Creation isn't where the gods people believe in stop. Every religion gives god the properties of a creator that wouldn't create the universe we actually live in.
Last edited:
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
An unfair characterization, I think. Faith is usually (but not always, in the case of some) based upon the evidence available to them. If I say I have faith in Ibrahimovic's ability to score, it's due to evidence gathered.
It seems to me that you claim that a) you know every religion gives God such properties and b) you know that God wouldn't have created the universe in the way that He has. This seems to me a tremendous amount of knowledge you claim to have...
No you can't.
No. It is evidence based.
This is exactly the point. If something is supernatural then it isn't physical. That only leaves energy. So if a god or a ghost or whatever other supernatural can't be energy then it can't exist at all.
Of course it is. Barring a few utter loons all religious people accept this except for their one blind spot. They don't walk off cliffs or jump in front of trains believing all will be well due to the evidence. Their whole lives are ruled by evidence based decision making. With one exception.
Ahhh. Sorry missed your point.
Can you descibe any concept of god that is not at odds with science?
You only need to know two things. Is your god all powerful? Is your god good? If the answer to both is yes then that god is at odds with the universe. That's without even getting into the minutiae of the charlatans who create religions.
a) it is irrelevant as they all have certain virtually impossible things in common.
b) that makes no sense at all. We can now explain the world and universe much better without inventing a god.
If the computer simulation hypothesis went on say "And the computer programmers are good", it would be instantly falsified.
It's really not. Faith in a god is not based on any verifiable evidence. If it was, it wouldn't be faith.
All of which are attempts to justify the existance of a 'creator' figure, whilst ignoring everything we know about how the universe works, and completely ignoring any further questions about how the creation of this creator occured. The universe comprises everything we know to exist, so to just say 'He exists outside the universe' is a very odd statement, as it demands that suddenly there's a greater realm beyond anything we've ever seen and for which there is absolutely zero evidence of any kind.
As for Jesus that's even weirder quite frankly, humanoid species have existed for at least a couple of millions years, yet apparently this timeless, all powerful creator only bothered to manifest directly just over 2 thousand years ago, with a message that contradicted his previous statements to the species.
Believing in a realm we've never seen and for which there is absolutely zero evidence of any kind is surely exactly what faith is all about? This is precisely at the heart of the point I'm trying to make to McUnited: it is inherently at odds with scientific method to take a position of faith. It is entirely up to the individual whether they have faith or not (leaving aside the weird, to me, idea that you can choose to have faith or to not), but it surely must be conceded that faith is, at best, an uncomfortable bed fellow of the scientific pursuit.
Pfft, what about rechargeable ghosts, 'Professor' Cox? What about that, eh? Eh? And so on.
Do you have faith that your wife (if you have one) won't cheat on you? Do you have evidence to support this faith?
These are reasonable objections, but ones that I think can be fairly easily rebutted.
1a) Positing a creator doesn't ignore everything we know about how the universe works. In fact, it's an inference to the best explanation, from the way we know how the universe works, i.e. things don't just pop into existence - everything that begins to exist has a cause.
1b) The objection about the creator needed an explanation of its own creation is misguided since God is by definition an eternal being, i.e. uncreated.
2) I don't see the timing of His appearance as an issue at all. Going on your timescale, in a couple of million years time homo sapientissimus may look back and say 'wow, Jesus appeared slap bang in the middle of the existence of the humanoid species'.
Low blow, automatic debate disqualification, Rex wins.
I don't know if that was meant to be a flippant comment, but it would indeed undermine the Professor's position!
How is that a low blow? I have no knowledge of his personal life. Disqualification revoked. Silva removed from umpiring duties.
It's the "I fecked your brother" of disagreements. Once you're relying on "how do you know your wife's not blowing someone right now?", the debates broken down and the offending party loses.
I seem to be repeating myself. Faith is based on reason and evidence, not on lack of evidence - the word comes from the Latin 'fides' (trust). I have trust (on the basis of evidence presented to me) that God exists. I had faith (trust) in the ability of Ferguson to motivate his players.
I find your reasoning hard to follow. The issue under discussion is faith. I was illustrating the idea that faith is based upon evidence.
Not a good comparison. It's like asking whether you have 'faith' that your house isn't going to collapse and kill you in your sleep. Sure it could happen, but the likelihood is low. Religious faith requires belief in something that logically is irrational. There's no reason why a god should exist, it goes against everything we know about the universe, but you just believe it because you've decided you want to. That's not comparable to trusting in day to day things we can actually determine overall probabilities for.
A better comparison would be something like 'Do you have faith that your invisible wife who follows you everywhere on a giant magic dolphin (and is all powerful and could cure all illnesses and prevent natural disasters if she wanted to (but she apparently doesnt)) won't cheat on you?'.
You were making an analogy and went straight for the balls man, that's a DQ.
1) This is simply an assertion. I could equally assert that religious faith is belief in something that is rational. That there are plenty of reasons why a God should exist, that is goes completely with everything we know about the universe, that you have just decided to believe in his non-existence because you've decided that you want to.
And, yes, it is indeed a probability argument. When you propose to your girlfriend (boyfriend?) you do so on the balance of evidence gathered so far. Yet many marriages end in divorce. The leap you make is one of faith. For some, the bridge jumped is wide. For others, they've narrowed the gap.
2) Your comparison is silly.
Your trust in Ferguson to motivate his players is based on the evidence that he could, and did, motivate his players: i.e. an evidence and observation based precedent. I have no desire to debate or question your faith, but you must be able to see why your faith in Ferguson is based on a different level of evidence and reason than faith in your God...the level of evidence and reason used to affirm your religious faith would not be sufficient in science to support a hypothesis, which is the only point I'm trying to make. I suspect you'll disagree and consider that your level of reasoning and evidence for God's existence is the same as that of science, so at the risk of you repeating yourself further, perhaps it's best we leave it at that.
I didn't realise that was in the rulebook...
Erm..
So you've just admitted that things dont just 'pop into existence' yet you're absolutely fine to completely ignore that for a creator figure. Why exactly does this creator of yours get to suddenly ignore the rules that everything else has to work by?
Why would that make it any better? If you're all powerful and eternal and dispensing a set of rules on how a species should live their entire lives then how exactly does it make any sense to a) not bother for the first couple of million years, then b) dispense some rules for a thousand years or so, then c) manifest yourself and set a new load of rules which contradict the previous ones?
Besides, when you provide a real world example you're going to get an actual answer, in this case his faith should be around 60%. Whereas faith in religion has nothing of the sort to offer, after all 0% of the gods people believe in can be polled by researchers.
I don't think scientific enquiry is the method theists use to reach the conclusion that God exists. Well, not me anyway. Science can't be used to test the immaterial, since it operates in a material sphere. (And hence, they're not in conflict). Scientific knowledge, on the other hand, can be used to infer the best explanation for a hypothesis - namely, that God exists.
He didn't just pop-up. We created him. Then he created us back as payment.
I refer you to Carl Sagan's famous saying "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". You're the one positing an incredible thing, so the burden of proof lies on you.
I don't see how its any more silly than an invisible god who manifests as a human born to a virgin, gets himself crucified for no real reason, and then apparently that washes away a load of other people's sins. Oh and who then reincarnates for a few days before leaving, again for no real discernable reason other than to show off.
Imagine that today.
"Joseph, I'm pregnant."
"But I never shagged you!"
"It was God"
"Oh, right then."
"Joseph, I'm pregnant."
"But I never shagged you!"
"It was God"
"Oh, right then."
It's an amazing coincidence that gods jizz seemed to match that of a local male.
1) Because a Creator is, by definition, uncreated. Either the universe created itself, or was created by an uncreated Creator. The buck has to stop somewhere.
Sagan's saying was articulated by Hume in his essay On Miracles. I commend to you John Earman's Hume's Abject Failure, which, I think, totally demolishes his and Sagan's argument --> http://pitt.edu/~jearman/Earman2000HumeAbjectFailure.pdf
Aren't caricatures easy to knock down?
That wasn't Joseph's reaction, was it?
If we are positing that God is responsible for the material laws and existence of the Universe at least (never mind the creation of life, divine intervention and many other aspects depending upon the individuals level of belief) it is hard to suggest that God does not operate in the material sphere.
I guess that many people don't deploy separate criteria for one aspect of reality. I am one of those people, hence I suspect we'll never agree, as I would not exclude the creator of all nature from the scientific method of enquiry as I attempted to assess the veracity of religious claims, and would be unable to do so, in the manner you clearly can. I'm not going to pretend to understand your position, in the same way that I doubted that you'd agree when I state that I believe that all questions can, and should, be explored using the scientific method. I cannot think of any scientific knowledge that produces a positive result when testing the hypothesis "God exists" in any field of science with which I'm familiar. In fact, I struggle to reconcile your final sentence with your third.
I have no desire for you to feel that I am challenging your faith and I have no desire to do so, but it is genuinely interesting to me to have this sort of dialogue with someone who is very far from my position on the religious continuum. I hope you take the debate in the spirit intended.
You have faith in polls?
err
