Ben v7

No need to refrain from treating me badly fella. You obviously are certain of your own views so feel free to tear me apart with your fact based grasp of the Universe.

I am not going to get into a debate with you on what science is or what it currently can explain. A theory is about as certain as you can get is it? Oh dear...

Your suggestion of being able to devise a suitable experiment to test for ‘God’ is laughable. I am not even going to go there...

You draw no conclusions, which is like saying you will not extrapolate on what you do know. You require scientific proof for all your beliefs. You earlier posted about the use of imagination being important.

I couldn’t support science more strongly. I find your approach of treating those who do not agree with you as ignorant to the power of science as questionable as you seem to find my approach to be honest. You think I’ve made an assertion about the variables that had to correct in the Universe? You look up the supporting evidence if you don’t believe me – I can’t be bothered after a hard day at work – you’ll find I’m right.

As for ‘what’s the big deal about probabilities’ – I raised that perhaps we ask the question just because we are here to ask it earlier! Yes it is a possibility.

Nice touch making it personal with the latest post. I am trying to dumb down something that seems patently beyond my comprehension am I? Glad you think there are no limits to the power of the human mind and that we will soon have the answers to everything.

So if I am basing my opinions on incorrect facts, incorrect information and poor understanding then perhaps you could define why I am wrong to believe that a higher power beyond what is currently observable exists? Enlighten me with your superior knowledge please. Why is it implausible exactly?

OllyK

No I am not certain, I hold a view based on current knowledge but I am happy to review that based on new information. You don't seem to be prepared to contemplate changing your views no matter what.

A scientific theory - yes, not a colloquial one.

Well of course not, it's the great religious fear having to actual try and prove anything.

Please use the "quote" tags when you make statements like that, it makes it a lot easier. Please quote where I said imagination is important so I can refer to the context. Imagination is certainly important in formulating hypotheses.

I'm sorry but your use of science to me is akin to saying the best tool for hammering nails in to wood is a plane. You know the tools are there but fail to see how they should be used. I admit my approach may be blunt, but you don't seem to be too keen to do some leg work and correct your misunderstanding when it is pointed out to you.

It's your claim. I've looked - you're wrong. Feel free to show otherwise.

Would you like to rephrase that?

We are only held back by those who think we have reached our limits. Our knowledge grows exponentially look at what we have learned in last 50 years compared to 200 preceeding it. And I never said "soon".

Have you browsed the link to the forum I gave you? The one where these very questions are being discussed in depth by people with far greater knowledge than I. In short:

HIM: Everything has a cause. The Universe must have a cause. Therefore God is the cause. Therefore God exists.
ME: What caused God?
HIM: Oh, God just exists.
ME: If things can "just exist", then your premise is false.

The existence of the universe does not require a god, god is being used to fill the current gaps in our knowledge and every day he gets smaller.

Ben v7

I would be more than happy to change my views accordingly. I just haven't heard anything new here - just requests to prove God exists. Which can't be done presently, just as you can't prove otherwise.

Now who is just making assumptions... I just want to know the truth - which is unavailable to mankind so I have formulated my own hypothesis.

The hypothesis formulated is that a higher power, a God, beyond our current comprehension exists, designed and created the Universe such that you and I would be here today. Can this be proved or disproved with what we know currently?

I know what your getting at, but the question of whether God exists is not one that can be answered using Science in the way that your trying to.

You didn't look hard enough. It's to do with the speed at which particles travelled apart from each other during the initial first few seconds of the Universe. Too fast and no planets or stars or anything would of formed. Too slow and it all would of come crashing back together again.

The possibility exists that there have been millions of Universes in the past and this one just happens to have been correct for us to be here asking the question about how we came to be.

Very true - but largely thanks to technology. Technological innovation has been growing exponentially up until recently actually... peak was in the 1980s sometime... sorry can't find a citation right this minute.

I haven't but I will... I have read similar stuff before though... but I will take a good look...

God is eternal. The Universe is not. Science is showing it will have an end and had a beginning. The Universe does not just exist. God does, because his existence is not based on the laws we observe and our notion of the concept in our Universe.

