No scientific proof of god

[therhythm]

I don't know what caused the Big Bang theory. I am OK with not knowing, and admitting that I do not know. Science is not at its peak yet, and there's many things we have yet to answer, and understand. That does not mean we will never know the answer. Would a theist's mind change if we had the answer, and it didn't involve a deity? Doubtful, considering the amount of creationists there are out there.

 

But for every mystery that has ever been solved-god was not the answer. No supernatural explanation has been the answer for what once mystified our ancestors. Thunder was not god's anger, or god showing his power, the rainbow is not a symbol of god's friendship with his creation. The Vikings believed in a "wolf god" that would swallow the sun and they'd yell at it, raising their weapons and shields to the sky, and when the sun reappeared, cheer as if they had fought the god, and won. It transpired that what they were witnessing was a solar eclipse. Nothing supernatural about it.

 

No one has to prove god doesn't exist. Theists have yet to prove he does, and yet constantly shift the burden onto atheists to disprove their barely even a hypothesis claim of "god." That's because they know they can't prove his existence.

 

As for why do we care about what other people believe, well, it boils down to why not? People's beliefs influence their choices, and sometimes, impose on the rights of others. I don't stop anyone believing whatever it is they want to believe, but I (and no one else) is required to hold those beliefs in a place above discussion, above criticism, or treat it as though we think they are somewhat "excellent." I don't think religious beliefs are excellent, and sometimes, they are downright harmful.

 

I'm ranting again. Oops.

 

I understand what you say... many things that were believed as fact in the past have been proven to be wrong at a later stage... but we are not discussing religions here right? What we discuss here is the existence of God (what ever form, status, energy, etc He may be (or not be ) )

There is nothing in science that proofs that God doesn't exist, many scientists who are religious would tell you in fact that science is just studding the ways of God ... you can learn how procreation works... but how something so natural and complex happened?

Science can teach you how it is possible that there is life in Earth but how just happened that Earth is to the exact distance to the Sun and to the Moon to be able to hold life.... how did life begin? I can imagine that after the Big bang the universe broke in many constellations ... but can you explain the spark of life into those left overs of the Bing Bang?

 

Yes I know that just because you don't have an explanation for those facts it doesn't proof that God exists and I agree with that but it doesn't proof that He doesn't exist either

 

You and many here think you hold the real truth and invoke Science to proof your points and by doing that you are making science your own religion and become believers of your own dogmas (hence anything not scientifically proven is false).

 

At the end of the day believing in God or not is based in the same point... faith! You can believe that God exists because you have faith in Him or you can believe (yes not believing in God is also a believe that God doesn't exist because you have faith in science and that in a given moment science will proof God doesn't exist .

 

I remember when I was child two of my friends having a discussion about how having sex was... non of them have had sex at that moment but both of them seemed to have a strong position on how that had to feel (I am sure both were wrong )... In my case.. I prefer to wait and see when it comes

 

All what you do here is wander about facts that non of you can proof.

[therhythm]

No. It does not. Espousing positions based on argument evidence data and reasoning is not the same as espousing positions that are unsubstantiated and pulled out of the air.

 

Can you please explain to me your "based in evidence" arguments about GOD... for what I see they are only arguments based on the lack of evidence... which is evidence of nothing

 

They might think their current position is right and I might think my current position is right but there alone the equivalence ends because there simply is no other comparison between substantiated and unsubstantiated positions.

 

Again... where is the substance of your arguments? Can you add anything that is not the lack of proof that God exists? It is just playing with possibilities... it is possible that he exists and it is possible that he doesn't exist... you chose the one that you like and that is not different that what theist do...

 

 

However welcome to the real world. It might bother you that people choose a position and defend it believing it is right - but build a bridge and get over it because we all do that. Not just in the realm of religion - but also in politics, education, medicine, diet, and many other subjects one can name.

 

And I don't have problems with people choosing to defend something they believe in as long as they are not doing so by belittling other peoples beliefs, specially when there is no proof or evidence in any way! What you are defending is as abstract and lacks evidences as much as what you want to proof wrong

 

So at the end of the day all that is happening here is a person (you) who has an issue with people choosing a side and defending it in the religion debate - has willfully and intentionally opened a thread where that very thing happens - and started moaning that seeing that kind of thing happen upsets them. It makes as much sense as going into a bar and complaining that you do not like seeing people drink alcohol. If you do not like seeing it - do not specifically take yourself to places where it happens and your delicate sensibilities will remain unmolested.

 

Actually is pretty funny but you are personalizing this issue in me because I actually do the same thing than you... you say theist have not proof God exists and I say you have no proof he doesn't exists... for any reason that looks to have touch a nerve in you...

 

 

 

I do not share that pessimistic and unsubstantiated view point. Quite the opposite in fact as secularism is on the rise in many countries - atheism is the fastest growing minoritiy in places like the US - in my own home country of Ireland we see churches dying off and closing down and being repossesed because they can not afford repayments any more - with all time low numbers of catholic priests coming alongside warnings that they will be extinct in the coming decade - while most of the figures for the religious are coming from numbers heavily weighted towards the older soon to be dead generations - and any other number of signs that the zeitgeist is changing massively.

 

Change is slow yes - and I do not expect to see the level of change I would like within my life time. I do not however measure my expectations in terms of "centuries" however but in generations and not all too many of them either.

 

Oh my Gosh... this sounds so Messianic.... the fact that you are trying to bring the light to the world is really funny!

 

 

Our inability to explain some things is evidence of nothing except our inability to explain some things.

 

I would like to say that religious people can use this sentence as good as you

Edited June 21, 2013 by therhythm

[therhythm]

No, no, and no. Just no.

 

There is nothing in science or even in philosophical (I'm open to both) arguments that proves he DOES exist. Hence, why I don't believe. If we walked around, acting like everything that we can't prove doesn't exist did exist or there was a plausible chance of existence, we'd believe in a lot of wacky stuff. Faeries, trolls, gnomes, vampires, leprechauns, unicorns, werewolves, and the list goes on and on. We can't prove via science that none of these things exist, but we can't prove that they DO either. It's possible that a god exists sure-but it's also possible that the universe was created by magic universe building pixies. We look at probabilities, and god is pretty improbable-as improbable as those pesky pixies.

 

You're making the mistake of thinking we are on this earth by some deliberate act. Ever thought that the Earth simply has all of the right conditions for life to inhabit it? There's billions of planets, it's not exactly a far stretch to imagine that one rare planet could contain all of the right ingredients necessary for life to prosper-and we know it happened because we are on that rare planet.

 

Again, I don't have to prove he doesn't. Science does not concern itself with what doesn't exist. The burden is on the ones making the claim. I make no claim.

 

I don't think I hold "the real truth", at all. I guess if I thought I was wrong I'd be a theist. I don't think I'm wrong on the god hypothesis, but I'd be willing to shift my position if I were proven wrong. I'm open to evidence, but I've yet to hear a theist say that they'd change their position if evidence came about that categorically disproved god. Also, science is not my religion at all. Science is not a religion. It's a method used to understand the world around us. What dogma? I don't follow any dogma-in fact, I despise dogma.

 

No, atheism is not a faith. Is dark light? Is "off" a TV channel? How can the opposite of something be the same thing? It's such a lame argument because it makes no logical sense, and only furthers to highlight your ignorance with regards to what atheism actually is. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a deity. There are atheists out there who claim that "God doesn't exist and they KNOW it," and I've had my fair share of confrontations with them (they claimed I was not a "real atheist" because I refuse to make that claim) but they are a subsection of atheists, not representative of the whole. Atheism means to "be without theism." How is that a faith?

 

- I see a pattern, but my imagination cannot picture the maker of that pattern. I see a clock, but I cannot envision the clockmaker. The human mind is unable to conceive of the four dimensions, so how can it conceive of a God, before whom a thousand years and a thousand dimensions are as one? - Albert Einstein

 

Theist and Atheist have the same beginning point "the believe or disbelieve in the existence of God", if there would be evidence of God or evidence of the non existence of God both Theists and Atheists would be pointless as we all would be in the same group... the lack of proofs in either way is what makes Theist and Atheist exactly the same while trying to proof the contrary... you both base your beliefs in the lack of evidence or proofs against your theories..

 

 

- Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source . . . They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres. - Albert Einstein

 

and only furthers to highlight your ignorance

Yes, that is my only claim... that I am totally ignorant when it comes to know if God exist or not... I have no problem to recognize my ignorance

Edited June 21, 2013 by therhythm

[therhythm]

Einstein was an atheist, too.

 

Actually, if there were less theists in the world-there'd be no need for atheism to be a label. Again, you've missed the point. I'm not trying to prove anything. I have nothing to prove as I make no claim. Same with many atheists. I enjoy discussing the god question because it's fun, and relevant, and religious beliefs impact over people's lives unfortunately.

