I can point to hoof-prints in the sand and say that a unicorn made those, and that they could only be there for us both to see if a unicorn passed by here. There can be no other explanation. But there is, as a horse could have made those same impressions in the sand. — Harry Hindu
Really? Better ones? I am yet to hear them. There is a little string of observations such as red shifts and background microwave radiation that have been sewn together into an elaborate theory. Is that the better explanation because it has a few more parts to it? It also has a few more holes in it. Quite big ones.The same goes for the claim that the universe is evidence of God's existence. There are other, better explanations for the universe being here. — Harry Hindu
Have we repeated the Big Bang? I'll have to check my notes on that one.If the results are repeatable and cannot be falsified in any way, they survive. If not, they are discarded. — Harry Hindu
would contend that your definition of God through this archaic reference written by men thousands of years ago may need some modification. — MikeL
You're not Mike? Sorry, somehow I must have overlapped who I was talking too — MikeL
That is true, or a unicorn could have made them. Science gets a little conceited with itself because it observes a little string of facts and marries them together into a plausible story then claims its the truth. — MikeL
Maths on the other hand makes no claims one way or the other about God, and with the amount of crazy stuff they are coming out with its no wonder.
We could say the exact same thing about religion. Religion has been conceited with itself for thousands of years - to the point of murdering non-believers - because it observes a little string of facts (the universe exists, I have a feeling of awe when thinking about the universe's existence, the information in the Bible, etc.) and marries them together into a plausible story then claims its the truth. So, if this is somehow a detriment to science, it is a detriment to religion as well. The fact is that is how we figure things out - by observing and then organizing our observations into a consistent story. That is the key difference between religion and science. Religion is not consistent.That is true, or a unicorn could have made them. Science gets a little conceited with itself because it observes a little string of facts and marries them together into a plausible story then claims its the truth. — MikeL
Then you have yet to listen. I find it very hard to believe that you really understood evolution at 12 years old to make a decent argument for it when your father confronted you about it. I was raised a Christian and believed it all until I started to find inconsistencies that I couldn't ignore. I eventually became an atheist after fully understanding the implications of evolution. I would recommend Jerry Coyne's book, "Why Evolution is True".Really? Better ones? I am yet to hear them. There is a little string of observations such as red shifts and background microwave radiation that have been sewn together into an elaborate theory. Is that the better explanation because it has a few more parts to it? It also has a few more holes in it. Quite big ones. — MikeL
We have repeatedly observed the expansion of the universe and the background radiation that is evidence of the Big Bang.Have we repeated the Big Bang? I'll have to check my notes on that one. — MikeL
The problem, as I have already stated in my first post here in this thread, is that the definition of God is inconsistent. Why don't you get together with the Muslims and Hindus, and the native peoples of Africa and South America, and come up with a consistent definition of God, then we can talk about science proving God's existence.It's true that we need a singular definition of God to please the scientists. This is their main bone of contention, they don't know what to attack and so they call it all a lie. But in creating a definition of God to please the scientists we of course will make it fit with the observable, so in the very act of defining God we prove its existence to science. Do we not? Science cannot win this. — MikeL
When asked how God came into existence, the answer is, "He has always existed." How is that any different than saying the universe, or the multiverse has always existed? It's even more simpler, as it doesn't need that extra step of adding God as the final cause. If God doesn't need a creator, then why does the universe need one? No theist has ever been able to answer that question.But they are great at making up stories: the Big Bang That Became Human, or " The Theory of It Just Happened". — Rich
The problem is that nothing about evolution seems that it was directed, designed, or orchestrated. If human beings were the desired endpoint, then God picked possibly the most circuitous route available to achieve that goal, and went out of His way to make it seem as if the process is undirected. Nothing about the driving force of evolution, i.e. genetic variation and natural selection, requires a designer.When I proclaimed I was an atheist at about age 12, my Dad said something very powerful to me after I laid out my arguments for evolution. He said all that proves is that the bullet came from the gun, it doesn't say who pulled the trigger. — MikeL
Nothing about the driving force of evolution, i.e. genetic variation and natural selection, requires a designer. — Arkady
When asked how God came into existence, the answer is, "He has always existed." How is that any different than saying the universe, or the multiverse has always existed? It's even more simpler, as it doesn't need that extra step of adding God as the final cause. If God doesn't need a creator, then why does the universe need one? No theist has ever been able to answer that question. — Harry Hindu
Proving a negative is almost always impossible to do. — Michael
So come on scientists, prove to me there is no God and let me see how strong your arguments really are. Pile on. — MikeL
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.