re-EVOL-ve
- Thread starter 786
- Start date
Depends on which God you're talking about. I've rejected the existence of certain ones, but there are others I haven't thought much about, and I'm sure there are still others I've never even heard of.
Certain of them I've considered and rejected due to lack of supporting evidence - and presence of strong counter-evidence. Others I haven't spent much time on, and still others I've never heard of.
As far as theism in general, as opposed to a specific religion, I'd have to say that the only conceptions of deities I could countenance would be those that either have no material affect on the universe. Which is sort of extraneous to begin with, and so not the sort of thing that any theist I've met would go in for in the first place.
On what basis have you rejected them? I mean I understand if you 'lack' believe in them due to lack of evidence but to reject them is a counter-claim which would require 'evidence' (or counter-evidence)
Can you give an example of which god you have rejected, and what was the counter-evidence?
Why would non-interference be a reason for your 'countenance'?
Peace be unto you
Ok so none of you atheists reject God's existence- you simply don't consider the idea due to the lack of evidence- correct?
Peace be unto you
PS-BTW the original question is done with thanks to the responses by Spidergoat :bravo: (just making sure that people don't start it again, those late comers
I think science can now show that the Abrahamic God does not exist beyond a reasonable doubt. It can refute the major arguments in favor of a personal God, especially the argument from design and the fine-tuning argument. Statistics can show that religious people aren't more moral (indeed the opposite is often true). Experiments have not shown a prayer effect. Absence of evidence where evidence should exist, is evidence of absence.
Indeed. Certain types of deities are quite easy to disprove. For example, those that are held to be both omnipotent and benevolent. This directly conflicts with the pervasive presence of evil and suffering. Other supernatural conceptions don't even merit disproof: have you disproved that unicorns exist?
The standard conception of the Christian God is incompatible with the existance of evil.
Because then it wouldn't conflict with naturalism. We have adequate naturalistic explanations for essentially all phenomena we observe; if God intervenes physically in nature (causing miracles and such) than we'd surely have observed such interventions by now, which we could not explain through naturalistic means. But that hasn't happened.
I didn't know that Science could test for the 'supernatural' when it has acknowledged to be the study of 'natural' phenomenon.
Peace be unto you
So this is basically 'If God is just' argument, I think this can be reconciled. Secondly you would have to define what is meant by 'benevolence', secondly you would have to prove that God being omnipotent would cause him to not create humans, because of the evil that comes with it. You are making a straight chain of thought while it could be much more complex.
That would be their understanding of God.....
Couldn't God manipulate nature to produce an event- in which case everything can still be explained by nature, as it is the nature that is being manipulated? I mean the two don't have to be mutually exclusive. Secondly it is possible that God only interferes in certain times, in which case you wouldn't have observed such interventions.
Peace be unto you
Please explain how Science tests for supernatural through natural means... and if possible please detail the misconception, I would love to see some primary literature on scientists testing for supernatural.
Have a good day
Thank you!Have a good day
The supernatural would swiftly become a hot area of science if there were any evidence for it. There is nothing about science that inherently rejects the possibility.
Please explain how anyone even had an idea about the supernatural if there were no interaction with the physical world? Claims about the supernatural can be tested to see if there is a plausable naturalistic explanation. All plausable naturalistic explanations must first be discounted before a supernatural one can be considered (since nothing supernatural has yet been shown to exist).
I'm pretty confident that Ron Hubbard didn't really believe in Xenu. With this in mind, what does this say of how Scientologists assign a value to things? Well, I'd say they are effectively assigning Ron's value system to things and maintaining this is their value system.
Take one step back: We know that some people (including Muslims) convert to Scientology solely because Ron's value system matches with their own - and the Intergalactic Space Opera resonates with them in some way. So they join the Church of Scientology. Others were raised to believe in Ron's mythology - they can not but help to think within Ron's value system, automatically adopting it as their own as they matured into adults.
It is essentially no different than you. The only point of difference is it wasn't Ron who made up the value system but Mohammad. Just as Ron Hubbard pretended to "hear" Xenu and receive "Intergalactic Revelations", Mohammad pretended to "hear" an angel and receive "Heavenly Revelations" Again, I'm sure that Ron didn't really think he was hearing Xenu. He made it up. There is no Xenu. Scientologists assign values to things based on a man who was an athiest personal value system.
Take another step back (probably it's already one too many for you 786). Where was Ron's value system really derived from? No Xenu. We know this much. So, where? Well, the culture of 1950s USA. Pretty simple really. Ron's value system is from 1950s USA.
In summary, members of the Church of Scientology, while they may not be atheists themselves, they assign an atheist's (Ron's) 1950s value system to things in the year 2009. For now there's not too much of a disconnect between 1950 and 2009. So it's OK. BUT imagine if it were the year 3509. If we were to look at Scientology in 1400 years time in the future - well, these 1950s values will probably be pretty barbaric. So Scientologists would be seen as developmentally and socially stunted neanderthals. I can imagine the more "fundamental" the Sceintogoists (those that attempt to cling to Ron's Xenuic Revelation the tightest) will be the suicide bombers of the future.
The only difference is your value system is that of Mohammad's (an atheist) - which was derived in the deserts of Arabia 1400 years ago. You're essentially assigning value to things based on an athiest's (Mohammad) nomadic culture in the year 650 BCE (well actually the people who really made up the Qu'ran lived in the 8th century).
Unrest be upon you (and hence a reason to live)
Michael
PS: One last step back: Without an ability to really stand back and get out of your bubble and see things as they truly are, that there are no Olympian Gods or Intergalactic Warlords, well, you just won't really understand the answers to your own questions.