A diamond the size of a refrigerator

[EbylHusker]

Eyewitness accounts on anything have long been called into question as not entirely reliable. There are plenty of studies that show this. Expert testimonies on something that has never been shown to exist are not expert testimonies - they are speculation. Logical conclusions have no place regarding a subject where no evidence exists to support it.

 

Yes, I do have a narrow definition of evidence. It's a scientific definition. I'm certainly not saying God doesn't exist. But there is no scientific evidence for it. Becaus of that, believing in God requires a leap of faith.

 

To be fair, utterly believing in any "scientific" theory about how the Big Bang happened does require a similar leap of faith. All of that is pure speculation, and so it's just as likely that something called God kicked it off rather than, say, two extra dimenional membranes colliding, with the resulting effect being the creation of a bubble universe, known to us as the Big Bang. I find those theories interesting, but in no way convincing. They are fun thought projects, though.

 

And there is some math to back those thought projects up, but there is no observable evidence to support them.

[Landlord]

Eyewitness accounts on anything have long been called into question as not entirely reliable. There are plenty of studies that show this. Expert testimonies on something that has never been shown to exist are not expert testimonies - they are speculation. Logical conclusions have no place regarding a subject where no evidence exists to support it.

 

Yes, I do have a narrow definition of evidence. It's a scientific definition. I'm certainly not saying God doesn't exist. But there is no scientific evidence for it. Becaus of that, believing in God requires a leap of faith.

 

To be fair, utterly believing in any "scientific" theory about how the Big Bang happened does require a similar leap of faith. All of that is pure speculation, and so it's just as likely that something called God kicked it off rather than, say, two extra dimenional membranes colliding, with the resulting effect being the creation of a bubble universe, known to us as the Big Bang. I find those theories interesting, but in no way convincing. They are fun thought projects, though.

 

And there is some math to back those thought projects up, but there is no observable evidence to support them.

 

 

Well reasoned response. I have no problem with you having a scientific definition of evidence, and saying that by that definition there is none to be had for a God (even though I disagree). The reason I have no problem with it is that that is not a "slam" against God in any way; to say that there is no scientific evidence for His existence, simply because science isn't meant to answer those kinds of questions.

[KJ.]

And right there is the huge fallacy that so many people use while trying to legitimize religion by comparing it to science.

 

Us not knowing exactly how the universe was created, or what came before it (if anything), is a perfectly acceptable answer. We don't know, and anyone who tries to tell you we do (like saying the Big Bang has to be how it happened) is only trying to sell you something. Real scientists who aren't trying to make headlines will tell you it's the leading mainstream theory, but it in no way answers all the questions and it certainly has some problems.

 

No leap of faith is required for that. The Big Bang theory is supported as a current best fit model through observation and mathematical calculation. It's not perfect, but it's the best we've got right now (at least I think so).

 

Religion requires, at its core, a belief in something that there is absolutely no shred of verifiable, scientific evidence for. God. Not a single bit. And that's fine - it's taken on faith. It does not need to be legitimized by trying to compare it to science. Doing so only makes people look foolish, ignorant, and insecure in their beliefs.

 

It is, in fact, the exact same thing as believing in bigfoot. There is not a single shred of verifiable, scientific evidence that bigfoot exists. The difference is, idiots try to legitimize their belief in bigfoot by mixing it with "science" (which is really a stretch to even call it science). And that's where the problem comes in. The same is true for religion...when you start trying to legitimize it with science, it gets ridiculous.

 

You can make all the "logical" arguments you want for there being a creator. There exists no evidence for it whatsoever. Feeling that way is not any kind of faith - it is looking at the available facts and NOT taking a leap of faith.

 

 

 

You have a narrow definition of evidence. Tell me, in court, do eyewitness accounts not count as evidence? Do expert testimonies not count as evidence? Do logical conclusions and arguments not count towards proving a case?

 

Scientific evidence != evidence. Philosophical and logical conclusions hold just as much weight as scientific conclusions. In fact, science would not be able to exist or achieve it's job without philosophy and logic.

C programmer?

[EbylHusker]

Science is meant to explain the things we see and experience around us. God is often used to explain some of the things we see and experience around us. Many people apparently believe the two overlap.

 

What happens is sometimes things happen where science is currently unable to fully explain the event. These things are often used to support a belief in God because they "can't be explained by science." Of course, throughout our history, many things that could not previously be explained by science are now well understood as not being supernatural at all.

