God.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Re: God.

Since every single theory ever made. Even if certain theories are faulty or aren't explained fully with what we have, science has the intent of being 100% right and not bigoting others against each other.

[ledwix]

Re: God.

...so we always thought the Earth was round? That's just one example, and I don't want to have to name any more. Science has conflicting theories all the time; sometimes several conflicting theories trying to explain the same phenomena end up being proven false.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Re: God.

Science can change over time to become 100% right even if it isn't. The most common religions can't change over time (unless you make a whole new one or destroy one from existence) to become 100% right (that is, if they are at fault in any way).

[trillobyite]

Re: God.

Well, Francis Collins seems to be a very reasonable and openminded person. Unfortunately, lots of people insist on the validity of their holy books, usually written thousands of years ago (There are exceptions, obviously. The Mormons come to mind.) in the face of logic, science and common sense. Some people believe that religion and science are completely incompatable, scientists and religious people alike. There are fundamental questions that science has so far been incapable of answering, and Theistic Evolution may be the answer of our existance and that of the universe.

However, I wouldn't be so quick to jump to the simple solution. Even if science doesn't have a plausible theory about the absolute origin of our universe (before the Big Bang), it doesn't mean they won't have one in the future. Even if you tie the concept of creationism and theistic evolution in with science, saying "We can't understand it right now, so God must have done it" isn't the best idea.

Finding a semi-plausible theory and declaring the case closing is just taking the easy way out. (But I still respect your religious openmindedness to science. No offence.)

Well, I don't trust science to solve the meaning of the universe anytime within our lifetimes, so for now I prefer Theistic Evolution. Heck, if God comes down from the sky and says "everything the Bible says is true," I'll become an evangelist. I don't know what will happen in the future to solve the mystery, so we should all believe in whatever we would prefer to believe, as long as it doesn't contradict the facts, until new facts arise that do contradict what we already believe. Otherwise we would all be nihilists. And btw I'm not tying in creationism into any of this, creationism is a fundementalist theory, it is not science.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Re: God.

Honestly, I really don't care what a person feels on god, religion, or science. I will have my views of science and well other people and their views and stuff. I just don't want people shoving any of that God says that homosexuals are bad stuff. I hate bigotry over all things. Honor that your own statements could be false even if they are true and perhaps people would get along better. Take life, liberty, and property with pure 100% justification or else keep it to yourself. That's all I ask of anyone.

[devonin]

Re: God.

Honestly, I really don't care what a person feels on god, religion, or science.

Honor that your own statements could be false even if they are true and perhaps people would get along better.

Pot...meet kettle, I believe you two have something in common.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: God.

If someone says "I am going to prove god does not exist" and uses as a source, a book that is only a valid source is God does exist, we have a problem.

People don't say this. People say "I am going to prove that the book assumed to be a valid source of proof for concepts x, y, and z is self-contradicting or otherwise incomprehensible".

Meaning, again, (and again and again and again), either human beings are too stupid to understand God's word and there isn't a contradiction to reason, it isn't God's word because of its contradiction to sound reason, or reason PERIOD isn't as sound as human beings believe.

If God does not exist (And thus the book is not an acceptable source) any "proof" that God does not exist based on that book is (while concluding an accurate thing [ie. That God does not in fact exist]) simply a coincidence that their argument (based on faulty information) happened to lead to a conclusion that was correct.

It is possible to use the falsity of a consequent to derive the falsity of an antecedent. In this case God is assumed to be the antecedent to the bible. If God is perfect in all aspects and actions and the bible is imperfect, the God of the bible cannot exist based on logic.

[devonin]

Re: God.

If someone says "I am going to prove god does not exist"

People don't say this.

Therefore, God does not exist.

Well, except the person to whom I was responding.

Also:

If God is perfect in all aspects and actions and the bible is imperfect, the God of the bible cannot exist based on logic.

They didn't conclude that God may exist but not as portrayed in the bible, they concluded that God flat-out does not exist.

I don't see why this is a big deal: If you want to use the bible as a source and claim it is valid, you -must- also assume that the bible was divinely inspired (to wit: That God does exist) or else you have no proof of the validity of your source.

Using the bible to disprove God is self-defeating logic, because in order to use the bible, you have to tacitly admit to proof of God.

[Kit-]

Re: God.

By your logic, proof by contradiction is not a valid form of proof. What Kilroy is saying is that by assuming that the Bible is a valid source, we can show that the Bible is not a valid source—meaning that the only possible explanation is that the Bible is in fact not a valid source, implying that the God described in the Bible does not exist.

[devonin]

Re: God.

Proof by contradiction would involve proving !God purely on the basis of the consequences of assuming God.

I disagree that one of the consequences of assuming 'God' is 'The complete validity and truth of the bible'

[Kilroy_x]

Re: God.

Also: They didn't conclude that God may exist but not as portrayed in the bible, they concluded that God flat-out does not exist.

Perhaps this is an issue of miscommunication.

I don't see why this is a big deal: If you want to use the bible as a source and claim it is valid

Just stop there. You're mixing up two understandings of the word valid. It is possible to cite an invalid argument. When refuting it, for instance. Just because you make reference of a text and of statements made in it doesn't mean you accept the text as valid. It's a big deal because what you're saying makes no damn sense.

Using the bible to disprove God is self-defeating logic, because in order to use the bible, you have to tacitly admit to proof of God.

In the uncyclopedia article on the flying spaghetti monster, it states that the FSM was responsible for the creation of the universe. At the same time, uncyclopedia hosts an article on God which states God created the universe. Given the contradiction in these things, the text of uncyclopdia is incoherent.


Now, based on those statements do you think I am giving tacit admission to the role of the FSM in creating the universe? How about the role of God in creating the universe? Even though these things can't both be held at the same time? Even though I'm citing a source for the deliberate intention of showing it to be invalid?

If you answered yes to any of these questions, congratulations, you may have brain damage!

[Kit-]

Re: God.

Who said anything about !God? I believe I said !(God as described in the bible).

[devonin]

Re: God.

Well Kilroy, I inadvertantly responded to your question in the post above: I deny that a necessary consequence of the existance of God is the validty and truth of the bible.

The bible can be completely and utterly wrong and God can still exist, so proving that the bible is completely and utterly wrong does not allow you to conclude that God does not exist.

Edit: Sniping everywhere!

Who said anything about !God? I believe I said !(God as described in the bible).

The person who said !God is the person to whom I was responding when you all took issue with what I said.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: God.

Proof by contradiction would involve proving !God purely on the basis of the consequences of assuming God.

I disagree that one of the consequences of assuming 'God' is 'The complete validity and truth of the bible'

No, but assuming 'bible is true' leads to 'assume god is perfect in all aspects'. Introduce 'bible is product of God', introduce 'bible is not perfect'. And there you go.

[devonin]

Re: God.

Well, go back in time and tell the person I was responding to that they should go ahead and phrase their argument in a way that they did not phrase their argument when I set about pointing out that it was a bad argument.