Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread

[(BHP)Clyock]

no

calling it Science vs Religion just makes it worse, it's not what this thread is about, nor the other one.

Isn't it titled science vs religion?

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

Because they can observe the natural process of things happening?

How does that prove/disprove the existence of a god?

[BerG]

Because they can disprove everything the bible says about the creation of the earth, adam and eve, noahs flood.

Stop being stupid.

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

Because they can disprove everything the bible says about the creation of the earth, adam and eve, noahs flood.

Stop being stupid.

I'm sorry, you're the one being stupid.

So they can prove that the creationist view of the bible is wrong. But it doesn't prove/disprove the existence of a god.

For some reason, you think some story in a book is directly related to the existence of an all power deity. And you think if one is false, then so is the other one. Sorry, but that just sounds ridiculous to me how anyone could think that.


Funny how it you took so long to come up with a point that I already made many posts ago.

Wouldnt the discovery of aliens invalidate the idea of God and prove the Bible false?

It wouldn't invalidate the idea of God, however it would prove the creationist view of the bible is wrong.

[BerG]

I would say that it does.

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

Isn't it titled science vs religion?

No, it's titled 'Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread', the other one is titled 'Religion vs Science who would win', although the title didn't reflect the topic of the OP.

[Brendan_Chipp]

Brendan is bringing up some good points here . . .

Thanks!

He said he believes in aliens, in fact he believes the universe is full of life.

Yep, although ask me to prove this, and I can't. My reasoning is the universe is so damn huuuuge, that it would be foolish to believe that little old earth is the only planet with life. Life on other planets does not conflict with my belief in the existance of "God".

How is believing in aliens that much different from believing in a god? I don't think it's much different at all, we humans still know very little about our universe, almost nothing on how it works.

Well said.

And the thing is science is constrained by our universe, so the existence of a god is beyond what science will ever be able to prove or disprove. A god is not subject to the laws of our universe, science is.

I personally see no conflict between science and spirituality. They both have their place, in a free thinking and open and vibrant society. You can't have a functioning society without both.

So when you say there is not proof that god exists, your right, there isn't, and there never will be proof either way.

So all that is left is belief.

Yes, I agree. That belief can also be referred to as faith.

Someone mentioned earlier that they believed life exists on other planets throughout the universe, and their evidence to support this was that life exists on earth. I guess I use much the same reasoning with my spirituality, by looking at the vast complexities within nature, and seeing purpose rather than chance. Just studying the human brain or the human eye is mind boggling enough.

[Brendan_Chipp]

. . . Wouldnt the discovery of aliens invalidate the idea of God and prove the Bible false?

How so? Can you expound on this line of thought?

[Brendan_Chipp]

I would say that it does.

So you believe that if there is life elsewhere in the universe, that this proves the non existance of "God"?

[Phlex]

I always thought clouds were floating farts.

[Fragin]

I always thought clouds were floating farts.

That's it. That's exactly right. I did atmospherics at uni. I know. That's why pilots don't like to fly through clouds.

I'm sorry, you're the one being stupid.

So they can prove that the creationist view of the bible is wrong. But it doesn't prove/disprove the existence of a god.

For some reason, you think some story in a book is directly related to the existence of an all power deity. And you think if one is false, then so is the other one. Sorry, but that just sounds ridiculous to me how anyone could think that.

The story is a creation myth. How can you say the deity isn't part of that myth? It clearly is. Therefore if the myth is false so is the deity.

I would say that it does.

Just saying the opposite and not offering any rationale is kids playground stuff.

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

The story is a creation myth. How can you say the deity isn't part of that myth? It clearly is. Therefore if the myth is false so is the deity.

It's not.

Almost all religions believe in some sort of god, some believe in multiple gods, even some non-religious people believe in a god.

So are you saying if the Christian creation myth is wrong, this automatically implies that it's impossible for any god to exist?


You statement is also completely wrong, you're saying that because a deity is part of a myth, then that deity is also a myth.

By that logic, because the Lord of the Rings books are fictional, and because the books contains a story about humans, then humans are fictional.

That's ridiculous.

There are lots of fictional books which have real things, writing a book about a real thing doesn't make it any less real.

[cobra]

Can you people not see that by saying there is no evidence for god is the same as saying there is no god - no evidence means that "god" has no impact on reality, why care if there is a god that can't do shit?

Why are people talking about aliens? once again - there might be aliens but if there are they will never impact on our lives so why bother thinking about them?

Flea - your last post was a waste of the internet - Saying that the person who is arguing the same non-points as you is right, shot buddy - then a whole pile of quotes from the bible - another strong blow against science - nice work

My bringing up other imaginary beings is that i can not understand how you people decide which fictitious monsters you believe in - what is your decision process when you decide god exists but only crazies believe in the Mexican big foot? - why accept one supernatural being with no evidence but not another?

[Brendan_Chipp]

Flea - your last post was a waste of the internet . . .

