LinkBack URL
About LinkBackshaha. Ah the good old Flying Spaghetti Monster.Originally Posted by canecon
haha. Ah the good old Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Each individual religion isn't falsifiable but there are things you can "prove" about religion collectively. Again, there are some assumptions that need to be made but IMO, they are as concrete as the preference relations.
Q1) 2.75 (maybe, but if I had to choose between yes and no, then my money would be on no).
Q2) 4
UT Austin Entering Class of 2009
Do you like fishsticks???
I take issue with that actually. Is the null hypothesis that there is no God really a good starting point? I think if we're going to give both points of view a fair shot in this question, I think our baseline should be that we don't know whether there's a God (or god) out there at all. From there we should look at evidence and decide whether or not we think there is one or not. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Which leads me to...
Do you believe God exists?: 1.5?
To which Faith do you belong?: 2
Comments: Sure hope I'm right! Haha
Last edited by KGkhan23; 03-08-2009 at 06:10 AM. Reason: Adding
Do you believe God exists?: 3, No
To which Faith do you belong?: 4, Atheist
Comments: All signs point to NO!
The real question is not whether God exists or not, but why the belief in something spiritual is so pervasive amongst humans.
Suggested Reading - Evolution and Religion - Darwin's God:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/ma...olution.t.html
There are two main purposes of religion. One is to explain the unexplainable (i.e. myths), and the other is to provide spiritual direction and understanding. The former is generally no longer necessary and is the root cause for the backlash of science against religion. The latter is something that cannot be realized by logical means.
Physicists might be able to explain how the universe was formed, but will never be able to answer WHY it was formed.
An excerpt from an interview with Guy Consolmagno, Vatican Astronomer:
"The trouble is that some people think they can use science to prove God. And that puts science ahead of God; that makes science more powerful than God. That's bad theology. In fact, some philosophers have said that's what led to atheism in the eighteenth century -- the fallacy of the God of the gaps. You say, "I have no idea how this could have happened. It must have been God's design." And then fifty years later, somebody explains how it did happen, and you say, "I don't need God anymore." If your faith is based on science, that's a very shaky kind of faith."
Source: By Design :: Astrobiology Magazine - earth science - evolution distribution Origin of life universe - life beyond :: Astrobiology is study of earth science evolution distribution Origin of life in universe terrestrial
I personally believe Buddhism is one of the few major religions that has been free of major qualms over scientific pursuits.
I sort of compare that to making my null hypothesis that there is a magical unicorn in the sky. Although I could just be dense.
The only reason I ever knew of a God was because someone told me about it. The nature of faith is that you believe with no evidence, and that doesn't sit right with me. Sure, people present a lot of proxies for evidence, but that just doesn't do it for me. Many people will point out that I (and others) believe plenty of things on good faith or without evidence, but generally speaking these types of things are of a less severe nature.
Read what I said more closely. I never said I could disprove the existence of God or Gods. However, there is something inherently contradictory about organized religions.
There is a distinct difference between believing in an organized religion and believing in some higher power.
I'm not sure we're on the same page here, actually. I have no problem with the statement that there isn't any serious evidence of a God. What I'm saying is that if we're going to look at a problem, any problem, our standard position should always be that we don't know the answer before we look at the evidence, no? If the evidence points to the conclusion that there is no God, then that is fine, and I admit freely now that belief in a God cannot be derived directly from uncontroversial, observable truths.
If I told you that there was a certain kind of fish that hangs out near the bottom of the ocean and eats giant squid, what would you say? I think it would be fair to tell me I'm off my rocker for believing in this fish with no evidence, but unfair to say the fish isn't there without looking for it.
Skepticism is great, but it's a big universe, and to say something doesn't exist at all is a pretty strong statement.
what does Ben Bernanke think about this
What you can do
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks