You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why do we need a God?
- Thread starter aaqucnaona
- Start date
I'd said yes... I don't believe a lot of people have the ability to live by any moral standard motivated solely by their personal intent. Sometimes we need a reason to behave when capital punishment isn't enough.
I think some of us forget that right/wrong isn't always black/white and there are people out there that need guidance, even if it comes from a book. I genuinely believe the idea of god has helped more people than it's harmed and people will continue to believe in god no matter what evidence is presented to them.
It's not necessarily out of denial or stupidity...more like a acknowledgment of one's insignificance.
I think some of us forget that right/wrong isn't always black/white and there are people out there that need guidance, even if it comes from a book. I genuinely believe the idea of god has helped more people than it's harmed and people will continue to believe in god no matter what evidence is presented to them.
It's not necessarily out of denial or stupidity...more like a acknowledgment of one's insignificance.
If you not only can't understand precisely why it isn't or even engage in a discussion discussing precisely why it isn't, you simply don't have a hope of understanding the answer.@LG --
Irrelevant, answer my question. If science isn't the way then what is?
already explained why.@LG --
Why won't you answer my question? What is the proper tool to use to understand spiritual/religious claims?
You can't understand why empiricism (what you think is the "real" answer to the problem) is incapable of answering it.
I'll say it again just to save you asking the same question twice
You can't understand why empiricism (what you think is the "real" answer to the problem) is incapable of answering it.
:shrug:
I explained why there is no point.@LG --
That's not the question I asked. What is the tool we need to use to understand spiritual/religious claims?
You think its a dud question because you are already are convinced you have the right tool and are not interested in even discussing why it is not up for the task.
IOW "I know what I like and I like what I know" renders any pretense of further inquiry a waste of time.
Again, why believe in something for which there is no evidence? Science does not do that, in spite of your claim that it does. If God cannot be detected, then it's unreasonable to believe in it. That is not the same thing as saying there cannot be a God. I admit a slim possibility for the sake of argument, but at this point in history, there is no evidence for it.
Look down below for my answer.
Last edited:
It's one thing to hypothesize about unseen forces that are at least theoretically detectable, quite another to have an unshakable faith in something that isn't even theoretically detectable, as most theists do. The universe is complex, and scientific progress still leaves many things unexplained, but is not logical justification for believe in things for which there is, as yet, no evidence. A God is in any case a way to not look for answers, since it can be the answer to everything, it's a way to stop looking, which is what religion historically seems to want. I guess it's because admitting we don't know causes some people emotional distress.
Faith does not need scientific evidences/proofs, and that's what makes the faith unique. I don't have a problem with this, no scientist should either, neither should you.
Otherwise, science would like or is like religion in the dark ages-you can believe into anything only what science proves it. The universe would never be fully explained, researched to the point you can say and irrefutably 100% prove and be absolutely sure that there is or there is no God, and this is why people have every right to believe in God, life after death, ghosts, undetectable sub-atomic particles, undetectable forms of matter, undetectable forms of energy and etc..., because there is no way you can prove or disprove (and never will) their claims. Once you prove that truly there is or there is no God after you're able to explain the entire universe (all of its processes) and irrefutable prove it how actually it works and detect all the forces, forms of matter and forms of energy that are present in entire universe, than and only than you can forbid to religious people to believe in God, life after death, ghosts and etc..., but only AFTER all of the phenomenons (both natural/universal, quantum/sub-atomic/primordial and unexplainable that are claimed supernatural or weird at worst) are fully 100% explained and those explanations are irrefutably proven.
Last edited:
So now we have to ask, did God leave us, knowing that we can care for ourselves, having become spacefarers; and is therefor irrelevant anymore or Maybe, he wasn't there all along?
So - Do we need a God and Why?
With what is happening in the world now, one is left to ask such question. For instance, see the way christians are massarced without mercy in parts of the world. In the olden days, this cannot happen, God will interven as he did during the time of Moses, Elijah, Aeron and so many others.
So one realy need to ask that question:
So now we have to ask, did God leave us, knowing that we can care for ourselves, having become spacefarers; and is therefor irrelevant anymore or Maybe, he wasn't there all along?
Last edited:
@Gravage --
It's also what makes faith no different from the gullibility that get's people ripped off by various flavors of snake-oil salesmen. Is that really a good thing?
Faith does not need scientific evidences/proofs, and that's what makes the faith unique.
It's also what makes faith no different from the gullibility that get's people ripped off by various flavors of snake-oil salesmen. Is that really a good thing?
Otherwise, science would like or is like religion in the dark ages-you can believe into anything only what science proves it.No, see that's the beautiful thing about science, it doesn't matter if you believe or not. Science will lead you to the same result consistently, that's kind of what happens if you follow the evidence to a conclusion instead of starting with a conclusion and looking to support it.
