Debate on the existence of god

[EffEmDoubleyou]

The reason why those debates don't make too much sense is that two sides are different in core. The things is that those two sides can't relate to each other and they don't fully understand what other side is saying.

1. Scientific side does not understand "God loves you thing" because entire thing does not make any sense.

2. Spiritual side does not understand complexity of scientific argument and it has a problem with impersonal approach or reducing the importance of humanity.

Real debate is impossble since those tow don't speak same language.

There are people that think that you can mix those two but that creates so much philosophical problems that it question able that entire thing could works from perspective of logic.

However I am on scientific side.

I think you're underestimating the intelligence of spiritual people...as if there wouldn't be any such thing as religion if everyone had an IQ of 130. I think you're also underestimating the openness to new information of most scientific-leaning people.

I don't think that the ideas of God and science have any conflict whatsoever. I think that some of the minor, conflicting dogma that divide various religions disagree with science. Things like creationism, the infallibility of the Pope, and the sanctity of certain animals. But those things only distract from the central argument. The general idea of a supreme being who created the universe and imbued people with eternal souls does not conflict with science at all. In fact, if there is a God, it seems to me that science would be his language, since that would have been the mechanism by which he created everything. I can only attribute failure to see this to stubbornness from entrenched proponents of both viewpoints that refuse to give an inch.

 

[Mempy]

The general idea of a supreme being who created the universe and imbued people with eternal souls does not conflict with science at all. In fact, if there is a God, it seems to me that science would be his language, since that would have been the mechanism by which he created everything. I can only attribute failure to see this to stubbornness from entrenched proponents of both viewpoints that refuse to give an inch.

I've never understood why science and God couldn't both be true. For instance, the story of how God created the earth in seven days? What if one "day" were like a few hundred million years to us? Let's get more creative, people!

 

[ajblaise]

No matter which way we cut it, the "supernatural" isn't compatible with the natural (and the study of nature: science).

And even most liberal interpretations of the major religions recognize the supernatural.

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

No matter which way we cut it, the "supernatural" isn't compatible with the natural (and the study of nature: science).

And even most liberal interpretations of the major religions recognize the supernatural.

I strongly disagree. Why can't the supernatural be compatible with the natural? Why can't it just be science that we don't yet understand? As George Lucas once said (God I hate having to quote that hack), "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Think of nature as a computer program...if there is a God, isn't it plausible if not likely that he programmed himself some backdoors?

 

[ajblaise]

I strongly disagree. Why can't the supernatural be compatible with the natural? Why can't it just be science that we don't yet understand? As George Lucas once said (God I hate having to quote that hack), "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Think of nature as a computer program...if there is a God, isn't it plausible if not likely that he programmed himself some backdoors?

Because by definition the supernatural is something that's unexplainable by nature.

Could something we consider supernatural today be given validity by science in the future? Sure. But concerning most of what we consider supernatural, I wouldn't count of it.

 

[ptgatsby]

No matter which way we cut it, the "supernatural" isn't compatible with the natural (and the study of nature: science).

And even most liberal interpretations of the major religions recognize the supernatural.

Yup, religion was once the keeper of knowledge, and now science is. Religion doesn't terribly like that.

However, humans still need the spiritual side - there is no way around that. The problem is that religion is more about a "thing", like a flag, than anything else... and too often, like rallying around a flag, religion can trigger a negative set of behaviors.

I see this period as transition. Religion is giving way to science, even if it is unwillingly in some places. But spirituality won't go away unless we change what it is to be human, and so religion - previously codified - will transform into something different. No idea what it would be, yet, but I do see overall increased tolerance for the most part. It'll be a long time before it filters through everywhere, but I think the forces are in motion. Course, it won't really take hold until evolution has directed it away, but... the shrinking of the world might very well help with our existing wiring. Lots of speculation, heh.

Why do people argue over the existence of God? I think it is all tied into the search for meaning and knowledge. The concept serves a great deal of purpose in the human psyche, and this emerges from it. Those that do not believe want to believe, to some degree... and those that do believe have doubts, to some degree. Arguing serves both to solidify the stance we hold (disagreement polarizes beliefs, reinforcing them) and to explore the possibilities safely.

The problems really start when people make decisions based on what they want to believe, rather than on evidence. Material impacts require material evidence, in my books.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Personally, I love these debates. Sorting through the assumptions that the other side carries is a blast. Trying to pick them apart and get the other person to acknowledge how their assumptions lack foundation is like a game to me.

 

[nightning]

I think you're underestimating the intelligence of spiritual people...as if there wouldn't be any such thing as religion if everyone had an IQ of 130. I think you're also underestimating the openness to new information of most scientific-leaning people.

Very true... I am friends with a Christian from college who believes in creationism. She did her masters in microbiology... and have actually once worked in an evolutionary lab even though she didn't believe in the theory. Religion has very little to do with intelligence (although it seems bull-headed religious fanatics tend to be of lesser intelligence/education strata). Belief and faith seems to go beyond the category of what's rational and irrational. You're entering into territory where you can't prove or disprove one way or the other. So any explanations... gods, supernatural beings or not is perfectly "valid". Acknowledgment of the difference in believes is all you can say.