 

For me, I don't have "theories." I accept evolution as the demonstrable truth that it is, I accept the Big Bang Theory as the best explanation we have at this current time and I don't have theories pertaining to the barely-a-hypothesis god question. I am an atheist because theological claims have failed to convince me of the existence of god, not because I have theories that would wipe out all possibility of god. I don't care to sit and disprove his existence, anymore than I care to sit and disprove the existence of pixies. It's futile.

 

-In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support for such views.- Albert Einstein

 

That is the point... if your definition of Atheist would be correct then you fail to follow it the very first moment you post here about the non existence of God

[therhythm]

 

I have no problem recognising my own, either. I don't "know" if god exists or not.

 

 

And that is not Atheism... that is agnosticism is the view that the existence or non-existence of any deity is unknown and possibly unknowable.

 

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

 

Hence for Atheist there is a claim that deities do not exist

[therhythm]

Can you stop with the Einstein quotes please?

 

Why, is he not a scientific and atheist?

 

I don't post about the "non existence of god." I post about the lack of evidence for the existence of god. Can't you see the distinction?

 

The only thing that lack of evidence of something proofs is the lack of evidences about that thing... no more no less...

Edited June 21, 2013 by therhythm

[therhythm]

In a broad sense, yes, atheism is the "rejection" of belief in deities. I would say that I'd fit into the "agnostic atheist" category. I don't know there is no god, but I do not believe in one.

 

Theism/atheism refers to "belief" not "knowledge." Gnosticism refers to knowledge. You can have "Gnostic Theists"-claim to know there is a god and believe in one, "Agnostic Theists"-claim to not know if there is a god, but believe in one, "Agnostics"-those who claim that it is unknowable and therefore have no belief either way.

 

"Agnostic Atheists"-those who do not know if there is no god, but do not believe in one. And finally, "Gnostic Atheists"-those who claim to know there is no god, and do not believe in one.

 

It's not as black and white as most people like to think.

 

That has more sense... and now I agree completely with you. I am a pure agnostic.. I don't pretend to know the unknowable and hence I don't believe or disbelieve... To believe (or not) something you don't know faith is necessary either way!

Edited June 21, 2013 by therhythm

[therhythm]

This will be my last post regarding this at the risk of thread-jacking.

 

No, to not believe something does not require faith. Most people do not believe in vampires. Does it require faith to not believe in them?

 

It is not a thread-jacking as we are talking about the main concept of the thread...

 

You need as much faith to believe as to not believe... to choose to believe or not to believe you need to accept the concept that you choose to do so without any proof to validate your beliefs... and that is called faith

 

You have faith in the concept that vampires do not exists

Edited June 21, 2013 by therhythm

[TaxAHCruel]

There is nothing in science that proofs that God doesn't exist

 

Nor should there be. Science does not work that way. It is called "An unfalsifiable negative" and has nothing to do with science. There is however no evidence at all that there is a god in science - and in the eyes of science while that is a different thing to evidence of absence it is functionally the same thing.

 

In other words as another man put it - in science - that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Science is not about evaluating claims but about evaluating the substantiation for those claims - so a claim that is entirely devoid of substantiation does not enter into the purview of science. It is just dismissed.

 

you can learn how procreation works... but how something so natural and complex happened?

 

Actually we have lots of data and knowledge on that.

 

Science can teach you how it is possible that there is life in Earth but how just happened that Earth is to the exact distance to the Sun and to the Moon to be able to hold life

 

You are making what I call the error of retrospect here. Douglas Adams uses a great analogy to highlight your error here and where it lies.

 

Imagine a puddle that suddenly becomes conscious. It looks around at the hole it is in and thinks "My word - this hole is PERFECT to fit me and my shape - how could this just happen this way???".

 

The error the puddle is making is that it could have formed elsewhere. If not this hole - this shape - then in another hole somewhere else of a different shape. It's shape would have been different. And its size. But it would still think how marvelous it is that the hole it exists in just happens to be perfectly formed for it.

 

The hole was not formed for the puddle. The puddle formed to fit the hole.

 

In other words your thinking is exactly wrong on the issue. It is 100% backwards. It is not that earth just happened to be right for us and our life. It is that in a universe full of countless billions of possibilities life arose in a place where it could. Just like a puddle forms in a place where it can.

 

No matter what hole that puddle woke up in - it would marvel "Wow this place is just right for me". No matter what planet our species arose on so would we.

