Proof: God makes you stupid

[Theben]

Originally posted by Richelieu


I have to admit these guys are good. Let me try my own version of this:

Wealthy are those who give me all their money, for they are truly wealthy.

Any takers?

No, but I'll join your religion.

HALLEUJA!! I has seen de light!

[Richelieu]

Since you're my first disciple i put you in charge of my church. You get 30% and an office in Rome.

Just wondering: you a fisherman?

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Meaning!=Logic.

There are plenty of illogical things out there and yet they still exist.

I beg to differ.

Logic needs a context here. Nothing exists in this universe that does not logically conform to the laws of physics. There are a great multitude of things, however, that appear illogical without complete awareness of the situation. And there are a large number of things that are illogical in other contexts.

But in order for something to exist in this universe, it must be logical within the context of the universe's rules.

So unless something can be understood in the current realm of science it cannot exist? What do you make of Clarke's axiom, that any sufficiently advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic?

I never said that! In fact, I specifically said otherwise. Anything can potentially exist, but in order for us to talk about it in a rational, meaningful way, it has to be understood within a context that has rational, meaningful tools of expression.

Science does. Science lets us talk about objects by describing various observable properties about that object. We can draw conclusions. We can make hypotheses. We can calculate probabilities - which is the key here.

With enough data, we can assign a probability to the truth of an assertion such as the one made by Dawkins. We can never assign such a probability to the claims about God, because science cannot describe God in any way. That's all I'm saying. It is reasonable to talk about the validity of a claim that can be proven; it is not reasonable to talk about the validity of a claim that cannot be proven.

You have faith, which is a completely different tool, but which cannot make use of the descriptive terms found in science.

Nope, he really believes that intelligent aliens came to earth and seeded it.

Omni Rex Draconis called you out on that in this post. Anything else to offer on that front?

It's man's nature to be curious about the ultimate questions of the universe. Thus partial or incomplete explanations are preferred to none.

Err, are you helping me prove my point here? I said this. I said that God is not an explanation, because you cannot describe him in any way, but that science offers at least incomplete explanations. Thanks!

I can list a variety of presuppositions that are inherent in the concept of God, that are logically consistant, in that a being without these qualities would not be considered God.

Yes, but in order for them to be useful in rational discussion, you must assume the existence of God, because you cannot put together logically consistent arguments that prove his existence. It is simply impossible. Doesn't mean he doesn't exist! And don't attempt to counter that nonexistent claim of mine again, please!

Science can't answer the question as to what qualifies as science. You need to go outside of science in order to answer that question. There are inherent limitations of science particularly in realms which are not believed to be empirical.

True. But even though you may disagree with this, science and its method have proven their worth by way of the useful and predictive results they have given us. Thus they are sufficient for now.

If you actually want to answer the big questions about the universe and beyond, you must subscribe to my philosophy. But I don't want you to, so you won't.

Why does an idea have to be 'successful'? Isn't it enough for the idea to just be?

Nope. Nothing ever just is. If you derive some sense of satisfaction or pleasure from the mere existence of an idea, then that idea was successful in giving you said sense of satisfaction or pleasure. You cannot name for me a thing that we humans do that does not have some purpose behind it.

I haven't always believed in God, but this was one of the steps that helped me get to where I am now.

If it's okay for an idea just to exist, why did you need the question of how life arose answered immediately? Could you not be satisfied with the knowledge that this may be answered eventually or may not be answerable at all? Why did you have to jump to God as answer? What could possibly be so important about the answer to that question that you had to accept an unprovable claim in order to get it?

ow would one go about proving by the scientific method that life on earth was seeded by intelligent aliens from other stars?

Currently, I cannot conceive of a way in which this could be done. Needs more data.

[Panag]

*sigh*

and then one wonders why there are so many religous wars , .....

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


If an IQ test does what it truly is supposed to do then the average IQ should not rise with time. A true IQ test should be education independent. If the test is not education independent then it's not truly an IQ test, it's an achievement test.

Beat you to it.

[Ben Kenobi]

I beg to differ.

Logic needs a context here. Nothing exists in this universe that does not logically conform to the laws of physics. There are a great multitude of things, however, that appear illogical without complete awareness of the situation. And there are a large number of things that are illogical in other contexts.

And even things that appear illogical, even though they are correct, such as light being both a particle and a wave at the same time.

But in order for something to exist in this universe, it must be logical within the context of the universe's rules.

Our knowledge of the laws are limited, such that things can tunnel through solid surfaces, etc, and there is no unified set of laws in physics anywayls'

I never said that! In fact, I specifically said otherwise. Anything can potentially exist, but in order for us to talk about it in a rational, meaningful way, it has to be understood within a context that has rational, meaningful tools of expression.

Yes, and my point is that this places unnecessary constraints. For example is it rational to explain the workings of a replicator even though we have no clue how one would work? It would all be conjecture, not reason.

Science does. Science lets us talk about objects by describing various observable properties about that object. We can draw conclusions. We can make hypotheses. We can calculate probabilities - which is the key here.

What's the probability that a replicator will be invented in the next 20 years?

With enough data, we can assign a probability to the truth of an assertion such as the one made by Dawkins.

True, but we lack the data to make any accurate predictions.

We can never assign such a probability to the claims about God, because science cannot describe God in any way.

Also true. God cannot be subject to an experiment, because we could not control him.

It is reasonable to talk about the validity of a claim that can be proven; it is not reasonable to talk about the validity of a claim that cannot be proven.

Proof!= science. We can know things are true without the scientific method, which is my point from before.

You have faith, which is a completely different tool, but which cannot make use of the descriptive terms found in science.

You use the right tool for the job. Science doesn't say that they are the only source of knowledge, nor do they claim that they have any authority over other forms of knowledge.

Err, are you helping me prove my point here? I said this. I said that God is not an explanation, because you cannot describe him in any way, but that science offers at least incomplete explanations. Thanks!

God is not a SCIENTIFIC explanation, but a theological one. I would argue that science can never come up with a comprehensive theory on how live came to be here on earth. The theories cannot be tested empirically.

Yes, but in order for them to be useful in rational discussion, you must assume the existence of God,

No, not at all. I've already gave the introduction to the argument for a first cause and first mover who is both uncaused and unmoved. If he is both then he must have always existed and must be omnipotent, for nothing was moved without him.

If you chain causes, these are all logical suppositions that answer the question, "is there a prime mover?"

True. But even though you may disagree with this, science and its method have proven their worth by way of the useful and predictive results they have given us. Thus they are sufficient for now.

I agree wholeheartedly with what you have said. Science is an effective tool for obtaining knowledge through empirical means. Unfortunately not everything can be understood this way.

If you actually want to answer the big questions about the universe and beyond, you must subscribe to my philosophy. But I don't want you to, so you won't.

What big questions does science answer? What about the question of "when did the universe begin" and "what is the fate of the universe?"

Nope. Nothing ever just is. If you derive some sense of satisfaction or pleasure from the mere existence of an idea, then that idea was successful in giving you said sense of satisfaction or pleasure. You cannot name for me a thing that we humans do that does not have some purpose behind it.

So the tree which falls in the forest does not make a sound, unless someone is there to hear it?

I can name plenty of things that people do which does not have a purpose behind them. Why do people climb mountains, and risk their lives doing so?

If it's okay for an idea just to exist, why did you need the question of how life arose answered immediately?

You misunderstood my point. I am arguing that science cannot answer the question through empirical means to our satisfaction. Not now, and not ever.

Could you not be satisfied with the knowledge that this may be answered eventually or may not be answerable at all?

I would rather seek an answer to the question using the tools which do work at finding one.

Why did you have to jump to God as answer?

Because it is the superior answer to these questions.

What could possibly be so important about the answer to that question that you had to accept an unprovable claim in order to get it?

Again, provable!=science. We know many things that are true even if we cannot know them empirically. For example, tell me how you know how science is supposed to work?

Currently, I cannot conceive of a way in which this could be done. Needs more data.

A being that sufficiently advanced will not reveal themsevles to us unless they choose to do so. Ergo, the scientific method cannot be applied to them.

[falcon41]

God doesn't make you stupid. He only provides answers to the existential questions. He can make you calm.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Japher
Einstein believed in God.

Atheists are seriously missing out on the good that can come from having a belief in God (either Islam, Judaism, or Christianity).

[Richelieu]

I prefer not to mess up my spiritual life with thousand years old myths thank you.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Richelieu
Since you're my first disciple i put you in charge of my church. You get 30% and an office in Rome.

Just wondering: you a fisherman?

Sweet. And no I'm not a fisherman, but I did fish when I was a kid, albeit rarely.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Wezil


I'll say this politely.

**** off. I've read your piece of **** bible already. Front to back (something I suspect you haven't done).

Of course he has. That's why, as a Texan, he sees nothing wrong with all the incest and forced rape in the first part (I think I read something like the first 78 pages or so before I threw it down in disgust and stamped on it!)...

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Meaning!=Logic.

There are plenty of illogical things out there and yet they still exist.

Ben is a moron

So unless something can be understood in the current realm of science it cannot exist? What do you make of Clarke's axiom, that any sufficiently advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic?

Ben is a moron

Nope, he really believes that intelligent aliens came to earth and seeded it.

Ben is a moron

It's man's nature to be curious about the ultimate questions of the universe. Thus partial or incomplete explanations are preferred to none.

Ben is a moron

I can list a variety of presuppositions that are inherent in the concept of God, that are logically consistant, in that a being without these qualities would not be considered God.

Ben is a moron

Science can't answer the question as to what qualifies as science. You need to go outside of science in order to answer that question. There are inherent limitations of science particularly in realms which are not believed to be empirical.

Ben is a moron

Why does an idea have to be 'successful'? Isn't it enough for the idea to just be?

Ben is a moron

I haven't always believed in God, but this was one of the steps that helped me get to where I am now.

Ben is a moron

How would one go about proving by the scientific method that life on earth was seeded by intelligent aliens from other stars?

Ben is a moron


Sorry, did I miss anything?

[MOBIUS]

Apparently, I did!

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
And even things that appear illogical, even though they are correct, such as light being both a particle and a wave at the same time.

Ben is a moron

Our knowledge of the laws are limited, such that things can tunnel through solid surfaces, etc, and there is no unified set of laws in physics anywayls'

Ben is a moron

Yes, and my point is that this places unnecessary constraints. For example is it rational to explain the workings of a replicator even though we have no clue how one would work? It would all be conjecture, not reason.

Ben is a moron

What's the probability that a replicator will be invented in the next 20 years?

Ben is a moron

True, but we lack the data to make any accurate predictions.

Ben is a moron

Also true. God cannot be subject to an experiment, because we could not control him.

Ben is a moron

Proof!= science. We can know things are true without the scientific method, which is my point from before.

Ben is a moron

You use the right tool for the job. Science doesn't say that they are the only source of knowledge, nor do they claim that they have any authority over other forms of knowledge.

Ben is a moron

God is not a SCIENTIFIC explanation, but a theological one. I would argue that science can never come up with a comprehensive theory on how live came to be here on earth. The theories cannot be tested empirically.

Ben is a moron

No, not at all. I've already gave the introduction to the argument for a first cause and first mover who is both uncaused and unmoved. If he is both then he must have always existed and must be omnipotent, for nothing was moved without him.

Ben is a moron

If you chain causes, these are all logical suppositions that answer the question, "is there a prime mover?"

Ben is a moron

I agree wholeheartedly with what you have said. Science is an effective tool for obtaining knowledge through empirical means. Unfortunately not everything can be understood this way.

Ben is a moron

What big questions does science answer? What about the question of "when did the universe begin" and "what is the fate of the universe?"

Ben is a moron

So the tree which falls in the forest does not make a sound, unless someone is there to hear it?

Ben is a moron

I can name plenty of things that people do which does not have a purpose behind them. Why do people climb mountains, and risk their lives doing so?

Ben is a moron

You misunderstood my point. I am arguing that science cannot answer the question through empirical means to our satisfaction. Not now, and not ever.

Ben is a moron

I would rather seek an answer to the question using the tools which do work at finding one.

Ben is a moron

Because it is the superior answer to these questions.

Ben is a moron

Again, provable!=science. We know many things that are true even if we cannot know them empirically. For example, tell me how you know how science is supposed to work?

Ben is a moron

A being that sufficiently advanced will not reveal themsevles to us unless they choose to do so. Ergo, the scientific method cannot be applied to them.

Ben is a moron.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by MrFun





Atheists are seriously missing out on the good that can come from having a belief in God (either Islam, Judaism, or Christianity).

Religious Wars? YAAAY!

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by MrFun
Atheists are seriously missing out on the good that can come from having a belief in God (either Islam, Judaism, or Christianity).

What about my devout belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Is that good too?