Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[Colter]

I think that does well to show what happens when people who try to defend religious doctrine attempt to invade the realm of science. They retain the view that reason is just a "helpful handmaid", and don't realize that science is grounded in reason.

I've likened it to viewing reason as a lap dog. When the lap dog barks at the right people at the right times, it is rewarded with pets and treats. When it barks at the owner, it is smacked with a newspaper to teach it a lesson. Handmaids too need to speak only when spoken to, and to know their place.

I'll let you in on a little secret -- when any religion or philosophy reduces reason to the status of a meek and obedient servant, that's what it aims to make you.


eudaimonia,

Mark

The reason of science and the faith of religion can coexist in the same mind, a unified mind, willing to go where the truth may lead them in any of the disciplines. Both scientist and religionist can distort the universe by being closed minded to other realities.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The reason of science and the faith of religion can coexist in the same mind, a unified mind, willing to go where the truth may lead them in any of the disciplines.

No, they can't. They are opposing epistemological principles.

That is even why reason must be a handmaid in religion. It can't be equal to faith there. And it's why science must always give way to religion in the religious mind (even one that is "unified"). If science says that there is no good reason to think that a God exists, it is science that is told to shut up.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No, it can't. They are opposing principles.

As I noted in another thread, from an epistemological standpoint, the differences appear to be fundamental. This doesn't mean that scientists cannot be religious or that the religious cannot pursue science, but that the attitudes embodied by each approach are fundamentally different. @Colter appears to argue that both approaches are necessary, but I'm not convinced of this. Although religion may be able to benefit from science in various ways, I'm not sure if science is genuinely enriched by religion. At best, religion seems to be superfluous to science; one can do science just as well without it. At worst, it obstructs the path to knowledge by keeping people committed to ideas that are either unfounded or demonstrably wrong (e.g., Biblical Creationism).

 

[paulm50]

Joshua260 said: ↑
Have you been reading this thread where I show that many of those scientific books support the KCA's premises?



p4 has never been part of my argument.

I have always stated the KCA thusly:
(1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause for it's existence.
(2) The universe began to exist.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause for it's existence.

But once we come to the conclusion that the universe has a cause for it's existence, we can extrapolate out various characteristic traits of that cause. We can surmise that the cause would have been eternal, timeless, space-less, immaterial, omnipotent, omniscient, uncaused, an even personal. With all of this in mind, we can rule out many suggestions for the cause such as Santa Clause, the tooth fairy, the flying spaghetti monster, the eternal flame, and fire-breathing dragons. But what's left includes candidates such as the Muslim, Jewish, or Christian god, and even (admittedly) an evil god. All of this has been discussed earlier on this thread.

Contrary to popular atheistic propaganda, this is not a god of the gaps argument.

Until we know why, or was the Universe caused for a purpose. you're making the assumption it was caused for a purpose. Is a volcanic eruption, earthquake, cyclone, etc. Caused for a purpose by god or by nature. If you say, by god;

I can reply.

(1) Disasters have a cause of their existence.
(2) A god caused their existence.
(3) The bible says he's the cause of their existence.
Therefore:
(5) God exists. To create things to kill us.

You mustn't assume in areas you don't understand. Find the evidence before forming forming an answer.

I don't know why the Universe was formed, so not going to assume it has a purpose. I god made the Earth, he made it from the start to kill us. I know he didn't so don't blame him. I blame nature.

 

[quatona]

All I claim is that the KCA lends support to the belief that the Christian god exists.

It´s worded as a logical deduction, not as a statement to support a probability.

Ok, I think that's fair. But both p1 and p2 are based on scientific evidences. I think scientists would typically "speculate" that p1 and p2 are more plausibly true than not.

What you "think sceintists would typically speculate" isn´t by any means scientific evidence for anything.

hmmm...not sure I can go with that one. If p1 and p2 are true, then p3 must follow.

...unless you change the meaning of the keyterms on the way.

 

[paulm50]

As I noted in another thread, from an epistemological standpoint, the differences appear to be fundamental. This doesn't mean that scientists cannot be religious or that the religious cannot pursue science, but that the attitudes embodied by each approach are fundamentally different. @Colter appears to argue that both approaches are necessary, but I'm not convinced of this. Although religion may be able to benefit from science in various ways, I'm not sure if science is genuinely enriched by religion. At best, religion seems to be superfluous to science; one can do science just as well without it. At worst, it obstructs the path to knowledge by keeping people committed to ideas that are either unfounded or demonstrably wrong (e.g., Biblical Creationism).

We can treat people in a "Christian" way. Love thy neighbour, do unto others, don't kill steal, etc.

What we mustn't do is treat people in the Christian way of the past. Adherence to what the priest told us, blind faith, and very often persecuting our fellow man for our or the rulers benefit.

 

[Colter]

No, they can't. They are opposing epistemological principles.

That is even why reason must be a handmaid in religion. It can't be equal to faith there. And it's why science must always give way to religion in the religious mind (even one that is "unified"). If science says that there is no good reason to think that a God exists, it is science that is told to shut up.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Not in your mind because in truth you have a closed mind but act as if you are all open and progressive.

In my mind I have a relationship with the God who created the material facts that science rightly observers. The facts of science and the truth of true religion are not in conflict nor should they be. But atheistic science can be a religion in the mind of atheistic scientist who go beyond facts and assert Godlessness.

 

[paulm50]

Not in your mind because in truth you have a closed mind but act as if you are all open and progressive.

In my mind I have a relationship with the God who created the material facts that science rightly observers. The facts of science and the truth of true religion are not in conflict nor should they be. But atheistic science can be a religion in the mind of atheistic scientist who go beyond facts and assert Godlessness.

So what material facts in the bible does science recognise?

You make a very wrong assumption when you say we or science have closed minds. We are learning all the time. I learned today Australopithecus was not being the first Hominid to walk up right. Before her came Ardi. Older hominid Ardi challenges thinking about human evolution. Who walked upright, putting into doubt the theory that we started to walk after the disappearance of the trees. Also about the Coccyx. Do you believe it all started in the Garden of Eden?

 

[Colter]

So what material facts in the bible does science recognise?

You make a very wrong assumption when you say we or science have closed minds. We are learning all the time. I learned today Australopithecus was not being the first Hominid to walk up right. Before her came Ardi. Older hominid Ardi challenges thinking about human evolution. Who walked upright, putting into doubt the theory that we started to walk after the disappearance of the trees. Also about the Coccyx. Do you believe it all started in the Garden of Eden?

Do you read my post???? If not don't waste my time with these silly questions! I'm an evolutionist, a cosmic evolutionist.

 

[paulm50]

Do you read my post???? If not don't waste my time with these silly questions! I'm an evolutionist, a cosmic evolutionist.

Yes and I asked the question. Show me the facts that both science and the bible agree on.

If you're saying god created everything from the big bang down to evolution. Give us the link between them.

"The facts of science and the truth of true religion are not in conflict nor should they be."

A board is more than a conversation between two people.

 

[Colter]

Yes and I asked the question. Show me the facts that both science and the bible agree on.

If you're saying god created everything from the big bang down to evolution. Give us the link between them.

"The facts of science and the truth of true religion are not in conflict nor should they be."

A board is more than a conversation between two people.

True religion in a spiritual sense, I don't defend the Bible as a scientific document.

 

[paulm50]

True religion in a spiritual sense, I don't defend the Bible as a scientific document.

Can you explain what that is please. Because it's confusing to other readers.

I believe we should treat people in the "Christian" way of today. Not as some in the bible belt would, more towards a liberal view of do unto others.

http://www.urantia.org displays wonderfully how people who want to be led can be. The Garden of Eden, in particular is silly. Just someone writing a book for profit using the age old method of pseudo religion. Smith I think was the best one. Is this what you believe?

 

[Colter]

Can you explain what that is please. Because it's confusing to other readers.

I believe we should treat people in the "Christian" way of today. Not as some in the bible belt would, more towards a liberal view of do unto others.

http://www.urantia.org displays wonderfully how people who want to be led can be. The Garden of Eden, in particular is silly. Just someone writing a book for profit using the age old method of pseudo religion. Smith I think was the best one. Is this what you believe?

For profit? The UB is in a trust based in Saddlers old home that he gave to the trust, People donated the money to get the UB published. It's printed an sold at a loss and free on the net. Your accusations are from ignorance.

 

[paulm50]

For profit? The UB is in a trust based in Saddlers old home that he gave to the trust, People donated the money to get the UB published. It's printed an sold at a loss and free on the net. Your accusations are from ignorance.

OK I was judging it as a success in fooling the gullible.

Is this what you believe is where science are not in conflict and can you show us?

 

[Colter]

OK I was judging it as a success in fooling the gullible.

Is this what you believe is where science are not in conflict and can you show us?

Skeptics can be gullible or did you think you were immune from imperfection?

Your kneejerk habit is causing you confusion. I said a scientist can have faith and the 2 should have no real conflict, they are different fields.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Not in your mind because in truth you have a closed mind but act as if you are all open and progressive.

It isn't close-minded to consider and reject false epistemologies.

eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Do you read my post???? If not don't waste my time with these silly questions! I'm an evolutionist, a cosmic evolutionist.

And I'm an ascended master.

 

[Colter]

It isn't close-minded to consider and reject false epistemologies.

eudaimonia,

Mark

No, that wouldn't be if you proved them false. I said that a person can pursue science and have faith. You said they can't but I do and so do others. So your rejection is wrong.



True Values


132:1.2 (1457.1) "The standard of true values must be looked for in the spiritual world and on divine levels of eternal reality. To an ascending mortal all lower and material standards must be recognized as transient, partial, and inferior. The scientist, as such, is limited to the discovery of the relatedness of material facts. Technically, he has no right to assert that he is either materialist or idealist, for in so doing he has assumed to forsake the attitude of a true scientist since any and all such assertions of attitude are the very essence of philosophy.

132:1.3 (1457.2) Unless the moral insight and the spiritual attainment of mankind are proportionately augmented, the unlimited advancement of a purely materialistic culture may eventually become a menace to civilization. A purely materialistic science harbors within itself the potential seed of the destruction of all scientific striving, for this very attitude presages the ultimate collapse of a civilization which has abandoned its sense of moral values and has repudiated its spiritual goal of attainment.

132:1.4 (1457.3) The materialistic scientist and the extreme idealist are destined always to be at loggerheads. This is not true of those scientists and idealists who are in possession of a common standard of high moral values and spiritual test levels. In every age scientists and religionists must recognize that they are on trial before the bar of human need. They must eschew all warfare between themselves while they strive valiantly to justify their continued survival by enhanced devotion to the service of human progress. If the so-called science or religion of any age is false, then must it either purify its activities or pass away before the emergence of a material science or spiritual religion of a truer and more worthy order." UB

 

[paulm50]

Skeptics can be gullible or did you think you were immune from imperfection?

Your kneejerk habit is causing you confusion. I said a scientist can have faith and the 2 should have no real conflict, they are different fields.

Being a skeptic is a good thing. Not having them would be imperfect.

Answer my question about True religion (Urantia) and science agreeing.

I said that a person can pursue science and have faith. True, but not to the degree you do. Because by posting what you just did from UB. You deny scientist their essential tool. To go where the evidence leads. Religion demands they close their thinking and only think as told to.

 

[paulm50]

The facts of science and the truth of true religion are not in conflict nor should they be.

Can you show us proof, science and the truth of true religion are not in conflict?