Thought Experiment

[Meriweather]

Faith doesn't come after reasoning it comes before and then it becomes the reason.

Is that how it worked for you? We are not all cookie stamps of one another.

 

[Blues Man]

Is that how it worked for you? We are not all cookie stamps of one another.

The choice to believe something in the absence of any supporting evidence in not the result of a reasoned thought process.

 

[Meriweather]

The choice to believe something in the absence of any supporting evidence in not the result of a reasoned thought process.

I respect your opinion; however it only serves the physical realm.

 

[Blues Man]

I respect your opinion; however it only serves the physical realm.

No it works equally well everywhere.

 

[Meriweather]

No it works equally well everywhere.

Then you believe in the spiritual realm? I thought you said you were agnostic about God?

 

[daveman]

I have seen many religious people who don't understand science use the term "faith in science" derogatively, but I haven't seen those that trust science use "faith".

They're easy to spot. They don't understand the science behind what they say, but they implicitly believe what they're told by scientists -- who frequently have a political agenda. For instance, ask the question, "How does science explain the origin of life?"

If they shout "EVOLUTION!!" -- they have faith in science, not an understanding.

Me, I love science. I don't like it when people use it inappropriately to push their political goals.

 

[daveman]

No shit. So you're dissatisfied with what you cheaply refer to as "faith" and "educated guesswork." Compelling evidence, falsification of testable theories, repetition of experimental results, peer review, transparency, publication, consensus. YOU'RE the only idiot who has demanded proof of anything here. Atheists as a rule do not. Again, scientists do not. If you ever manage to quote some idiot aside from yourself doing so, then by all means go nuts. Let 'em have it. Both barrels. But, for the love of dogs, start with yourself.

Review the thread. I have demanded nothing. Your emotional outburst is your problem, not mine.

 

[daveman]

If nothing existed 11 minutes ago, G-d wouldn't have existed 10 minutes ago.

Perhaps. Perhaps God sprang into being 10 and a half minutes ago then created the universe as we see it.

 

[Faun]

Perhaps. Perhaps God sprang into being 10 and a half minutes ago then created the universe as we see it.

So the Universe created G-d, not the other way around?

 

[Grumblenuts]

YOU'RE the only idiot who has demanded proof of anything here. Atheists as a rule do not. Again, scientists do not.

Review the thread. I have demanded nothing.

Try your OP, for starters:

Now...how could you disprove this? NOTE: Emotions are not proof. Hostility to God and insistence He's not real is not proof.

You've already copped to doing it:

So, okay, I'll admit to the "disproving" question in the OP. But what if I changed it to, "Can you prove anything else happened using the evidence and observations you have?"

Now grow up. And if you really like science stop asking for proof of things. That ain't it.

 

[daveman]

So the Universe created G-d, not the other way around?

It's a possibility.

 

[daveman]

Try your OP, for starters:

You've already copped to doing it:

Now grow up. And if you really like science stop asking for proof of things. That ain't it.

Asking is demanding?

Who needs to grow up, now?

 

[Hollie]

They're easy to spot. They don't understand the science behind what they say, but they implicitly believe what they're told by scientists -- who frequently have a political agenda. For instance, ask the question, "How does science explain the origin of life?"

If they shout "EVOLUTION!!" -- they have faith in science, not an understanding.

Me, I love science. I don't like it when people use it inappropriately to push their political goals.

There is no faith required to accept the overwhelming evidence for biological evolution.

I have to note that evolution is always, always attacked by christian religious people in various threads for obvious reasons: changes in populations of species over vast time spans is in direct contradiction to christian theology. Evolution is at variance with so much of the Christian religion. It invalidates the idea of ''Original Sin'', completely undermines the idea that we are all totally depraved sinners thus, eliminates the need for Jesus and Salvation. Another objection actually described by christians for rejecting evolution is because they think it would make them less ''special''. "Special'' creation of supernatural gods is a core component of christianity. Aren't you holding contradictory positions? As a christian you are totally depraved and carry original sin , but hey, you're so special!

 

[Hollie]

Perhaps. Perhaps God sprang into being 10 and a half minutes ago then created the universe as we see it.

That presents a problem with what we know about the speed of light, effects of gravity and time spans we can see into the past.

 

[Wuwei]

They're easy to spot. They don't understand the science behind what they say, but they implicitly believe what they're told by scientists -- who frequently have a political agenda. For instance, ask the question, "How does science explain the origin of life?"

If they shout "EVOLUTION!!" -- they have faith in science, not an understanding.

Me, I love science. I don't like it when people use it inappropriately to push their political goals.

I still think "trust" is more appropriate than "faith". No real scientist would shout "EVOLUTION" to explain the origin of life. Abiogenesis refers to the origin. Evolution follows that origin. Many creationists make that mistake.

Also evolution is not a political agenda. Many that oppose evolution try to make it political. It's not. It's science.

.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I still think "trust" is more appropriate than "faith".

I still say it's neither.

As the need for highly trained scientists grows, a look at why people choose these careers

What leads people to a career in science? From a lifelong interest in science to the influence of mentors, working scientists explain why they pursued science.

www.pewresearch.org

Other than in "Pew Charitable Trust" neither "trust" nor "faith" are mentioned.

 

[toobfreak]

In this experiment, there was no universe and therefore nothing existed 11 minutes ago. No matter, no energy, no physical space. Then God created the universe 10 minutes ago, exactly as it is right now, with all the evidence it's billions of years old built-in, with the light from distant stars created in transit, and us with all our memories of a lifetime in place. Now...how could you disprove this?

You couldn't. Instead, far simpler to just argue against the likelihood and plausibility of something happening that way in the first place and not be part of intelligent design, because, it couldn't happen that way without some superconsciousness seeing it that way!

Which is the thing-- -- -- it wouldn't. Because if it could do all that, why not just create the universe naturally from the beginning and let it really transpire out that way? What could be the point in him "faking it" to prove what to who?

 

[Blues Man]

Then you believe in the spiritual realm? I thought you said you were agnostic about God?

There is no spiritual realm.

What we call spirit or soul or whatever is nothing but a function of the mind. The mind is of the brain and the brain is of the body.

And agnosticism doesn't deny the existence of gods it merely acknowledges that there is not enough evidence to believe gods exist or don't exist.

But like I said even if proof of a god's existence was provided I wouldn't change the way I live.

 

[Grumblenuts]

What kind of evidence could possibly lead one to conclude that gods don't exist? Atheists don't deny the existence of gods either. They lack belief in gods because "there is not enough evidence to believe gods exist". I've certainly seen none. So what do atheists got that agnostics do not?
Balls. That all.

 

[Blues Man]

What kind of evidence could possibly lead one to conclude that gods don't exist? Atheists don't deny the existence of gods either. They lack belief in gods because "there is not enough evidence to believe gods exist". I've certainly seen none. So what do atheists got that agnostics do not?
Balls. That all.

By definition agnosticism is not the disbelief in gods or even religion.

What it says is that one cannot make an absolute statement about whether gods exist or not because it is unknowable.

Personally I don't think it matters if a god exists or not.