Conquer Club

you don't need to talk about the universe to understand the concept of a higher power.

Then the power you speak of is not high at all

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

zimmah wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

zimmah wrote:there's no way to 'prove' god exists, nor is there a way to 'prove' he doesn't. but there's just so much that science and evolution can not explain, while the bible can explain it, that to me the only logical explanation is that there is a god.

Here's the two options on approaching unexplainable fact X.
1. We don't yet know how X happens, maybe we'll figure it out in the future, maybe not.
2. God did X. I can't explain God though, I just know he did X.

Why are you so afraid of saying "I don't know" that you must invent an omnipotent being just to avoid admitting your lack of knowledge?

why are you so afraid of believing there is a god, does it hurt you or anyone to believe in our creator?

1. Nice deflection of my question.

2. I don't belive in god for the same reason I don't believe in Allah, in black cats causing bad luck and in The Loch Ness Monster. Do you think I'm afraid of believing in all of those things?

3. Yes it does. Irrationality breeds all sorts of problems. Can you really not think of instances where belief in gods has led to suffering?

you could call me irrational but i could call you irrational for the same reasons.

this whole discussion is pointless though so i don't even know why i should even try to answer, you're all ignorant anyway.

might as well rename the tread "bash on religious people #45"

But what is it that science can't explain?

People always tell me "there are things that science can't explain", I just wonder what those things are, specifically...

natty_dread wrote:But what is it that science can't explain?

People always tell me "there are things that science can't explain", I just wonder what those things are, specifically...

a lot of things, and you know it.

the creation of life, the purpose of life, what life is in the first place, in fact science can only explain some laws of the universe and things we can observe. nothing more. and even then the theories are often incomplete and not fully understood.

you'd be faster if you tried to make a list of things science can explain.

natty_dread wrote:But what is it that science can't explain?

People always tell me "there are things that science can't explain", I just wonder what those things are, specifically...

There are many things that cannot be scientifically proven but which we are rational to accept:
1. Logical and mathematical proofs cannot be proven by science; science presupposes logic and math so to try to prove them by science would be arguing in a circle.
2. Metaphysical truths such as "There are other minds besides my own" or that the external world is real, etc.
3. Ethical beliefs about statements of value are not accessible by the scientific method. You can't show by science whether the Nazi scientists in the death camps did anything evil as opposed to the scientists in Western democracies.
4. Aesthetic judgments cannot be accessed by the scientific method because the beautiful--like the good--cannot be proven.
5. Science itself cannot be justified by the scientific method; science is permeated with unproveable assumptions e.g. in the special theory of relativity, the whole theory hinges on the assumption that the speed of light is constant in a one-way direction between any two points but that strictly cannot be proven, we simply have to assume that in order to hold to the theory.

Anyway, that's from an old debate between Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. Peter Atkins. If you're interested you can check out more of Craig's writings or ask him questions here.

However more relevant to this discussion is something Player said a while back (yes, on very rare occasions I do agree with Player!): The fallacy is when you try to draw a line that because human beings can understand something, it cannot be from God. This is no more logical than the reverse. In fact, I would argue it is less logical, less reasonable to insist that the only proof of God could be something science could not explain.

zimmah wrote:you could call me irrational but i could call you irrational for the same reasons.

this whole discussion is pointless though so i don't even know why i should even try to answer, you're all ignorant anyway.

might as well rename the tread "bash on religious people #45"

I provided reasoning for why I believe you're being irrational, you didn't.

Why is it that engaging in debate is "bashing on religious people"?
Are their beliefs so fragile that we need to tiptoe around them?

If you can't justify or explain one of your beliefs, maybe it's time to re-examine it.

zimmah wrote:the creation of life, the purpose of life, what life is in the first place,

The "creation" of life has been explained by science, it's called abiogenesis.

The "purpose" of life is a debatable concept in the first place - who says life has a "purpose"?

As for what life is - this is just a matter of definition, life is what we decide it is.

zimmah wrote:in fact science can only explain some laws of the universe and things we can observe. nothing more.

What else is there? If there are things we cannot observe, how do we know those things... are?

Ray Rider wrote:There are many things that cannot be scientifically proven but which we are rational to accept:
1. Logical and mathematical proofs cannot be proven by science; science presupposes logic and math so to try to prove them by science would be arguing in a circle.

Incorrect: logic and mathematics are both sciences.

Ray Rider wrote:2. Metaphysical truths such as "There are other minds besides my own" or that the external world is real, etc.

I'll concede that, nothing can really answer those kinds of questions though.

Ray Rider wrote:3. Ethical beliefs about statements of value are not accessible by the scientific method. You can't show by science whether the Nazi scientists in the death camps did anything evil as opposed to the scientists in Western democracies.

Well, since the concept of what is "wrong" or "evil" is entirely subjective, I think this is another thing that cannot be objectively explained.

Ray Rider wrote:4. Aesthetic judgments cannot be accessed by the scientific method because the beautiful--like the good--cannot be proven.

Same as above - subjective.

Ray Rider wrote:5. Science itself cannot be justified by the scientific method; science is permeated with unproveable assumptions e.g. in the special theory of relativity, the whole theory hinges on the assumption that the speed of light is constant in a one-way direction between any two points but that strictly cannot be proven, we simply have to assume that in order to hold to the theory.

I really have no idea where you're going with this one.

Lootifer wrote:Why did we start a new thread, couldnt we have bumped one of the old ones?!

INFIDEL!! HERETIC!! KILL THE NECROBUMPER!! KILL THE NECROBUMPER!!

j9b wrote:which is why religion falls under the umbrella of science

No.

-TG

zimmah wrote:

DJ Teflon wrote:

by the time the bible was written there were no english dictionaries yet. the interpretation of the word immortal, among many other words that are used in the bible can only be known by comparing it to how the bible describes those words and the context the words are in.

And herein lies humanity's problem with understanding the divine, if there is such a thing.

Words are designed to describe human concepts. They are pretty bad at doing that.

Words aren't going to describe the universe when the people speaking cannot understand the universe.

And here endeth the non-lesson of ignorance.

you don't need to talk about the universe to understand the concept of a higher power.

there's no way to 'prove' god exists, nor is there a way to 'prove' he doesn't. but there's just so much that science and evolution can not explain, while the bible can explain it, that to me the only logical explanation is that there is a god.

That doesn't seem like a sound justification for believing, in my view. I'm pretty darn sure that thegreekdog, BigBallinStalin, pimpdave and myself could get together and write a hell of a book that explains the existence of everything (42, by the way).

zimmah wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

zimmah wrote:there's no way to 'prove' god exists, nor is there a way to 'prove' he doesn't. but there's just so much that science and evolution can not explain, while the bible can explain it, that to me the only logical explanation is that there is a god.

Here's the two options on approaching unexplainable fact X.
1. We don't yet know how X happens, maybe we'll figure it out in the future, maybe not.
2. God did X. I can't explain God though, I just know he did X.

Why are you so afraid of saying "I don't know" that you must invent an omnipotent being just to avoid admitting your lack of knowledge?

why are you so afraid of believing there is a god, does it hurt you or anyone to believe in our creator?

What's the point? I don't mean that in a smart-ass way...I mean it as a serious question.

zimmah wrote:

natty_dread wrote:But what is it that science can't explain?

People always tell me "there are things that science can't explain", I just wonder what those things are, specifically...

a lot of things, and you know it.

the creation of life, the purpose of life, what life is in the first place, in fact science can only explain some laws of the universe and things we can observe. nothing more. and even then the theories are often incomplete and not fully understood.

you'd be faster if you tried to make a list of things science can explain.

Science is VERY CLOSE to creating life, you realize...right?

john9blue wrote:zimmah, there is a difference between "can not explain" and "has not yet explained"

science theoretically can explain just about everything. religion can explain some of the same things that science can, which is why religion falls under the umbrella of science

Religion falls under the umbrella of science?

religion: using information to draw conclusions about the universe
science: using information to draw conclusions about the universe

john9blue wrote:religion: using information to draw conclusions about the universe
science: using information to draw conclusions about the universe

religion: contains the letter i
science: contains the letter i

Therefore religion falls under science. Makes sense.

zimmah wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

zimmah wrote:there's no way to 'prove' god exists, nor is there a way to 'prove' he doesn't. but there's just so much that science and evolution can not explain, while the bible can explain it, that to me the only logical explanation is that there is a god.

Here's the two options on approaching unexplainable fact X.
1. We don't yet know how X happens, maybe we'll figure it out in the future, maybe not.
2. God did X. I can't explain God though, I just know he did X.

Why are you so afraid of saying "I don't know" that you must invent an omnipotent being just to avoid admitting your lack of knowledge?

why are you so afraid of believing there is a god, does it hurt you or anyone to believe in our creator?

It's when people act on their beliefs that the hurting starts,if theists truly think they have possession of some wonderful truth denied to people like me why can't they just be happy with that.Why is it you can't be happy until I believe too?

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

zimmah wrote:you could call me irrational but i could call you irrational for the same reasons.

this whole discussion is pointless though so i don't even know why i should even try to answer, you're all ignorant anyway.

might as well rename the tread "bash on religious people #45"

I provided reasoning for why I believe you're being irrational, you didn't.

Why is it that engaging in debate is "bashing on religious people"?
Are their beliefs so fragile that we need to tiptoe around them?

If you can't justify or explain one of your beliefs, maybe it's time to re-examine it.

the difference between discussing and bashing is because you're not asking questions to hear an answer, you're asking questions just for the sake of asking them. no matter what i answer, you'll laugh at my answer and ask a new question that again you will laugh at my answer.

and also calling me irrational because i think for myself instead of just accepting the opinion of the masses. now how is thinking for myself irrational?

natty_dread wrote:

zimmah wrote:the creation of life, the purpose of life, what life is in the first place,

The "creation" of life has been explained by science, it's called abiogenesis.

The "purpose" of life is a debatable concept in the first place - who says life has a "purpose"?

As for what life is - this is just a matter of definition, life is what we decide it is.

zimmah wrote:in fact science can only explain some laws of the universe and things we can observe. nothing more.

What else is there? If there are things we cannot observe, how do we know those things... are?

Ray Rider wrote:There are many things that cannot be scientifically proven but which we are rational to accept:
1. Logical and mathematical proofs cannot be proven by science; science presupposes logic and math so to try to prove them by science would be arguing in a circle.

Incorrect: logic and mathematics are both sciences.

Ray Rider wrote:2. Metaphysical truths such as "There are other minds besides my own" or that the external world is real, etc.

I'll concede that, nothing can really answer those kinds of questions though.

Ray Rider wrote:3. Ethical beliefs about statements of value are not accessible by the scientific method. You can't show by science whether the Nazi scientists in the death camps did anything evil as opposed to the scientists in Western democracies.

Well, since the concept of what is "wrong" or "evil" is entirely subjective, I think this is another thing that cannot be objectively explained.

Ray Rider wrote:4. Aesthetic judgments cannot be accessed by the scientific method because the beautiful--like the good--cannot be proven.

Same as above - subjective.

Ray Rider wrote:5. Science itself cannot be justified by the scientific method; science is permeated with unproveable assumptions e.g. in the special theory of relativity, the whole theory hinges on the assumption that the speed of light is constant in a one-way direction between any two points but that strictly cannot be proven, we simply have to assume that in order to hold to the theory.

I really have no idea where you're going with this one.

abiogenesis is just a theory, and it makes just about as much sense as believing in a god. or probably even less. i mean, life created out of nothing? really? in fact, untill now, science has only proven that abiogenesis is IMPOSSABLE.

why is that?

because the scientific method means that in order to be scientifically proven, it must be repeatable, right?

To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

all experiments thusfar have proven that life can not be created from inanimate objects, so why do you keep insisting that science proved otherwise? and even IF for some reason scienteists can create life from nothing (which i highly doubt in the first place) then what does the scientist represent in the experiment? because back when life started, there couldn't have been a scientist to do the experiment, so it must have been 'something else'. so now what would that 'someone else' be?

therefore, abiogenesis is NOT scientific.

Woodruff wrote:

zimmah wrote:

DJ Teflon wrote:

by the time the bible was written there were no english dictionaries yet. the interpretation of the word immortal, among many other words that are used in the bible can only be known by comparing it to how the bible describes those words and the context the words are in.

And herein lies humanity's problem with understanding the divine, if there is such a thing.

Words are designed to describe human concepts. They are pretty bad at doing that.

Words aren't going to describe the universe when the people speaking cannot understand the universe.

And here endeth the non-lesson of ignorance.

you don't need to talk about the universe to understand the concept of a higher power.

there's no way to 'prove' god exists, nor is there a way to 'prove' he doesn't. but there's just so much that science and evolution can not explain, while the bible can explain it, that to me the only logical explanation is that there is a god.

That doesn't seem like a sound justification for believing, in my view. I'm pretty darn sure that thegreekdog, BigBallinStalin, pimpdave and myself could get together and write a hell of a book that explains the existence of everything (42, by the way).

writing a book is not science.

Woodruff wrote:

zimmah wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

zimmah wrote:there's no way to 'prove' god exists, nor is there a way to 'prove' he doesn't. but there's just so much that science and evolution can not explain, while the bible can explain it, that to me the only logical explanation is that there is a god.

Here's the two options on approaching unexplainable fact X.
1. We don't yet know how X happens, maybe we'll figure it out in the future, maybe not.
2. God did X. I can't explain God though, I just know he did X.

Why are you so afraid of saying "I don't know" that you must invent an omnipotent being just to avoid admitting your lack of knowledge?

why are you so afraid of believing there is a god, does it hurt you or anyone to believe in our creator?

What's the point? I don't mean that in a smart-ass way...I mean it as a serious question.

zimmah wrote:

natty_dread wrote:But what is it that science can't explain?

People always tell me "there are things that science can't explain", I just wonder what those things are, specifically...

a lot of things, and you know it.

the creation of life, the purpose of life, what life is in the first place, in fact science can only explain some laws of the universe and things we can observe. nothing more. and even then the theories are often incomplete and not fully understood.

you'd be faster if you tried to make a list of things science can explain.

Science is VERY CLOSE to creating life, you realize...right?

if there s a god, wouldn't you want to know him?

there's several possible outcomes:

1) you believe in god, and there is a god -> that's a good thing, unless god doesn't care, but in that case you can find out. and if we assume if this s the case, we could assume the bible is true, and thus that god does care.

2) you believe in god, and there is no god -> you're still happy with your life, so noone gets hurt. you may only be disappointed that there is no god, but at least you have a good life in your way.

3) there is a god, but you don't believe there is -> may bea very bad thing, you hurt god's feelings

4) there is no god, and you beleive there is no god -> nothing wrong with that.

so wouldn't it be at the very least be a good thing to really investigate if there is a god that cares? (if there is a god, but he doesn't care, then you shouldn't have to care either).

Science is VERY CLOSE to creating life, you realize...right?

that would only prove that life could not have been created without outside help, unless the scientist do absolutely nothing to help create life. otherwise they would only proof that some kind of (possibly human-like) deity would have need to existed before life, in order to start the chain of events that created life. i mean, if a scientist is needed to create life out of nothing, then the scientist HAS A ROLE in the experiment. the only thing they can prove with their experiments, is that intelligent life is required to create life. (thus, that there MUST BE a god).

it would amaze me more if they found life suddenly appearing somewhere in the universe, without human interference. (good luck with that)

chang50 wrote:

zimmah wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

zimmah wrote:there's no way to 'prove' god exists, nor is there a way to 'prove' he doesn't. but there's just so much that science and evolution can not explain, while the bible can explain it, that to me the only logical explanation is that there is a god.

Here's the two options on approaching unexplainable fact X.
1. We don't yet know how X happens, maybe we'll figure it out in the future, maybe not.
2. God did X. I can't explain God though, I just know he did X.

Why are you so afraid of saying "I don't know" that you must invent an omnipotent being just to avoid admitting your lack of knowledge?

why are you so afraid of believing there is a god, does it hurt you or anyone to believe in our creator?

It's when people act on their beliefs that the hurting starts,if theists truly think they have possession of some wonderful truth denied to people like me why can't they just be happy with that.Why is it you can't be happy until I believe too?

i am happy even if you don't want to believe (this forum was started by an atheist btw, mind me). but either way, it's my duty to at least inform you that there is a god, but what you do with that information is entirely up to you.

i'm just giving you the diagnosis and the cure, you have to take it yourself, if you want to.

we do not preach because we hate you, we do it because we care for you. we don't want anyone to die, god doesn't want anyone to die. but in order to solve the problems, he has to kill off people at some point, otherwise this madness will never stop. we are just trying to warn you, but if you don't want to listen, it's ok. life a happy life as long as this world still exists.

john9blue wrote:religion: using information to draw conclusions about the universe
science: using information to draw conclusions about the universe

Oh my God.

zimmah wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

zimmah wrote:

DJ Teflon wrote:

by the time the bible was written there were no english dictionaries yet. the interpretation of the word immortal, among many other words that are used in the bible can only be known by comparing it to how the bible describes those words and the context the words are in.

