Question about the Christian God

[Colonel M]

Erhem.

I was simply stating that "theory" and "law" are about equal.

Unless you want to be mindless about that?

Edited July 13, 2009 by Colonel M

[Defeatist Elitist]

I personally never viewed it like that because of the lack of evidence on both ends. There is no direct evidence of his existence, but there is no direct evidence proving his non-existence, For example, I can safely say that Werewolves don't exist, there is plenty of scientific evidence supporting the fact that they don't exist, and even evidence explaining why someone back in the old days would think they did, however there is no evidence like this for God, at least not yet. Other then, as you said, the lack of evidence proving it.

While I use science to understand things. I'm not going to not believe something just because science can't explain it yet. Science is always evolving and getting better. Things that were unknown to us 10 years back can be explained now. Perhaps one day it will be able to explain the existence, or non-existence of God. But today is not that day.

It's up to you to choose to believe it, or not, hence the term faith.

;)

No. Dude.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you claim that a giant, invisible man created us and has absolute power, then the burden of proof falls on YOU. That means God does not exist until proven to exist. Err. I mean, unless you prove him to exist, it is safe for us to claim that he doesn't exist.

Edited July 13, 2009 by ZXValaRevan

[Tino]

"Guilty until proven innocent."

[Esau of Isaac]

I was simply stating that "theory" and "law" are about equal.

Where?

[Colonel M]

Where?

Just to clarify. I didn't even undermine that theory =/= law in the first place.

[Crystal Shards]

I know that some things cannot be proven false about religion, but some things cannot be proven true for science, hence the terms "theory" and "law".

This not only shows you have little to no understanding of the terms but it also implies a hierarchy.

[Esau of Isaac]

Just to clarify. I didn't even undermine that theory =/= law in the first place.

Then what the hell does this mean:

I know that some things cannot be proven false about religion, but some things cannot be proven true for science, hence the terms "theory" and "law".

[Dies Mori]

The ironic thing being, of course, is that scientific laws are essentially established as absolutes.

The bible itself, I believe, is a book that is made to be questioned. I guess in some ways people think it is immune to theory; however, it really isn't. Since I don't believe that it is 100% factual, I always am open minded to opinion, and then I attempt to give the best interpretation for it.

Books with fanatstical designations are not meant or deserve to be taken seriously, the Bible in particular given the time period to which much of the writing was attributed where it would otherwise be completely inapplicable to today's standard of existence.

[Colonel M]

Well then, I guess I was misworded. Also, as I simply could presume, attacked:

This not only shows you have little to no understanding of the terms but it also implies a hierarchy.

Erhem, let me rephrase that:

Science uses two terms: "Laws" and "Theories". Both usually consist of attempting to find a fact on the subject. For example, one theory could be made about the Laws of Sines and Cosines. "Laws" are theories that are followed and, so far, have not been disproven.

This does not mean that I was imply the foolishness that the bible had "laws" or "theories" related to science. I was simply talking on science's part: it has things that are not 100% fact either. Never said the Bible did either.

The ironic thing being, of course, is that scientific laws are essentially established as absolutes.

They are essentially established as absolutes because no one has yet disproved that they are not absolute.

The laws of science are various established scientific laws, or physical laws as they are sometimes called, that are considered universal and invariable facts of the physical world. Laws of science may, however, be disproved if new facts or evidence contradicts them. A "law" differs from hypotheses, theories, postulates, principles, etc., in that a law is an analytic statement, usually with an empirically determined constant. A theory may contain a set of laws, or a theory may be implied from an empirically determined law."

Books with fanatstical designations are not meant or deserve to be taken seriously, the Bible in particular given the time period to which much of the writing was attributed where it would otherwise be completely inapplicable to today's standard of existence.

Congratulations dumbass, you've simply just re-stated my point: it is something that is not a fucking history book: think of it as a book that has a little history into it, etc. Some of the situations are inapplicable today, but that does not mean that it is innacurate either.

Meh, screw this topic anyway. I've already said discussion on Christianity and such is not for forums anyway; it just causes a stupid argument on both sides. Don't bother re-iterating things at me: I promise to not look at this topic seriously again.

Edited July 14, 2009 by Colonel M

[Celice]

A lot of people come into their arguments presupposing what one side will say and act as if they're neutral in the matter, yet still act on presumption. Most people who participate are far from mature enough to handle such converse. That's why you don't bother.

[Esau of Isaac]

"Laws" are theories that are followed and, so far, have not been disproven.

You don't know what you're talking about, do you?

[Defeatist Elitist]

"Guilty until proven innocent."

Other way around actually. Innocent until proven guilty.

Claiming someone has committed a crime is an extra ordinary claim, requiring extraordinary evidence. The default position of the law on a person is to assume they are innocent.

[Celice]

"He's got a gun!"

[Defeatist Elitist]

"He's got a gun!"

Indeed. Such a claim is not to be made lightly.

[Crystal Shards]

Erhem, let me rephrase that:

Science uses two terms: "Laws" and "Theories". Both usually consist of attempting to find a fact on the subject. For example, one theory could be made about the Laws of Sines and Cosines. "Laws" are theories that are followed and, so far, have not been disproven.

This does not mean that I was imply the foolishness that the bible had "laws" or "theories" related to science. I was simply talking on science's part: it has things that are not 100% fact either. Never said the Bible did either.

They are essentially established as absolutes because no one has yet disproved that they are not absolute.

The laws of science are various established scientific laws, or physical laws as they are sometimes called, that are considered universal and invariable facts of the physical world. Laws of science may, however, be disproved if new facts or evidence contradicts them. A "law" differs from hypotheses, theories, postulates, principles, etc., in that a law is an analytic statement, usually with an empirically determined constant. A theory may contain a set of laws, or a theory may be implied from an empirically determined law."

Yeah, no. This is where religious discussions piss me off. You're telling me that some book written and edited several times by men (often for political reasons) is all the evidence you need for something to hold onto the belief that some guy randomly created everything (including the murderers and homosexuals and people of other religions that he sends to hell) despite the fact that there probably aren't very many statements/ideas/events in the Bible that haven't been questioned... Yet a scientific LAWS and THEORIES, which are not created lightly or without serious and heavy analysis before being accepted into the scientific community, are pretty much "meh." The difference, in MOST cases (but not all), is that if something disproves the Bible, it's tossed out, whereas if something disproves a law, it's reconsidered. Proof? Noah's Ark, Adam and Eve, Jericho, Jonas, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum. Yeah, it's "just" a law. A law that has upheld rigorous questioning and experimentation. Can't say that so much about a guy who got swallowed by a whale.

And since you say, "Never said the Bible did either," you're bringing up a point that doesn't need to be brought up. All you're doing is tossing dirt into science's metaphorical face while completely ignoring religion's glaring faults. What's that about a rod and a speck?

I am not against Christianity. I think it's got some very great ideas and I also hold to the belief you can believe what you want. But I really don't understand why some Christians toss aside science as if it didn't get us to where we are today.

Edited July 14, 2009 by Crystal Shards

[Camus The Dark Knight]

No. Dude.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you claim that a giant, invisible man created us and has absolute power, then the burden of proof falls on YOU. That means God does not exist until proven to exist. Err. I mean, unless you prove him to exist, it is safe for us to claim that he doesn't exist.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Cosmos?

What would be extraordinary evidence then? Where exactly did life come from? Will your presuppositions allow unbiased examination of the evidence? What criteria is used to determine what is extraordinary evidence? Is criteria for extraordinary evidence reasonable?

Answer these, so I know where exactly from here.

If you claim that a giant, invisible man created us and has absolute power, then the burden of proof falls on YOU. That means God does not exist until proven to exist.

There was once a time where something, such as a black hole could never exist, it had no evidence to support it at all. Yet they do exist. Years later there was (is) evidence supporting their existence.

