Originally posted by Ursumeles
So, just like the existence of god?And for the rest of your post - no, I don't have to answer god. Because there is no basis that he exists.
No. The existance of God explains that things were created by a Supreme Being. No dead ends.
Just as there is no basis of him not existing.
Its a matter of what you believe in the end, not a matter of what is true.
Personally, I think there's some higher, incomprehensible force that exists and in some way controls and creates what is around us. However, I feel religion uses the possible existance of this being or beings to goad and manipulate over others.
Sure, religion has its benefits, but a lot of people use it for corrupt reasons like giving excuses for hate crimes, discrimination, and being close-minded.
Originally posted by StigmaI mean, Philosophy is certainly influenced by science, so ehhh...Spoiler:
not really entirely true, but would require off topic debate on mathematics and philosophy, so meh....
And?That does not undermine my observation. Theory of a supreme being is delivered by Western Philosophy in numerous instances. The fact that you overlook that out of convenience is flabbergasting.
God doesn't fits these definitions, so I don't use the philosophical theory of god.
Originally posted by Ursumeles
I mean, Philosophy is certainly influenced by science, so ehhh...
Originally posted by Ursumeles
I am using this definition of theory -
A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing.God doesn't fits these definitions, so I don't use the philosophical theory of god.
How can you assess on the existence or non-existence of God if you limit yourself to criteria that (as given above) relate only to the materialsitic view of reality. (which itself has been largely debunked by quantum physics, no less).
If you adhere to that standpoint because you are a materialist, then it is a philosophical standpoint, not a scientific one per se. In this case, philosophical deliberations apply. Including logical reasoning concering God.
TLDR version: You assess on God with tools that are not designed to be used to assess on God. Flawed reasoning.
Originally posted by Ursumeles
I don't assess the existence or non-existence of a god, though.
Originally posted by Ursumeles
And my point of *theory* has nothing to do with that, lmfao. It has just something to do with the definition of theory in this context.
Originally posted by MythLord
Personally, I think there's some higher, incomprehensible force that exists and in some way controls and creates what is around us. However, I feel religion uses the possible existance of this being or beings to goad and manipulate over others.Sure, religion has its benefits, but a lot of people use it for corrupt reasons like giving excuses for hate crimes, discrimination, and being close-minded.
So you do believe in some Superior being? I do so too.
Yeah I agree. I personally think the Church takes it far to the extremes.
But i don't really care to bend my knees at night and say some prayers. It isn't like it bothers me. And if Religion is true (Which i believe it is) then good for me.
Originally posted by Stigma
It is the other way around.Sure. But then your whole reasoning is flawed.
How can you assess on the existence or non-existence of God if you limit yourself to criteria that (as given above) relate only to the materialsitic view of reality. (which itself has been largely debunked by quantum physics, no less).
If you adhere to that standpoint because you are a materialist, then it is a philosophical standpoint, not a scientific one per se. In this case, philosophical deliberations apply. Including logical reasoning concering God.
TLDR version: You assess on God with tools that are not designed to be used to assess on God. Flawed reasoning.
I could agree.
Originally posted by Ursumeles
1. Like I said - you just say that God needs to be the cause, but fail to answer me where God came from..
It is a logical fallacy you point out to. (As far as I remember Dawkins was the victim of that line of thought too)
In order to recognze the explanation, you don't need an explanation of the explanation of the explanation. Otherwise, nothing could ever be explained.
In fact, if this was a requirement all science would fall apart.
Originally posted by Stigma
It is a logical fallacy you point out to. (As far as I remember Dawkins was the victim of that line of thought too)In order to recognze the expalnation, you don't need an explanation of the explanation of the explanation. Otherwise, nothing could ever be explained.
In fact, if this was a requirement all science would fall apart.
Originally posted by Stigma
It is a logical fallacy you point out to. (As far as I remember Dawkins was the victim of that line of thought too)In order to recognze the explanation, you don't need an explanation of the explanation of the explanation. Otherwise, nothing could ever be explained.
In fact, if this was a requirement all science would fall apart.
Yeah that's what i've been trying to point out at him.
Originally posted by Ursumeles
I might misunderstand your post, but my point was mainly that we don't know where God came from (if he exists), nor what the cause of the Nig Bang is (if it did happened). It's stupid to use the fact that we don't know what caused the Big Bang, only to throw it away in favor of something of which we don't know the cause either.
The problem with the Big Bang is that it doesn't state what causes the universe. It states HOW the was the universe formed.
If we say that God created the Universe, that's it.
I think you got me wrong when i said that the Big Bang doesn't prove anything. I didn't ment the Big Bang was useless.
The Big Bang Theory says that the Universe came to be from a MASSIVE EXPLOSION (Just like in Genesis when God said ,"Let there be light".) But that's it.
The Big Bang Theory doesn't explain what caused the Big Bang in the first place.
So again i don't see why you need to know God's creator to understand how the Universe came to be
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
The one who sees science as a creation of Satan. I am a science-religious person.
wait... so "classic religious people" in your view are people who see methodical observation as satanic? Well, I suppose you aren't a classic religious person in that case, good job! 😂
Exactly. Archaic? Well it follows the Scientific method. If it can't be proven or disproven then its a Theory.
facepalm No, that's not even close to the definition of a theory, and having blind faith in the existence of an invisible magic man doesn't resemble the scientific method in any capacity.
Isn't it curious that ALL RELIGIONS work under the principles of Hell, Heaven, and Earth? Good vs Evil.
No, not all religions use that framework. Nor would it be particularly impressive if they did. 😐
Considering that Science claims that Colombus was the first one to reach America
...please go back and finish elementary school.
Originally posted by NewGuy01
wait... so "classic religious people" in your view are people who see methodical observation as satanic? Well, I suppose you aren't a classic religious person in that case, good job! 😂facepalm No, that's not even close to the definition of a theory, and having blind faith in the existence of an invisible magic man doesn't resemble the scientific method in any capacity.
No, not all religions use that framework. Nor would it be particularly impressive if they did. 😐
...please go back and finish elementary school.
Well not the ortodox type if you will see it that way.
Except that "Magic Man" hasn't been able to be disproved. Until then, it's a theory for the fact that you can't disprove it. And it answers to the WHY things happen.
A theory is a statement that attempts to answer in a logical way the reason why things happen. God is a theory for why we are here. 😉
Most do.
I have finish elementary school. Can you believe they keep saying that the Spanish were the first ones? 😂