 

For more on this read up about what is called the "Anthropic principle"

 

You and many here think you hold the real truth and invoke Science to proof your points and by doing that you are making science your own religion and become believers of your own dogmas (hence anything not scientifically proven is false).

 

This is the record you keep playing - but I have - for one - pointed out that this is not true of me. I have not once limited by discourse on the subject of god to science. In fact I have not actually been the one to bring it up. You have. Over and over again. The only one obsessed with science here is you.

 

Read my statement again, I have written it a few times so youll recognise it.

 

"I see no argument, evidence, data or reasoning on offer that lends even a modicum of credence to the claim there is a god".

 

Science is not mentioned there. Anywhere. The only one to keep bringing science into it is YOU. The dogma is yours not mine therefore. At all. You are so obsessed with bringing science into this subject that you have become sure everyone else is the one obsessed. This in psychology is called "projection" where you accuse others of something only you are actually engaged in.

 

At the end of the day believing in God or not is based in the same point... faith!

 

False. There is no "faith" in the statement that I have not been given a single reason to think there is a god. It is not faith it is a fact. As another user pointed out what "faith" do you have that there are no unicorns of vampires exactly? Or that the nigerian price who just emailed you is NOT about to transfer millions of dollars to your personal bank account.

 

It is not a faith position - it is a position of recognizing that the claim being made is entirely unsubstantiated and is not to be taken seriously on any level.

 

Can you please explain to me your "based in evidence" arguments about GOD

 

I have done a few times. So I can only re-iterate what I have said many times and hope you understand it this time. If I could explain it a different way I would as sometimes when someone can not understand a subject the best thing to do is explain the same thing but in a different way.

 

Again:

 

If there is no reason on offer at all to think X is true - then I simply do not go around thinking X is true. Simples.

 

Now GIVEN there is no reason - anywhere at all - being offered to me to think there is a god - I simply do not think there is one.

 

If you can be more specific about which part of that you are failing to understand then perhaps I can focus on that point more.

 

Can you add anything that is not the lack of proof that God exists?

 

There is no onus on me to add any more THAN that. Why would I have to? Why should I have to? The claim is an unsubstantiated claim. That is all I am saying and therefore what more is it you want me to add?

 

It is just playing with possibilities... it is possible that he exists and it is possible that he doesn't exist...

 

This part of your sentence is true. 100%. But do not make the error of thinking this makes the positions equivalent or that therefore it is 50:50 or some such. It is not.

 

Of course it is _possible_ that there is a god. I have never once suggested or even implied otherwise.

 

But imagine I tell you without any evidence that the next time you leave your house a pink VW microbus will materialize over your head and fall on you and kill you.

 

You can not prove that claim wrong. I have not proved it right. Does that mean that the two positions of belief and unbelief are exactly equivalent? Of course it does not. It is not 50:50 here. You recognize that there simply is no reason to take my claim seriously at all. Not even slightly. It is an unsubstantiated and nonsense claim and believing it or not believing it are entirely different positions.

 

Would me then pointing out that since you can not prove my claim wrong at the time of me making it that therefore it is _possible_ that I am right add anything to the conversation?

 

No you would realise I was still talking nonsense, was engaged in special pleading, and was basically being pedantic over false equivalencies all in an effort to make my claim get taken seriously. It is unadulterated nonsense I would be engaged in - clearly so - yet that is essentially the same nonsense you are engaged in here.

 

you chose the one that you like and that is not different that what theist do...

 

This part of your sentence is false. I choose nothing. I can not make that choice. I am not mentally capable of taking an idea that there is no reason to believe and simply choose to believe it. If YOU do this then great - thats amazing and I am curious how you do it. But I certainly do not.

 

How far does this capability of self delusion and choosing beliefs go for you? As someone who does not operate as you describe I am genuinely curious. Can you - for example - take a clearly empty box and simply choose to believe it is full to the top with money? If not why not? Is so how???

 

I can not choose belief. I simply can not. If the evidence is compelling - I believe it. If the evidence is not then I likely will not. If - like with god - the evidence is ENTIRELY absent - I certainly will not. It is not a choice.

 

as long as they are not doing so by belittling other peoples beliefs

 

What constitutes "belittling" is subjective however and entirely dependent on how nervous the sensibilities of the person in question are. I do not see saying "You have claimed there is a god - yet that claim is not just slightly but ENTIRELY unsubstantiated" as being "belittling" at all. If you do - more power to you - but it just proves my point of how subjective it is.

