Thoughts on Evolution?

[KRIM]

An asserting opinion is that God does not exist just as much as saying God does exist. It is merely a logical fallacy that one side brings up in order to try and dominate the debate because that side can then say that the evidence is tampered with, isn't good enough, has too many variables, etc. Science can only deal in probabilities. The probability may be high that a god does not exist but no scientist can assert that a god does not exist. For something to be scientific fact, it has to be testable. Therefore, the assertion that god does not or does exist is not fact. It is merely an opinion/belief.

The logical fallacy is on any claim that asks for proof of something non-existent. As I said previously, it's an impossible predicament. It's why the "rules" of epistemic disputes govern the obligation on those who make the positive claim. Which is not the same as raising a question or a request, rather an extension of both through introduction of a new variable.

Also, the very definition of science fact deals with what is actually there. So while your last statements are not exactly false, it is also very obvious.

 

[chaseter]

When someone says God exists, just say prove it. When you say God does not exist, then you are also obviously required to prove it as well. They are both statements. All claims require proof. A claim that God does not exist requires proof. That is the very reason why making such claims on both sides is a fool's game. Science never makes a claim that something does not exist beyond any doubt. Science only deals with probability.

 

[Franklin Richards]

Yes, but in an honest, intelligent debate, I shouldn't have to explain why I've never been attacked by a tiger while wearing my lucky shirt.

 

[chaseter]

Yes but you never know if you won't ever be attacked by a tiger while wearing your lucky shirt. The probability is really low but there is always a chance.

 

[Bubonic]

When someone says God exists, just say prove it. When you say God does not exist, then you are also obviously required to prove it as well. They are both statements. All claims require proof. A claim that God does not exist requires proof. That is the very reason why making such claims on both sides is a fool's game. Science never makes a claim that something does not exist beyond any doubt. Science only deals with probability.

But the person that says God exist doesn't even know what God is!
I'd say that God as most people try to describe Him doesn't exist beyond any doubt. There is no magical man in the sky who put the earth and everything on it in 7 days and everything that exist now existed then and Jesus rode velociraptors and all of that very human mythology has already been thrown out the window by scientist.

So maybe there is an all powerful being that started things up, but y'all believing in the wrong thing, so hope this one isn't as vengeful and petty as the Old Testament made him out to be

Oh and now that I think of it this thread totally hijacked mine.

 

[TheIncredibleSk]

But the person that says God exist doesn't even know what God is!
I'd say that God as most people try to describe Him doesn't exist beyond any doubt. There is no magical man in the sky who put the earth and everything on it in 7 days and everything that exist now existed then and Jesus rode velociraptors and all of that very human mythology has already been thrown out the window by scientist.

So maybe there is an all powerful being that started things up, but y'all believing in the wrong thing, so hope this one isn't as vengeful and petty as the Old Testament made him out to be

Oh and now that I think of it this thread totally hijacked mine.

Isn't it glorious

 

[Bubonic]

Whatever makes you feel like you're achieving something.

 

[Colossal Spoons]

Sure. And so could have a multiple amount of other gods. Why do you pick the one you were raised to believe? Simply because you were raised that way and your holy book tells you that?

Or, maybe it was something like the big bang that caused it, or maybe some other yet unknown event that caused it. Just wondering why you believe it was caused by the god you were raised to believe in.

Because I don't know enough about or believe in Allah, Ahura Mazda, etc to give them credit for it. I'm in no way saying that some other god couldn't have done it because who knows which god or set of gods actually exist...if at all.

My point in this whole thread is that if some definitive proof was found tomorrow clearly disproving the existence of the Christian God, I wouldn't be surprised nor stubbornly deny it. I've accepted the fact that everything I "believe" is uncertain.

 

[Dr.]

An asserting opinion is that God does not exist just as much as saying God does exist. It is merely a logical fallacy that one side brings up in order to try and dominate the debate because that side can then say that the evidence is tampered with, isn't good enough, has too many variables, etc. Science can only deal in probabilities. The probability may be high that a god does not exist but no scientist can assert that a god does not exist. For something to be scientific fact, it has to be testable. Therefore, the assertion that god does not or does exist is not fact. It is merely an opinion/belief.

Hmmm. You seem to be shifting the goalposts around a tad.

Yes, “proofs” lie within the domain of math and logic. And, yes, science is different; it deals with evidence and probabilities – and conclusions drawn from evidence and probabilities. So science doesn’t fail by not providing logical proofs. It doesn’t deal with logical proofs.

Science would say there is no evidence that a Celestial Teapot is orbiting Jupiter. A logician would say, “not so fast: the existence of such a teapot can’t actually be disproved.” These different statements come from different perspectives. In terms of practicalities, though (like, say, considering an expensive space mission to Jupiter to settle the matter), the former would appear to have the greater persuasive power.

Now, we might suppose that the question of god is even more significant than orbiting teapots. But on this point… we’re suddenly unimpressed by a conspicuous lack of evidence and, instead, hang our hats on a logical technicality...? Odd.

