" It’s only people who believe they hold the ONE & ONLY TRUTH"
Ditto. And I’ll add that the people that KNOW that they have the one and only truth scare me the most.
"Ditto. And I’ll add that the people that KNOW that they have the one and only truth scare me the most. "
Yes, those overconfident scientist can be really scary.
I wasn’t solely referencing non-scientists for their religious views. I mean what I wrote, that anyone that KNOWS something like this, is scary. The two extremes of the issue just concern me for different reasons.
“So anyway, I just don’t get what the ruckus is about with the proof of the existence or non existence of God. It’s not a proof question.”
I couldn’t agree more. The more scientists try to “disprove” the existence of God, the more the value of faith will hamper their efforts. At any point of the question of the creation of the universe, one could argue God had a hand in it. Now, I’m particularly fond of Dawkins’ point that “f God wanted to create life and create humans, it would be slightly odd that he should choose the extraordinarily roundabout way of waiting for 10 billion years before life got started and then waiting for another 4 billion years until you got human beings capable of worshipping and sinning and all the other things religious people are interested in.” But it’s neither here nor there. It does nothing to “disprove” the existence of God.
That point doesn’t seem particularly strong to me at all, unless we assume that out of all creation, God *only *cared about the existence of humans. And I see no reason to believe such an arrogant idea.
It’s as arrogant as believing that of all creatures, God decided that WE were the superior species.
2000 yrs of continuous war, the only species that kills for fun, etc.
I fail to see superiority there.
To go back to the original post, despite being a scientist, and not believing in God, I certainly do not believe that Science can prove of disprove the existence of God.
Maybe CCF and I could show that God is undecidable under ZFC? CCF, you’re up for it?
It’s as arrogant as believing that of all creatures, God decided that WE were the superior species.
Who believes that? Not anyone who believes in angels. Etc.
I certainly do not believe that Science can prove of disprove the existence of God.
We agree. I don’t think Dawkins shares that opinion as strongly.
Really? Christians do not believe that a man is superior to a dog, a cat, a dolphin, a cockroach?
**Christians do not believe that a man is superior to a dog, a cat, a dolphin, a cockroach? **
Oh. If that’s the limit of the question, of course Christians believe that- right along with just about everyone else. That stands, shall we say, to reason.
Who says other species are not capable of reasoning?
Really? Christians do not believe that a man is superior to a dog, a cat, a dolphin, a cockroach?
as a christian, speaking for myself of course, absolutely not. i think you are confusing *superiority *with dominion - 2 very differnt terms. biblically speaking, we are given dominion over animals from God, something that humans have abused throughout history. but i don’t think christians are the only ones abusing animals. are humans more intelligent than animals? of course. how many non-christians think more intelligence = superiority in humans? i’d wager a few. so this type of reasoning isn’t relegated to misinformed christians.
what’s your point?
What’s your reasoning to say we’re more intelligent than other species?
Who says other species are not capable of reasoning?
Everyone. You never hear about dogs or dolphins contemplating a demonstration that God is undecidable under ZFC, for instance.
Hang on there…they do have a brain don’t they. That means they are reasoning…
If you say it’s not the case, you’ll have to review your position re. abortion…because this is precisely the argument christians make for embryos being already humans as they are able to think…
and as far as I know, I’ve never heard of an embryo talking about God and ZFC…
I laugh every time a “scientist” tells me that it can be clearly proven that God is not the answer.
Do you also laugh whenever someone tells you, with conviction (the equivalent of someone saying that it has been proven), that God is the answer. I understand your point may not have been simply that someone claimed that God was not the answer, but that it had been “clearly proven.” I agree that it has not been proven to my satisfaction. But I tend to veiw the probability of God being the answer as significantly less than that of God not being the answer.
The problem with science is that it has the potential to breed arrogance.
And religion doesn’t have this problem? Or maybe it’s that while science has the potential, religion has fully achieved it.
Certainly science can be used to describe any number of natural processes, and can even “explain” them to many people’s satisfaction. None of that, however, reduces even one iota the possibility of the existence of God.
I’m not sure I agree with this. On one hand, you can say that God either exists or doesn’t and that nothing any says, does, shows or explains is going to change this fact. But for someone on the fence who is trying to decide whether or not to believe, science plays a major role in setting forth the probabilities. A jury in a trial is supposed to weight the evidence and then, considering it as a whole, make a decision. This decision is often one based on probabilities. In a civil case, it’s usually a preponderance of the evidence or simply, “more likely than not.” In a criminal case, it’s beyond reasonable doubt or, to put it differntly, very vey likely the guy did it. To the fencesitter considering whether God exists, science plays a role and helping evaluatie the evidence. To the extent that a miracle is evidence of God or of the supernatural, a naturalistic explanation for the miracle undercuts it, increasing the probability that God is not the answer.
What’s your reasoning to say we’re more intelligent than other species?
because my dog has never posted on the doggie-internet forum about why dogs are more intelligent than humans.
i mean, come on. do i really have to answer that? i’d enjoy engaging in this debate but i don’t think that presupposing that humans are more intelligent than animals is unfair.
btw, what is your reasoning that we are less intelligent than other species?
they do have a brain don’t they. That means they are reasoning…
Yes, they have a brain, or at least a lot of them do. No, it doesn’t mean that they’re reasoning as we can.
because this is precisely the argument christians make for embryos being already humans as they are able to think…
Bzzzzt! No, it’s not- every Christian, along with every other person, knows that an embryo that hasn’t developed into brain wave activity is not yet able to think or reason.
If you’ve been posting here long enough you know that there is evidence that intelligence is a very evasive thing…
why does posting on the internet is a sign of intelligence?
How about a spider being able to build a web without ever taking a geometry class? Or how about dolphins being able to find their way in the ocean without a GPS and communicating across large distances?
From a purely evolutionary sense, the smartest group is the one that will stay the longest…and I wouldn’t bet against insects.
Sure. We can prove we are more intelligent. By defining intelligence ourselves, by designing the tests ourselves by saying ‘oh look what we can do’…but in the end, are we going to be on the planet until it dies?
Call me pessimistic, but I really doubt it.
**Hang on there…they do have a brain don’t they. That means they are reasoning… **
It does?
If you say it’s not the case, you’ll have to review your position re. abortion…because this is precisely the argument christians make for embryos being already humans as they are able to think… Not this christian. My argument against abortion has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the ability of an embryo or fetus to think
and as far as I know, I’ve never heard of an embryo talking about God and ZFC… **** **** ****
“No, it doesn’t mean that they’re reasoning as we can.”
That doesn’t mean we are better reasoners…only that we reason differently…in which case, you cannot compare…