How many believe in God

[joecooool]

i never said believers were ignorant, i said belief in god is supported by ignorance

and science doesn't need infinite knowledge to kill god belief, all it needs is better natural explanation of intelligence, love, and cosmology

because its ignorance of those things that supports the god hypothesis

---------------

consciousness is god? thats no different then a pantheist saying the universe is god. its stupid, its just a relabeling of the words.

the universe is not god its the universe, and consciouses is not god its consciousness

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by joecooool

consciousness is god? thats no different then a pantheist saying the universe is god. its stupid, its just a relabeling of the words.

the universe is not god its the universe, and consciouses is not god its consciousness

Obviously, words are labels that point to something. They are not the thing itself.
I don't see any problem with labelling that which is self-aware, eternal consciousness, as God.

[JimOfferman]

Originally Posted by joecooool

i never said believers were ignorant, i said belief in god is supported by ignorance

The latter sort of implies the former.

But, whatever man, you have clearly made up your mind with no room for debate. So let's not waste any more time on this.

[joecooool]

im here and ready to refute any reasons anyone is using to support a belief in god anytime.


science is evidence without certainty and religion is certainty without evidence

i choose the humble evidence based method of science for my knowledge, everything else i simply leave unknown.


time, space, matter, energy, the universe... reality, is awesome enough for me, i don't cheapen it with delusional supernatural beliefs

and im humble enough to only believe in what i have evidence for and to simply admit i dont know when it comes to anything i dont have evidence for

god existence is unknowable, belief in god is unjustified


i tailor my beliefs directly relative to the empirical evidence

i have empirical evidence that a laptop exists in front of me, therefore i believe a laptop exists in front of me

i have empirical evidence that a laptop does not exist beside me, therefore i believe that a laptop does not exist beside me



i have empirical evidence that the universe exists, therefore i believe in the universe

i have no empirical evidence that god exists, therefore i dont believe that god exists

i have no empirical evidence that god does not exist therefore i don't believe that god does not exist

until i have some empirical evidence one way or the other his existence remains irrelevant, the idea of god remains in my imagination and nothing more

just like the matrix, i have no empirical evidence that the universe is a matrix, and i have no empirical evidence the universe is not a matrix, therefore whether the universe is a matrix or not is irrelevant.

the idea of the matrix exist as an idea in my imagination, and nothing more

anything that is not provable or falsifiable is irrelevant as anything more then an imaginative idea

[Cantando]

Well, I'll be ...!
I've just come across a wad of quotes from scientists who reckon that science is inexorably moving towards, and not away from, the premise that there is, in fact, a grand designer of the universe!

Quotes from Scientists Regarding Design of the Universe.
Taken from an article by Rich Deem.

Does science lead us down a road that ends in the naturalistic explanation of everything we see? In the nineteenth century, it certainly looked as though science was going in that direction. The "God of the gaps" was finding himself in a narrower and narrower niche. However, 20th century and now 21st century science is leading us back down the road of design - not from a lack of scientific explanation, but from scientific explanation that requires an appeal to the extremely unlikely - something that science does not deal well with. As a result of the recent evidence in support of design, many scientists now believe in God. According to a recent article:
"I was reminded of this a few months ago when I saw a survey in the journal Nature. It revealed that 40% of American physicists, biologists and mathematicians believe in God--and not just some metaphysical abstraction, but a deity who takes an active interest in our affairs and hears our prayers: the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."
The degree to which the constants of physics must match a precise criteria is such that a number of agnostic scientists have concluded that there is some sort of "supernatural plan" or "Agency" behind it. Here is what they say:

The quotes:

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word."

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming".
Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose".

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in."

George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory."

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."

Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance."

Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it."

Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine."

Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God."

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.

Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."

Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument."

Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]."

Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed."

Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'."

Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life."

Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan."

Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science."

Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique."

Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design."

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science."

[Mark Lapierre]

It's not surprising considering their subject matter, and their enforced methods of investigation, it's understandable that they would believe in a creator. I highly doubt you'd get the same response if you asked a bunch of evolutionary biologists about their belief in design in nature. And note that the only biologist in the list said nothing about God, but only referred to the anthropic principle, which goes not necessarily invoke God.

Though I bet that's beside the point, and you were merely illustrating that some scientists do believe in God, for Joe's benefit.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

There's a theory on this that I read in the Tao of Physics, but I don't know how it's doing nowadays. Something about really tiny, really fast particles being ejected.

I also remember reading something (in an article somewhere) which said that all the forces we know of, including gravity, can be described through the interactions of virtual particles. There was also some conjecture that those particles may exist in some form, but that it's impossible to detect them (it gave reasons why, but they were beyond my understanding).

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

I happen to agree there. Still, I can't escape the notion that there's something magical about life. We could, now or in the near future, assemble the structure of a single cell organism from it's base components - but will it live? and if not, what's missing?

We're pretty close already. We've constructed DNA from scratch and replaced the DNA in a bacterium with the new DNA, and the bacterium lived, new attributes and all.

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

Agreed. There is nothing that suggests that you need intelligence to design something complex. In fact, I believe quite the opposite: creating a complex thing is easy, making something simple isn't.

Could you elaborate on those last four words? I can make a wheel out of cardboard pretty easily. Simple.

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

Well, here I have to respectfully disagree. I can see why you want to believe how all things super natural are manufactured by the brain, but for me that's just too simple an explanation.

It's only a simple explanation if you ignore the complexity of the brain, and ignoring the brain's complexity while trying to explain something involving the brain is no explanation at all.

Originally Posted by joecooool

-lack of belief/disbelief -----------requires refutations to above evidences

Small correction: lack of belief doesn't require anything. There's no need to refute any evidence in order to lack belief.

Originally Posted by joecooool

and im humble enough to only believe in what i have evidence for and to simply admit i dont know when it comes to anything i dont have evidence for

You're yet to show anything approximating humility.

[joecooool]

i guess i should make a giant list of all the scientists who don't see a creator behind every rock, but this form of argument is pointless

appeal to authority = fallacy

there is NO evidence of a creator, and its under the presupposition that a creator exists that any evidence is seen to point to one

looking at reality through a god lens

besides if there is a creator then i guess we are all living in a giant computer simulation created by an superior intelligent alien race

so god still looses

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by joecooool

besides if there is a creator then i guess we are all living in a giant computer simulation created by an superior intelligent alien race

so god still looses

You're only weakening your case by acknowledging the possibility of an entity (in this case an alien race) which could be described as god (i.e., an entity so advanced as to be beyond our current understanding).

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

You're only weakening your case by acknowledging the possibility of an entity (in this case an alien race) which could be described as god (i.e., an entity so advanced as to be beyond our current understanding).

Or he is strengthening his case by acknowledging he has considered the possibility and discarded it rather than blindly accepting or rejecting it.

[Mark Lapierre]

Nope.

He's been advocating the case that there is no evidence for god. Even ignoring the possibility of defining god as an alien entity, there is no evidence of us existing in a simulation, as he already said when he mentioned the matrix.

So by making an off-the-cuff remark which disagrees with what he previously said, he's weakening his position.

[joecooool]

lol

all im saying is that if creation was proven then it would still be more likely that the creator would be an alien, then a god

those stupid theists are busy trying to prove creation all the while not realizing it still doesn't prove god exists.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Though I bet that's beside the point, and you were merely illustrating that some scientists do believe in God, for Joe's benefit.

Mark, I put up the list, not to show that there are scientists who believe in God, but to show there is growing trend in science towards the conclusion of an intelligent, creative design, as the chances of us evolving from nothing to where we are today, are astronomically tiny. One figure cited is 10 to the power of 37.

The degree of fine tuning required virtually excludes the possibility of chance.

One part in 10^37 is such an incredibly sensitive balance that it is hard to visualize. The following analogy might help: Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles. Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billions of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 10^37. (Dr Hugh Ross, ‘The Creator and the Cosmos’).

[joecooool]

FINE TUNING ARGUMENT, DEBUNKED:

-precision and complexity in the universe is evidence the universe has precision and complexity, thats it, nothing more, it does NOT mean the universe was fine tuned.

-imagine a puddle in a hole, that puddle would be certain that the hole was specifically and perfectly designed, 'fine tuned' for it, because it fits him so well. the puddle would go on believing this until it totally evaporated under the sun. haha

-saying if one law of physics was changed the universe could not sustain life is like saying if something was different things would be different. well no ♥♥♥♥ but that proves nothing at all.

-i could just as easily say the universe was designed for poop, if one physical constant was changed the universe could not have produced poop. or the same for weed, or black holes, etc...

-there are billions of planets, therefore life has a billion chances to form, and this is the one planet that got lucky. imagine if i threw a handful of pencils in the air at random, and one landed right back in my hand, does that mean that pencil was fine tuned to land in my hand? no it was simply probability.

-believers in god say we are the only life in the universe and the universe was designed for life, haha, thats like saying i built 10000 trillion cars just to use the radio in one car.

-anthropic reasoning, maybe their are a billion other universes that cant support life, and any universe that can support life the life in that universe will think it was 'fine tuned' for it.

-i could say the entire universe was designed to produce ME, look how everything is fine tuned for me, everything is right where i want it. everyone else was just put here for ME. haha, saying the universe was fine tuned for our species is just as biased and arrogant and ignorant as me saying it was fine tuned for me

-besides even if the universe was fine tuned it would be more reasonable to assume the universe is a simulation running on an alien supercomputer then built by some supernatural god.

-and even if the universe was fine tuned for life by a god, i would say that its a really stupid or mean god, seeing is how 99.99% of the universe is hostile for life, and it took us millions of years to evolve up from bacteria. etc.. that god would not even be worth worshiping.


i only need 1 to refute your argument, but i give 10. so i can hit home the point that the fine tuning argument is only capable of supporting a belief in god that was already brainwashed into a mind in the first place.

[fellowtraveler]

LOL...methinks Mr. Coool (is that enough "o" 's?) is pretty desperate for someone to give him something to believe in. That's a shame because it's something no one else can do for him. One wonders what purpose it serves his ego or belief system to try and convince others of his postiion. Sometimes one doth protest too much. Why would a truly cooool person care what another, ordinary person believes?

We each get to decide what we believe. The cooool people really have nothing to believe in, I suppose. It may be that they are so far advanced that belief isn't necessary for them, and they have been put here simply to make one think. I have rejected every "religion" I've ever come in contact with, but I have a rich spiritual life in which I have total confidence, and it helps make me happy. It's sad that some people will never have that. Better luck next life, Mr. Cooool.

[joecooool]

oh we get to believe whatever we want?

ok them i believe that i am metagod

metagod is gods creator

i am the true first cause

who created god? ME!

hmm i could get used to believing whatever irrational thing i want, like you guys

[Fish]

No, I am.

Proof:

I am everywhere - everywhere I go there I am.

I know all - there is nothing I know that I don't know.

[Barcs]

I'm agnostic to an all powerful universe creating god, but I can definitely accept the belief that god IS everything and every person. I am spiritual but not religious at all. I think that organized religion is one of the main problems with the world today.

[fellowtraveler]

Originally Posted by joecooool

oh we get to believe whatever we want?

ok them i believe that i am metagod<snippers>

Congratulations! That's a good start, my friend. Carry on.

[fellowtraveler]

Originally Posted by Barcs

I'm agnostic to an all powerful universe creating god, but I can definitely accept the belief that god IS everything and every person. I am spiritual but not religious at all. I think that organized religion is one of the main problems with the world today.

Yep. Flames lit from the same candle.

[Jack]

"06-12-2007, 03:59 AM
dragonfly183
Member Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 64




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i believe i am god, and you are god, and my animals are god, and the trees outside and the ground i walk on and the air i breath are god. i see anything as being part of a universal entity that we are apart of. when we pass on we simply change to something else within that same universal entity."

Originally Posted by ticktockclok

I think you're mistaking "god" for matter.

I think he is not mistaking God as matter,i believe that he is right.If God is energy and everything is energy,then matter is God-energy too.Or if God is All,then matter is God too.But i prefer Consciousness-Source-Energy words more than God,i have problem with God word cause religious people use it in a different meaning.
But maybe you are talking about Christian-Muslum God?

Also I agree to Barcs
"Quote:
Originally Posted by Barcs
I'm agnostic to an all powerful universe creating god, but I can definitely accept the belief that god IS everything and every person. I am spiritual but not religious at all. I think that organized religion is one of the main problems with the world today. "

I hate religions and also hate Muslum-Christian God.But also don't agree to science people, i also want to ask to people who thinks that science and physical world is the only truth.I am not against science,i also like science too.But i don't believe that science is the only truth.If science is the only truth,then what about LoA?Why does it work? Or about people who are able to bend a spoon or other metals with changing their belief?They are against science rules. Maybe you didn't see them,but i saw them,also heard two persons who are able to stop a clock without even touching to clock. How can science explain these?Maybe you may just assume that they are not real these people just make illusions,but have you ever thinkked,what if they are really able to bend the spoons-metals,stop the clocks?

Also, I heard that some science people started to suspect that matter is trapped light. Maybe they are right why not?Maybe everything we see is light, nothing is real.Maybe our beliefs make them seem like real.So with changing the belief that "metal is a unbendable(with hands) very hard material" to "metal is a bendable,soft material" it is possible to bend or even break a metal without using any cutters.And science cannot explain it.Also science cannot explain that why sometimes we see dreams which become real about future(both my mother and I had dreams which became real about future and i know that other people's some dreams about future become real,you may have that kind of dreams but you should try to remember your dreams firstly to notice this)

And all of these are not evidences of a Muslum-Christian God,i think "bending the spoon" thing is against Muslum-Christian God faith too, their "holy" books cannot explain this.You can bend a metal without having faith to God,but if you don't believe to Muslum-Christian God,why would God allow you to do this kind of "miracle"?God gives miracles to only prophets,doesn't he/she/it/or whatever?
Also about "God belief gives happiness to people",if i believe to a Muslum-Christian God,then it means that i am immortal,there is an afterlife,this is a very good thing,but in afterlife i can go to Hell!And get burned in Fire!!!I don't understand how a Christian-Muslum type religion-belief can make someone happy, while although it says that we are immortal, at the same time scares and constrains people with HELL!

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Cantando

Mark, I put up the list, not to show that there are scientists who believe in God, but to show there is growing trend in science towards the conclusion of an intelligent, creative design, as the chances of us evolving from nothing to where we are today, are astronomically tiny.

There's a few issues here. Firstly, to show a trend you'd need to show a change over time. That list is a selection of snapshots of opinions.

Secondly, in the intro to that list there's a quote which refers to belief in God. The article from which the quote was taken (Science Resurrects God) states that the percentage is exactly the same in 1997 (when the article was written) as it was in 1916. No stats from before then means no trend.

However, that article doesn't tell the whole story. According to this Nature article (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html), two surveys around 20 years apart (1914 and 1933) showed a slight decrease in the number of scientists who believed in God. And while a study in 1996 did show that a random selection of scientists revealed a similar percentage of belief as in 1914, the number of believers in a subset of those scientists continued to drop.

Thirdly, some of those quotes either do not reflect belief on part of the person quoted, or they imply agnosticism, or they're ambiguous.

So I don't think you can justify a suggestion of a trend amongst scientists towards increasing belief in intelligent, creative design, or God. At least not based on that list or its sources.

[joecooool]

heres another refutation to fine tuned universe argument, this combined with my 10 refutations above make that 11.

fine tuned universe is self refuting because:

its impossible to say the universe was intelligently designed, because the only way we know if something is intelligently designed is by comparing what we(intelligent beings) create to what we do not create(nature)

if you go and say the universe or natural things are intelligently designed then we loose our entire basis of comparison to identify intelligent design.

in which case you no longer have a system of comparison, and therefore are back at square one and have no grounds to say anything other then what we create is intelligently designed.


i put all my refutations against the fine tuning argument for god, in the following blog:
fine tuned universe

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by joecooool

lol

all im saying is that if creation was proven then it would still be more likely that the creator would be an alien, then a god

those stupid theists are busy trying to prove creation all the while not realizing it still doesn't prove god exists.

Nevertheless, I think it must be a little disconcerting for some atheists when a whole bunch of eminent and previously agnostic scientists start admitting that the case for a supernatural, intelligent agency behind the universe is getting stronger, rather than weaker.

So, let me get this right …

You say appeal to authority is a fallacy, so you don’t, then, accept what any authorities (including scientific) have to say?

You say you only accept empirical evidence, i.e. what you can physically observe, measure and verify?

So, apart from what you can verify through your physical senses in your immediate surroundings at this moment, what else can you know, accept or believe?

You don’t know if the world is round or not, because you haven’t personally verified it, and you don’t accept what any authorities say?

You don’t know if other countries and people exist, because you have never visited them?

You don’t know if Hitler or Napoleon existed, because you weren’t around at the time?

Painting oneself into a corner is the phrase that springs to mind!

[Michael Chui]

Authority is an acceptable form of argument.

The correct name of the fallacy is Appeal to a False Authority.

In order for those scientists' "claims" to be considered authoritative, they would have to be considered experts in the field they are speaking of. Namely, the existence of a God. They are not, since they are not God, and no one else has any chance of being an expert on God, existant or not, by the definition provided of him.

In short, it is definitionally impossible to have an authority on God himself. Religious authorities are authorities on their religions, which may include their definition and any communication from said deity. But they are not an authority on God himself either.

More information: Appeal to authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Personally, I find it surprising that your list is so small, Cantando; it is human and natural for people to ascribe unfounded beliefs to unexpected evidence. To expect any amount of training to suppress that is difficult at best and impossible at worst, not to mention foolish and unnatural.

We do this all the time, such as yelling at our computer or kicking the chair we just tripped over, as if they were remotely sentient and capable of feeling the backlash. I can only explain the list's shortness by your preference for famous names to invoke apparent authority.

Why don't you start at the Renaissance, which would have been a far richer source from which you could draw such conclusions? The beginnings of chemistry, for instance, lie in alchemy and Hermeticism. Aleister Crowley certainly believed in God: it was obvious in the fabric of the universe. Of course, we think he's a crackhead now... But it was obvious that Leonardo di Vinci was a dedicated Catholic in addition to being one of the most prolific inventors and scientists of all time.

Then again, if your aim was merely to disconcert those who disagree with you, then I must say your goals are a little petty.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Then again, if your aim was merely to disconcert those who disagree with you, then I must say your goals are a little petty.

No, that was not may aim.

I was merely questioning Joe’s supposed scientific stance that there is no possibility of the existence of God and that anyone who believes in God is somehow crazy. It is just his view.

There's a lot more to life than what science can currently validate. Science has barely scratched the tip of the iceberg.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Cantando

There's a lot more to life than what science can currently validate. Science has barely scratched the tip of the iceberg.

There's a lot more to life than any field can cover. Including religion. Don't get me wrong; Joe is clearly wrong on a lot of things, but he's right about a lot of other things, too.

[joecooool]

ive stated like 10 times already how i admit god is possible

just as i admit the matrix is possible

but i dont actively believe in anything that has no empirical evidence

the existence of other countries etc... has empirical evidence, the existence of god does not

and science is very skeptical, science does not profess itself to be a truth, simply a method of acquiring knowledge via the five senses.

and its not that the five senses are an absolute truth, they are simply the only thing we've got, and because of that to philosophically question them is to question the very thing doing the questioning, therefore becomes paradoxical.

99% of the rebuttals to me have simply been misunderstandings of my position towards god and science etc... go back and read my previous posts before you speak. otherwise its just like me typing the same thing in over and over to continually combat your misunderstandings.

and i stand by my position that science is NOT leaning towards a creator. that is just something the monotheistic religions would have you believe.

[Anon]

No imperical evidence for God ? ...such a statement.

The all of life is more imperical evidence than you'll ever need. Why would anything be? Why would you perceive anything if there wasn't an impetus for something to Be? Who creates that impetus ? Who creates the spinning orbits within an electron ? Did the electron create itself ? Did non-intelligence get lucky and create a sub-atomic particle and then continue on unintelligently creating cascading systems of deepening complexity, ..ultimately getting lucky with creating consciousness ?

No God ? No evidence? Really now .......

And what about Love? ...what is that? ...ever loved anything? ....put that under your microscope, I'd 'love' to see what that might look like.

You fool yourself intentionally, unintentionally.

regards and blessings.

[joecooool]

annon:

there is NO empirical evidence of god

there is only empirical evidence of complexity, which you use your ignorance of as indirect evidence of god

so my position stands, i dont believe in things that have no empirical evidence

just because we cant explain everything doesn't mean we should go around making stuff up, like this made up god idea.

oh and love is nothing more then a chemical which evolved in us to guide us towards reproduction for the survival of the race, which can be detected under an mri scanner.

so haha, have fun with your delusional belief which is supported by nothing but your ignorance of other things.