The Existence Of God

Rogue · Post by **Rogue** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 10:20 am

"at the same time you do not subject your religion to any sort of scrutiny at all"

"that science doesn't presently offer evidence that meets your standard of proof yet"

You've not read any of my posts have you.

I question the hell out of my faith, pun intended, if I didn't I wouldn't be wasting my time typing in this thread. To the other part, faith doesn't meet your standard of proof and science whether it be a simple theory or an eventual impossibility to explain meets yours.

Ice's posts are proof of similarities and then what? How structurally different could a species be and live on a planet that demands conformity?

It's insulting to assume that I don't know the similarities between humans and other animals. It's also insulting to assume the vast differences in mental capacity aren't there. Structurally, sure it's a necessity to survive here on Earth. Mental growth, this is not a necessity and if it were our evolution would be specialized. For an example, see every other animal on Earth and don't give me monkeys using a stick to catch ants as an example.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it. Heh.

stinkfingers · Post by **stinkfingers** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:06 am

1. faith meets NO standard of proof. it operates outside proof.
2. questioning one's faith and subjecting one's religion to scientific scrutiny aren't the same thing. i see you rasslin' with your faith. i don't see you subjecting it to methodical analysis.
3. not all theory meets the requirements necessary to move beyond theory, i think. the burden of proof remains on the scientists...it is the internal consistency of the thinking and methodology that i am sympathetic toward and therefore, i am more likely to grant "faith" to theory as yet unproven than to concepts THAT ARE UNPROVABLE. like god.
4. evolutionary principles easily account for our exceptional mental capacity. i won't further insult you with the details (heh) that you are already in possession of. you keep using our exceptional qualities to stand for some flimsy evidence of external tinkering! talk about your leaps!

further insult - Rogue: "i acknowledge that genetically speaking, we share at least 95% of the genetic material that chimpanzees do. yet chimps don't wear 3 piece suits. i conclude therefore, that we must have been created by a wholly supernatural force....like...er...God."

take a hit off'a that, crackhead.

:)
by the way, i know you and i aren't truly invested in the discussion...its $hits and giggles. please keep this in mind...everyone else.

btw: please feel free to avoid my point about the geographical arbitrariness of your religious beliefs, christians :)

Rogue · Post by **Rogue** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:29 am

Heh. I hate the fact that while being virtual you have to publicly state your emotions or intent. At some point all forums must be replaced by voice so the intent of the author can be clearly known.

To end: Stink, you then are a product of chance via science. I, however, am a product of cause. This explains why I get all the chicks.

On topic: I can't avoid stating that my own mortality doesn't scare the absolute crap out of me. It does and the feelings get worse when thinking about those who've been cheated out of a long existence relatively speaking. If I believe there is no God these feelings of remorse go away and figure it doesn't matter anyway. If I believe in God the feelings get worse because I believe those who perished early have been cheated out of making their mark.

I sit in childlike amazement considering the universe may have existed for billions upon billions of years. Equalling this amazement is the rapidity in which we evolved our minds. I then parallel the two and find it rather easy to assume that over billions of years a higher-power evolved or always existed.

I believe it's no cause of chance that made us who we are. Nobody will ever convince me of commonality based simply on physical makeup and evolution. The differences between us and other living organisms, after physical makeup, are infinitely unique. Comparing us to other organisms on this planet is our one and only chance to be freely arrogant.

Burning my lips on the glass yet again.

EDIT: I didn't touch that one Stink because customs or position on the globe has no consequence upon the existence of God. Even if religion or the belief in God never existed this still would hold no water in denouncing the existence of a supreme being. Religion is simply a product of our tendency to be social or our wantingness to belong. However, I do believe that a message was sent to modern man and by our own faults have put our underwear on backwards in the light of day. We've used religion to discriminate instead of a tool of acceptance. I believe this discrimination and not science is the main vehicle pulling people away from God. It can't be science because we're still too dumb to know. Meh. Had to toss that in.

stinkfingers · Post by **stinkfingers** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:54 am

"To end: Stink, you then are a product of chance via science. I, however, am a product of cause. This explains why I get all the chicks. "
and here i was thinking that my lack of chicks was due to the fact that i am hideously deformed! what a relief!

a good post. unfortunately, i gotta git to work. b back laters....

NUTS! · Post by **NUTS!** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 12:16 pm

@stinkybuttfinger
Comparing the existance of God to santa clause does trivilize it. Its apples and oranges. Could go off on a tangent about ol' St. Nick.

What I find intersting is that you seem to agree that science can't explaing it 100%. Yet you still walk the path of science. So....they both can't be confirmed. Yet you choose science because it makes more sense?

Why is there a "realigion"? Wherever you come from, any time frame there has been realigion of some form.

BTW-Were I grew up stinkfingers met something else entirely different.

icEPiraka · Post by **icEPiraka** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:59 pm

Meet Richard Dawkins:

Root of all Evil: The God Delusion, Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5

Root of all Evil: The Virus of Faith, Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5

Watch and learn, my friends.

