Scientific reasons for belief in God v moral arguments against belief

by yadda yadda 2 97 Replies latest jw friends

  • NewChapter

    There are no scientific reasons to believe in gods. None. In fact, science doesn't even investigate it, because it looks at things that can be observed and tested. God belief falls outside this realm. People may look for evidence of their god in science, but they will not be using the scientific method. They will simply look at facts that science has uncovered, and apply them in ways that fit with their belief. They will also look for this evidence in nature, in children, in charity, in art, in music, in genocide, abortion clinic bombs---and they will find evidence to confirm their beliefs. But they still will not be using the scientific method. And not using the scientific method means that they will always be under the influence of confirmation bias.

    So while nothing prevents a beliver from looking at scientific evidence---or any other body of evidence----to confirm their beliefs, science still has nothing to do with confirming god belief. In fact, the most science would ever do to confirm a god is to try to falsify god's existence. That is how science works. But it cannot falsify god because it cannot observe a god or test it. It can only say it finds no evidence for a god.

    As such, it seems silly to look for scientific evidence to support god belief. It's like wanting your cake and eating too (whatever that means). You want to believe without evidence---and yet you still want to validate it scientifically. This is impossible---because scientific evidence would actually negate belief, since belief is not needed for science. If you believe in a god, go ahead. Nothing will stop you. If you wish for science to validate that belief--well then you need more faith.

  • soft+gentle

    I agree with james Brown.

    yadda yadda I also particularly agree with para 4 in your OP.

  • Phizzy

    Oh Gawd.

  • NewChapter

    It's a funny conclusion to reach: The 'safe' option. Choose the middle ground.

    Message to religious fundamentalists: Lighten up and lower your standards. Deny what you believe about your god and go with something more watered down.

    Message to Atheists: Force yourself to believe without evidence, 'just in case'.

    Message to Christians: Maybe Thor is on the other side---your entire life could be wrong.

    Solution: Follow a Christian Rule---THAT will cover you.

    And what motivates such advice? Fear and uncertainty---which is what motivates a lot of religious thinking. Must be 'safe'.

    Well what if this god is not all laid back and only accepts the fundamentalist? And the fundamentalist that was convinced to lighten up loses their chance? Or what if Thor IS waiting on the other side? Rather than the Christian mandate to love your neighbor, Thor would like to see a lot more war. In fact, did you die a peaceful death? Sorry, no Valhalla for you! Only warriors who die in battle get in here.

    It seems to me, that a person is only really 'safe' with this option if the bible turns out to be true---and it is not.

    But if you want to encourage people to live with fear, and no conviction, if you want to convince people to choose the 'safe' route then be honest about it. You can never be safe. What if elves and fairies are real? Shouldn't you cover those bases too? But wait, if you go about appeasing Thor and Ra, well according to the bible, you can't please Yahweh. But what if you don't make your dead ancestors happy? Better cover that too.

    The entire notion is ridiculous. If there were a god, I'm pretty sure he would be rolling his eyes at all the wishy-washy believers that encourage others to be really lukewarm about their faith. And I don't think I'd fool itheshe by following some external rule, with no belief whatsoever.


  • Qcmbr

    Jehovah said he'd conquer sin, Thor said he'd conquer frost giants....

    Just sayin.

  • NewChapter

    Yeah, but at least Frost Giants are real.

  • Giordano

    What if Jesus is calling you......from Salt Lake City?

  • NewChapter

    Ahhhh, yes. We have to cover the Mormon base too. Geez this advice in confusing. Does this include only current gods, or past gods too? Do we also have to appease Jehovah to be fully safe?

  • Qcmbr

    ..actually I was just pointing out that , based purely on promises, one god seems to have succeeded.

  • James Brown
    James Brown

    I'll help you out.

    A scientific reason to believe in God is the relationship of the earth to the sun and the moon, the tilt of the axis

    the tides the narrow temperature range that life exits in.

    Versus that so far we have found life nowhere else in the universe.

    We have SETI looking for radio signals from outer space confirming intelligence somewhere yet we ignore

    the intelligence of our planet, sun and moons positions, that is like a statement from somone, something

    capable of making a statement.

    We use our intelligence our conciousness which is a statement, evidence from a supreme being

    to argue and futilisticly disprove such a being.

    If Science doesnt investigate God, how come so many atheist hold up the scientist Richard Dawkins in his scientific

    explanations of why there is no God?

Share this