God.

[Farnhamia]

That's funny.

But I also hate it when people mock over 2000 years of philosophy just like that.

Is your faith so weak that it cannot take a little ribbing? But then, Yahweh never had much of a sense of humor. Notice how very few people actually laugh in the Bible?

[Caecili]

How is anything directly responsible for something just by existing? I don't understand your logic.

I believe that he thinks that God is the laws of physics.

However, sir, you must then explain this to me: did God not create the Universe?

If he did, then how can he be the laws of physics, which were created with the Universe?

Indeed. One cannot create themselves.

[Keronians]

Ah, okay then. My apologies. In that case, yes, they do just occur for the sake of occurring.

Thank you, but I'm still sore that you assumed that I was so painfully stupid.

Aww, there, there.

I get it everyday just by being a theist. The amount of people that argue with me for this everyday and call me an ignorant idiot... And then it turns out that I know more about science than them. It upset me a couple of years ago, but I've learnt to deal with it.

[Norstal]

How is anything directly responsible for something just by existing? I don't understand your logic.

I believe that he thinks that God is the laws of physics.

However, sir, you must then explain this to me: did God not create the Universe?

If he did, then how can he be the laws of physics, which were created with the Universe?

Why can't Satan created the laws of physics. Maybe Satan wanted to curtail the powers of god in an epic battle or something, and then imposed the laws of physics, which makes god not appear to men, but only Satan appears to men alone.

Creativity is something that scientists thrive on, it is how we view the world and the universe. A "god that does everything" is not sufficient and I am sure you would agree that god is ultimately boring.

[Keronians]

That's funny.

But I also hate it when people mock over 2000 years of philosophy just like that.

Is your faith so weak that it cannot take a little ribbing? But then, Yahweh never had much of a sense of humor. Notice how very few people actually laugh in the Bible?

MY faith? I'm not a Christian...

[Caecili]

Thank you, but I'm still sore that you assumed that I was so painfully stupid.

Aww, there, there.

I get it everyday just by being a theist. The amount of people that argue with me for this everyday and call me an ignorant idiot... And then it turns out that I know more about science than them. It upset me a couple of years ago, but I've learnt to deal with it.

The problem is the very vocal crazy theists give the reasonable, intelligent theists a bad name. You're probably my favourite believer on this thread because you actually know how to intelligently debate.

[Farnhamia]

I believe that he thinks that God is the laws of physics.

However, sir, you must then explain this to me: did God not create the Universe?

If he did, then how can he be the laws of physics, which were created with the Universe?

Indeed. One cannot create themselves.

Indeed. And so we've gone from the God of Abraham and Isaac, who carved the Decalogue with his own hand on stones, and caused the walls of Jericho to fall, to "the laws of physics." No God of the Gaps there, I guess, but oh, how the mighty are fallen.

[Farnhamia]

Is your faith so weak that it cannot take a little ribbing? But then, Yahweh never had much of a sense of humor. Notice how very few people actually laugh in the Bible?

MY faith? I'm not a Christian...

Oh? Well, carry on.

[Keronians]

I believe that he thinks that God is the laws of physics.

However, sir, you must then explain this to me: did God not create the Universe?

If he did, then how can he be the laws of physics, which were created with the Universe?

Why can't Satan created the laws of physics. Maybe Satan wanted to curtail the powers of god in an epic battle or something, and then imposed the laws of physics, which makes god not appear to men, but only Satan appears to men alone.

Creativity is something that scientists thrive on, it is how we view the world and the universe. A "god that does everything" is not sufficient and I am sure you would agree that god is ultimately boring.

In that case, he is affirming that Satan created God (the laws of physics), which is also nonsensical as Satan is meant to been a servant of God who rebelled.

[Keronians]

Aww, there, there.

I get it everyday just by being a theist. The amount of people that argue with me for this everyday and call me an ignorant idiot... And then it turns out that I know more about science than them. It upset me a couple of years ago, but I've learnt to deal with it.

The problem is the very vocal crazy theists give the reasonable, intelligent theists a bad name. You're probably my favourite believer on this thread because you actually know how to intelligently debate.

[YellowApple]

Doesn't this contradict what you said here? In that post, God is moving the planets, directly causing everything to happen. No all he has to do is "exist." And "directly" is your word.

God is directly responsible for everything that happens. He does so by existing. What's the contradiction in that?

God = Science.

Atheists and Christians and Muslims and Jews are all worshiping the same freaking thing: Science. Which also goes by the name "God". Or "Allah". Or is divided into a multitude of other smaller gods, in the case of Hinduism, or none at all, in the case of Buddhism.

So now the argument is "which name is the most correct?"

[Farnhamia]

God is directly responsible for everything that happens. He does so by existing. What's the contradiction in that?

God = Science.

Atheists and Christians and Muslims and Jews are all worshiping the same freaking thing: Science. Which also goes by the name "God". Or "Allah". Or is divided into a multitude of other smaller gods, in the case of Hinduism, or none at all, in the case of Buddhism.

So now the argument is "which name is the most correct?"

All nine billion of them are correct.

[Norstal]

God is directly responsible for everything that happens. He does so by existing. What's the contradiction in that?

God = Science.

Atheists and Christians and Muslims and Jews are all worshiping the same freaking thing: Science. Which also goes by the name "God". Or "Allah". Or is divided into a multitude of other smaller gods, in the case of Hinduism, or none at all, in the case of Buddhism.

So now the argument is "which name is the most correct?"

False. So false, the boolean variable for this statement is broken. Now I have to use something else to compare it to...

I feel insulted at how someone can blatantly label years of work to fit their own philosophical views, so here, let me spoon-feed the facts for you. The scientific method:

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

And you know what religious people do to our research?

1. Erase everything and fit it to our own needs.

That's fucking bullshit. Do not ever conclude there is a god. Ever. Especially not under the name of science.

[Jasonovia]

God is directly responsible for everything that happens. He does so by existing. What's the contradiction in that?

There isn't any now that you've papered over the cracks. It's the lazy person's way out, you know. "O hai, God makes everything happen but you can't tell because he does it in a way you can't detect."

Yeah.

Right.

You know, I just happen to have the deed to a very nice bridge in New York City, late 19th century, in excellent shape, very low asking price. Are you interested?

Or it just means I like to ruminate on subjects I don't completely understand myself. I shouldn't allow myself to take on other heavy topics in a thread that is heavy enough on its own. But I was thinking about the topic of Divine Simplicity and how if God simply is then is it truly accurate to talk about what God "does"? Not a very important point to what I was talking about, frankly.

It just gets me that people look for God in the supernatural as if He's some sort of magician, when there are literally infinite numbers of observable natural occurrences every day that are also God's work. If I want to learn more about God's works, I study science (and I am an engineer by trade). I don't understand the dichotomy between acts of god and scientific explanations; just that one is more specific than the other.

(And no, that does not mean God is the laws of physics)

[YellowApple]

God = Science.

Atheists and Christians and Muslims and Jews are all worshiping the same freaking thing: Science. Which also goes by the name "God". Or "Allah". Or is divided into a multitude of other smaller gods, in the case of Hinduism, or none at all, in the case of Buddhism.

So now the argument is "which name is the most correct?"

False. So false, the boolean variable for this statement is broken. Now I have to use something else to compare it to...

I feel insulted at how someone can blatantly label years of work to fit their own philosophical views, so here, let me spoon-feed the facts for you. The scientific method:

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

And you know what religious people do to our research?

1. Erase everything and fit it to our own needs.

That's fucking bullshit. Do not ever conclude there is a god. Ever. Especially not under the name of science.

1. I was, for the most part, speaking sarcastically.
2. It's possible to believe in science and God simultaneously. Those who "erase everything and fit it to [their] own needs" are not true believers, in my opinion. There's such a thing as compromise. As I recall someone else mentioning on here, religion explains what science has yet to explain, and as science does explain it, religion gives way.

