0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: duffyd on 05/04/2020 03:35:51Is anyone familiar with a rationale, logical, documented theory that clearly refutes the existence of God? Again, I'm not asking for you to repeat an old theory, rather, if you care to offer conjecture, please include data that is verifiable, thorough and scientifically valid. So far, I haven't seen a single argument that is sustainable, intelligent or persuasive, but I would love to.So would I. Sunday. The sun is out. I will enjoy the day and nature. Our garden is lovely. A slow day with nothing new to report. Hannity gave Cuomo a talking to about a 2015 report advising NY to buy ventilators - with an accurate report about a possible pandemic. Cuomo wasted money on pet projects.
Is anyone familiar with a rationale, logical, documented theory that clearly refutes the existence of God? Again, I'm not asking for you to repeat an old theory, rather, if you care to offer conjecture, please include data that is verifiable, thorough and scientifically valid. So far, I haven't seen a single argument that is sustainable, intelligent or persuasive, but I would love to.
BTW, I want to repeat: Science provides overwhelming reasons why GOD must be. Even to suggest otherwise is ludicrous.
Oh, it's been banned in every country in the world. Many governments required mass burning enforcement. They said it was the sickest, most disgusting, inaccurate, devious, evil, raunchy, filthy, depraved piece of junk ever committed to paper. I say it was not inaccurate.It was about my feeding and bathroom habits since birth. It was actually very informative. But, they claimed they measured a major increase in severe agita, nervous indigestion, mass hysteria, suicidal and uncontrollable homicidal ideations, depression, lactation in adult males, tachycardia, hallucinations, strep throat, bed wetting, night terrors, and aneurysms directly attributable to reading the first paragraph. I thought it was pretty good. They allege millions became violently ill, so that ended that little project.
Science cannot explain why a mother loves her child. It cannot offer instructions to make compassion. It doesn't understand beauty.
Science is quite clear on certain matters. Science shows us that matter has never created matter. Science proves that nothing is not a source for something to become. We know, based on science that the universe began at a point in the past. The only logical conclusion rational thinkers can come to is that a Force not only initiated the explosion which sparked the manifestation of all that is and that we can measure from earth as it scatters across space/time, but that this Force created the ingredients, the very material within that which exploded. That Force logically must be more powerful, intelligent, creative, magnificent, and spiritual than anything else other than that Force's Son.
Quote from: duffyd on 05/04/2020 10:21:01Science cannot explain why a mother loves her child. It cannot offer instructions to make compassion. It doesn't understand beauty.actually, it canyou are correct, science doesnt address issues like life after death and the souls, because as of our current technology they are still in the science fiction dept. but hey, we are learning all the time and someday we may shed light on those subjects.science can however address the issues of people 'believing' in life after death and souls. believing in something is a completely different issue to it actually being real. and we have the whole 'psychology. of belief' thing explained pretty well.
Should atheists actually be agnostics if they really apply their minds?
[quote author=jClive, Your answer is below or above as the case may be. That thing is so dangerous alerts stream across the world warning governments that someone mentioned it. You've got to be careful.
Quote from: duffyd on 05/04/2020 10:10:59Science is quite clear on certain matters. Science shows us that matter has never created matter. Science proves that nothing is not a source for something to become. We know, based on science that the universe began at a point in the past. The only logical conclusion rational thinkers can come to is that a Force not only initiated the explosion which sparked the manifestation of all that is and that we can measure from earth as it scatters across space/time, but that this Force created the ingredients, the very material within that which exploded. That Force logically must be more powerful, intelligent, creative, magnificent, and spiritual than anything else other than that Force's Son. Not to far from my hypothesis. Worth repeating as I have done for you.
Ali Binazir did the calculations and decided that the chances of anyone existing are one in 10 to the 2,685,000th power. Ali Binazir, M.D., M.Phil. is a graduate of Harvard College, UC San Diego School of Medicine, and Cambridge University.
Quote from: CliveG on 05/04/2020 10:35:55Should atheists actually be agnostics if they really apply their minds?me personally. i think that the strong belief there there is no god is incorrect. this is the opposite spectrum to the belief in a god. which are both beliefs and by definition are not proven. i think the correct stance is 'we dont know so i will stay neutral until it is known'.there are numerous psychological studies showing that any stance but neutral is detrimental to our ability to determine the 'truth' if it does come along.
Science shows us that matter has never created matter. Science proves that nothing is not a source for something to become.
Quote from: duffyd on 05/04/2020 09:50:33Ali Binazir did the calculations and decided that the chances of anyone existing are one in 10 to the 2,685,000th power. Ali Binazir, M.D., M.Phil. is a graduate of Harvard College, UC San Diego School of Medicine, and Cambridge University.That's a remarkably wrong answer.I exist.The probability of anyone existing is 1.So he's obviously made a mistake.Again, the appeal to authority bit is a logical fallacy. Why include it? Why pretend that "M.D., M.Phil. is a graduate of Harvard College, UC San Diego School of Medicine, and Cambridge" makes any difference to him being obviously wrong.
Quote from: duffyd on 05/04/2020 10:10:59Science shows us that matter has never created matter. Science proves that nothing is not a source for something to become. Neither statement is true. It's good enough for everyday practical chemistry and engineering but these phenomena are not prevented by any known physics. Indeed since the observable universe seems to have a finite age, physics actually demands ex nihilo creation of matter, by simple observation. We just don't fully understand the mechanism or have the ability to replicate it in the lab yet.
Before life existed, the probability is not 1.
I was 45 when I first thought that there were some benefits to a belief in God. Such as assuring my 4-year old son that he could go to sleep after saying his prayers because God would look after him. No other assurance and logic was acceptable to him. He was too smart and could figure a way into the house by bad guys which his school-mates had told him about.
I was about 55 to 60 when events gave me more assurance that the probability of the existence of God was reasonably likely. I still retain some skepticism and accept I may be wrong. Can you explain how I was absolutely certain a biker would die on an open road in good weather with little traffic and there was no problem with the way he was driving? That to me was the one example that illustrates the existence of the supernatural.You are at your computer reading this, and suddenly you get a shock (and I mean a shock as if it had happened) that a car is going to crash into the side of the house in 5 minutes and you leave the room. The crash happens. A mild sunny day with little traffic and no unusual sounds. The man just dies at the wheel of the car from a heart attack and does not take the corner. It happens to you and no-one believes you - but you know what happened.