And herein lies humanity's problem with understanding the divine, if there is such a thing.

Words are designed to describe human concepts. They are pretty bad at doing that.

Words aren't going to describe the universe when the people speaking cannot understand the universe.

And here endeth the non-lesson of ignorance.

you don't need to talk about the universe to understand the concept of a higher power.

there's no way to 'prove' god exists, nor is there a way to 'prove' he doesn't. but there's just so much that science and evolution can not explain, while the bible can explain it, that to me the only logical explanation is that there is a god.

That doesn't seem like a sound justification for believing, in my view. I'm pretty darn sure that thegreekdog, BigBallinStalin, pimpdave and myself could get together and write a hell of a book that explains the existence of everything (42, by the way).

writing a book is not science.

Nor is reading comprehension. My point is that using the Bible as justification is no different than using the book that thegreekdog, BigBallinStalin, pimpdave and I wrote as justification.

whenever i tell unusual truths that i have personally deduced, but leave out my reasoning and post them in a declarative manner, an almost universal response by others is immediate dismissal without consideration. i don't understand this. if my statements are so ridiculous, shouldn't they be easy to disprove? i suppose the cognitive dissonance between reading an idea you've never considered and not being able to figure out why that idea is wrong leads to a shutdown of one's critical faculties in a weak attempt to preserve their egotistical illusion that "nobody else knows something important that i don't know". honestly, you people are pathetic. once you can broaden your peabrained, preconceived notions of what science is, or defend those notions with an actual argument, then we can have a discussion.

zimmah wrote:abiogenesis is just a theory

zimmah wrote:just a theory

Just a framework that explains observed phenomenon, you say?

There's no such thing as "just a theory". A scientific theory is not the same as the colloquial use of the word "theory". In science, a well-established theory is as strong as fact. A theory is based on observed phenomenon, which the theory explains, and it also predicts new phenomenon, and those predictions can then be tested which either strengthens the theory or proves it wrong.

zimmah wrote:and it makes just about as much sense as believing in a god. or probably even less. i mean, life created out of nothing? really? in fact, untill now, science has only proven that abiogenesis is IMPOSSABLE.

It makes no sense to you because you don't have all the facts. Also, possibly because you don't want to believe it to be true. But the fact is, it's the best explanation we have right now.

Abiogenesis doesn't posit that life was created "out of nothing". It's a reasonable explanation, just like the theory that explains how stars were born. Abiogenesis posits that there first were amino acids, which were formed the same way all the other matter at that point - shit just randomly collapses together. These amino acids formed proteins, which formed more complex proteins, and eventually these proteins would form the first, extremely simple forms of life. This may have happened millions of times until the lifeforms were feasible enough to support themselves. You have to understand this would all happen over a very long time, talking millions of years here. These lifeforms would then propagate and evolve, until we have more complex lifeforms, and these lifeforms would form even more complex lifeforms, and billions of years later we have a diverse set of organisms on the planet.

Science has never proven that abiogenesis is "impossable". In fact, recent experiments have proved it to be very much possible - amino acids can spontaneously form proteins, which can spontaneously form more complex proteins... repeat that enough of times, and you have life.

zimmah wrote:why is that?

It isn't, you just think it is because you don't know all the facts.

zimmah wrote:all experiments thusfar have proven that life can not be created from inanimate objects, so why do you keep insisting that science proved otherwise?

Because what you say isn't true. Abiogenesis has never been disproved.

zimmah wrote:and even IF for some reason scienteists can create life from nothing (which i highly doubt in the first place) then what does the scientist represent in the experiment?

That's a fallacy. No one can create life from "nothing". In fact, there's no such thing as "nothing".

You don't have all the facts. Go read more.

natty_dread wrote:

zimmah wrote:abiogenesis is just a theory

zimmah wrote:just a theory

Just a framework that explains observed phenomenon, you say?

then, who ever observed abiogenesis? noone.

so it's not even a theory then.