My argument against

Started by Great Vengeance6 pages

My argument against

Alright then.

Firstly, lets establish that belief is a scientifically useless and often harmful device that humans use to attempt to simplify and make sense of things they cannot understand the proper way(through the scientific method). In short, belief has never given us truth, and is responsible for a good deal of the worlds problems(from the crusades and witchhunts of the past, all the way to the current issues in the middle east).

There goes the saying, 'you must have faith'.

That leaves Christians and other religious sects to prove their god the old-fashioned way. With reason. However... to prove a deity like the christian god, who has no concrete form and is largely undefined aside from being 'omnipotent', 'all-knowing', and 'all-good' is scientically impossible.

That leaves some of the smarter Christians, who realize the fatal flaw of their beliefs, but are reluctant to let go of their bible, to attempt to prove why the absence of god would result in scientifically impossible results. And nearly all of these arguments attack one of the few things science hasnt really explained: the creation of the universe.

One of the few arguments Christians have, that has some weight to it, is that the universe creating itself out of pure chance is mathematically unlikely. There is also the problem of where matter itself came from... one of our scientific laws is that matter cannot be created nor destroyed.

Well thats a bit of clever thinking from the Christians huh? Or is it?

Their argument essentially breaks down to: "There are things I cannot explain, therefor creationism is true."

-Quoted from Backfire.

Cont.

As Backfire elegantly pointed out, this kind of thinking is fallacious. Any physicist worth his salt could come up with an elaborate scenario to how the universe was created(multiverse theories come to mind)...however, for the theory to have any substance it requires proof.

Christianity is just one of a great number of explanations to why the universe exists, and part of perhaps an infinite number of not yet thought of explanations.

So if your a follower of truth like I am: Agnosticism is the correct path for now.

For Christians: Prove up or go home. In other words, go home.

I'd assume then that athiesm is not a correct path iyo?

Originally posted by Alliance
I'd assume then that athiesm is not a correct path iyo?

Its not the correct path, simply because we cant prove that god doesnt exist. However IMO its far more unlikely that we have stumbled upon truth in the bible, which often stinks of primitive outdated thought processes, as opposed to a far more profound explanation of the universe that is not yet discovered.

My argument to you is this.

1. No one can ever make an absolute conclusion...no more than you can ever claim that I have the pink panther diamond in my pocket.

2. The evidence one way is overwhelming. Its very unlikey, in fact its absurd that I have the pink panther diamond in my pocket. But I guess you'll never know.

3. Ad into this the fact that many agnostics want to believe or were raised in a world where blind ignorance is acceptable when it comes to religion. So maybe you don't know if I have the pink panther diamond in my pocket or not, but you really want to belive I do.

No credible person admits either way, but the chance of their being a god is infinately smaller than the chance that there is one. Athiesm is also acceptable, provided the absurdly diminutive chance that a random college student has a fictional diamond.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
For Christians: Prove up or go home. In other words, go home.

Don't you think this statement is a little bit arrogent?

Also, I think you're forgeting that most Christians site Jesus as proof that there is a God.

Well, you are claiming that scientific proof is the only valid evidence. This is true of scientific examinations.

Here is a method for testing faith, it is found in our Book of Mormon. I would assume that you could use this test on anything you consider may be true based in a faith paradigm.

Alma 32:26-39
26 Now, as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge.
27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.
28 Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.
29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.
30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.
31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness.
32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.
33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.
34 And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand.
35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?
36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good.
37 And behold, as the tree beginneth to grow, ye will say: Let us nourish it with great care, that it may get root, that it may grow up, and bring forth fruit unto us. And now behold, if ye nourish it with much care it will get root, and grow up, and bring forth fruit.
38 But if ye neglect the tree, and take no thought for its nourishment, behold it will not get any root; and when the heat of the sun cometh and scorcheth it, because it hath no root it withers away, and ye pluck it up and cast it out.
39 Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable; but it is because your ground is barren, and ye will not nourish the tree, therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof.
Originally posted by Regret
Well, you are claiming that scientific proof is the only valid evidence. This is true of scientific examinations.

The word science was misused. Its the rational/philisophical/enlightened way to argue.

Originally posted by Alliance
My argument to you is this.

1. No one can ever make an absolute conclusion...no more than you can ever claim that I have the pink panther diamond in my pocket.

2. The evidence one way is overwhelming. Its very unlikey, in fact its absurd that I have the pink panther diamond in my pocket. But I guess you'll never know.

3. Ad into this the fact that many agnostics want to believe or were raised in a world where blind ignorance is acceptable when it comes to religion. So maybe you don't know if I have the pink panther diamond in my pocket or not, but you really want to belive I do.