 

And peoples tolerance for what constitutes "belittling" seems to be proportional to how unsubstantiated their claim actually is. In other words: The more recognizably nonsense a claim is - the quicker someone is to jump to playing the "offence" card when people doubt their claim.

 

I do not think it takes my psychology training letters put after YOUR name in order for you to guess at why that might be.

 

I say you have no proof he doesn't exists

 

And as I have pointed out numerous times now a) there is no onus on me to provide any and b) that is not actually the claim I am making so all you are doing is pointing out that I am not defending a position I have not actually espoused. Which makes as much sense as if you were to also point out that I have also not taken the time to present a recipe for my favorite dip. If that is the level of sense you want to make then ok - but Id be curious as to why.

[therhythm]

Nor should there be. Science does not work that way. It is called "An unfalsifiable negative" and has nothing to do with science. There is however no evidence at all that there is a god in science - and in the eyes of science while that is a different thing to evidence of absence it is functionally the same thing.

 

In other words as another man put it - in science - that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Science is not about evaluating claims but about evaluating the substantiation for those claims - so a claim that is entirely devoid of substantiation does not enter into the purview of science. It is just dismissed.

 

 

 

Actually we have lots of data and knowledge on that.

 

 

 

You are making what I call the error of retrospect here. Douglas Adams uses a great analogy to highlight your error here and where it lies.

 

Imagine a puddle that suddenly becomes conscious. It looks around at the hole it is in and thinks "My word - this hole is PERFECT to fit me and my shape - how could this just happen this way???".

 

The error the puddle is making is that it could have formed elsewhere. If not this hole - this shape - then in another hole somewhere else of a different shape. It's shape would have been different. And its size. But it would still think how marvelous it is that the hole it exists in just happens to be perfectly formed for it.

 

The hole was not formed for the puddle. The puddle formed to fit the hole.

 

In other words your thinking is exactly wrong on the issue. It is 100% backwards. It is not that earth just happened to be right for us and our life. It is that in a universe full of countless billions of possibilities life arose in a place where it could. Just like a puddle forms in a place where it can.

 

No matter what hole that puddle woke up in - it would marvel "Wow this place is just right for me". No matter what planet our species arose on so would we.

 

For more on this read up about what is called the "Anthropic principle"

 

 

 

This is the record you keep playing - but I have - for one - pointed out that this is not true of me. I have not once limited by discourse on the subject of god to science. In fact I have not actually been the one to bring it up. You have. Over and over again. The only one obsessed with science here is you.

 

Read my statement again, I have written it a few times so youll recognise it.

 

"I see no argument, evidence, data or reasoning on offer that lends even a modicum of credence to the claim there is a god".

 

Science is not mentioned there. Anywhere. The only one to keep bringing science into it is YOU. The dogma is yours not mine therefore. At all. You are so obsessed with bringing science into this subject that you have become sure everyone else is the one obsessed. This in psychology is called "projection" where you accuse others of something only you are actually engaged in.

 

 

 

False. There is no "faith" in the statement that I have not been given a single reason to think there is a god. It is not faith it is a fact. As another user pointed out what "faith" do you have that there are no unicorns of vampires exactly? Or that the nigerian price who just emailed you is NOT about to transfer millions of dollars to your personal bank account.

 

It is not a faith position - it is a position of recognizing that the claim being made is entirely unsubstantiated and is not to be taken seriously on any level.

 

 

 

I have done a few times. So I can only re-iterate what I have said many times and hope you understand it this time. If I could explain it a different way I would as sometimes when someone can not understand a subject the best thing to do is explain the same thing but in a different way.

 

Again:

 

If there is no reason on offer at all to think X is true - then I simply do not go around thinking X is true. Simples.

 

Now GIVEN there is no reason - anywhere at all - being offered to me to think there is a god - I simply do not think there is one.

 

If you can be more specific about which part of that you are failing to understand then perhaps I can focus on that point more.

 

 

 

There is no onus on me to add any more THAN that. Why would I have to? Why should I have to? The claim is an unsubstantiated claim. That is all I am saying and therefore what more is it you want me to add?

 

 

 

This part of your sentence is true. 100%. But do not make the error of thinking this makes the positions equivalent or that therefore it is 50:50 or some such. It is not.

 

Of course it is _possible_ that there is a god. I have never once suggested or even implied otherwise.

 

But imagine I tell you without any evidence that the next time you leave your house a pink VW microbus will materialize over your head and fall on you and kill you.

