About Belief, Religion and God

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
661

For me the biggest problem with not so atheism as a whole but as it deals with ultimate origins is that it does not follow its own rules. In the ultimate beginning, where did all the matter in the universe come from? Previous universes are not a valid answer since they would need an ultimate origin as well. Scientifically there is no explanation for an ultimate naturalistic and non supernatural origin to the universe.

In a theistic approach, the presence of a supreme being, be it the Christian God, Yahweh, Allah, etc etc would solve the problem. While this may seem like just another God of the gaps example, it isn’t because there is no other possible answer according to modern science. If you want to believe that matter was always just floating around in space with no origin or creator or that science will eventually find an answer for it, be my guest, but don’t then say I require more faith than you do.

662

754×626 42.6 KB

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:

About your primordial soup theory, they have now determined it can’t happen. I’m sure you have read the mouse trap theory right? The link you posted about the guy who refuted the argument, see if you can explain it because the web site’s author sure as fuck didn’t. [/quote]

…“they” have? Who is “they”? There was an article recently that discussed the chemical processes at deep-sea vents are more likely to have triggered organic evolution: New research rejects 80-year theory of 'primordial soup' as the origin of life -- ScienceDaily is that what you’re talking about?

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…i base my views on the overwhelming scientific evidence that life evolved from organic and chemical matter over the course of billions of years guided by random genetic mutation and subsequent [succesful] adaptation to the environment…

About the apes, [i]ANY[/i] ancestor of primate can NOT perform the function I talked about. Again, how do you explain it?

If we evolved from a different species, where are the fossils? Have you seen the specimens in person? Have you done the lab work yourself? Or are you taking the science on FAITH to be correct? Huh? You bad mouth faith and then use it yourself. Not sure if the word hypocrisy describes the traits you posses well enough.[/quote]

…if not jumping through your hoops means you’ve won, i’m happy to concede defeat…

[quote] WTF does your statement about faith mean? “i don’t believe there is no God; i simply have no beliefs in that regard.” No belief is still a belief!! There is no fence to sit on. Yay or nay is THE only two options. Just like your abortion belief, murder of any child is still murder! There is NO gray area!! Quite trying to be indecisive, pick a stance and then defend it. You will be wrong sometimes but at least you won’t side step the issue.

ephrem wrote:
…funnily enough it is the same for me, only in reverse. But i don’t believe there is no God; i simply have no beliefs in that regard… [/quote]

…the absence of a belief is still a belief? Do you want to be taken seriously at all?

663

[quote]sambaso777 wrote:
For me the biggest problem with not so atheism as a whole but as it deals with ultimate origins is that it does not follow its own rules. In the ultimate beginning, where did all the matter in the universe come from? Previous universes are not a valid answer since they would need an ultimate origin as well. Scientifically there is no explanation for an ultimate naturalistic and non supernatural origin to the universe. In a theistic approach, the presence of a supreme being, be it the Christian God, Yahweh, Allah, etc etc would solve the problem. While this may seem like just another God of the gaps example, it isn’t because there is no other possible answer according to modern science. If you want to believe that matter was always just floating around in space with no origin or creator or that science will eventually find an answer for it, be my guest, but don’t then say I require more faith than you do.[/quote]

…the problem is manufactured, contrived. Ofcourse, theoretical scientist will come up with extraordinary ideas, but ultimately something that has to exist outside of time and space falls outside the scientific method. This something can’t be tested, falsified or proven; so the question will always be just that: a question. Not a big deal…

664

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]sambaso777 wrote:
For me the biggest problem with not so atheism as a whole but as it deals with ultimate origins is that it does not follow its own rules. In the ultimate beginning, where did all the matter in the universe come from? Previous universes are not a valid answer since they would need an ultimate origin as well. Scientifically there is no explanation for an ultimate naturalistic and non supernatural origin to the universe. In a theistic approach, the presence of a supreme being, be it the Christian God, Yahweh, Allah, etc etc would solve the problem. While this may seem like just another God of the gaps example, it isn’t because there is no other possible answer according to modern science. If you want to believe that matter was always just floating around in space with no origin or creator or that science will eventually find an answer for it, be my guest, but don’t then say I require more faith than you do.[/quote]

…the problem is manufactured, contrived. Ofcourse, theoretical scientist will come up with extraordinary ideas, but ultimately something that has to exist outside of time and space falls outside the scientific method. This something can’t be tested, falsified or proven; so the question will always be just that: a question. Not a big deal…
[/quote]

Well if the scientific method cannot explain our origin what other option is there? Are we to simply sweep it under the rug? Your answer proves my point, to explain the universe we must go outside of science