Rogue · Post by **Rogue** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 10:12 pm

Yah, I'll let you know when I watch it. It seems to be totally unbiased. The weakest of retorts Ice. You surely must know this.

People that try and use religion as the beginning of all evil make the fatal assumption that we're not capable of killing each other in mass for no reason or cause at all.

My theory is looking stronger Ice. You're dangling on a cliff. Can I give you a hand?

stinkfingers · Post by **stinkfingers** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:11 pm

snicker!
richard dawkins and chris hitchens are excellent for preaching to the choir (i am a choirboy)...but not so good at much else, ice! interesting though that they were both on the best seller list! its a sign of backlash against the bushies, you ask me.

nuts!:
"What I find intersting is that you seem to agree that science can't explaing it 100%. Yet you still walk the path of science. So....they both can't be confirmed. Yet you choose science because it makes more sense? "
i agree science has its limits (one of those limits is in having anything at all to say about the possibility of the afterlife, IMHO). but here's the thing: science (a scientific theory) can eventually be confirmed...and more importantly...it (that is to say, the theory) can be found false. God, on the other hand can be neither confirmed or denied, ever. in this way, the concept of god doesn't even attain that criterion of scientific theory: the ability to be proven false under certain circumstances.

that's kinda a significant beef, but not my main beef. like i said up above regarding certain scientific propositions "not all theory meets the requirements necessary to move beyond theory, i think. the burden of proof remains on the scientists...it is the internal consistency of the thinking and methodology that i am sympathetic toward and therefore, i am more likely to grant "faith" to theory as yet unproven than to concepts THAT ARE UNPROVABLE..."

in other words, though the science may not always be firmly established, the principles at work and the rigorous methodology employed in putting forth a proposition exceed those that underlie propositions put forth in scripture. and yet...both propositions could still be wrong.

but and this is a big BUT...when science gets something wrong, the scientific community is usually the first to acknowledge it...and then its back to the drawing board.
BUT when the scripture is found to be wrong...say for example, on the age of the earth...what then? well, i don't think there is is a "what then."

next,
i am not in the habit of accepting something without some semblance of evidence...on faith. i believe that if i would be asked to accept God on faith, without evidence...then why wouldn't i also accept the propositions offered me via the internet by G.Lasky, Barrister Residing In NIGERIA Representing Your Beloved Recently Deceased Cousin....and send the man $1000? faith is a last resort for me...and i'm not feeling all that desperate just yet.

lastly, i don't begrudge anyone their religious beliefs, i really don't. nor do i feel smug about any of this...i am glad, however, that i am not in the position of having to justify my religious beliefs. it doesn't look all that easy.

stinkfingers · Post by **stinkfingers** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:23 pm

Rogue: i still get the sense that fear of the unknown is your faith's biggest advocate.

next, i also sit in childlike amazement contemplating the same thing...i can also picture a creator as well, though i doubt it would resemble anything that all of mankind has dreamed him/it to be in all of our religions.

but then, i don't really sit well with this thought because it seems like an escape to me...the comfort i feel when i think of a creator...letting my mind off the hook regarding the incomprehensible questions that arise when i am contemplating the universe and existence. it is easy to imagine a creator...and 1000s have...time has codified their imaginings...

now, you think you have weaseled out of my last point. and you haven't.

My point:"but your inculcation in that framework (christiaity) is entirely arbitrary. had you been born elsewhere, you would have been steeped in another religious tradition which of course would feel as natural and as perfect to you as you presently feel about christianity."

Your rebutthole:" I didn't touch that one Stink because customs or position on the globe has no consequence upon the existence of God. Even if religion or the belief in God never existed this still would hold no water in denouncing the existence of a supreme being. Religion is simply a product of our tendency to be social or our wantingness to belong. However, I do believe that a message was sent to modern man and by our own faults have put our underwear on backwards in the light of day. We've used religion to discriminate instead of a tool of acceptance. I believe this discrimination and not science is the main vehicle pulling people away from God. It can't be science because we're still too dumb to know. Meh. Had to toss that in."

wow! that's a mess. try again!

stinkfingers · Post by **stinkfingers** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:35 pm

ok, i'll help sort it out.

i never called into question the existence of God with that zinger. i cast doubt on your right to believe.

for example...if you were born in Saudi Arabia, or Thailand, or Jerusalem, or the Amazon Rainforest, or Japan, etc and so on, you might very well profess a religious belief quite different from the one you are in possession of now. Your God would be incompatible with a christian God. the ontological explanations would be incompatible with the explanations that you presently accept in the Bible.

yet, you would still hold those beliefs, and think them fitting. you would still pray to a god, and think him supreme.

but for geographical happenstance...

that is arbitrariness...which generally unsettles systematic thinkers.

The Existence Of God

Who is online