This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Why Your Religion?
Return to board index
Post by
Orranis
I think that's a rather common misconception, more deserved for the ethics thread. The only thing that matters is being content with your life, whether or not it has a God. In fact, believing that some high up dude was watching every mistake I made and judging me on it, would probably make me less happy.
Except they don't judge you till your dead......
They're judging me on what I did when I was alive. The mentality is the same.
Post by
Adamsm
I think that's a rather common misconception, more deserved for the ethics thread. The only thing that matters is being content with your life, whether or not it has a God. In fact, believing that some high up dude was watching every mistake I made and judging me on it, would probably make me less happy.
Except they don't judge you till your dead......
They're judging me on what I did when I was alive. The mentality is the same.
But if your living your life to the best you can.... what do you have to be nervous about?
Post by
Squishalot
Because they might not think so?
Post by
Skreeran
First of all, I would very much like to see these scientific calculations you speak of. The vast, vast majority of scientists support evolutionary theory.
Firstly - that there is a low probability of life forming doesn't prove nor disprove evolutionary or creation theories. And if you don't understand that point, you might as well give up on anything that I'm saying, because you've missed it completely.Evolutionary theory+abiogenesis+earth-like planets=the basis of what scientists understand to be our origin. Which part is it that you have issue with? The number of earth-like planets?
Anyway, for the math:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
It appears that my beliefs that the numbers are insignificantly small are somewhat offtrack. However, using the 'pesimisstic numbers' in the Wiki article, the chances that the galaxy will produce another intelligent lifeform is 0.0000065. But having said that, there is significant bias in this model in the first place - it relies on other solar systems generally being like our own.0.0000065 * 170,000,000,000 galaxies... That's roughly 1,105,000 intelligent lifeforms in the observable universe if my calculator is correct. Even giving or taking a few hundred thousand, that's still not exactly unlikely.
But either way, facts of the matter are:
a) We have seen no evidence of any other life out there in the universe, despite the Drake equation suggesting otherwise.
b) No matter what the probability of life occuring on other planets is, that neither proves, nor disproves, the existance of a God. Think in WoW terms - the Titans (creators of Azeroth) have worked on multiple worlds. Typical that humans are self-centered enough to think that they're the one and only beloved ones of God.A)To quote Douglas Adams (an atheist): Space is big. Good luck contacting another intelligent alien lifeform that's 5,000 lightyears away from you.
b)Precisely. You cannot prove one theory (God) just by saying that the standing one is unlikely.
Post by
Squishalot
Which part is it that you have issue with?
The fact that none of it disproves the existance of a God, which is the ultimate aim of your argument.
0.0000065 * 170,000,000,000 galaxies... That's roughly 1,105,000 intelligent lifeforms in the observable universe if my calculator is correct. Even giving or taking a few hundred thousand, that's still not exactly unlikely.
Did you miss the point where I said that the model is
significantly biased
?
b)Precisely. You cannot prove one theory (God) just by saying that the standing one is unlikely.
The corollary of that statement is that you cannot disprove one theory (God) just by saying that your one is likely. QED.
And for what it's worth, the religious theory is more longstanding than the scientific evolution theory. Christianity originated long before Darwin identified the theory of evolution. So you can't rely on 'standing theories' as an appeal to authority.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
Which part is it that you have issue with?
The fact that none of it disproves the existance of a God, which is the ultimate aim of your argument.No, it isn't. I'm merely saying that the universe can exist perfectly well without there having to be a god. That leaves it up to you to prove there is.
0.0000065 * 170,000,000,000 galaxies... That's roughly 1,105,000 intelligent lifeforms in the observable universe if my calculator is correct. Even giving or taking a few hundred thousand, that's still not exactly unlikely.Did you miss the point where I said that the model is
significantly biased
?You said that scientists believe that intelligent life forming is astronomically improbable, even counting the vastness of time and the scope of the universe. You used the pessimistic numbers of the Drake Equation as evidence that scientists think that. I proved that even using the pessimistic numbers, intelligent life forming is still not as low as you claim it to be.
b)Precisely. You cannot prove one theory (God) just by saying that the standing one is unlikely.
The corollary of that statement is that you cannot disprove one theory (God) just by saying that your one is likely. QED.
And for what it's worth, the religious theory is more longstanding than the scientific evolution theory. Christianity originated long before Darwin identified the theory of evolution. So you can't rely on 'standing theories' as an appeal to authority.The theory that provides the most evidence and that fits the model best is most likely to be correct. We've provided evidence for evolution. It's up to you now to provide evidence for god, if you intend to replace the current theory.
Post by
Squishalot
There is no religious "theory". A theory in Science is the closest you can get to fact. Darwinian theory may be young, but there's so much evidence it's unlikely it'll ever be overthrown. On the other hand, everyone can poke holes in the Genesis account.