665

[quote]sambaso777 wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]sambaso777 wrote:
For me the biggest problem with not so atheism as a whole but as it deals with ultimate origins is that it does not follow its own rules. In the ultimate beginning, where did all the matter in the universe come from? Previous universes are not a valid answer since they would need an ultimate origin as well. Scientifically there is no explanation for an ultimate naturalistic and non supernatural origin to the universe. In a theistic approach, the presence of a supreme being, be it the Christian God, Yahweh, Allah, etc etc would solve the problem. While this may seem like just another God of the gaps example, it isn’t because there is no other possible answer according to modern science. If you want to believe that matter was always just floating around in space with no origin or creator or that science will eventually find an answer for it, be my guest, but don’t then say I require more faith than you do.[/quote]

…the problem is manufactured, contrived. Ofcourse, theoretical scientist will come up with extraordinary ideas, but ultimately something that has to exist outside of time and space falls outside the scientific method. This something can’t be tested, falsified or proven; so the question will always be just that: a question. Not a big deal…
[/quote]

Well if the scientific method cannot explain our origin what other option is there? Are we to simply sweep it under the rug? Your answer proves my point, to explain the universe we must go outside of science[/quote]

…that is why we have religion; to answer that question. If you want to believe that your religion’s answer is the correct one, that’s fine…

666

Well I’ll say thats fair enough :slight_smile:

667

Fascinating! I just found this forum, and so far all I’ve read was the discussion spawned from Paul Chek’s article and the first page of this thread. 26 pages to go, this could take a while. Who’d a thunk a bunch of muscleheads would have deep, philosophical discussions like this? Holy Cow!

Let me just say that I’m a devout agnostic with a healthy dose of skepticism thrown in. I kinda like the Tao Te Ching because it doesn’t require any deity who demands worship. I’m pretty average because, as Lao Tzu said, “The average student hears of the Tao and thinks of it occasionally.”

P.S. The Buddha in the picture is at the temple in Lahaina, Maui. It’s the largest statue of the Buddha in America.

668

The ‘they’ I refer to is scientists who are generally accepted as being on the fore front of science. My bad for not being clearer.

Your article still doesn’t provide any science/proof that is exists. Here is a site from '08 that says “natural hydrothermal fluids have been attributed to abiogenic production by Fischer-Tropsch type (FTT) reactions, although clear evidence for such a process has been elusive.” Awesome!! They can’t even prove it, but people are supposed to accept it : D Here is where I pulled that quote from - http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/319/5863/604 - You even say it yourself, they are likely to have done something. They can’t be recreated in any controlled experiment, but we are supposed to take the truth on FAITH?! Huh?

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…“they” have? Who is “they”? There was an article recently that discussed the chemical processes at deep-sea vents are more likely to have triggered organic evolution: New research rejects 80-year theory of 'primordial soup' as the origin of life | ScienceDaily is that what you’re talking about? [/quote]

So you admit you were wrong with all your points, just because you won’t jump through your own hoops?

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…if not jumping through your hoops means you’ve won, i’m happy to concede defeat… [/quote]

What do you call it then? Here is a definition of faith for you “Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.” (taken from wiki) The belief YOU have is a “belief of no God,” am I wrong?

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…the absence of a belief is still a belief? Do you want to be taken seriously at all? [/quote]

669

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
The ‘they’ I refer to is scientists who are generally accepted as being on the fore front of science. My bad for not being clearer.

Your article still doesn’t provide any science/proof that is exists. Here is a site from '08 that says “natural hydrothermal fluids have been attributed to abiogenic production by Fischer-Tropsch type (FTT) reactions, although clear evidence for such a process has been elusive.” Awesome!! They can’t even prove it, but people are supposed to accept it : D Here is where I pulled that quote from - http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/319/5863/604 - You even say it yourself, they are likely to have done something. They can’t be recreated in any controlled experiment, but we are supposed to take the truth on FAITH?! Huh?

ephrem wrote:
…“they” have? Who is “they”? There was an article recently that discussed the chemical processes at deep-sea vents are more likely to have triggered organic evolution: New research rejects 80-year theory of 'primordial soup' as the origin of life | ScienceDaily is that what you’re talking about? [/quote]

…i think you have misunderstanding about how science works. If you are willing, read the wiki: Scientific method - Wikipedia and look at “introduction to scientific method” perhaps that will clear things up for you…

…i have no idea what you’re talking about…

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…if not jumping through your hoops means you’ve won, i’m happy to concede defeat…

What do you call it then? Here is a definition of faith for you “Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.” (taken from wiki) The belief YOU have is a “belief of no God,” am I wrong?[/quote]

…that’s ridiculous. I have knowledge of the fact i have no religious beliefs. Don’t you know the difference?

670

[quote]mattster wrote:
Fascinating! I just found this forum, and so far all I’ve read was the discussion spawned from Paul Chek’s article and the first page of this thread. 26 pages to go, this could take a while. Who’d a thunk a bunch of muscleheads would have deep, philosophical discussions like this? Holy Cow!

