Did Dawkins and Tyson say that and what are the implications.

[Mark 13:13]

That's fine for you and Christians who agree with you (and people happy with '42', I suppose), but you're the one who was trying to bring God into science, it's what your OP is about, playing 'gotcha' with Dawkins and Tyson, as though their speculations on the possible consequences if life were discovered to be vanishingly rare had something to do with God. Their scientific opinions have no applicablility outside of science. Their religious opinions have no applicability inside of science.

The hypothesis that 'there is no God' is as equally useless to science as the reverse, if that's any comfort.

without trying to sound flippant I'm actually trying to bring God into an Athiest Forum. The fact that Athiest seem to put all credence on science and only limited credence to anything else (if any when religion is mentioned) means that when I find anything I can use in science I will so is there any reason I can't ?

[Mister Agenda]

That's a good question. If you're going to do it and hope for it to have the effect you desire, you have to be very careful about what the science is actually saying, because we will be. Us thinking that you will use anything in science that you think remotely supports your position will have the opposite effect.

The problem with branches of philosophy outside of science is that they lack the one thing that distinguishes science: a way to tell when they're wrong. You can have two mutually contradicting philosophies that have no internal contradictions, so both are logically possible. If neither makes claims that can be investigated, neither can be ruled out, although we KNOW that at least one of them MUST be false, because they contradict each other and therefore can't both be true. There's a reason we like science as a method to determine whether we should provisionally accept something as true: because evidence is king in science, it can actually deliver, because it's based on checking reality.

I would recommend logic instead, because it's fun and we enjoy picking it apart, but really, you can't logic your way to God either. Like many, I used to be a Christian when I was young, and a pretty devout one. I am convinced that faith is the only justification for believing in God, and rational skeptics don't consider faith, in the sense of believing despite a lack of evidence or even in the face of contrary evidence, a virtue. I think the ONLY thing a Christian can have in their arsenal that has the slightest chance of working is to show they're someone others would like to be more like. The only reasons a rational skeptic ever converts to a religion are emotional ones. I know, every time it happens, I'm wondering if they heard a killer argument or saw some evidence that flipped them, but it's always about how it makes them feel.

For what it's worth.

[Mark 13:13]

That's a good question. If you're going to do it and hope for it to have the effect you desire, you have to be very careful about what the science is actually saying, because we will be. Us thinking that you will use anything in science that you think remotely supports your position will have the opposite effect.

The problem with branches of philosophy outside of science is that they lack the one thing that distinguishes science: a way to tell when they're wrong. You can have two mutually contradicting philosophies that have no internal contradictions, so both are logically possible. If neither makes claims that can be investigated, neither can be ruled out, although we KNOW that at least one of them MUST be false, because they contradict each other and therefore can't both be true. There's a reason we like science as a method to determine whether we should provisionally accept something as true: because evidence is king in science, it can actually deliver, because it's based on checking reality.

I would recommend logic instead, because it's fun and we enjoy picking it apart, but really, you can't logic your way to God either. Like many, I used to be a Christian when I was young, and a pretty devout one. I am convinced that faith is the only justification for believing in God, and rational skeptics don't consider faith, in the sense of believing despite a lack of evidence or even in the face of contrary evidence, a virtue. I think the ONLY thing a Christian can have in their arsenal that has the slightest chance of working is to show they're someone others would like to be more like. The only reasons a rational skeptic ever converts to a religion are emotional ones. I know, every time it happens, I'm wondering if they heard a killer argument or saw some evidence that flipped them, but it's always about how it makes them feel.

For what it's worth.

[downbeatplumb]

We know perfectly well how the world formed and can see planet formation around other star systems.



So they ignore what the bible says ,the only thing that supposedly describes god coz they don't agree with some parts.
This does not make my critique any less valid.


the theology of prayer is much more complicated than the simplistic attempt at a supposed unbiased test. For a start they should have all been told they were being prayed for or none told in order to be a fair test. but the only test that matters for me is my own test and it works for me and from what i've seen upto 85% of Americans beleive it works for them

but if you want to look at the results in test then at least be like this guy who looking at a test that says the opposite to above doesn't just assume the test results are accurate and actually dissects it. If he an atheist unhappy that the result went for prayer was completely fair on your test I wonder would it even stand up for him.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/g...odccu.html

In honesty if I were an Atheist I would not deny prayer works but rather ask why it works. There are plenty of "Natural explanations" around for why so accepting prayer works does not require you to beleive in GOD.