Likewise, commanding me to believe in the same exact atheist views as you do will not make me believe in the same exact atheist views as you do. We are all entitled to our own opinions. In short, we are all correct.

Additionally, for such a hardcore believer in science, you fail to follow a true scientific method by only sampling the religious radicals as your source data in your conclusion regarding religion. If you had performed real research and scientific deduction, you would learn that there are individuals who are capable of accepting both the religious and scientific explanations as potentially true.

[Labno]

God = Science.

Atheists and Christians and Muslims and Jews are all worshiping the same freaking thing: Science. Which also goes by the name "God". Or "Allah". Or is divided into a multitude of other smaller gods, in the case of Hinduism, or none at all, in the case of Buddhism.

So now the argument is "which name is the most correct?"

False. So false, the boolean variable for this statement is broken. Now I have to use something else to compare it to...

I feel insulted at how someone can blatantly label years of work to fit their own philosophical views, so here, let me spoon-feed the facts for you. The scientific method:

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

And you know what religious people do to our research?

1. Erase everything and fit it to our own needs.

That's fucking bullshit. Do not ever conclude there is a god. Ever. Especially not under the name of science.

Pantheism I am just saying science is the study of nature and pantheism is the belief that god and nature are one so . . . I think this classifies science and god being one . . . [I think at least].

[Norstal]

False. So false, the boolean variable for this statement is broken. Now I have to use something else to compare it to...

I feel insulted at how someone can blatantly label years of work to fit their own philosophical views, so here, let me spoon-feed the facts for you. The scientific method:

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

And you know what religious people do to our research?

1. Erase everything and fit it to our own needs.

That's fucking bullshit. Do not ever conclude there is a god. Ever. Especially not under the name of science.

1. I was, for the most part, speaking sarcastically.
2. It's possible to believe in science and God simultaneously. Those who "erase everything and fit it to [their] own needs" are not true believers, in my opinion. There's such a thing as compromise. As I recall someone else mentioning on here, religion explains what science has yet to explain, and as science does explain it, religion gives way.

Likewise, commanding me to believe in the same exact atheist views as you do will not make me believe in the same exact atheist views as you do. We are all entitled to our own opinions. In short, we are all correct.

Additionally, for such a hardcore believer in science, you fail to follow a true scientific method by only sampling the religious radicals as your source data in your conclusion regarding religion. If you had performed real research and scientific deduction, you would learn that there are individuals who are capable of accepting both the religious and scientific explanations as potentially true.

"Exact atheist view?" NO. Once again, read the goddamn method:

6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis

Anyone who conclude the existence of god with no real testing is a sham. It's how creationists "validates" their silly theory of intelligent design. I don't care if religion explains things that science has yet to explain. But do not publish it as such. Now if that was not your intention, then my mistake. I, for one, am tired of people treating science as religion. Because its not.

[YellowApple]

1. I was, for the most part, speaking sarcastically.
2. It's possible to believe in science and God simultaneously. Those who "erase everything and fit it to [their] own needs" are not true believers, in my opinion. There's such a thing as compromise. As I recall someone else mentioning on here, religion explains what science has yet to explain, and as science does explain it, religion gives way.

Likewise, commanding me to believe in the same exact atheist views as you do will not make me believe in the same exact atheist views as you do. We are all entitled to our own opinions. In short, we are all correct.

Additionally, for such a hardcore believer in science, you fail to follow a true scientific method by only sampling the religious radicals as your source data in your conclusion regarding religion. If you had performed real research and scientific deduction, you would learn that there are individuals who are capable of accepting both the religious and scientific explanations as potentially true.

"Exact atheist view?" NO. Once again, read the goddamn method:

6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis

Anyone who conclude the existence of god with no real testing is a sham. It's how creationists "validates" their silly theory of intelligent design. I don't care if religion explains things that science has yet to explain. But do not publish it as such. Now if that was not your intention, then my mistake. I, for one, am tired of people treating science as religion. Because its not.

Hmmm...

And you know what religious people do to our research?