The universe would never be fully explained, researched to the point you can say and irrefutably 100% prove and be absolutely sure that there is or there is no God,
Maybe, maybe not. I know that I can't see the future and know for sure, but it is a possibility. And of all the methods we have that can gain us knowledge, science has a better shot at it than anything else.
and this is why people have every right to believe in God, life after death, ghosts, undetectable sub-atomic particles, undetectable forms of energy and etc...
I don't think that anyone here has ever said anything other than this. What I will say is that just as people have a right to believe whatever they want we have the right to say what we want about those beliefs.
Don't like it? Well tough shit.
because there is no way you can prove or disprove (and never will) their claims.
That's not necessarily true. Before something can be proven or disproven it must be properly defined and described, once that happens we can prove or disprove it's existence by various means.
Once you prove that truly there is or there is no God after you're able to explain the entire universe and irrefutable prove it how actually it works and detect all the forces, forms of matter and forms of energy that are present in entire universe, than and only than you can forbid to religious people to believe in God, life after death, ghosts and etc...
Well we're a long ways off from that. But even if that were the case, why would we forbid people from believing in something? Not only is it a practice in futility, what with it being impossible to enforce and all, but it doesn't really matter to science what you believe. If it works then it works, whether you like it or not.
@Gravage --
It's also what makes faith no different from the gullibility that get's people ripped off by various flavors of snake-oil salesmen. Is that really a good thing?
Otherwise, science would like or is like religion in the dark ages-you can believe into anything only what science proves it.No, see that's the beautiful thing about science, it doesn't matter if you believe or not. Science will lead you to the same result consistently, that's kind of what happens if you follow the evidence to a conclusion instead of starting with a conclusion and looking to support it.
Maybe, maybe not. I know that I can't see the future and know for sure, but it is a possibility. And of all the methods we have that can gain us knowledge, science has a better shot at it than anything else.
I don't think that anyone here has ever said anything other than this. What I will say is that just as people have a right to believe whatever they want we have the right to say what we want about those beliefs.
Don't like it? Well tough shit.
That's not necessarily true. Before something can be proven or disproven it must be properly defined and described, once that happens we can prove or disprove it's existence by various means.
Well we're a long ways off from that. But even if that were the case, why would we forbid people from believing in something? Not only is it a practice in futility, what with it being impossible to enforce and all, but it doesn't really matter to science what you believe. If it works then it works, whether you like it or not.
I was responding to spider-goat, and the purpose of my answers is simple: people have the right to believe in whatever they want to, because according to spider-goat, just because there is scientific no evidence/proof that God exists or not exists, jut because science can't prove it/disprove it.
Yes, you're right, people have the right to believe in anything they want even if it was 100% proven that God or anything else does not exist, but what I think is that everyone would believe in the same, if science proves disproves god, life after death, ghosts or disproves them 100% and finds something else instead of god.
You said:
"No, see that's the beautiful thing about science, it doesn't matter if you believe or not. Science will lead you to the same result consistently, that's kind of what happens if you follow the evidence to a conclusion instead of starting with a conclusion and looking to support it."
But the problem is when you're dealing with forces that you don't know anything about them, scientists are like religious people, we think and we BELIEVE, this works like or was created by or I think this is an indication of...
Cheers.
We dont. God is for the lazy that simply need to invest in an education.
Actually scientists do that all the time, just check what they say for popular scientific magazines and in many, many interviews, scientists think that their opinions are correct, but scientists also pretty much always say that they BELIEVE that's the way something was created/evolved/happened.
The most educated scientists believe in God's existence as well (and there are many scientists who believe in God's existence)), and yet they are brilliant scientists, this is a matter of choice not education-it's your free choice if you want to be lazy and if you don't want to be educated. And what's the point of science and technology if we live in an extremely stressful job and equally stressful world...
Cheers.
Last edited:
@Gravage --
Nope, science works, and we have proof. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding, and in this case the pudding is that the products of science work, consistently. If your computer is plugged in and there are no hardware issues, it will consistently turn on when you flick the switch.
Nope, science works, and we have proof. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding, and in this case the pudding is that the products of science work, consistently. If your computer is plugged in and there are no hardware issues, it will consistently turn on when you flick the switch.
The point he was making is that there are many claims made in the name of science that don't have any issues of application beyond theoretical models - kind of like saying the proof is in the pudding that we guess was eaten 3 billion years in the past or future.@Gravage --
Nope, science works, and we have proof. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding, and in this case the pudding is that the products of science work, consistently. If your computer is plugged in and there are no hardware issues, it will consistently turn on when you flick the switch.
Its kind of like "Why do we need explanations made in the name of science that aren't evidenced by working models?"
Perhaps it wouldn't be so bad if they were simply used exclusively as theoretical models.
Brilliant idea.@LG --
How about you answer my question. What tool are we supposed to use to understand spiritual/religious claims?
First in involves a discussion on why the answer you think already fits the bill is totally unsatisfactory.
Let me know when you are up for it.
@LG --
Not an answer to my question. What tool should we use in order to understand spiritual/religious claims?
It doesn't appear that you are willing to discuss it at the moment ....