Is there such a thing as God?

[MattPL]

Let me ask you this then.

Why is the notion that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old COMMON SENSE? Is it because you believe in the word of all the scientists who say so? That modern science cannot possibly be wrong?

Let me tell you one thing. You're wrong. Humanity has a constant habit of thinking it knows more than it does. Just because some scientists say something doesn't make it right, let alone common sense. Anything you cannot figure out on your own is not common sense - believing in something because others say it is true is the entire basis of religion.

The same stays true for everything else, not just religion.
Other than that, you're pretty much right about what you said.

So you would rather believe in nothing than something. Or, rather, refuse to believe anything just because it might be wrong?

I'm not saying that this is what I do, but I don't see anything wrong with it.

 

[DarthPika]

Science is pretty accurate. I'm not saying that you should take everything they say as absolute truth, but they're usually pretty close.

What's wrong with it? We wouldn't be where we are now if we believed in absolutely nothing. We needed some trust in since for the advances we made. Refusing to believe in anything just because it might be wrong is plain silly, and very ignorant of the world around you.

 

[Box of Fail]

Modern science is ignorant of far more than it knows. The same mistake is made generation after generation - thinking we have super advanced technology and have finally figured something out - when many advances made in modern science are flawed from supposition one. Most things are beyond our current level of comprehension with humanity’s unadvanced technology, and the problem with scientific theory is that every supposed ‘advance’ is based on an assumption – and then another, and another, until the chances of our being right are ridiculously low.

I live with the assumptions humanity makes because I, like any other human, am too stupid to know which assumptions are right and which are not. However, I don’t have any theory as to how the universe came about, as no matter which creed or faith or personal theory I follow, I will be wrong. There is no way that I or any other human can figure out how the world came to exist, especially with the shoddy advances and crappy technology that keep humanity ignorant of answers that some so desperately seek. I can live blissfully ignorant of the truth behind my creation, as every other human does as well.

 

[MattPL]

Science is pretty accurate. I'm not saying that you should take everything they say as absolute truth, but they're usually pretty close.

What's wrong with it? We wouldn't be where we are now if we believed in absolutely nothing. We needed some trust in since for the advances we made. Refusing to believe in anything just because it might be wrong is plain silly, and very ignorant of the world around you.

And why do you say that? Because someone told you that? Because that is what you believe in?

Science is just as accurate as any religion is.

 

[pat460]

So for the third time I am dragged back into this thread, but I just can't stop myself at this point.

Modern science is ignorant of far more than it knows. The same mistake is made generation after generation - thinking we have super advanced technology and have finally figured something out - when many advances made in modern science are flawed from supposition one. Most things are beyond our current level of comprehension with humanity’s unadvanced technology, and the problem with scientific theory is that every supposed ‘advance’ is based on an assumption – and then another, and another, until the chances of our being right are ridiculously low.

First off, I'm not sure what you mean by 'scientific theory'. But if you are saying that to basically encompass all of science, you are wrong. Science is not based of assumtions, by definition, it is based on fact. For reference, here are several definitions of science from different sources. Notice that on each of these pages the word assume does not appear in any form. This is because science has nothing to do with assumptions, it is based on facts derived from observations of the physical world,

When have we assumed that we have 'super advanced technology'? Yes, we all the time talk about how cutting edge or advanced our technology is, but I don't recall the general public or the scientific community ever claiming that we have reached the apex of technology, or that we completely understand anything.

If 'the chances of our being right are ridiculously low' then why is science still pursued? Oh, that's right, because that chance isn't 'ridiculously low', because as it turns out, we are usually at least near correct on every major theory or discovery that is made. Yes, it isn't 100% accurate, but no one claims it to be. As a general rule, science usually turns out to be right.

I live with the assumptions humanity makes because I, like any other human, am too stupid to know which assumptions are right and which are not. However, I don’t have any theory as to how the universe came about, as no matter which creed or faith or personal theory I follow, I will be wrong. There is no way that I or any other human can figure out how the world came to exist, especially with the shoddy advances and crappy technology that keep humanity ignorant of answers that some so desperately seek. I can live blissfully ignorant of the truth behind my creation, as every other human does as well.

