A diamond the size of a refrigerator

[strigori]

Real scientists get equally excited to be proven wrong as proven right. A 'failed' experiment that yields good info is as good or better than an experiment that had the desired results.Peer review exists for others to try to poke holes in a theory, or the results of a project.

 

Unlike many of the religious faithful refuse any result that disagrees with the predetermined outcome that they want to see that backs up their viewpoint. And trying to poke holes in a theory is considered 'blasphemy' and punishable by death for much of the last two thousand years in the west, and still a danger in parts of the world,

[zoogs]

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.

 

But they are, because they get at the very nature of spacetime and what it is and what time is and what "before" and "after" means, in a concretely, 3D, linear moving forward and backwards timeflow that we can observe and fathom.

 

As for other tools, there are no other universal, objective, empirical tools at our disposal in making physical claims about our universe. Only speculation and guesswork, none of which rises to the level of "figuring things out" -- even if they do rise to the level of satisfactorily answering our own very natural and very human questions.

 

I don't know if I would say I'm satisfied with just saying there isn't any scientific evidence or ability to understand how all 'this' came about. It's a great, fascinating mystery to me and I just wish that we could find something more about it. But we simply do not know.

[Landlord]

Real scientists get equally excited to be proven wrong as proven right. A 'failed' experiment that yields good info is as good or better than an experiment that had the desired results.Peer review exists for others to try to poke holes in a theory, or the results of a project.

 

Unlike many of the religious faithful refuse any result that disagrees with the predetermined outcome that they want to see that backs up their viewpoint. And trying to poke holes in a theory is considered 'blasphemy' and punishable by death for much of the last two thousand years in the west, and still a danger in parts of the world,

 

 

Let's be consistent here. Many religious faithful do this, but many scientific faithful do as well. There are parts of the world where challenging the faith is a danger, and there are also parts of the world where having faith is illegal and punishable by death.

[zoogs]

Because of the 'scientific faithful?' ...

 

In fact, I would say that places were religion is aggressively oppressed are just areas with autocratic governments using the same tools of selective religious and ethnic oppression as has been familiar for centuries, but painted with a larger brush. Driven, ultimately, by fear of other concentrations of power.

[tschu]

Comparing scientific theory with faith in God is hilarious. Please. Don't. Ever do that again. I might have a stroke if you do.

 

You cannot test faith in God. There is no experiment you can perform to disprove God's existence (or support his existence for that matter).

 

There is a place for religion. Humans, for whatever reason, are religious creatures. We have emotions, we laugh, love, cry, and all sorts of other irrational stuff. Believing in God is irrational, but if it gives you happiness, go for it. But please do not try to impose your beliefs upon others or try to argue against science or other more rational forms of thought. You'll only end up looking moronic.

[JJ Husker]

I'm pretty much done with this topic as well. Either I do not convey my thoughts well in the written word or some people are too predisposed to a certain position to entertain my thoughts on the matter. I repeat; I was not and am not comparing scientific fact or theory with faith in God. And, I am not attempting to impose my beliefs on others or arguing against science. I can fully and easily accept that there is not enough evidence for some people to have the same belief that I or others have. I was merely trying to get some people thinking outside the box a bit. I realize there is no scientific evidence proving the existence of God and there very well may never be. That is the nature of the beast. I also realize it takes faith, in something unproven scientifically, to hold that belief. However, I did try to frame the discussion in a light that might appeal to those who place more value in the scientific method or could (but apparently don't) appreciate applying human logic. If I have ended up looking moronic to you, I can accept that but, I am not the one in this discussion who is insisting on scientific evidence to prove something that, by it's nature, cannot be proven scientifically.

[The Dude]

I realize there is no scientific evidence proving the existence of God and there very well may never be.

As with most things that don't exist.

[Undone]

But please do not try to impose your beliefs upon others or try to argue against science or other more rational forms of thought. You'll only end up looking moronic.

You jumped a few steps there in my opinion, tschu. You can make the subjective claim as to which form of thought is more rational than the other. You can even put it up for a majority vote (which, as you know, is potentially subject to the fallacy of appeal to majority). But philosophy is not considered in the intellectual world as irrational. Many arguments for God are philosophical in nature.

 

You may have meant to say that the idea of revealed religion is irrational, as opposed to say some form of Aristotelian deism, maybe. Maybe that's what you meant to say.

 

One thing of note (which is not directed at tschu's post, but to the comments at large) is that scientism's claims are both ironic and self-refuting. Scientism says that we should not believe any proposition that cannot be scientifically proven. That is what the posts above espouse. But what about that very proposition itself? It can't be scientifically proven! By definition, scientism is then shown to be self-refuting.

 

That, I suspect, is not something that many supporters of scientism have put much thought into. Might be a "thought project" in and of itself.

[zoogs]

JJ, I just don't feel that human logic can be applied to describe the physical world, especially the most wondrous and hard-to-understand aspects of it. Human logic is grounded in what we are able to observe - which is extremely limited. Not many claims of any sort can be made by mere thought exercises and "well, it must be, given these things." I appreciate that you are explaining where your faith comes from, and it does not mean you are right or wrong. Right or wrong doesn't even matter here. Everyone has some logic exercise, explanation, way to fill in the blanks of the unknown. What I'm trying to say is that there is no specific answer that anyone can claim is objectively better than the others.

 

What you appear to be doing is saying, logic supports your side. Which I don't think is the case. I also don't think logic supports the 'other' side, so to speak, that there is no God. I think logic supports no side and must say, "We don't know what we can't possibly begin to grasp in our minds."

[JJ Husker]

Zoogies, I appreciate your thoughts. I do feel the logical argument I used does support my belief, to a point. What I was hoping for were logical arguments that would refute my position. You provided some of that in a non-attacking manner, so thanks for that. I provide my thoughts, more to explain why I believe the way I do rather than to claim I am right or others are wrong. It would appear that some others are a lot less tolerant of different beliefs based on some of the responses I've gotten.

[HuskerShark]

I'm pretty much done with this topic as well. Either I do not convey my thoughts well in the written word or some people are too predisposed to a certain position to entertain my thoughts on the matter.

 

It's that one. That's why I don't bother arguing anything in this forum anymore. I still enjoy reading about it.

[strigori]

How about looking at it from a slightly different angle.

 

The primary reason religions exist is because of when they were formed. In ages where many people could not read, could not count past their number of fingers, and had no concept of science. This we take for granted would be magical and evil.

 

In order to explain things that people had no answer for they created gods to be the answer. Their continuation into today is as much tradition as anything else. Most people adhere to the religion of their parents.

 

If science had been in a place like it is now, I contend that most of the world's religions would never have formed. Because there are answers, even if not all of them are complete.

 

Try spinning the tales of 'miracles' today and see how many people would believe it. Hell, I have always found it interesting that gods stopped doing overt actions.

[HSKR]

How about looking at it from a slightly different angle.

 

The primary reason religions exist is because of when they were formed. In ages where many people could not read, could not count past their number of fingers, and had no concept of science. This we take for granted would be magical and evil.

 

In order to explain things that people had no answer for they created gods to be the answer. Their continuation into today is as much tradition as anything else. Most people adhere to the religion of their parents.

 

If science had been in a place like it is now, I contend that most of the world's religions would never have formed. Because there are answers, even if not all of them are complete.

 

Try spinning the tales of 'miracles' today and see how many people would believe it. Hell, I have always found it interesting that gods stopped doing overt actions.

 

Tom Cruise disagrees with you.

[Landlord]

So does Mormonism.

[carlfense]

Tom Cruise disagrees with you.

And that particular religion is probably the most mocked of all . . .