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

How many religions are there, what about 5 main ones and numerous others, most do the God thing in ome form or other, each religion even if they dont say it reckons the other lot are wrong, false prophets, fallen idols, infidels etc etc

So, how the F*ck do you choose the right one, I was christened C of E but the Muslim thing seems to be popular, but hang on, you cant eat Bacon Butties or have a beer, so thats out, I dont look Jewish and I am really keen on sex as a recreational pastime so thats Catholocism out, none of them promote cracking one off as a form of worship either, I reckon I need to form my own religion that involves eating kebabs and drinking lager as I sometimes find this a religous experience, trouble is nobody would take it seriously, for that it would have to be a couple of thousand years old as people would then accept any old mumbo jumbo. Therefore if I could convince work that it is an old religion I would be able to do all sorts like nipping off for a kebab and beer session during work hours, forming an association to talk about it (in work hours) and if anyone is even slightly derogatory about it they will be sacked immediately for not being diverse, and I will issue some kind of death warrant for whomever taketh the ****.

So which is the correct one, I mean I read the reviews for any bit of consumer electronics I buy, didnt get the minolta camera cos it uses a propietary battery, the Nikon was too expensive and the Kodak just plain poo, the only true way is a Canon.

I think nowadays, we dont think that Adam and Eve started it all (though I know somebody who does, durr), we dont believe that comets and lightning are the gods getting angry at us, we dont really need to sit in a church for hours being told stories that all basically mean 'Dont be a C*nt' you bad people.

I am a bit dissolusioned with religion, I did spend some time soul searching and questioning what I really thought, I used to have interesting theological debates with a kindly chap I knew, single bloke, very sage, pious and intelligent, I would ask his view and we would debate, me playing the sceptic and him the wise man of god type thing, well anyway, him going to prison for raping a 12 year boy old some time ago kind of put paid to that.

OllyK

Back to the same old, same old. I will never be able to prove or I expect convince you there is not god, I'm certainly not sure but have no reason to belive there is. It is not possible to prove non-existence or a negative - we'll see that a little later. If you think otherwise - there is $1 million waiting for you at the URL I posted earlier and also a nobel science prize to boot. You however could make an impact. I'm not asking for much, I'm asking you to stop with the apologetics and actually make a case for the existence of god. The existence of the the universe certainly doesn't "require" it, although your view conveiently wraps up 3 or 4 thousand years of postulation in 3 letters.

Getting closer to understanding the scientific process. So what's your null hypothesis?

Wack wack oops - the non falsifiable hypothesis again. It most certainly could be proved. I can even design the experiment that will do it. You just need to get your god to co-operate.

Oh it can. Most definately, that's why you won't get a unified definition of what god is across all the religions, because once you have that, you can test for it. And once you start testing a hypothesis that is falisifiable you have the possibility that a given religion will be shown to be wrong. Religion thus protects itself, in the case of Judeo / Christian / Islamic with "thou shall not test thy Lord" - just in case he fails.



Of course not - back to my earlier point on proving a negative. If I say I have looked everywhere for god and have not found him - that is the response, you can always find somewhere else for me to look. We can play that game to the end of time. On the other hand, you show me god, here and now and the game ends - you win, why won't you?

Quote:

It's to do with the speed at which particles travelled apart from each other during the initial first few seconds of the Universe. Too fast and no planets or stars or anything would of formed. Too slow and it all would of come crashing back together again.

Damn - so you assert, again - which peer reviewed scientific paper are you quoting from?

And we could all be the dream of one being and not exist at all. Do you want to assert some more or do you actually have something to support that claim?

Funny that - you're good at asserting without supporting evidence aren't you?

F*ck me. You haven't read it, but you already know you have read something similar?? Praise be to the Lord, we have a miracle? Read it, then tell me there is nothing new!

Which god? Who says? Proove that god exists etc etc etc etc etc....

Which...ah, Who says? Proove..ahh well 1 out of 3 ain't bad! Damn those assertions with no evidence!

Cite the paper that says that please. So I can assess it's validity. Some papers claim a beginning and an end, others claim the universe is eternal, others claim other things entirely. I have no fixed opinion, but it would be nice to read the source from which you derive yours.

Says you - prove it doesn't (I know)

Says you - prove it

Says you - prove it.

Look if you want to just keep asserting things with no proof at all, then this is futile. I can conversely claim that the moon is made of cheese and we are all here only because the Invisible Pink Unicorn (bless her hooves) allows it. Why should I believe your claim any more than you should believe mine?

RedFive

Hi guys, didn't have the time yet to respond to the rest, but this is a good example I think of what the original post is about:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: Allah has punished Sharon for the mass murders in Sabra and Shatila

Pat Robertson: God has punished Sharon for allowing the Holy land to be fragmented.

Uh, OK

Reality

"Adam and Eve had two children that we know of. Cain and Abel. When they grew up, Cain (or was it the other one?) went off and found a wife. Just where exactly did this woman come from?"Gave us a giggle - at the expense of the sheep .

Leslie

OllyK,

As SBradley said, we are not really that far apart. I don't agree with your definition of "denial" though. The bit about evidence is wrong according to the OED and that may have caused some misunderstanding.

I certainly was not accusing you of running religious believers down but there is enough of that in some of the other posts by people who are not prepared to enter a discussion but just make unecessarily unpleasant remarks about those who do believe in a God.

Whether I believe in God or not, I was defending the right of others to do so without being decried by non believers for doing so. I also stated that those who do follow basic religious teachings do live a good life in general with respect to others as do many of those who are not religious and I see nothing wrong in that.

I do not "deny" scientific discoveries or theories, in fact that sort of thing has been the basis of my life so far. I fully accept the theory of evolution but that does not prove the non existence of a God either.

Like you I would welcome hard evidence but maybe it is ordained that will not be available to us for positive reasons by a superior being. I certainly would not be quoting the scriptures as evidence of a God either.

I personally think that people's personal beliefs where they tie in with natural law should at least be respected and that there is no place for childish or nasty comments by those who fail spectacularly in this way to have any significant bearing on the discussion.

I think you must realise by know that I am not encouraging you or anyone to become a "believer" but merely standing up for the rights of those who are.

Les

Sbradley

And that is where the trouble lies. People deciding that their religion entitles them to, at best, judge others and make pronouncements about them. And at worst pass the death sentence, courtesy of Fatwas-R-Us.

Which is funny, because the allegedly christian clerics who condemn people for any perceived transgression are also supposed to live by a book which says, and I quote, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone..." And they all claim to be sinners, too - when did you ever meet a priest (or, even better, a born again anything) who didn't say he was a sinner?

This, in my opinion, has nothing to do with God. God and organised religion, in many cases, seems to have the same relationship as truth and the press. Not to be allowed to get in the way of a good story...

SB

Reality

You're getting closer to a personal definition for your "God" - Good Analogy.

.

OllyK

The joys of language!

[quote]
I certainly was not accusing you of running religious believers down but there is enough of that in some of the other posts by people who are not prepared to enter a discussion but just make unecessarily unpleasant remarks about those who do believe in a God.

Whether I believe in God or not, I was defending the right of others to do so without being decried by non believers for doing so. I also stated that those who do follow basic religious teachings do live a good life in general with respect to others as do many of those who are not religious and I see nothing wrong in that.
[/quote

Oh I defend the right for anybody to believe anything, I also defend the right to freedom of speech and the opportunity to discuss and debate such issues. However, if somebody comes to the table with badly thought out ideas and is not in a positions to explain or support their assertions then I will be blunt.

Of course not, it doesn't try to. It doesn't explain abiogenesis either although many of the ID followers would have you believe it does and this is no doubt why they attack it so. Because they don't undertand what it is actually about, they feel it threatens their beliefs. Other religions have taken the time to understand it and realise it is not in conflict with the concept of a god. As I have said before - nothing will ever disprove the existence of god, it is however very easy to prove his existence - if he wants to co-operate.

I think you know me well enough, I have stood up for the rights of people to express their opinion in other threads, even when they are directly opposed to my own views. Unless we can air of views how can we debate them and hopefully learn??

Ben v7

OllyK.

Back to same old, same old - yes we are. I can't prove existence; you can't prove non-existence so it comes down to what you believe.

We don't know everything about the Universe and its existence so how come you are now making assertions about its requirements. One theory states it's self-existent, although observations (galaxies moving apart, evidence of cooling) doesn't support that notion.

The testing for God? Okay, can you give a vague idea as to how we would go about doing this with a unified definition of God then?

I wasn't asking you to look for God by the way - you misquoted me as that was with reference to the initial first few micro seconds of the Universe! I don't mind what anybody thinks - think what you want and I am not trying to convince you of anything. I am just defending my own thoughts on the matter.

Give it a rest with this supporting evidence and assertion stuff - I don't keep references of everything I read or watch in case it comes up in a debate on ScoobyNet! Yes I admit it may be theory and not fact but we’ve said enough about theory already. Is it implausible also to think there might be many Universes and that in this single one conditions are right? Reasonable assertion.

Regarding the multiple quotes of the last paragraph in my previous post - I can't prove it but again you can't disprove it, so it is a valid possibility!

This has been an interesting thread, despite attempts to imply there is something wrong with me for having these views or that I am simply ignorant. I am not. I have my own opinions that I have been prepared to justify on here, irrespective of the aggressive posting style shown by some.

Finally, re the website, I read the topic headings, looked at the banner, have visited other sites discussing such topics and guessed roughly what the site would be about - so shoot me!

GCollier

This is quite a nice little philosophical parable relevant to the discussion here:

Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. In the clearing were growing many flowers and many weeds. One explorer says, "Some gardener must tend this plot." The other disagrees, "There is no gardener." So they set up a barb-wired fence. They electrify it. They patrol with bloodhounds. (For they remember H. G. Wells's The Invisible Man could be both smelt and touched though he could not be seen.) But no shrieks ever suggest that some intruder has received a shock. No movements of the wire ever betray an invisible climber. The bloodhounds never give cry. Yet still the Believer is not convinced. "But there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible to electric shocks, a gardener who has no scent and makes no sounds, a gardener who comes secretly to look after the garden which he loves." At last the Sceptic despairs, "But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?"

Billbill

Far into the future, people from Earth finally found a planet with superior beings living upon it.
Upon approaching those beings, they were asked from where they came.
They responded by referring to the "Milky Way Galaxy" and at the fringe of same described which star was theirs and which planet from that star was theirs.
One of the "Superior Beings" turned to the other, with a very acusatory manner and exclaimed, "You were told to TERMINATE that project 50,000 years ago. Now GET IT DONE!!!"

Ben v7

OllyK

How many times - yes you can prove existence, just show me god, it really is that simple.

That's like saying a firework doesn't exist until it has exploded.

Which unified definition - as yet we don't have one. god can prove himself by showing himself to everyone. Unlikey he'll do that after 13 billion years, but that's the simple proof. The other way is to look at any claims made by religion that are testable. It isn't easy to look at the historical claims, but there are often newer claims made of miracles and such. These so far fail to stand up to scientific scrutiny.

You can think claim anything you like, if you want to be taken seriously though you need to be able to back it up.



If that is how you wish to interpret things that is your choice as is your belief system, but if you want to debate your position in a meaningful way you have to do more than merely assert, you have to provide some evidence, unless you claim to be god and all knowing? You seem to ackowledge this as a requirement which makes it nigh on impossible to have a meaningful discussion and anything more than a "dinner party" level.

You have been prepared to assert, not justify.

I suggest you may learn something if you read the contents of such sites. I avidly read the content of many religious forums. Sadly I get banned from most for asking questions - it seems you have to accept, to question is not allowed.

If you want to continue the discussion then I am happy to do so on the basis that you are prepared to substantiate the claims you make rather than taking a seagull approach to philosophy. If you are not then I see little to be achieved in my just pointing out the repeated locial fallacies in most of what you say.

Ben v7

Yes... it's been interesting but yes - getting nowhere. You don't acknowledge a valid choice to hold a particular belief given lack of proof either way.

Firework? Not really... the firework exists before it has exploded but the end display it results in exists only after it has exploded. Not sure if I have interpreted the point you were trying to make correctly...

I can't show you God I am afraid, but don't see why that is necessary for you to understand the concept of such an entity existing. I've already justified my view by stating that I don't think this universe, this planet etc are the way they are by coincidence - I think there was a designer for lack of a better word. Why that translates into me not understanding the power of Science to explain this Universe or unlock it's mysteries I don't know.

As far as providing supporting evidence for everything little thing I say - too much of a time investment for me on this thread I am afraid. I have sketched out my opinions well enough I think for a reasonable understanding of my view point. I think a few people at least would have read what I've posted and seen the various notions I've been trying to get across.