 

You can not prove that claim wrong. I have not proved it right. Does that mean that the two positions of belief and unbelief are exactly equivalent? Of course it does not. It is not 50:50 here. You recognize that there simply is no reason to take my claim seriously at all. Not even slightly. It is an unsubstantiated and nonsense claim and believing it or not believing it are entirely different positions.

 

Would me then pointing out that since you can not prove my claim wrong at the time of me making it that therefore it is _possible_ that I am right add anything to the conversation?

 

No you would realise I was still talking nonsense, was engaged in special pleading, and was basically being pedantic over false equivalencies all in an effort to make my claim get taken seriously. It is unadulterated nonsense I would be engaged in - clearly so - yet that is essentially the same nonsense you are engaged in here.

 

 

 

This part of your sentence is false. I choose nothing. I can not make that choice. I am not mentally capable of taking an idea that there is no reason to believe and simply choose to believe it. If YOU do this then great - thats amazing and I am curious how you do it. But I certainly do not.

 

How far does this capability of self delusion and choosing beliefs go for you? As someone who does not operate as you describe I am genuinely curious. Can you - for example - take a clearly empty box and simply choose to believe it is full to the top with money? If not why not? Is so how???

 

I can not choose belief. I simply can not. If the evidence is compelling - I believe it. If the evidence is not then I likely will not. If - like with god - the evidence is ENTIRELY absent - I certainly will not. It is not a choice.

 

 

 

What constitutes "belittling" is subjective however and entirely dependent on how nervous the sensibilities of the person in question are. I do not see saying "You have claimed there is a god - yet that claim is not just slightly but ENTIRELY unsubstantiated" as being "belittling" at all. If you do - more power to you - but it just proves my point of how subjective it is.

 

And peoples tolerance for what constitutes "belittling" seems to be proportional to how unsubstantiated their claim actually is. In other words: The more recognizably nonsense a claim is - the quicker someone is to jump to playing the "offence" card when people doubt their claim.

 

I do not think it takes my psychology training letters put after YOUR name in order for you to guess at why that might be.

 

 

 

And as I have pointed out numerous times now a) there is no onus on me to provide any and b) that is not actually the claim I am making so all you are doing is pointing out that I am not defending a position I have not actually espoused. Which makes as much sense as if you were to also point out that I have also not taken the time to present a recipe for my favorite dip. If that is the level of sense you want to make then ok - but Id be curious as to why.

 

I am going to say this just once more... the lack of evidence of something doesn't proof anything further than there is lack of evidence of something...

 

You say I have claimed there is a God... I don't know where you have seen that...(I think there is a reasonable doubt about his existence or his lack of existence) The only claim I maintain is my complete ignorance regarding that concrete fact... I don't know if God exist or not... I chose to not believe or disbelieve ... and by that I choose to accept that what I know about this fact is no less or more than Theists or Atheists given the FACT that there is no proof in any of both directions.

 

The one who want to make a point to one or other side please present the evidences of their case... and the lack of evidences is NOT an evidence in itself...

 

 

Just about the procreation... can you please give me a link that explains me how the species were created to reproduce themselves and why there are 3 ways of reproduction? I am very curious to see how far the human knowledge go further than explaining the process rather than how the process was created

Edited June 21, 2013 by therhythm

[TaxAHCruel]

I am going to say this just once more... the lack of evidence of something doesn't proof anything further than there is lack of evidence of something...

 

You can say it as often as you like but since I have never claimed otherwise and in fact have in many ways agreed with it - I am not sure why you feel the need. I really have doubts you are even reading what I write. Especially if you read and replied to a post that long in under 10 minutes.

 

You say I have claimed there is a God

 

Where? That is hardly the point of the vast majority of my post however. Youre just skipping over stuff now. Thats whole swaths of my post you have simply skipped over and not replied to by pedantically picking up on a tiny point I do not even remember saying. Can you quote exactly what you mean here? And then maybe actually reply to my post sometime.

 

The one who want to make a point to one or other side please present the evidences of their case

 

Exactly. So the people claiming there is a god have to evidence that claim.

 

What claim have I made - for example - which you feel has not been evidenceD?

 

Just about the procreation... can you please give me a link that explains me how the species were created to reproduce themselves and why there are 3 ways of reproduction?

 

I can certainly help you understand the biology here but this is not a biology thread. I do not want to hijack it. Stick a thread up somewhere asking what it is you want to know and I will do my best to explain it all with - as you asked - links.

