let's discuss religion

Page: 1 2 3 4
Jul 8 2009, 10:19 am (Edited on Jul 8 2009, 9:34 pm)
Worldweaver wrote:
The fact is that the atheist in the argument doesn't really get it, in fact he gets it worse than the theist. The theist is at least working within a system of social cohesion - the atheist is functioning on a more base revenge ethic for perceived maltreatment in his/her life.

This is a flimsy argument. Simply because something has always been in x way doesn't mean that x way is correct. For thousands of years women had little-to-no rights depending on where you went, and even in the most liberal soceities women were significantly less free than men, but that doesn't mean that's a good social order. Arguing that the originators of the cause for women's rights simply didn't 'get' the social order then and were therefore to be ignored is a flimsy argument, and reeks strongly of ever stronger social conservatism.

Religion is a primary instrument for social cohesion and morality in every part of the world. It sprung up independently in every single civilization.

Morality comes from human nature, not the reverse, and in many cases there is plain amorality in religion, with numerous examples found all over the world, especially in the treatment of women by men. Also, there's no way that you can argue that religion sprang up independently, for the same reason you can not argue that language developed independently. We simply do not have the ability to do any sort of research that far back. For example, you may think that Hinduism seems vastly different than any European religion, but the religion of the Greeks, Romans, Celts, and Nords all stem from the Proto-Indo-European religion. It's possible (and very likely) that this religion stems from an even further back religion, but all we can construct is the PIE (Yes, that is the acronym, laugh all you want) religion.

On studies of Kibbutzim in Israel(small secluded farming communities) the religious communities were significantly more generous towards their neighbors than their secular counterparts. This is just one study out of many, and whether or not you believe it to be some sort of horrific imposed morality it produces real tangible benefits with a limited personal toll.

Small communities often allow for shared resources due to a closer equilibrium between people and the resources needed to keep them alive, allowed for spreading it around further. The fact that they also tend to be socially conservative, and therefore more likely to be religious, is probably unrelated to that fact. Also note that only a max of 4% of Israel's population is areligious, and possibly less than that, with most people being Jewish. The forms of Judaism in Israel are also much more conservative in the US, with the most popular kind of Judaism in the US commonly considered to not be a form of Judaism in Israel.

The instinctive reaction is to point to religious massacres throughout the world. I in turn point to atheistic massacres - Communism, Nazism and many doctrines killed millions upon millions.

Nazi Germany actually spread propaganda about Positive Christianity, a form of Christianity that was consistent with Nazism, and it's also known that Hitler was raised Roman Catholic, though whether he considered himself a Christian is a matter of debate. Joseph Goebbels' diary says that he was deeply religious, but also strongly anti-Christianity.

While doctrines can be inherently flawed, this is a function of human vice. American Nationalism can end world war two and Communist Nationalism can murder millions of people. Buddhists can feed millions of poor and Islam can ensnare half of its population in subservience.

Most issues related to religion stem from fundamentalism. It is fundamentalist Muslims that run most Arab states, with liberal Muslim states being very similiar to the west in regards to rights and civil liberties. It's fundamentalist Christians that have the slogans of 'God hates fags' and other such hatred, and even fundamentalist Buddhists will kill Christian missionaries in the Chinese countryside. Strong nationalism is essentially the same as strong fundamentalism, in that they believe their particular group is correct no matter what is flawed. The connection is simply ridiculous fanaticism.

Religion isn't inherently wrong, no more so than any other social construct, but it's one more thing that can a person can tie themselves to and allow them to cloud their reason.
Jul 8 2009, 10:22 am
Zaole wrote:

- i want atheism to be a known option for people out there; i'm tired of seeing or learning about children who lead lives wrought with confusion and inconsolable depression because they feel homosexual urges but are told by their parents/any other pertinent religious figure in their life that it's an awful thing and that they'll go to hell for it.


Although I get what you mean, it really does sounds like you're implying that only religious people bash homosexuals (even though you said parents also) and that in order for individuals to be homosexual they should turn to atheism.

I agree but not quite using your argument. Parents should push you into doing positive things but they should also allow you choice. For instance, my parents "pushed" Christianity on me but as I got older they ultimately allowed me to choose for myself what I believe in (my mom at least). Sure they may have disliked my choice if I did choose another religion or none at all, but they allowed me to do so either way. Now if they would hound me about goin to hell, I doubt it because they respect me enough to make my own decisions and to deal with the consequences (whatever they may or may not be). With this in mind, not every parent is as understanding or loving apparently. I don't think solely promoting atheism should be the case, just promote knowledge, acceptance, and understanding and everything should/would be fine.
Jul 8 2009, 10:29 am
Stupot wrote:
Humans evolved from monkeys, monkeys evolved from something else, that something else evolved from something, until eventually you've got the very first living cell. How did that living cell get there?

Despite the fact that humans didn't nescesarily evolve from monkeys (we don't know the exact origin of the great apes, so we don't know whether it could be classified as a monkey or not), what you're talking about is abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution only discusses things related to speciation, as well as other stuff. In regards to abiogenesis, there are many models, and no one is quite sure which, if any, are right, yet.

The Earth was created from some explosion of gases in the great abyss. How did those gases get there?

Actually, the big bang was not an explosion in the traditional sense, or in any sense really. It was simply an expansion of everything. The big bang happened everywhere, and in the beginning it was too hot for any sort of matter to exist. There was energy and a single force. What occured after the big bang is rather well-known (entire popular science books have been written about the first few seconds of the universe), but what caused the big bang is not. It may not be able to be known with current theory, because the big bang singularity is just that, a singularity. The rise of singularities in general relativity is widely considered to be a flaw with the theory, and a quantum theory of gravity is believed to get rid of them, though no quantum theory of gravity exists yet that is widely accepted (String theory, for example, is a quantum theory of gravity, but there are many, many criticisms of the theory).

No matter how far back you go, science can never explain why anything IS. Science cannot explain how something gets created from nothing. Therefore, the only explanation for why anything exists must lie outside of science, Vis-à-vis divinity.

God of the gaps, then? So what's your argument when we do find out what caused the big bang? Will you simply argue about what caused that? And what about when we can answer that? Why does infinite regression apply to science, but not your deity? This is a flawed and extremely poor argument of why we should believe that there is an entity somewhere in or outside of the universe that gets his shits n' giggles from manipulating everything we do.
Jul 8 2009, 11:28 am
Popisfizzy wrote:
God of the gaps, then? So what's your argument when we do find out what caused the big bang? Will you simply argue about what caused that? And what about when we can answer that? Why does infinite regression apply to science, but not your deity? This is a flawed and extremely poor argument of why we should believe that there is an entity somewhere in or outside of the universe that gets his shits n' giggles from manipulating everything we do.

That is the crux of what I was trying to say, no matter how far back you go with science, it is ALWAYS cause and effect. Science, by definition, can never explain the first 'cause'. Therefore, one must conclude that the answer to the first cause must lie outside of science. Just because you claim this is a flimsy argument does not make it so. Smarter men than you and I have spent many years of their lives devoted to Theology.

Now, just because the answer lies outside of science does not necessarily mean God, or many gods, or witches and wizards or any one thing in particular, which is why I stated divinity instead of God.

However that divinity behaves, etc, is not what I was trying to get across, rather that the belief in something more than science is rationally justified. Just because you don't like the answer does not mean the argument is flimsy or that I was incorrect.

Zaole:
I already have "brought more to the table than circular logic", but as you yourself said, you refuse to acknowledge it.

If that last picture is all you've got, I haven't read much discussion on it. The reason I didn't read it was not to avoid major talking points, rather that it was quite lengthy and I didn't see much discussion pertaining to it. If you wish to use arguments from the last picture feel free to do, but I'm not about to link you to someweb full of information and say "There's my argument!"

