The Age of the Universe

[Bambi]

Originally posted by Asguard

There are many things that can’t be seen that are believed to exist.

When those things are within the scope of science, there is convincing indirect evidence of them even when they cannot be seen directly.

Take atoms and subatomic particles for example they can’t be seen but scientists believe they exist, and what about the stars that are to far away to be seen with even the strongest telescope but scientists believe they exist. In fact in light of evidence to the contrary they have FAITH that they do.

Such "faith" is based on evidence and theoretical prediction. It's qualitatively very different from groundless belief maintained by the religious.

Then there are all those poor people who have FAITH that the sun will rise tomorrow. I mean they don’t have factual evidence that it will.

That's just another example of theoretical prediction.

A religious person on the other hand has FAITH in a higher power of some description. They have no hard evidence that it dose but then neither do the sceptics have evidence that it doesn’t.

Take concepts from science and religion. For each concept, ask the following question: how did the concept arise?

You will find that scientific concepts are always grounded in reproducible observation, while religious concepts are grounded in nothing but fantasy.

So this poor, depraved person must decide dose the universe make more sense to be a huge cosmic accident or if it is the plan of a higher power.

Ehm, you might want to look up the real meaning of "depraved" in the dictionary (I doubt that's the word you intended to use here...)

On the other hand, the only productive way to make sense of the universe is to poke and prod at it to see what happens. Getting lost in fantasies is not the ticket to truth.

 

[Asguard]

Sorry about the 'depraved' thing i was just being sarcastic

My point still stands though as there is no evidance to disprove a "PLAN" of some discription you can't discount the possablity that a "GOD" of some discription dose indeed exist in some form or another


Please if you can give concreat evidance that god dosen't exist i would be very interested to see it and i wont even judge it ill leave that to everyone else because I'm sure you would view my oppinion as biast. Good luck as its imposable to prove a negative



By the way the EARTH IS FLAT

 

[Asguard]

qote: by scilosopher on "energy is everything" thread

________________________________________________
I think it is a major failing of many, particularly those considering themselves to be hard nosed and scientific, to overly discount the possibility of things not explained by current science. Not even necessarily extending the argument to things ruled out by current scientific dogma.

Scientific theories often can't explain phenomena completely and then the general rule is to stick with the best current theory as a working hypothesis. A lot of disagreement on these matters is based on acceptance of data.
________________________________________________

I think that pritty much sums it up

IF YOU CAN'T PROVE IT DONT DISCOUNT IT

 

[Bambi]

I only discount it considering its origin.

Where did you get your idea of a "GOD" or of a "PLAN"? What is it about the observable universe that drives you to postulate such things?

By the way, that monster under your bed is going to bite your head off one of these nights.

 

[Asguard]

In that case then its really no point talking to you because whatever i say you have already discounted but try to be a little openminded to other people's views

just read my signiture it say's it all

 

[Bambi]

But you neglected to address my two questions. What, ever pondered them before?

If you weren't raised in a religious culture, would you still be in possession of your religious concepts?

And no, all things are not possible even in an infinite universe -- unless that universe is pure chaos.

 

[Asguard]

you didn't answer my question either

CAN U GIVE CONCREAT PROFF THAT THEIR IS NO GOD

as I said I wont even judge the evidance someone else can if you prefer

oh and to prove I'm not just egnoring what I can't answer yes i have pondered wither if we had a religon free sociaty i would belive in god and no i don't know the anwer but at least i can admit the other side may have a point you don't seem able to admit you can't anwer any better than me

 

[ImaHamster2]

Asguard, about that signature…

Assuming the universe is infinite doesn’t mean all things are possible. Consider the infinite set of numbers consisting of all numbers that only have the digits “1” or “2”, e.g. “2212.2111”. Nowhere in that infinite set is the number “3”. The natural structure of the universe likely precludes many things.

(Oops, Bambi made the same point first.)

 

[Asguard]

ok I'll take that back because it's just clouding the other points i made which NO ONE HAS BEEN GAME ENOUGH TO TRY TO ANWER

 

[Xelios]

Asguard, can you give me concrete proof there is a god?

