Belgian_Draft 0 #1 July 20, 2009 How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist. Just picked the book up on sale at B&N for $5.98. Anybody read it?HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #2 July 20, 2009 It'll be interesting to hear what it says. Please keep us posted.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RonD1120 62 #3 July 20, 2009 QuoteHow Science Shows That God Does Not Exist. Just picked the book up on sale at B&N for $5.98. Anybody read it? From one review: QuoteDoes Stenger achieve his purpose, proving that God does not exist? In one sense, he does. He shows that the natural universe can be understood in increasing depth as scientific knowledge progresses, without recourse to supernatural explanations which, he argues, are really no explanations at all. But all this may be beside the point. For those who wish to believe in God, scientific explanation is after the fact. This is certainly clear for the arguments in the –2 category. But faith is by definition belief in something for which no evidence exists. Such faith poses a dilemma, so far as doing science is concerned. Either the answer to a scientific question is “God did it,” which closes further inquiry, or one ignores God for enough hours of the day to do science. http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/2007/october/lerner.html Understandable logic for those whom Jesus is not real, living and the same yesterday, today and forever.Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chasteh 0 #4 July 20, 2009 Science cannot prove this. Does that mean we can definitely say God does exist? NOOOOO Science is limited to the empirical universe. Unfortunately, we just can't rule out the possibility that a God-unit (G-unit) exists not as something we can experience with our senses but is still very real. If there is room to doubt the empirical sciences, then it is possible for God to exist. There is room to doubt the empirical sciences. Thus, it is possible for God to exist. Science cannot solve this. I think it is funny that people are still spending time and money trying to figure that one out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #5 July 20, 2009 I personally think it's folly to think that our science has fully identified all reservoirs of energy.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BikerBabe 0 #6 July 20, 2009 the HOW of things is not the same as the WHY of things. One is the province of science, the other of faith. Nor are they mutually exclusive. It saddens me to see BOTH sides of this issue try to argue down the validity of the other, when they can peacefully co- exist. Heck, i even think they are symbiotic.Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #7 July 20, 2009 QuoteScience cannot prove this. Does that mean we can definitely say God does exist? NOOOOO Science is limited to the empirical universe. Unfortunately, we just can't rule out the possibility that a God-unit (G-unit) exists not as something we can experience with our senses but is still very real. If there is room to doubt the empirical sciences, then it is possible for God to exist. There is room to doubt the empirical sciences. Thus, it is possible for God to exist. Science cannot solve this. I think it is funny that people are still spending time and money trying to figure that one out. The same, of course, applies to other mythical supernatural creatures too. So which of the many mutually exclusive "gods" do you choose? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #8 July 20, 2009 I'm blaming the babel fish. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slyde 0 #9 July 20, 2009 Hokey Smokes! Did you think those nursery rhymes just materialized out of thin air. Of course they did! Gods were 7th grade biology students with a terarium project who never finished the homework. row your fucking boat ine stein down came the rain and washed the spider out baa-a-a-a All you ever needed to know was taught in kindergarten. Don't you know who wee think wee are? You should because they don't. You think and therefore you fart.A Peace Prize within minutes of Bombing the Moon. Coincidence? "Beware the Military Industrial Complex." You GO Ike! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #10 July 20, 2009 If you can prove God does not exist you must therefore be able to prov God does exist if in fact it does. Does that mean this fellow is a Gnostic-Athiest? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chasteh 0 #11 July 20, 2009 I guess youll have to show me the scientist who has said such a thing. By reservoirs of energy, are you referring to potential candidates for God-Units? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chasteh 0 #12 July 20, 2009 >The same, of course, applies to other mythical supernatural creatures too. You mean like the flying spaghetti monster? Right. But that doesn't mean we have sufficient reason to believe in it. That is pretty consistent with my statement. >So which of the many mutually exclusive "gods" do you choose? By what clause am I bound to decide? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #13 July 20, 2009 QuoteYou mean like the flying spaghetti monster? And Odin And Vishnu And Shango And Zeus And Jupiter And Alchera And Morrigan And Isis And Apocatequil And Ixchel And Tiamat And a few others......Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Niki1 1 #14 July 20, 2009 Quotethe HOW of things is not the same as the WHY of things. One is the province of science, the other of faith. Nor are they mutually exclusive. It saddens me to see BOTH sides of this issue try to argue down the validity of the other, when they can peacefully co- exist. Heck, i even think they are symbiotic. Amen. (Just to borrow a phrase) To the original premus of the thread, isn't it impossible to prove a negative? Wheather there is a God, Suprime Power, Original Force, the Almighty or whatever your concept is, that is what it is. Your personal concept. The aurguments start when "Religion" is brought into the discussion. Riligion should have very little to do with YOUR personal concept of "God", Religion (which ever one) gives you THEIR concept (and rules). Right and Wrong, Good and Evil, These things you can figure out for yourself. Out of the entire Bible, (don't get me started) ithe the best thing, the really important thing is, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." That's really all we need to do to make this a better world. That's just what I think, I'm not trying to tell anybody else how to live their life. That would make it a religion.Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossilbe before they were done. Louis D Brandeis Where are we going and why are we in this basket? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #15 July 20, 2009 Quotethe HOW of things is not the same as the WHY of things. One is the province of science, the other of faith. You have to wonder exactly where faith gets you though, seeing as by definition it is a belief without evidence. It's basically guessing for the unimaginative. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chasteh 0 #16 July 20, 2009 >I'm not trying to tell anybody else how to live their life So then what do you mean by "we" when you say: "That's really all we need to do to make this a better world." And by whos standards are we making this a "better" world? Yours? >That would make it a religion. Mmmmm. No. A religion would fall in line with a set of beliefs that are followed on the basis of faith as opposed to necessarily indisputible truth. It actually would make it a set of ethical standards. Of course, every religion- in its explanations and writings - includes ethical standards with which to evaluate our lives. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #17 July 20, 2009 Quotethe HOW of things is not the same as the WHY of things. One is the province of science, the other of faith. The question is though, faith in what? Which creation myth? Which prophesy about the end of the world? Science, while not having perfect models for either, would logically conclude that there can only be one true answer, but faiths around the world and throughout time have many different beliefs about them. Since only one can be true, all the others are logically false. There is simply no way they can all co-exist.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #18 July 20, 2009 >Science, while not having perfect models for either, would logically conclude >that there can only be one true answer . . . Hmm. Is light a wave or a particle? Is that cat alive or dead? What is the position and energy of that neutron? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #19 July 20, 2009 >Is light a wave or a particle? Neither, it's a quantum particle >Is that cat alive or dead? Which cat? >What is the position and energy of that neutron? 3.7 and 14.5. Position and momentum would have been harder. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chasteh 0 #20 July 20, 2009 >Science, while not having perfect models for either, would logically conclude that there can only be one true answer Science doesn't conclude that for us. Logic does. Science gives us the information with which to assign truth values to statements, but it does not determine that they can or cannot all be true at the same time. Science is a method we use to seek truth. Logic is a method we use to preserve truth. Having said that, several religions can indeed have truths that are consistent, its just that they end up losing that when each of them states: "This is the only God. Or This is the only true way of believing" >Which creation myth? Calling it a myth is just as invalid as calling it the truth. There is insufficient evidence one way, so there is insufficient evidence the other way also. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #21 July 20, 2009 QuoteCalling it a myth is just as invalid as calling it the truth. There is insufficient evidence one way, so there is insufficient evidence the other way also. What do you want to call it then; a story? A rose by any other name. I'm nearly certain I can discount most religious creation "stories" as myth since just about all of them can, in fact, be easily disproved.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #22 July 20, 2009 QuoteThere is simply no way they can all co-exist. You should read more science fiction. There are plenty of possible worldviews that allow them to co-exist. Simply postulating that it is the faith of believers that creates their deity and makes it real for themselves gets around all of those objections.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #23 July 20, 2009 Quote Quote There is simply no way they can all co-exist. You should read more science fiction. There are plenty of possible worldviews that allow them to co-exist. Simply postulating that it is the faith of believers that creates their deity and makes it real for themselves gets around all of those objections. Ya know Tom, they call it science FICTION for a reason. quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #24 July 20, 2009 Since in my view all religion is fiction anyway, I don't see any reason not to draw on other fiction to explain religious systems. What's the difference between drawing on the Bible to explain Islam and drawing on Robert Heinlein to explain Christianity? In either case, you're using someone's fictional writings, intended to explain their worldview, to help you explain another worldview.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #25 July 20, 2009 >Neither, it's a quantum particle Uh oh! "Since only one can be true, all the others are logically false." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
