|
Post by Liberian Girl on Jan 9, 2018 16:33:06 GMT
There is no scientific "answer" to the mystery of the existence of the world/life that removes the possibility of a creator though, either. But you are right, I know we have gone over this before and I respect your different opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Liberian Girl on Jan 9, 2018 16:49:52 GMT
But I agree that religion can be part of the problem. Sometimes I feel certain atheists (not all, by any means) get more angry/frustrated/resentful of organised religion and then they get more preoccupied with that than the larger picture.
I don't think there is anything wrong with people having a subscribed religion, but using flaws in religion as one of the reasons to dismiss a possible creator seems wrong to me. Obviously religion relies on man's interpretation of the idea of God etc but it has no bearing on whether God exists or not. We can't sum up the possibility of there being a creator just because some olden-day religions are flawed.
Science may one day come up with something that wipes out a possibility of a creator, but it hasn't yet happened, some very intelligent scientists don't necessarily believe in a personal God yet admit to not really being able to explain the mystery of life and existence etc. So if even they can be open minded, with their wealth and depth of knowledge, I'm not going to feel silly for at least thinking there is more to this world than meets the eye and that a creator is at least possible.
I know that nobody can say for certain either way, that is why I openly accept that I have faith that there is a creator. Having said that, it's just as many atheists who talk as if they know all the answers and (even worse) look down on those who believe as if they think they are superior people for not believing. That's what bugs me even more than whether a person believes or not.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Jan 9, 2018 17:07:59 GMT
But I agree that religion can be part of the problem. Sometimes I feel certain atheists (not all, by any means) get more angry/frustrated/resentful of organised religion and then they get more preoccupied with that than the larger picture. I don't think there is anything wrong with people having a subscribed religion, but using flaws in religion as one of the reasons to dismiss a possible creator seems wrong to me. Obviously religion relies on man's interpretation of the idea of God etc but it has no bearing on whether God exists or not. We can't sum up the possibility of there being a creator just because some olden-day religions are flawed. Science may one day come up with something that wipes out a possibility of a creator, but it hasn't yet happened, some very intelligent scientists don't necessarily believe in a personal God yet admit to not really being able to explain the mystery of life and existence etc. So if even they can be open minded, with their wealth and depth of knowledge, I'm not going to feel silly for at least thinking there is more to this world than meets the eye and that a creator is at least possible. I know that nobody can say for certain either way, that is why I openly accept that I have faith that there is a creator. Having said that, it's just as many atheists who talk as if they know all the answers and (even worse) look down on those who believe as if they think they are superior people for not believing. That's what bugs me even more than whether a person believes or not. But for every arrogant atheist looking down on believers there is a condescending theist who thinks to know atheists motives for being atheists more than atheists themselves.
|
|
aazzaabb
Invincible
Posts: 5,792
Member is Online
|
Post by aazzaabb on Jan 9, 2018 17:15:09 GMT
But I agree that religion can be part of the problem. Sometimes I feel certain atheists (not all, by any means) get more angry/frustrated/resentful of organised religion and then they get more preoccupied with that than the larger picture. I don't think there is anything wrong with people having a subscribed religion, but using flaws in religion as one of the reasons to dismiss a possible creator seems wrong to me. Obviously religion relies on man's interpretation of the idea of God etc but it has no bearing on whether God exists or not. We can't sum up the possibility of there being a creator just because some olden-day religions are flawed. Science may one day come up with something that wipes out a possibility of a creator, but it hasn't yet happened, some very intelligent scientists don't necessarily believe in a personal God yet admit to not really being able to explain the mystery of life and existence etc. So if even they can be open minded, with their wealth and depth of knowledge, I'm not going to feel silly for at least thinking there is more to this world than meets the eye and that a creator is at least possible. I know that nobody can say for certain either way, that is why I openly accept that I have faith that there is a creator. Having said that, it's just as many atheists who talk as if they know all the answers and (even worse) look down on those who believe as if they think they are superior people for not believing. That's what bugs me even more than whether a person believes or not. But for every arrogant atheist looking down on believers there is a condescending theist who thinks to know atheists motives for being atheists more than atheists themselves. And this is why I cannot stand this type of debate.
|
|
|
Post by Snow White on Jan 9, 2018 17:23:35 GMT
Because of the fallacy Matty began in this thread, famous philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russell wrote Russel's Teapot to demonstrate how absurd is wanting to place the burden of proof on those of us who don't believe or are skeptical of the existence of God.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Jan 9, 2018 18:24:04 GMT
Also, let me say that when theists say that faith and subjects of faith (such as God) is outside of the realm of science, they are right. That is simply because religions make claims that are not falsifiable - that's not to say those are not false claims - falsifiability is the criteria of any scientific hypothesis and it is a good thing, not a bad thing, because it subjects the hypothesis tests and critique. Religion simply does not and cannot go through similar tests - and that's why it is a weaker way to grasp reality. But I digress.
What I really wanted to say is that while theists often declare (rightly) that religion or subjects of faith are outside the realm of science, they still very often look for scientific approval. It is not for nothing that you have all the religious organizations and websites trying to argue for creationism, for example, by scientific methods (and usually ending up being beaten up badly by evolutionary scientists - I mean in debate, not physically, LOL). It's not for nothing that often you see theists be offended by the mere suggestion that the idea of a God is not scientific. I feel like they want to have some approval by science. That kind of suggests to me that they do feel inside that to be scientifically proven is more than just belief.
|
|
aazzaabb
Invincible
Posts: 5,792
Member is Online
|
Post by aazzaabb on Jan 9, 2018 19:11:17 GMT
Personally I don't believe in any religion but I do believe there is something more. This belief dosent require me to prove anything to anyone as I could care less what people believe or don't believe.
|
|
|
Post by LindavG on Jan 9, 2018 21:42:19 GMT
I personally see the perfect complexity of life itself as proof of some kind of intelligent design, ergo, proof of a creator That argument never made sense to me personally. If life is so complex that it could only have been designed by an intelligent creator, who created the creator then? Did he just poof into existence, all-knowing and all-powerful? It just seems very arbitrary to me. If the creator doesn't require a higher power then why does nature? I'm not sure there is a burden of proof. It's called faith for a reason. There might not be a burden of proof in a legal or scientific sense but if you make an extraordinary claim and want it to be respected and accepted by others, it does fall on you to provide objective evidence for it. And if you don't have that evidence, feel free to call it faith but don't be upset when others dismiss your claim because they don't share your faith and don't assume they are rude, arrogant or narrow-minded for doing so. The proof is that there IS life/our world at all, in the first place. If something, like a large blue ball appeared in your bedroom one night and just floated there and grew and adapted, you would ask "Who put that there and where did it come from?" The fact that you think it's silly to ask the same of something as complex as this world and the many forms of life, is quite staggering to be honest. We all ask ourselves that question, theists and atheists alike (although my first instict would be to ask "how did it get there and where did it come from?"). The difference is that theists generally presume to know not only who put that large blue ball there but also exactly why, how and when. They're the ones who have stopped wondering and asking questions because they think their religion provides all the answers and anything that contradicts it is by definition wrong. What can be more narrow-minded than that?
|
|
aazzaabb
Invincible
Posts: 5,792
Member is Online
|
Post by aazzaabb on Jan 9, 2018 21:52:26 GMT
I personally see the perfect complexity of life itself as proof of some kind of intelligent design, ergo, proof of a creator That argument never made sense to me personally. If life is so complex that it could only have been designed by an intelligent creator, who created the creator then? Did he just poof into existence, all-knowing and all-powerful? It just seems very arbitrary to me. If the creator doesn't require a higher power then why does nature? I'm not sure there is a burden of proof. It's called faith for a reason. There might not be a burden of proof in a legal or scientific sense but if you make an extraordinary claim and want it to be respected and accepted by others, it does fall on you to provide objective evidence for it. And if you don't have that evidence, feel free to call it faith but don't be upset when others dismiss your claim because they don't share your faith and don't assume they are rude, arrogant or narrow-minded for doing so. The proof is that there IS life/our world at all, in the first place. If something, like a large blue ball appeared in your bedroom one night and just floated there and grew and adapted, you would ask "Who put that there and where did it come from?" The fact that you think it's silly to ask the same of something as complex as this world and the many forms of life, is quite staggering to be honest. We all ask ourselves that question, theists and atheists alike (although my first instict would be to ask "how did it get there and where did it come from?"). The difference is that theists generally presume to know not only who put that large blue ball there but also exactly why, how and when. They're the ones who have stopped wondering and asking questions because they think their religion provides all the answers and anything that contradicts it is by definition wrong. What can be more narrow-minded than that? Eh.....yeah.....thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Snow White on Jan 9, 2018 22:09:49 GMT
Personally I don't believe in any religion but I do believe there is something more. This belief dosent require me to prove anything to anyone as I could care less what people believe or don't believe. If you claim not care to prove your belief to others you'd have stood for my inquiry. The moment I stated there is no proof God exists, the 3 of you wanted to flip the coin on me atheists cannot prove the inexistence of a creator. The inability to grasp science, what occurs in nature, the universe, etc doesn't mean God is the answer for what we cannot understand and don't know. You're still using the God of gaps fallacy, that's not an argument, neither is ignorance.
|
|
aazzaabb
Invincible
Posts: 5,792
Member is Online
|
Post by aazzaabb on Jan 9, 2018 22:24:42 GMT
Personally I don't believe in any religion but I do believe there is something more. This belief dosent require me to prove anything to anyone as I could care less what people believe or don't believe. If you claim not care to prove your belief to others you'd have stood for my inquiry. The moment I stated there is no proof God exists, the 3 of you wanted to flip the coin on me atheists cannot prove the inexistence of a creator. The inability to grasp science, what occurs in nature, the universe, etc doesn't mean God is the answer for what we cannot understand and don't know. You're still using the God of gaps fallacy, that's not an argument, neither is ignorance. I'm genuinely not sure what your saying in your first few sentences? "Stand for your inquiry" ?? Yourself and LindavG are putting all sorts of words in my mouth though that I never said. Me, Personally, I, believe there's more to MY existence than right here and now. That is all I've said, that is all I'm saying.
|
|
|
Post by LindavG on Jan 9, 2018 22:33:57 GMT
That's true. But in the same way that this cannot be fully ruled out, gazillion other explanations also cannot be ruled out (e.g. that, as respect77 said, the Flying Spaghetti Monster created this world). The only scientifically tenable position is thus to indeed see the existence of the world as a mystery we hope to continue to uncover. That is my philosophy too. I think we have barely scratched the surface in terms of our knowledge of the natural world and more answers will come in due time. Rather than saying "there is no scientific explanation for X so therefore it must be supernatural" I tend to think "there is no explanation for X yet but let's wait and see what the future brings". After all, there are lots of things that used to be ascribed to the supernatural but for which we now have a perfectly natural explanation. I honestly have no idea how this can be construed as arrogant or narrow-minded.
|
|
|
Post by LindavG on Jan 9, 2018 22:35:45 GMT
Yourself and LindavG are putting all sorts of words in my mouth though that I never said. Me, Personally, I, believe there's more to MY existence than right here and now. That is all I've said, that is all I'm saying. FWIW, I was using "you" in the general sense in my response to you. I was going to write "one" first but that sounds so weird and old-fashioned. Blame the limits of the English language
|
|
aazzaabb
Invincible
Posts: 5,792
Member is Online
|
Post by aazzaabb on Jan 9, 2018 22:42:50 GMT
That's true. But in the same way that this cannot be fully ruled out, gazillion other explanations also cannot be ruled out (e.g. that, as respect77 said, the Flying Spaghetti Monster created this world). The only scientifically tenable position is thus to indeed see the existence of the world as a mystery we hope to continue to uncover. That is my philosophy too. I think we have barely scratched the surface in terms of our knowledge of the natural world and more answers will come in due time. Rather than saying "there is no scientific explanation for X so therefore it must be supernatural" I tend to think "there is no explanation for X yet but let's wait and see what the future brings". After all, there are lots of things that used to be ascribed to the supernatural but for which we now have a perfectly natural explanation. I honestly have no idea how this can be construed as arrogant or narrow-minded. I understand what you're saying, I even subscribe to what SoCav is saying to an extent but I would go one further and say the existence of the universe and beyoned that. I also don't think science will eventually explain everything we don't understand. I believe as human's we're not and probably will never be evolved enough to know everything. Just to be clear here, I haven't accused anyone of being arrogant or narrow minded.
|
|
aazzaabb
Invincible
Posts: 5,792
Member is Online
|
Post by aazzaabb on Jan 9, 2018 22:49:03 GMT
Yourself and LindavG are putting all sorts of words in my mouth though that I never said. Me, Personally, I, believe there's more to MY existence than right here and now. That is all I've said, that is all I'm saying. FWIW, I was using "you" in the general sense in my response to you. I was going to write "one" first but that sounds so weird and old-fashioned. Blame the limits of the English language Thanks. This is one thing I'm always concerned about online is that people don't understand when I'm generalizing -which I probably do too much- or when I'm agreeing with part of a point, or if they think I'm being passive aggressive or argumentative. Personally I don't believe in religion.
|
|