The God Who Wasn't There

[Denny Crane]

It will take some time. You may not want to wait up.

barfo

The full court press could start anytime. But it won't, so I won't hold my breath.

 

[Minstrel]

Hmmm. I'm not talking about discovering evidence of strings. I understand it is purely mathematical at this point. But the entire idea of string theory is to find TTOE. From what I have read, very few string theorists, as opposed to philosophers, are set on determining why strings exist. Many string theorists use the analogy of strings being like letters. You can break paragraphs into sentences, sentences into words, words into letters, but trying to break down letters is futile and meaningless. To me, I can say people created letters, like I would say God crated strings.

That's just a comment of the current state of things, as far as I know, not a pronouncement on the future. There are a lot of things, like quantum "randomness," which are true based on the models we possess now, but don't say anything about where human knowledge will go in the future.

Also, examining the "why" is a different thing from "not wanting to go any further." Science isn't predominantly about the why (though that's examined when it can be), it's about predictive models. Assuming there is ever evidence for strings, science may or may not ever know why they exist...but science will keep investigating them, to discover the rules that govern them, what makes up strings, etc. If that uncovers "why," then that's great. It may just yield a new and better model.

I don't mean the evolutionary sense, or the neuroscience. I'm talking about why it exists. Why do we have a inate desire to live and love? We have these strange urges to survive and protect offspring at all costs, and I wonder why.

Isn't the gene survival mechanism a fairly good inquiry into the why? That love creates a compelling reason to look out for those who share your genes, thereby giving them a greater chance of surviving into future generations?

Not to say you shouldn't be spiritual, but I think love and other human behaviours/motivations can be investigated quite reasonably in a scientific or rational manner.

 

[Minstrel]

Hypothsis: God Exists.

Let's see science do a full court press to prove it.

Typically, you make a hypothesis that you plan to test. It's easy to set the agenda for other people's time, but there's no good reason why they should do your bidding, eh?

If you feel it's good, testable hypothesis, please research it and submit it for peer review!

 

[barfo]

The full court press could start anytime. But it won't, so I won't hold my breath.

It could, huh? Exactly how would you propose going about it?
Are you suggesting your tax dollars should be spent on this?

barfo

 

[crowTrobot]

I'm not even sure what you're talking about. Obviously religion isn't about clear cut evidence. That is why it is religion and faith. If the existence of God is proven, it won't be called faith anymore. Just like it doesn't take faith to know that death exists.

ok

It is interesting that you are so quick to go on the attack towards those that believe and have faith.

well i wasn't attacking faith, sorry if it came across that way. i was pointing out that your initial post mischaracterized the goals of science and implied invalid comparisons between science and your religious faith.

 

[crowTrobot]

Hypothsis: God Exists.

which one?

 

[Denny Crane]

Typically, you make a hypothesis that you plan to test. It's easy to set the agenda for other people's time, but there's no good reason why they should do your bidding, eh?

If you feel it's good, testable hypothesis, please research it and submit it for peer review!

People who do believe tell me they see the evidence everywhere. In a tree, a butterfly, a rock. That God gave us free will means we are free to investigate these things to any degree we can. A lot of these peoples' peers agree.

Can it be measured with instruments of some kind? No, but neither can strings.

It's up to the scientists to pitch what they want to study.

I would point out that there are plenty of archaeologists who look for physical evidence of biblical significance (and find a lot of such things). Science.

 

[Denny Crane]

which one?

Pick one. Or more.

 

[Minstrel]

People who do believe tell me they see the evidence everywhere. In a tree, a butterfly, a rock. That God gave us free will means we are free to investigate these things to any degree we can. A lot of these peoples' peers agree.

So it's passed religious peer review and is accepted religion.

You seemed to want to make it scientific inquiry, which means it needs to be peer-reviewed by the scientific community.

And yes, there's no physical evidence for strings, which is why it isn't the prevailing theory for what makes up the universe.

 

[blazerboy30]

That's just a comment of the current state of things, as far as I know, not a pronouncement on the future. There are a lot of things, like quantum "randomness," which are true based on the models we possess now, but don't say anything about where human knowledge will go in the future.