Prayer does not work dude.

We know perfectly well how the world formed and can see planet formation around other star systems. this does not answer my reply its just a restatement using what you said before with different words.

Firstly, I wrote about the the formation of the world and you decided to shift the conversation to the creation of the universe, quite a shift wouldn't you say.

Secondly, where did god come from? god would have to be an incredibly complex being capable of making all of creation, so how did this impossible being come to be.
You see by positing a god you just add to the questions and answer nothing

[Mark 13:13]

That's a good question. If you're going to do it and hope for it to have the effect you desire, you have to be very careful about what the science is actually saying, because we will be. Us thinking that you will use anything in science that you think remotely supports your position will have the opposite effect.

The problem with branches of philosophy outside of science is that they lack the one thing that distinguishes science: a way to tell when they're wrong. You can have two mutually contradicting philosophies that have no internal contradictions, so both are logically possible. If neither makes claims that can be investigated, neither can be ruled out, although we KNOW that at least one of them MUST be false, because they contradict each other and therefore can't both be true. There's a reason we like science as a method to determine whether we should provisionally accept something as true: because evidence is king in science, it can actually deliver, because it's based on checking reality.

I would recommend logic instead, because it's fun and we enjoy picking it apart, but really, you can't logic your way to God either. Like many, I used to be a Christian when I was young, and a pretty devout one. I am convinced that faith is the only justification for believing in God, and rational skeptics don't consider faith, in the sense of believing despite a lack of evidence or even in the face of contrary evidence, a virtue. I think the ONLY thing a Christian can have in their arsenal that has the slightest chance of working is to show they're someone others would like to be more like. The only reasons a rational skeptic ever converts to a religion are emotional ones. I know, every time it happens, I'm wondering if they heard a killer argument or saw some evidence that flipped them, but it's always about how it makes them feel.

For what it's worth.

I agree with everything you have said , which is why I know that these Christians who display so much lack of Love for their fellow man do the Christian faith such a poor service. I also stated in another thread that the best proof of GOD or Not GOD is personal experience and subjective
and as such can't be provided as proof but that like you stated the decision is made more emotionally first and then if the person feels the need to justify then they look for proofs or logic. Its like my mum used to quote "when it comes to why people do things there are the reasons and then the real reasons. and people tend to only give the reasons." I know that my Image on this forum may not be the best but according to Chinese Astrology i'm a Water Tiger and the image is not far of the truth, the Water Tiger is a mother tiger .. got plenty of claws and teeth but still at heart a tender and caring mother . So I know at times I seem like a flurry of claws and teeth but in time I hope the other side will show more.

---

Firstly, I wrote about the the formation of the world and you decided to shift the conversation to the creation of the universe, quite a shift wouldn't you say.

Secondly, where did god come from? god would have to be an incredibly complex being capable of making all of creation, so how did this impossible being come to be.
You see by positing a god you just add to the questions and answer nothing

easiest thing for me to say is i'm pointing you toward the Cosmological Arguement....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

[Simon Moon]

without trying to sound flippant I'm actually trying to bring God into an Athiest Forum. The fact that Athiest seem to put all credence on science and only limited credence to anything else (if any when religion is mentioned) means that when I find anything I can use in science I will so is there any reason I can't ?

It depends on what questions are being asked as to whether science is used or not.

If you ask me if I love my girlfriend or family, I will not use science to answer the question. The only credence I need are my feelings.

If you are asking about the nature of the universe, the explanation for the diversity of life, formations of the continents, formation of stars and planets, etc, science is the only place to put any credence. Science is the only thing that consistently works.

You are not "bringing God into the forum". You are bringing your unsupported belief that a god exists into the forum. For you to bring 'God' into the forum would requite you to provide demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument that 'he' exists.

---

---

easiest thing for me to say is i'm pointing you toward the Cosmological Arguement....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

The Cosmological Argument is fallacious.

Among other problems, the CA contains an equivocation fallacy.

[Welsh cake]

I'm not as smart as you

Its not a question of intelligence, its a question of coherency.

i can't tell if you've given me an answer or a smoke screen to hide the fact you haven't.

WTF do you mean by smoke screen? You confound the fuck out of your own OP into meaningless drivel and then you proceed to insinuate I'm trying to be intellectually dishonest for simply pointing out your baffling absurdity? You sir, are talking complete and utter rubbish.

If you have answered my questions then i missed it and would appreciate you simplifying it for me.

Your "questions" did I read right? I didn't realise you were so bold as to openly bastardise the label "question" here just for the sake of playing devil's advocate, but understand this, your "questions" are non-nonsensical and dismissed as such. There are no "implications" over what Dawkins and Tyson said. The search for foreign life in our universe HAS NOTHING to do with atheism, and NOTHING to do with ontological arguments, or speculating for, the existence of god(s). Again, you are talking complete and utter rubbish.

No place for probability in science mmmh

You are taking Mister Agenda's post out of context. Stop messing around.

[Cyberman]

Would be nice if you could actually comment on the original point of the thread see post #1 before you chuck in something completely off track. I can understand people can drift of thread but most at least attempt to deal with the issue of the thread first.

Sorry mate, this isn't a church and nobody gets to control what people want to say, within the context of the rules anyway. You're not obliged to reply to every single post, though forum etiquette is to at least consider any direct question and similar. You yourself complained about being overstretched; I said at the time there was a simple solution to that.

Prayer does not work dude.

I take that as your view and wont ask you to prove it as I know prayer as I understand the concept works for me.

Quite apart from double-blind studies undertaken by organisations such as the religiously-motivated Templeton Foundation which say otherwise, you have already forfeited the right to talk about your opponents providing proof or evidence. Remember that whole thing you insisted about the burden of proof and who has it? Yes, this is where it bites you in the arse.

[Faith No More]

No it doesn't seem fair to my mind (uno where I go with that so wont bore you) , as far as appealing to reason why would I when reason took you to where you are along with whatever life experiences you had.

Well, if you can't appeal to reason, you have zero to offer. Like I said, anything else is an appeal to emotion, and emotions are a road block to the truth.

But I can't resist typing what was just on the tv as I glanced across, (I wasn't watching one of the kids was) . Maybe there's something in it for you or maybe it was just a co incidence but the Movie was the recent comedy NOAH and the guy who normaly plays GOD in these ( can't rem name ) is advising NOAH wife says something along these lines. When someone prays to GOD for courage do you think he gives him courage or the opportunity to have courage, or when someone prays for patience does GOD give them patience or the opportunity to learn to be patient so maybe if you pray to GOD for faith GOD provides the opportunity to learn to have faith.

I'm sorry, but I can't respond to this. My mother taught me that if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. Seriously though, try not to insult my intelligence in the future.

[Mark 13:13]

No it doesn't seem fair to my mind (uno where I go with that so wont bore you) , as far as appealing to reason why would I when reason took you to where you are along with whatever life experiences you had.

Well, if you can't appeal to reason, you have zero to offer. Like I said, anything else is an appeal to emotion, and emotions are a road block to the truth.

But I can't resist typing what was just on the tv as I glanced across, (I wasn't watching one of the kids was) . Maybe there's something in it for you or maybe it was just a co incidence but the Movie was the recent comedy NOAH and the guy who normaly plays GOD in these ( can't rem name ) is advising NOAH wife says something along these lines. When someone prays to GOD for courage do you think he gives him courage or the opportunity to have courage, or when someone prays for patience does GOD give them patience or the opportunity to learn to be patient so maybe if you pray to GOD for faith GOD provides the opportunity to learn to have faith.

I'm sorry, but I can't respond to this. My mother taught me that if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. Seriously though, try not to insult my intelligence in the future.

It wasn't for you ; I realised later it was for me ; it just didn't hit me at the time thats not to say there may not be something in it for you.