Atheists & Christians in the USA

[SciWriter]

Science can just as much answer questions about god as it can about bees. If god has an effect on the physical world, it can be studied.

Such as for God the Supernatural Theity who is even supposed to be everywhere doing everything; yet, only the natural is found.

 

[kx000]

Science can just as much answer questions about god as it can about bees. If god has an effect on the physical world, it can be studied.

God is why, not how.

 

[NMSquirrel]

This is why we have no respect for religion (and all other types of supernaturalism) on SciForums. No one has ever presented any evidence that withstood a peer review.

science is usually validated with peer review by other scientist..

religion is usually validated with peer review by other believers..

peer    
–noun
1.
a person of the same legal status: a jury of one's peers.
2.
a person who is equal to another in abilities, qualifications, age, background, and social status.
3.
something of equal worth or quality: a sky-scraper without peer.

so to invalidate religion because no scientist can validate it is in error.
its like you are asking a medical doctor to review a Quantum singularity paper..you (as scientist) are not qualified to 'peer' review any theist statement.

definition #2 applies to your argument, and there is no equal ability/qualification/age/background/ and social status between theist and scientists for to be considered 'peer' reviewed here at this site.

 

[SciWriter]

religion is usually validated with peer review by other believers..

There are no peers in the business of trying to make wishes into something.

 

[kx000]

There are no peers in the business of trying to make wishes into something.

You are a fool. You stay on the same argument, and thats critization. If you don't have faith, then cool, don't try to kill others faith.

 

[SciWriter]

You are a fool. You stay on the same argument, and thats critization. If you don't have faith, then cool, don't try to kill others faith.

They can have it, but it is only wishes, as there is nothing more to show, and that is wisdom, not foolishness.

"God cannot be known," as you said in another thread, it all being speculative nonsense.

 

[Rhaedas]

science is usually validated with peer review by other scientist..

religion is usually validated with peer review by other believers..

I can see the point you're trying to make. But religion's "validation" can vary from simple discussion to killing the other believers. Religion is also not too hung up on reproducibility for that validation, indeed believers may not often question a miracle, but just accept that it happened, particularly if it helps their own personal faith.

 

[kx000]

They can have it, but it is only wishes, as there is nothing more to show, and that is wisdom, not foolishness.

"God cannot be known," as you said in another thread, it all being speculative nonsense.

So we agree. There is no way of knowing of God, so any discussion about him is speculative nonsense. /thread

 

[spidergoat]

God is why, not how.

That's a statement of faith, not a rational argument.

 

[kx000]

That's a statement of faith, not a rational argument.

/thread

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

science is usually validated with peer review by other scientist. religion is usually validated with peer review by other believers.

The basic premise that underlies all science is that the natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its present and past behavior. Anyone who claims that an invisible, illogical supernatural universe exists, from which creatures and other forces whimsically and often angrily interfere with the functioning of the natural universe, is clearly asserting that science is false. By making this claim he steps out of his own academy and into ours! This gives us not merely the right, but the obligation to peer-review his preposterous assertion and toss him out on his butt.

so to invalidate religion because no scientist can validate it is in error. its like you are asking a medical doctor to review a Quantum singularity paper.

You disingenuously speak of the doctrines of religion as though they are as deep and complicated as the Theory of Relativity. They are not. It doesn't take a PhD in religion--or even in science!--to understand that there is no evidence for the existence of a supernatural universe.

I'll leave them their "angels dancing on a pin" controversies to argue among themselves. But when they call science wrong, which is what they do the first time the meaningless word "God" comes out of their mouths, they have crossed the line.

there is no equal ability/qualification/age/background/ and social status between theist and scientists for to be considered 'peer' reviewed here at this site.

This is a science website. Anything posted here can legitimately be analyzed with the methods of science. Duh?

 

[kx000]

Why are we having this argument? I already agree with you guys. We CAN NOT KNOW OF GOD. WE CAN NOT!! The same thing would happen that happens in King Kong. We would try and put him on display and sell tickets, and pop corn.. the only difference is he would smite us all. There is no "logical argument" for God except billions of people around the world, and through time have always had a understanding of a creator. Every civilization has shared this sort of belief. Why? When is not a coincidence any more?

Hey, even though, I, "The Voice of Reason," fully understand your argument, and accept it yet I still maintain my faith, and trust me, I am not a stubborn man, have faith in that.

 

[kx000]

The basic premise that underlies all science is that the natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its present and past behavior. Anyone who claims that an invisible, illogical supernatural universe exists, from which creatures and other forces whimsically and often angrily interfere with the functioning of the natural universe, is clearly asserting that science is false. By making this claim he steps out of his own academy and into ours! This gives us not merely the right, but the obligation to peer-review his preposterous assertion and toss him out on his butt.You disingenuously speak of the doctrines of religion as though they are as deep and complicated as the Theory of Relativity. They are not. It doesn't take a PhD in religion--or even in science!--to understand that there is no evidence for the existence of a supernatural universe.

I'll leave them their "angels dancing on a pin" controversies to argue among themselves. But when they call science wrong, which is what they do the first time the meaningless word "God" comes out of their mouths, they have crossed the line.This is a science website. Anything posted here can legitimately be analyzed with the methods of science. Duh?

You are a fool. So, so smart, but a fool. Can't you see? Use this logic. God can either A. Exist, or B. Not exist. Correct? Can we agree on that? If he does exist, and you keep faith, and live as a "good man" you get into Heaven. Thats ALL you have to do. So simple. No test's, no fee's, nothing. Why not just keep the faith?

For if you don't.. If he isn't real, then so be it.. then you just die and go back to the earth to be forgotten over time. You don't lose anything. If God isn't real, weather you had faith in him or not, when you die your going to the same place as anyone else, and thats in the ground, but if he is real and you had faith then you go to heaven, if you didn't have faith then you don't.

 

[KilljoyKlown]

You are a fool. So, so smart, but a fool. Can't you see? Use this logic. God can either A. Exist, or B. Not exist. Correct? Can we agree on that? If he does exist, and you keep faith, and live as a "good man" you get into Heaven. Thats ALL you have to do. So simple. No test's, no fee's, nothing. Why not just keep the faith?

For if you don't.. If he isn't real, then so be it.. then you just die and go back to the earth to be forgotten over time. You don't lose anything. If God isn't real, weather you had faith in him or not, when you die your going to the same place as anyone else, and thats in the ground, but if he is real and you had faith then you go to heaven, if you didn't have faith then you don't.

What you are suggesting is something very close to the following:

Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher, mathematician, and physicist Blaise Pascal that even if the existence of God could not be determined through reason, a rational person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose. Pascal formulated his suggestion uniquely on the God of Jesus Christ as implied by the greater context of his Pensées, a posthumously published collection of notes made by Pascal in his last years as he worked on a treatise on Christian apologetics. The Wager was set out in note 233 of this work.

Following his argument establishing the Wager, Pascal addressed the possibility that some people may not be willing to sincerely believe in God even after acknowledging the enormous benefit of betting in favor of God's existence. In this case, he advises them to live as though they had faith, which may subvert their irrational passions and lead them to genuine belief.

Following the publication of Pascal's Wager, some have argued that the Wager may also apply to conceptions of God within different religious traditions or belief systems, and as such has been used in traditions other than Christianity, such as Islam. Historically, Pascal's Wager was groundbreaking because it charted new territory in probability theory, was one of the first attempts to make use of the concept of infinity, marked the first formal use of decision theory, and anticipated future philosophies such as existentialism, pragmatism, and voluntarism.

There's more on Wikipedia, but I have to say the idea you are suggesting turns my stomach. To beleve in a fairytail on the chance that it might be true is just so wrong on so many levels.

 

[James R]

For if you don't.. If he isn't real, then so be it.. then you just die and go back to the earth to be forgotten over time. You don't lose anything. If God isn't real, weather you had faith in him or not, when you die your going to the same place as anyone else, and thats in the ground, but if he is real and you had faith then you go to heaven, if you didn't have faith then you don't.

The problem with Pascal's wager is that it assumes you lose nothing by having faith. If God turns out not to exist, then having faith may actually take up time and effort that you could better spend doing other things. It may even be harmful because if your beliefs about the world are actually false you may act in ways that are not conducive to your health and wellbeing.

One example might be somebody who decides that suicide bombing is the "faithful" thing to do, just in case God exists. If God turns out not to exist, then that person has blown himself up for a false belief.

 

[gmilam]

Another example might be those who withhold proper healthcare from themselves or those they love due to the "faith" that god will heal them.

 

[NMSquirrel]

The basic premise that underlies all science is that the natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its present and past behavior.

the only thing i will make comment on this,where is the evidence for a closed system? other than that i agree

Anyone who claims that an invisible, illogical supernatural universe exists, from which creatures and other forces whimsically and often angrily interfere with the functioning of the natural universe, is clearly asserting that science is false. By making this claim he steps out of his own academy and into ours!

true enough..then isn't it the scientists (or amateur scientists) responsibility to NOT pigeonhole that persons claims into that of ALL believers?
in science if there is exception to a rule,then the rule does not apply..

This gives us not merely the right, but the obligation to peer-review his preposterous assertion and toss him out on his butt.You disingenuously speak of the doctrines of religion as though they are as deep and complicated as the Theory of Relativity.

i do not claim God invalidates science, and i think it irresponsible for a believer to do so, in fact i have argued that God and science can exist together.(why can't God be natural?)

They are not. It doesn't take a PhD in religion--or even in science!--to understand that there is no evidence for the existence of a supernatural universe.

again..i argue science is looking for evidence in the wrong places.

I'll leave them their "angels dancing on a pin" controversies to argue among themselves. But when they call science wrong, which is what they do the first time the meaningless word "God" comes out of their mouths, they have crossed the line.This is a science website. Anything posted here can legitimately be analyzed with the methods of science. Duh?

you cannot get an accurate measurement if you are trying to use the wrong test equipment.

but..like i said earlier..it is very irresponsible of religion to dismiss science.
but it is also irresponsible of science to argue the same way..

religionist: there is no science..
science: there is no God..

see how immature it sounds?

R: yes there is..
S: no there isn't..

just because religion invalidates science is not a reason for science to invalidate God.

 

[kx000]

Im done. I'll keep my faith.

 

[KilljoyKlown]

(why can't God be natural?)

From Wikipedia:

Within the various uses of the word today, "nature" often refers to geology and wildlife. Nature may refer to the general realm of various types of living plants and animals, and in some cases to the processes associated with inanimate objects – the way that particular types of things exist and change of their own accord, such as the weather and geology of the Earth, and the matter and energy of which all these things are composed. It is often taken to mean the "natural environment" or wilderness–wild animals, rocks, forest, beaches, and in general those things that have not been substantially altered by human intervention, or which persist despite human intervention. For, example, manufactured objects and human interaction generally are not considered part of nature, unless qualified as, for example, "human nature" or "the whole of nature". This more traditional concept of natural things which can still be found today implies a distinction between the natural and the artificial, with the artificial being understood as that which has been brought into being by a human consciousness or a human mind. Depending on the particular context, the term "natural" might also be distinguished from the unnatural, the supernatural, or synthetic.

While humans are considered natural, what they create is not. Therefore, we can assume that the creation of any mind is not natural. That being the case if there was a God and he did create the universe, then that universe would not be nateral.

 

[KilljoyKlown]

Im done.

I'll believe that when I see it.