I don't think that the ideas of God and science have any conflict whatsoever. I think that some of the minor, conflicting dogma that divide various religions disagree with science. Things like creationism, the infallibility of the Pope, and the sanctity of certain animals. But those things only distract from the central argument. The general idea of a supreme being who created the universe and imbued people with eternal souls does not conflict with science at all. In fact, if there is a God, it seems to me that science would be his language, since that would have been the mechanism by which he created everything. I can only attribute failure to see this to stubbornness from entrenched proponents of both viewpoints that refuse to give an inch.

Nicely phrased. One of my professors once phrase something along the lines of this...

Science is good at explaining the "how". How does something work? What's its mechanism of action? What are the steps involved to some process? All these things can be readily tested. But when it comes to "why". Science fails, as in epic fail. These things can't be tested, nor is science meant to handle such questions.

Leave that stuff for the philosopher was what he said. I agree with him.

Why do people argue over the existence of God? I think it is all tied into the search for meaning and knowledge. The concept serves a great deal of purpose in the human psyche, and this emerges from it. Those that do not believe want to believe, to some degree... and those that do believe have doubts, to some degree. Arguing serves both to solidify the stance we hold (disagreement polarizes beliefs, reinforcing them) and to explore the possibilities safely.

The problems really start when people make decisions based on what they want to believe, rather than on evidence. Material impacts require material evidence, in my books.

So in the end it's always about the self... how typical

May I throw in cognitive dissonance into the mix? Belief just is... there's very little logical explanation you can use to justified your believes. Yet people seem to need justifications for their decisions. Perhaps that leads to the need to reinforce their stance? That they are in the right... and thus the urge to continue arguing despite stalemate?

 

[Totenkindly]

...May I throw in cognitive dissonance into the mix? Belief just is... there's very little logical explanation you can use to justified your believes. Yet people seem to need justifications for their decisions. Perhaps that leads to the need to reinforce their stance? That they are in the right... and thus the urge to continue arguing despite stalemate?

Now we're discussing fear... fear of having one's faith dispelled in some way, whether or not the faith is based on something true.

Another problem that I have had to face (dealing with religious friends and relatives) is that, if the faith provided support to someone during hard times in their lives -- if it's the thing that helped them survive -- then they are severely prone to clinging to it even when it becomes clear later that their faith is harmful at that stage and not helpful.

You can't take away something from someone if their lives have depended on it heavily in the past. The attachment is too strong.

 

[ajblaise]

Science is good at explaining the "how". How does something work? What's its mechanism of action? What are the steps involved to some process? All these things can be readily tested. But when it comes to "why". Science fails, as in epic fail. These things can't be tested, nor is science meant to handle such questions.

But why are we to believe that ideas of God(s) and religion are capable of explaining the "why"?

 

[Virtual ghost]

I think you're underestimating the intelligence of spiritual people...as if there wouldn't be any such thing as religion if everyone had an IQ of 130. I think you're also underestimating the openness to new information of most scientific-leaning people.

I don't think that the ideas of God and science have any conflict whatsoever. I think that some of the minor, conflicting dogma that divide various religions disagree with science. Things like creationism, the infallibility of the Pope, and the sanctity of certain animals. But those things only distract from the central argument. The general idea of a supreme being who created the universe and imbued people with eternal souls does not conflict with science at all. In fact, if there is a God, it seems to me that science would be his language, since that would have been the mechanism by which he created everything. I can only attribute failure to see this to stubbornness from entrenched proponents of both viewpoints that refuse to give an inch.

I've never understood why science and God couldn't both be true. For instance, the story of how God created the earth in seven days? What if one "day" were like a few hundred million years to us? Let's get more creative, people!

I was curious about how long it will take to get this kind of replys.

But I still disagre with your position.
Lately this kind of arguments are more and more poplular but I think that entire thing doesn't work.

As for argument about intellgent people and accepting new ideas.
Intelligence does not metter here that much key part is education.
When it comes to science, you need to learn something so that you are able to learn something else. Which you will then use to learn something new. Once you know that you can expand even more.

Because of this genaral public can't fully understand what science says because of information that is needed to understand information which is needed to understand ..............................................

There is no way you can understand it unless you actually become a scientist and even then you will understand only tiny part of knowledge.

So I will create an argument and I know what I am going to say. It is just that I need time to type and make some parts more understandable.

Idea of God is very complex one and it is hard to move it from status quo. Everything that is against it is complex, abstract(some pars more some parts less), there is plenty of counterintuitive ideas and ......

I will try to do my best so show this spectre of ideas(that god does not exist) in more simple form and point on details that are hidden.
But simplification could take it's tool.

Then you can say that you agree or disagree with me.

 

[ptgatsby]

But why are we to believe that ideas of God(s) and religion are capable of explaining the "why"?