As a side note, I do like how you specifically refuted what you could on my post and ignored the rest, which is what you are you complaining that I did.

Anyway, I've decided this little debate has been fun and I may come back and make some more comments later, but I'm a fairly busy guy, so don't count on it.

God Bless!
Jul 8 2009, 11:51 am
Stupot wrote:
As a side note, I do like how you specifically refuted what you could on my post and ignored the rest, which is what you are you complaining that I did.

What? The "origin of the universe" thing? There's no feasible discussion we can have on that subject; science says "we don't know enough yet", while religion says "God did it". The only way to say anything significant past that would require first making new discoveries scientifically.

no matter how far back you go with science, it is ALWAYS cause and effect. Science, by definition, can never explain the first 'cause'

by what definition? by the phrase "cause and effect"? in other words, examine the effect, figure out the cause-- that makes it sound like we can, in fact, figure this out scientifically, considering there are plenty of "effects" left to ponder and examine in order to determine the cause.

just because we haven't figured out how to explain it doesn't mean religion is the answer.
Jul 8 2009, 2:02 pm
Stupot wrote:
Popisfizzy wrote:
God of the gaps, then? So what's your argument when we do find out what caused the big bang? Will you simply argue about what caused that? And what about when we can answer that? Why does infinite regression apply to science, but not your deity? This is a flawed and extremely poor argument of why we should believe that there is an entity somewhere in or outside of the universe that gets his shits n' giggles from manipulating everything we do.

That is the crux of what I was trying to say, no matter how far back you go with science, it is ALWAYS cause and effect. Science, by definition, can never explain the first 'cause'. Therefore, one must conclude that the answer to the first cause must lie outside of science. Just because you claim this is a flimsy argument does not make it so. Smarter men than you and I have spent many years of their lives devoted to Theology.

I think its only fair to say that strings or something even smaller (if you don't believe in strings, something similar) always existed if you can go on blathering about how God always existed.
Jul 8 2009, 3:52 pm
Alright sounds good, I just wanted to distinguish a discussion on ideological inconsistencies and fallacies in religion from a discussion of positive/negative benefits of Religious social structure on a whole.

And sorry Zaole, I didn't mean to target the mean atheist at you. It was more for more virulent debaters.
Jul 8 2009, 4:36 pm
Jeff8500 wrote:
I think its only fair to say that strings or something even smaller (if you don't believe in strings, something similar) always existed if you can go on blathering about how God always existed.

That's the point of God, isn't it? God is something so extraordinary that we can't even comprehend it. The existence of the universe is beyond what science will ever be able to explain. At it's surface, the belief in something you cannot see, cannot touch, cannot sense with any of your five senses seems irrational. I agree with that. But the paradoxical truth is that the logical answer to certain questions about life are illogical.

If you say that strings always existed, then maybe strings are divine in your eyes. But my point is, if you are putting all of your faith into science (which seems to be the atheist mantra), except for this one little detail about why anything in the universe exists, then it's hypocritical to bash any religion because what they believe cannot be proven by any scientific means.
Jul 8 2009, 4:53 pm
Stupot wrote:
Jeff8500 wrote:
I think its only fair to say that strings or something even smaller (if you don't believe in strings, something similar) always existed if you can go on blathering about how God always existed.

That's the point of God, isn't it? God is something so extraordinary that we can't even comprehend it. The existence of the universe is beyond what science will ever be able to explain. At it's surface, the belief in something you cannot see, cannot touch, cannot sense with any of your five senses seems irrational. I agree with that. But the paradoxical truth is that the logical answer to certain questions about life are illogical.

If you say that strings always existed, then maybe strings are divine in your eyes. But my point is, if you are putting all of your faith into science (which seems to be the atheist mantra), except for this one little detail about why anything in the universe exists, then it's hypocritical to bash any religion because what they believe cannot be proven by any scientific means.

There's a difference. God makes things according to religion, whereas everything is made of strings according to string theory. Also, religion has no evidence for it, whereas strings at least have a little going for them at the moment (for example, at RHIC, quark-gluon plasma was found to have the same viscosity as a black hole, its super-symmetrical opposite) (that's subject to being slightly incorrect, I used to have a nice source without confusing math etc., but I can't find it, and I don't feel like googling it at the moment, I have something more important I should be doing).
Jul 8 2009, 9:59 pm
Stupot wrote:
That is the crux of what I was trying to say, no matter how far back you go with science, it is ALWAYS cause and effect. Science, by definition, can never explain the first 'cause'.

Uh, I don't know what definition you know of, but science isn't related to that, though causality is.

Therefore, one must conclude that the answer to the first cause must lie outside of science.

This is assuming that the notion of first cause is actual in all frames. For all we know, first cause may only exist in a special frame, i.e. a given universe. One prediction of string theory is that the big bang was caused by the collision of two branes (speaking simply, two universes, though that isn't quite what the notion of a brane is). What if that time is only a useful notion in a given universe, and that once you extend beyond that, time isn't useful? Or that maybe there is no such thing as a beginning with such a multiverse? If you accept it with God, then you have no reason to not accept it on a basis that could have evidence.

Though note that the parts about time there are purely for the sake of argument.

Just because you claim this is a flimsy argument does not make it so. Smarter men than you and I have spent many years of their lives devoted to Theology.

And Einstein spent his later years working towards a flawed unified theory combining elctromagnetism and gravity. Just being intelligent doesn't led credence that what you're doing is actually useful, and is simply an appeal to authority. There have been intelligent men that have wrote treatises on why it is so obvious that Hinduism is the way to enlightenment and truth, or why Islam is the way to God and everlasting life, or why Protestantism is the word of god and not Catholicism, and numerous other permutations being true. Why would any of these be preferred over the other? Because your parents raised you on these teachings, and the hammock over the fires of hell from which you feel they protect you is too dire to look away from?

Regardless of who is right, at least half, and possibly two-thirds, of the world, and in many cases closer to 99% of the world will be wrong. And what's worse is that a good portion of those who believe this believe it without any evidence to back up their cause, but simply ancient tradition. Scientists may debate who is right, but their theories generally come along the same path, with the deviations being slight, but at least they know the base they're working off is correct, because they have evidence, which religion lacks.

Now, just because the answer lies outside of science does not necessarily mean God, or many gods, or witches and wizards or any one thing in particular, which is why I stated divinity instead of God.

Assuming x divine force outside the universe caused, is causing, or will cause y event does nothing to further knowledge of any given thing, but only superstition, and the magic (or divinity or whatever synonym of magic you want to use) is lost whenever a rational explanation backed up by evidence or strongly-supported theory comes forward to demonstrate why y event is occurring. God of the gaps arguments are not terribly good because the gaps are always filled. That's not to say that the past is a perfect example of what will happen in the future, but I will say that if I knew for a fact that lightning struck everyone standing in a field at the same time every day, I wouldn't stand there fervently, believing things would change without cause.

However that divinity behaves, etc, is not what I was trying to get across, rather that the belief in something more than science is rationally justified. Just because you don't like the answer does not mean the argument is flimsy or that I was incorrect.

I don't know how rationality is used in your dialect, or hell, maybe even your idiolect, but I must say that I have never heard the use of 'rational' in defense of a position that can not be backed up with evidence or logic.
Jul 8 2009, 10:21 pm
Stupot wrote:
That's the point of God, isn't it? God is something so extraordinary that we can't even comprehend it.

The point of divinity is to explain something that was once magical to the naive people that brought about the existence of the deity. The beliefs about the diety/deities vary from religion to religion, but often include nonsense about being beyond human comprehension to quell debate about nonsensical results from nonsensical beliefs.

