|
God (pg. 17)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Zyklon_Jay |
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."
- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer |
stolen |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Esiotrat
Religion is for me an excercise in flowery ignorance. |
Is reason really all it's cracked up to be?
To what end is it truly valuable?
Woman (because they're emotional and ignorant): "I love you, honey"
Man (because they're stoic and enlightened): "I know I am coerced by social conduct to reciprocate in similar mannerism, but what I "feel" toward you is not the ingenuity of empathic communication, but rather the random result of seemingly random-firing particles we have fabricated an entire industry of supposed "free will" out of, for the sole purpose of fostering sustainable survivability that transcends post-tribal values on a global scale. Let us mate." |
|
|
| DaRoZa |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
2) Science can only have any position on things that are observable; subsequently, science cannot hold any position on God(s).
|
thanks for talking a bit of sense into saka, i do strongly disagree with this part though.
science can't hold a position on the basic concept of god, but all religions are full of supposed scientific facts attributed to god. while most people won't take these facts such as genesis' creationism literally, there are ones central to christianity like the virgin birth and resurrection that would be scientifically testable had the right equipment been present. if jesus body was found today and they discovered 50% of his DNA was liquid gold - or if a controlled experiment was done that showed anonymous prayer increases brain surgery survival rates - would you still say science has no position on god? |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by DaRoZa
thanks for talking a bit of sense into saka, i do strongly disagree with this part though.
science can't hold a position on the basic concept of god, but all religions are full of supposed scientific facts attributed to god. while most people won't take these facts such as genesis' creationism literally, there are ones central to christianity like the virgin birth and resurrection that would be scientifically testable had the right equipment been present. if jesus body was found today and they discovered 50% of his DNA was liquid gold - or if a controlled experiment was done that showed anonymous prayer increases brain surgery survival rates - would you still say science has no position on god? |
Indeed, I would maintain that science has no position on god. Since science is the study of the observable it cannot have any position on something that is entirely unobservable. So, unless the nature of god were such that god is observable and mesurable (which seems to be at odds with most conceptions of god) then it is outside the purview of science. With the two hypotheticals you advanced I would suggest that the only position one could take would be that a seemingly human body were found with 50% DNA shared with gold (clearly not possible) and that anonymous prayer showed some demonstrable improvement in brain surgery survival rates; respectively. Neither of those two things can be extropolated to god as matters of testable fact (an improvement in survival rates amongst persons undergoing brain surgery due to prayer does not necessarally mean that a divine power was involved or otherwise exists); subsequently, anyone who used such phenomona to claim proof of god would be making a claim beyond what the data actually supports, which would not a position that can be described as scientific since it's conclusions cannot be tested and verified. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Is reason really all it's cracked up to be?
To what end is it truly valuable? |
It is valuable in separating true claims about the world from false claims...in discerning reality. Emotional attachments and reactions are not necessarily irrational, but they are non-rational..not easily subjected to scientific testing or verification. Acting on emotion rather than reason can bring pleasure and have great value to the human experience, but emotions have no value when it comes to learning what is objectively real about the universe (independently of any human mind). |
|
|
| Zyklon_Jay |
| do you really believe that women were created from a rib? |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zyklon_Jay
do you really believe that women were created from a rib? |
Just a quick point of order... it's only Eve that is claimed to have been fashioned from a rib per genesis and she would be the second woman (to anyone taking a litteral read of that particular myth). Moving forward from that A&E's boys married and banged women from outside the garden... which suggests there was at least one breading couple outside of Eden who were contemporaries of A&E... which brings the overall rib content down to 25% by the third generation... moving forward to today the rib content must be next to nothing. This would seem to be the same problem I have with "hog-tails" the BBQ pit near my house... seems the rib content is constantly decreasing. |
|
|
| Zyklon_Jay |
so if eve was a white woman made from ribs, we now know why black men can't get enough of white women.
religion + science = so deadly. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
It is valuable in separating true claims about the world from false claims...in discerning reality. |
Yes, but of what value is that? |
|
|
| infiniteJEST |
| Damn this thread got philosophical n' . |
|
|
| DaRoZa |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Indeed, I would maintain that science has no position on god. Since science is the study of the observable it cannot have any position on something that is entirely unobservable. So, unless the nature of god were such that god is observable and mesurable (which seems to be at odds with most conceptions of god) then it is outside the purview of science. With the two hypotheticals you advanced I would suggest that the only position one could take would be that a seemingly human body were found with 50% DNA shared with gold (clearly not possible) and that anonymous prayer showed some demonstrable improvement in brain surgery survival rates; respectively. Neither of those two things can be extropolated to god as matters of testable fact (an improvement in survival rates amongst persons undergoing brain surgery due to prayer does not necessarally mean that a divine power was involved or otherwise exists); subsequently, anyone who used such phenomona to claim proof of god would be making a claim beyond what the data actually supports, which would not a position that can be described as scientific since it's conclusions cannot be tested and verified. |
my point is that actual scientific facts (that show that immaculate conception/virgin birth should be impossible, and prayer has no direct effect) have something to say about the probability of the biblical god existing, should you take certain claims as literal. but if you peel back and take all of these things figuratively, what are you left with in christianity? what makes it and its version of god more probable than any other conceivable metaphysical entity that can't be absolutely proven/disproved scientifically? |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by DaRoZa
my point is that actual scientific facts (that show that immaculate conception/virgin birth should be impossible, and prayer has no direct effect) have something to say about the probability of the biblical god existing, should you take certain claims as literal. but if you peel back and take all of these things figuratively, what are you left with in christianity? what makes it and its version of god more probable than any other conceivable metaphysical entity that can't be absolutely proven/disproved scientifically? |
Actually, virgin birth is possible; albeit incredibly improbable in humans.... immaculate conception if one holds to the idea that it is conceived by God cannot be tested as one would first need to establish the existance of god. My point is that science can only have a position on the mesurable, any further position one takes on the immesurable is not a scientific position... it may be reasonable but not science. I'm not sure I'm the right person to ask regarding why the Abrihamic god should be seen as more probable then any others as I would contest that any god of any scripture is not a full an accurate description of god should any such entity actually exist. So I suppose my answer would be that the god of the Bible in all likelihood does not exist as described; subsequently, it should not be considered any more (or less) probable then any other described deity which I would also suggest in all likelihood does not exist as described or conceived by any established belief system. What is left of Christianity though... quite a lot... practices, beliefs, a moral code, a crutch, comfort, a framework of thought and understanding, etc. A religion's value is rarely found in the probability that it's conclusions on the nature of existance are correct. |
|
|
|
|
