Science fails to exclude God

reply to post by dilapidated


...why do people keep saying this frankly idiotic statement over and over and over and over.

Theism: the belief in a deity

The belief in a deity has nothing to do with an afterlife! The lack of an afterlife would have nothing to do with theism, merely something to do with transmitigation of souls and other such afterlife concepts...which could exist without theism!

Originally posted by dilapidated
circular logic is impossible to prove wrong, thats the point
they only way to disprove religion is to know what follows death and luckily for theists this cannot be done..

Look at the big brain on dilapidated.:

Mad

The belief in a deity has nothing to do with an afterlife

Care to do circles around this mistake ?

reply to post by bogomil

You're ofcourse correct, but this is not obvious to some theists, who either ignore it or can't wrap their minds around simple logic.

I thought that's what you were having a hard time with. It's obviously true since Di was able to come righjt out with it, while you never even mentioned anything round. All you've been worried about is non existent corners.

Well, non existent except for the one you've just trapped yourself in. I love it when a plan comes together.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by bogomil

 

You're ofcourse correct, but this is not obvious to some theists, who either ignore it or can't wrap their minds around simple logic.

I thought that's what you were having a hard time with. It's obviously true since Di was able to come righjt out with it, while you never even mentioned anything round. All you've been worried about is non existent corners.

Well, non existent except for the one you've just trapped yourself in. I love it when a plan comes together.

The same has been said constantly all along this thread. This has probably escaped you, because the language used doesn't fit into your position.

In that case: Look up the 'difficult' words or ask for clarification. There's no shame in that, no-one can know everything. E.g. am I uncertain as to what 'corners' you refer to.

In that case: Look up the 'difficult' words or ask for clarification. There's no shame in that, no-one can know everything. E.g. am I uncertain as to what 'corners' you refer to.

reply to post by bogomil


All that matters is , it's ok to be unsure of those corners, seeing that they're non existent.
I was wrong to say that the one you backed yourself into, was non existent. Should have thought that out a bit more.

reply to post by randyvs


...what mistake? The belief in a deity has nothing to do with an afterlife, it's simple and true. Now, some deities have separate claims about the afterlife, but raw theism has nothing to do with that issue.

That was an issue related to theism vs atheism, not a specific form of theism.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Ok, I think I understand where you are coming from on that one now, so I will half heartedly agree. You're separating the word theism from religion ? Correct?

reply to post by randyvs


Yes. Religion is not necessarily theistic. There are non-theistic religions, like Theravada Buddhism. Animism is also not necessarily theistic (though it often is). Religion is a framework of various beliefs regarding the supernatural along with claims regarding the temporal, not all of them will fit into all religions.

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by dilapidated
circular logic is impossible to prove wrong, thats the point
they only way to disprove religion is to know what follows death and luckily for theists this cannot be done..

You're ofcourse correct, but this is not obvious to some theists, who either ignore it or can't wrap their minds around simple logic.

This is why I almost have made: "Try to get a grip on 'gnostic' and 'agnostic' positions" my mantra on this thread.

As it is now, a considerable part of the thread has been about if green is better than tuesday...though some prefer football.

edit on 19-6-2011 by bogomil because: syntax

I'm quoting my own former post, as it apparantly has led to some misunderstanding. My intention was to agree with the statement about 'circular logic'. Not specifically taking an interest in after-life arguments.

reply to post by randyvs


If I understood you correctly, you intended to re-read the thread.

And in that context I would like to remind you of my often repeated suggestion. Make your position(s) clear, separate them from each other, instead of the gordic knot situation you created originally.

Correspondingly make it clear, what direction(s) your arguments are coming from (and going to). You switch from unsubstantiated claims, to pseudo-science to faith. Method seemingly unrelated to the subject(s) at hand.

reply to post by randyvs

Science fails to exclude God


Which God would that be?

Judeo-Christian, Greek, Sumerian, Roman, MesoAmerican, Egyptian, Celtic, John Frum or your own personal one? I hope you don't claim to be all knowing enough to exclude Zeus or Huitzilopochtli? Can you really prove that Marshall Applewhite was not a reincarnation of Christ (God)?

Could you point to an accepted peer reviewed scientific paper that shows enough evidence for God, to be an accepted theory? Or one that specifically proves God does not exist? I think you might find that God is largely irrelevant to science, I would say that seems an awful lot like being excluded.

Though science itself doesn't specifically deny the existence of God for the same reason it doesn't specifically deny existence of fairies, Pleiadians or Boogy Men. Although there are some scientists that personally go to great lengths to dismiss him/her for their own reasons (Dawkins for example). Such as trying to get evolution taken more seriously in some schools that teach the Biblical creation myth. Why would you need science to accept the existence of your invisible deity anyway?

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum


Everything is explained in the OP what more do you need?

If you're looking for something to chew on I can offer this as an addition to the OP.
Evil does not exist becaause evil is simply the absence of good. Darkness does not exist because darkness is just the absence of light. Light and goodness exist because they were created. God did not create evil this is why Genisis is correct to say, "There was darkness, then God created light and the light was good.
I wonder if any one of you giant brains can see when equiped with the correct vision? There must be a creator
because of certain creations that exist.
Arguements ?

reply to post by randyvs

There must be a creator
because of certain creations that exist.

Are there storm gods?

reply to post by randyvs


You wrote:

["Everything is explained in the OP what more do you need?"]

Some of us have joined this thread for 24 pages trying to make you clarify what the OP is about precisely.

Quote: ["Evil does not exist becaause evil is simply the absence of good. Darkness does not exist because darkness is just the absence of light. Light and goodness exist because they were created."]

This is standard 'dualism'. As to HOW dualism originated is what many religions (and theology, philosophy and zero-point physics) try to find answers to.

Quote: ["God did not create evil this is why Genisis is correct to say, "There was darkness, then God created light and the light was good."]

Why should it be a 'god' creating dualism? Why should it be YOUR 'god' doing it? And should a basic observation on dualism in genesis 1 make it (genesis 1) generally correct (something you have refused to comment on earlier).

Quote: ["I wonder if any one of you giant brains can see when equiped with the correct vision?"]

And what would be 'the correct vision'? Not questioning postulates?

Quote: [" There must be a creator because of certain creations that exist."]

Nope.

Quote: ["Arguements ?"]

Most of them have already been presented here earlier, without any real answers in response. As e.g. "what is this thread mainly about, and what method do you use to validate your opinions?".

reply to post by sirnex


What's so hard to understand about the concept of A creator Sir? How can you make yourself out to be so lacking. My wish is not to insult you and I hope you can see that, by my choice of words here.

reply to post by bogomil


Bogomil you aren't getting anywhere and I'm sorry for that.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by sirnex

 

What's so hard to understand about the concept of A creator Sir? How can you make yourself out to be so lacking. My wish is not to insult you and I hope you can see that, by my choice of words here.

I only ask because religion still has failed to fully answer exactly what certain things are allowed to naturally occur without invisible puppet strings being pulled compared to what things they deem *must have a creator*. Soo... Are there storm gods?

reply to post by sirnex


Do I have to ask you that ? I mean really ? Consider your own answer to the question. At least I'm not saying it's a stupid question. I'm positive I can say what your answer would be, so in turn, you can be so about mine, I'm sure.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by bogomil

 

Bogomil you aren't getting anywhere and I'm sorry for that.

That's not so strange, considering that you have 2-3 different directions on this thread and refuse to clarify your direction and position.