 

An unexplained event is not evidence for a supreme being. If you can provide me with scientific evidence for a God, I'd love to see it. Assuming it is academically verifiable, you will instantly become the most important and famous person the world has ever known. Give it a shot, why not?

[The Dude]

And right there is the huge fallacy that so many people use while trying to legitimize religion by comparing it to science.

 

Us not knowing exactly how the universe was created, or what came before it (if anything), is a perfectly acceptable answer. We don't know, and anyone who tries to tell you we do (like saying the Big Bang has to be how it happened) is only trying to sell you something. Real scientists who aren't trying to make headlines will tell you it's the leading mainstream theory, but it in no way answers all the questions and it certainly has some problems.

 

No leap of faith is required for that. The Big Bang theory is supported as a current best fit model through observation and mathematical calculation. It's not perfect, but it's the best we've got right now (at least I think so).

 

Religion requires, at its core, a belief in something that there is absolutely no shred of verifiable, scientific evidence for. God. Not a single bit. And that's fine - it's taken on faith. It does not need to be legitimized by trying to compare it to science. Doing so only makes people look foolish, ignorant, and insecure in their beliefs.

 

It is, in fact, the exact same thing as believing in bigfoot. There is not a single shred of verifiable, scientific evidence that bigfoot exists. The difference is, idiots try to legitimize their belief in bigfoot by mixing it with "science" (which is really a stretch to even call it science). And that's where the problem comes in. The same is true for religion...when you start trying to legitimize it with science, it gets ridiculous.

 

You can make all the "logical" arguments you want for there being a creator. There exists no evidence for it whatsoever. Feeling that way is not any kind of faith - it is looking at the available facts and NOT taking a leap of faith.

 

 

 

You have a narrow definition of evidence. Tell me, in court, do eyewitness accounts not count as evidence? Do expert testimonies not count as evidence? Do logical conclusions and arguments not count towards proving a case?

 

Scientific evidence != evidence. Philosophical and logical conclusions hold just as much weight as scientific conclusions. In fact, science would not be able to exist or achieve it's job without philosophy and logic.

"If scientists invented the legal system, eye witness testimony would be inadmissible evidence."

[JJ Husker]

Ebyl- You need to reread my post. I did not say thinking the big bang happened or accepting that as the leading theory requires a leap of faith. I happen to agree that it is a sound and acceptable scientific explanation. However, it does require a leap of faith to treat that theory as the end of the discussion. We can use logic, without empirical scientific evidence to figure this out. Also I did not try to legitimize religion unless you equate acknowledging the fact there must be a creator with legitimizing religions. My point was that there had to be a creator, nothing more, nothing less. If you want to dispute that fact, then please show me where my logic is flawed.

[EbylHusker]

I read and understood your post, and have already addressed the points within it, whether you like it or not. As I said, an unexplained event is not evidence for a supreme being. Quite frankly, that is a ludicrous statement.

[EbylHusker]

Btw, as for the cosmological argument, it completely breaks down at the assumption of uncaused. It ends up coming down to the argument of, "We don't know what's going on, so it must be God." mmkay...

 

Let's not forget that if there is a God, there's no reason to think he/she/it must exist eternally. Unless you're referencing a specific book. And hey, I can write you up a nice book with some work that puts forth as much evidence that God is not eternal as the Bible does that he/she/it is eternal.

[zoogs]

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't scientific reactions require a cause? For example, lots of people will point to the big bang as being the beginning. Well what caused that?

 

Ebyl really nailed it in his post but I'll offer some of my thoughts as well.

 

No, science doesn't require cause. It's limited by whatever we can observe and model, which are very human, sometimes intractable limitations. And that isn't a cop-out: that's being honest about what we can say we know with confidence, and what we can't, but may only guess.

 

Also a lot of these questions you ask don't strike at the heart of science at all. Rather, they are merely reflections of the mysterious nature of somethings and how hard it can be to wrap our heads around them.

 

If I'm not wrong, what 'caused' the Big Bang is really open to a lot of (if scientifically grounded) speculation, because what we "know" goes back to tiny tiny fractions of a second after this event that we've chosen to call "The Big Bang." The nature of what came before that is just something we might never have a full grasp on. I mean, what is time, anyway? It's a construct that we use and is sensible to all of us, staying here on the same planet, but it's merely relative. I can't wrap my head around it either. It's mind-blowing. And hard to visualize.

 

We can use logic, without empirical scientific evidence to figure this out

 

I would say in that case, you're filling in blanks - nothing wrong with that - personally, for yourself, rather than objectively, empirically figuring anything out.

[JJ Husker]

I read and understood your post, and have already addressed the points within it, whether you like it or not. As I said, an unexplained event is not evidence for a supreme being. Quite frankly, that is a ludicrous statement.

 

You didn't understand it if you came away thinking I said an unexplained event is evidence for a supreme being. My point was that we can use things (logic) other than hard scientific evidence to figure things out. It doesn't matter what you or I like or dislike. The fact remains that you are reading things into my post that simply aren't there.

 

BTW- You did not show how or why you feel the cosmological argument "completely breaks down" at the assumption of a creator. I suppose the assumption of a God is no more than a theory but do you have a better theory of another eternal uncaused cause? Or, do you believe that we can infinitely go backwards in time identifying causes without ever coming to an uncaused cause?

[EbylHusker]

"I suppose the assumption of a God is no more than a theory"

 

Correct. A theory with no scientific evidence.

 

"do you believe that we can infinitely go backwards in time identifying causes without ever coming to an uncaused cause?"

 

This is another possibility. One of many.

 

So what caused God? Something must have. As you point out, the universe exists, so something must have caused it. God exists (according to you), so something must have caused him. What caused the causer?

 

It's all completely without scientific evidence, and is nothing more than a though project.

[JJ Husker]

And zoogies- my questions were not meant to be necessarily scientific in nature. It doesn't really matter what caused the big bang. That isn't the linch pin of my point. Logic tells us that you can only chase that back so far but eventually you have to come to an uncaused cause. If anyone has any suggestions as to what that could be, if not a being in line with our current understanding of what God or the creator is, I would sure entertain the proposal. Too many people are satisfied to say that there is no scientific proof of God, and there isn't but, there are other ways to try to figure it out. People who are only willing to accept scientific evidence, and nothing else, aren't using all the tools in the box. They might be using one of the best tools for most things but not for this issue.

[Landlord]

"I suppose the assumption of a God is no more than a theory"

 

Correct. A theory with no scientific evidence.

 

"do you believe that we can infinitely go backwards in time identifying causes without ever coming to an uncaused cause?"

 

This is another possibility. One of many.

 

So what caused God? Something must have. As you point out, the universe exists, so something must have caused it. God exists (according to you), so something must have caused him. What caused the causer?

 

It's all completely without scientific evidence, and is nothing more than a though project.

 

 

You're applying universal laws to something not confined within the universe. Whatever caused the universe doesn't necessarily need to be caused at all - it could very easily be eternal.

[EbylHusker]

It could be, or it could not be. I'm not saying anything one way or another. The use of the cosmological argument to this topic is, in fact, using universal laws (logic) in an attempt to prove something that would not be confined to this universe. It is just as flawed as anything. Pointing that out to devalue scientific reasoning, while using it to support your own beliefs, is a shocking bit of hypocrisy.

 

We do not know what brought about the Big Bang and our universe. You assume that means it must be God. I say there is no evidence for that, or anything else really, so I'm content with, "I don't know," right now. You are taking a leap of faith. I am not.

 

Happy trails.

 

Edit - And if that wasn't clear, I'm now done with this discussion. It has strayed way too far into the ridiculous, as this topic always does.

[Landlord]

It could be, or it could not be. I'm not saying anything one way or another. The use of the cosmological argument to this topic is, in fact, using universal laws (logic) in an attempt to prove something that would not be confined to this universe. It is just as flawed as anything. Pointing that out to devalue scientific reasoning, while using it to support your own beliefs, is a shocking bit of hypocrisy.

 

We do not know what brought about the Big Bang and our universe. You assume that means it must be God. I say there is no evidence for that, or anything else really, so I'm content with, "I don't know," right now. You are taking a leap of faith. I am not.

 

Happy trails.

 

Edit - And if that wasn't clear, I'm now done with this discussion. It has strayed way too far into the ridiculous, as this topic always does.

 

 

For the record, I don't assume that means it MUST be God. I don't know that for sure, and I admit and acknowledge that there could be alternatives. It's also not even remotely close to being the only thing that leads me to my belief in God - there are a ton of factors.

 

At the end of the day, just as many scientists and atheists argue untenable positions against faith than Christians or otherwise argue for it. You are right that good scientists don't go about making these sorts of claims, but there aren't a ton of good scientists out there these days, it seems.