Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread

[spliff]

well its not religions the problem its the people the read the book and interprit it wrong and start wars over it, religion makes more trubble than its worth, it even pits to brothers agnest each other to the point thay whant to kill each other.

religion is bad any and all religions are bad because of people. end of argument i win

I agree with you that religion causes lots of problems in society, but there are also many good things about religion.

But the thing is; it's not as simple as just 'religion VS science', there's a lot more to it. Which is why, as $lim shot pointed out, the title of this thread is actually pretty stupid.

PS. I'm not religious at all, but I believe there is a high possibility of the existence of (a) God.

[KiLL3r]

So basically, the existence of God is infinite. It's a difficult concept to grasp, I know, just the concept of inifinity alone is difficult to comprehend. It doesn't need to have been created by something, because it is the necessary being that holds the reason for existence and is the sufficient reason for the existence of all contingent being

thats the stupidest argument yet. your basically being bias towards your beliefs.

ie

Its ok for god to be infinite
But its not ok for the universe to be infinite



give me 1 good reason why the universe cant be omnipresence but your god can?

[spliff]

because it's already been proven that the universe has not existed forever. Didn't I already point that out to you?

if you are talking about the size of the universe however, it is indeed quite possible that the universe is infinite in size.

and no I'm not being biased, that wasn't even my own explanation.

[philo-sofa]

Hmm :bounce:

I'm sure a philosopher or something could no doubt explain (this) better than I can

Sold.

- The cosmological argument argues that there was a "first cause", or "prime mover" who is identified as God.

And fails as it falls prey to the problem that God must A) be considered infinite whilst B) the meta-universe could equally be infinite - resulting in no cause for a God.

- The teleological argument argues that the universe's order and complexity are best explained by reference to a creator god.

And fails because it introduces a complex unobserved element thus failing to simplify the cause.

- The ontological argument is based on arguments about a "being greater than which can not be conceived". Alvin Plantinga formulates this argument to show that if it is logically possible for God (a necessary being) to exist, then God exists.[14]

 

Works fine if we already assume there is a God.  Which is actually the most fail argument form EVER.  Without the assumption of a God it falls flat on its face.  There is also a modal logic issue somewhere that is contentious, but can't remember what it is.

- The mind-body problem argument suggests that the relation of consciousness to materiality is best understood in terms of the existence of God.

 

It is the easiest explanation if one accepts the premises of Dualism (generally not accepted), but is not the only, or logically consistent best argument.

- Arguments that some non-physical quality observed in the universe is of fundamental importance and not an epiphenomenon, such as justice, beauty, love or religious experience are arguments for theism as against materialism.

 

Is valid if we accept the premise "there is some objectively valid value to things within the universe".  This is true if we accept either:

The premise P1 - "humanity's judgement defines something as objectively worthwhile" which relies on the premise P1a "humanity is somehow special and a judge of worthiness" which is unfortunately only true if we accept premise P1b "there is such a thing as an objectively worthwhile thing" which is unfortunately a re-worded version of P1 - resulting in a circular argument.

Or the premise P2 - "God finds it worthwhile" which is question begging.

- The anthropic argument suggests that basic facts, such as our existence, are best explained by the existence of God.

 

And is a modern name for the Teleological argument, which if you recall: "fails because it introduces a complex unobserved element thus failing to simplify the cause."

-The moral argument argues that the existence of objective morality depends on the existence of God.

If we accept P1 (no God) then there is no objective  morality (Q).  If we accept no P1 (God) then there is objective morality (no Q).  The argument makes to statement unless we assume there is objective morality and thus 'deny the consequent' in a Modus Tollens argument.  So even if we accept the argument (it's generally not) it depends on the idea that there 'must' be an objective morality.

- The transcendental argument suggests that logic, science, ethics, and other things we take seriously do not make sense in the absence of God, and that atheistic arguments must ultimately refute themselves if pressed with rigorous consistency.

Actually quite hard to resolve with certainty, except for the fact that as a logical argument:

If we accept P1 (no God) then it falls apart just as much as any other argument.  If we accept there is God (no P1), then the argument is question begging, which is a logical fallacy.

Thus: If P1, then 'no God' and simultaneously 'no statement either way'.  If no P1 then no statement either way.

- The will to believe doctrine was pragmatist philosopher William James' attempt to prove God by showing that the adoption of theism as a hypothesis "works" in a believer's life. This doctrine depended heavily on James' pragmatic theory of truth where beliefs are proven by how they work when adopted rather than by proofs before they are believed (a form of the hypothetico-deductive method).

I direct your attention to the premise in italics.

- Arguments based on claims of miracles wrought by God associated with specific historical events or personages.

Logically it's less sound to believe in them than to believe they're untrue without further evidence. It's a long explanation to support that and I can't be assed as it's such a ridiculous argument given the rather dubious nature of the recorded religious texts.

[spliff]

What the fuck.... you're arguing with a wiki article :/

I already told you, I'm not really interested in reading what you have to say anymore. A) I can't understand half of what you're saying B) Your beliefs conflict with my beliefs, and for that reason I find it to be an ultimately pointless discussion.

also, I only just got the play-of-words of your nickname

[philo-sofa]

What the fuck.... you're arguing with a wiki article :/

The Wikipedia articles state the arguments Spliff.  The articles do not say that they prove God exists.  I am spelling out the 'defeaters' to each of the arguments you copied and pasted from Wikipedia.

[spliff]

I know, I purposefully left out the 'Arguments against existence of God' bit because that is not part of what I was trying to explain to Blackheart...

[Black Heart]

well I know what the word conceive means. Theologians invented god, as it was the only answer to life the universe and everything that they could muster.

good luck trying to maintain that thought,  while science discover more about the universe almost daily.

I'm sticking with the progressive rather than the stuck in dark ages thinking, at least striving for an answer has value, as opposed to resigning yourself to the idea you will never know.

[spliff]

Theologians invented god, as it was the only answer to life the universe and everything that they could muster.

You can't invent something that might already exist... they would have invented their own ideas and beliefs about God, I think is what you mean..

good luck trying to maintain that thought,  while science discover more about the universe almost daily.

I'm sticking with the progressive rather than the stuck in dark ages thinking, at least striving for an answer has value, as opposed to resigning yourself to the idea you will never know.

Science will never know or have all the answers either, so where does that leave you?

[Zarathrustra]

You can't invent something that might already exist... they would have invented their own ideas and beliefs about God, I think is what you mean..

That makes no sense.

good luck trying to maintain that thought,  while science discover more about the universe almost daily.

I'm sticking with the progressive rather than the stuck in dark ages thinking, at least striving for an answer has value, as opposed to resigning yourself to the idea you will never know.

Science will never know or have all the answers either, so where does that leave you?

That makes even less.





ffs, if you people want to argue for 'god', you've got a bloody hard task ahead of you, and nothing you say will ever make any real sense to most 'sensible' people.  So why bother?

[spliff]

meh, I'm not trying to argue for God, I don't give a shit what any of you think in all honesty I'm just bored. What doesn't make sense about science never being able to have all the answers for the existence of everything? That doesn't make sense to you..?

[Zarathrustra]

meh, I'm not trying to argue for God, I don't give a shit what any of you think in all honesty I'm just bored. What doesn't make sense about science never being able to have all the answers for the existence of everything? That doesn't make sense to you..?

The  standalone statement does, but it doesn't in context to the statement it was refuting.


Sorry, I'll ignore this thread for another 6 months, again.  It makes me angry :p

[KiLL3r]

meh, I'm not trying to argue for God, I don't give a shit what any of you think in all honesty I'm just bored. What doesn't make sense about science never being able to have all the answers for the existence of everything? That doesn't make sense to you..?

not one bit. science will always endevour to learn new things.

we arnt bias towards one side. Scientific advance in either direction is still an advance.

Unlike religion which merely does the opposite. No matter what the evidence it will always stay the same, usually prefering to move backwards rather than forwards

[Zarathrustra]

meh, I'm not trying to argue for God, I don't give a shit what any of you think in all honesty I'm just bored. What doesn't make sense about science never being able to have all the answers for the existence of everything? That doesn't make sense to you..?

Ok, what I really took issue with, was the way you seem to liken the shortcomings of Science (the art of discovery), with the shortcomings of Religion (the sin of blind dogmatic faith).

Ok, I'll leave now :chuckle:

Edit: What KiLL3r said.

[Slim]

@ Killer - God your're unintelligent.

The Christian faith has evolved dramatically over the last 100 years - away from Dogma and Canonical law and towards a more accepting faith akin to what it should have been from the start.  Much of Islam is the same.  You seem to just take the tiny minority of extremists found in any religion and use them to exemplify the religion as a whole.

[philo-sofa]

I already told you, I'm not really interested in reading what you have to say anymore. A) I can't understand half of what you're saying B) Your beliefs conflict with my beliefs, and for that reason I find it to be an ultimately pointless discussion.

also, I only just got the play-of-words of your nickname

What I say isn't exactly complicated.  If you don't wanna read then you could always just accept my conclusions.  Also, if you're only interested in discussing things with people whose beliefs don't contradict yours, where does that leave you, here or in RL?

[Zarathrustra]

@ Killer - God your're unintelligent.

The Christian faith has evolved dramatically over the last 100 years - away from Dogma and Canonical law and towards a more accepting faith akin to what it should have been from the start.  Much of Islam is the same.  You seem to just take the tiny minority of extremists found in any religion and use them to exemplify the religion as a whole.

Just because they stop burning people and concede the irrefutable fact that the earth is round, and not the centre of the universe (...oh wait), doesn't make them any less dogmatic, in the overall scheme of things.