 

[Asguard]

No i can't give concreat prof that their is a god and if i could i probly could't prove that IT was the caholic god but then i also can't give evidance that the sun will rise tomorrow so i supose in some peoples oppinon this weakens my position but i FREELY admit to the possablity that i could be wrong i don't dissmiss something just beacause it came out of the mouth of a non-beliver i try to look at thing objectively. you could belive I'm wrong but i think that this is the difference between BAMBI's arguments and mine

quote:
________________________________________________
I only discount it considering its origin.
________________________________________________

this is not openmindedness

i freely admit i could be wrong she (im gessing you are female sorry if you are a guy) dosen't seem to be able to admit to any possablity than her own

 

[Cris]

Asguard,

It is usually accepted that it is impossible to prove that something doesn’t exist since we do not have the capabilities to search every corner of the universe.

However, theists have made claims that gods do exist. It is also customary that when making a claim then proof is to be expected. If no proof is presented then the claims have no substance and there is no reason to believe them.

If you make a claim then the onus is on you to prove it; that is if you want others to believe the claim. There is no requirement for others to disprove your claims; that simply isn’t reasonable. People just don’t go around trying to disprove all the fantastic claims that are possible.

Most atheists do not claim a belief that gods do not exist. Most atheists simply disbelieve the claims made by theists because there is no proof.

Note that disbelieving a claim is not the same as believing it is false.

Another group of atheists do claim a belief that gods do not exist and in these cases they are also expected to prove their claims. Usually they target their proofs against very specific definitions of a specific god.

For example I believe the Christian god does not exist because the claim of omniscient creator forms a paradox with the claim of human free will. The definitions result in an impossible condition, so such a god cannot exist.

Bambi has argued that gods cannot exist if they are claimed to be the first uncaused first cause because intelligence must have formed from a simpler medium, which means that medium must have preceded the gods. In which case the claims for an originating creator god is also invalid.

Other strong atheists offer other variations for their proofs.

Hope that helps.

Cris

 

[Cris]

Asguard,

The other issue about believing something without proof is that such a position is irrational.

Logical conclusions must be based on evidence; this is simply a requirement for valid reasoning.

If you choose a positive belief in something but cannot show any proof or evidence to support your belief then you are technically irrational (illogical).

The only rational position in the absence of evidence or proofs is to suspend belief until such evidence or proofs become available. In this case, while you leave open the possibility that gods might exist, you would be technically an atheist.

Only someone who holds a positive belief in a god is a theist, if you lack that certainty then you are an atheist. There is no middle ground.

Cris

 

[Asguard]

There is another thread about fate and the last statement admited that it's imposable to prove we have free will and its imposable to prove that fate exists i belive the same thing applies here i belive that there is a god (if u want the full version of my beliefs message back, im not going to write down if no one is interested) but i can admit that lacking concreat evidance to prove this, that i could be wrong what i don't understand is why bambi can't show the curtisy to bais her arguments on fact and not simply discount mine because she dosn't like the sorce. is this simply the scientific book burning, if dosen't argree with me its wrong. i have a friend from school and i spent half of year 12 trying to argue that god dosen't exist simply so he would open his eyes to a different point of view now i come to this site and find the same closed mindedness he had and im a bit disapointed i thought a sciene site would have people open to a different view point. Gess i was wrong

think this will be last message to this thread your all starting to bore me

 

[LIGHTBEING]

Agreed with Asguard, just because we cannot find hardcore proof does not automatically conclude that "God" does not exist. The Proof that "God" might exist is that there is no Proof!!!!

 

[Cris]

Asguard,

half of year 12

You must be in the UK, right?

…trying to argue that god doesn’t exist simply so he would open his eyes to a different point of view now I come to this site and find the same closed mindedness he had and I’m a bit disappointed I thought a science site would have people open to a different view point. Guess I was wrong

Yes people the world over tend to migrate to a particular fixed position and it takes an enormous effort for them to see a different perspective. It usually takes a very long time; so don’t expect to change anyone’s mind by your arguments. If your argument is very strong and well supported by a weight of and high quality evidence then just hope that your debatee has the intelligence to see the alternate view and will perhaps doubt their own position, but don’t expect them to admit that to your face. Very very few people will ever openly admit they might be wrong, let alone that they are wrong.

Don’t give up on Bambi [s/h]e has one of the sharpest minds here.

think this will be last message to this thread your all starting to bore me

I doubt that anyone will care if you are bored or not. Don’t give up so easily. These are real people here, so don’t expect them to behave the way you want them to, the world doesn’t work that way. There are many reasons why someone doesn’t respond or doesn’t respond the way you would like. If your message didn’t work then you will need to work on it to make it stronger.