I thought it was one of the best posts in this thread. It was well written, well laid out and well thought out, with a tad of good humour too. I accept his rebuke against my posts on faith too. I'm big enough to cop one on the chin.

[Fragin]

It's not.

Almost all religions believe in some sort of god, some believe in multiple gods, even some non-religious people believe in a god.

So are you saying if the the Christian creation myth is wrong, this automatically implies that it's impossible for any god to exist?


You statement is also completely wrong, you're saying that because a deity is part of a myth, then that deity is also a myth.

By that logic, because the Lord of the Rings books are fictional, and because the books contains a story about humans, then humans are fictional.

That's ridiculous.

There are lots of fictional books which have real things, writing a book about a real thing doesn't make it any less real.

I am saying that the deity is part of the myth ie is fundamentally part of the story as written. I don't see how this can be disputed. Therefore if you prove it to be false, the deity dies too. Whether someone thinks the myth is false or not is something separate.

I didn't actually say that if one creation myth is false then it's impossible for any other creation myth to be true but now that i think about it..... yes that's exactly right. It you prove that a story that some people claim is fact, is actually fiction, then a different story that is fundamentally the same but with different names for things is also fiction.

If a work of fiction has real things in it (humans, trees, clouds .... whatever) it doesn't make it any less fictional. Every creation myth has humans in it because that's the point of it - to explain our existence. If a story that explains our existence turns out to be fiction, it doesn't mean that our existence is fiction! It just means the explanation is wrong.


Incidentally, The Lord of the Rings is actually part of a creation myth. Tolkien stated that he didn't think there was much in the way of english myth and legend and he wanted to create some. So he started writing the Silmarillion which ultimately lead to the Lord of the Rings story. (Trivia - first draft of the Silmarillion was written in the trenches of the Somme).

[Phlex]

HA!!
I knew there something dodgey about them clouds,sometimes black(constipated fart),
sometimes white(Diarrhoea) and well i probably shouldn't say what the red clouds are:disappoin

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

I am saying that the deity is part of the myth ie is fundamentally part of the story as written. I don't see how this can be disputed. Therefore if you prove it to be false, the deity dies too.

No, you're wrong.

If the bible was never written, God could still exist, people could still believe in God. The people who wrote the bible already believed God existed before they started writing the bible, not the other way round.


The fast is, many Christians know the book of Genesis is a creation myth, yet they still believe in God. The bible is not a requirement to believe in God, no religious text is, and how 'true' those religious texts are have no bearing on whether a god exists or not. Remember, all religious texts are written by humans.

And i've stated many time I believe the book of Genesis is a creation myth, A myth! How can you prove a myth wrong?

That's like proving Lord of the Rings is a fiction book.

[BerG]

So you believe that if there is life elsewhere in the universe, that this proves the non existance of "God"?

No, I was saying that if we had time travel and a way to observe so we could observe the beginnings of everything, and things naturally becoming, from nothing to something, then we could prove the non existence of god.

Unless of course we observe some old guy with a beard standing there molding planets out of clay.

[Arnifix]

No, I was saying that if we had time travel and a way to observe so we could observe the beginnings of everything, and things naturally becoming, from nothing to something, then we could prove the non existence of god.

Unless of course we observe some old guy with a beard standing there molding planets out of clay.

Sorry Berg, but no. We cannot disprove the existance of God. Neither can we prove it.

SM: The bible is a requirement to believe in God. The bible is not a requirement to believe in a god. God is a Christian deity, and if you believe in god, but haven't read the bible, so sorry, not Christian.

Also, myth, by defintion, is "a traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people." I realise there are other definitions of myths, and I doubt there is one out there that cannot be "proven wrong."

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

No, I was saying that if we had time travel and a way to observe so we could observe the beginnings of everything, and things naturally becoming, from nothing to something, then we could prove the non existence of god.

You keep saying that, yet you still haven't said how it would disprove god.

[BerG]

Because it would.

[Arnifix]

Because it would.

Sigh, Berg, no it wouldn't. As has already been stated, it would disprove the 6 day creation myth.

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

SM: The bible is a requirement to believe in God. The bible is not a requirement to believe in a god. God is a Christian deity, and if you believe in god, but haven't read the bible, so sorry, not Christian.

[QUOTE="Wikipedia ]The name God refers to the deity held by monotheists to be the supreme reality.[/quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

Nothing in there about God being only a Christian deity.

However you do have a point, in order to be Christian, someone would have to believe in Jesus, in order to believe in Jesus they would of had to read the bible, or have knowledge of the bible.

[BerG]

Sigh, Berg, no it wouldn't. As has already been stated, it would disprove the 6 day creation myth.

LOL.

Piss off Arnifix Im just trying to peeve monkey.

[Arnifix]

LOL.

Piss off Arnifix Im just trying to peeve monkey.

It's working, and it's also pissing off anybody with half a brain who's reading this. Disgusted Squirrel is disgusted by your lack of respect for this thread, even if it should have been merged with the other one a long time ago.