Why God??!!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The logic that "We don't know how exactly, therefore GOD" is something a kindergartner might devise.

I disagree completely. No kindergartener would be able to construct such an elaborate scheme of self-deception.

[Lincoln]

The logic that "we don't know exactly therefore evolution did it over billions of years" is also rather childish and unscientific don't you think?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
The differences are enormous.

First of all, you can test the properties of said particle. Secondly, said particle does not posess any of the anthropic properties that God is supposed to have, such as mercy, justice, etc. Thirdly, said particle does not posess any of God's omni- attributes, such as omniscient, omnipotent, etc. Forthly, said particle exists inside this universe, not outside of it.

Neither does God.

everything exists inside the universe

Why do I always have to point this out?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Black Knight84
Also I've seen the whole circular logic argument by the Athiests here and this is all well and good, but it seems like an excuse people keep on using to keep living inside the square if you ask me. Whilst no one can prove there is a God, no one can disprove it either, therefore I think we need to allow for the possibility for either.

Then you can't complain about me proclaiming my belief in the little green elves that dance on the surfaces of electrons, since you can't prove they aren't there.

btw, the elves are pro-choice

EDIT: I see Boris has already adopted my elves

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
In what way is the claim that God exists a scientific claim? A scientific claim must be one that is by definition testable. Unlike a rock, or an animal, or a person, God is not testable in the same sense. If God does not want us to talk with him, there is nothing we can do to change his mind Ergo, the existence of God cannot be an empirical claim. Nor should God be empirical, since by definition an empirical God would not be God.

A scientific claim is a claim about the universe, about the empirical world. If God is untestable, that is saying that he can have no possible effect on the universe. Why do you care, then?

[Kuciwalker]

Another point I'd like to make about the "improbability" of life coming into existence on its own:

Take the total volume of the oceans. Add a whole lot to that (water seeps out of the oceans into the mantle). Then think of that volume with huge concentrations of organic molecules. Then think of that volume sitting over the course of one billion years (how long it took life to appear on earth). Does it really seem all that improbable now?

Then consider that this is just one planet in an ENORMOUS universe. We happen to be on a, or the planet where life developed. Even if there is one earthlike planet per galaxy, that's still fifty gazillion earthlike planets. Is life so improbable now?

Originally posted by Lincoln
The logic that "we don't know exactly therefore evolution did it over billions of years" is also rather childish and unscientific don't you think?

Yup, but no one makes that argument, so it's all good.

I think arguing about something you clearly have no comprehension of is rather childish, too, btw.

[Ben Kenobi]

A scientific claim is a claim about the universe, about the empirical world.

Science ! = universe.

All this means is that science has limitations imposed by their insistence upon testable observations.

If God is untestable, that is saying that he can have no possible effect on the universe.

Again, science ! = universe.
Just because the existence of God cannot be proven through empirical means does not mean that empirical evidence does not exist in favour of God. Rather, it emphasises God's omnipotence, that he is not bound to submit to our experimentation. He could indeed have a profound effect on the universe, and yet not fulfill the requirements as a testable observation.

[Kuciwalker]

Science ! = universe.

All this means is that science has limitations imposed by their insistence upon testable observations.

That's the scientific method, a certain way of gaining meaningful information through sensory perception. Science is simply all study of the universe.

[Ben Kenobi]

"The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of natural phenomena. "

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Science

Not the universe, but natural phenomena.

[Kuciwalker]

"Natural phenomena" means the stuff that happens in the universe!

[Solly]

everything exists inside the universe

Why do I always have to point this out?

How do you know?

Science is simply all study of the universe.

Philosophy tends to get nearer the truth than science does.

[Elok]

Okay, sky, what term ARE we allowed to use to describe the heretofore "supernatural?" If you want us to just say there is nothing that can't be described by science, you're asking us to use self-defeating arguments, which is unreasonable.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Ramo
True, but I'm just pointing out that just because a God may interact with the unverse, doesn't make Him actually observable. In fact, I've never heard of anyone describe an observable God (ostensibly because He's so beyond human comprehension, his actions aren't predictable).

He could choose to be observed. In fact, this is what he did 2000 years ago. It may not be empirical evidence (ir is certainly not repeatable in an experiment) but that does not make it false, or mean that it didn't happen. Therefore (unlike the green elves) God has had an influence on the universe.

Originally posted by Kucinich
That's the scientific method, a certain way of gaining meaningful information through sensory perception. Science is simply all study of the universe.

This is a very niave viewpoint. Science does not (and cannot) encompass or describe everything in the universe. I does not try to. It only aims to describe mathematically any laws governing physical processes. Even if we were to find that we can form an equation or a principle which would allow us to encompass all of physics (I don't believe we ever will....) then we would still not know why we have that particular principle or equation. Physics and its equations are not laws governing the universe - they are our descriptions of our perceived laws. There may very well be phenomena in the universe which cannot be described by physics (in principle) - should we just make a blanket claim that these phenomena do not exist because we can't explain them?

[Solly]

There may very well be phenomena in the universe which cannot be described by physics (in principle)

Subjectivity.

[Black Knight84]

Argh!!...Green...Elves....EVERYWHERE>..........Faith in God....fading....ARGH!! Faith in Green Elves...rising...rising.......GREEN ELVeS!!! :NOOO>>>>Must..>>..>.NoT.....sub..mit................................. .........ARGH>..........................In the beginning was the Green Elf and the Green Elf was with ....NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@Greenelf.com



hmm..or not.