I accept that science cannot prove the non-existence of God. But . . . (page 13)

adamah

Kate said- I disagree, electron configurations are not nonsense or quibble. You love to quibble over non relevant issues instead of looking at the facts. I was not insulting you Adam, I was just making it clear you do not have the knowledge to challenge my point or the humility to accept this.

Kate, while you were squandering your adult years in the JWs knocking on doors until quite recently, you need to know I never did: I never was baptized as a kid, as I had a non-believer father who encouraged me to go abother route with my life, and I earned a doctorate in biology decades ago and am now retired after spending a career helping others with my knowledge.

You have refused to connect the dots between how electron configurations or enantiomers demonstrates or proves the existence of God, so your argument has failed before you got out of the gate. My approach to disprove doesn't even need to get to the overwhelming physical evidence supporting evolution (eg fossil and DNA evidence, etc), but simply based on using the Bible itself to compare to what IS known: if God who inspired the Bible claims to be the "Intelligent Designer", then God fails on both counts: eg God is unaware of basic human anatomy, cosmology, climatology, etc, as anyone who claims to be a designer should be familiar with the basic design elements of 'their' designs. God doesn't know that humans don't think with their hearts, and neglects to mention the pinnacle of "His" creative designs: the 3 Lb. human brain (which isn't mentioned ANYWHERE in the Bible as the seat of cognition, since that role was ascribed to the heart, kidneys, etc).

You, like alot of believers, simply WANT there to be an Intelligent Designer, plain and simple, but oddly enough, cannot explain how the Universe would operate any differently if there weren't.

The so-called finely-tuned Universe argument is fallacious, since most of the Universe is uninhabitable for life:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMYIl5b-paY

(Don't watch if you're offended by f-bombs)

Adam

cofty

People keep saying that science proves 'god' does not exist

Really? I have never seen anybody say that.

Evolution makes god redundant; if god exists then existing is all she does - but science doesn't prove the non-existence of god.

There are other compelling reasons to conclude there is no god.

nicolaou

On the 'fine tuning' thing. The following is a comment I made on an earlier topic . . .

I accept that if key requirements for life were not met then we would not be here arguing about it. What does that prove? That 'obviously' a higher intelligence created the Universe with the conditions that we observe in order that life could exist? There is a much, much simpler explanation.

If conditions were not right for life to exist, then life would not exist.

That's it. It's that easy. You may find it unsatisfying but your feelings or mine do not affect reality. To arbitrarily introduce a super-complex, hyper-intelligence into the equation just so that you can 'feel' better or find some 'purpose' in existence is intellectually dishonest.

If conditions were not right for life to exist, then life would not exist.

Read that again until it sinks in.

KateWild

Positve and negative forces in sub-atomic particles move in a spiritually, magical way in a solid. I can't prove God is responsible, but it's compelling evidence IMO that it is divine beauty at it's best

KateWild

There are other compelling reasons to conclude there is no god.-cofty

So you don't want to stick to why electrons behave the way they do. The laws of physics are supernatural. Stop changing the subject on me. Kate xx

nicolaou

Kate, do you think it's possible that you are projecting your feelings and desires onto your observations? A sincere question.

KateWild

LOL! thanks for taking the bait nic

The opposite, my observations generate feelings. Religion and science are emotional. We cannot have one without the other. Science without religion is lame, biology is science for those who can't do maths.

My desire is for God to put an end to suffering, but I accept that's not happening.

Kate xx

nicolaou

I don't disagree that religion and science both generate strong emotional reactions, if that's what you're saying I agree with you. But you cannot use the emotional route to arrive at any scientific conclusion. Perhaps, at best, there is a 'gut instinct' that sets scientists off in a particular direction.

KateWild

But you cannot use the emotional route to arrive at any scientific conclusion.-nic

I agree. With me it's chemistry first and religious feelings follow. I am reading "Einstein and realigion" atm. A lot of what he says I can resonate with. I do not form scientfic conclusions from my emotions. I draw conclusions from experiments in the lab.

Kate xx

sammielee24

Science can only be applied to that which is evident.

Scientific theory is based on what is found - not on what is not found, since science works only within the parameters that are bound and set by humans themselves.

If people claim that Bigfoot exists but scientists theorize that because they have never found one, they must not exist - and they provide some support for such an argument - it does not mean that Bigfoot doesn't exist, it simply means that science may introduce an argument as to why it doesn't and for a segment of the population, that reasoning or their theory may be believable. It doesn't make it fact - it must makes it opinion.

If Bill - a logical, well educated outdoors man suddenly believes that it was Bigfoot that he was within 5 feet from. He smelled him. He heard him. He saw him..then is Bill going to believe that just because someone says it can't be true, that he would believe him? Or would he believe in that which he has seen for himself? Bigfoot after all is non existent - there is no real, accepted evidence that he exists - half the population believes it is all conspiracy or imagination, they think the Bigfoot believer is a little off - but the other half believe that based on their experiences perhaps, that Bigfoot does exist.

Science is an absolute to understanding the world as it exists and we know it - but why would anyone ever shackle themselves to one explanation for existing when there is so much to be learned from what perhaps can't be known? I love my cat - an opinon or theory on why I love my cat can be written and questioned and theorized but it remains only an opinion on why love exists. People with intuition - people with a belief in crystals - perhaps they feel and see and are joined to the earth in ways that science simply cannot know.

There is a lot of room for everyone. Some people insist on scientific law - only an absolute exists and therefore, creation must absolutely come from the line of reasoning provide by science. For others - they may embrace those feelings of what is unknown, accept that science for what it can provide in that moment in time and live quite harmoniously within the framework of both. It doesn't have to be either - or. Nobody has to believe in one or the other to the exclusion of all else and above all, nobody should have to feel that if they believe in 'something' that cannot be proven to exist, that they are less or more than those who need to live within the parameters of scientific law - and vice versa.

A person who believes in science as the reason for being - is no better or worse than someone who believes and has faith in something different.

There is a beauty in the visions and dreams that come from the unknown - a magical spirit and hope that exceeds the harsh line of science.

sammieswife

I accept that science cannot prove the non-existence of God. But . . .

Share this