| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
notpotable
Fear will keep the local systems in line.
Joined: 22 Dec 2007
Posts: 4101
Location: North America's wang
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:05 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I have a shirt with this on it:
_________________
"Go not to the Lesser Apostate board to gain the relief from sin that you seek. For they are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold and in the end will simply be spewed out of the mouth of the Savior like the day-old coffee that they are."
-Sister PDQ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
rockout
Election Made Sure
Joined: 10 Jul 2009
Posts: 42
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wow, tough crowd. All I'm doing is commenting from a "weak agnostic" point of view. I come in peace.
I don't dispute that science suggests there is no god. In fact I agree. "We don't know everything about science" said in its context meant that even science itself may possibly one day explain the existence of some sort of higher intelligence or order. I never said I am holding my breath.
I don't like to deal in absolutes or think too linearly. Until 100 years ago nobody thought that spacetime may actually be curved. Blew the collective scientific mind. Kind of like the discovery that the earth was round, dinosaurs, or the "theory" of evolution. What will be the next scientific mind blower? It is not completely out of the realm of possibility that a scientific discovery will one day alter the current human perception of reality and scientific understanding. What if some day a scientific discovery actually links us to a higher order of things? It's not completely out of the realm of possibility no matter how improbable it may appear under our present understanding. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
truebutnotuseful
Election Made Sure
Joined: 07 May 2008
Posts: 663
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:11 pm Post subject: Re: There is NO "true God" |
|
|
| rockout wrote: | | But I think a conclusive "there is no god at all" viewpoint is comparable to religion itself. There is no irrefutable evidence to support that there is or isn't a god. That's the problem IMO. It is slightly possible that a higher intelligence is involved here in a way that nobody currently understands. Did I mention that I'm agnostic? |
Let's look at it a different way:
| Quote: | | I think a conclusive "there are no such things as magical leprechauns" viewpoint is comparable to religion itself. There is no irrefutable evidence to support that there is or isn't such a thing as a magical leprechaun. That's the problem IMO. It is slightly possible that a magical leprechaun is involved here in a way that nobody currently understands. Did I mention that I'm aleprechaunistic? |
If God exists and is testable by science, no compelling evidence that she/he/it exists has been produced by believers. If God exists but is beyond the capacity of science to test, then she/he/it cannot influence our universe in any useful or meaningful way and can thus be safely ignored. Or, God simply does not exist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rockout
Election Made Sure
Joined: 10 Jul 2009
Posts: 42
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Good one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
notpotable
Fear will keep the local systems in line.
Joined: 22 Dec 2007
Posts: 4101
Location: North America's wang
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
omg, TBNU, where is your avatar from??
_________________
"Go not to the Lesser Apostate board to gain the relief from sin that you seek. For they are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold and in the end will simply be spewed out of the mouth of the Savior like the day-old coffee that they are."
-Sister PDQ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wonderment
--
Joined: 01 May 2008
Posts: 1152
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think it's perfectly possible for a higher power and laws of science to co-exist. I don't see why those two principles should be mutually exclusive.
I don't see a higher power as being anything like the Mormon God. I find that the Mormon God is very anthropomorphic and greatly limits spiritual growth.
I don't think that the existence of a higher power can be proven or disproven by laws of science. Critical thinking and logical reasoning and thought processes invented by humans and do not apply to the divine. It's difficult to apply linear thinking to concepts of the divine.
That neither cancels the validity of scientific reasoning, nor the existence of the divine. The two exist side by side. It can't be proven by linear western-style thinking. It's like trying to compare apples and oranges. JMO -- Wndr. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
truebutnotuseful
Election Made Sure
Joined: 07 May 2008
Posts: 663
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wonderment wrote: | I think it's perfectly possible for magical leprechauns and laws of science to co-exist. I don't see why those two principles should be mutually exclusive.
I don't think that the existence of a magical leprechaun can be proven or disproven by laws of science. Critical thinking and logical reasoning and thought processes invented by humans and do not apply to magical leprechauns. It's difficult to apply linear thinking to concepts of magical leprechauns.
That neither cancels the validity of scientific reasoning, nor the existence of magical leprechauns. The two exist side by side. It can't be proven by linear western-style thinking. It's like trying to compare apples and oranges. JMO -- Wndr. |
Just because I can.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
truebutnotuseful
Election Made Sure
Joined: 07 May 2008
Posts: 663
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rockout
Election Made Sure
Joined: 10 Jul 2009
Posts: 42
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The athiests here seem to be fixated on the probability of the existence of god. However, the issue here (the root of my argument) is the possibility of the existence of god.