Also, examining the "why" is a different thing from "not wanting to go any further." Science isn't predominantly about the why (though that's examined when it can be), it's about predictive models. Assuming there is ever evidence for strings, science may or may not ever know why they exist...but science will keep investigating them, to discover the rules that govern them, what makes up strings, etc. If that uncovers "why," then that's great. It may just yield a new and better model.

My point is that, IMO, for any more basic element we find, we can always ask the question of how that element exists or was created. Maybe it is my own lack of intelligence or small-mindedness, but I believe we will always be in that situation.

Isn't the gene survival mechanism a fairly good inquiry into the why? That love creates a compelling reason to look out for those who share your genes, thereby giving them a greater chance of surviving into future generations?

For me, it isn't enough. I understand what you're saying, but I want to know why the gene survival mechanism exists. I believe that something created our desire to care if our neighbors have access to medical treatment, or to care if people are starving and dying in Africa.

Not to say you shouldn't be spiritual, but I think love and other human behaviours/motivations can be investigated quite reasonably in a scientific or rational manner.

I think they can be investigated in a manner that shows those behaviours/motivations are indeed there. But not at the level of why they are there.

 

[crowTrobot]

Pick one. Or more.

 

[Minstrel]

My point is that, IMO, for any more basic element we find, we can always ask the question of how that element exists or was created. Maybe it is my own lack of intelligence or small-mindedness, but I believe we will always be in that situation.

I agree that we will always be in the position of looking for the "next level down." I don't expect that humans will ever find the most fundamental level of the universe (part of that is I don't know what it means for something to be "the most fundamental," so that may just be my own limits influencing what I think is possible), so it will always be a continuing investigation. I simply disagreed with your assertion that a large amount of the scientific community isn't interested in investigating any deeper.

I think they can be investigated in a manner that shows those behaviours/motivations are indeed there. But not at the level of why they are there.

I agree that science isn't the best tool for existential questions.

Personally, in the absence of evidence, I prefer to leave such questions to "I don't know," but I don't begrudge anyone choosing to ascribe it to a deity. I just wonder why. Why a deity, and doesn't that just push the existential questions back a level? Why does God exist? Who/what created God? From a technical aspect, I am skeptical of "answers" that just create the same questions about the answer.

 

[crowTrobot]

I believe that something created our desire to care if our neighbors have access to medical treatment, or to care if people are starving and dying in Africa.

there are examples of similar empathetic behavior to various extents in the animal kingdom that appear to be beneficial for those species. no reason to think empathetic tendencies in humans didn't evolve like everything else.

 

[blazerboy30]

there are examples of similar empathetic behavior to various extents in the animal kingdom that appear to be beneficial for those species. no reason to think empathetic tendencies in humans didn't evolve like everything else.

I must not be explaining myself very well, as you still don't understand. Oh well, not a big deal.

 

[Денг Гордон]

Jesus's nature as a Deity has zero bearing on whether I think his moral principles are of potential social benefit. He's the Son of God to me in part b/c he fulfilled hundreds of prophecies written hundreds of years before he was born, in part b/c of my faith (which I don't expect any others to "get" or believe), and in part b/c no one's ever given me a reason to not think so.


Really? I'm asking you how you can parse a verse in half, believe the first half is moral and the second half can be discarded? How you can pick and choose which of his commandments were moral, and which were delusional? And it's "irrelevant"?

I haven't read the entire thread yet, but I felt obligated to comment on this part. You do realize that the New Testament was written after the Old Testament? That means the writers of the New Testaments got to look at the Old Testament and make Jesus fit the prophecies. That is a very preposterous argument for why he is the Son of God.

 

[Shooter]

 

[crowTrobot]

that's only funny because it's profoundly ignorant

 

[Shooter]

that's only funny because it's profoundly ignorant

Sort of like the theory of evolution, eh?

 

[crowTrobot]

Sort of like the theory of evolution, eh?

if you knew anything at all about evolution you wouldn't have posted that : )

 

[Colonel Ronan]

Looking on from a neutral point of view, both sides are extremely stubborn. The Christians won't even think about the Theory of Evolution while the "Realists" won't think about some sort of higher power. Pointless argument.

 

[Shooter]

Looking on from a neutral point of view, both sides are extremely stubborn. The Christians won't even think about the Theory of Evolution while the "Realists" won't think about some sort of higher power. Pointless argument.

Not true. I'm willing to admit to some kinds of evolution, such as certain breeds of animals developing survival-enhancing traits over time, but I don't buy the idea that humans evolved from amoebas. That's a dramatic and radical kind of evolution for which there is no evidence.

 

[crowTrobot]

Looking on from a neutral point of view, both sides are extremely stubborn. The Christians won't even think about the Theory of Evolution while the "Realists" won't think about some sort of higher power. Pointless argument.

give me a break. a higher power in the generic sense hasn't even been a subject of argument in this thread and nobody has denied the possibility. i assure you the vast majority of people who believe in evolution have thought a lot about the possibility of a higher power, and many believe in both.

what you're reading here is a few brainwashed biblical literal creationists that don't have a clue what evolution is being stubbord about denying it because they simply have no choice psychologically.

 

[crowTrobot]

Not true. I'm willing to admit to some kinds of evolution, such as certain breeds of animals developing survival-enhancing traits over time, but I don't buy the idea that humans evolved from amoebas. That's a dramatic and radical kind of evolution for which there is no evidence.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

[Colonel Ronan]

Stop contradicting yourself then. If you're going to make a point, stick to one side.

I agree with you. There is something spiritual out there

wishful thinking. there could be, but if you're claiming to be certain about it you're just as delusional as fundamentalists.

Also, the thread title is "The God that wasn't there" so a higher power the is the key point of this thread.

 

[Colonel Ronan]

Not true. I'm willing to admit to some kinds of evolution, such as certain breeds of animals developing survival-enhancing traits over time, but I don't buy the idea that humans evolved from amoebas. That's a dramatic and radical kind of evolution for which there is no evidence.

Lets use that human evolution theory as an example. Surely we evolved from an amoeba to enhance our chances of survival in the same way animals evolve to help cope with their surroundings. You're saying that animals evolve but we do not?

 

[CelticKing]

I agree and accept the fact that we evolved through millions of years, but that alone doesn't explain how we came to be, how earth started, how the universe started, etc.

 

[barfo]

I agree and accept the fact that we evolved through millions of years, but that alone doesn't explain how we came to be, how earth started, how the universe started, etc.

Right, because those are different subjects. Understanding how a refrigerator works doesn't tell you much about your car tires.

barfo

 

[Minstrel]

Looking on from a neutral point of view, both sides are extremely stubborn. The Christians won't even think about the Theory of Evolution while the "Realists" won't think about some sort of higher power. Pointless argument.

Well, I'm not sure who you're putting on what "side," but I certainly consider myself neutral. I'm willing to believe things that have evidence. I can certainly consider the possibility of a higher power, but absent evidence for it, I don't see a reason to believe in one. There are an infinite number of things that could be true, after all.

 

[e_blazer]

Looking on from a neutral point of view, both sides are extremely stubborn. The Christians won't even think about the Theory of Evolution while the "Realists" won't think about some sort of higher power. Pointless argument.

It's always dangerous to use broad generalizations. This is particularly true of the Christian faith, which has multiple branches and even more denominations. People who profess to be followers of Christ have views on the origin of the universe and life that range from strict fundamentalism regarding the Genesis account of creation to views that accept evolution, but guided by God's hand. I'm not Catholic, but the following link shows that the Catholic Church has come to accept evolution as consistent with Christian faith.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

Many Protestants, myself included, have similar views.

 

[crowTrobot]

Stop contradicting yourself then. If you're going to make a point, stick to one side.

if you'd read everything there and stop reading just part of it and filling in the rest with your own assumptions you'd see i didn't contradict myself. my only assertion was that certainty a higher power exists without objective evidence (which is what i was responding to) is wishful thinking/self-delusion, which is really only stating the obvious. i don't claim to know if a higher power exists or not, and haven't said anything of the sort.

Also, the thread title is "The God that wasn't there" so a higher power the is the key point of this thread.

nosir. the thread title refers to the historical truth of the biblical jesus, and the thread was meant specifically to be about the accuracy of the bible (but got semi-hijacked ). the historical truth of the bible is an entirely different subject than the existence of a creator in the generic sense.