Atheism!

[BigBen]

Prove it. Can you prove that Robcardu will not resurrect 300 years from now like Jesus did?

Of course, Jesus was able to do that b/c He was God by nature, and by the power of God. ROb is not God. Rob is not completely good, ROb has vice, ROb is not God. God is good, God is the absolute absence of evil, Rob is not God.

 

[Glex]

Actually Ben, that stuff about the historical accuracy of the Bible is not true. The dates of the Bible are all over the place. In fact, most of the new testament's books' authorships are in dispute and the dates are all closer to 100 AD than 30 AD when Jesus would've died (if he actually lived because yes, that is also in dispute).

I don't get your fetish with the 'why' question, Ben. Why does there have to be a 'why'?

I understand the transition of physics paradigms very well, so I'll rain on that parade right now. Yes, scientists were very arrogant in the past and many at many different points in history figured they would know everything within a hundred years or so.

We're much more realistic now. Maybe it's because the current paradigm that includes quantum physics actually places a limit on how much we can know, or maybe we're wiser, but we know that what we know is always subject to change. What we do know is that we have models that describe things very very well and we don't think that they'll change much...the current trend has been additions to science rather than rewritings, and they have good reason to believe that there won't be too many more epic rewritings like what Einstein managed. Lessons learned are lessons learned, however, so we still accept that we could always be wrong, even though we're currently always right to within a certain margin of error.

It is actually precisely this error that brings up interesting philosophical questions. This error, this inabilitity of an observer to know things may just be telling us something. The answer may be that there is no answer...and maybe we can be ok with that.

What kind of questions can't science answer that religion can without deferring to 'because God said so'? This is what you don't understand. If you don't take anything else from this post, take this:

The ability of religion to answer 'why' breaks down at god's will.

You can answer everything you like within the universe quite conveniently with christianity. However, you thought you were demonstrating religion's philosophical superiority by saying science can't answer questions. Well, maybe it can't. Maybe science even gives a reason for why it can't; how cool is that? Religion can only say that we can't fathom the depths of god's mind...science shows us exactly where we are going to fail.

Science answers every how and why that christianity answers except for one further step: god's will. Then religion also fails. Science fails to answer questions just before religion starts to fail, but it already told us that would happen, so is it really a failure?

Maybe, just maybe, the problem answers itself.

 

[BigBen]

Science answers every how and why that christianity answers except for one further step: god's will. Then it too fails. Science fails to answer questions just before religion starts to fail, but it already told us that would happen.

Maybe, just maybe, the problem answers itself.

Science cannot answer why. Science observes the nature of things in light of other things or inlight of themselves and says how. They can not answer why, it it beyond the paradigm of sciences governing philosophy. Knowledge through observation, rather the observation be experimentation or by what ever means you still observe and gain knowledge, that is the governing philosophy of science. It cannot answer why.

 

[Glex]

Why what, Ben? What why are we trying to answer?

 

[BigBen]

so if you believe he exists then he does?

So does that mean if i believe ill marry Scarlett Johansen... then it will be true?!???!?!? ZOMG!!!11!!1!!!!!!1 11!!!ONE!!!! 1!!!

No God exists regardless of your belief in Him. He is the truth and is who is regardless of how we want to see Him God exists as He does regardless of belief.

 

[BigBen]

Why what, Ben? What why are we trying to answer?

Why existance, which cannot be answered by how.

 

[Glex]

Maybe it can't be answered period. You're assuming there has to be a reason; maybe there isn't one.

Religion also fails to answer 'why existence'. Oh, sure, it gives a good reason for our existence, but what of god's?

 

[El Freako]

Why existance, which cannot be answered by how.

Why do we need to answer this question, isn't existence in itself self-validating?

Religion also fails to answer 'why existence'. Oh, sure, it gives a good reason for our existence, but what of god's?

Good Call.

You can answer everything you like within the universe quite conveniently with christianity. However, you thought you were demonstrating religion's philosophical superiority by saying science can't answer questions. Well, maybe it can't. Maybe science even gives a reason for why it can't; how cool is that? Religion can only say that we can't fathom the depths of god's mind...science shows us exactly where we are going to fail.

That is why religion is such bullshit, it's always got a 'convenient' answer of everything. Everything is "god's will" or his "god working in mysterious ways". These are not answers, its just avoiding the question.

 

[Skeptic]

No God exists regardless of your belief in Him. He is the truth and is who is regardless of how we want to see Him God exists as He does regardless of belief.