Well I guess it isn't flaming you to say you're stupid at this point, considering you said it yourself, but wow is that a great description. On top of that, you are very negative about the capabilities hummanity has for understanding the universe. Why do you assume (lol) that no one will ever understand how or why the universe exists? Because you don't? Those 'shoddy advances of crappy technology' you talk about aren't even the main tools used to try to understand the universe. Past telescopes and instruments used to measure things like waves or energy, the main tool used is human thought. Einstein didn't use technology to come up with the theory of relativity, he used his mind. Past that, I have a strong feeling you don't know much about cosmology or any other field of science, and yet you seem to like to talk about it as if you do. I'm no cosmologist, or any kind of scientist, but even I can tell you don't know what you're talking about. Out of curiosity, do you even know the current theories about how the universe was created? Or do you just talk about how they can't be right without having any actual knowledge on the subject?

(P.S. that last line was a rhetorical question, but I figure I'de point it out because you don't seem ot be the sharpest person, to put it lightly.)

Science is just as accurate as any religion is.

Actually, no, it's not, and I can prove it. According to basic science, if you hit yourself in the face with a hammer, as hard as you can, it should trigger pain receptors in your face. Go ahead and try it. If it does in fact hurt, then there you go, science was indisputably correct about at least one thing, therefore making it more accurate than any religion.

 

[DarthPika]

And why do you say that? Because someone told you that? Because that is what you believe in?

Science is just as accurate as any religion is.

As pat460 kindly pointed out, the very foundations of Science are based on indisputable facts. We use these facts to create ideas about how the world works. When more and more data points to these facts supporting the ideas, and therefore, the ideas being correct (or close to it). Would you really argue to me that physics is no provable than religion?

---------- Post added 07/12/2010 at 11:10 AM ----------

I saw this post and just couldn't let it slide having been very close to being a science major...

Replies in bold.

Modern science is ignorant of far more than it knows.
Really, how so? All that moder science knows is based off of years and years of data gathered. All this data supporting the current theories isn't likely to be wrong. Would you actually argue that if we keep having completely different forms of data pointing to a particular theory being correct, that they ALL are just a coincidence? I think not.
The same mistake is made generation after generation - thinking we have super advanced technology and have finally figured something out - when many advances made in modern science are flawed from supposition one.

Really? I seriously am under the impression that you've never actually had a science class in your entire life. If a mistake is found, we fix it. Our advances in modern science are not flawed. If you want to argue with me on that, why don't you consider some of the amazing advances made JUST in the medical field of science.

Most things are beyond our current level of comprehension with humanity’s unadvanced technology

You're really considering our technology unadvanced? You're sitting at a computer that's sending and receiving thousands of electronic signals and turning these into data and images, and you consider it unadvanced?

and the problem with scientific theory is that every supposed ‘advance’ is based on an assumption – and then another, and another, until the chances of our being right are ridiculously low.

Do you even know how a scientific theory is developed? Good grief... this started out as slightly amusing, but now it's quite sad how little you seem to know about how modern science actually works.

Please read up on it before you continue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

I live with the assumptions humanity makes because I, like any other human, am too stupid to know which assumptions are right and which are not.

Maybe YOU are stupid, but don't just lump the rest of us in that category please. I know which FACTS are right and which are not. If you want to call your self stupid, by all means do. Just don't include me and the rest of humanity in it.

However, I don’t have any theory as to how the universe came about,

Incorrect use of the word theory, again showing how little you know about science. A better word would have been idea.

as no matter which creed or faith or personal theory I follow, I will be wrong.

Says you. This is equivalent to saying that you'll never win a pokemon card game, so why bother playing? If you never play a game you have a grand total of 0% chance of winning. If you play, you're far more likely to win eventually. Also, it's better to try to find the right answer than to simply sit and wallow in your ignorance.

There is no way that I or any other human can figure out how the world came to exist,

Says you...

especially with the shoddy advances and crappy technology that keep humanity ignorant of answers that some so desperately seek.

Again, says you who seems to not actually know anything about technology or modern science.

I can live blissfully ignorant of the truth behind my creation, as every other human does as well.

It's a good thing that all those shoddy scientists who came before us didn't think the same way as you or we would still be living in caves with the most advanced technology being a rock tied to the end of a stick. :nonono:

 

[Box of Fail]

So for the third time I am dragged back into this thread, but I just can't stop myself at this point.


First off, I'm not sure what you mean by 'scientific theory'. But if you are saying that to basically encompass all of science, you are wrong. Science is not based of assumtions, by definition, it is based on fact. For reference, here are several definitions of science from different sources. Notice that on each of these pages the word assume does not appear in any form. This is because science has nothing to do with assumptions, it is based on facts derived from observations of the physical world,
And those observations are also based on what scientists like to call 'hypothesis' or 'logical reasoning', which means the use of inferior human logic to connect different observations together. For example, Darwin observed that each of the Galapagos Islands that he visited had a slightly different species of bird, each well-equipped to fend for itself in its respective environment, Thus, it must follow that the birds adapted from one species, no? Absolutely not; this is one of the 'assumptions' of which I speak. How can one be sure that God didn't give each island its own special bird, or that the birds each claimed their own territory when the islands were closer together, and fought other birds encroaching on their territory? It is an assumption, based on what is most rational with the resources at hand. Now, someone basing a theory on evolution, while assuming Darwin's theory to be correct as he had supposedly proven evolution already, would simply be piling on to the list of assumptions. After all, science doesn't make you re-prove that which has already been proven.

When have we assumed that we have 'super advanced technology'? Yes, we all the time talk about how cutting edge or advanced our technology is, but I don't recall the general public or the scientific community ever claiming that we have reached the apex of technology, or that we completely understand anything.
And if we don't completely understand anything, why should we trust modern science?

If 'the chances of our being right are ridiculously low' then why is science still pursued? Oh, that's right, because that chance isn't 'ridiculously low', because as it turns out, we are usually at least near correct on every major theory or discovery that is made. Yes, it isn't 100% accurate, but no one claims it to be. As a general rule, science usually turns out to be right.
Humans are, unfortunately, endlessly curious. As previous generations have proven (for example, the ancient Chinese who knew way less than they thought), one can know very little and not only think they know a lot, but continue the quest for knowledge.
Now HOW would you know that we are 'usually at least near correct on every major theory or discovery that is made'? I hope you have some proof of this. Scientists are very good at inflating the significance of specific pieces of evidence, but modern human logic is bound to have mistaken 'facts' we take for granted on which we base many of our theories. How can you possibly claim that we are almost always right? Where is your proof; the papers themselves? Ptolemy's geocentric theory gave a reasonable deduction based on observation which, with the evidence at his disposal at the time, would easily be the most rational explanation. This guy was one of the most respected astronomers of his day, and no doubt the publication of Almagest was regarded as a very important discovery which was accepted by Aristotle, among others. It was only with superior technology that the heliocentric theory became accepted. This can easily be applied to today's science; we most certainly have seemingly logical deductions that serve as the bases for many other theories, which will be disproven, in time, with the creation of superior technology.



Well I guess it isn't flaming you to say you're stupid at this point, considering you said it yourself, but wow is that a great description. On top of that, you are very negative about the capabilities hummanity has for understanding the universe. Why do you assume (lol) that no one will ever understand how or why the universe exists? Because you don't? Those 'shoddy advances of crappy technology' you talk about aren't even the main tools used to try to understand the universe. Past telescopes and instruments used to measure things like waves or energy, the main tool used is human thought. Einstein didn't use technology to come up with the theory of relativity, he used his mind. Past that, I have a strong feeling you don't know much about cosmology or any other field of science, and yet you seem to like to talk about it as if you do. I'm no cosmologist, or any kind of scientist, but even I can tell you don't know what you're talking about. Out of curiosity, do you even know the current theories about how the universe was created? Or do you just talk about how they can't be right without having any actual knowledge on the subject?

(P.S. that last line was a rhetorical question, but I figure I'de point it out because you don't seem ot be the sharpest person, to put it lightly.)
I'm not extremely knowledgeable on the matter, but I do know enough about the big bang theory to find it a dubious answer which fails to explain where the universe came from, and really doesn't shed any light on what there was before the universe, nor the irrational edge of the universe which is supposedly ever-expanding, and thus not infinite. Either way, the theory defies rationality.

Actually, no, it's not, and I can prove it. According to basic science, if you hit yourself in the face with a hammer, as hard as you can, it should trigger pain receptors in your face. Go ahead and try it. If it does in fact hurt, then there you go, science was indisputably correct about at least one thing, therefore making it more accurate than any religion.
Really? Because many places referenced by the Bible were real places. The Exodus really happened. So religion can very easily be correct about things. Science has many quirks, just like religion. Ever heard that the dinosaurs were all killed by volcanos?

I don't find religion very credible, but modern science is not much better. I'm more of a 'don't know, don't care' kinda guy.

Replies in bolded text.

 

[DarthPika]

You missed my post...

 

[baby mario]

Box of Fail's posting leads me to believe that there is no god.

I'm now starting to doubt evolution as well.