 

Please clarify when you do so what you mean by "3 ways" as there are many ways to classify reproduction and I am not sure which you are using. Also clarify what you mean by "created to" because I am not sure what you mean by created... and when you say "created to" you imply a certain level of intention there that we have no basis for implying.

[therhythm]

You can say it as often as you like but since I have never claimed otherwise and in fact have in many ways agreed with it - I am not sure why you feel the need. I really have doubts you are even reading what I write. Especially if you read and replied to a post that long in under 10 minutes.

 

Comprehensive reading 101...

 

I am not going to answer any further as you keep repeating the same ting again and again and I am tired to try to have a rationalized conversation with you when you are totally closed to anything that does not fit with what you believe... or don't believe ...

 

You know the funny part is that I agree with you in one of your statements .... "There is no scientific proof that God exist" .... I just don't think there is anything that can be taken from in

Edited June 21, 2013 by therhythm

[TaxAHCruel]

I am not going to answer any further as you keep repeating the same ting again and again and I am tired to try to have a rationalized conversation with you when you are totally closed to anything that does not fit with what you believe... or don't believe ...

 

You can cop out with whatever excuse you feel makes you feel best about it. And off you trot. What I tend to notice however is that the more a person says he is out of a conversation the more likely it is they come right back. So see you soon when you give the reply you are now pretending you will not be giving.

 

Also still waiting for you to quote me where I said you believe in god. It is not that I doubt you per se, I just do not remember saying it.

 

The fact is that the only person being closed here is you - as evidenced by how you skip over whole swaths of my post without reading it or replying to it. You just skip over it because you are so closed you can not do it. To the point you pretend you are done replying to me - even though we both know that is not true and youll be right back.

 

The other fact is that I am not just close mindedly spewing out opinion here. I am explaining exactly why I hold the opinion I do and why I reject the others. Explaining the basis for the positions one holds is MUCH different that just closemindedly and doggedly holding to dogma. Try it.

 

You know the funny part is that I agree with you in one of your statements .... "There is no scientific proof that God exist" .... I just don't think there is anything that can be taken from in

 

Whereas I do. What can be taken from it is the fact that any world view based on the idea there is a god is divorced from reality and the more divorced from reality a world view is the worse the results will be.

 

That is not to say that I am 100% perfectly in touch with reality. We as a species are by definition disconnected from it for many reasons in many ways. However that does not mean we should not aspire to construct world views as closely connected to it as possible.

 

So using as your foundation an entirely unsubstantiated piece of makey up nonsense is certainly not the best first step I feel so yes the recognition that there is no evidence for god IS something you can take something from.

[M30USA]

As I've said many times, you cannot prove scientifically that Napoleon ever existed. The criteria of the scientific method, especially REPEATABILITY, cannot be satisfied in this example. Does that mean he never existed?

[Sun Devil]

You can prove that napoleon existed. We have his physical remains. We can physically examine him. We cannot do the same with any god. M30USA, where do you get the idea that you cannot prove Napoleon existed?

[dtj567]

To know whether something exists or not we have to what it is. No one knows what god is. The definition is completely open.

[therhythm]

You can prove that napoleon existed. We have his physical remains. We can physically examine him. We cannot do the same with any god. M30USA, where do you get the idea that you cannot prove Napoleon existed?

 

there is no physical remains of Gengis khan and Atila...so I guess they didn't exist...

 

There's an old story from the Inuit that explains why the sun doesn't rise during winter. A giant polar bear eats a piece of the sun every day, which makes it smaller and smaller and causes it to emit light less and less hours each day. Finally the polar bear eats the last of it, and it's night for months on end. Then the bear pukes it out again piece by piece and it becomes day again.

 

Now, science can of course not prove that a polar with roughly the size of the sun never existed. We can look through telescopes and not find it, we can calculate the trajectory of the planets and conclude there's no unknown heavy object in our solar system. But we cannot prove with 100% certainty that it never existed. Therefor, I suggest we teach this in elementary school. Apart from the earth spinning around its axis to explain day and night and the orbit around the sun to explain winter and summer, we tell the story of the giant polar bear that we have 0 evidence of but that we cannot disprove to explain why days are shorter in winter and longer in summer. It's only fair to teach our kids the things we cannot disprove as possible facts, right?

 

But science has an explanation on why the sun doesn't rise in winter that proves wrong the Polar Bear story still science has no proof that God doesn't exist.