+

God is who is. Believing that God exists means that He must definitely exist and have definite nature.

=





:wutyousay:

 

[El Freako]

God is who is. Believing that God exists means that He must definitely exist and have definite nature.

That isn't exactly a valid argument is it. Its downright stupid really. Sounds like a flying spaghetti monster to me.

 

[Pioneer]

Hey Ben or anyone else who can answer this, i dont ask this question to disrespect your reglion or any other. But i would like to know your answer to this. If god is so all knowing and perfect why would he need to write a NEW testament, doesnt the fact that a NEW TESTAMENT had to be created prove he doesnt know all? That god is capable of mistakes and needed to correct them by creating a new testament. And as stated before im not asking this out of disrespect just want to know answer.

 

[BigBen]

Hey Ben or anyone else who can answer this, i dont ask this question to disrespect your reglion or any other. But i would like to know your answer to this. If god is so all knowing and perfect why would he need to write a NEW testament, doesnt the fact that a NEW TESTAMENT had to be created prove he doesnt know all? That god is capable of mistakes and needed to correct them by creating a new testament. And as stated before im not asking this out of disrespect just want to know answer.

God does know all, He knows all possible happenings. So when He made covenants with man God knew they could work or they could not work mans free will would decide what happened, but either way he knew the result of what would happen mans free will was the deciding factor of what did happen. When history happened in definite time God was not ignorant of that possibility, thus He knew all. Ignorance is the absence of knowledge God knew all possibilities, God was not ignorant.

 

[BigBen]

Why do we need to answer this question, isn't existence in itself self-validating?

The question must be answered because if anything can be considered truthful, then their must be an ultimate all knowing truth. If science is true and we do know laws of the nature of how some things act then truth must exist. If truth exists it mus have levels of existence. Their being no truth is the lowest degree and their being all truth is the highest degree.




That is why religion is such bullshit, it's always got a 'convenient' answer of everything. Everything is "god's will" or his "god working in mysterious ways". These are not answers, its just avoiding the question.

I disagree, a lot of "why" in life experience can be answered with psychology. God must work in definite "how" because God has a definite "what" Studying these things brings understanding, you must study these things if you are in search for a universal paradigm that explains all. This paradigm can walk hand in hand with science, b/c science is the how and the answer to the why is spiritual in nature, that is again why we have people who dedicate their lives to the how that still believe in the why.

 

[Ironslave]

Ben, if this was any topic other than religion, you'd be classified as medically and legally insane.

 

[BigBen]

Dude start reading philosophy everything makes perfect sense i promise, it is my minor in school. Your a scientist, you like concrete things you can see and experiment with. Philosophy is probably not for you, but that is what all things eventually boil down too, even science. Not the scientific process itself, but the governing paradigm behind it which only allows science to answer how, and that is what it will be used for, to observe how.

 

[El Freako]

I disagree, a lot of "why" in life experience can be answered with psychology. God must work in definite "how" because God has a definite "what" Studying these things brings understanding, you must study these things if you are in search for a universal paradigm that explains all. This paradigm can walk hand in hand with science, b/c science is the how and the answer to the why is spiritual in nature, that is again why we have people who dedicate their lives to the how that still believe in the why.

God must work in definite "how" because God has a definite "what"

This is a point of contention for us obviously, god is not a definite "what" as far as we are concerned.

 

[Zigurd]

I´m getting angry at this shit.

Stop arguing about this subject, it's USELESS. You will achieve nothing, nobody will ever change teams or even break a sweat of belief in what the other is saying.

My atheist brothers (lol), don't you realize that a person can bend words in order to make and protect any argument, as stupid as it may be ? This is what happens here, logic is with us, but persistence and faith is with them. I could say there is a massive lizard flying in space shooting rainbows, and if I believe in it hard enough, I can find evidence anywhere in our world and back it up by a space lizard fiction book. And the fact that some things match up with real events just proves my lizard is real right ?

Atheists, stop it... just feel nice about having reasoning and logic behind your thoughts.

 

[Glex]

The question must be answered because if anything can be considered truthful, then their must be an ultimate all knowing truth. If science is true and we do know laws of the nature of how some things act then truth must exist. If truth exists it mus have levels of existence. Their being no truth is the lowest degree and their being all truth is the highest degree.