That would be the Christian theory, not the 'religious' theory. The religious theory simply states that a God exists. People assume Darwinian theory states that a God doesn't, but in reality, it merely abstains from commenting anything about the existance of a God, only that the passage in Genesis is unlikely to be able to be taken literally.
Genesis 1 can be interpreted in a number of ways - be it 7 days, or 7 'ages', which is also a legitimate reading of the original text. In that respect, the imagery in Genesis 1 is a backdrop for the physical events that occured - the world was created, an atmosphere resulted in condensations and oceans, life spawned from the oceans, and so forth.
No, it isn't. I'm merely saying that the universe can exist perfectly well without there having to be a god. That leaves it up to you to prove there is.
Again, it also leaves you in a position where you can't disprove that there is a God. As an agnostic, I accept that there may be a God. At no point have I chosen nor attempted to define what he is. But I'm not foolhardy enough to attempt to prove that he doesn't exist, which is the cornerstone of what an athiest is - someone who believes that there is no God.
You said that scientists believe that intelligent life forming is astronomically improbable, even counting the vastness of time and the scope of the universe. You used the pessimistic numbers of the Drake Equation as evidence that scientists think that. I proved that even using the pessimistic numbers, intelligent life forming is still not as low as you claim it to be.
And I conceded that my numbers are wrong. But I still pointed out that the Drake Equation is woefully biased. And you're not denying that.
The theory that provides the most evidence and that fits the model best is most likely to be correct. We've provided evidence for evolution. It's up to you now to provide evidence for god, if you intend to replace the current theory.
Again, if you want to demonstrate your athiesm, you need to demonstrate that there isn't a God. I don't think that the theory of evolution or the Big Bang and God are mutually exclusive. You seem to suggest that they are. Well, prove it!
Post by
MyTie
First of all, your argument is fundamentally flawed. The universe's origins are nothing like a dryer, for one thing.
ZOMG!
No way
!
Post by
576048
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
How can you still not understand how the burden of proof works?
It's a point of view thing. For those that believe in God, the insane assertion that there is no God requires proof. For those that do not believe in God, the insane assertion that there is a God requires proof.
"
Yeah, but da floating tea pot
."It doesn't really matter how ridiculous you want to portray a belief in God, it is not done arbitrarily and without reason. It isn't as if, without logic, a person conjures an imaginary teapot in space, within thier imagination. The reality is, there has to have been a beginning of some sort, in the way we understand time. The big bang satisfys this beginning just actually
less
well than God. It is more understandable to me that there is an infinately complex and powerful being that created the universe, than to understand that in the beginning everything came from a bang. The reason is, there had to be something before the bang, and this is where science gets a blank stare on its face.
I'm getting pretty sick of the "Burden of Proof" garbage I hear. The burden of proof, for deciding your beliefs, rests solely in YOUR hands, no matter what it is you believe. This isn't a court case. This isn't a scientific experiment. It is sheer and complete subjective beliefs. For that, there is no 'proof'. Demanding it is as absurd as demanding proof from the person next to you in the grocery store as to why you should breath.
You find your truth out for yourself.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
It is more understandable to me that there is an infinately complex and powerful being that created the universe, than to understand that in the beginning everything came from a bang. The reason is, there had to be something before the bang, and this is where science gets a blank stare on its face.
Why does there have to be something before the big bang but there doesn't have to be anything before God?
This is special pleading.
If God were infinite, and always there, it would satisfy the question. The problem of what comes before the big bang though, cannot be satisfied by answer.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
If God were infinite, and always there, it would satisfy the question. The problem of what comes before the big bang though, cannot be satisfied by answer.
"The Big Bang from our perspective, is one of an infinite loop of Big Bang, Big Crunch, Big Bang cycle. It has always been this way."
That explanation would remove the need for a beginning, and is also possible.
Yep. Very nice. What does this all have to do with me dismissing the concept of 'burden of proof' within the context of religious discussion?
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
I have magical powers. Either accept that I do or admit you don't believe I do.
Then justify why you don't believe I have magical powers.
That position conforms with what you claimed, and it is an absurd position to take.
The burden of proof, for deciding your beliefs, rests solely in YOUR hands, no matter what it is you believe
The "burden of proof" rests in the individual's hands that has the beliefs, and he owes this burden to himself. There is no second person in the equation.
You want people to prove something to you, and I'm saying that religion doesn't work that way. There is nothing to be proved. It is a belief.
Post by
Squishalot
I have magical powers. Either accept that I do or admit you don't believe I do.
Or, we can not care that you do or not :)
Post by
MyTie
I have magical powers. Either accept that I do or admit you don't believe I do.
Or, we can not care that you do or not :)
EXACTLY! It is your own choice to believe what you want. I demand no proof from you. Nor do I rely on such beliefs to find my beliefs.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.
