39 replies to this topic

[Jyrgen]

If there was any proof then yeah, sure it would become a science. At least it should be studied if it existed

[Chris Tauer]

I haven't read anything yet... but I did want to ask a question: are we talking about a specific religious deity? Or is it just a God-like being?

Think about it in terms of first contact. Not to bring up the controversial "ancient aliens" or "scientology" topics... but if we were to make first contact with a God-like alien (species or individual), it would completely change the world. The religions of the world would become impractical, useless and meaningless.

I'm using first contact as an example because the point of God and all supernatural beings is to be supernatural. Improvable by science or the laws of nature/physics. You can't "prove" the existence of God, you can only theorize it.

[Tony Stark]

Well it's inevitable that most, if not all, modern religions would be proven patently, ludicrously false to the core (not just the contradictions 'eccentricities' one finds in most older religious texts). Not solely those that claim to be the 'one true religion', either.

I'll use Christianity as an example as it is the one I know the most of: in the New Testament, God is implied to be omniscient, omnipresent and benevolent (though this is in strong contrast with the Old Testament, an interesting problem). If he is all three, why do, say, natural disasters occur? Even if we accept the argument that God either will not or cannot impose himself upon human free will, and thus that War and crime are inevitable, the idea of natural disasters, famine and disease fly in the face of the concept of an all-knowing benevolent God of limitless power. Oh, and then there's the Devil paradox. If God created all, God created the Devil. I do understand that the Devil was a fallen angel, but not only did God allow him to fall (omniscient means he'd have seen it coming and omnipotent means he could have stopped it), which can be justified by the free will argument, but he by definition (the Creator) must have created the state of being that the Devil fell to in advance. Thus, God not only allows humans to fall to evil through their own free will, which may be able to coexist with the concept of a benevolent God, but he created evil itself.

Also, it seems illogical to assign to God human qualities. Consider the origin of the Gods in human likeness: not Christianity or any other major religion, but rather the pagans polydeists. Notable examples include the Romans/Greeks of ancient times. A strong hypothesis as to the origin of these myths lies in the notion that, lacking the scientific knowledge to understand the workings of the world, such as storms, drought, volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunami etc, the pagans assigned to these elements human elements through personification, i.e. creating a 'God' of each element; examples include Poseidon and Zeus. Thus, they believed that they now 'understood' to some extent these elements, and therefore had a structure for attempting to placate them. Most likely, if a 'God' exists, it is an entity which we cannot even perceive, let alone comprehend.

Thus, I believe that if the existence of a God were to be discovered, the 'God' would simply be a creator, not omniscient, omnipresent, or universally-benevolent. That, or we may discover a being or beings so utterly beyond us in ability and nature that we cannot possibly comprehend their workings. But would that qualify as a 'god'? Impossible to say. As aforementioned, a being with God-like abilities would likely be beyond our ability to perceive, let alone comprehend, thus the notion of studying it as a science is quite problematic.

Edited by Tony Stark, Apr 24, 2012 - 05:29.

[krakaton]

Well, if we merely proved the existence of god or some other deity but not it's identity it would only serve to increase religious furore. Every religion would claim to be the 'correct' way to reach god and claim that its particular god is the one that exists. Essentially, all religious organisations would be arguing about the same things as they do today i.e. which religion is correct.

Similar to today, even if the existence of god were explored and research was done into god's nature, religious fanatics would still find reason to discount science and claim that their religion is the only gospel truth.

So in essence, despite the fact that such a discovery should irreversibly change everyone's lives, I'd theorise that the world would go on just as it does today after the intial excitement died down.

[shad0wboss]

Until the day when "science" would be able to answer "every" question, one cannot deny the fact that there has to be a supreme being behind all this. Questions like, what's dark matter or what's the cause behind gravity or why and how big bang happened won't be answered as far as i can tell or at least not for another decade or maybe century.

What i'm trying to say is, relying on religion seems to be a more reliable way than relying on science since science is trying to deny the fact that god exists by implementing reasoning behind everything though it cannot provide reason to everything while the fact that God exists does keep away people from asking too many questions and ends up stating that "God must have done it, the way it is and that is for the best"...

Therefore, until there are unanswered questions in human mind, it is too early to deny the fact that there's a supreme presence behind.

[Award Winning Boss]

shad0wboss, on May 20, 2012 - 21:28, said:

Until the day when "science" would be able to answer "every" question, one cannot deny the fact that there has to be a supreme being behind all this. Questions like, what's dark matter or what's the cause behind gravity or why and how big bang happened won't be answered as far as i can tell or at least not for another decade or maybe century.

What i'm trying to say is, relying on religion seems to be a more reliable way than relying on science since science is trying to deny the fact that god exists by implementing reasoning behind everything though it cannot provide reason to everything while the fact that God exists does keep away people from asking too many questions and ends up stating that "God must have done it, the way it is and that is for the best"...

Therefore, until there are unanswered questions in human mind, it is too early to deny the fact that there's a supreme presence behind.

This is the most self contradicting post I think I have ever read.

[aldld]

shad0wboss, on May 20, 2012 - 21:28, said:

Until the day when "science" would be able to answer "every" question, one cannot deny the fact that there has to be a supreme being behind all this. Questions like, what's dark matter or what's the cause behind gravity or why and how big bang happened won't be answered as far as i can tell or at least not for another decade or maybe century.

That sounds close to the god of the gaps argument. Science might not have an explanation for certain things at the moment but that says absolutely nothing about the existence of a "supreme being." It sounds like you're making it into a false dichotomy, namely that either we know why something happens or that god did it.

The way that you suggest it, god becomes smaller and smaller every time we discover something new. But even then, we could apply Occam's razor and suggest that maybe god wasn't there in the first place. That way we have an explanation that is at least equally as well supported as "god used to do it but doesn't anymore now that we know it" but that is much simpler and with fewer assumptions.

shad0wboss, on May 20, 2012 - 21:28, said:

What i'm trying to say is, relying on religion seems to be a more reliable way than relying on science since science is trying to deny the fact that god exists by implementing reasoning behind everything though it cannot provide reason to everything while the fact that God exists does keep away people from asking too many questions and ends up stating that "God must have done it, the way it is and that is for the best"...

Therefore, until there are unanswered questions in human mind, it is too early to deny the fact that there's a supreme presence behind.

Science is not trying to deny that god exists. It's something that by its nature cannot be tested and any attempts so far to scientifically demonstrate the existence of god are little more than pseudoscience.

Sure, we can't outright deny the existence a "supreme presence" 100%, but there's no evidence to say that there is one either. No reasonable person will claim to be 100% certain either way but we can have varying degrees of certainty, and it makes more sense to lean towards the side that requires fewer assumptions.

In the words of Richard Feynman:



(Also in this post, by god I'm referring to the idea of some sort of divine being, which we can't really know about for certain. I'm not talking about specific descriptions of god, because it could be argued that we do have evidence against those)

[shad0wboss]

aldld, on May 20, 2012 - 23:40, said:

Sure, we can't outright deny the existence a "supreme presence" 100%, but there's no evidence to say that there is one either. No reasonable person will claim to be 100%

Well, it depends on you who you're asking about the god's existence because i mean my religion answers all those questions really whether god exists or not but then that would be coming down to personal beliefs...and if you're thinking that God can be scientifically be proven, i think that won't be possible because science is just a way to provide us answers we're looking for and it is quite possible that the reasons that science provide us can be different than reality and again you cannot prove that whether it is reality or is it just satisfying our questions.

[Sandwich]

shad0wboss, on May 21, 2012 - 11:25, said:

i think that won't be possible because science is just a way to provide us answers we're looking for and it is quite possible that the reasons that science provide us can be different than reality and again you cannot prove that whether it is reality or is it just satisfying our questions.

I'm quite confused as to what you're talking about in this second part. Science IS the study of reality. Religion is essentially living your life under the belief that there's a second reality, inaccessible to us whilst we live but which is predicted by religious men to become known to us once we're dead. Perhaps if you gave an example it would be easier to understand, but I'm not really sure how this argument works. It seems to me the other way around; science is essentially a term for what we know about reality, its details and limitations, so IT is the study of reality. Religion is an answer to satisfy questions with presently (and in some cases, such as what happens to use after we die, probably forever to be) unknown answers in lieu of factual knowledge about what's really going on.

So more or less the inverse of what you have said - religion's answer is essentially "god did it, so until we're sure what happened then the answer is god", whereas if there's no evidence to suggest a particular answer, a normal person would have to conclude "well, we don't know". So if either is attempting to just satisfy questions with nothings to make us feel like we know what's going on, surely it's the former. Religion proffers a default answer to any question which is essentially to give it a mystical explanation and explain our lack of understanding by claiming that whatever it is is simply not understandABLE in the first place. Then a bit of backtracking/re-explanation/I wish to live in ignorance must occur when the mechanism behind it is uncovered. Then, where most explanations found to be inaccurate or false are abandoned, for some reason god has a tenacious and forever-changing-to-adapt-to-the-new-state-of-knowledge grip on some people. In claiming to be outside of our world and our reality (yet somehow also apparently the creator and controller of it), it is an idea which defies proof because you can't prove in one reality something that apparently exists in another. There are few things you can definitively prove the NONexistence of, especially if you're willing to adjust the truth surrounding the evidences FOR its existence, such as adjusting all the views to suit new information and theories so that it changes to remain consistent with reality. Although that's true of any number of ideas - unicorns, fairies etc., which usually we dismiss on the basis of common sense. How likely is it that there actually are unicorns? Pretty damn slim. Common sense and god seem to be something like oil and water however, and never mix.