'Capable' isn't the right word to me. Religion is the methodology, just like science is the methodology. They can't do the same things as each other, and it would be foolish to depend on religion for the practical things (like say, medicine, or astronomy!). But not having something to fill in what science cannot offer leaves one incomplete. It doesn't need to be a religion, specifically - many fill it in with the awe of discovery and other such things - but they will tend to manifest into belief of some type.

(In response to nightning as well Belief simply isn't good enough to survive on - we tend to call people crazy if it is. But imagination and so forth are just belief, of a sort. It's a fake simulation of the future, of what could be... of what isn't real. Between these lies 'normal' people... and all of the workings express themselves in both science and religion.

The issue I have with religion is not that it isn't science, but that it too often pretends to be.

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

Science is good at explaining the "how". How does something work? What's its mechanism of action? What are the steps involved to some process? All these things can be readily tested. But when it comes to "why". Science fails, as in epic fail. These things can't be tested, nor is science meant to handle such questions.

I have often thought this myself. Part of why science and religion are compatible is that they satisfy different needs. One addresses the heart, and one the mind. But neither is happy unless they are the explanation for everything. Science, for all its truth and utility, is as much a religion as religion is. Because it is relied upon as a worldview instead of a tool.

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

As for argument about intellgent people and accepting new ideas.
Intelligence does not metter here that much key part is education.
When it comes to science, you need to learn something so that you are able to learn something else. Which you will then use to learn something new. Once you know that you can expand even more.

Because of this genaral public can't fully understand what science says because of information that is needed to understand information which is needed to understand ..............................................

There is no way you can understand it unless you actually become a scientist and even then you will understand only tiny part of knowledge.

So I will create an argument and I know what I am going to say. It is just that I need time to type and make some parts more understandable.

Idea of God is very complex one and it is hard to move it from status quo. Everything that is against it is complex, abstract(some pars more some parts less), there is plenty of counterintuitive ideas and ......

I will try to do my best so show this spectre of ideas(that god does not exist) in more simple form and point on details that are hidden.
But simplification could take it's tool.

This sounds remarkably like what a priest would say when one of his parishoners questions something dogmatic. "There there, it's not for you to understand. Take my word for it, noble savage."

 

[Virtual ghost]

This sounds remarkably like what a priest would say when one of his parishoners questions something dogmatic. "There there, it's not for you to understand. Take my word for it, noble savage."

That is true I am not dening that it isn't. But I have no idea how to present this on any other way since politicly incorrect one happens to be truth.
Also I can understand why you see arrogance in my post.
I am not saying that you are unable to understand I am just saying that you will need years and years of learning to know more about this.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Science is good at explaining the "how". How does something work? What's its mechanism of action? What are the steps involved to some process? All these things can be readily tested. But when it comes to "why". Science fails, as in epic fail. These things can't be tested, nor is science meant to handle such questions.

I've heard that too, and I've even repeated it. But now that I think about it, I'm not sure it's really true. Science isn't really just about explaining how -- it's about increasing reliability in what we understand, and both the WHY and the HOW is part of our understanding. So, if you make a claim about the "why," you should ensure that your claim is reliable, just for accuracy's sake. Science is compatible with asking why as long as we're still interested in reliability. If we choose to relinquish reliability, and instead take things on faith, then science becomes irrelevant.

The failure of science to answer questions about why the universe exists isn't really a failure, imo. It's more of a discovery, namely, that there is no reason for existence that people are privy to. I think it's rather illuminating.

 

[nightning]

This sounds remarkably like what a priest would say when one of his parishoners questions something dogmatic. "There there, it's not for you to understand. Take my word for it, noble savage."

Well no... I don't see why the public cannot understand some basic science. I know some people have stigma whenever science is involved. But the basics can be explained using simple analogies. (Just head over to TED.com and you'll see what I mean.) The main issue right now is the outreach. Scientists have to push their findings to the public. At the moment, very few people are doing so. Instead, you have mostly quacks promoting unproven/bias information for profit. People complain about them but nobody is willing to go fix it.

 

[JocktheMotie]

The thing is, God could settle the debate with an appearance, but then he'd defeat his purpose. Catch 22. Once he [or we] prove him empirically, we destroy faith too, and thus the point of religion in the first place.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

The thing is, God could settle the debate with an appearance, but then he'd defeat his purpose. Catch 22. Once he [or we] prove him empirically, we destroy faith too, and thus the point of religion in the first place.

You think the point of religion is to have faith? Hrmm. I'm not so convinced.

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

Well no... I don't see why the public cannot understand some basic science.

I don't either. That's why I made that analogy for Antisocial One. The science education required to make a decision on whether you can reconcile your faith with the natural world is high school level. I don't think that you have to be halfway through a PhD in physics before it dawns on you that most religion isn't particularly scientific. I think that's just a dodge...it's a way to avoid accepting that people can understand how nature works and still be spiritual. It's much easier to act as if atheism is assured once you reach a given (and quite uncommon) threshold of knowedge.