Theism without the bible, Koran, or any books and a question!

by Seraphim23 29 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Giordano

  The problem Seraphim is that god, whichever one we point to is no longer relevant to a growing number of people. They can live good decent lives, do well by one another and never be concerned that god has any importance. One can argue on any level one wants to and still not be able to present the reality that an all powerful god exists. Such people are still hard wired from childhood to believe that there is a god or worse simply can't live a normal life without belief.

  The reasons we are clearing up the fog of belief is science and now the internet. Should a Mormon or JW talk to someone at their door it will only take a housholder 5 minutes to see what those people really believe.
• 

  Phizzy

  "god, whichever one we point to is no longer relevant to a growing number of people. They can live good decent lives, do well by one another and never be concerned that god has any importance." Well said Giordano !

  This is becoming increasingly true, here in the U.K, and in a good part of Europe.

  I do hope this grows and grows, the World will be a much better place without religion, of any kind, organized or not.

  "Religion Poisons Everything" R. Dawkins.

  (Just wait for the believers to wade in with the old crap about, "Look at Stalin, Pol Pot..... " or whoever. I still stand by what I say, the World will be a better place without silly, unprovable beliefs.)
• 

  Seraphim23

  That’s the point I’m making Giordano, I’m not pointing to any particular God in this instance. The moral argument for Gods existence I would discount myself unlike many a theist. It may be that there is no need for a belief in God assuming he exists and that is perfectly fine, but it’s not what I am asking.

  Cofty I would disagree with you that the fine tuning argument is a God of the gaps argument. For instance, the more scientific gaps in knowledge get filled in, the more those new discoveries show how fine-tuned the universe is. The higgs boson has now been discovered which means that if it were not in existence the universe would likely not support life, being as it is such a fundamental part of the universal jigsaw. The fact it seem to be a jigsaw with the pieces fitting so well that the picture that it creates has the picture of life on it shows they are not the same arguments at all. Even though a gap gets filled in, it does nothing to stop but in fact increases the strength of the fine tuning argument. Hence the need for a philosophical counter argument which is the one that gets used.
• 

  latinthunder

  if we wiped out everything that is currently known through science and started again, we would arrive at precisely the same facts that we know now.

  It's ironic that you'd use an unscientific (unfalsifiable) statement to support the veracity of science.
• 

  Terry

  First there were hominids.

  Who knows what kind of crazy, uninformed, superstitious and half-baked ideas proto-humans and Neaderthal knuckle-draggers had?

  The first human beings made the best guess they could make about the world.

  What are the chances they got anything 100% just out of dumb luck?

  The idea of gods is primitive superstition.

  Those superstitions supplied answers to questions.

  However, as human knowledge increased, there was less and less necessity to look to superstition (gods, demons, angels, spirits) as PRIME ACTORS in human drama.

  When, superstition transitioned into PHILOSOPHY and then SCIENCE--at each leap forward fewer resorts to god or GOD was required.

  Theology is a very lame imitation of Philosophy and Science.

  The Early Church produced Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine who ripped off the Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle.

  Pure imitation of form and approach.

  Without Aquinas, the Catholic Church would hardly have had a theology or doctrines!

  In the 19th century, science blossomed and technology was born and the atomic theory became more and more practical in implementation.

  Chemistry abounded in discovery.

  What the Scriptures represent is the STONE AGE MIND.

  Scriptures and Theism are old-fashion quack medicine.

  Once and awhile somebody got something right. Most of the time they were crazy as shithouse rats. But, since "God" is attributed credit--well, people cling to it.
• 

  cofty

  Even though a gap gets filled in, it does nothing to stop but in fact increases the strength of the fine tuning argument - Seraphim

  As I said give physics more time, it is still in it's infancy and is making atonishing progress. Perhaps we will discover that things only seem fine-tuned. Don't confuse philosophy and physics.

  It's ironic that you'd use an unscientific (unfalsifiable) statement to support the veracity of science. - Sab

  Not so. Once the power of the scientific method was discovered we would inevitably discover the same facts.
• 

  Seraphim23

  I’m not arguing for the fine tuning argument because it has an adequate counter argument, but it doesn’t have to do with physics not can it, unless someone can prove that the infancy of physics will one day become adult. How does anyone know that it isn’t adult now and almost close to becoming finished or as far as it is possible to go with it? They can’t is the answer to that because it may well be possible that physics will always be in its infancy in terms of the whole lot being known. There could be an infinite amount of knowledge to yet be discovered in physics, in which case the two arguments are fundamentally not the same. There are some very good philosophical and even mathematical arguments in support of the idea that existence really is infinite and hence knowledge. If so such enterprises such as science will always be in infancy and unable to fill the gap of infinity, which will always be open.
• 

  cofty

  Neither fine tuning nor anything else is an argument for theism. Deism possibly, but only until such time as physics discovers the reason for the cosmological constants being what they are.

  Perhaps god fine-tuned the universe but stood too close to the big bang and blew herself to smithereens.

  There are no arguments of any kind for theism.
• 

  latinthunder

  Not so. Once the power of the scientific method was discovered we would inevitably discover the same facts.

  When you plug your claim into the scientific method it stalls because it cannot be tested. Just like you can't go back in time and make the universe be something different. You can theorize it, but that's basically mental masturbation because it's unfalsifiable. You can't go back and time and show a different scenario, we have what we have because we have it. An impossible scenario cannot be used for evidence of anything.

  "God doesn't play dice with the universe." - Albert Einstein.
• 

  cofty

  Sab - Stop waffling and get down to some pactical examples.

  The circumference of the earth is approximately 40 000km. If we eradicated all scientific knowledge and started again using the scientific method we would eventually discover that the earth had a circumference of 40 000km.

  On the contrary if we eradicated all religious stories we would be just as likely to come up with a new set of myths.

  Religious myths are invented, scientific truths are discovered.