Does God Have A Future?

ABC News Review Of The Event

Skeptics Michael Shermer and Sam Harris debate Deepak Chopra and Jean Houston on the topic: does god have a future. Is science encroaching on the ideas of god and religion or is it boosting belief in gods and deities?

The full debate on Youtube

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Well for me its doing neither ATM but hey, I believe in the end science will Have no choice but to accept the idea of a creator being the only logical explanation cause if not... I'm wrong

You wont see me sit up there but that Deepak? is just making theology sound very VERY WOOHOO

[edit on 20-5-2010 by faceoff85]

Well science will not have the answers in 100 years for "everything" so by saying that people will still cling to god. Until they have 100% and I mean 100% answers then god might not have a future. But who knows we are already finding tons of mysteries out there. I have always wondered "if" those skeptics actually saw proof of god i bet they would deny it anyway. The sceptics these days are atheists, they are skeptical to the degree that they only believe in their one sided argument. To be a skepitc you got to find every explanation available and approach it with an opened mind. Skeptics these days "just" try to debunk supernatural and never take it into account. Great Link though. S&F

Originally posted by faceoff85
I believe in the end science will Have no choice but to accept the idea of a creator being the only logical explanation

Science appears to believe the idea as somewhat illogical and a shortcut/easy way out of the hard question of origins.

Conversely those that claim a creator is responsible seem successful at avoiding the HOW and WHY the alleged creator created everything. Also, little account is made for what appears to be the fragile and inefficient thown-together appearance of "creation".

The debate itself (on Youtube) is really very good.

God has a future, but I'm not too sure about mankind.

Science answers how. Science can never answer why. Science does not know the inner nature of particles, singularities or even gravity. They got theory’s on how it happened. But never why.

Originally posted by Maddogkull
I have always wondered "if" those skeptics actually saw proof of god i bet they would deny it anyway. The sceptics these days are atheists, they are skeptical to the degree that they only believe in their one sided argument. To be a skepitc you got to find every explanation available and approach it with an opened mind. Skeptics these days "just" try to debunk supernatural and never take it into account. Great Link though. S&F

It's possible that some atheists may still attempt to deny existence of god if presented with irrefutable proof but they'd be a rare bunch. Most atheists operate on that lack of irrefutable evidence and should one day that present itself there would be no reason to question it further. They would no longer have to believe in gods or accept it on faith alone: it would become a foundation of our knowledge base and the remaining atheists would become de facto denialists.

Originally posted by Maddogkull
Science answers how. Science can never answer why.

Perhaps not, but creationism answers neither how or why. The how and why is simply accepted and/or never addressed.

reply to post by Maddogkull


I dont think thats entirely accurate... I havent seen it all yet but the discussion is indeed entertaining... but science does indeed answer a few why's but they havent advanced far enough (if they even can advance that far)
to adress the BIG why? I mean explaining the workings of the beginning of the universe is a different story from explaining what set of those workings in the first place... The big bang is what started the universe but what started the big bang? Bear in mind that something like a big bang takes an unimaginable amount of energy, now take the law of energy. so where did that energy come from? The bible mentions god to be a source of dynamic energy.
But it could also be a cycle.... I've heard of theories where the universe expands only to shrink again back to the source after wich the cycle starts over

[edit on 20-5-2010 by faceoff85]

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Well I think creationism is stupid (well the way Christians and new agers present it) but after reading a lot of Roger Penrose’s theories/ the universe is way more mysterious then we think. The universe goes by highly intelligent laws. People might just call these simple laws but the whole universe is finely tuned for life. Law of thermodynamics 2nd law says entropy gets more random as time goes on. So right after the big bang people mistake it being randomly chaotic but really it was in a highly organized state right after, (if the big bang is real there are a lot of great threads on here debunking mainstream science). I honestly hope scientists get over the whole if you believe in something supernatural then you’re a whoo hoo and you should believe in unicorns. That is the most stupid response I have ever heard from atheists just shows their ignorance. I am biased as I think everyone should be agnostic, and not judge whether there is a god or not until presented with irrefutable evidence. Which none on both sides has been presented. For that reason alone I am staying in the middle.

reply to post by faceoff85


They don’t have the answers why. Want to hear their explanation for the big bang? Either a Big bounce (what happens before that?) Or quantum fluctuations. Scientists don’t understand quantum physics. They do understand some, but I forgot what famous scientists said it but if you say that you can understand quantum physics and quantum mechanics, you are not a true scientist. The more one dulges farther within the quantum realm the more random and confused one gets. What started the quantum fluctuation that started off the big bang? Was there even a big bang?

The more answers of how it happened, twice as many questions on why it happened arises.

[edit on 20-5-2010 by Maddogkull]

reply to post by Maddogkull


I know its not an answer but the bible tells that humans would never be able to completely search trough all of "creation" (the context in wich this was mentioned was when people regained everlasting life they wouldn't need to fear being bored after studying everything since there is no end to what can be study'd) this is surely shown by scientists today... all we hear is, the more they find out, the more questions arise from their new findings..

reply to post by faceoff85


Agreed.

.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Maddogkull
Science answers how. Science can never answer why.

Perhaps not, but creationism answers neither how or why. The how and why is simply accepted and/or never addressed.

Creationism doesn't explain how... but it surely gives a why.... now wether you like, or believe in the why presented is another story but it surely gives a why...
I think its more accurate to say scientists try to find the how and why and come up with answers trough experimentation and study, while creationism focuses on why leaving the how on the side...

[edit on 20-5-2010 by faceoff85]

Originally posted by Maddogkull
I am biased as I think everyone should be agnostic, and not judge whether there is a god or not until presented with irrefutable evidence.

Sure. Anyone truly skeptical has to leave the possibility open that irrefutable evidence will present itself. But what if we were to apply this thinking to other issues such as the existence of the easter bunny or santa claus? The reasonable person will deny the likelihood of their existence wholesale - because on the face it seems absurd. The atheist applies the same reasoning to the existence of deities: reaching a certitude that the likelihood of such evidence ever arriving is so slim that hoping for it becomes illogical.

I believe agnostics are hesitant to arrive at this conclusion simply because so many people from so many cultures have a belief in deities that they think there must be something to it based on consensus alone. The atheist remains unaffected by consensus and focuses on percentage of likelihood of irrefutable evidence ever arriving.

Originally posted by faceoff85
Creationism doesn't explain how... but it surely gives a why.... now wether you like, or believe in the why presented is another story but it surely gives a why...

I believe you may be referring to the christian creation story, which basically claims the entire universe was made in mind for a single primate species on a hot planet in a solar system on the outer edge of an unremarkable galaxy.

I suppose that is possible but you have to accept that on the word of bronze-aged literature alone.

I believe this same story claims a "how" also: that the creator "spoke" it into existence with a voice? I could be wrong here... can't recall exactly.

Either way, this still all has to be accepted on faith alone.

i honestly have faith that people are finding GOD within themselves faster than ever before. I suggest that people take time to find the importance of meditation and non violent rituals for seeking god. The biblical GOD, the idea of a christian GOD, that is what is dead. The idea of GOD has evolved to a better more believable understanding found through meditation. When you can achieve happiness in your OWN mind with eyes wide shut, why look for a book reference to base your believes upon? We can all find GOD within ourselves, its just a matter of having faith in yourself, and putting yourself aside from the river of stress we go through every day. Yes i am speaking from personal experience, and i was an atheist for 20 years. i do not submit to the weakness of having to keep up with the bible.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Maddogkull
I am biased as I think everyone should be agnostic, and not judge whether there is a god or not until presented with irrefutable evidence.

Sure. Anyone truly skeptical has to leave the possibility open that irrefutable evidence will present itself. But what if we were to apply this thinking to other issues such as the existence of the easter bunny or santa claus? The reasonable person will deny the likelihood of their existence wholesale - because on the face it seems absurd. The atheist applies the same reasoning to the existence of deities: reaching a certitude that the likelihood of such evidence ever arriving is so slim that hoping for it becomes illogical.

I believe agnostics are hesitant to arrive at this conclusion simply because so many people from so many cultures have a belief in deities that they think there must be something to it based on consensus alone. The atheist remains unaffected by consensus and focuses on percentage of likelihood of irrefutable evidence ever arriving.

I think you went wrong when mentioning percentage of likelihood as an argument to base ones beliefsystem in.... As you have described its quite a far-fetch to place ones faith in a deity but.... everything coming together by chance? You surely have seen the numbers wich detail the chances of our earth being here with us and the rest of life on earth by chance... if you look at it that way it is most definetely more plausible for some creator to have brought things about then to think it was all merely "luck". Now if you take physical evidence as your personal indicator it becomes more complicated... but then I'll jst say this... where there is smoke, there is a fire... and I see a hell of alot of smoke...

But there is also the other theory that what we think comes into reality... if thats the case us ATS'ers are probably going to be responsible for the end of the world as I see tons of people saying: "the end is nigh" damn talk about a feeling of guilt if thats the case

puzzled by the post below What is?
[edit on 20-5-2010 by faceoff85]

[edit on 20-5-2010 by faceoff85]

Now thats the type of GOD thats never had a beginning in my future.

Originally posted by drkid
i honestly have faith that people are finding GOD within themselves faster than ever before.

The idea of GOD has evolved to a better more believable understanding found through meditation.

We can all find GOD within ourselves,

Meditation is fine, but claiming that it helps you "find god", especially "within yourself" is problematic in three ways.

One: it is an entirely subjective opinion that one has "found god" based on the attributes of a trancendental experience.

Two: it suggests not that god can "be found" within us, but that we are god.

Three: it relies on a changing new-age zeitgeist that we could abandon pevious religious accounts and redefine god to correllate with the experience of meditation. In other words, it's making up new definitions to suit new requirements.