Okay, first thing’s first. Anyone asking this question needs to define “god”. Because while “god” as in “an entity divorced from time and space with no detectable qualities or interaction with our universe” cannot be proven wrong, “god” as in “an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being who tortures innocents for all of eternity” can be proven wrong by pure logic (as this god is being evil and knows it, therefore cannot be omnibenevolent), and “god” as in “my neighbor Bob who claims to have mystical powers including flight and invulnerability” can be proven wrong by throwing Bob off a cliff. A small one. Like, maybe 15-20 feet into a stagnant pond. The definition of “god” varies from culture to culture, and even within religions - I could easily disprove the god Kent Hovind sets up, but the modern incarnations of Yahweh are so constructed as to be completely untouchable by evidence and logic.
Secondly, science doesn’t need to disprove god, and I’m not aware of any big names in science claiming anything like what the OP asserts. This shifting of the burden of proof is dumb, and religious people need to understand why a person making a creation claim has the burden of proof.
Is there a supreme Being as described in the OT and NT? I would say it doesn’t point to one. One thing that does stand out to me is the fact that even 60 years ago if a person prayed and had all it’s church members prayers for God to cure cancer or even Polio, the chances of a cure were called a miracle, today few people get Polio or a lot of other deceases. It would seem God is getting better at answering prayers.
I personally believe that An All Knowing, all loving, all just Being would not need to be asked to heal ,cure, or help one of his children. Like a good parent it would not need to be asked to do good by his children, or give anything that would allow them to be harmed or harm another. A human parent doesn’t have that knowledge, but seems more interested in doing good for it’s child than a God as described in the Bible.
Well this raises another question. How are things like science and reason even possible in a universe that started purely from random, unguided forces? and note, this is not a scientific question. you cannot answer this question empirically. You have to do philosophy to answer this question.
the proof is that this universe is an orderly universe where math, science, logic, reason all exist and work. such a universe must be the result of some mind.
I agree that a lot of religionists are arrogant. but wouldn’t you agree that it is arrogant for a scientist to claim that he has refuted or disproven God? I mean…if it isn’t a scientific question, then the scientist should keep his mouth shut. no?
This does not follow. You simply assert this to be the case, but there is no logic behind it. Orderly systems come about from chaotic and unguided processes all the time.
To me is science is the tool God gave his children (us), to learn about God’s creation, so it was never designed to find God. Ideally (IMHO) used by God’s children, who already know they are God’s children, to learn about stuff God wants them to know. Not to take it as ‘God did this’, but actually learning how things work, why they work as they do.
I think many people unknowingly take science as their god, thinking that science is the has the answer to everything in life, and scientists are the high priests to ascertain and disseminate this to the people, but I don’t really see many scientists themselves thinking they know everything, though many know aspects of their discipline well and may appear (and perhaps are) a bit arrogant in speaking to the layperson.
A purely random process can (and will) produce just about every possible result, given enough time to do so. Including ones people who don’t understand what randomness truly means believe are not random results. For example, a six-sided dice can, and will, produce the sequence 1,2,3,4,5,6 if thrown six times. It will do so only once in 1.679.616 throws (if my math is correct) but, and this is important, this is the exact same chance as every other series of 6 sequential digits produced with a d6.
Of course, evolution or physics aren’t “purely random” anyway. So there is that.
Of course you can. You can trace the lineage of Earthly living matter from the first protein to Mila Kunis (Back off ! Back off ! Mine !). Just as you can map the history of the Universe, from its initial explosion all the way to today. Well, maybe not every single step of the way, but a rough outline that’ll be about 90% correct, which is good enough for army work.
And that history must perforce be possible, since it happened. So the answer to “how can science and reason be possible “randomly”, without a creator ?!” is, naturally, “Like we worked out it most probably did.”
Nope. It has just about the same chances of existing as any other universe imaginable, and some unimaginable, even *if *it had been generated entirely by true randomness. Which, of course, it wasn’t. It’s “orderly” only in the way that a puddle of water in its proverbial hole in the ground thinks that hole is miraculously orderly.
Possibly. Can you please quote that scientist ? Name him ?
Name a scientist who has claimed this. I know of a number of scientists who claim that a god is not necessary to explain the universe as we know it, and others who simply claim they don’t believe in any god, but I can’t think of a one who has claimed to prove god doesn’t exist.
However, I’m confident you can find at least one person on the internet claiming to be a sientist who claims to have proved jut about anything. So – how about a scientist who has some kind of actual reputation outside of his own website?
Attempts to assert or defend the existence of God on “philosophical or religious grounds” are normally a waste of time and rely on circular logic, wishful thinking or faith. I’ve seen many esteemed philosophers, bishops, rabbis and others try, and have always been disappointed by their feeble attempts.
I’ve never understood the claims of both religious and non-religious people that anyone who dares express disbelief in religion is arrogant, especially when religious people don’t just claim to know that a god exists, but also that they know his mind and characteristics. Catholics claim to not just know how the afterlife works, but also that their priests can affect God’s decision on how people experience it. And then, of course, after claiming to know these things, the vast majority of western religious people don’t stop there. They then use their own judgement to decide which parts actually matter, or are even true.
Besides this, the purpose of being a scientist is to discover things. I might even go so far as to say No True Scientist thinks they know everything. I also have little doubt that the vast majority of them will tell you that they more they learn, the more they realize they don’t know. Science is about trying to gain knowledge; religion is about claiming to already have it.
There is actually even a Wikipedia article on studies on the effects of intercessory prayer. Some studies are better than others, but the results aren’t too encouraging for those who believe in prayer.
You bring up an orderly universe where math, science, logic, reason all exist and work-but your conclusion as to why such a universe exists is reached without use of math, science, logic or reason.
That is because the extremes of philosophy have no empirical existence. They are an exercise in logic that is ill equipped to describe the reality of observed natural phenomena. Take for example the philosophical problem of the dichotomy paradox. To reach something we must half the distance, then again, and again, ad infinitum; logically we can never reach our goal, yet observed reality shows that we can indeed reach, touch and affect objects. Atomic reality, may show it is is nothing but fields interacting, but for all practical purposes the philosophical paradox is nothing more than mental masturbation.
I don’t really understand this question, as it’s like asking “how are zebras possible in a universe that contains uranium” - the two things don’t really seem to have much to do with each other. Even assuming the start of the universe was caused by random forces, those forces have remained essentially constant for billions of years. We use science to examine those forces, and create models that hopefully converge with reality. Reason is a result of our own logical processes, and given that the universe is at least somewhat ordered and consistent on a macro scale, there’s no reason why reason wouldn’t apply.
Please clarify this a bit, in two regards:
What about the universe is “orderly” specifically?
How does it follow that an orderly universe must be the result of a mind?
This argument is a big fat non-sequitur from where I stand. It simply does not follow.
I would agree. Now please provide the scientists who have made this claim.
And, even if there was some intelligence that set things in motion, created the universe and the physical laws, so what? Does that mean I have to go to church on Sunday? Why would that being care about what’s going on with our little planet, and why would care it about how one organism on that planet thinks about it?
Say, for example, I created a simulated universe on some really powerful computer. That universe contains trillions (quadrillions?) of stars, and many of those stars contain multiple planets. I’m doing this to play with some higher order physics problems, and seeing how the 10^80 particles in the universe interact with each other, given various initial conditions and laws of interaction. This is a really complete simulation! So, anyway, on some tiny subset of these planets, due to the physical laws I set up, some version of the game of life gets going. Hmm, interesting, but I’m not sure if I’d even notice it. It would be cool, however, if there was some game of life that got started on a galactic scale, though – neat!
So, let’s assume, for the moment, there’s a prime mover. What follows from that? Who cares? Why would it care about us? We’re like a quark in an atom on a bacterium in a flea on a hair of a galactic dog.
That reminds me of when I used to read the idiot questions on Yahoo Answers in the Religion section. People would be asking things like “Is it a sin to jack it to the Victoria’s Secret catalog?” “Will God send me to to hell if I start scratching my balls, then it starts to feel good?”
Yes, there is an omnipotent perfect universe-creating deity that made hundreds of billions of galaxies, a sextillion or two of stars (maybe even a septillion or so) with “god” knows how many planets, and it’s very concerned with what you do with your penis.
If I may, IMO this perfectly illuminates the OP’s position, which seems to be that he does not in fact want to discover anything on this topic, but has made a fixed decision and simply wants to assert his position while dismissing out of hand any opposing viewpoints.
