Poll: What is your position on religion/god?
- Thread starter Naffa
- Start date
It's an angel, isn't it? Could be wrong.
Religion is a very touchy subject. No matter what you say you're probably going to offend someone.
I personally am not religious but have nothing against those with faith, in the same way as I don't have anything against someone who's favourite colour is different to mine.
But for goodness sake DO NOT tell me that my favourite colour is wrong.
i.e don't preach to me. It's irritating.
Ignoring for a second the fact that you just answered a question with a question, this what you're looking for?
http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/Scripture/Proof_Google_Is_God.html
In order to apply the scientific method to a problem, you have to understand what it can do and how it is used.
You asked for proof that the scientific method isn't a suitable tool to study 'god'. The answer to that is that the scientific method cannot study something without a correctly defined hypothesis. Furthermore, there are fundamentals that underpin the scientific method that can only be taken on faith, so if you want a faith free view, you have to be able to prove that the assumptions of the method are not just useful, they are factual.
You've missed the point completely. There is no evidential difference between evolution and intelligent design. The difference is in the mechanism, and empirically identical mechanisms cannot be distinguinshed by experimentation, but are distinguished via the a priori use of Ockham's razor.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you aren't yet old enough to have studied science to a sufficient level to actually reach this sort of philosophy of science (it's normally 2nd/3rd year degree level physical science where you really start to look this sort of thing). It simply isn't taught at GCSE or A Level, which is why so many people get thoroughly confused with what science is and what it can and can't do. It's a real shame that our scientific teaching is not better in this country.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 14,315
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge
It's not a faith, it's just a complete lack of credible evidence.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
Exactly. It doesn't require faith not to believe in millions of things that everybody on the planet doesn't believe in every day. Like a free lunch
Would you be able to elaborate on this point? What do you really mean when you say there's no evidential difference between evolution and intelligent design?
Is the evidence that exists not credible because you decide it is? Plenty of others have decided the opposite about a variety of positions based on an evaluation of evidence.
What you really mean is 'It's just a complete lack of evidence that fits the requirements that I've decided on a priori', which is somewhat of a different position.
There is no difference in the observed evidence.
The evidence is identical for both. The only difference is the underlying mechanism. Something science can't test. One is random mutation, the other is a mutation caused by a guiding hand.
As such there is zero difference in the evidence and testable qualities of both.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 14,315
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge
Or indeed concepts that haven't even been thought of.Exactly. It doesn't require faith not to believe in millions of things that everybody on the planet doesn't believe in every day. Like a free lunch
You have no leanings on a non existent concept.
You do have believes and thus faith, when you say a deity does not exist.
I mean what I say, evolution by random mutation and preferential selection, and evolution by intelligent design have exactly the same supporting evidence, eg we can track and observe changes in organisms over the short term, and back track changes from historical analogues over the long term.
The difference comes in the mechanism by which those changes occur, not the evidence that those changes occur. The reason why Evolution by random mutation and preferential selection is scientific, and intelligent design is not, is because of the incompatibility between intelligent design and the parsimony principle, not because the evidence couldn't support it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 14,315
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge
Yes. For me personally the evidence in support of a god just isn't strong enough for me to believe that one exists. Others are free to make their own decision.
I do have believes, just not about god. I never said "a deity does not exist".
Last edited:
Like string theory?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 12,234
- Location
- UK
It seems like there needs to be a 'default' position.
To me the default is Atheism, unless proven otherwise.
As there's no proof otherwise, there's no change from the default.
To me the default is Atheism, unless proven otherwise.
As there's no proof otherwise, there's no change from the default.
Surly default would be closer to agnostic. Atheism requires some sort of faith.
Agnotiscim, doesn't care, no prove, unprovable either way.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 12,234
- Location
- UK
at least string theory calls itself a theory!
Castiel is an Angel of Thursday, which coincidentaly is the only day of the week the forum member by the same name doesn't post here....
*I may have made some of that up
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 14,315
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge
The default position on everything is "we don't know".
And religions a faith. So yes it does call itself a theory.