Quote:
Originally Posted by jgd85
if you take the definition (or at least from what i understand as the definition) of god, then people should realize that you can neither prove nor disprove his existence. god is suppose to be something that is beyond nature and or comprehension, someone/something that is all powerful. so IF he does exist or IF he doesn't, we have no real way of knowing or proving it... so there is no point in arguing it either way. i understand that people present their views, but don't expect anyone to change their mind or believe you, just hope that if anything they get a better understanding of your reasoning or understanding.
people get the idea that we are so advanced that we can just make bold statements like "god is/isnt real". we are not so advanced to make such a claim, every bit of science that we know is just a really ****ty interpretation of what is really true. you see this as we must constantly adjust are rules and laws that govern it. all of these rules and laws have large assumptions that go along with them, and when you try and apply all the variables that come into play it becomes an impossible unsolvable equation. thus our science is like a stone age tool compared to what is true... in actuality it is much worse than that i just need a concrete example.
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
Albert Einstein
to me the idea of these people in history like muhammad, jesus, or any of the 'prophets' are just people who had a very clear interpretation of the universe they existed in. they understood things that nobody has come close to, thats why they amazed people. they tried to express what they could to the people around them and do their best to teach them how to obtain a similar understanding.
the best way i can try and explain it is like this. pretend you could only see in black and white. how could anyone ever explain to you what color is? how could you understand it? well these 'prophets' or 'holy men' had the ability to see color, and they did their best to help color our world for us. in this same statement of respect for those people, i don't think they should be WORSHIPED, but looked up to for guidance.
like i said the problem i have with organized religion is that often the people who profess it and are the 'leaders' often begin to lose the idea of being open minded, and it can become the blind leading the blind. then people only accept what someone tells them as being right and everything else is a sham. i think it is just as big of a sham for everyone to just write off the idea of a god because most modern scientist fail to interpret it. they have failed at a million things in the past and later realized they were wrong... who is to say that cant be the case. science should be more commonly accepted as a simple interpretation to what we can observe/comprehend.
"I didn't fail the test, I just found 100 ways to do it wrong."
Benjamin Franklin
your relationship with god, if you choose to have one, should be something personal. hopefully you will try and develop it and reach out to others and or these prominent 'prophets' in history who have understood more than most as guidance to your own understanding. always remember to think for yourself, and never take anything as being completely right or wrong. we exist in a shades of gray.
just my 2 cents.
|
1. Lack of disproof is not evidence for proof. Science cannot disporve Santa Claus or Goblins either, should we reasonalbly say that it is irrational to claim that Goblins do not exist? By your logic, since we cannot disprove it, it is not irrational to claim that goblins exist. You get pegged into corners like that when you try to draw out that argument. Science is not based on disproof. It is impossible to disprove the existance of anything. That certainly doesn't mean that we should have people like you going around, in futile attempts to be fair, saying things like:
"people get the idea that we are so advanced that we can just make bold statements like "Unicorns are/aren't real"
Give me a break.
2. You sure do take science for granted. I suppose it is this ****ty understanding of science that we have, which allows us to create medicines which save millions of lives. I guess those medicines are just flukes? After all, we have such a ****ty understanding of science that those discoveries couldn't possibly be based on sound science. That's preposterous. Maybe the fact that, using Evolution by Natural Selection, we have been able to predict what fossils it is that we are missing, make predictions of where those fossils likely are, and then find them. Fluke? Is this coincidence? There are millions of locations on the earth that we could choose to dig, and billions of depths we could choose to dig to, which leaves about 1,000,000 x 1,000,000,000 different combinations of places to dig. But this ****ty science led us to the right spot, more than once. What are the chances of that happening? None. People want to try and take away from what science can explain in order to be fair to the religious, because for some reason it is taboo to critisize someones religious faith. I can critisize anything about you, but if I critisize the one thing that makes you who you are, then I have crossed the line. Science should stop using disclaimers in an effort to facilitate stone age ideology. You're not helping.
3. Albert Einstein was not religious. If you would bother to read anything about him, or what is refered to as 'Einsteinian Religion', you most likely wouldn't have used that quote. If you did read about Einsteinian religion, and read about that quote, and used it anyway, you would know full well that you were misleading if not outright lying to people in using it. I encourage you to just google that quote. Learn something about his stance on religion before you quote him on it.
4. If there is a God, he surely does nothing, and is therefore useless in his existance. We do not need him to explain abiogenesis or the origins of the Universe. The religious, and you, like to play God of the Gaps here. Whatever cannot be explained by science is filled in by God. "Well, what caused the origin of the Universe?! Huh? Huh? Whats that? You can't explain it? Yeah, thats because God did it!"
COP OUT.
Saying 'God did it" to fill in holes helps you learn nothing, helps you understand nothing. That statement just shows me that people are content with not knowing. Thats fine, but not for a scientist. Once the orgin of the universe is explain by science (sometimes called Physic's Origin of Species"), the religious will have to find other God shaped holes in science to throw their beliefs into, just as they had to do when Darwin presented his theory of evolution by Natural Selection.