[Dew]

shad0wboss, on May 20, 2012 - 21:28, said:

Until the day when "science" would be able to answer "every" question, one cannot deny the fact that there has to be a supreme being behind all this.

Not to be mean but that is the most ignorant statement I have ever heard; and unfortunately I've heard it before. We can go on and on about the different arguments put forth to prove God's existence and their assumptions but we are not going to reach a definite answer. One must decide what he/she is going to believe based on their ideology and living style. Also, you are assuming that if we were to one day find the answer to God's existence through science it will be negative, disproving God's existence; but it is as likely to solidify theist's beliefs.

What I personally have chosen at the moment is to not decide 100% on any side and let my thoughts subconsciously forge their own decision.

shad0wboss, on May 21, 2012 - 11:25, said:

Well, it depends on you who you're asking about the god's existence because i mean my religion answers all those questions really whether god exists or not but then that would be coming down to personal beliefs

please explain...

[shad0wboss]

Dew, on May 21, 2012 - 14:18, said:

shad0wboss, on May 20, 2012 - 21:28, said:

Until the day when "science" would be able to answer "every" question, one cannot deny the fact that there has to be a supreme being behind all this.

Not to be mean but that is the most ignorant statement I have ever heard; and unfortunately I've heard it before. We can go on and on about the different arguments put forth to prove God's existence and their assumptions but we are not going to reach a definite answer. One must decide what he/she is going to believe based on their ideology and living style. Also, you are assuming that if we were to one day find the answer to God's existence through science it will be negative, disproving God's existence; but it is as likely to solidify theist's beliefs.

What I personally have chosen at the moment is to not decide 100% on any side and let my thoughts subconsciously forge their own decision.

shad0wboss, on May 21, 2012 - 11:25, said:

Well, it depends on you who you're asking about the god's existence because i mean my religion answers all those questions really whether god exists or not but then that would be coming down to personal beliefs

please explain...

Dew, on May 21, 2012 - 14:18, said:

shad0wboss, on May 20, 2012 - 21:28, said:

Until the day when "science" would be able to answer "every" question, one cannot deny the fact that there has to be a supreme being behind all this.

Not to be mean but that is the most ignorant statement I have ever heard; and unfortunately I've heard it before. We can go on and on about the different arguments put forth to prove God's existence and their assumptions but we are not going to reach a definite answer. One must decide what he/she is going to believe based on their ideology and living style. Also, you are assuming that if we were to one day find the answer to God's existence through science it will be negative, disproving God's existence; but it is as likely to solidify theist's beliefs.

What I personally have chosen at the moment is to not decide 100% on any side and let my thoughts subconsciously forge their own decision.

shad0wboss, on May 21, 2012 - 11:25, said:

Well, it depends on you who you're asking about the god's existence because i mean my religion answers all those questions really whether god exists or not but then that would be coming down to personal beliefs

please explain...

Let me rephrase my sentence up there as that was quite a bold statement.

First let me ask a question: What kind of evidence one is looking for in order to justify the existence of God.

What i meant to say above was that the fact that we exist, is the biggest evidence above all because you know that we reproduce with the help of a female and a male but then in the beginning there should have been a beginning where this cycle was started from and i don't care if it was an extra terrestrial or any other being which started the cycle, wouldn't that being be considered God? or maybe something divine?

[Award Winning Boss]

shad0wboss, on May 21, 2012 - 17:42, said:

Let me rephrase my sentence up there as that was quite a bold statement.

First let me ask a question: What kind of evidence one is looking for in order to justify the existence of God.

What i meant to say above was that the fact that we exist, is the biggest evidence above all because you know that we reproduce with the help of a female and a male but then in the beginning there should have been a beginning where this cycle was started from and i don't care if it was an extra terrestrial or any other being which started the cycle, wouldn't that being be considered God? or maybe something divine?

I'm looking for something that can be proven, preferably empirically. After all, God should be able to do that for us. But then again, many people think that god is a completely meaningless word because it can't be proven empirically.

Reproduction? Really? Is that your argument? Just cut to the chase and go back to the first cause argument. It's really annoying when people do that. Anyway, to me that 'being' won't be god. It'd just be a force that exists outside of time. After all, you'd still need to prove all the other traits that are usually attributed to god. I.e omniscience, omnipotence, or even consciousness.

[aldld]

shad0wboss, on May 21, 2012 - 17:42, said:

What i meant to say above was that the fact that we exist, is the biggest evidence above all because you know that we reproduce with the help of a female and a male but then in the beginning there should have been a beginning where this cycle was started from and i don't care if it was an extra terrestrial or any other being which started the cycle, wouldn't that being be considered God? or maybe something divine?

Eh, depends what you mean by divine. If by "divine" you mean "supernatural" then if we were to scientifically explain it, wouldn't that make it by definition a natural phenomenon?

Edit: Removed the long nested quotes.

Edited by aldld, May 21, 2012 - 17:55.

[Dew]

shad0wboss, on May 21, 2012 - 17:42, said:

Let me rephrase my sentence up there as that was quite a bold statement.

First let me ask a question: What kind of evidence one is looking for in order to justify the existence of God.

What i meant to say above was that the fact that we exist, is the biggest evidence above all because you know that we reproduce with the help of a female and a male but then in the beginning there should have been a beginning where this cycle was started from and i don't care if it was an extra terrestrial or any other being which started the cycle, wouldn't that being be considered God? or maybe something divine?

Your argument, the 'First Cause' argument, is nothing new.

Criticisms of the 'First Cause' Argument:

1. It assumes that everything was caused by something prior to it
2. It then goes on to contradict itself by stating that there is a first cause, God, which was not caused
3. If this chain of causes and effects is going to stop at an 'origin' why must it be God? Why could it not be another event; for example the big bang?
4. Even if the above criticisms can be met, the 'First Cause' argument does not prove the God theists believe in. It does not prove that this 'God' is all-good or all-knowing, it only shows that 'God' is all-powerful.
5. Why would an all-good, all-knowing and all-powerful 'God' 'create' a world in which so much evil exists?

I'm not on any sides but your basis is weak and flawed; face the facts...

Edited by Dew, May 21, 2012 - 18:00.

[aldld]

Dew, on May 21, 2012 - 17:59, said:

2. It then goes on to contradict itself by stating that there is a first cause, God, which was not caused
3. If this chain of causes and effects is going to stop at an 'origin' why must it be God? Why could it not be another event; for example the big bang?

Not necessarily. Some religions simply say that "god always existed." This can be a reasonable explanation if begin by making the assumption that there exists a supernatural being that defies all natural and physical laws. Of course, if you make this assumption then it can be "reasoned" that anything and everything is true. (Even contradictory statements, but should such a supernatural being be bound by the laws of logic?)

[Award Winning Boss]

Dew, on May 21, 2012 - 17:59, said:

5. Why would an all-good, all-knowing and all-powerful 'God' 'create' a world in which so much evil exists?

If he's all knowing and all good then that means what we experience is actually good. But for us it appears evil. Anyway, that doesn't mean an evil god couldn't take the place of a good one.

aldld, on May 21, 2012 - 18:06, said:

(Even contradictory statements, but should such a supernatural being be bound by the laws of logic?)

Yes, otherwise the conversation is utterly meaningless. It'd lead to incomprehensible statements like 'god created himself' or 'god can lift a stone that he can't actually lift.' Most philosophers accept that god can't do things outside the laws of logic because essentially you're asking them to do nothing. For example, a married bachelor isn't a thing.

[shad0wboss]

after reading the comments above, i just think that it all comes down to what we really think "God" is whether it is just a being like us though superior or something that is totally "out-of-reach".

[Jyrgen]

shad0wboss, on May 20, 2012 - 21:28, said:

Until the day when "science" would be able to answer "every" question, one cannot deny the fact that there has to be a supreme being behind all this. Questions like, what's dark matter or what's the cause behind gravity or why and how big bang happened won't be answered as far as i can tell or at least not for another decade or maybe century.

What i'm trying to say is, relying on religion seems to be a more reliable way than relying on science since science is trying to deny the fact that god exists by implementing reasoning behind everything though it cannot provide reason to everything while the fact that God exists does keep away people from asking too many questions and ends up stating that "God must have done it, the way it is and that is for the best"...

Therefore, until there are unanswered questions in human mind, it is too early to deny the fact that there's a supreme presence behind.

[Dew]

shad0wboss, on May 21, 2012 - 18:55, said:

after reading the comments above, i just think that it all comes down to what we really think "God" is whether it is just a being like us though superior or something that is totally "out-of-reach".

Again, not to sound mean but please organize your thoughts before posting. What you're implying is that 'Award Winning Boss, aldld and myself are basing our arguments on a normal god? What exactly is a normal God? Isn't the whole point of trying to prove God's existence come down to the notion of explaining all the phenomenas that we are unable to prove through science?

Edited by Dew, May 22, 2012 - 17:16.

[shad0wboss]

The thing is that the argument broke up in between when i just lost the track what the argument was about...anyways just don't mind me if i was offensive at times, you know that the exams are next week and the mind's all wobbly at the moment from inside

Edited by shad0wboss, May 22, 2012 - 18:49.