No credible person admits either way, but the chance of their being a god is infinately smaller than the chance that there is one. Athiesm is also acceptable, provided the absurdly diminutive chance that a random college student has a fictional diamond.

Yes I agree with you that the Christian god is unlikely. It depends on how many assumptions you want to make. Agnosticism makes no assumptions till an objective conclusion about the creation of the universe is reached. Atheism makes less assumptions than Christianity I agree, but it still makes assumptions.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Yes I agree with you that the Christian god is unlikely. It depends on how many assumptions you want to make. Agnosticism makes no assumptions till an objective conclusion about the creation of the universe is reached. Atheism makes less assumptions than Christianity I agree, but it still makes assumptions.

Not really. Agnositcs gloss over the fact that the likelyhood of god existing and god not existing are not balance.

Here's the one assumption that I make as an athiest: The chance of God is so small that it is insignificant. From a scientific perspective, that is how truth is arrived at.

I know that Alliance dislikes long posts, and I do as well, but I think the parts I have quoted from this article are relevant to the discussion. I am sorry if it isn't, I thought it was, perhaps my view of the discussion is off.

George R. Hill III, “Seek Ye Diligently,” Ensign, June 1993, 21

But how do we find truth? As we seek to understand the gospel and its related truths more fully, we would do well to keep in mind the parameters governing the two methods of discovering truth—the scientific method and the revelation method. Both processes can be of great benefit to us in our efforts to “seek … diligently and teach one another words of wisdom.” (D&C 88:118.)

The goal of the scientific method is to determine by objective, reproducible measurements what happens in a given system and how it happens. To ensure validity, the same results must be obtained each time the same set of conditions prevail. Subjective data (like love for family or impressions from the Holy Ghost) are not discounted as being nonexistent, untrue, or unimportant; they simply lie outside the framework of scientific methodology.

The revelation method of learning truth is subjective. Depending on senses additional to those we use to measure data quantitatively, this method utilizes our feelings, often to answer why—a question beyond the purview of the scientific method. Reproducing at will the receipt of revealed information is not under the investigator’s control.

Gospel truths, including things we need to know and do to obtain eternal life, were given to mankind by revelation. The Lord chose to reveal these basic truths to prophets, who recorded them for our use as scripture. He wisely chose to ensure through direct communication that these truths were clear and correct, and has so testified.

The Lord wisely left a vast set of truths for us to discover via experience and scientific experimentation. So it is necessary for us to develop our minds, recognizing the principle of eternal progress, to achieve our celestial potential. Thus, a large body of useful truths external to strict gospel truth has been accumulated over the ages to bless and improve our lives.

There has been much attention in the media about the teaching of the theory of evolution. While serving as dean of the University of Utah’s College of Mines and Mineral Industries, I had interesting discussions with fellow faculty members in the departments of geology, geography, and geophysics about the theory of evolution and the misunderstanding many people have about the scientific method.

In the process of discovering scientific truths, it is essential to develop theories that relate experimental observations to each other and suggest additional tests to determine the validity of those theories or to modify them, which is generally the case.

Competent scientists recognize that theories are not laws but serve the function of testing ideas and pursuing new relationships. Elder John A. Widtsoe observed: “Facts never change, but the inferences from them are changeable. … The careful man does not become so enamored of an hypothesis or a theory that he cannot distinguish it from a fact. … Theories of science can no more overthrow the facts of religion than the facts of science. … One cannot build a faith upon the theory of evolution, for this theory is of no higher order than any other inference, and is therefore in a state of constant change.” (In Search of Truth: Comments on the Gospel and Modern Thought, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1930, pp. 41, 46, 110.)

The theory of evolution as presently taught posits that higher forms of life arose gradually from lower stages of living matter. Inheritable genetic changes in offspring are assumed to be spontaneous rather than the result of arranged or directed forces external to the system.

This theory conflicts with a basic law of chemistry, the second law of thermodynamics, which states in part that it is not possible for a spontaneous process to produce a system of higher order than the system possessed at the beginning of the change.

An example of a spontaneous process is a boulder that dislodges from a mountaintop and rolls down the mountain. The only way to get the boulder back up the mountain (thereby increasing its height, or the order of the system) is for energy outside the system to be expended—such as someone directing the process by seeing that the rock is carried up the mountain.

One of the current explanations of the improvement in plant and animal species over time is that cosmic radiation caused genetic changes resulting in a higher order of offspring survivability than the parent possessed.

A number of years ago, a renowned biologist and geneticist told of an experiment he had directed in which grasshoppers in their various stages of growth had been subjected to radiation levels greater than that insect family had received during its existence. He said the experiment caused many genetic changes, including the loss of a foreleg, an antenna, or some other inheritable change. However, not one of those changes gave the offspring a greater viability or survivability than that of the parent.

Many Latter-day Saints recognize that the processes involved in evolution are valid. We see improved strains and varieties of plants and animals developed through judicious selection of their parents. But we would have to agree with those who understand the limitation defined in the second law of thermodynamics limitation that such changes can only occur if guided or if outside energy is available to improve the system.

We are in the very fortunate position of understanding that the Lord is in charge of the universe and that positive genetic changes can in fact occur under his direction. On the other hand, spontaneous improvements of the type hypothesized by devotees of current evolutionary theory remain an unsupported supposition.

Hill was a long-time chemical and fuels engineering professor at the University of Utah and member of the National Academy of Engineering. As well as a General Authority for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. We do not believe in paid ministry, so our leaders typically have expertise in other fields as well.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
...Agnosticism is the correct path for now.

I tend to agree, though personally, I would be more comfortable saying that Agnosticism--as opposed to Theism or Atheism--is the only path where you can be certain of the starting point, namely, "I don't know" (whether or not there is a God).

"...correct path...?" That's a tad too exclusive for my tastes. Atheism has the advantage of not requiring any burden of proof to reach a reasonable--if indefinite--conclusion. But if that works for someone, then that is "correct" for them.

Theism (leaving the definition of God open for the moment; ie, Not confining it to the Christian POV) has the advantage of offering a broader map of reality.

Then there is what I call, Practical/Pragmatic Agnosticism, which I find works best for me.

Originally posted by Alliance
Not really. Agnositcs gloss over the fact that the likelyhood of god existing and god not existing are not balance.

Here's the one assumption that I make as an athiest: The chance of God is so small that it is insignificant. From a scientific perspective, that is how truth is arrived at.

Hrm. You are exaggerating the degree to which god is unlikely. You have no proof backing you up, only your opinion(I agree with it). The bible makes no claims that can seriously discredit itself.

Originally posted by Alliance
Agnositcs gloss over the fact that the likelyhood of god existing and god not existing are not balance.

As the saying goes (in reference to missing something, like first place in a race), an inch is as good as a mile. Both "likelihoods" are still in no-man's land. Plus, the "balance" improves if we examine what we mean by Science and Evidence: is Science defined by Method or by nature of proof (yes, I copied this from your thread cuz I was too lazy to retype/restate it here 😛 )? If by Method, then we can consider nonempirical evidence. If Science is defined by nature of proof--meaning, strictly empirical proof--then we run into Scientism and the problems inherent thereof. But that's going off topic (again).

Originally posted by Echuu
Don't you think this statement is a little bit arrogent?

Also, I think you're forgeting that most Christians site Jesus as proof that there is a God.

Im an arrogant man. 💃

And I didnt tackle the 'Jesus is proof' argument because I didnt really think it had enough weight to diserve tackling. Theres no historic proof that Jesus even existed, much less that he was anything more than a popular priest.

Originally posted by Mindship
As the saying goes (in reference to missing something, like first place in a race), an inch is as good as a mile. Both "likelihoods" are still in no-man's land. Plus, the "balance" improves if we examine what we mean by Science and Evidence: is Science defined by Method or by nature of proof (yes, I copied this from your thread cuz I was too lazy to retype/restate it here 😛 )? If by Method, then we can consider nonempirical evidence. If Science is defined by nature of proof--meaning, strictly empirical proof--then we run into Scientism and the problems inherent thereof. But that's going off topic (again).

You put what Im trying to say in better words I think.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Any physicist worth his salt could come up with an elaborate scenario to how the universe was created(multiverse theories come to mind)...

I believe the statement above counters your argument best.

Be they Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, or Agnostic, there's a numerous amount of faith based scenarios that any physicist could come up with to explain the origins of life.

So it all really boils down to what each individual chooses to place their faith in. I choose to place my faith in the Christian God, seeing as how the scriptures describe him as being the very embodiment of "love."

Love... like a flood that kills everything on earth...

Go love!

* the reason we have somewhat puzzled ideas to what/who God is... because we are conditioned to what/who God should be...

* for example: many people believe that God is omnipresent (in all places), omnipotent (can do anything) and omniscient (knows everything)... while, according to the Bible, He is not...

* the irony is... the group who conditioned the people's minds are the ones who compiled the scrolls of the Bible in the very first place... they are in contrary of the very piece of evidence to prove their claims... sometimes i want to laugh...

IMO I believe in both Evolution and Christianity 😐

I know that man just appered or what not...

However I still believe in god because if god dosent exist than how can anything exist?