Lightbeing

Agreed with Asguard, just because we cannot find hardcore proof does not automatically conclude that "God" does not exist.

That is correct. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

The Proof that "God" might exist is that there is no Proof!!!!

That statement seems a little muddled, sorry no offence meant, but having read it several times I’m still not sure it makes sense.

I’m not sure it is possible to prove that something might exist, and if you could then I’m not sure what that would mean. Sorry, just confused by your statement.

Cris

 

[ImaHamster2]

The Middle Ground

Several types of “proof” are being mixed together, mathematical proof, scientific proof, and human proof.

Math proof applies formal reasoning to formal systems. All assumptions must be strictly defined. The real world seldom fits those strict definitions. Applying conclusions derived from a formal system that only approximately matches the real world is questionable. In certain areas such as physics the correspondence between formal systems and physical systems has led to very successful theories. In other areas the application of formal results to the real world has led to absurd conclusions. No matter how mathematically correct a formal result may be, applying that result to make a real world conclusion remains a shaky step.

Scientific proof is based upon accumulation of evidence. The criterion for evidence is strict. Theories compete. Those that best explain the evidence and make useful predictions win out over time. Math and logic are valuable tools but the ultimate determination of “truth” is made through repeatable experiment. Scientific “truths” are not absolute. New evidence may require refining theory. Some scientific “truths” are supported by such overwhelming evidence that the possibility they are significantly wrong is very remote.

Human proof. Humans use many methods to perceive and understand and predict the universe. Some human methods are innate. Others are learned when one is an infant and child. Human methods work well in daily life. Human methods often provide insight and inspiration for math and science. They also frequently lead one astray.

Many people feel there is human proof for the existence of the supernatural. So far the “evidence” for the supernatural does not meet the strict standards of science. (THAT’s why it’s called supernatural.)

That does not mean that a belief in the supernatural is the same as believing in pink elephants or any other random possibility. A person came to their beliefs using their human methods.

This hamster favors science. Science provides the best answers, math and logic the next best, and human methods trail. However there are many areas where science and math provide no answer or poor answers. One is left with human methods or none.

All theories and answers are not equal. Some are supported by overwhelming evidence and some have little or no evidence. Proclaiming that all possibilities should be given equal respect does a disservice to the efforts of many diligent scientists. Proclaiming that believing anything not shown as true by science is irrational does a disservice to human reasoning.

 

[LIGHTBEING]

That statement seems a little muddled, sorry no offence meant, but having read it several times I’m still not sure it makes sense.

None taken. Maybe I am speaking too abstractly. It makes perfect sense to me. You may have to read it a couple more times, but it absolutely makes sense.

The Proof that "God" might exist is that there is no Proof!!!!

What I am trying to make clear is that since there is no Proof that "God" does not exist then infact it may be possible that "God" does exist. There is no evidence either way but the possibilities still remain.

 

[Cris]

Hi hamster,

Nice post.

Proclaiming that believing anything not shown as true by science is irrational does a disservice to human reasoning.

I believe this statement to be untrue.

What is human reasoning to be compared to? Animal reasoning? Or are you comparing human reasoning to logical reasoning? But Logic is reasoning to the highest standard. It follows then that if logic is not used then the resultant method of reasoning is inferior and less dependable.

Would you then accept a truth by one method that cannot be claimed by a more accurate method? And where does that stop? Religionists take such claims to the extreme and state that religious faith is an accurate method for establishing knowledge and truth. And they call that reasonable.

In my post I stated ‘technically irrational’, to distinguish a strict logic definition with derogatory abuse. Most people are technically irrational in many things they do, including myself.

But in terms of a scientific proof, or any type of proof, if all premises are not based on facts and evidence then the conclusion is invalid, but to continue to make the claim despite invalid logic is technically irrational (outside of reason).

Human reasoning in the sense you imply is simply inadequate reasoning and potentially leads to incorrect conclusions, and is therefore of little to no value.

Cris

 

[Asguard]

You are right cris and so i applogise for my last post (i was anoyed at the time) by the way im from Australia no the UK we just have a simalar system. Now as to proof i can give very little as i wasn't alive when Jeuse live or Mosses or Abraham or any of the profits so i just have to have faith that he dose exist (i do have proof enought for me but i doubt it will satifiy many people here, things that I've prayed for that have come true, example it to stop rainning on a cricket match i was playing). i really don't care if people belive what i do or not just that they admit the possablilty i could be right