Billbill

NOW !!!
Their blither blather will make us all go crazy!!!

Leslie

I think the one thing which has not really entered the discussion so far is "faith".

It is a natural feeling that there may well be an all superior being who is in charge of it all. It is not just civilised nations of course but also native tribes in the jungle far from any influence from what we call civilised society who also belive that there must be someone or some beings who are responsible for the World's existence. It is therefore a type of belief which stems from our own lives and why it is all happening. We all know of the Gods from past civilisations as well

There is no positive evidence that they exist but people believe that they do because they feel that something must have started it all and they have faith that these Gods or God exist. They don't feel that they need the arguments or positive proof.

It is really quite awe inspiring to consider the vastness of space and its make up and as SBradley said, where did it all come from in the first place?

We know the laws of physics etc as they apply here on Earth. I wonder if they are the same everywhere in space though. I certainly think it would be elitist to think that ours is the only populated planet. Trouble is, even if we learn to travel at the speed of light we are unlikely to ever find out.

There is another thread now about God OllyK and the attitudes of those posting on it will illustrate what I was saying before. I feel it is a shame to see such gross intolerance.

Les

OllyK

Please read my earlier response to Leslie.

That's kind of my point - if you follow the "universe has always existed" route - you have the same situation, the big bang was just an event along the way.




I can understand the concept of unicorns as well, it doesn't mean they actually exist. Assertion and hypoteses do not facts make!

Quote:

I've already justified my view by stating that I don't think this universe, this planet etc are the way they are by coincidence - I think there was a designer for lack of a better word.

That's just a statement of your view of things, you haven't justified or supported it. I appreciate the problem, it is hard to justify the intangible.

Quote:

Why that translates into me not understanding the power of Science to explain this Universe or unlock it's mysteries I don't know.

You don't seem to be aware of the logical fallicies nor the need to provide evidence. That is where I draw my conclusion that you seem unfamiliar with the scientific process.



Evidence for any of your assertions would be a nice start and yes supporting your ideas beyond assertion is time consuming.

Quote:

I have sketched out my opinions well enough I think for a reasonable understanding of my view point. I think a few people at least would have read what I've posted and seen the various notions I've been trying to get across.

Yes you have posted your opinion, I can understand the concept, but I see no reason to actually believe it as so far all I have is your say so.

OllyK

Oh the temptation to use the "e" word

FWIW - I think man has been enquiring of his origins since he became self aware. Our progress and understaning of the millenia has much improved. I suspect back in the early times the understanding of their surroundings was very limitied. To start suggesting things came from a big explosion and the inteaction of sub-atomic particles would no doubt not enter their thoughts as they had no smaller stepping stones to get them to that point. So the question remained for them "what created us?". The invention or suggestion of a super natural ultra powerful human like being that did seems a pretty reasonable first guess for these people. I suspect if you posed the question to a child who had no exposure to religion at that point, you may well get a similar answer. My point being - I'm not surprised that a supernatural force is considered the creator by many races / tribes etc - it would seem a natural first guess to assume something like us but more powerful.

Indeed.

I suspect the laws of science are universal, I see no reason why they shouldn't be and so far wherever we have been able to test them, they hold up.

Life - I'd be very surprised if we are alone in the universe and proving other life will be a far easier task than proving a god. I dobt we will see evidence of other life in our lifetime - but I have little doubt that it will happen before very much longer, although I suspect at first we will find very simple things like bacteria.
I haven't looked and that's a slightly different issue!

Ben v7

Just one last point from me about life elsewhere in Space. I would also expect life to exist elsewhere in Universe and I do think we will find evidence of simple life before too long also. However, I am not sure if we will find intelligent life. The SETI program has been running for decades now without any real results. Communication could of course be occuring over mediums we are not aware of...

Leslie

Well I think we have all shown how fascinating the whole subject is and it will go on for ever I think unless there is some great revelation in the future, either supernatural or scientific. I wonder if that will happen before the eventual dextruction of this planet.

Les

Reality

Given George W Bush's Messages from God I doubt it .

What if God tells him he's had enough of Earth and all the non-believers and he should destroy it .

And if he doesn't do the Israelis will !

Leslie

Only if there is a trade off in oil!

Les

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

"My son, I'm not touching that with a 10 foot barge pole!" (South Park).