You don't go to church to learn.  You go to help soften your fear of the unknown, and, of course...death.

[cnvrt02]

here or in RL?

last i checked this was RL.. :sly:

[Dr Woomanchu]

not one bit. science will always endevour to learn new things.

we arnt bias towards one side. Scientific advance in either direction is still an advance.

Unlike religion which merely does the opposite. No matter what the evidence it will always stay the same, usually prefering to move backwards rather than forwards

Have to disagree Killer. religion is a uniquely human thing. It changes as cultures do. the "truth" has to be compatible with current thinking. cf attitudes to women, slavery, torture etc.

It was always fun as a child asking the NT focussed clergy about OT concubines etc

[Ngati_Grim]

Sorry, I'll ignore this thread for another 6 months, again.  It makes me angry :p

Thus spake Zarathustra

[KiLL3r]

Have to disagree Killer. religion is a uniquely human thing. It changes as cultures do. the "truth" has to be compatible with current thinking. cf attitudes to women, slavery, torture etc.

It was always fun as a child asking the NT focussed clergy about OT concubines etc

sorry i was primarily referring to their God not their principles, i shoulda said that.


i loved winding up a RE teacher in primary school. The woman told me cavemen and dinosaurs never existed but when i asked what about all the evidence: bones, cave drawings etc she ignored me for the rest of the lesson

[philo-sofa]

last i checked this was RL.. :sly:

Back to sleep there Cnvrt... hush now

sorry i was primarily referring to their God not their principles, i shoulda said that.


i loved winding up a RE teacher in primary school. The woman told me cavemen and dinosaurs never existed but when i asked what about all the evidence: bones, cave drawings etc she ignored me for the rest of the lesson

Back when I was a kid and didn't realise that I was wrong half the time I did the same.  Once we all got into the RE teacher's 'cache' of Bibles when she was out of the room and started throwing them around in a sort of foodfight way.  When she came back in she had this horrified expression on her face and was like "where did you get those???".  I was like "it came from the sky! :innocent:"  I got a weeks detention or something, but at the time it was massive lolz. We all felt a pretty bad when she resigned tho...

[spliff]

not one bit. science will always endevour to learn new things.

we arnt bias towards one side.

Who's we? you're not a scientist, hell you weren't even aware that our universe hasn't existed forever :/

Scientific advance in either direction is still an advance.

Unlike religion which merely does the opposite. No matter what the evidence it will always stay the same, usually prefering to move backwards rather than forwards

You still don't fucking get it do you, it's not just 'Science VS Religion', there's more to it than that, open your fucking mind instead of being stuck in your narrow little perspectives just because you dislike the ideas of religions

I respect science of course and find it immensely interesting, and yes I know science is constantly advancing, but there are just some things that science cannot and will not ever be able to explain, get fucking used to it.

and one last time: I'M NOT RELIGIOUS. So your preaching about religions is falling on deaf ears.

[KiLL3r]

Who's we? you're not a scientist, hell you weren't even aware that our universe hasn't existed forever :/



You still don't fucking get it do you, it's not just 'Science VS Religion', there's more to it than that, open your fucking mind instead of being stuck in your narrow little perspectives just because you dislike the ideas of religions

I respect science of course and find it immensely interesting, and yes I know science is constantly advancing, but there are just some things that science cannot and will not ever be able to explain, get fucking used to it.

and one last time: I'M NOT RELIGIOUS. So your preaching about religions is falling on deaf ears.

First off settle down. No need to go aggro over nothing.

Now to business.

You have conclusive proof the universe hasnt been around forever? How do you know the universe wasnt the beginning of everything which would mean it has been around "forever".

Secondly whatever caused the big bang was around before the universe and after the big bang became part of it so it could be stated that the universe or parts of it have beena round forever.


Heres for the lol bits of your post which made me crackup

i think the majority here will agree with me when i say your are the one with the closed mind attitude. (Hypocrisy at its best)

Also for someone who has immense interest and respect for science you seem to know very little about it.



Also this thread isnt just about you which you seem to think. Thats why i talk about religion not just to satisfy your ego.

[spliff]

First off settle down. No need to go aggro over nothing.

Now to business.

You have conclusive proof the universe hasnt been around forever? How do you know the universe wasnt the beginning of everything which would mean it has been around "forever".

What the fuck?

Secondly whatever caused the big bang was around before the universe and after the big bang became part of it so it could be stated that the universe or parts of it have beena round forever.

Again, what the fuck?

Heres for the lol bits of your post which made me crackup

i think the majority here will agree with me when i say your are the one with the closed mind attitude. (Hypocrisy at its best)

What exactly is close-minded about my attitude, tell me?

Also for someone who has immense interest and respect for science you seem to know very little about it.

More than you obviously do...

Also this thread isnt just about you which you seem to think. Thats why i talk about religion not just to satisfy your ego.

Seriously, what in the fuck....? :sly: