Soldato
Existence of God disproved!
- Thread starter jsmoke
- Start date
Soldato
It kind of sounds like your trying to assert you know how I think, which is asinine. I have trust and confidence based on evidence, in things like science, not faith. I can take it on trust when a scientist makes a claim because I am able to research that claim to see if it maps to reality. I can't do that with claims of the supernatural, like god. Science can only operate in the natural world. So all supernatural claims are un-falsifiable and as such are a pointless endeavour for science.
In this clip, the host Matt Dillahunty, explains to the caller the difference between faith and trust. One is evidence based the other is not.
Soldato
It doesn't disprove god, but it does make his existence unnecessary.
To be honest, it's nothing that exceptional really as how else could it occur?, it's all part of the evolution of the cosmos - going from simplicity (hydrogen & helium) to complexity (all the other elements).
To be honest, it's nothing that exceptional really as how else could it occur?, it's all part of the evolution of the cosmos - going from simplicity (hydrogen & helium) to complexity (all the other elements).
The logical basis depends on what assumptions you take as true, and what you are willing to accept as evidence. Once those parts are in place, you can then apply your logic or your rationality (depending on how you aiming to prove it).
There is no purely logical approach to much of science, otherwise we wouldn't have to contend with partial wave duality or the contradiction between quantum mechanics and relativity. You can however hold a rational position on pretty much everything in science.
But the scientific method starts with unprovable assumptions, and uses additional assumptions to select between evidentially identical models. You cannot demonstrate the validity of this by recursion, so if it is going to define your world, it has to be via faith.
There is nothing at all wrong with this approach, it just doesn't have any form of intellectual superiority over alternatives.
Soldato
I don't know why you insist on asserting I use faith. I never use faith in my life. If you can't accept that then I don't know what to say.
Ok i'll bite, where all the matter in the universe come from?
You have evidence for the assumptions of the scientific method? The parsimony principle? Objective Reality? Accurate perception of reality?
From your posts, you appear to operate within a self sustaining bubble where you take scientific approaches and compare them with the approach used to create the theory for validation, but this doesn't prove the approach to be a definition of reality that can be used to discard any other possibility. You are making that leap on your own, the problem is you don't realise it.
What assumptions ?
The only assumption is the original IDEA, this assumption is taken via scientific method and tested until it becomes a FACT. That idea is still not left alone and people still try find a better fit or TRUTH (take dinosaurs as reptiles for example, where there really big chickens)
So you could argue that all GOD is a idea, and as such a really bad idea, that allows suffering/pain/inaquality/greed to go on unchecked throughout the world. That and the fact depending on which part of the world you had the idea there all different yet the same.
Bad ideas die, same as religion is on the wane where people are educated and not indoctrinated by a stupid idea that has been twisted and translated into something that is now a even worse idea than when it started.
By all means keep on believing but when i am toting a cyborg eye with laser deathray and folk are still living in caves and i want that cave for my pet cyborg tiger, prepare to get evicted.
The only assumption is the original IDEA, this assumption is taken via scientific method and tested until it becomes a FACT. That idea is still not left alone and people still try find a better fit or TRUTH (take dinosaurs as reptiles for example, where there really big chickens)
So you could argue that all GOD is a idea, and as such a really bad idea, that allows suffering/pain/inaquality/greed to go on unchecked throughout the world. That and the fact depending on which part of the world you had the idea there all different yet the same.
Bad ideas die, same as religion is on the wane where people are educated and not indoctrinated by a stupid idea that has been twisted and translated into something that is now a even worse idea than when it started.
By all means keep on believing but when i am toting a cyborg eye with laser deathray and folk are still living in caves and i want that cave for my pet cyborg tiger, prepare to get evicted.
Soldato
Beats cutting the red wire though.
The big bang was not a creation of matter, but instead a consequence of trying to get all of the matter into a single point.
Current thinking (or one of the current thinking) is that the big bang is a result of a Brain hitting another brain and creating another brain or bouncing away. For whatever reason my think brain cant understand they called it brain when its a slice.
The analogy is a loaf of sliced bread is the known everything (all the dimensions etc) and when a slice hits another slice it bounces away or they peel and make create a baby slice and so it all begins again. I cant get my head around a loaf of bread but maybe a doughnut. I love being Thick on these matters but its very interesting.
The analogy is a loaf of sliced bread is the known everything (all the dimensions etc) and when a slice hits another slice it bounces away or they peel and make create a baby slice and so it all begins again. I cant get my head around a loaf of bread but maybe a doughnut. I love being Thick on these matters but its very interesting.
Science doesn't declare things to be FACT. The strongest position science takes is that of a law. Beneath that you have theories, followed by hypothesis.
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm
If you are going to make arguments based on science, you really need to understand the basics.
Soldato
No. You couldn't be further from the truth. You're making this whole thing far more complicated than it needs to be. I don't use faith for anything. I'm a sceptic. If someone makes a claim, I evaluate it and decide weather or not to accept it.
Examples:
My friend tells me he has bought a puppy. Do I believe him without going to his house to check ? If I do, then you might assume this to be faith, but it isn't, it's trust. Why ? Well because I've known my friend for many years and I know he's a generally trustworthy person who doesn't make stuff up. Plus, buying a puppy isn't extraordinary. Another thing to consider is, what if he did make the puppy story up, how would that effect me when I found out ? Well it wouldn't affect me. It's not a big deal.
My friend tells me he has an invisible dragon is his back yard. Do I believe him without going to check ? Of course not. This time he has made an extraordinary claim. If I use faith and take his word for it, this means I now believe in dragons and people are no doubt going to ridicule me. As a sceptic, I would demand evidence for his dragon claim and till such time he provides it, I reject his claim.
Last edited:
Soldato
Do you have an answer for this yourself?
It's a Brane, not brain. And none of which has any impact on God. When we are talking about the Universe, by definition it doesn't Impact God in any real way other than to influence how an individual assesses their own beliefs. The fundamental issue being that God is outside of the scope of the Universe and as Dolph will explain science only deals with the physical universe and its scope is limited by such.
Soldato
But presumably when you claim that God created the universe, he is involved in the physical universe?!
From where I sit, you don't appreciate the complexity of the stance. There is a reason philosophy (which is what discussions of this nature are about) is a deep subject in its own right.
The idea of rejecting an idea in the absence of evidence is in itself a proposition that you chose to apply. A lack of evidence is not evidence of absence such that allows you to reject a claim without the application of other assumptions or rules.
Scepticism is a starting position, there is nothing wrong with being a sceptic, but it is not a position derived from evidence, but from philosophy, and ultimately, is not a position that can be taken on the basis of anything, it is a starting position, and not the only one available.
Soldato
I reject all claims that don't have sufficient evidence to justify their belief. Despite what you think, I find this the most rational position I can possibly take.
You do understand the distinction between : 'I do not believe in X' and 'I think X is false'. Right ?
Any position is rational as long as it fits with the stated assumptions and evidence found. If your assumption is 'If this exists, there will be evidence obtainable via process x', then it is entirely rational to reject the claim (or more accurately, fail to reject the null hypothesis, an outright rejection of the hypothesis is something else)
Do you understand the distinction between rejecting a position and failing to prove a position? I apologise if I am getting into semantics but there is a big difference. Rejecting a hypothesis is essentially a statement of non-belief, failing to prove a position (or reject the null hypothesis) is the more general one.
I can create a robot, but that doesn't mean I am subject to the limitations of that robot.