Let me just say that I’m a devout agnostic with a healthy dose of skepticism thrown in. I kinda like the Tao Te Ching because it doesn’t require any deity who demands worship. I’m pretty average because, as Lao Tzu said, “The average student hears of the Tao and thinks of it occasionally.”

P.S. The Buddha in the picture is at the temple in Lahaina, Maui. It’s the largest statue of the Buddha in America.[/quote]

…thanks for dropping by mattster, and feel free to join in. Eastern philosophy is a lovely subject, so share your knowledgee!

671

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]its_just_me wrote:
Exactly, and if a creator did create these things that we are still learning about (and find extremely difficult to comprehend), how can we possibly understand how this creator came into existence?

In fact, if you believe that Yahweh is the creator, the bible says that he did not come into existence, it calls him the “beginning and the end” (“alpha and omega”)…in other words, he’s always existed.

Because of our limited experience/comprehension, this is a concept we just cannot understand.

I’m not saying that nobody should try to understand/study, but arguing against something that we do not understand is pointless.[/quote]

Why do you believe if by your own admission you don’t know?

And you claim that we are still learning and then bring up the Bible - the book that is claimed to be “finished” and infallible without question. Give me a break.

If you don’t understand it, then for fucks sake, don’t try and push your notions of biblical morality on the rest of us when it comes to homosexuality and abortion and a whole raft of issues that affect the majority.[/quote]

My faith makes me believe. Science doesn’t prove it either way. The bible doesn’t say where God came from.

The bible doesn’t claim to be a scientific text book. It’s there for guidance with life, you can take it or leave it - I’m not forcing it down your throat :slight_smile:

Personally, I find it very useful and not outdated, unlike yourself and others.

I said I don’t understand where the universe, or God came from…where did I say that I didn’t understand the bible? I do not try to push my notions of bible morality on others, I will defend it where possible, and I will tell others about it who are interested. I fully understand the difficulties of clashes with homosexuals etc, I’m not the type of person to try and force anyone to stop a lifestyle (that’s not what preaching/teaching is supposed to be about). It is up to the individual to change, IF they want to be a true Christian.

672

The Pleasure of Finding Things Out

673

as a pre-veterinary major I understand how science works, including the methods etc,. My point still stands. Lets go with Chemistry, they can NOT prove that the electrons of atoms exist. By that I mean the election is never observed until an instrument is used to measure the voltage. You take that knowledge on faith because you don’t do all the experiments yourself. If you did, you wouldn’t be here talking about how science works jajaja.

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…i think you have misunderstanding about how science works. If you are willing, read the wiki: Scientific method - Wikipedia and look at “introduction to scientific method” perhaps that will clear things up for you… [/quote]

Faith does not mean you believe in God. You have to BELIEVE there is no God. If you could prove it through science, well I’m glad I had a conversation with a guy who could do something NO ONE has done before. I need to get out of the light of your brilliance.

Yet that’s isn’t happening, so you can’t be that genius.

This circular logic is making me dizzy!

674

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
as a pre-veterinary major I understand how science works, including the methods etc,. My point still stands. Lets go with Chemistry, they can NOT prove that the electrons of atoms exist. By that I mean the election is never observed until an instrument is used to measure the voltage. You take that knowledge on faith because you don’t do all the experiments yourself. If you did, you wouldn’t be here talking about how science works jajaja.

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…i think you have misunderstanding about how science works. If you are willing, read the wiki: Scientific method - Wikipedia and look at “introduction to scientific method” perhaps that will clear things up for you… [/quote]

Faith does not mean you believe in God. You have to BELIEVE there is no God. If you could prove it through science, well I’m glad I had a conversation with a guy who could do something NO ONE has done before. I need to get out of the light of your brilliance.

Yet that’s isn’t happening, so you can’t be that genius.

This circular logic is making me dizzy!
[/quote]

…okay kneedragger, whatever you say dude. Simply continue to make use of everything that science made possible, and contribute it to your imaginary friend in the sky…

675

BBC Horizon - To Infinity and Beyond

676
677

All you are doing is giving your opinion. Nothing more! Your refusal to provide anything besides that shows how close minded you are. Which is sad because nothing I or anyone say will convince you otherwise.

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…okay kneedragger, whatever you say dude. Simply continue to make use of everything that science made possible, and contribute it to your imaginary friend in the sky…[/quote]

678

1024×768 39.9 KB

…to return kneedragger’s childish behaviour:

679

Yup, your right! I call people names because I have a lack of understanding.

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…to return kneedragger’s childish behaviour:

[/quote]

680

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…to return kneedragger’s childish behaviour:

[/quote]

Ephrem, you can ‘get away’ with making fun of Christianity and Judaism, but Islam/Muslims?

You’re a brave, brave man :wink: