I accept that science cannot prove the non-existence of God. But . . . (page 18)

cofty

one argues that this same God cares nothing about the lives of humans else he would not allow such horrible suffering, using that as an argument against a God and in favor of science

That is a powerful argument against theism, it is not an argument FOR science.

Science is a method of investigating the world - it doesn't care about our approval or our beliefs.

The scientific method has given us immense abilities that were unthinkable to previous generations, including feeding the hungry and healing the sick. It also has revealed how to make powerful weapons. Science is morally neutral, how we use the knowledge that it provides is our responsibility.

KateWild

Cofty one can rephrase it the following way.........

Science is God's method for humans to investigate the world - it God doesn't care about our approval or our beliefs.

God provided the scientific methods has that have given us immense abilities that were unthinkable to previous generations, including feeding the hungry and healing the sick. It God also has revealed how to make powerful weapons through science. ScienceGod is morally neutral, how we use the knowledge that it God provides is our responsibility. He gave us both, science and responsibility.

Cofty, I am sorry to mess up your lovely paragraph. It was written so well and makes complete sense. It is logically sound. Likewise inserting God does not change the point. I agree with a lot of what you say, I am just more religious than you are.

Kate xx

Qcmbr

Kate - god has never revealed the scientific method. If god had revealed that it would be in the bible / a mainstream religious text / an ancient faith and mankind would be further ahead than they are. The scientific method is notable by its lack of dogma and reverses the religious position of simply asserting something without evidence. The scientific method is the opposite of the faith based method and the results are plain to see.

prologos

Kate your claims are getting to be wild.

You are a LOT more religious than Cofty. not just subatomic partcle behaviour but also

our scientific method is divine? god-given? god approved?

and are you not glad Einstein agrees with YOU?

who knows, it might be true.

cofty

If all knowledge was lost tomorrow we would eventually discover the power of the scientific method, and with that we would retrieve all the things we now know.

If all religion was forgotten tomorrow, a whole new set of arbitrary myths would soon replace them.

DJS

Kate,

As I have pointed out before, the average age of a human, for 100,000 years, was 34. The average age of a U.S. citizen in the year 1900 was 34. Your assertions regarding god revealing the scientiic method and discovery, based on the evidence, is ludicrous. Assuming he/she/it did, they obviously didn't give an eff about humans for 100,000 years. And as I have stated before, your jesus would have accomplished a LOT more in his preaching if he had simply told his followeres to always boil their water, wash their hands, not use lead to line their water pipes and maybe a bit about the no-seeums that were killing them so quickly. That would have accomplished a helluva lot more than the nonsense we see in the bible, which can be configured by each generation as applying to them. The writers couldn't have developed a better control scheme if they had tried.

If your god/jesus truly exist, they are despicably absent and have shown no loving oversight whatsoever of their subjects. If people want to 'believe' this nonsesn they are welcom. My eyes were opened to it nearly 2 decades ago.

prologos

Kate, when Einstein saw the picture emerging in 1915, as graphic as the one in the first post here, he wrote in a letter to a friend:

Where is --JEHOVAH ?, so he did not believe there was a caring god that re-acts.

perhaps he wants us to be pro-active.

KateWild

perhaps he wants us to be pro-active.-prologs

Possibly. We all have free will, being pro-active with reagrd to human suffering is a good quality in both believers and atheists alike. But I personally don't think he cares about our approval or beliefs as I already stated.

LOL! My statement created a little buzz. Science was already there for us to discover and we did. We are discovering more with each year. Point is it's all right there infront of our very eyes waiting to be discovered. It's evolving and expanding. It's the unknown, spiritual, mysterious and exciting.

The scientific method is the opposite of the faith based method and the results are plain to see.-Qcmbr

I disagree, IMO science without realigion is lame and missing something.

If all religion was forgotten tomorrow, a whole new set of arbitrary myths would soon replace them.-cofty

I agree, and religion without science is not only blind, but dangerous too.

If your god/jesus truly exist, they are despicably absent and have shown no loving oversight whatsoever of their subjects. - DJS

I agree, God is not benelovent, cofty, cantleave, Searcher, DD, OTWO, tech49, Oub, jwfacts, RayPub, Cedars and many more elder's on JWN are though. They all have a range of religious beliefs, but they all have shown me caring support (and Nugget most of all). Who needs a benevolent God, when we have humankind?

Kate xx

KateWild

Okay, so if I answer the question; 'What would the Universe look like with God?' you'll answer the question; 'What would the Universe look like without God?'-nic

Yes we have a deal. I started a new thread.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/members/adult/268128/1/nicolaou-asked-me-a-question-How-will-I-answer#.UqB6X_RdW8A

Kate xx

OnTheWayOut

"Beyond reasonable doubt" is the standard of evidence required to validate a criminal conviction in most legal systems.

Generally the prosecution bears the burden of proof and is required to prove their version of events to this standard. This means that the proposition being presented by the prosecution must be proven to the extent that there could be no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a "reasonable person" that the defendant is guilty. There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would not affect a reasonable person's belief regarding whether or not the defendant is guilty. "The shadow of a doubt" is sometimes used interchangeably with reasonable doubt, but this extends beyond the latter, to the extent that it may be considered an impossible standard. The term "reasonable doubt" is therefore used.

If doubt does affect a "reasonable person's" belief that the defendant is guilty, the jury is not satisfied beyond "reasonable doubt". The precise meaning of words such as "reasonable" and "doubt" are usually defined within jurisprudence of the applicable country.

That standard does create some problems as different people consider different things to cause them doubt. But I think that "reasonable doubt" is a fairly recognized standard. A person who does not declare that he has an identical twin brother (and produce evidence of such) can reasonably be convicted on DNA evidence. Eyewitnesses can be lying, misled, or wrong, so they are generally scrutinized but a reasonable person weighs the testimony and any given reasons for deception or mistakes by eyewitnesses.

It would seem to me that science can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that none of the gods of men have been real forces in our lives.

I know, I know- here come the problems with different people. I task those people with this- Would you allow the "Not Guilty" verdict for a priest that kills a man because God told him to do so? Would it matter that the man who was killed was a child predator or multiple rapist? I am not talking about voting "Not Guilty" because you agree with what he did, I am talking about his claim of divine communication creating "reasonable" doubt.

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

Share this