 

[Mewtral]

The big bang theory works like this, since we recorded the universe to actual be expanding and is continuing to expand. Since our universe is expanding, doesn't it make sense that if we track this expansion backwards? All matter was closer together and more than likely all together at a single point in time.

 

[Box of Fail]

Really, how so? All that moder science knows is based off of years and years of data gathered. All this data supporting the current theories isn't likely to be wrong. Would you actually argue that if we keep having completely different forms of data pointing to a particular theory being correct, that they ALL are just a coincidence? I think not.
I’ll go back to Ptolemy. The Sun does indeed appear to go around the Earth. When it goes to the other side, it is night. On top of this, you have the concurrence of many high-profile scientists, not the least of which is Aristotle. His math was also spot-on and heavily suggested the orbit of the planets and sun around the Earth. Thousands of pieces of evidence pointing clearly to the same conclusion can easily be explained away by one miscalculation.

Really? I seriously am under the impression that you've never actually had a science class in your entire life. If a mistake is found, we fix it. Our advances in modern science are not flawed. If you want to argue with me on that, why don't you consider some of the amazing advances made JUST in the medical field of science.
I think you have the same problem that Ptolemy did – you think that finally, we have figured things out. Those previous generations made mistakes and we fix them. The problem is that as we invest more into science, we make mistakes at a faster rate. As my father is a doctor, I can tell you that there are many things for which we have no cure. Sure, Tylenol is great, but I’m sure that someday in the relatively near future, there will be much faster-acting medicines that have fewer side effects, etc. etc. Never trust the generation you are in to be the best.

You're really considering our technology unadvanced? You're sitting at a computer that's sending and receiving thousands of electronic signals and turning these into data and images, and you consider it unadvanced?

Maybe that’s advanced to you, but keep in mind that the cavemen thought that fire was advanced. I find it doubtful that in 20 years this will be considered advanced by anyone’s standards, and judging how we have yet to send a man to Mars, we have not really progressed as much as you think.
Do you even know how a scientific theory is developed? Good grief... this started out as slightly amusing, but now it's quite sad how little you seem to know about how modern science actually works.

Please read up on it before you continue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
I really don’t know what you want me to get out of that. I know that scientists hypothesize, and then supposedly ‘test’ theories before publishing them for scrutiny by other scientists. So? All the world’s smartest scientists put together are far from infallible.

Maybe YOU are stupid, but don't just lump the rest of us in that category please. I know which FACTS are right and which are not. If you want to call your self stupid, by all means do. Just don't include me and the rest of humanity in it.
So do you have any experience with evolution or astronomy or biology, etc.? I can’t know that much about all of them, it takes a very gifted person to do so. Unless you have experience in every field you claim to know the ‘facts’ of, you’re simply trusting the word of some hot-shot scientist. Better to claim not to know than to cling undyingly to another’s word.

Incorrect use of the word theory, again showing how little you know about science. A better word would have been idea.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but aside from being a technical term, ‘theory’ is also an English word. Like how you can absorb pain in English, but scientifically, you can’t?

Says you. This is equivalent to saying that you'll never win a pokemon card game, so why bother playing? If you never play a game you have a grand total of 0% chance of winning. If you play, you're far more likely to win eventually. Also, it's better to try to find the right answer than to simply sit and wallow in your ignorance.
But I don’t wallow. Unlike some people striving for a goal which will not be achieved in my lifetime, if ever, I just don’t care.

Says you...

Again, says you who seems to not actually know anything about technology or modern science.
This is exactly what has been said each generation; because humans always end up thinking that they finally know the truth, even when each prior generation has screwed things up.

It's a good thing that all those shoddy scientists who came before us didn't think the same way as you or we would still be living in caves with the most advanced technology being a rock tied to the end of a stick.
Actually, scientists had little to do with the start of agriculture which ultimately ended the caveman existence.

Geez, you have unreasonable expectations. As it is my goal to have everyone else in the thread opposed to my point of view, it takes time to respond to all the dissenters.

 

[DarthPika]

Stop making arguments based on out of date theories. When you have to resort to saying how the VERY FIRST people who started using the scientific method were wrong, and questioning MY knowledge of science, your argument is sadly failing. Your user name is amazingly accurate.

 

[Box of Fail]

Stop making arguments based on out of date theories. When you have to resort to saying how the VERY FIRST people who started using the scientific method were wrong, and questioning MY knowledge of science, your argument is sadly failing. Your user name is amazingly accurate.