Wait wait wait...so you're now using science to justify religion? You just said:

...the ground that [scientific] laws stand on is only as good as what is standing on top of it, which as far as history is concerned is the best yet, but still unperfected.

and:

I am not arguing religion with you i am trying to point out that the philosophy science is governed by is left to govern itself by itself, and NOTHING MORE. Do you understand the last sentence? Their is no hidden points or suggestions to my posts i am saying this is where science leaves us, and for a philosophy to be perfect it must answer all questions, and science leaves the question of why unanswered.

You're confusing yourself all over the place. First you said that religion has nothing to offer to other realms of the philosophy of reality, that it is self-contained and has nothing useful to say about the 'outside world', and that it is imperfect, and now you're saying it is the justification for pursuing other philosophies and that there are perfect laws!

If you're going to stick with scientific laws proving some truth, then the contemporary deduction leads us to quantum mechanics which is unsolvable to an absolute. If anything, that should tell you that existence as far as we can observe is absurd. It may not be, but if quantum theory holds up like most think it will, reality is an inherently unpredictable business...at least at the subatomic level and at least in the way we can look at it.

Macroscopically the world works much differently. A lot of intelligent people think that it will take multiple paradigms like Einsteinian relativity and quantum physics to create a complete picture of reality with the rules changing at the transition point between relativistic rules and quantum rules.

Which brings up another point: no one paradigm has to explain (nor can?) explain everything.

 

[Ironslave]

Wait wait wait...so you're now using science to justify religion? You just said:



and:



You're confusing yourself all over the place. First you said that religion has nothing to offer to other realms of the philosophy of reality, that it is self-contained and has nothing useful to say about the 'outside world', and that it is imperfect, and now you're saying it is the justification for pursuing other philosophies and that there are perfect laws!

If you're going to stick with scientific laws proving some truth, then the contemporary deduction leads us to quantum mechanics which is unsolvable to an absolute. If anything, that should tell you that existence as far as we can observe is absurd. It may not be, but if quantum theory holds up like most think it will, reality is an inherently unpredictable business...at least at the subatomic level and at least in the way we can look at it.

Macroscopically the world works much differently. A lot of intelligent people think that it will take multiple paradigms like Einsteinian relativity and quantum physics to create a complete picture of reality with the rules changing at the transition point between relativistic rules and quantum rules.

Which brings up another point: no one paradigm has to explain (nor can?) explain everything.

Don't waste your breath bro, when it comes to arguing about religion, all logic and inconsistencies go out the window. It's like arguing with an Obama supporter.

 

[BigBen]

Wait wait wait...so you're now using science to justify religion? You just said:

That was just my example, i should of said if the truth exists, i should have chose my words better. Truth outside of science exist. Words having meaning makes them true, the meaning of words is a "what" Their is truth to the words meaning b/c we can communicate. I apologize for the poor example i should have thought about that more before i posted it.

and:

I still stand by what i said in the second thing you quoted.

You're confusing yourself all over the place. First you said that religion has nothing to offer to other realms of the philosophy of reality, that it is self-contained and has nothing useful to say about the 'outside world', and that it is imperfect, and now you're saying it is the justification for pursuing other philosophies and that there are perfect laws!

I never specifically said any of what you just typed. I said religion answers why, it can also answer why a person should act morally, that very much applies to the "real World" I am not confused about anything. I should have just said if the truth exists in general, i was using science an example of what might be considered truth. It was a poor example in light of the debate.

If you're going to stick with scientific laws proving some truth, then the contemporary deduction leads us to quantum mechanics which is unsolvable to an absolute. If anything, that should tell you that existence as far as we can observe is absurd. It may not be, but if quantum theory holds up like most think it will, reality is an inherently unpredictable business...at least at the subatomic level and at least in the way we can look at it.

Macroscopically the world works much differently. A lot of intelligent people think that it will take multiple paradigms like Einsteinian relativity and quantum physics to create a complete picture of reality with the rules changing at the transition point between relativistic rules and quantum rules.

I think it will take multiple paradigms to answer the different questions bc each is only designed to answer what its governing philosophy allows. That was my entire point i have been trying to make throughout this thread as soon as i began discussing that science answers the "how" of things.

Which brings up another point: no one paradigm has to explain (nor can?) explain everything.

Exactly i agree. Thats why their must be something else besides science that is truthful.

What i mean by that is that science can hold true, but their must be some other paradigms of though to answer the questions science's paradigm can not answer. This previous sentence is the only point i think both sides should both agree on.