Santa Clause, tea pots, celestialized humans, and yes, even magical leprechauns were all pretty convincing illustrations of how improbable it is that god exists. However, these mean nothing to an agnostic. Most agnostics already don't believe in god. I can tell that you guys are used to arguing with believers.
The possibility that god exists is an extremely low standard to meet. It will take a lot more than ridiculous analogies and simple analyses to disprove a possibility. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brailsmt
Election Made Sure
Joined: 21 Jun 2009
Posts: 2206
Location: Zion (Jackson County, MO)
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rockout wrote: | | The possibility that god exists is an extremely low standard to meet. It will take a lot more than ridiculous analogies and simple analyses to disprove a possibility. |
Do you mean an extremely high standard? If it were extremely low, it'd be easy to counter. I dislike your position. It seems as though you are clinging to the last desperate straws that god just might possibly exist, no matter how impossibly probable it is. I say, let go already. There are many things that are possible. Like, its possible that 50,000 monkeys at typewriters will recreate Shakespeare. But who gives a shit about the possibility when it is impossibly improbable? Not me. Its also possible that randomly playing line noise through speakers will recreate the entire works of Beethoven. Again it is so patently absurd to cling that possibility that it is irrelevant. The possibility that a supreme being exists is, IMO, several orders of magnitude less possible than either example above.
_________________
Random Stuff from a Random Mind
Ex-Mormons Worldwide |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rockout
Election Made Sure
Joined: 10 Jul 2009
Posts: 42
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 11:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| brailsmt wrote: | | Do you mean an extremely high standard? If it were extremely low, it'd be easy to counter. |
No you got that backwards. A low standard is easy to meet. For example, in a criminal case the standard of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is higher than the standard of proving liability by the preponderance of the evidence in a civil case. So it is easier to find someone liable in a civil case than it is to find someone guilty in a criminal case. No more of this "do you mean" and "I assume you meant" shit. I mean what I say.
| brailsmt wrote: | | I dislike your position. |
No shit!
| brailsmt wrote: | | It seems as though you are clinging to the last desperate straws that god just might possibly exist, no matter how impossibly probable it is. I say, let go already. |
That would probably make my position easier for you to understand but you couldn't be more wrong. I have been through a lot of shit and have thought this through very carefully. My conclusions are the result of life experience, careful thought, and education. Besides, I am the least sentimental guy you could meet.
| brailsmt wrote: | | There are many things that are possible. Like, its possible that 50,000 monkeys at typewriters will recreate Shakespeare. But who gives a shit about the possibility when it is impossibly improbable? Not me. Its also possible that randomly playing line noise through speakers will recreate the entire works of Beethoven. Again it is so patently absurd to cling that possibility that it is irrelevant. The possibility that a supreme being exists is, IMO, several orders of magnitude less possible than either example above. |
All very conclusory opinions (which you are entitled to) and more ridiculous hypotheticals (which are just starting to get retarded). The hypotheticals here really work against you. You know how Shakespeare was written (by Shakespeare). You know how the works of Beethoven were composed (by Beethoven). You don't know everything about the creation of the universe and you are not even close to knowing everything there is to know about science (nobody is). You do not know everything and cannot explain everything and cannot account for everything (nobody can). I know it makes you feel better to pretend, but you cannot conclusively and definitively know that there is no god (because nobody can). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
notpotable
Fear will keep the local systems in line.
Joined: 22 Dec 2007
Posts: 4101
Location: North America's wang
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 5:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rockout wrote: | | You don't know everything about the creation of the universe and you are not even close to knowing everything there is to know about science (nobody is). You do not know everything and cannot explain everything and cannot account for everything (nobody can). |
All of which is no reason to jump to the idea of a god. And *that* is the biggest reason we're having this discussion.
I'll repeat that: an incomplete knowledge of natural laws is no reason to assume, or even consider, that there "might" be a supernatural component. Your argument is precisely equivalent to "I can't find my keys, so a ghostie might have spirited them off to return later. I'll never know, so I can't discount it!" That argument is absurd. Our hypotheticals are exactly as ridiculous to you as insistence that there really could be a god is to us.
By using the argument I quoted from you above, you are positing a variation on the "god of the gaps" theory. God of the gaps goes something like this: We don't know everything (about the universe. Saying we don't know everything about science is inapt since science is the tool used to understand existence, not something itself in need of understanding), so the things we don't know might have a god hidden behind them. That argument worked well enough back when our existence on this planet was a mystery, when we didn't realize there were other planets and a vast universe, and when we didn't know enough about chemistry and physics and biology to even posit a theory of abiogenesis. Before, say, 1859.
Now that our knowledge about the universe around us has grown, even to the point that abiogenesis has a scientifically valid proposed mechanism, the gaps for that sort of god to hide in just keep getting smaller and smaller. We don't need him in charge of holding the earth up in the sky anymore, we don't need him to have placed each species of animal on their respective continents, we don't need him to mold fetuses in the womb, we don't need him to be behind disease and disaster, because we have natural explanations for all of those. The theory of gravity, the theory of evolution, genetic recombination, germ theory and geology. None of them need a god hidden behind them and manipulating them, because we comprehend the natural laws involved.
Which gaps are god hiding in today? I can guarantee you that every year, the gaps he has left to hide in will be fewer.
Now, if it just gives you happy warm fuzzies to believe in a god, well fine. Of course we can't argue about that (but I look askance at anybody who takes notice of the incredible suffering in the world every fucking day, and still thinks there's a loving magical being somewhere. That's just me). But stop trying to use the natural as any sort of justification for the unnatural. Trying to use our incomplete understanding of science as justification for your clinging to belief in the "possibility" of a god is frankly as silly and irritating as religious people trying to use science to support their own faiths. Note: science will never support faith.
_________________
"Go not to the Lesser Apostate board to gain the relief from sin that you seek. For they are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold and in the end will simply be spewed out of the mouth of the Savior like the day-old coffee that they are."
-Sister PDQ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brailsmt
Election Made Sure
Joined: 21 Jun 2009
Posts: 2206
Location: Zion (Jackson County, MO)
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 6:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| notpotable wrote: | | rockout wrote: | | You don't know everything about the creation of the universe and you are not even close to knowing everything there is to know about science (nobody is). You do not know everything and cannot explain everything and cannot account for everything (nobody can). |
All of which is no reason to jump to the idea of a god. And *that* is the biggest reason we're having this discussion.
I'll repeat that: an incomplete knowledge of natural laws is no reason to assume, or even consider, that there "might" be a supernatural component. Your argument is precisely equivalent to "I can't find my keys, so a ghostie might have spirited them off to return later. I'll never know, so I can't discount it!" That argument is absurd. Our hypotheticals are exactly as ridiculous to you as insistence that there really could be a god is to us.
By using the argument I quoted from you above, you are positing a variation on the "god of the gaps" theory. God of the gaps goes something like this: We don't know everything (about the universe. Saying we don't know everything about science is inapt since science is the tool used to understand existence, not something itself in need of understanding), so the things we don't know might have a god hidden behind them. |
Lack of knowing everything is not any sort of proof that there might possibly be a god. Furthermore, a complete knowledge of everything is not required to dismiss/disprove god. It is an impossibly high standard to meet, and one that is not required in any other human endeavor, including religion. Anyway, feel free to cling to the idea that there might possibly be a god because we don't know everything about everything yet.
_________________
Random Stuff from a Random Mind
Ex-Mormons Worldwide |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brailsmt
Election Made Sure
Joined: 21 Jun 2009
Posts: 2206
Location: Zion (Jackson County, MO)
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 6:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rockout wrote: | | brailsmt wrote: | | Do you mean an extremely high standard? If it were extremely low, it'd be easy to counter. |
No you got that backwards. A low standard is easy to meet. |
Isn't that what I said? 
_________________
Random Stuff from a Random Mind
Ex-Mormons Worldwide |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jahedgpeth
White Noise
Joined: 28 May 2008
Posts: 1820
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 6:31 am Post subject: Re: There is NO "true God" |
|
|
| truebutnotuseful wrote: |
If God exists and is testable by science, no compelling evidence that she/he/it exists has been produced by believers. If God exists but is beyond the capacity of science to test, then she/he/it cannot influence our universe in any useful or meaningful way and can thus be safely ignored. Or, God simply does not exist. |
How would a god be testable by science and in your opinion is this the only way to *know truth?
*I don't believe we can KNOW anything without knowing everything but for brevity sake I'll use that word in it's most common meaning.
_________________
"It's nice to have diverse views here...an echo chamber is BO-ring."- Wry Catcher |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Chat
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
