god created the universe and let it evolve without any furth

Post Reply New Topic

The thing about faith, is that if it is such a reliable source of knowledge, why is it so often wrong?

The faith of Christians tells them that Yahweh exists, and that he sent his son Jesus to Earth. The faith of Jews also tells them Yahweh exists, but he didn't send Jesus. The faith of Hellenists tells them that there is a family of gods living on Mount Olympus who regularly meddle in human affairs. The faith of the ancient Egyptians told them the sun is the god Ra flying on his magical boat, and that the dead were judged by the god Anubis, who would feed them to Ammut if they were not virtuous.

All these beliefs cannot be simultaneously true. This means that in the majority of cases, faith has given false information. If you're a Christian, you'll believe that the faith of the Norse, Aztecs, Hellenists, ancient Egyptians, Muslims, Hindus and Celts all gave them misleading information. If you're a Hellenist, you'll believe that the faith of Christians, Norse, Aztecs, ancient Egyptians, Muslims, Hindus and Celts gave them false information.

So knowing then, that faith has misled the followers of every other religion when they used it as the justification for their beliefs, what grounds could anyone have for believing that they just happen to be the lucky one who isn't misled?

big bang theory
evolution
life on mars (bacteria found on it that was not earth, either had mutated or actually lived there)
Obvious that the bible was written by man and not guy possessed by god.
Mistakes in bible.
and if god was real, they would not have a sex.

Stop that. You'll hurt your brain.

Seriously, these are questions to which there are no real answers.

Well, if there's no answers to my demonstration that faith is unreliable, that must mean that my point stands and that faith is not a source of knowledge. As such, it is no better for discerning truth than any other form of random guessing.

Give yourself a pat on the back. You've just cracked a very tough nut.

No he has a point. It should be your brain that is hurting trying to work out why you believe in the particular God that you do

Where do you get off trying to talk me out of my beliefs? Do you have any idea how rude and presumptuous that is? You'd have better luck trying to talk a gay guy out of his gayness.

Try to coexist with me if you can.

Hey sorry SM I didn't mean to offend,

Now there's a thought what has a stronger hold on a person religion or genetics.

Don't worry about it.

Again, typical christian attitude that HURTS humanity. With that kind of thinking, we will never advance our current knowledge of the universe, or anything in that matter. If you wanna live in the Dark Ages where it was herasy and blasphemy to consider new ways of thinking, then be the first to build a time machine and go there yourself, mankind can't afford to waste time with that kind of garbage around here.. Or would god allow that? To build a time machine? lol probably not. In that case you can go to your room and live in a fairyland of ignorence all by yourself. You will see, one day we will figure out the rest of those questions you relied on "god" for the answers to, and I will laugh. There are REAL answers out there, and to let a christian world keep them from me is proposterous.

Slow mutant has an excellent point. You wouldn't try to teach a frog how to do crossword puzzles nor exhort an ants nest to shape up and join the United Nations or even try to talk a maple tree into growing bananas. Slow mutant is a very different type of human from people who think rationally and believe in cause and effect. He believes in fairies and probably dryads that live in trees and he's very careful not to plant beans in case the vine might result in a giant sliding out of the sky on the stalk. He's different so you cannot persuade him to reason with logic.

you can't prove or disprove the existence of a supernatural being using scientific methods that rely on natural law and the uniformity of nature. Because, the definition of supernatural: "not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws", "Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces", and "occurrence in violation of the known laws of nature". So in order for your experiment to be scientific it would have to be repeatable. So the supernatural being would have to uniformly follow natural law... which violates the basic definition of supernatural. Or the supernatural being would not uniformly follow natural law, thus violating the uniformity of nature. Any attempt to prove or disprove the existence of a supernatural being (including a god) would result in a scientific contradiction.

Doesn't mean there isn't a possibility of a god. Merely that asserting that you can disprove (or prove) such a being's existence is a fallacy. And illogical.

So, the belief that there is... or is not a god... are both beliefs based on .... wait for it... faith. I mean you can insist all day that science disproves the existence of a god... but logic dictates that a god would not be testable and if such a being was testable... "it" wouldn't be a god. False negative or true negative? no way to know for sure.

I fail to see how your list disproves that a god created the universe and let it evolve.

1. you limit your definition of god to the Judeo-Christian God.
2. Life on Mars and the Big Bang Theory in no way prove that the universe could not be created by a god.
3. He already stated that life evolved so I don't know why you would include that.
4. your last statement makes no sense. Please clarify it.

Last edited by Shiggily on 19 Jan 2009, 9:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

many great scientific and mathematical discoveries were made by both nonreligious and religious individuals. If there are REAL answers out there... the only person who would keep you from them is yourself.

nothing in life is certain, everything is based on faith. Accept that and you will live happier.

you place your faith in structural integrity... of buildings, cars, planes (which you shouldn't but I won't hold it against you).

I cannot adequately ascertain whether this is true about Slow Mutant. But since you came to your conclusion by generalizing an entire group of individuals, I can say that your statement is fallacious.