But these ‘out-of-date theories’ are the only ones I have the capacity to prove wrong, because they are the only ones for which technology has evolved enough to disprove. Futuristic technology by our standards can and will prove many of our current theories wrong. It’s a never-ending cycle.

Basically you are telling me not to use theories which have been proven to be wrong as bases for my arguments; if that is the case, what do you want me to use? Do you want me to single-handedly prove people who have spent their whole lives devoted to science wrong? I’m sorry, but I obviously can’t do that. I merely use what has clearly been disproven as evidence. The only thing that can disprove some of the theories being made today is better technology, which, I assure you, will come. It is the evolution of technology which progressively allows us to disprove theories. By the time I can use this technology to prove today’s scientists wrong, you’ll already consider THEM ‘out-of-date’. And such is why so many hypotheses cannot truly be tested.

 

[DarthPika]

But our current theories are not being dis-proven by newer technology. Rather, many of them are only being more strongly supported, or modified. The very first theories weren't really true scientific theories anyway, so you can't use them for argument.

 

[Sir Bidoof]

The main problem I have with science is that a theory is assumed to be true until it is proven false.

However, besides that minor flaw, science is actually pretty good at teaching us information. The main argument Box of Fail is doing is that since science can't prove anything 100% (which is true), that we shouldn't believe any of it since it could be false. However, he is forgetting a thing called odds. Although we may not know for certain that the theories are true, many have a likelihood large enough to be accepted as true. There is his flaw (sorry Kevin, but I couldn't side with you on this).

 

[Box of Fail]

The thing is that we don't NEED to believe. Forever a skeptic - we'll never find out whether it is true, so who cares?

 

[MattPL]

Actually, no, it's not, and I can prove it. According to basic science, if you hit yourself in the face with a hammer, as hard as you can, it should trigger pain receptors in your face. Go ahead and try it. If it does in fact hurt, then there you go, science was indisputably correct about at least one thing, therefore making it more accurate than any religion.

And let me ask you this. What if I were to do this, and it did not hurt? Science is only based on so called "facts" that always appear to be true, just because they have yet to be proven false. It doesn't mean that it can't happen.

As pat460 kindly pointed out, the very foundations of Science are based on indisputable facts. We use these facts to create ideas about how the world works. When more and more data points to these facts supporting the ideas, and therefore, the ideas being correct (or close to it). Would you really argue to me that physics is no provable than religion?

I would absolutely argue that to you. You're just believing science just because you believe that what someone told you is true.

 

[AyameHikaru]

The main problem in Science Vs God: Science wants proof God exists.

The only way to prove God exists with scientific accuracy (IMO) Would be to prove at some point that God DIDN'T exist. It's like air. It wasn't proven that air existed until a vacuum was created. Showing the difference between a space with air and a space without air is the proof.

.......but you can't do that with God. If science could somehow create a machine to detect the presence of God, how would you know it worked? It would constantly be going off, and there would be no way to see if it was even broken or not. One of the key characteristics of God is omnipresent. Meaning there isn't ever a space that doesn't have God. Meaning you couldn't prove it through opposites.

Also, God could not ALLOW himself/herself to be detected. The mere fact that it could be detected is a type of weakness, and God is supposed to be all-powerful.

At the comment above about where the benevolent characteristic: Another key characteristic if God is omniscient. If you know everything, can feel everything, know EXACTLY what EVERYONE is thinking and feeling, how could you not be benevolent? If you felt someone's emotions as keenly as your own, how could you inflict harm? Any damage you would do to another person you'd receive yourself. So throwing out the judgement bits for now, in normal circumstances it would be in God's best interest to be benevolent. Since God is all knowing, shouldn't he/she know that it is in God's best interest to be kind? I mean, unless you're banking on the 'God is a masochist' theory.

 

[Gir]

And let me ask you this. What if I were to do this, and it did not hurt? Science is only based on so called "facts" that always appear to be true, just because they have yet to be proven false. It doesn't mean that it can't happen.

nothing is certain. but some things are much more nearly certain than others.

 

[Mewtral]

What if I said that people who have had near death experiences (where you body is dead, but are revived before it's permanent) witnessed a form of afterlife with a ruler? (they are never specific). However, on top of that, the brain obviously isn't working, and the memory banks aren't even connected. So when they did have such an experience, how did they remember it? (not the question I want answered).

From when I looked up near death experiences, it shown me that there is more than likely an afterlife. But thats as far as I know at the moment.