different story. When you say science knows when it's wrong and admits it openly, that's anthropomorphizing it. There are plenty of scientist who've been wrong and even in the face of competing evidence cling to their beliefs. In my opinion it's the zealots on both sides, religion and science, who are the ones who are missing the bigger picture.

    Science as it exists now can't prove in all cases that prayer has no effect on the sick. Now you may say it's placebo effect, you can examine the biology of the patient and see changes, but there is not always a clear answer.

    The deeper you go into any field of science, the more complicated the issue, the more nuanced it becomes. It is in that area that absolutes become fewer and fewer. Look at the recent discovery of a sub atomic particle moving faster than light. That broke one of science's laws, did it not?

  6. #16
    Original Ranter
    Points: 845, Level: 6
    Level completed: 48%, Points required for next Level: 105
    Overall activity: 1.0%
    Achievements:
    3 months registered500 Experience Points
    Mr. Burns's Avatar Junior Member
    Karma
    13
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    78
    Points
    845
    Level
    6
    Thanks Given
    0
    Thanked 3x in 3 Posts
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Conley View Post
    People are often wrong. Whether they admit to it or not is a different story. When you say science knows when it's wrong and admits it openly, that's anthropomorphizing it. There are plenty of scientist who've been wrong and even in the face of competing evidence cling to their beliefs. In my opinion it's the zealots on both sides, religion and science, who are the ones who are missing the bigger picture.

    Science as it exists now can't prove in all cases that prayer has no effect on the sick. Now you may say it's placebo effect, you can examine the biology of the patient and see changes, but there is not always a clear answer.

    The deeper you go into any field of science, the more complicated the issue, the more nuanced it becomes. It is in that area that absolutes become fewer and fewer. Look at the recent discovery of a sub atomic particle moving faster than light. That broke one of science's laws, did it not?
    People are often wrong, but when you exclude absolute knowledge, you teeter on the ledge of epistemological nothingness. Scientific zealots are almost always laughed out of a job. As far as prayer goes, you are still saying that science can't prove that prayer doesn't work. That's not the point. You can't disprove a negative, it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Which still is your argument for the existence of god.

  7. #17
    Original Ranter
    Points: 83,174, Level: 70
    Level completed: 31%, Points required for next Level: 1,676
    Overall activity: 7.0%
    Achievements:
    Social1 year registeredTagger Second Class50000 Experience PointsYour first Group
    Conley's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    7385
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    22,475
    Points
    83,174
    Level
    70
    Thanks Given
    4,582
    Thanked 2,491x in 2,002 Posts
    Mentioned
    225 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    99
    Again, I believe you are generalizing scientists. They're human and thus have all the same flaws, hubris, ignorance, etc.

    I cannot prove the existence of prayer, nor can I prove the existence of God.

    Science could prove that prayer doesn't work if it accounted for every case of healing. It does not.

    A true scientist would say that when one cannot rule out a potential cause the possibility must be considered, however unlikely. Even the basis of so many studies are predicated on the five percent rule, that p < .05 and that there is a greater than 95% chance the null hypothesis should be rejected.

    Drug companies love that law, because they can test a pill for twenty treatments (depression, smoking cessation, appetite suppresent, etc.) and it will be proven effective for one of those twenty just by virtue of the laws that science has made. There are many such standards in the scientific community which don't hold up as air tight on closer inspection as many would have you believe.

  8. #18
    Original Ranter
    Points: 845, Level: 6
    Level completed: 48%, Points required for next Level: 105
    Overall activity: 1.0%
    Achievements:
    3 months registered500 Experience Points
    Mr. Burns's Avatar Junior Member
    Karma
    13
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    78
    Points
    845
    Level
    6
    Thanks Given
    0
    Thanked 3x in 3 Posts
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Conley View Post
    Again, I believe you are generalizing scientists. They're human and thus have all the same flaws, hubris, ignorance, etc.

    I cannot prove the existence of prayer, nor can I prove the existence of God.


    Science could prove that prayer doesn't work if it accounted for every case of healing. It does not.

    A true scientist would say that when one cannot rule out a potential cause the possibility must be considered, however unlikely. Even the basis of so many studies are predicated on the five percent rule, that p < .05 and that there is a greater than 95% chance the null hypothesis should be rejected.

    Drug companies love that law, because they can test a pill for twenty treatments (depression, smoking cessation, appetite suppresent, etc.) and it will be proven effective for one of those twenty just by virtue of the laws that science has made. There are many such standards in the scientific community which don't hold up as air tight on closer inspection as many would have you believe.
    Then why believe in him?

  9. #19
    Original Ranter
    Points: 83,174, Level: 70
    Level completed: 31%, Points required for next Level: 1,676
    Overall activity: 7.0%
    Achievements:
    Social1 year registeredTagger Second Class50000 Experience PointsYour first Group
    Conley's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    7385
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    22,475
    Points
    83,174
    Level
    70
    Thanks Given
    4,582
    Thanked 2,491x in 2,002 Posts
    Mentioned
    225 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    99
    It's not even a conscious choice, it is just my belief. I believe many things I can't prove...I suppose that is faith. I believe the sun will come up tomorrow, I believe my family (edit: originally I wrote 'my dog' ) loves me, there are many such beliefs I hold that I can never hope to prove. If I held all of my life to such a rigorous burden of proof I think it would be fairly empty.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Conley For This Useful Post:

    wingrider (01-26-2012)

  11. #20
    Original Ranter
    Points: 845, Level: 6
    Level completed: 48%, Points required for next Level: 105
    Overall activity: 1.0%
    Achievements:
    3 months registered500 Experience Points
    Mr. Burns's Avatar Junior Member
    Karma
    13
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    78
    Points
    845
    Level
    6
    Thanks Given
    0
    Thanked 3x in 3 Posts
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Conley View Post
    It's not even a conscious choice, it is just my belief. I believe many things I can't prove...I suppose that is faith. I believe the sun will come up tomorrow, I believe my family (edit: originally I wrote 'my dog' ) loves me, there are many such beliefs I hold that I can never hope to prove. If I held all of my life to such a rigorous burden of proof I think it would be fairly empty.
    Belief in god is always a choice. You family loves you because they support you. The sun will come up tomorrow because of gravity. God is not like that homeslice.

+ Reply to Thread

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts


Forum Topsite Critical Acclaim
Top Ron Paul Sites - Ranking the best Ron Paul related Freedom and Liberty Websites
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO