Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 10:36 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
[ARCHIVED] - God(s), Science & Evidence
#1
God(s), Science & Evidence
Welcome to the debate thread between Fr0d0 and Kyuuketsuki.

The topic is "God(s), Science & Evidence"

First both debaters will introduce themselves in this topic, and give an overview of the goals they try to achieve in this debate.

Then there will be 4 rounds of debate.

ROUND 1: Opening Statements (Deadline 11th of May 2009)
Each member of the debate makes an opening statement (3000 words maximum) on the debate topic. These are pre-prepared statements that outline (in essence) the protagonists understanding of the subject, what they believe to be true. Each response will be posted as a separate posting in the debate forum clearly stating in the title that it is "ROUND 1" e.g. "ROUND 1: Debater #1's Opening Statement"

ROUND 2: Response To Opening Statements (Deadline 5th of July 2009)
Each team member replies to the opening statement/s of the opposing team member/s (5000 words maximum). This section is more free-form and deals with the points raised by their adversaries and explain why they consider their adversary's POV to be incorrect. Each response will be posted as a reply to their own opening statement in the debate forum clearly stating in the title that it is "ROUND 2" e.g. "ROUND 2: Debater #2's Response To Debater #1's Opening Statement"

ROUND 3: Response #2 (Deadline 19th of July 2009)
Each team member replies to the first response/s of the opposing team member/s (5000 words maximum). Each response will be posted as a reply to their own response in the debate forum clearly stating in the title that it is "ROUND 3" e.g. "ROUND 3: Debater #1's Response To Debater #2's Response"

ROUND 4: Summary (Deadline 2nd of August 2009)
Each team member replies to the second response/s of the opposing team member/s (3000 words maximum). Again this is free-form but length limited which allows each protagonists to sum up their case and state why they consider their adversary to be incorrect. Each response will be posted as a reply to their own second response in the debate forum clearly stating in the title that it is "ROUND 4" e.g. "ROUND 4: Debater #2's Summary"

Quotes will be counted in the word count, so use it sparingly. If one of the debaters is not capable of posting their round posting before the deadline and did not ask for an extension on the deadline, he will have forfeited the debate. A debater may ask the referee for an extension on the deadline through PM. If the referee finds the reason for the extension request satisfactory the deadline can be extended for both parties.

After the Summary statements, the thread will be closed. The debate winner will be decided on the merit of the arguments made by a jury who will need to be as neutral on the subject as possible.

A separate thread will be posted in the discussion area for the members of the forum not participating in the debate to comment on this debate. This thread will be closely moderated, no off-topic derails are allowed in that thread.

Unless there are any questions or objections, let the debate begin.

(edit: at the request of the debaters the time schedule has been altered)
Best regards,
Leo van Miert
Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you
Pastafarian
#2
[ARCHIVED] - God(s), Science & Evidence
Introduction
I am an ex-Catholic atheist who lost religion in his mid-teens and realised he was atheist in his mid thirties. I am a graduate in applied biology and currently work as a Senior Systems Engineer for an outsourcing company.

In this debate I hope to show that science is the only valid philosophy when explaining things in our universe, that any claim to the existence of deity is effectively a hypothesis, that all hypotheses can be considered by science, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and if they cannot provide it should be rationally dismissed.

"In face of the onslaught of the fundamentalists, some scientists are content to repeat over and over that they believe in evolution but that there is no conflict between science and religion. They only obscure the real issue. This statement may be true, but it depends entirely upon the definition of religion."
Clarence Darrow, 1927

Science
Science is a methodology and explanations based within the "scientific database" should be derived from scientifically acquired data ... from the US legal trial, McLean versus the Arkansas Board of Education, 1996 it was agreed that:

• It is guided by natural law
• it has to be explanatory by reference to natural law
• it is testable against the empirical world
• its conclusions are tentative, that is to say they are not necessarily the final word
• it is falsifiable

Natural laws are broad generalisations that describe the way nature has been repeatedly seen to operate and if an observation depends on the supernatural it cannot be considered natural. Scientific theories must be falsifiable and most theories have some trouble with this (evolutionary and cosmological theories cannot turn the clock back) as no one can literally look into the past but it is not necessary to directly observe these events and explanations can be inferred from evidence that all past events (at least potentially) leave behind; they must be verifiable i.e. it must be possible, once a theory or hypothesis is advanced, for other experimenters to repeat those observations either by the same method or by others; and they must be tentative that is to say that no scientific explanation can be considered to be absolute. Scientific laws are not, as some would have us believe, the highest form of explanation in science but generalised descriptions of scientific phenomena in ideal or isolated systems.

Some believe that in science it is necessary to carry out experiments, this is a hugely oversimplified view ... science requires models, models that explain events, these models are based on observations and are used to predict further observations; experiments are simply one method of generating observations.

Science derives its confidence from accumulated observations and a rational (deductive) interpretation of the same. Evolution (to use the fundamentalist's most hated example) is now considered so safe that nothing could shake it as a theory but it remains true that it would only take (to use a theistic example) one piece of verified evidence that the hand of deity were involved in the process and evolution as a theory would die. The same is true of any scientific theory and demonstrates that science does not deal with truths or absolutes, it deals with facts, theories and hypotheses, is wholly open to challenge and can be considered an ongoing & self-correcting attempt to understand nature and the observable universe. Furthermore, given that the universe may be defined as "the sum of all that exists", we can say that science is an ongoing attempt to explain the universe and in this respect is attempting to explain all that is observable.

The Nature of Evidence
But what is evidence? Quite obviously not every piece of evidence is associable with a given claim for that would be to say that the life of a butterfly explains sunspot cycles and perhaps the big bang itself.

When a scientific hypothesis or theory is proposed a number of assertions will be made, an assertion is something that can be said about our universe and such assertions will be based upon evidence. Evidence (valid evidence) can be considered to be anything that can affect the likelihood of an assertion being correct, in essence a form of probability, and (as mentioned above) evidence must be verifiable. A relevant observation (to a given claim) is a piece of evidence that has been agreed to be correctly and accurately associated with a given assertion. Evidence can be directly observable or not ... for example if a country is claimed to have a population of 100 million it is quite clear that is not direct as no one can possibly see all 100 million citizens simultaneously, the evidence for this claim is therefore indirect (it is a generalisation).

When making a claim about our universe it is important to ensure that observations are true (verifiable) and that they are compatible with the claim and incompatible with competing assertions.

Today, the accepted method of investigation is scientific i.e. to propose a clearly stated hypothesis; to support that hypothesis with evidence; to propose an associated model; to gain from that model predictions; to confirm (hopefully) those predications and finally to elevate that hypothesis to the level of theory. That is how science works and it is the only effective method by which humans have discovered things about our surroundings since we were able to reason. It is also understood that if a hypothesis does not "fit" in any way with other knowledge already accepted about our universe, if it cannot be supported by evidence and it cannot provide information about our universe previously unknown then it is assumed to have no value and is dismissed.

In other words any claim that does not "fit" and is not supported by evidence is dismissed and the more extraordinary the claim the more extraordinary the evidential demands made of it.

Non-Overlapping Magisteria or NOMA

"Science and religion are each magisteria. Each holds away over its own domain, science over the empirical realm of fact and theory and religion over the domain of ultimate meaning and moral value. The two domains do not overlap, but their boundaries are not permanently fixed either."
Stephen J. Gould, 1999

In 1999, the late Stephen J. Gould, scientist, philosopher and historian offered us what he considered to be a simple and entirely conventional resolution to the perceived conflict between science and religion where he divided the authority over knowledge into two distinct realms or magisteria. The two realms (those of science and religion) did not, according to Gould, conflict and he called this idea non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA).

"The net, or magisterium, of science covers the empirical realm: what is the universe made off (fact) and why does it work this way (theory)? The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty). To cite old clichés, science gets the age of rocks, and religion the rock of ages; science studies how the heavens go, religion how to go to heaven."
Stephen J. Gould, 1999

This view has several problems and with hindsight can be considered to be naïve as the central premise of NOMA is that science and religion do not conflict, in essence that science covers the empirical rail and religion are questions of ultimate meaning and moral value; if the two areas are so distinct why worry about the conflict? Unfortunately religion and science are not as distinct as some might claim:
  • The persecution, including scores of burnings and debatably witch-hunt's, of heretics when science was seen to tread in areas dogmatically claimed by religions.
  • That religious views have had to repeatedly (and reluctantly) change, retreat over time with the advent of new knowledge.
  • If the domain of religion covers ultimate meaning and morality and religions cannot agree with each other which religion holds the key to ultimate meaning and which to morality?
  • Religion cannot definitively lay claim ultimate meaning and morality in a world where a significant and increasing number of people do not believe in a God at all.
"Regardless of what the goal of the inquiry is, science fosters doubt and investigation based on empirical evidence; religion, on the other hand, is based on dogma and revelation. It is hard to see how those attitudes can logically coexist in the same brain."
Feynman 1998

In my own opinion NOMA can never work because:
  • Science hasn't been demonstrated to have any specific limits except technological and claims to things that cannot be demonstrated.
  • We are more technologically sophisticated than any of our known ancestors and continue to make ingress on areas previously considered to be the domain of religion.
  • If the divide were as fixed as some like to claim it is, science would not continually advance on matters previously held to be the domain of religion and religion would stay utterly clear of any area claimed by science and neither of these things are true.
  • Something that is claimed but reveals no validatable phenomenon beyond the claim is impossible to distinguish from a lie or delusion.
  • Whenever science turns it's "eye" towards religious claims they are invariably found to be baseless or fraudulent.

Does God Exist?
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Stephen Roberts

The claim is that there is a "God" and in this debate, as I am sure my opponent will agree, we are discussing the idea of the Judeo-Christian god, "Yahweh", "Allah" or just "God". This "God" is claimed to be an all powerful, divine entity, force or effect that created the cosmic all, watches over us and permeates every aspect of our lives ... I am sure my opponent will disabuse me of this idea and supply me with an accurate definition if I am incorrect?

There are today hundreds of claimed gods and in the past, rather amusingly dismissed as myth (with the implication that the specific claim under examination is not), thousands and it is curious that when a theist argues for the existence of "God" they almost always argue for one specific god (typically that of their birth) and don't seem to fully understand that for the very same reasons they reject claims to other claimed deities others can (with equal validity) reject theirs.

Despite the huge number of claims made for deity no one nowhere has ever, to my knowledge, been able to produce evidence that one actually exists:
  • There are no reliable instances of "God" being seen, heard, touched or otherwise sensed.
  • It is not possible to design an experiment to test for the existence or non-existence of "God".
  • Available evidence at least implies that men wrote whatever religious scriptures currently exist.
  • There is no evidence to indicate that "God" wrote or divinely inspired such writings.
Given that there is no truly justifiable reason to accept the idea of NOMA it has to be assumed that the claim, proposal or hypothesis of such a creator deity must exist within our physical universe and to act upon it must (at least potentially) leave some form of evidence of such acts. If that is so then there must be (at least potentially) hard scientific evidence to support the claimed existence of whatever god or gods are being claimed to exist and it must be possible to design an experiment to support or refute the existence of "God".

When we assume the idea of "God" it is clear it must be in one of three states:
  1. It exists
  2. It does not exist or
  3. It existed once but does not anymore.
Though [3] is of academic interest it is largely beyond the scope of this debate and typically theists do not claim this to be so we can limit the discussion to the first two possibilities.

If "God" exists then it either it must be (at least potentially) observable and die, at some juncture, to be explained. If all observable aspects of "God" exist outside of the universe then it can never be explained, is supernatural (by definition) and can have no impact on the universe or anything within it and, as such, science (and we) can safely discard it. The reverse also follows i.e. that if "God" is entirely or partially explainable then it is not, by definition, supernatural but natural i.e. a part of the universe but if it cannot be explained then it must be supernatural and entirely outside our universe.

In other words, if "God" exists wholly outside of the universe then there can be no observable evidence to support its existence and no one has any reason to believe in it let alone try to convince others that it exists. If, however, "God" exists within some gap in our scientific understanding of the universe then it is not only due to one day to be explained as such gaps will not remain open forever but is also shrinking in size as our knowledge increases.

Logically therefore God must be one of the following:
  • Everywhere
  • Part of the explained universe
  • Part of the unexplained universe
  • Non-existent
Given that no evidence for god has yet been uncovered "God" cannot exist within the parts of the universe we have explained and for the same reason cannot be everywhere (it would be possible to observe and test some parts of it). If it is a part of the universe but not yet explained then it must be a "God of the Gaps" and if so, as pointed out above, then every time we discover something new this "god of the gaps" gets a little smaller. The final option is that God does not exist ... this needs no justification, no proof & no evidence.

Conclusion
The universe is everything that is observable and can be considered a boundary across which information does not flow. Science is the recognised method of discovering things about the universe and it does it not by deductive reasoning but inductive. The inductive method, instead of building conclusions on a set of assumptions, builds on a set of observations and derives generalisations from them and the modern scientist looks on induction as the essential process of gaining knowledge, the only way of justifying a generalisation. Furthermore science is the only philosophy that has been shown to work and, although we can never have absolute confidence that scientific explanations are correct, we can claim quite easily that our current database and accepted explanations represents our best current understanding of the universe we observe around us. Then of coursed to the usual question ... how do we know that science works? As one engineer famously put it, "because the bridges stay up!"

If "God" exists and affects us it must exist within the confines of our universe and if does then it must (at least potentially) be observable. If "God" is not observable then it is impossible for anyone to have experienced its presence, so it cannot be demonstrated by any means to exist and anyone who ever claimed to have experienced god (personally or otherwise) has merely experienced a delusion. It's also interesting to note that if "God" is not observable then God cannot observe us.

Given that there is no validatable evidence (that cannot be more reasonably interpreted) to support the existence of God it is hard to see why any reasoning human being should consider that one should exist. If "God" is exists in some as yet unexplained niche and that our understanding of the universe grows daily then it follows that at one point "God" was potentially huge but nowadays is getting somewhat smaller indeed one imagines that care may be needed in case one treads on this "God of the Gaps" without realising it.

"It is often said that although there is no positive evidence for the existence of God, nor is there evidence against his existence. So it is best to keep an open mind and be agnostic. At first sight that seems an unassailable position, at least in the weak sense of Pascal's wager. But on second thoughts it seems a cop-out, because the same could be said of Father Christmas and tooth fairies. There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?"
Richard Dawkins

References
Note: My references are a bit sketchier than I'd like but I will update them (and not the post main) over the next couple of days).
  • Evaluation Of Stephen Jay Gould’s NOMA (Non-Overlapping Magisteria) Principle, April 30, 2009, David Mendez (http://www.thomisttacos.com/2009/04/30/e...principle/)
  • "GOULD'S SEPARATE 'MAGISTERIA': TWO VIEWS, TWO BOOK REVIEWS" MARK W. DURM (http://www.godslasteraar.org/assets/eboo...ws_sec.pdf), MASSIMO PIGLIUCCI
  • "The God Delusion", Richard Dawkins
  • "What Is Evidence", Yahouda Harpaz
  • "Piece de Resistance" James Rocks
  • "Does God Exist?" James Rocks
  • "The Talk.Origins Archive Feedback: August 1999", Kenneth Fair
  • "The Talk.Origins Archive Feedback: July 1997", John Wilkins
  • "Information For All Biologists", Dr. Morden
  • "Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism", Kitcher (1982)
  • National Center for Science Education 1999
Angry Atheism
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings!
Come over to the dark side, we have cookies!

Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator
#3
RE: God(s), Science & Evidence
ROUND 1: frodo’s Opening Statement

Kyu requested the debate on this subject, so any credit for that is solely his. Whilst I first saw little point in it, I succumbed as Kyu obviously saw mileage in it, and it would occupy him enough to shut him up for at least a while. Seriously, I look forward to Kyu presenting his thoughts and responding to them. Hopefully I can learn something in the process.

What goals do I hope to achieve in this debate..?

Well clearly, as you’ll see if you don’t already know, I believe strongly that evidence for the existence of God is a red herring when considered as it usually is, from an atheist’s perspective… That atheist also holding dear that science possesses, or will probably possess at some point in time, most or all the known answers to life, the universe and everything; and that science alone should be the measure, and final judge of such knowledge.

I seek to dispel the idea that science and theology overlap.

Science uses physical evidence to answer its questions and relies on modern humans to make inferences from that evidence. Religions, on the other hand, commonly use divine inspiration, interpretation of ancient texts, and (in some cases) personal insight as the source of the answers to their questions. Science and religion thus are not, or should not be, competing approaches, because they seek to accomplish different things, and by different methods.
From http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science3.html

I feel that I should say that I believe the Bible to be absolute truth, and I believe that Jesus lives and that he died for me.


Opening Statement:

There is only one God. There are several gods, in my understanding. God, big 'G', is for me the God of the Christian Bible. His nature described there, and also his effects on this world/ Universe. gods, small 'g', are other deities also described in the Christian Bible. Deities unknown when the Bible was written I believe are covered generally and to these Biblical guidelines apply.

Why not other gods? Although I personally explored many ideas around faith and spirituality in my formative years; whatever lead me to Christianity also leads me to accept the Bible as wholly true in spiritual terms. Not that I dismiss other expressions of faith. I don’t.

An early influence in my Christian life was a book by a then retired leader of my own denomination exploring faiths from Animism in the form of it’s most basic practice through primitive faiths up to the big faiths and everything in between. This book detailed reasons Christians would be foolish to ignore the wealth of knowledge to be found in other faiths. This book was also on the curriculum for young people to study that were interested in taking their faith further and perhaps into ministry. (I was a Salvationist: a member of the Salvation Army, a Church founded in 1865)

So I don’t dismiss other faiths outright. I have chosen my allegiance, so to speak; but part of my belief is that doubt is a core element of my faith. Without doubt my faith would be very weak. I believe that God requires me to doubt and question as without this I would be displaying a lack of care for him. I’ve also asserted that faith, doubt and questioning are integral pieces of my faith jigsaw. All interdependent on each other.

Science... I know little about. I'm in awe at what I understand of science. My religious views don't in anyway encroach on scientific knowledge: to the best of my understanding. To me my faith deals only with matters of faith, and definitely not with anything in the scientific realm. The God and the spiritual life I have faith in might need to be 'real' ultimately (and I’ll discuss that later), but that sense is necessarily disconnected from our provable grasp, to be true to it's nature.

Evidence when talking about my/ the Christian God needs definition. There isn't, nor can there be, provable evidence of God's existence. This is the nature of God described in the Bible.

From http://www.religionfacts.com/christianit...fs/god.htm
God in the New Testament

The authors of the New Testament took for granted the existence of the God of the Old Testament. They believed in Yahweh, "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob," whom the Jews worshipped as the one true God (Ac 13:32; Ro 3:29, 4:3).

Like the Old Testament, the New Testament teaches that there is only one God (Mk 12:29; Eph 4:6; Jas 2:19), who is pure spirit (Jn 4:24; 1 Jn 4:12), the creator of the world (1 Ti 4:4; Heb 3:4), holy and good (Ro 3:4; Eph 4:24; Rev 4:8), all-powerful (Mt 19:26; Mk 2:7, 10:18) and worthy of mankind's worship and love (Mt 6:24; Mk 11:22; Lk 2:14).

God expects ethical behaviour (Jn 6:29; Ac 8:21, 24:16; 2 Co 9:7; 1 Th 4:9; Jas 1:27; 1 Jn 3:9) and will judge wrongdoers (Ro 2:16, 3:19).

The New Testament especially emphasizes God's love for the world and his desire to save all people (Jn 3:16; Ro 5:5,5:8; Php 4:191 Jn 4:7-9).

Where the New Testament differs from the Old Testament in its teachings about God is in its proclamation that God has chosen to reveal himself to mankind through Christ, the Incarnation of God. Especially in the Gospel of John, it is emphasized that Jesus alone knows the Father completely and he came to help humans know God ("the Father") better:

• John 3:35 - "The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands." (John the Baptist)
• John 7:16: "My teaching is not my own. It comes from him who sent me."
• John 14:9-10: Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father?' Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?"
• Romans 1:17: "For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed."



Scientists address theology talking of provable evidence. People demand the use of scientific method to prove existence, because even though no person ever has had proof, what people declare via faith, is not just an idea, but an actual real 'thing'. The scientist surmises that if something is real, then it has to be testable as real.

So let's look at what we have to go on here.

The Bible: Documented, agreed description of God.
Real life experience: Confirmation of Biblical statement. After all God is supposedly real now for Christians, and not past tense.

Now depending on particular viewpoint, there could be very many interpretations of these two sources of information. I guess you're going to have to consider my standpoint, not as though it's fixed at all, I learn all the time, but that this is what makes sense to me. I can't defend what doesn't stack up logically for me. Similarly I expect Kyu to be true to himself and present what he concludes to be his understanding.

I in no way decry Kyu's standpoint. Every person has to be true to themselves, and sharing our perspective's helps us to learn and grow, hopefully.

I don't take the Bible literally. (I don't think anyone does. It's a book of a variety of styles from poetic to historical prose narrative. There are parts that deny simple pigeonholing, such as Genesis one. You may already be ahead of me here. I'm saying that those parts of debatable genre some claim to be historical, I do not.) If none of it were based on actual fact then it'd make zero difference to me. I stand to be corrected, but personally I need it to be true in matters of human spirituality and describing God's nature. I'm not looking for a history lesson. This after all is the raison d’être of the Bible. It's a book for spiritual guidance. It isn't a book on science (even Christian creationists of every flavour agree with this).

You could be forgiven for thinking that Jesus didn't seem to take this view. But that would be to colour your perception of his claimed words with a particular brush. He took his arrival and the events described in the Bible as crucial. Everything he did and was logically fits what went before. He 'was' at the beginning as part of the God entity. His claims observed using scientific measures would be fantastic. Taken in context; as they were intended, a spiritual statement, isn't incredulous. It all follows logically.

Where does this leave our scientist and his measuring apparatus? No where yet it seems.

It seems almost a theological position to state that science may some day be able to measure what we don't understand now. Scientifically literate people will be able to fill you in on some of the wonders of modern science. I'm certainly not advocating any 'God of the gaps'. A purist scientist (a person that believes there is nothing to be understood outside the realm of scientific understanding, no other form of reasoning to be applied) may say that spirituality will one day be understood fully by science. Some would reduce spirituality to emotional response. Why should science make such special pleading? Why can't science co-exist with every other aspect of human understanding? Why can't science stay with what is scientific? Why is science, as some seem to claim, so bent on supremacy? Demanding the annihilation of anything not concerning science?

“Science has no business making inferences about souls, about afterlives, and about deities, because those are not physically detectable or measurable entities about which hypotheses can be tested.

Religions that treat their ancient texts' stories as allegorical rather than literal have little or no conflict with science.”

(paraphrased from http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science3.html)

If God created this reality we experience, and is in and around us, as is the definition, then this reality is packed full with God. What special signature should we be able to see of this integral being? Is every minute detail in the scientists perception really evidence?

All this of course is of zero interest to me. I don't need to prove God. I can know God without proof. (I as in a Christian, a believer with similar experiences to other believers who share common experience)

Real life experience falls into the personal realm. Although this is shared experience common to other people holding similar beliefs. Frustratingly for the bloke in the sidelines wearing the white coat and holding a clip board, again none of this can be provable.

Maybe we should look into what is referred to as NOMA. Non-Overlapping Magisteria as put forward by Gould in his book "Rocks of ages".

Scientists claim that if God was real, this would presume that 'real' would equal 'composed of a matter that exists within or without this reality'. If the subject of our faith that God actually exists in this reality, that has to be an entity that exists in this reality, then it is scientifically possible to quantify that entity.

As Adrian has said on this forum recently, with the definition of God, among other things being omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent; these attributes put the God entity outside of the realms of natural science. We would need God like measuring tools to measure God.

I don't discount the possibility that humans could evolve into gods. That then the term 'god' would need to be re-defined if such a thing was even possible, or we would need to adopt the label for ourselves.

This being highly improbable. Perhaps as improbable as the existence of God from a scientific perspective, maybe scientists could logically dismiss such a proposition much like they do God's existence.

From this point I concede that it is within the realms of almost impossible probability that science could theoretically one day be able to measure those infinite attributes of God.

Like many atheists though, I jump on the overwhelming logic that the extremely improbable is just that, and I can feel quite confident in dismissing the idea from sensible consideration that should bother my waking rational process.

So alternatively, what about the rational atheist and their equally dismissible problem?

A scientist wishing to explore the problem of creating celestial measuring implements may find it hard to secure funding. Possibly this would curtail any serious intent on the behalf of the serious practitioner to take such study seriously.

The reason for this is the very obvious one of obscurity. Quite rightly you'd think that a scientist would sensibly steer clear of such a crackpot pursuit.

The theologian however, finds that such a pursuit is actually central to his purpose.

Switching subjects suddenly gives the idea legs. There are very many sources of relevance. Where science fails, theology thrives. Where science concludes that the topic isn't sustainable or viable, theology concludes the opposite.

To the extreme of this reasoning sits Professor Richard Dawkins with his notion that theology shouldn't be a subject at all. He fully endorses the idea that science is impotent when it comes to philosophy, religion and spirituality. And he's right, for science. It doesn't take a genius to see the skewed logic used there. If only we could dismiss everything we didn't like so easily!



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Debate: Is there sufficient evidence to believe in evolution? Esquilax 11 7350 November 15, 2014 at 12:19 am
Last Post: Esquilax
  [ARCHIVED] - The attributes of the Christian God exhibit logical contradictions. Tiberius 12 11349 October 16, 2009 at 1:48 am
Last Post: Ryft
  [ARCHIVED] - A Discussion of the "All-Powerful" Nature of Gods Tiberius 5 4339 October 11, 2009 at 12:21 am
Last Post: Secularone
  [ARCHIVED] - Evidence Vs Faith Edwardo Piet 82 28591 September 20, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Last Post: Edwardo Piet
  [ARCHIVED] - Creation vs. Evolution Ashlyn 70 29696 April 6, 2009 at 4:16 am
Last Post: Darwinian



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)