Basically, all I am trying to point out, is just because something can't be proven yet, does not mean it does not exist. There are many things in this world/galaxy/whatever you want to scale it to, that can not be explained yet, but that alone does not make their existence impossible.

[Crystal Shards]

Basically, all I am trying to point out, is just because something can't be proven yet, does not mean it does not exist. There are many things in this world/galaxy/whatever you want to scale it to, that can not be explained yet, but that alone does not make their existence impossible.

Impossible, no. Improbable, yes. I do agree that if you can't prove something CAN'T happen you can't say it's impossible, but at the same time if you want someone to believe in something you have to have some sort of unbiased evidence in favor of your view.

[Camus The Dark Knight]

Impossible, no. Improbable, yes. I do agree that if you can't prove something CAN'T happen you can't say it's impossible, but at the same time if you want someone to believe in something you have to have some sort of unbiased evidence in favor of your view.

I wasn't asking someone to believe in it. I am fully against trying to make someone believe in what they don't want to (Just starting some conflict to heat up discussion of the matter). All I wanted was the acknowledgment it is indeed not impossible.

[Crystal Shards]

I wasn't asking someone to believe in it. I am fully against trying to make someone believe in what they don't want to (Just starting some conflict to heat up discussion of the matter). All I wanted was the acknowledgment it is indeed not impossible.

I know you weren't asking. I was simply responding to the statements.

[California Mountain Snake]

There was once a time where something, such as a black hole could never exist, it had no evidence to support it at all. Yet they do exist. Years later there was (is) evidence supporting their existence.

You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

The suspicion that black holes exist, and the formation of a preliminary hypothesis was based off conjectures made to account for observable phenomena, such as irregular gravitational measurements and spacial anomalies. It wasn't just Steven Hawking going "You know what would be cool?! Big sucky death things that destroy everything! Yeah!"

Please don't underestimate the intelligence of your audience and think you can get away with deliberately misleading shit like this.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Cosmos?

What would be extraordinary evidence then? Where exactly did life come from? Will your presuppositions allow unbiased examination of the evidence? What criteria is used to determine what is extraordinary evidence? Is criteria for extraordinary evidence reasonable?

Answer these, so I know where exactly from here.

There was once a time where something, such as a black hole could never exist, it had no evidence to support it at all. Yet they do exist. Years later there was (is) evidence supporting their existence.

Basically, all I am trying to point out, is just because something can't be proven yet, does not mean it does not exist. There are many things in this world/galaxy/whatever you want to scale it to, that can not be explained yet, but that alone does not make their existence impossible.

Anyhow, extraordinary evidence really just means real evidence. It just needs to be evidence that can be verified and actually supports the theory. Where did life come from? The current favorite hypothesis is abiogenesis, which while not fully explored or understood, seems at this time to be the most promising solution. If you would like to know more, I suggest beginning at Wikipedia and moving on to other sources. Of course my presuppositions will allow unbiased examination of the evidence. That is what Science is all about. Maybe you guys don't understand, but Scientists aren't really that interested in constantly quashing your beliefs, they are interested in the truth, and, by and large, will constantly strive towards it. Even I don't really care about you being wrong, I care about people understanding reality as best we can. As for the criteria for Extraordinary evidence, of course its reasonable, it is, as Crystal Shards said, what has gotten us as far as we are today.

Anyhow, Black Hole point was addressed by Black Knight, so see below.

Things might exist despite having no proof, but that is no excuse to just guess wildly. When we don't know something, it does not mean you are free to make up whatever you want to put in that place, it means WE DON'T KNOW. Now, if God just had no evidence to support his existence, then I would say that there simply was no reason to believe he existed. But as has been proven many times, there is actually evidence AGAINST the existence of God.

You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

The suspicion that black holes exist, and the formation of a preliminary hypothesis was based off conjectures made to account for observable phenomena, such as irregular gravitational measurements and spacial anomalies. It wasn't just Steven Hawking going "You know what would be cool?! Big sucky death things that destroy everything! Yeah!"

Please don't underestimate the intelligence of your audience and think you can get away with deliberately misleading shit like this.

Pretty much this.

Science isn't going "Hey, this would be awesome, let's look for a way too prove it exists!", it's going "Wow, I wonder why this shit is happening? Let us search for an explanation."

[Der Kommissar]

What would be extraordinary evidence then?

Produce direct evidence of God. Get him to appear in a burning bush, or drop hellfire on a city, or send a Lovecraftian monster of an archangel on his behalf, or flood the entire Earth with more water than exists on the entire planet, or knock down a tower for the lulz. The Abrahamic God, particularly in the Old Testament, isn't shy about showing up to slap a non-believer or to win a bet with the devil. Basically, provide something that is directly linked with the existence of a magic invisible omnipotent man.

Where exactly did life come from?

Begging the question is not evidence.

Will your presuppositions allow unbiased examination of the evidence?

In b4 "THE BEAUTY OF A SUNSET/COMPLEXITY OF LIFE/KITTEN GIGGLES/BABIES," followed by our laughter, followed by you claiming we're biased. Well, I certainly hope not, but it wouldn't be the first time.

There was once a time where something, such as a black hole could never exist, it had no evidence to support it at all. Yet they do exist. Years later there was (is) evidence supporting their existence.

Science doesn't claim to be infalliable. When evidence that hints at something new is discovered, it is examined and the system adjusts (or is rewritten, depending on what that new thing is) to account for any new knowledge. The evidence has to EXIST first; simply saying that it's POSSIBLE that something is true is worthless. It's possible that I'm German. It's possible that I'm a walrus with a neural link to the internet.

Basically, all I am trying to point out, is just because something can't be proven yet, does not mean it does not exist. There are many things in this world/galaxy/whatever you want to scale it to, that can not be explained yet, but that alone does not make their existence impossible.

Irrelevant, see above. A rational system of thinking does not base itself around what reality might be, but what it is actually found to be.

Edited July 14, 2009 by Der Kommissar

[Naglfarslayer]

*Sigh...*

Not this again...

That is what Science is all about. Maybe you guys don't understand, but Scientists aren't really that interested in constantly quashing your beliefs, they are interested in the truth, and, by and large, will constantly strive towards it. Even I don't really care about you being wrong, I care about people understanding reality as best we can.

True. That's why a legitimate religion will harmonize perfectly with science. Science should not say "God does not exist" if in fact He does. Science may not explicitly, in-your-face support God's existence, but it surely should not deny that existence if in fact God is real.

But as has been proven many times, there is actually evidence AGAINST the existence of God.

What? I seem to have missed something. What exactly is this evidence? And how does it reject God's existence??

No accusation here, only puzzlement.

[Defeatist Elitist]

What? I seem to have missed something. What exactly is this evidence? And how does it reject God's existence??

No accusation here, only puzzlement.

You haven't been on SF, so let me give you the rundown on this topic we've argued into the ground a billion times.

It's basically the fact that the Christian God has so many contradictions in his description, and so many completely incorrect ideals associated with him, that he essentially cannot exist without massive re-imagining. For example, complete omnipotence is entirely impossible, as there will always be some things you cannot do (eg, creating a rock you cannot lift, creating an immovable object and an unstoppable force, etc). And on and on and on.

Then there's the whole "If he does exist as they say he exists he's a massive asshole" thing.

Edited July 14, 2009 by ZXValaRevan

[Crystal Shards]

True. That's why a legitimate religion will harmonize perfectly with science. Science should not say "God does not exist" if in fact He does. Science may not explicitly, in-your-face support God's existence, but it surely should not deny that existence if in fact God is real.

Something does not exist until it is proven to exist. Science doesn't claim that spaceseamonkeys exist, though there is no support for or against spaceseamonkeys existing. It's illogical to assume something is true just because there isn't evidence that it isn't true. It's called burden of proof.