 

[SuperFerret]

I'm not saying God doesn't exist, I am saying he cannot interact with our universe. Unless he is a measurable force.

Maybe God is measurable, but not by what we can do now. It wouldn't be the first time humans knew about something before they could explain it.


And all this lack of evidence stuff is highly relative. There used to be a lack of evidence that Alpha Centauri existed, but now we have some. Who knows what the future holds?

 

[BAH HUMBBUG!]

Because I don't know enough about or believe in Allah, Ahura Mazda, etc to give them credit for it. I'm in no way saying that some other god couldn't have done it because who knows which god or set of gods actually exist...if at all.

My point in this whole thread is that if some definitive proof was found tomorrow clearly disproving the existence of the Christian God, I wouldn't be surprised nor stubbornly deny it. I've accepted the fact that everything I "believe" is uncertain.

And to this end I have no problems with Spoons' views or beliefs. Despite the fact that I completely disagree with him, he isn't completely close minded to possibilities of other answers existing. Nor does he want to push his beliefs off onto us.

A common ground of agree to disagree seems to exist and as far as people who are religious, believe in any gods they choose, if it's not pushed off onto me or argued so blindly then I have no issue with it.

Unfortunately that is not the case for most people of devout faith, more harm has been caused in the name or religion than for any other reason. Which I have a problem with.

 

[SuperFerret]

I'll abstain from repeating myself yet again.

 

[Colossal Spoons]

And to this end I have no problems with Spoons' views or beliefs. Despite the fact that I completely disagree with him, he isn't completely close minded to possibilities of other answers existing. Nor does he want to push his beliefs off onto us.

A common ground of agree to disagree seems to exist and as far as people who are religious, believe in any gods they choose, if it's not pushed off onto me or argued so blindly then I have no issue with it.

Unfortunately that is not the case for most people of devout faith, more harm has been caused in the name or religion than for any other reason. Which I have a problem with.

It's why I don't really consider myself a Christian anymore. As a Christian, one of the things you're supposed to do is "spread the good word" and all that; which translates to me preaching at people who don't wanna hear it. That's annoying. When people ask me if it's hard to be a scientist who believes in God, I always say no. The 2 can coexist

 

[BAH HUMBBUG!]

Word....now off to do work son! LIGHT WEIGHT BABY!!!!

 

[Colossal Spoons]

Samson's my fav bodybuilder

 

[chaseter]

Hmmm. You seem to be shifting the goalposts around a tad.

Yes, “proofs” lie within the domain of math and logic. And, yes, science is different; it deals with evidence and probabilities – and conclusions drawn from evidence and probabilities. So science doesn’t fail by not providing logical proofs. It doesn’t deal with logical proofs.

Science would say there is no evidence that a Celestial Teapot is orbiting Jupiter. A logician would say, “not so fast: the existence of such a teapot can’t actually be disproved.” These different statements come from different perspectives. In terms of practicalities, though (like, say, considering an expensive space mission to Jupiter to settle the matter), the former would appear to have the greater persuasive power.

Now, we might suppose that the question of god is even more significant than orbiting teapots. But on this point… we’re suddenly unimpressed by a conspicuous lack of evidence and, instead, hang our hats on a logical technicality...? Odd.

The shifting of the goal posts are on the side of the people requiring the copius amounts of proof to satisfy their own needs. Take ghosts/spirits for example. The scientific community largely believes that ghosts/spirits do not exist because they do not believe in an afterlife. When someone has proof, they deny it and come up with x number of reasons. They will never believe in ghosts/spirits until one appears right in front of them and slaps them on the face and then when that Scientists believes in it, they either keep quiet or are shunned by the Scientific community.

Science doesn't work that way. Science should never operate like that. While I never have experienced a ghost/spirit myself, I am not going to say the person that was alone in an abandoned hospital asking questions with a tape recorder a liar when a scratchy voice says get out on the tape. There are a number of possibilities for an explanation other than they don't exist. Alternate dimensions, parallel universes, left over energy, spiritual influence, etc. who knows. That is why Science deals with probabilities. These are the people that are on the exact opposite end of the spectrum in relation to the crazy religious fundi's. Science can't explain everything at this point in time. It may never. Who knows? Only time will tell.

 

[Calvin]

Wait, so scientists are stubborn for not believing in ghosts despite proof of ghosts existing, when the "proof" is some jackoff with a tape recorder that says "get out"? Yeah, it's not like we've ever had the technology to put something like that on a tape recorder without ghosts. Oh wait, it's the opposite of that. If someone says something exists that hasn't had any observable proof documented on it, the burden of proof is on that person, period.

 

[Bill]

Yet we also have the option of fully dedicating ourselves to faith, and who knows? Maybe that path does lead to some form of enlightenment that many of us haven't experienced.

Perhaps, I think more often than not, devotion of that type to a particular faith leads to ignorance being bliss. But people have lived and died not knowing the full details of scientific knowledge and were all the happier for it. Maybe ignorance is bliss.

Well, let's be honest, the New Testament itself says that it's a bunch of stories. Christ teaches almost exclusively through parables and it's his friends that write the book supposedly, so the real message there is look for the morals not the details. People forget or ignore that though.

Of course, no issues here with Hebrew philosophy. Just lose the supernatural bunk.

As far as I'm concerned God could be anything. I don't know for sure, though I do rather like the idea that God is everything and literally exists as the "fabric of reality", but even that could be wrong.

The thing I've always found funny is that, at my core, I'm a biologist, and I find that I feel more religious in a "closer to god" kind of way when I'm engaging in scientific activities. And there are those who still strive to separate the two.

I try to be as Agnostic as possible when dealing with the existence of some type of creator. As of now, most invoke it as an argument from incredulity. They don't see how some event could have occurred, therefore there must be a god.

I find that when dealing with nature, its far more magical to think it came about on its own. Saying an all-powerful god did it takes all the magic away.

 

[Majmun]

Because I don't know enough about or believe in Allah, Ahura Mazda, etc to give them credit for it. I'm in no way saying that some other god couldn't have done it because who knows which god or set of gods actually exist...if at all.

My point in this whole thread is that if some definitive proof was found tomorrow clearly disproving the existence of the Christian God, I wouldn't be surprised nor stubbornly deny it. I've accepted the fact that everything I "believe" is uncertain.

Understood and thanks for explaining.

 

[chaseter]

Wait, so scientists are stubborn for not believing in ghosts despite proof of ghosts existing, when the "proof" is some jackoff with a tape recorder that says "get out"? Yeah, it's not like we've ever had the technology to put something like that on a tape recorder without ghosts. Oh wait, it's the opposite of that. If someone says something exists that hasn't had any observable proof documented on it, the burden of proof is on that person, period.

Look at your own post. Who is stubborn?

When someone says something DOES NOT EXIST, it's the SAME THING as saying SOMETHING DOES EXIST. It's a definitive. It is a statement of fact that needs backing up. People that say God exists have just as much burden of proof as someone who says God doesn't exist.

The bulk of religion is stubborn. But they aren't Science based so it should be no surprise to anyone. It's shocking to see Scientists saying that something cannot exist even though they can't say for certain whether it does or doesn't. Hell, the Giant Squid didn't exist 50 years ago and some in the Scientific community thought it was just a tall tale or mythology and flicked their nose at it. Then one is caught and slaps them in the face and they give credence to it. Just bite your tongue and say, it's a possibility but I would need proof. That's it. No badass Scientists riding in with Oakleys on Segways. It's possible but not probable. THE END.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Well, let's be honest, the New Testament itself says that it's a bunch of stories. Christ teaches almost exclusively through parables and it's his friends that write the book supposedly, so the real message there is look for the morals not the details. People forget or ignore that though.

Actually, I'd say this is the thing I really appreciate about the Abrahamic religions, and Buddhism and Hinduism. Essentially, the moral of the stories is to be a good person. And it's something that people should live their lives by. Even if you don't believe, the Torah/Bible/Q'uran is probably the greatest literary work of all time, even with the plot holes, contradictions and inconsistencies. And the centre of it all is to be a good person and to help others.

 

[Calvin]

Look at your own post. Who is stubborn?

When someone says something DOES NOT EXIST, it's the SAME THING as saying SOMETHING DOES EXIST.

No, it isn't, at all. It's ridiculously stupid to think they're the same thing. By your logic, if I say that at the center of the universe is a giant ninja turtle sodomizing a replica of your mother, then it should be taken as completely plausible and just as likely as something like evolution, which has tons of observable evidence and research behind it, because, you can't prove it's not, and the burden of proof should be on you, rather than being on the person making the evidence-less claim. That's idiotic. And saying "they're both statements of facts, so they're the same thing!" is just as pointless and meaningless as saying "they both have letters of the alphabet in them, so they're the same thing and should be treated the same!" Dumb dumb dumb.

 

[chaseter]

I like how you ignored the rest of my post.

The sky is not blue. It's up to you to prove to me why it is blue. See how stupid that is? I make an assertion but it's up to you to prove me wrong. Wonderful logic.

 

[Lighthouse]

I like how you ignored the rest of my post.

The sky is not blue. It's up to you to prove to me why it is blue. See how stupid that is? I make an assertion but it's up to you to prove me wrong. Wonderful logic.

 

[Anubis]

Because I don't know enough about or believe in Allah, Ahura Mazda, etc to give them credit for it. I'm in no way saying that some other god couldn't have done it because who knows which god or set of gods actually exist...if at all.

My point in this whole thread is that if some definitive proof was found tomorrow clearly disproving the existence of the Christian God, I wouldn't be surprised nor stubbornly deny it. I've accepted the fact that everything I "believe" is uncertain.

I just wanted to be a dick and point out that Allah and the Christian God are the same guy.

This is my just being a dick face.