Science proves it all?

If you're a believer, looking for a debate or attempting to make a correction - this forum is just for you!

Re: Science proves it all?

Postby RSM » Sun Jul 01, 2007 4:42 pm

Mu wrote: As a scientist, I find any approach that that requires a fudge factor of that magnitude highly debatable, and definitely not something I'd take as a reasoning to "deny with certainty" the existence of something out there.

1. I don't see anyone "denying with certainty" that there is something out there.

2. The term "god" as you are using it equals "fudge factor."
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 9:33 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Postby Erik » Mon Jul 02, 2007 4:47 pm

Agreed. For me a God whose existence is proven (or disproven) looses any meaning as a religious figure. It becomes a fact of life to deal with. I'm no longer following it out of my "free will", a proof of Gods existence would mean I have no choice but to accept a superior being ordering me to do its will.
I might just rebel out of principle. So rebelling against an entity that can kickstart entire universes seems kinda pointless.

The Bible is chock full of stories about people not following God despite plenty of proof. Time and time again the tribes of Israel turn away from God even though there is no question of God's existence. Consider the story of the golden calf, after the plagues of Egypt, appearing as a pillar of flame, parting the Red Sea, and raining mana on the desert, Moses goes up a mountain for a few days and everyone decides to screw this God and make up a new one. The followers of Jesus see him raise the dead and still they harbor doubt about his resurrection.

Even if God proved his existence by say announcing in person to everyone that he'll make the ocean will turn red for a day and makes it happen, then which religion do you follow, what do you do to follow his will, there's plenty of choice. Consider choosing between Islam and Christianity, Islam says that being a Christian means you are elevating Jesus to be a God alongside Allah and that gets you eternal punishment, Christianity says that Jesus is the only way to salvation.
Posts: 126
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 4:24 pm
Location: Kansas City

Postby Erik » Mon Jul 02, 2007 6:00 pm

I always liked this article on where science is at a loss right now. Interestingly you can explain half of them with a little bit of nudging by some superior being at the moment of the big bang much easier than most of the science we came up with so far.

To my way of thinking, answering mysteries in science with God is just making up an answer. I could say those mysteries can be solved by the Zimbu Force. The Zimbu Force is an intrinsically unprovable force that takes on the properties needed to explain whatever mystery needs explaining. If you just believe in the Zimbu Force, then you have an answer for everything.

I don't see Dark Matter as the same sort of thing. Dark Matter is a label given to an observation (a label taken from the leading theory, one can quibble with semantics here as there is at least one theory that doesn't involve matter). No we can't see Dark Matter in terms of electromagnetic energy, but it has been observed directly with gravitational lensing. There are theories for what causes the observation of Dark Matter, but those theories (MACHOS, WIMPS, Modified Newtonian Mechanics, what have you) have to verified to be accepted as fact. Proof is required here.
Posts: 126
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 4:24 pm
Location: Kansas City

Postby Lucretius » Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:20 am

I can't remember where I first found this little comedy comment.

Fundamentalists: believe 2+2 =5 because It Is Written. Somewhere. They have a lot of trouble on their tax returns.

"Moderate" believers: live their lives on the basis that 2+2=4. but go regularly to church to be told that 2+2 once made 5, or will one day make 5, or in a very real and spiritual sense should make 5.

"Moderate" atheists: know that 2+2 =4 but think it impolite to say so too loudly as people who think 2+2=5 might be offended.

"Militant" atheists: "Oh for pity's sake. HERE. Two pebbles. Two more pebbles. FOUR pebbles. What is WRONG with you people?"
Critical thinking: That which people who disagree with me, fail to do.

Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.
(To such heights of evil are men driven by religion.)

- Lucretius, De Rerum Natura
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2007 10:28 pm
Location: Glasgow, Scotland

Postby Orestes » Wed Dec 07, 2011 3:34 am

"You enumerate it's laws and in my thirst for knowledge I admit that they are true. You take apart it's mechanism and my hope increases. At the final stage you teach me that this wondrous and multi-coloured universe can be reduced to the atom and that the atom itself can be reduced to the electron. All this is good and I wait for you to continue. But you tell me of an invisible planetary system to which electrons gravitate around a nucleus. You explain this world to me with an image. I realize then that you have been reduced to poetry"-Camus:The Myth Of Sisyphus.

I myself prefer philosophers who sneer at pure reason and make evidence too painful for anyone with finite insides to digest without a certain distinction. I have read Voltaire, I've not taken the shortest route to liberating myself from prejudices... Since then I've realised the cynicism of the position continually liberating itself from prejudice: it can't be done. Prejudices are who we are, human existence is innately irrational to me. I find it cherry picking of the elitist order to presume otherwise through a scientific presupposition which all turn to mirrors in our hands, to our faces before the faces of the priviledged judiciary. The Scientific method, is an arguement for priviledged knowledge and authority; which in the end ails far short of existence to my eyes. An authority, which all societies are to some extent. The truth is as it has always has been, a matter of taste, Christian or otherwise. The world is no unity.

"One is necessary, one is a piece of fate, one belongs to the whole, one is in the whole- there is nothing which could judge, measure, compare, condemn our Being, for that would mean judging, measuring, comparing, condemning the whole...But there is nothing apart from the whole! That no one is made responsible any more, that a kind of Being cannot be traced back to a causa prima, that the world is no unity, either as sensorium or as "mind", this alone is the great liberation-this alone re-establishes the innocence of becoming...The concept "God" has been the greatest objection to existence so far...We deny God, we deny responsibility for God: this alone is how we redeem the world-"Nietzsche:Twilight Of The Idols.

I like Nietzsche because leaves the path open for interpretation: all paths are now opened to us, free from responsibility, even a return to God's hands... The importance of atheism to me our right to decide for ourselves. It's purpose as a piece of artistry, is the assumation of form to deny responsibility for other's deciding for us... My contention with atheism is it's lauding Scientific naturalism in doing so.. It has no right. Atheism is the null position, it entails nothing, there is nothing inside it, it doesn't presuppose rationalism or empiricism; it is in essence a piece of sophistry designed to liberate people from themselves, from the paths they never chose, from every path to God others knew on their behalf; however, in doing so it cleaves off all heads of the hydra. Shows like "atheist experience" I watch like a hawk when I can because it is a greedy fish which bites off more than proffered to the header: "atheism". They are not neutral because they do not contradict oneanother explicitly. Where Nietzsche would attack all paths of oppression, they cement the void with an infinite reprieve, a chorus of a single voice. They don't argue amongst themselves over issues of any substance, they are predominantly propounders of a single path in daylight, materialism; whereas Nietzsche's passionate attack is an assailing of all oppression rife with apparent contradictions. I write this to remind you that towards the end of his life in prison, even the beloved Socrates spoke to his "Daemon" and that the naturalist explanations are a decision too. If you want to believe in God and the Jettatura as distinct from your atheism that is your prerogative. You can deny God and his properties will still emerge regardless and you could accept him within them despite your atheism.
Last edited by Orestes on Wed Dec 07, 2011 3:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
"If complete indifference is required for freedom, then there is scarcely ever a free act. For even if by chance, the reasons are equal, the passions will not be"-Leibniz
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:36 pm
Location: London, England


Return to Believer's Backlash

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest