Current Events > Do you believe in a god/gods/other spiritual beings?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Toonstrack posted...

The evidence wasn't rhe observation tho. The evidence was already there before it was observed. The affect was already existing before we caught wind of it.

It was actually. The way it went was:

Hypothesis: There is an 8th planet. The orbit of Uranus doesn't match our predictions. If there was a another planet with a mass of X, that would explain the difference between Uranus's orbit and what we predict it should be. To test this, if I look where this planet would need to be to have this effect then I should be able to locate planet 8.

The observations and calculations were made on Earth.

Atheism is the lack of belief in God is it not. That means that an atheist doesn't believe that there's a God. What am I missing here lol?

It's the difference between an active and a passive belief. Let's do a different example.

I have an open can of Coke on my left. I'm not gonna post any proof. If you said "I don't believe you" then you're not making any judgement on what's on my left, you're just not believing my claim. If you instead said "there's nothing on your left" then you're now actually making a claim: That there is nothing on my left. Atheism is simply not believing your claim of a god existing. Antitheism would be actively claiming that there is no god.

Sounds like you're closer to an agnostic than an atheist.

I'm an agnostic atheist. They aren't exclusive properties, you can be both. The majority of atheists fall under this camp.

Toonstrack posted...

Thats an entirely different conversation than the one this thread is based around. I would suggest reading the topic title again.

The tangent that sparked this was indeed on the subject of morality.

Okay then. So then, if no morality actually exists in an objective state, than is right or wrong a real concept or just as fictional as you believe God to be?

Right and wrong exist, I just don't believe there's a single objective standard that everyone subscribes to.

Do you really need this explained to you? What things could be more important to society than whether or not you buy a donut? You cannot think of anything?

Plenty of things, but your original question was poorly formed. In case you forgot, it was:

"Anytime there's a clash of wills, agendas or goals in humanity, one is going to win out. Is the one that wins out always right?"

The only general answer I could give is "It depends" which is not satisfying. This is why I wanted you to give some actual examples.

reincarnator07 posted...

It was actually. The way it went was:

Hypothesis: There is an 8th planet. The orbit of Uranus doesn't match our predictions. If there was a another planet with a mass of X, that would explain the difference between Uranus's orbit and what we predict it should be. To test this, if I look where this planet would need to be to have this effect then I should be able to locate planet 8.

The observations and calculations were made on Earth.

The hypothesis had no bearing on the actual existence of neptune tho, nor its effect on Uranus. The only think on earth is the telescope to see the evidence with. The EVIDENCE, the forces and placements that correlated, was all in space already. Happening for millenia with no human having any knowledge of it.

It's the difference between an active and a passive belief. Let's do a different example.

I have an open can of Coke on my left. I'm not gonna post any proof. If you said "I don't believe you" then you're not making any judgement on what's on my left, you're just not believing my claim. If you instead said "there's nothing on your left" then you're now actually making a claim: That there is nothing on my left. Atheism is simply not believing your claim of a god existing. Antitheism would be actively claiming that there is no god.

I'm an agnostic atheist. They aren't exclusive properties, you can be both. The majority of atheists fall under this camp.

By that logic you can be anti theist and also not atheist as well no?

Never understood the position of "agnostic atheism" however. Agnosticism seemingly already covers the possibility that God exists, AND the possibility that god doesn't, AND the belief that god doesn't.

So you... don't believe God exists, but believe its possible for God to exist? But saying you dont think God exists is somehow different than saying "God doesn't exist?" Seems like semantics.

Toonstrack posted...

I've seen plenty of proof love is real. You're pigeonholing the concept into something physical, logical, which is a fallacy, because "logic" is also an abstract concept that assumes a correlation/causation system being the sole operating system in the universe. Which kinds clashes with atheist considerations for the origins of life.

You place much authority on physicality of proof and subservience to this abstract force of logic. Its a preference but when you reach the core of it, that "assumption" of correctness or accuracy of the evidence based on this logic, is not all that different from faith.

Correct, mostly. I don't have significant conclusions or theories on the origin of life. I don't believe that it comes from the proposition of God in most major religions, but at present that's more hypothesis than theory.

Everything we believe is based on theory to some degree. Again, philosophy holds the debate that we can't prove what we're experiencing isn't a dream, a simulation, etc. I would rather draw my conclusions based on information I have taken in and my judge of its reliability, and I do not find religions to be a reliable source.

We do our best, and logic is a better guide than none. However, I do feel that too often people constrain their logic too much.

Theres no devils nor angels here. This is a topic on gamefaqs, not a court of law, not a philosophers counsel. Im here for discussion.

In which case, I'll leave you and Reincarnator to it.

reincarnator07 posted...

The tangent that sparked this was indeed on the subject of morality.

Im notbhere to discuss gods morality. I'm here to discuss his existence.

Right and wrong exist, I just don't believe there's a single objective standard that everyone subscribes to.

For right and wrong to exist, there has to be a parameter, and that parameter has to be, if not objective, then a higher level than subjective opinion. If everyone decides where the parameters are, then there are no parameters.

Plenty of things, but your original question was poorly formed. In case you forgot, it was:

"Anytime there's a clash of wills, agendas or goals in humanity, one is going to win out. Is the one that wins out always right?"

The only general answer I could give is "It depends" which is not satisfying.

You still don't get it.

The answer not being satisfying is the point. The answer isn't satisfying, because there's no objectivity to it. Which means its a poor framework from which to run a society on, or even to build a moral standing on wouldn't you agree?

falayyou01 posted...

Were you there to witness the beginning of creation? If not, then you can't say whether something is or isn't correct. It says "skies" - it doesn't specifically the "Sun". Regarding the latter point on the moon, the absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence.

My apologies for missing this.

Direct observation isn't the only way to test a claim. The example the other poster brought up of the discovery of Neptune is actually a great one. We observed its effects before we observed the planet itself. Black holes are another great example, Einstein predicted them nearly 50 years before we were able to observe their effects and it was another 50 years before we could directly observe them.

The skies would have been here before the Earth, regardless of whether you include the sun. We have directly observed stars over twice as old as Earth.

For the prophet cracking the moon, you can't seriously tell me that no one else across the world would have recorded such an event. Tons of cultures across the world have worshipped the moon in many forms. We all see the same moon.

Toonstrack posted...

The hypothesis had no bearing on the actual existence of neptune tho, nor its effect on Uranus. The only think on earth is the telescope to see the evidence with. The EVIDENCE, the forces and placements that correlated, was all in space already. Happening for millenia with no human having any knowledge of it.

If we're only here to discuss the existence of god, I will move away from this tangent now.

By that logic you can be anti theist and also not atheist as well no?

Not really, theism would require belief in a god of some sort. I have seen some definitions on theism being an active belief one way or another on the existence of a god and through that description, you could have an antitheist theist, but that's not the common description.

Never understood the position of "agnostic atheism" however. Agnosticism seemingly already covers the possibility that God exists, AND the possibility that god doesn't, AND the belief that god doesn't.

So you... don't believe God exists, but believe its possible for God to exist? But saying you dont think God exists is somehow different than saying "God doesn't exist?" Seems like semantics.

Agnosticism covers whether the existence of a god is knowable. There have been several theists in this topic that have said some variant of "I believe there is a god and I don't believe humans could comprehend them". They would be examples of agnostic theists. Agnosticism doesn't actually make any claim on the existence of gods one way or another.

I don't have any faith in god(s), this means I'm an atheist. I don't see any reason a god couldn't exist, I just don't currently believe in one. I'm not going to actively claim that gods don't exist because I don't have any proof of that claim. I genuinely don't know what form such proof of gods or lack thereof would take if it exists.

For right and wrong to exist, there has to be a parameter, and that parameter has to be, if not objective, then a higher level than subjective opinion. If everyone decides where the parameters are, then there are no parameters.

As a society, we collectively decide what is right and wrong. This on paper is literally what laws are, we collectively decide that something is bad (or good) and provide the framework to punish someone who acts in a way we think is bad. You don't even have to codify them into laws either, there are cultural norms too that vary quite a lot between cultures. For example, in the USA you're an asshole if you don't tip your waiter. Pop over to Europe and it's appreciated, but you won't be judged for not tipping. Go even further east to Japan and they consider it quite rude if you do try to tip them. If you want some fun homework, which of those is the morally correct position?

However, individual opinion can differ from the culture that individual is in. Weed is illegal at the federal level, yet a majority of people think it should be legal and many states have decriminalised or legalised it. Rock and rap music have been considered bad for youth with some degenerate messaging, yet many people in those subcultures have found positivity from their communities and rock music is generally considered boomer music these days.

You still don't get it.

The answer not being satisfying is the point. The answer isn't satisfying, because there's no objectivity to it. Which means its a poor framework from which to run a society on, or even to build a moral standing on wouldn't you agree?

No, you don't get it. When I said it's not satisfying, what I meant is that I don't believe you will accept an answer that you don't find satisfying. I should have clarified this, although I like how you removed the part where I asked you for some examples.

If your question is "Anytime there's a clash of wills, agendas or goals in humanity, one is going to win out. Is the one that wins out always right?" and you won't further clarify the question, the answer is "It depends". It depends on what you're defining as right, which will generally depend on who you're asking. If you want a more detailed answer, provide some examples.

Toonstrack posted...

False equivalence.

You're equating the basic concept of existence/non existence which is indeed a 50/50 to a quantifiable difference in skill and training that applies to LeBron vs you.

There being no "evidence" isnt itself proof of non-existence. The planet neptune always EXISTED, but there was no evidence to humanity that it existed until they found it. Megalodons always existed, there was no evidence of its existence until we found it.

So do you believe in literally everything imaginable because it could theoretically be proven to exist? Or do you live your days as if Odin and unicorns and elves do not exist (since we haven't proven they do)?

hockeybabe89 posted...

So do you believe in literally everything imaginable because it could theoretically be proven to exist? Or do you live your days as if Odin and unicorns and elves do not exist (since we haven't proven they do)?

I'm just glad I have found another follower of schmorgborg.

I'll definitely say this right here, if God is all loving, all powerful, and all knowing like it's described in the holy texts, than God should know and read my intentions very well what evidence will convince me of their existence. As if yet, they've been doing a terrible job at it.

Heineken14 posted...

I'm just glad I have found another follower of schmorgborg.

I know someone will say I'm being a euphoric asshole, but I don't believe in anything that isn't observable, proven. God is functionally the same to me as any cryptid or fictional being. I believe that literally anything can be true, but until something is proven, I live as if it isn't real because otherwise I would have to believe in EVERYTHING. You can't even learn everything that is knowable in your lifetime and I'm supposed to make room for the unknowable? Why? I have no idea what could be known in the future. It's blind guessing and hope.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

USSR was an atheist nation.

reincarnator07 posted...

My apologies for missing this.

Direct observation isn't the only way to test a claim. The example the other poster brought up of the discovery of Neptune is actually a great one. We observed its effects before we observed the planet itself. Black holes are another great example, Einstein predicted them nearly 50 years before we were able to observe their effects and it was another 50 years before we could directly observe them.

The skies would have been here before the Earth, regardless of whether you include the sun. We have directly observed stars over twice as old as Earth.

For the prophet cracking the moon, you can't seriously tell me that no one else across the world would have recorded such an event. Tons of cultures across the world have worshipped the moon in many forms. We all see the same moon.

Nowhere does it say God made Earth first and then he made heaven. It says that he made all that is on Earth (as in things on Earth and not THE Earth itself) and then turned to Heaven. How could he return to Heaven if he hadnt created it in the first place? The only possible explanation is that Earth and heaven were already created.

second, the verse doesnt talk about creation of heaven. It talks about dividing heaven that was ALREADY created. How can God divide something hasnt created already?

when referring to the heavens it means he divided a single heaven into seven parts which correspond to the seven different layers of the stratosphere.

so in conclusion, God made things on Earth and then divided heaven into seven parts. This implies atmosphere around earth was formed after Earth was created.

regarding the moon splitting, a manuscript held dates around AD 621, held by the national digital library of India and British library shows the one of the kings of southern India (Cheraman Perumal) saw the splitting of the moon and was so astonished that he inquired about it to his priests. There are also various hadiths documenting the event in and around Arabia. Regarding the rest of the world, time differences would have made it nigh impossible to see the event due to it being daytime and for others would have been sleeping. Lastly, if we assume an omnipotent creator exists its possible that the event was revealed to a select subset of the population and not everyone.

just a reminder, atheism isn't a claim that there is no god. it's a rejection of the claim that there is a god. the burden of proof is on theists, not atheists here.

falayyou01 posted...

Nowhere does it say God made Earth first and then he made heaven. It says that he made all that is on Earth (as in things on Earth and not THE Earth itself) and then turned to Heaven. How could he return to Heaven if he hadnt created it in the first place? The only possible explanation is that Earth and heaven were already created.

second, the verse doesnt talk about creation of heaven. It talks about dividing heaven that was ALREADY created. How can God divide something hasnt created already?

when referring to the heavens it means he divided a single heaven into seven parts which correspond to the seven different layers of the stratosphere.

so in conclusion, God made things on Earth and then divided heaven into seven parts. This implies atmosphere around earth was formed after Earth was created.

If I were to follow this interpretation, it would depend a lot on the "things on earth" that were created. A lot of things on Earth wouldn't really be able to exist or happen without an atmosphere. In addition, there are only 5 layers of the atmosphere, so at the very least this would be scientifically inaccurate.

regarding the moon splitting, a manuscript held dates around AD 621, held by the national digital library of India and British library shows the one of the kings of southern India (Cheraman Perumal) saw the splitting of the moon and was so astonished that he inquired about it to his priests. There are also various hadiths documenting the event in and around Arabia. Regarding the rest of the world, time differences would have made it nigh impossible to see the event due to it being daytime and for others would have been sleeping. Lastly, if we assume an omnipotent creator exists its possible that the event was revealed to a select subset of the population and not everyone.

Wasn't it Muhammad that split the moon? We know he was a real person who lived, so this would narrow down when this event could have happened. The story of the Chera king that witnessed it hails from the 12th century and was created by Muslims, which doesn't exactly make it the most reliable source, which is the same problem the hadiths run into. The event seems to be referring to a lunar eclipse, which absolutely would have been visible in a wide area that extended well outside the Arab world.

The idea that god was only revealing this to certain people is an insane reach, especially when this was supposed to be Muhammad trying to convince people with supernatural phenomena. At best, this would be Muhammad trying to accredit an event to god.

Yes, humans dont know everything and so much happened before our time.

I don't know what I believe honestly, though I do believe there most likely has to be some sort of higher power we just can't perceive. Be it spiritual, inter-deminsional, or from another planetary system poking around and using us as test subjects.

I do know about 2-3 years ago I started really digging into and embracing something that definitely may seem weird to most people. It's a sense that's been part of me as long as I can remember. However, at the end of the day it puts me more at peace with myself, doesn't harm anything/anyone, and with all the weird theories running around holds just as much sliver of possiblity.

reincarnator07 posted...

If I were to follow this interpretation, it would depend a lot on the "things on earth" that were created. A lot of things on Earth wouldn't really be able to exist or happen without an atmosphere. In addition, there are only 5 layers of the atmosphere, so at the very least this would be scientifically inaccurate.

Wasn't it Muhammad that split the moon? We know he was a real person who lived, so this would narrow down when this event could have happened. The story of the Chera king that witnessed it hails from the 12th century and was created by Muslims, which doesn't exactly make it the most reliable source, which is the same problem the hadiths run into. The event seems to be referring to a lunar eclipse, which absolutely would have been visible in a wide area that extended well outside the Arab world.

The idea that god was only revealing this to certain people is an insane reach, especially when this was supposed to be Muhammad trying to convince people with supernatural phenomena. At best, this would be Muhammad trying to accredit an event to god.

It never said anything about "living things", just "things, so that defeats your argument. Furthermore, your argument was "not a lot of things", not "no things". The layers from the Earth's surface including boundary layers are: Troposphere, Tropopause, Stratosphere, Stratopause, Mesosphere, Mesopause, Thermosphere

Regarding the manuscript dated from AD 621, you can watch this video and skip ahead to 23:15

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJEaAinrccg

Some more reading for you on the moon incident. I'm no expert on the subject but you can contact the British Library yourself if you want to verify the manuscript and in the video. Some more reading for you on how the Maya recorded the moon split in the tiny glyphs in the Madrid Codex. Muhammad did not split the moon; God did. we do not believe miracles happen without Gods intervention.

https://www.reddit.com/r/LightHouseofTruth/comments/tti3jo/the_miracle_of_splitting_the_moon_and_the_madrid/

https://youtu.be/tm4IVSgMbnQ?si=zU96nkJWWE-071Sr
what's your opinion on this song, falay?

ArrogantRat posted...

https://youtu.be/tm4IVSgMbnQ?si=zU96nkJWWE-071Sr
what's your opinion on this song, falay?

Personally - the song doesn't do anything for me. I disagree with some of the lyrics. God isn't "in everyone we meet" Allah is the creator and is distinct from his creation, so that's some new age mumbo jumbo right there. It would imply Godhood is within each and every human.

Also, it seems the songwriter's trying to add some oriental flavor with the word "Allah" just to spice things up for his audience. Allah is just just the arabic word for God. Coptic Christians for example refer to God as Allah, just as muslims do.

falayyou01 posted...

Personally - the song doesn't do anything for me. I disagree with some of the lyrics. God isn't "in everyone we meet" Allah is the creator and is distinct from his creation, so that's some new age mumbo jumbo right there. It would imply Godhood is within each and every human.

Also, it seems the songwriter's trying to add some oriental flavor with the word "Allah" just to spice things up for his audience. Allah is just just the arabic word for God. Coptic Christians for example refer to God as Allah, just as muslims do.

yeah, he's not Muslim; he's Christian.

falayyou01 posted...

It never said anything about "living things", just "things, so that defeats your argument. Furthermore, your argument was "not a lot of things", not "no things". The layers from the Earth's surface including boundary layers are: Troposphere, Tropopause, Stratosphere, Stratopause, Mesosphere, Mesopause, Thermosphere

I never said living things either. I mean things as basic as rain or wind. This is why I was hoping for a definition of what "things" are in this context.

The tropopause, stratopause and mesopause are not layers of the atmosphere, they are the boundaries between layers. You're also mixing the exosphere in your list there.

Regarding the manuscript dated from AD 621, you can watch this video and skip ahead to 23:15

<snip>

From my previous post: "The story of the Chera king that witnessed it hails from the 12th century and was created by Muslims, which doesn't exactly make it the most reliable source." I'd want some non-Muslim sources on this claim, which absolutely should have existed. You provided one from the Maya, but...

Some more reading for you on the moon incident. I'm no expert on the subject but you can contact the British Library yourself if you want to verify the manuscript and in the video. Some more reading for you on how the Maya recorded the moon split in the tiny glyphs in the Madrid Codex. Muhammad did not split the moon; God did. we do not believe miracles happen without Gods intervention.

https://www.reddit.com/r/LightHouseofTruth/comments/tti3jo/the_miracle_of_splitting_the_moon_and_the_madrid/

Who did it is unimportant at this point, we haven't even established that it happened. There are 2 problems with this:

1) at best, this codex dates to 900AD, which is centuries after the life of Muhammad. In actual fact, it is likely another few centuries younger which compounds this issue. Of course, it's perfectly plausible that older records are lost to history.

2) You can't observe the same eclipse from south-west India and the Mayan empire. There is no way they could be talking about the same event.

reincarnator07 posted...

I never said living things either. I mean things as basic as rain or wind. This is why I was hoping for a definition of what "things" are in this context.

The tropopause, stratopause and mesopause are not layers of the atmosphere, they are the boundaries between layers. You're also mixing the exosphere in your list there.

From my previous post: "The story of the Chera king that witnessed it hails from the 12th century and was created by Muslims, which doesn't exactly make it the most reliable source." I'd want some non-Muslim sources on this claim, which absolutely should have existed. You provided one from the Maya, but...

Who did it is unimportant at this point, we haven't even established that it happened. There are 2 problems with this:

1) at best, this codex dates to 900AD, which is centuries after the life of Muhammad. In actual fact, it is likely another few centuries younger which compounds this issue. Of course, it's perfectly plausible that older records are lost to history.

2) You can't observe the same eclipse from south-west India and the Mayan empire. There is no way they could be talking about the same event.

The original text never even mentions the atmospheric layers as being the same thing as the "heavens" to begin with. You equated the heavens to the atmopsheric layers to match your naturalistic approach in conformity with scientific laws, and i was trying to argue that even if you were to equate the atmospheric layers to the "heavens", there's no contradiction if you include the boundary layers, which you conveniently removed.

On the codex, have you contacted the British Library yet to determine the precise date for the manuscript? And like you said lack of evidence is not evidence of absence. Regarding the Mayans, it's clear that some notable event was seen for them to adapt their calendar. No one knows how long the moon splitting event was visible for, so who are we to say what was or wasn't possible back then. I'd agree that it wouldn't be possible AT THE SAME EXACT TIME, but if we don't know the duration of the event, how can we argue one way or the other.

There's something else you should know. Naturalism is philosophy which purports the idea that only natural laws and forces operate in the universe; it excludes the supernatural/spiritual elements and therefore by its very definition, assumes the non-existence of God, as if it is a settled issue. It's excluding all possible scenarios therefore. So here's a circular argument for you to solve:

1) God doesn't exist
2) Why not?
3) Because Science
4) Science draws from naturalistic philosophy which by its very definition, ignores supernatural/spiritual elements and therefore implicitly rejects the existence of God to begin with.
5) Well - God has no place in Science because he doesn't exist to begin with!!

And round and around we go.

falayyou01 posted...

1) God doesn't exist
2) Why not?
3) Because Science
4) Science draws from naturalistic philosophy which by its very definition, ignores supernatural/spiritual elements and therefore implicitly rejects the existence of God to begin with.
5) Well - God has no place in Science because he doesn't exist to begin with!!

And round and around we go.

You do know that the vast majority of western scientists were/are Christian, right? Like, Einstein believed in God and Mendel was a fucking monk so...

Genetically Modified Skeptic and Antibot are such good channels...

BlueKat posted...

You do know that the vast majority of western scientists were/are Christian, right? Like, Einstein believed in God and Mendel was a fucking monk so...

False. First of all, most scientists are either athiest or agnostic (see below source). The remainder are theists of various religious affiliations - not necessarily Christian. So the majority subscribe to naturalist philosophy. Religion is likely shunned in the scientific community because of the dominant prevailing naturalist viewpoint.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9956591/#:~:text=30%E2%80%9337%25%20of%20scientists%20identify,)%20%5B17%2C%2019%5D.

falayyou01 posted...

The original text never even mentions the atmospheric layers as being the same thing as the "heavens" to begin with. You equated the heavens to the atmopsheric layers to match your naturalistic approach in conformity with scientific laws, and i was trying to argue that even if you were to equate the atmospheric layers to the "heavens", there's no contradiction if you include the boundary layers, which you conveniently removed.

No, you did. Specifically, you said "when referring to the heavens it means he divided a single heaven into seven parts which correspond to the seven different layers of the stratosphere". In addition, if you include the boundaries (which aren't layers but irrelevant) then you'd have more than 7 layers, since you've missed the thermopause and the exosphere. No matter how you count it, you don't have 7 layers unless you arbitrarily exclude some and include things which aren't layers of the atmosphere.

On the codex, have you contacted the British Library yet to determine the precise date for the manuscript? And like you said lack of evidence is not evidence of absence. Regarding the Mayans, it's clear that some notable event was seen for them to adapt their calendar. No one knows how long the moon splitting event was visible for, so who are we to say what was or wasn't possible back then. I'd agree that it wouldn't be possible AT THE SAME EXACT TIME, but if we don't know the duration of the event, how can we argue one way or the other.

Well we know how long a lunar eclipse lasts for, they happen every year and have been well recorded. I'm not saying this proves that it didn't happen, only that it's not proof that it did happen. Without any proof, I'm gonna default to the null hypothesis, which would be that your claim is incorrect.

There's something else you should know. Naturalism is philosophy which purports the idea that only natural laws and forces operate in the universe; it excludes the supernatural/spiritual elements and therefore by its very definition, assumes the non-existence of God, as if it is a settled issue. It's excluding all possible scenarios therefore. So here's a circular argument for you to solve:

1) God doesn't exist
2) Why not?
3) Because Science
4) Science draws from naturalistic philosophy which by its very definition, ignores supernatural/spiritual elements and therefore implicitly rejects the existence of God to begin with.
5) Well - God has no place in Science because he doesn't exist to begin with!!

And round and around we go.

Naturalism isn't my philosophy, but I'd argue that science doesn't disprove a god. If I accept the assumption that only natural laws operate in the universe, that doesn't mean it was always that way, nor does it indicate that those laws couldn't have been put into place by a god.

Science doesn't make a positive claim on the existence of god either way.

falayyou01 posted...

False. First of all, most scientists are either athiest or agnostic (see below source). The remainder are theists of various religious affiliations - not necessarily Christian. So the majority subscribe to naturalist philosophy. Religion is likely shunned in the scientific community because of the dominant prevailing naturalist viewpoint.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9956591/#:~:text=30%E2%80%9337%25%20of%20scientists%20identify,)%20%5B17%2C%2019%5D.

It's actually not false at all, and you are wrong. And the study of 46 people you bring up does not back anything you say nor go against anything I said. You seem to have a strong prejudice towards scientists. And I'm an agnostic atheist you couldn't care less about their faith. You clearly no nothing about scientists and their religious beliefs. Smh, sad

reincarnator07 posted...

No, you did. Specifically, you said "when referring to the heavens it means he divided a single heaven into seven parts which correspond to the seven different layers of the stratosphere". In addition, if you include the boundaries (which aren't layers but irrelevant) then you'd have more than 7 layers, since you've missed the thermopause and the exosphere. No matter how you count it, you don't have 7 layers unless you arbitrarily exclude some and include things which aren't layers of the atmosphere.

Well we know how long a lunar eclipse lasts for, they happen every year and have been well recorded. I'm not saying this proves that it didn't happen, only that it's not proof that it did happen. Without any proof, I'm gonna default to the null hypothesis, which would be that your claim is incorrect.

Naturalism isn't my philosophy, but I'd argue that science doesn't disprove a god. If I accept the assumption that only natural laws operate in the universe, that doesn't mean it was always that way, nor does it indicate that those laws couldn't have been put into place by a god.

Science doesn't make a positive claim on the existence of god either way.

Ok, so if we agree that science has no bearing on the discussion of God, it doesnt do us good any good to only discuss religion only in the context of the natural laws, of which we have incomplete knowledge of. Why should the burden be on theists then to provide evidence and frame the discussion around this naturalistic framework? We should be discussing other sources of knowledge like intuition.

God could kind of stop all this debate by ending his thousands of years of "just trust me bro" and make himself easily visible.

falayyou01 posted...

Ok, so if we agree that science has no bearing on the discussion of God, it doesnt do us good any good to only discuss religion only in the context of the natural laws, of which we have incomplete knowledge of. Why should the burden be on theists then to provide evidence and frame the discussion around this naturalistic framework? We should be discussing other sources of knowledge like intuition.

Russell's Teapot

falayyou01 posted...

Ok, so if we agree that science has no bearing on the discussion of God, it doesnt do us good any good to only discuss religion only in the context of the natural laws, of which we have incomplete knowledge of. Why should the burden be on theists then to provide evidence and frame the discussion around this naturalistic framework? We should be discussing other sources of knowledge like intuition.

What if my intuition tells me the earth is flat and was created by the flying spaghetti monster?

BlueKat posted...

It's actually not false at all, and you are wrong. And the study of 46 people you bring up does not back anything you say nor go against anything I said. You seem to have a strong prejudice towards scientists. And I'm an agnostic atheist you couldn't care less about their faith. You clearly no nothing about scientists and their religious beliefs. Smh, sad

my issue is with naturalist doctrine which a lot of scientists implicitly follow, whether they acknowledge it or not. Assuming natural laws are the only laws that govern the universe is pure ignorance and anyone who subscribes to that notion is ignorant because theyre excluding the possibility of the spiritual / supernatural elements, which lie beyond the realm of understanding, but nevertheless remains a key aspect of civilizations throughout history.

Euripides posted...

What if my intuition tells me the earth is flat and was created by the flying spaghetti monster?

id call you a madman.

falayyou01 posted...

which lie beyond the realm of understanding, but nevertheless remains a key aspect of civilizations throughout history.

Right, because before science, humans invented gods to fill in the knowledge gaps

falayyou01 posted...

id call you a madman.

And yet when I call you madman for believing in God...

Euripides posted...

And yet when I call you madman for believing in God...

Id call you a madman for believing otherwise. How did the universe come about ? Pure chance?

Idk why you guys continue going back and forth with someone that believes they cannot possibly be wrong about this lol

falayyou01 posted...

Ok, so if we agree that science has no bearing on the discussion of God, it doesnt do us good any good to only discuss religion only in the context of the natural laws, of which we have incomplete knowledge of. Why should the burden be on theists then to provide evidence and frame the discussion around this naturalistic framework? We should be discussing other sources of knowledge like intuition.

It's not that science has no bearing, it's that it doesn't make a claim. Science does not claim that there is a god. Science does not claim that there is no god. However, the claims made by holy texts absolutely can be tested. Hell, for a really boring example, if praying for stuff works then why is there no correlation between prayer and a desired result? If the moon was split, why is the only supporting evidence the very book that claimed it happened and groups which already accept said book as the absolute truth?

As for why the burden of proof is on theists, it's because you're making the claim. To steal an earlier example, if I claimed that I had a 7 leaf clover, it would be on me to prove that. You wouldn't be expected to disprove that.

falayyou01 posted...

Id call you a madman for believing otherwise. How did the universe come about ? Pure chance?

I told you, flying spaghetti monster

reincarnator07 posted...

It's not that science has no bearing, it's that it doesn't make a claim. Science does not claim that there is a god. Science does not claim that there is no god. However, the claims made by holy texts absolutely can be tested. Hell, for a really boring example, if praying for stuff works then why is there no correlation between prayer and a desired result? If the moon was split, why is the only supporting evidence the very book that claimed it happened and groups which already accept said book as the absolute truth?

As for why the burden of proof is on theists, it's because you're making the claim. To steal an earlier example, if I claimed that I had a 7 leaf clover, it would be on me to prove that. You wouldn't be expected to disprove that.

By ignoring the issue of God, naturalist philosophy and many scientists are implicitly saying theres no God, if not explicitly. Lets reframe this in terms of probabilities. Theres only two possibilities here; either God exists or he doesnt. If you had to stake your life on it which do you think the more likely scenario in light of everything youve experienced throughout your life? Where do you think the universe came from? Nothing?

falayyou01 posted...

Lets reframe this in terms of probabilities. Theres only two possibilities here; either God exists or he doesnt. If you had to stake your life on it which do you think the more likely scenario in light of everything youve experienced throughout your life?

That's Pascal's wager and its bullshit, because those aren't the only two possibilities unless you ignore every other god humanity has ever worshipped, or the possibility that there are gods that no human religion has ever correctly identified

Anyway, to answer which i think is more likely, no god.

Unsure. I feel there must be some higher power that created everything but for all I know it's some mindless force of nature type thing.

PMarth2002 posted...

That's Pascal's wager and its bullshit, because those aren't the only two possibilities unless you ignore every other god humanity has ever worshipped, or the possibility that there are gods that no human religion has ever correctly identified

Anyway, to answer which i think is more likely, no god.

Humans having multiple incorrect conceptions of God throughout history and into the future doesnt mean that there isnt a singular correct conception of God.

falayyou01 posted...

Humans having multiple incorrect conceptions of God throughout history and into the future doesnt mean that there isnt a singular correct conception of God.

True, it doesn't.

How do you know which conception of god is correct though?