 

The books in the school teach how Julius Caesar conquered half Europe for the Romans and how he entered with his Legions in the city of Rome... yet there is no scientific proof that those things ever happened... I guess we will need to delete many of our History from the school books if you are only allowing scientific proven facts

[therhythm]

To know whether something exists or not we have to what it is. No one knows what god is. The definition is completely open.

 

YES!!! And that my friend is the whole kid of the question

[therhythm]

Einstein stated unequivocally that he was raised a Jew who became irreligious at age 12 and since that time has officially been an "agnostic". He stated he did NOT believe in a personal god but he DID have "awe and reverence for nature" and in that way he was "a deeply spiritual non believer". Einstein even yelled in the paper about how different religious factions tried to claim he was a theist and it angered him how disbelief was utterly clear.

 

There has been no fundamentalist scientist since Newton. Christians don't like to hear that but it's true... The vast majority (97%) of scientists are non believers according to statistics. Even in my field of comparative religions there are very few fundies. That's because education kills naïveté

 

No one is talking about religions here... we speak about the funtametal idea of the existence of God (what ever the definition of that (God) is).

Einstein was agnostic and while he didn't believe in God he didn't deny it either...

 

In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support for such views.- Albert Einstein

 

 

By the way... here it is a list of only Christian scientists (various nobel prizes)... I didn't take the time to research other religions and those who are just agnostics... Obviously Newton was not the last one, although I may not understand your definition of fundamentalist scientist

Edited June 21, 2013 by therhythm

[dtj567]

Why not believe in something that cannot be defined? Especially when are definitions are so limited.

Edited June 21, 2013 by dtj567

[pie2]

Einstein stated unequivocally that he was raised a Jew who became irreligious at age 12 and since that time has officially been an "agnostic". He stated he did NOT believe in a personal god but he DID have "awe and reverence for nature" and in that way he was "a deeply spiritual non believer". Einstein even yelled in the paper about how different religious factions tried to claim he was a theist and it angered him how disbelief was utterly clear.

 

There has been no fundamentalist scientist since Newton. Christians don't like to hear that but it's true... The vast majority (97%) of scientists are non believers according to statistics. Even in my field of comparative religions there are very few fundies. That's because education kills naïveté

 

So many assertions! I admit, I think I hold atheists to a bit of a standard. Given many atheists' insistence on 'proof', it seems only fair that they back up their own claims with credible evidence. Especially an 'AtheistScholar'!

[dtj567]

Because I like to know what I believe in is real, and understand what it is I believe in.

 

Just a thing of mine, I suppose.

 

If you know it's real, then belief isn't needed.

[Robert Z]

Again, burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. Sure, if an atheist comes in here, and declares "God doesn't exist," you should expect them to back it up with proof.

 

Actually, that is flawed logic. One can never prove a universal negative.

 

Anyone who claims god doesn't exist is making a statement of faith. All that can be said is that there is no scientific evidence for a god. That statement requires no defense unless presented with potential evidence to the contrary.

[therhythm]

Yeah, that's why I don't make the claim. I find making the claim is as much as "faith" position as making the claim that a god exists. It's just I've seen people making those statements, and actually, a fair few have stuck to showing how illogical and almost impossible the theological claims are rather than denouncing the "undefined notion of a deity" as it were.

 

Well that has been my point the whole time... you can't make the claim that God exist based on scientific proof but you can't make the claim that he doesn't exist based on scientific proof either...

 

The only possibility is either total lack of claim in any direction in which the whole point of the thread doesn't have any sense or making the claim based on faith in any of the two possibilities...

 

Then there have been two concepts that have arose lately that have very heavy weight in the matter of this discussion... first is the definition of God... everyone has they own definition of God (even those who follow a religion where God is already defined have their own individual perception of what God is) so based on which definition can anyone claim that there is no scientific proof of the existence of God... what if there is someone for whom God is the nature itself? Isn't there scientific proof of the existence of the nature???

 

Then another very good point is the fact of the use of the word "believe" and "Know" ... most a-theist say they will only believe in good if there is proof that God exist... well my answer is NO, they will not believe in God they will know that God exist... in order to believe something there has to be a certain amount of possible doubt

[pie2]

Again, burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. Sure, if an atheist comes in here, and declares "God doesn't exist," you should expect them to back it up with proof. I know a couple of atheists who do just that, and back up their position very well.

 

But, many atheists don't make any kind of claim, and as such, the burden of proof lies with those making the claim.

 

Yes. This has been stated and restated on this thread.

 

However, my comment was directed towards someone making verifiable claims about "fundamentalist scientists", and implications about Einstein's deepest views on the eternal.