Does god hate scientists?

[Autumnleaf]

Congrats, you hit the nail on the head.

A car does not prove man exists. --> Everyone disagrees.
Matter does not prove god exists. --> Only Theists disagree.

The fact that you admit it might be technically true is all that matters really. If you argue that it's possible for god to have always been there then you must apply the same logic to matter as well.

- Ectezus

God is not matter anymore than man is a car. Have cars been around as long as people?

 

[Ectezus]

God is not matter anymore than man is a car. Have cars been around as long as people?

is?? Who talks about "god is matter"?
It's about creation. You started with that cars analogy, not me.

My point was this:
"If you argue that it's possible for god to have always been there then you must apply the same logic to matter as well."
Responding with a weird car/god analogy isn't doing us any good.

- Ectezus

 

[solarwave]

Here on Earth there is a group of people that value certain things like objectivity and testable evidence before they reach a conclusion. Most notably: the vast majority of scientists.

To them, and pretty much every non-believer there simply isn't enough testable evidence that justifies changing your whole life to what a really old book says you must do.

So does god hate scientists? Or people in general who value facts over blind faith?

You see, it's not that I want to be a monkey. There's no logical reason for me to really want that (unlike the idea of being created in the image of a god). But all testable evidence points towards Evolution, not Creation. Sure blind faith can overcome this, but not all people work that way as God should know when he supposedly created us. People who live a perfectly moral and healthy life, helping and respecting others, yet they get punished for having a different view on how to reach a good conclusion.


Take miracles for example. Not a single scientific research showed that miracles are real. Once again, it's not because scientists don't want to believe miracles are possible, all the testable evidence simply points out in the other direction:

a) Miracles are often subjective or vague. Not everyone considers a child saved from under a collapsed building after 3 days a miracle. Where was god when the earthquake happened?
b) These supposedly miracles only happen to a small group of people, never on times square or anything. And usually to already highly religious people. They never happen in a scientific test!
c) All of the so claimed miracles have no trace of being different from the ordinary.
And seriously, in this modern age of almost everyone having a digital camera in his or her phone, you would expect some people to at least capture some of the supposedly miracles going on...

I personally would convert right here on the spot if God shows me non-subjetive non-vague testable evidence of his existence. But he doesn't.
Sure you can argue that god works in mysterious ways, or that he wants to keep a *ahum* 'low profile'... But the bottom line is:

There is a large group of people who want concrete evidence to make informed and educated decisions. It seems to me that god apparently doesn't want those people in Heaven.

I only read this post when making this reply.

Really there is no reason for using the work blind faith if you understood what you were talking about about. I dont wanna sound mean but you talk as if all christians are creationists and that some how evolution goes against christianity. Im someone who has a big interest in science and never have I come across any science which goes against christianity itself. You do get some christians who believe the world is 6000 years old but dont think the whole thing is wrong because of what just some people think.

I also what to say I don't think going to heaven is so simple as who chooses to follow Christ. Things are quite to black and white as I once thought.

Appart from the fact I think people still wouldn't believe if there was firm evidence for God, I also think you ask for something you dont live by anyway. Its a nice idea to think humans are fully rational and only believe where the evidence points and nothing else, but it just isn't true. History isn't scientific, it cant be tested by science but by historical testing. Emotions and thoughts cant be measured by science. If I see a chair I put my weight on it by faith before testing it. Ive never seen someone test a chair before sitting on it but would you say they are wrong to do this? Belief in God is a relationship and relationships arn't something to can test and put a number to. I think you can give reasons to believe in God but there will never be 100% evidence.

 

[Ectezus]

Thank you for your post Solarwave.

I dont wanna sound mean but you talk as if all christians are creationists and that some how evolution goes against christianity.

Yes that's true, I probably have a tendency to talk more about the extreme Christian views. Mostly because the 'outspoken Christians' on this forum and the evolution forum are creationists.

I have nothing against moderate religious views. I personally don't think evolution goes against Christianity, but many of the creationists on this forum on the other hand do think so.

If you don't think that scientists get punished when they live a perfectly normal, healthy and moral life and the only difference separating them from Christians is not worshipping God then obviously this topic isn't directed at you.
There are however many people who do believe that they'll burn in hell and what not. With so many different religions and religious views it's impossible to make a topic that applies to everyone.

- Ectezus

 

[ebia]

It would help if he made it clear that we do in fact have a choice, and what the options are, what the consequences are, and how we pick a particular choice.

I understand your point, but it only makes sense to even try to address it, if we are talking about the thing in the right way. We aren't talking about arbitrary punishment for not believing, but that salvation is the transformation that comes through faith (belief and trust) in Jesus' saving rule. Lack of salvation is the default state, the sickness. Faith and trust is the medicine. If you don't take the medicine, you don't get better - but staying sick is not a punishment for not taking it, it's the inevitable consequence.

"How can I know to trust him?" is a separate, but connected and important, question that can only properly be taked about once the aformentioned has been sorted out.

I also find it interesting that you say God's solution is to send Jesus in. Well, sorry, but the world's problems remain stubbornly unchanged, despite Jesus' alleged sacrifice.

The fundamental, underlying, causes of those problems were dealt with on Easter morning. But the symptoms have not yet cleared up - that will only be finalised at the final resurrection of the dead. We live in the tension between those two milestones.

Yes, because that's on par with water-to-wine, calming of storms, raising of the dead, healing of the blind and infirm, bleeding statues, etc.

I would say that bleeding statues are not miracles - because they does not speak of the Kingdom. Jesus sitting down to eat with Levi the tax-collector is. You can explain the miracles of the loaves and fishes in terms of people being persuaded to produce the food that they had and sharing it if you want, and it still doesn't stop being a miracle.

And why does the fall of South African apartheid "inspire awe and speak of the Kingdom of God"?

If you read up on it a little, all the commentators on the situation were expecting it to come, but for it to be a blood-bath of retribution and resistance and factionalism. But instead, it has been an amazing story of reconcilliation. That is remarkable, and it is what the Kingdom of God is about. Read +Desmond Tutu's book, No Future Without Forgiveness. It really is an awe-inspiring story. But I offer it not to prove that it is a miracle, but to explain what a miracle is. One needs to put aside modernist categories and think about them in 2nd Temple categories.

 

[ebia]

Fair enough.
No breach in the laws of nature, check. That would make it too easy afterall.
Possible indeed, but so far it hasn't happened yet thus proving my original point.
Uhu, go on...

Say what now??

You can have your version of miracles. Basically everytime mankind does something good god gets the credit, and when mankind does something evil it's either sin, satan or god is on vacation to the Bahamas.

Not quite.

I appreciate your moderate view on the subject though. But since you've brought forward the changes in Africa to be a miracle, please answer the next question.

ebia, do you deny the existence of: (quote from Wiccan Child)

water-to-wine, calming of storms, raising of the dead, healing of the blind and infirm, bleeding statues, etc.

As I said in my previous post, bleeding statues are not miracles, because they do not speak of the Kingdom of God.

I affirm the rest, what I'm saying is that you are looking at the wrong criteria when considering whether or not they are miracles. You need to think in 2nd Temple categories, not 19th century ones. The questions to ask in deciding if something is a miracle or not is "not is it supernatural" (which is a 19th century question really, that completely misses the point), but "is it wonderous" and "does it speak of the Kingdom of God"?

At least some of those healings may not have been "supernatural", but that doesn't stop them being miracles.

 

[Ectezus]

I affirm the rest

Ok, so you do believe in raising the dead, healing of the blind, water-to-wine miracles etc.. yet when I talk about those miracles you respond with "You misunderstand what a miracle is, just look at everything that is wonderous like the fall of the apartheid system in South Africa"

Great point in a topic where the first post says:
1. Miracles are often subjective or vague
2. All of the so claimed miracles have no trace of being different from the ordinary

 

[Shane Roach]

1. Miracles are often subjective or vague
2. All of the so claimed miracles have no trace of being different from the ordinary

Prove to me you are capable of conscious thought.

I don't mean that as an insult. I mean that as an intellectual exercise.

Much of life simply is not amenable at all to direct observation, and even more of it is unreasonably difficult to submit to rigorous scientific scrutiny. Consciousness, and by extension spirituality, to my way of thinking belong to that portion of life that simply is not amenable to direct observation. There is simply no way to scientifically study something you cannot directly observe. There will always be correlations, but some of the underlying facts, possible causes, etc, simply cannot be observed at all, rendering questions on the subject outside the sphere of science.

If conscious, willful action is possible, and I suggest that it is, then there is nothing particularly remarkable about the assertion that there is a God, especially given historical evidence. It is a short hop, skip and a jump from there to studying the various religions or spiritual traditions and finding the one that seems most likely to be true.

If the God of the Bible exists, the fact that you cannot pluck the past out of thin air and push it under a microscope effectively renders all arguments as to the distant past irrelevant to a Bible believing Christian. In much the same way you cannot guarantee a marble rolled across the floor of a crowded room will continue across the floor until it hits a wall, you simply cannot prove that the creator of the Universe did not do things that would render any hypothesis about what happened in the past useless by merely having done something that would not be detectable later by scientific means.

There is nothing illogical or even unscientific about even the most outrageous (to most modern minds) beliefs of a "fundamentalist". We merely start with an axiom that science cannot deal with at all.

People say that science does not presuppose anything, but it is ultimately useless to argue then that science should by now have uncovered evidence for something that would not be detectable by scientific means at all. Sure, science does not presuppose that there is no soul, spirituality, or God, but it also has no methodology for dealing with the interplay between these things and that which can indeed be studied and measured scientifically.

So, if you define a "scientists" as a person who presupposes that there is no God, you might well find some support for the idea God hates such individuals.

Ps 53:1

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God .
KJV

Then, as now, David was well aware that God was Spirit. The fool takes advantage of this spiritual nature of God to argue, "What? I don't see anything! Why should I believe there is a God?"

Of course you don't. What'd you expect?

Show me you are capable of conscious thought. What? I don't see anything. You haven't shown me your consciousness.

I guess I could argue then that I can do with you as I wish. You are not truly alive. You are an automaton. There is nothing about you to warrant treatment as an equal. You probably don't even truly feel in the human sense of the word "feel".

Weak logic, in my view. Don't you agree?

 

[ebia]

Ok, so you do believe in raising the dead, healing of the blind, water-to-wine miracles etc.. yet when I talk about those miracles you respond with "You misunderstand what a miracle is, just look at everything that is wonderous like the fall of the apartheid system in South Africa"

The question is why is a blind man being healed a miracle? It's not because it's supernatural and can't be explained in any other way. It is because it's because it makes one go "wow" and enacts here and now an aspect of the future Kingdom of God. Whether or not it happens to be supernatural is as irrelevant as the colour of the man's underpants to the question "is it a miracle".

A bleeding statue might be supernatural, but it would not be a miracle. Jesus eating with Levi would not be supernatural, but would be, in it's context, a miracle.

Great point in a topic where the first post says:
1. Miracles are often subjective or vague

So, to an extent, that's true. That's the nature of the things. They aren't supernatural proofs, they are signs of the Kingdom of God happening. Like any sign, they can be read in multiple ways. When Jesus heals the lame and gives sight to the blind, sets people free from the things that bind them, he isn't proving he has supernatural powers, he is simply enacting what the prophets, Isaiah especially, say will happen when YHWH returns to Zion and his Kingdom comes.

To try to use them as "objectively verifiable evidence" completely misses the point of what they are.

2. All of the so claimed miracles have no trace of being different from the ordinary

I'm not quite sure what you are asserting here?


It's like going to a Mozart concert and trying to measure the sounds to find out whether or not they are beautiful.

 

[Ectezus]

So, to an extent, that's true. That's the nature of the things. They aren't supernatural proofs, they are signs of the Kingdom of God happening. Like any sign, they can be read in multiple ways.

Sure we can read it in multiple ways. So when scientists start of with logic and the demand for evidence then the things you describe like "the fall of the apartheid system in africa" are in no way counted as a miracle or signs of the kingdom of God happening.

 

[Ectezus]

Prove to me you are capable of conscious thought.

Descartes already tackled that problem long ago "I think, therefore I am".
Thinking and self-consciousness are the only things that are unconditionally experienced for certain as being real.

There is simply no way to scientifically study something you cannot directly observe.

Yes that gives us two options, either the invisible man is really invisible or he's non-existent.
This topic is about the fact that a large group of people go for door number 2. Not because they want to, but because it makes the most sense to THEM. God should know this when he gave people free will.

If conscious, willful action is possible, and I suggest that it is, then there is nothing particularly remarkable about the assertion that there is a God

OK, another "God's existence is so obvious! Why don't you see it!!".
Helpful.

We merely start with an axiom that science cannot deal with at all.

Maybe Theists do, scientists however do think that science can explain the natural world. And so far it has done a better job than the bible.

You seem to base all your assertions on the idea that already starts out with the belief there is a god.
Like I said before: There is a large group of people who want concrete evidence to make informed and educated decisions. These people will never be convinced with only subjective miracles or other untestable things.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I don't see why this principle is considered bad. To belief things and base your whole life on something that can't be proven just sounds like gullibility.

------------------------------



If you consider the principle of "wanting to be well informed with concrete evidence" equal to "a person who presupposes that there is no God" then I guess you've answered my question.

Yes I think it's healthy to presuppose there are no magic beings up in the sky till evidence proves otherwise. Just like I don't presuppose a flying spaghetti monster answers my prayers.

All throughout history people have believed in thousands of different gods. They've all been proven wrong. Today, no one believes in Zeus, Thor, Anubis or Apollo anymore. Without concrete proof of their existence I risk wasting my life believing in the wrong gods, as have done so many.

We all start presupposing there is no Zeus for a good reason: He's not real! You are a Zeus-Atheist because you've not seen compelling evidence for his existence. And neither have scientists for your god.

If you were in a discussion with a Zeus-theist he could also give you his evidence for Zeus' existence which would only seem illogical and subjective to you.

You are no different than me, Of all the thousands of gods we both deny, you just believe in one god more than I do.

- Ectezus

 

[ebia]

Sure we can read it in multiple ways. So when scientists start of with logic and the demand for evidence then the things you describe like "the fall of the apartheid system in africa" are in no way counted as a miracle or signs of the kingdom of God happening.

It's not evidence for the sceptic, if that's what you mean, no.

You don't decide whether Beethoven's 9th Symphony is beautiful music by trying to measure the notes and constructing a mathematic/logical proof. You listen to the music (or not) and make a judgement.

Trying to use the tools of science to decide if there is God, or who that God is, is to try to use the wrong sort of tools. It's using a hammer when what you need is a screwdriver. If you try to answer every question with that methodology you never get anywhere. No-one, in practice, does that. The methodology itself sits on top of a philosophy that is not the result of the method nor testable by it.

We all make meaning of the world by hearing and experiencing fragments of stories and trying to construct the bigger the story, trying to construct a story that makes sense of those fragments.

The scientific method is able to help us with the questions that lie within a certain very limited field - nobody can or does try to apply it universally.

The closest you can get to an evidential approach is the resurrection. Christianity makes the claim that Jesus of Nazareth resurrected from the dead on Easter morning just outside Jerusalem. In principle that's open to historical (not scientific) investigation. But historical investigation doesn't work quite like scientific investigation - you aren't going to get the clear cut answers you might like - and it requires a heck of a lot of ground-work to explore the issue properly. N.T. Wright's version of the argument takes 3 books each of around 700 pages!

If you choose to by into the enlightement's tacit and unsupported assumption that all questions worth asking should be answerable with empirical evidence, and only questions that can be answered that way are worth asking or answering, then you've chosen (or been indoctinated - whichever you want to see it as) an arbitrary criteron for belief that cannot be met any more than saying "I'll believe if todays sunset is blue instead of red". You can set any criterion you like, but some are more approprate that others.

 

[Shane Roach]

Descartes already tackled that problem long ago "I think, therefore I am".
Thinking and self-consciousness are the only things that are unconditionally experienced for certain as being real.

You didn't really read my post. I guess in a sense I cannot blame you, but this response bypasses pretty much every salient point.

I think, therefore I am. You can't prove to me you think.

Anyhow, I feel I am wasting my time here. It's a very interesting discussion to have though, and I always have to give it a shot when someone touches on it.

The reason history is filled with so many religions and so little atheism is because it is counterintuitive to just presuppose that nothing else conscious exists, or that there might not be something conscious behind the broader design of the world. I'm not saying that proves religion in general, and certainly not any specific faith, but atheists by and large exhibit a rather bizarre tendency to overstate the power of their own arguments. Throughout history, almost no one agrees, yet they feel strongly theirs is an insurmountably superior view of the world these days.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I understand your point, but it only makes sense to even try to address it, if we are talking about the thing in the right way. We aren't talking about arbitrary punishment for not believing, but that salvation is the transformation that comes through faith (belief and trust) in Jesus' saving rule. Lack of salvation is the default state, the sickness. Faith and trust is the medicine. If you don't take the medicine, you don't get better - but staying sick is not a punishment for not taking it, it's the inevitable consequence.

"How can I know to trust him?" is a separate, but connected and important, question that can only properly be taked about once the aformentioned has been sorted out.

Why? It's not a question of trusting him, it's a question of trusting those who claim to speak for him. You say that salvation is the transformation that comes through faith, etc, but why should I believe that? After all, God hasn't told me this, you have. And why should I believe you? Why shouldn't we just become Buddhists?
It's quite perplexing.

The fundamental, underlying, causes of those problems were dealt with on Easter morning. But the symptoms have not yet cleared up - that will only be finalised at the final resurrection of the dead. We live in the tension between those two milestones.

Why? Is God incapable of sorting things out? By your own admission, he is willing to tinker with this world and sort things out. So what's he waiting for?

I would say that bleeding statues are not miracles - because they does not speak of the Kingdom. Jesus sitting down to eat with Levi the tax-collector is. You can explain the miracles of the loaves and fishes in terms of people being persuaded to produce the food that they had and sharing it if you want, and it still doesn't stop being a miracle.

Which doesn't detract from the main point: we're not asking for miracles in the sense that you're talking about. We're asking for evidence of the Judaeo-Christo-Islamic God's existence. Giant flaming words in the sky, etc.

If you read up on it a little, all the commentators on the situation were expecting it to come, but for it to be a blood-bath of retribution and resistance and factionalism. But instead, it has been an amazing story of reconcilliation. That is remarkable, and it is what the Kingdom of God is about. Read +Desmond Tutu's book, No Future Without Forgiveness. It really is an awe-inspiring story. But I offer it not to prove that it is a miracle, but to explain what a miracle is. One needs to put aside modernist categories and think about them in 2nd Temple categories.

But is that not an overwhelming bias? You end up seeing everything as a miracle, when, in fact, it's just things that happen. It is fortunate that the apartheid ended relatively peacefully, but how does that speak of the Kingdom of God? I do not see the hand of God, but the hand of man. It speaks of our ability to sort out our differences with diplomacy, not God's ability to do anything but sit on his laurels.

 

[ebia]

Why? It's not a question of trusting him, it's a question of trusting those who claim to speak for him. You say that salvation is the transformation that comes through faith, etc, but why should I believe that? After all, God hasn't told me this, you have. And why should I believe you? Why shouldn't we just become Buddhists?
It's quite perplexing.

You don't have to - that's why I said it's an.... equally important question.
But it's not much good talking about whether you can trust X until we've sorted out at least roughly what X is. One can't deal with every permutation of every aspect of the situation simultaneously.

Why? Is God incapable of sorting things out? By your own admission, he is willing to tinker with this world and sort things out. So what's he waiting for?

I do not know. I could speculate, but it would be speculation.

Which doesn't detract from the main point: we're not asking for miracles in the sense that you're talking about. We're asking for evidence of the Judaeo-Christo-Islamic God's existence. Giant flaming words in the sky, etc.

And, on the whole God doesn't do that much. Perhaps because it doesn't work as an idea. If God suspends the consistant working of creation all the time for exceptional "proofs" then you have a creation that isn't consistant at all, and therefore no way for humanity to even form an idea of the usual to be excepted from. On the other hand, if it's occasional then it's never enough to persuade a lot of people - particularly those with a strong assumption that the usual consistant behaviour is universal. Philosophically I don't think it works on all sorts of levels.

But is that not an overwhelming bias? You end up seeing everything as a miracle, when, in fact, it's just things that happen. It is fortunate that the apartheid ended relatively peacefully, but how does that speak of the Kingdom of God? I do not see the hand of God, but the hand of man. It speaks of our ability to sort out our differences with diplomacy, not God's ability to do anything but sit on his laurels.

Precisely what I'm saying - if you are not inclined to read it that way you won't. Miracles are virtually never proof. Trying to look there for proof isn't going to get you anywhere. They are almost always explainable in another way. That doesn't stop them being miracles. Desmond Tutu's work in Truth and Reconcilliation is remarkable - no-one who understands what was achieved and how implausable that achievement seemed before hand would gainsay that, however they view Tutu's faith. And it is the kind of action that is consistant with the Kingdom of God. It meets the two criterion for being a miracle. The fact that it is also explainable in other terms doesn't stop it being a miracle, but it does stop it being used to prove much to the committed skeptic. The same is true for most miracles - they are not meant to be proof for the skeptic but signs of hope for the people of God.

 

[Ectezus]

I think, therefore I am. You can't prove to me you think.

Yes you've asked me a question that can't be answered and when I respond to it you blame me for bypassing your point??

"I think, therefore I am" is the only correct answer for such nonsence.
It proves to me I think. I did say that thinking and self-consciousness are the only things that are unconditionally experienced for certain as being real.

The reason history is filled with so many religions and so little atheism is because it is counterintuitive to just presuppose that nothing else conscious exists

Yes and I've already replied to this before you posted it:

All throughout history people have believed in thousands of different gods. They've all been proven wrong. Today, no one believes in Zeus, Thor, Anubis or Apollo anymore. Without concrete proof of their existence I risk wasting my life believing in the wrong gods, as have done so many.

Throughout history, almost no one agrees, yet they feel strongly theirs is an insurmountably superior view of the world these days.

Ok so let me get this straight;

Atheists "these days" are wrong in saying there is no god because people all "thoughout history" were believers?
Did you forget the fact that they've all been wrong in the past? Hence your own point suggests the Atheist's world view IS the right one.
Thank you Shane

Every single religion thinks they've got it right. Guess how many religions there are in the whole world and have been? Those are your odds. Good luck.

- Ectezus

 

[KWCrazy]

At the beginning of this post you stated that: "Here on Earth there is a group of people that value certain things like objectivity and testable evidence before they reach a conclusion." And yet, you believe there is no God, which means you believe in natural origination. I asked for the "objectivity and testable evidence," which of course you could NOT provide. Instead you reverted to an ad homonym attack on my understanding of science. While I hold my beliefs in something which cannot be proved or disproved in science, but for which I've had ABUNDANT proof in my life, you put your faith in a natural origination that is DISPROVED by the laws of science.

You whimpered out a reply: "...you want me to explain Abiogenesis AND the origin of matter to you? Both of which scientists haven't fully answered yet?" Funny you can't see the connection. Where is the "objectivity and testable evidence" in your belief? Not only is there none, a sixth grade science book can prove that what you believe happened is simply not possible. So rather than believe what cannot be proved, you believe what is known to be false. And that makes you more enlightened? I don't think so.

You said, "Not a single scientific research showed that miracles are real." My contention is and has been that if they were not in defiance of natural law, they wouldn't be miracles. Science is the study of the physical word. Miracles are by their very definition, supernatural. Science can't study them. This surprises you? Does a geologist study marine life? Does a cosmologist study the habits of ants in a colony? What kind of person seeks answers where they cannot be found and then by his failure proclaims they do not exist?

Sorry, but I'm not impressed.

 

[Belk]

At the beginning of this post you stated that: "Here on Earth there is a group of people that value certain things like objectivity and testable evidence before they reach a conclusion." And yet, you believe there is no God, which means you believe in natural origination. I asked for the "objectivity and testable evidence," which of course you could NOT provide. Instead you reverted to an ad homonym attack on my understanding of science. While I hold my beliefs in something which cannot be proved or disproved in science, but for which I've had ABUNDANT proof in my life, you put your faith in a natural origination that is DISPROVED by the laws of science.

You whimpered out a reply: "...you want me to explain Abiogenesis AND the origin of matter to you? Both of which scientists haven't fully answered yet?" Funny you can't see the connection. Where is the "objectivity and testable evidence" in your belief? Not only is there none, a sixth grade science book can prove that what you believe happened is simply not possible. So rather than believe what cannot be proved, you believe what is known to be false. And that makes you more enlightened? I don't think so.

You said, "Not a single scientific research showed that miracles are real." My contention is and has been that if they were not in defiance of natural law, they wouldn't be miracles. Science is the study of the physical word. Miracles are by their very definition, supernatural. Science can't study them. This surprises you? Does a geologist study marine life? Does a cosmologist study the habits of ants in a colony? What kind of person seeks answers where they cannot be found and then by his failure proclaims they do not exist?

Sorry, but I'm not impressed.

The subject under discussion is does God punish people because of their insistence on testable evidence. If you wish to discuss abiogenises or big bang theory the Crevo forum is that way. =====>

 

[Ectezus]

I asked for the "objectivity and testable evidence," which of course you could NOT provide

Way to miss the point completely Nutrider99.

Before I believe in Zeus, I expect there to be evidence that supports the idea that Zeus exists.
There's no such evidence to support HIM therefore I don't believe in him. As do you and I both.

What you're asking me to do is provide evidence that Zeus or the flying spaghetti monster does not exists or else I have no reason not to believe in them and therefore I should simply believe in him?
Your point fails. Hard.

By your 'logic' you start believing in everything till you can prove otherwise. Ok then, proof to me the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist, if you can't I'll assume you do believe in him. (Which by the way would make it a sin for worshipping other idols.)

- Ectezus

 

[Jade Margery]

The reason history is filled with so many religions and so little atheism is because it is counterintuitive to just presuppose that nothing else conscious exists, or that there might not be something conscious behind the broader design of the world. I'm not saying that proves religion in general, and certainly not any specific faith, but atheists by and large exhibit a rather bizarre tendency to overstate the power of their own arguments. Throughout history, almost no one agrees, yet they feel strongly theirs is an insurmountably superior view of the world these days.

It is also counterintiutive to say that the earth is round. We can see the horizon line, yes? It is flat. The ground beneath our feet does not curve. Surely, then, the earth is flat like a plate, with holes that fill with water and hills made of stone being the only variation.

Simply because something is counterintuitive does not make it false or even unlikely. Over and over again, 'Throughout history' as you might say, the assumptions of past generations ignorant to the workings of the natural world have been overturned due to better methods of observation and analysis, often with a lot of screaming and gnashing of teeth on the part of the more conservatively minded. (Witches cause sickness! Masturbation destroys your health! Sunspots cannot exist! The earth is the CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE. RRAAAARGH!) Can you see why, with this kind of a track record, people might not be willing to blindly follow something without any sort of documented, provably evidence?

At the beginning of this post you stated that: "Here on Earth there is a group of people that value certain things like objectivity and testable evidence before they reach a conclusion." And yet, you believe there is no God, which means you believe in natural origination. I asked for the "objectivity and testable evidence," which of course you could NOT provide. Instead you reverted to an ad homonym attack on my understanding of science. While I hold my beliefs in something which cannot be proved or disproved in science, but for which I've had ABUNDANT proof in my life, you put your faith in a natural origination that is DISPROVED by the laws of science.

For clarification, a lack of belief DOES NOT EQUAL a belief in something. For example, I do not believe in the christian god, or any other god for that matter, but at the same time I do not assume that any of the current hypothesises about the origin of the universe are correct. I think it will be a long, long time, if ever, before we know exactly what occurred.

In his posts, Ectezus has not declared his adherence to any theory of universe creation, yet you assume that he needs to defend the ones out there, that he needs his own thing to believe before he can point out that yours may not be right. This is simply not the case.

I find it amusing when theists try to shift the burden of proof on nontheists. Say, perhaps, I told you there was an invisible elephant in my room. You might ask for proof. I would say you should go and touch it, that will prove that it is there. You put your hand out and feel nothing. I say that you can only feel the elephant if you want to feel it. Clearly, you don't want to feel it. But I can feel the elephant, therefore it must be there. And not only are you wrong for not believing the elephant is there, you're an immoral person for not wanting to feel the elephant. Why do you hate the elephant so much? He only wants to be your friend.

In such a case you might rightly think me bonkers, and that the elephant in question is nonexistant.