1. Erase everything and fit it to our own needs.

Such an assumption makes you no better than the theists you are arguing against. You fail to recognize that there are indeed Christians who believe in evolution, who believe that the Bing Bang actually occurred, who believe that the Earth is billions of years old rather than a few thousand. In short, you're attempting to prove a hypothesis by omitting data until it appears correct. That's not how science works. Nor is insulting another's hypothesis.

Not everything is black and white, either. That's the beauty of science. It's all about discovering the unknown.

And are you denying this bit of your initial attack on my viewpoint:

Do not ever conclude there is a god. Ever. Especially not under the name of science.

You are directly ordering me to disbelieve in a god. That won't make me switch to your view. That'll only make me laugh at you

[YellowApple]

1. I was, for the most part, speaking sarcastically.
2. It's possible to believe in science and God simultaneously. Those who "erase everything and fit it to [their] own needs" are not true believers, in my opinion. There's such a thing as compromise. As I recall someone else mentioning on here, religion explains what science has yet to explain, and as science does explain it, religion gives way.

Likewise, commanding me to believe in the same exact atheist views as you do will not make me believe in the same exact atheist views as you do. We are all entitled to our own opinions. In short, we are all correct.

Additionally, for such a hardcore believer in science, you fail to follow a true scientific method by only sampling the religious radicals as your source data in your conclusion regarding religion. If you had performed real research and scientific deduction, you would learn that there are individuals who are capable of accepting both the religious and scientific explanations as potentially true.

"Exact atheist view?" NO. Once again, read the goddamn method:

6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis

Anyone who conclude the existence of god with no real testing is a sham. It's how creationists "validates" their silly theory of intelligent design. I don't care if religion explains things that science has yet to explain. But do not publish it as such. Now if that was not your intention, then my mistake. I, for one, am tired of people treating science as religion. Because its not.

Besides, I wasn't even trying to claim that God created science or any other magical mumbo-jumbo like that. I was noting the similarity, that there's really no difference between God and science. The only difference is the people who believe in them. Everyone believes in something, be it Jesus or Einstein, Buddha or Muhammad, Confucius or Socrates. And really, they all fill the same roles, explain the same things, and are equally true to their believers.

[Farnhamia]

There isn't any now that you've papered over the cracks. It's the lazy person's way out, you know. "O hai, God makes everything happen but you can't tell because he does it in a way you can't detect."

Yeah.

Right.

You know, I just happen to have the deed to a very nice bridge in New York City, late 19th century, in excellent shape, very low asking price. Are you interested?

Or it just means I like to ruminate on subjects I don't completely understand myself. I shouldn't allow myself to take on other heavy topics in a thread that is heavy enough on its own. But I was thinking about the topic of Divine Simplicity and how if God simply is then is it truly accurate to talk about what God "does"? Not a very important point to what I was talking about, frankly.

It just gets me that people look for God in the supernatural as if He's some sort of magician, when there are literally infinite numbers of observable natural occurrences every day that are also God's work. If I want to learn more about God's works, I study science (and I am an engineer by trade). I don't understand the dichotomy between acts of god and scientific explanations; just that one is more specific than the other.

(And no, that does not mean God is the laws of physics)

I don't know, "Divine Simplicity" strikes me as just another kind of Christian apologetics. What it does is take an active deity who worked in this world and spoke to those whom he favored, and dissolve him away into the whole universe. This does have the benefit, I suppose, of avoiding uncomfortable questions about the lack of his active presence in the world today. That seems cold comfort to people who expect a moving, acting father-figure.

Perhaps instead of "supernatural," which word does have a great many connotations that don't exactly apply to a discussion of the nature of God, we might use it with a hyphen, "super-natural." Or perhaps "otherworldly." The Germans have given us great theologians, maybe we could say "jenseitige." At any rate, my vision of the universe does not need an otherworldy divinity, eine jenseitige Gottheit, running it. He clutters it up and his followers keep telling me how to live my life. It becomes annoying after a while.

[Distruzio]

Yes. I do. He is. Read my sig.

How about you prove it then?

Given the fact that science cannot disprove Him, and that He is always the unattainable goal, I'd say that it's rather obvious that God exists. For every discovery science reveals to us, a dozen more pop up just like that as a result of said discovery. No matter what scientific field, no matter how descriptive the hypothesis is, more mysteries are always the result of any scientific revelation. Being that Christians proclaim God to be the impossibly perfect thing ever beyond our reach. I'd present that God is all those new mysteries we discover. It isn't necessarily important that we attribute to God the imagery of an "invisible man in the sky." What is important is that we can never reach Him. For traditional orthodox (Anglican, Catholic, and Orthodox) Christians, who hold that God became man in the flesh in Christ while not limiting Himself in anyway (hence the trinitarian theology), this is perfectly plausible. God is not merely man. Nor is God solely spirit. God is wholly alien to our understanding. Period. He is always the impossible and the possible. He is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. A Triune God, singular in essence but distinct in Person. Which means that all the babble about how we cannot prove that He exists is actually true. As is our emphasis that we can, indeed, prove that He exists. He is beyond us.

If it pleases you to disbelieve, then do so. God is not confined by your concepts of reality. If I choose to believe, then I do so. God is not confined by my concepts of reality. He is always beyond our abilities. He is always mystery. So what if we choose to attribute the existence of mystery to a God. It in no way threatens you unless some nutjobs claiming to be Christians begin to infringe on your person. At which point you should resist any and all attempts to foist our faith upon you coercively.

[Dyakovo]

How about you prove it then?

Given the fact that science cannot disprove Him, and that He is always the unattainable goal, I'd say that it's rather obvious that God exists. For every discovery science reveals to us, a dozen more pop up just like that as a result of said discovery. No matter what scientific field, no matter how descriptive the hypothesis is, more mysteries are always the result of any scientific revelation. Being that Christians proclaim God to be the impossibly perfect thing ever beyond our reach. I'd present that God is all those new mysteries we discover. It isn't necessarily important that we attribute to God the imagery of an "invisible man in the sky." What is important is that we can never reach Him. For traditional orthodox (Anglican, Catholic, and Orthodox) Christians, who hold that God became man in the flesh in Christ while not limiting Himself in anyway (hence the trinitarian theology), this is perfectly plausible. God is not merely man. Nor is God solely spirit. God is wholly alien to our understanding. Period. He is always the impossible and the possible. He is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. A Triune God, singular in essence but distinct in Person. Which means that all the babble about how we cannot prove that He exists is actually true. As is our emphasis that we can, indeed, prove that He exists. He is beyond us.

If it pleases you to disbelieve, then do so. God is not confined by your concepts of reality. If I choose to believe, then I do so. God is not confined by my concepts of reality. He is always beyond our abilities. He is always mystery. So what if we choose to attribute the existence of mystery to a God. It in no way threatens you unless some nutjobs claiming to be Christians begin to infringe on your person. At which point you should resist any and all attempts to foist our faith upon you coercively.

"Science doesn't explain everything" is not proof of the existence of a god.

[Norstal]

"Exact atheist view?" NO. Once again, read the goddamn method:

6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis

Anyone who conclude the existence of god with no real testing is a sham. It's how creationists "validates" their silly theory of intelligent design. I don't care if religion explains things that science has yet to explain. But do not publish it as such. Now if that was not your intention, then my mistake. I, for one, am tired of people treating science as religion. Because its not.

Besides, I wasn't even trying to claim that God created science or any other magical mumbo-jumbo like that. I was noting the similarity, that there's really no difference between God and science. The only difference is the people who believe in them. Everyone believes in something, be it Jesus or Einstein, Buddha or Muhammad, Confucius or Socrates. And really, they all fill the same roles, explain the same things, and are equally true to their believers.

Alright, my apologies for misreading you.

Wait a minute, no I do not believe in Einstein. Or Confucius or Socrates. What the fuck.

[Dyakovo]

Everyone believes in something, be it Jesus or Einstein, Buddha or Muhammad, Confucius or Socrates.

[Ceannairceach]

No, I don't. But I'm open to the possibility of one if someone offers proof.