The existence of the universe is beyond what science will ever be able to explain.

Because this is supported by evidence and not a deep-seated belief that science will provide answers that God can not, and not just wild, blind speculation.

At it's surface, the belief in something you cannot see, cannot touch, cannot sense with any of your five senses seems irrational. I agree with that. But the paradoxical truth is that the logical answer to certain questions about life are illogical.

Blind faith in a position unsupported by any sort of evidence is never rational, and very rarely (I'd dare say never) are general examples of something completely illogical. There may be individual cases of something being truly bizarre, but that may simply mean we don't know as much as we could to explain why something happened.

But my point is, if you are putting all of your faith into science (which seems to be the atheist mantra)

Which is an example about your lack of knowledge about atheism. I wouldn't be surprised if it consists of stereotypes, or the Hollywood Atheist trope. Any rationalist atheist does not but faith in science; they believe science is correct because they know that it has evidence to back it up. If an a person wants to know why time dialation occurs because of mass nearing the speed of light, they can find out that it's due to mass-energy equivalence, kinetic energy, and gravitational time dialation. If they want to know why babies are born dirtied with sin because of something they didn't do, they can discover that hypothetical ancestors born long before nearly any aspect of the civilization they grew up in existed performed an evil act because their creator did not give them knowledge of good and evil. If this same person wants to know what causes gravitational time dialation, they can discover the cause of that. If they want to know why the creator did not give them knowledge of good and evil, they must submit to knowing that their creator is simply beyond anything they will ever know.

except for this one little detail about why anything in the universe exists, then it's hypocritical to bash any religion because what they believe cannot be proven by any scientific means.

You're making the falacy of presuming that because there is no answer to what caused the big bang, there will never be an answer to what caused the big bang (Fun enough, though, there are already theories about it, like I've mentioned). It's not hypocritical to bash religion for not having evidence because it can not have evidence, while science must. If a theory lacks evidence, and there are other theories that don't, then the theory is probably flawed. Such a situation will never occur with religion. Perhaps you should delve further into things such as the scientific method, or theories relating to things like cosmogony and abiogenesis before you argue further. Your obvious lack of knowledge, and wild speculation to unadeptly fill in your ignorance thereof, greatly hamper any attempt you make at arguing.
Jul 9 2009, 4:49 am
Wow, I do love how I am labeled an idiot who blathers on about God. I especially like how original sin and other Christian matters that have nothing to do with the creation of the universe keep popping up in your arguments.

String Theory does nothing to explain the beginning of all matter because string theory does not explain how strings themselves exist.

I don't know how rationality is used in your dialect, or hell, maybe even your idiolect, but I must say that I have never heard the use of 'rational' in defense of a position that can not be backed up with evidence or logic.

Rationalization of any belief means that you can use can use reasoning to reach the conclusion you are at. Whether or not you believe I'm using sound reasoning would clearly have an affect on whether you think I'm being rational or not.

Anyway, it's clear that no matter what I say, this discussion is heading the direction of me saying "I'm making sense," and others saying "No, you're not." As for who is right and who is wrong, neither side can be proven correct because there is insufficient evidence on both sides (which coincidentally was one of my points in an earlier post).

However, this line did make me chuckle a bit:
Which is an example about your lack of knowledge about atheism.

Knowledge about atheism? Atheism is simple. It's the belief that no God, gods, or any supernatural power exists. That's it. I don't really know what stereotypes about atheists you were referring to or what the Holly Atheist trope is.

I understand why atheists believe what they do. However, I don't see why it should be so hard for an atheist to see why someone else (who is equally intelligent) might believe in some supernatural power.
Jul 9 2009, 5:06 am
I understand why atheists believe what they do. However, I don't see why it should be so hard for an atheist to see why someone else (who is equally intelligent) might believe in some supernatural power.

I understand why, trust me, but they're not good reasons:

- inadequate considerations about how everything works and why, coupled with the inability to consider the possibility that Christian teachings could be wrong

- social pressures mandate that one should be a Christian, and in many situations it's not exactly safe or recommendable to "break the mold" by choosing anything other than Christianity

- apathy in general to the matter at hand, with the philosophy that "I might as well believe in something, just in case, so I'll go with the most popular one"

the last two are ok by me, because that's just a case of it not being their fault or they couldn't care less, but the first one is rotten; it's the blindly faithful who insist that they're right because they're right, which means everyone else is wrong. this wouldn't be so much of a problem if it wasn't for some of the awful teachings contained in it.
Jul 9 2009, 6:49 am
Stupot wrote:
Wow, I do love how I am labeled an idiot who blathers on about God. I especially like how original sin and other Christian matters that have nothing to do with the creation of the universe keep popping up in your arguments.

String Theory does nothing to explain the beginning of all matter because string theory does not explain how strings themselves exist.

And religion does nothing to explain the beginning of god.
Jul 9 2009, 7:01 am
Jeff8500 wrote:
Stupot wrote:
Wow, I do love how I am labeled an idiot who blathers on about God. I especially like how original sin and other Christian matters that have nothing to do with the creation of the universe keep popping up in your arguments.

String Theory does nothing to explain the beginning of all matter because string theory does not explain how strings themselves exist.

And religion does nothing to explain the beginning of god.


mayhaps God believes in his own god, since there's no other way for him to explain how he came into existence
Jul 9 2009, 7:52 am
Stupot wrote:
Wow, I do love how I am labeled an idiot who blathers on about God.

You may find that I didn't say that. If you actually read what I said, you'd fine that I said you obviously have insufficient knowledge of what you're arguing.

I especially like how original sin and other Christian matters that have nothing to do with the creation of the universe keep popping up in your arguments.

As a demonstration of how science has evidence and religion has none. If you're going to support divinity and religion, I'm going to use parts of divinity and religion to demonstrate how it's not rational.

String Theory does nothing to explain the beginning of all matter because string theory does not explain how strings themselves exist.

Yes it does, and had you known anything about string theory you would know this. Strings do not exist in perpetuity, but can be created and annihilated like particles (as they are particles), so long as such interactions exist according to the law of conservation of mass-energy.

Rationalization of any belief means that you can use can use reasoning to reach the conclusion you are at. Whether or not you believe I'm using sound reasoning would clearly have an affect on whether you think I'm being rational or not.

So it's rationality unique to you. That's quite a nice way of switching the standard "opinions can't be wrong and it's my opinion" argument around.

Anyway, it's clear that no matter what I say, this discussion is heading the direction of me saying "I'm making sense," and others saying "No, you're not." As for who is right and who is wrong, neither side can be proven correct because there is insufficient evidence on both sides (which coincidentally was one of my points in an earlier post).

Religion can't be proven correct because it lacks any sort of evidence in its entirety, and can never have evidence. Science can't be proven right because a theory is never proven, which is another example of how you misunderstand science. But I'll believe science of any sort of mythology any day because there is evidence that science is more than just stories.

Knowledge about atheism? Atheism is simple. It's the belief that no God, gods, or any supernatural power exists.

Yet it seems, by your 'faith in science' remark that you believe atheists replace religion with science, which is obviously very, very ignorant of how anyone using scientific empiricism actually thinks.

I understand why atheists believe what they do. However, I don't see why it should be so hard for an atheist to see why someone else (who is equally intelligent) might believe in some supernatural power.

I understand that they may believe. I simply don't understand given that they are otherwise rational and intelligent, and a rational person does not believe in mystical traditions that can never have any sort of evidence. I would find it just as silly of them to wholeheartedly believe in ghosts or demons or poltergeists, because those are just a fantastic leap from reality is a god is.
Jul 9 2009, 9:15 am
Popisfizzy wrote:
As a demonstration of how science has evidence and religion has none. If you're going to support divinity and religion, I'm going to use parts of divinity and religion to demonstrate how it's not rational.

Once again, as I'm not debating the existence of a particular god or religion, it has nothing to do with the debate. Rather I am arguing that it is rational to believe in the existence of a supernatural power (whatever it may be).

Yes it does, and had you known anything about string theory you would know this. Strings do not exist in perpetuity, but can be created and annihilated like particles (as they are particles), so long as such interactions exist according to the law of conservation of mass-energy.

The law of conservation is exactly the problem. Whatever was there before exists afterwards, even if it is in a different capacity. But why did anything exist in the first place? Whether it was mass, energy, hookers, it doesn't matter. Science requires that something existed first in order to create a change. You can bitch and moan about how no supernatural power makes sense all you want, but you cannot say that science can explain the beginning of existence. It can't and it will never be able to. It seems as though you fail to comprehend that.

As far as my logic goes, I've always been known to be very logical, so you'll be hard pressed to convince me that my logic is unsound without some sort of counter evidence (which of course you have none). Just because science provides us with many insights and explanations about how the world works and why it behaves how it does, does not mean that it is the end all answer to everything there is in life.

So it's rationality unique to you. That's quite a nice way of switching the standard "opinions can't be wrong and it's my opinion" argument around.

No, it's more like if I explain to child that 1+1=2 and that child says, "No, 1+1=3". Who is right? If it was only the child and me arguing with each other, it would be impossible to prove who is right.

Religion can't be proven correct because it lacks any sort of evidence in its entirety, and can never have evidence.

How the universe, matter, energy, whatever came first, can never have evidence either. So how can you be so insistent that it's not a supernatural power? The fact of that matter is that it is your opinion. You've decided that no religion makes sense. You are piggybacking on the idea that science has explained so much so far that it is only a matter of time before science can explain the answer to questions it currently cannot answer. The belief that science can provide answers to all the questions about life has no evidence to support it!

As far as atheists believing in science and nothing else, every atheist I have met certainly believes this way. Just because you take offense to the concept of "faith in science" doesn't mean I do not understand how atheists view the world. I realize the irony and I completely meant it. Atheists do put faith in science, but most fail to see the line between understanding science and when they are putting their faith that science will hold the answer someday.
Jul 9 2009, 9:20 am
I love how you're ignoring my comments. Where did god etc. come from? Can religion explain that? No, which makes your point invalid. It all boils down to this: there can never be nothing, because if there was nothing, there would still be nothing (of course, if science can prove me wrong, I'm all ears!).
Jul 9 2009, 9:45 am
And assuming that a creator god created the universe and that creator god has always existed is not a useful concept. Then where did the creator god come from? Oh, he always existed? So if the creator god always existed, why can't have some material substance that we can actually interact with always have existed? At least the latter has some hope of being explained. Assuming that a magic man did it is of no use for scientific progress. It's a magical notion that is not the least bit different from assuming that a magic man makes sky fire.
Jul 9 2009, 10:19 am
This is exactly why you two do not understand. The idea behind something supernatural is that it cannot be comprehended by science. Religions (at least those I'm familiar with) cannot explain where God comes from, but at least those religions have the balls to admit that they can't ever explain it. That is the driving force behind their belief.

The point of my argument is that no one (religions included) can prove how and why anything exists, therefore nobody can say for a fact that one idea is better than another. There is no hope for science to explain how something can be created from nothing.

I agree with you Jeff, there can never be nothing. But it makes just as much sense for that something that always existed to be something supernatural we can never hope to comprehend as it makes for that something to be something non-supernatural we can never hope to comprehend.

However, if you wish you believe that science can explain everything, given enough time, that's fine. The point is, you are believing in science, rather than science proving to you it can truly do all you believe. In the end, you are putting your faith in something that has not been proven, which is the exact same thing you are saying religions are stupid for.
Page: 1 2 3 4