God.

[Caecili]

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

I concur with that ROFL.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

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

And Buddha, Muhammad, Confucius and Socrates weren't godly...

[Caecili]

And Buddha, Muhammad, Confucius and Socrates weren't godly...

That too.

[Myrensis]

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 the Flying Spaghetti Monster 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 Pastafarians proclaim the Flying Spaghetti Monster to be the impossibly perfect thing ever beyond our reach. I'd present that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is all those new mysteries we discover. It isn't necessarily important that we attribute to the Flying Spaghetti monster the imagery of an "invisible noodle in the sky." What is important is that we can never reach Him.

Feel free to replace with "Invisible Pink Unicorn", "Zeus", or "Leprechauns", since you seem to think "I believe it to be so" constitutes valid evidence, they're all just as valid as "God".

[Caecili]

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 the Flying Spaghetti Monster 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 Pastafarians proclaim the Flying Spaghetti Monster to be the impossibly perfect thing ever beyond our reach. I'd present that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is all those new mysteries we discover. It isn't necessarily important that we attribute to the Flying Spaghetti monster the imagery of an "invisible noodle in the sky." What is important is that we can never reach Him.

Feel free to replace with "Invisible Pink Unicorn", "Zeus", or "Leprechauns", since you don't seem to think "I believe it to be so" constitutes valid evidence, they're all just as valid as "God".

Exactly. They're all just as valid as God.

[Norstal]

And Buddha, Muhammad, Confucius and Socrates weren't godly...

I should worship Dhalism next. Hey, you Indians treat that guy as a god, right?

[Nightkill the Emperor]

And Buddha, Muhammad, Confucius and Socrates weren't godly...

I should worship Dhalism next. Hey, you Indians treat that guy as a god, right?

This guy?

[Norstal]

I should worship Dhalism next. Hey, you Indians treat that guy as a god, right?

This guy?

Yeah, that guy. He has more powers than Jesus anyways. Yoga flame!

[Dyakovo]

And Buddha, Muhammad, Confucius and Socrates weren't godly...

Einstein was the one I found the funniest though...

[Bottle]

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.

Saying "God = Science" is a profound insult to science. Science is infinitely more interesting, entertaining, enjoyable, beautiful, powerful, and awesome. It's like saying "Dirty napkins = Your first born." There's no fucking comparison.

[Jasonovia]

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.

I have to wonder how much of it is a misunderstanding of what Christians mean by God. Christians look at a painting of an old man with a white beard and know it to be a metaphor. St. Augustine said in the fourth century "If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?" Thomas Aquinas came up with his proofs of God in the 13th century. Then biblical fundamentalism rolls in around the 19th century. Which do you think is more likely to be closer to the original beliefs of Christianity?

I would think that whatever is behind the universe would be so unique that it wouldn't be fitting to call it "natural". Besides, to me the only difference between a supernatural phenomenon and a natural one is the latter happens regularly enough to study, while the former happens irregularly or perhaps only once. If they were repeatable, however, I bet they would be following some basic laws just like the natural phenomenon do.

[YellowApple]

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.

I was just listing examples. Relax

What I'm trying to explain is that (hopefully) everyone believes at least something to be true. Some consider that something to be God, and others consider Science to be the ultimate truth. Regardless, religion and scientific logic both exist to establish the truths of the universe. Unfortunately, some are too stubborn to listen to and learn from such alternate viewpoints (example: Creationists).

So sure, in our heads God =/= Science, but they serve the same roles, as different and conflicting as they are.

[YellowApple]

Saying "God = Science" is a profound insult to science. Science is infinitely more interesting, entertaining, enjoyable, beautiful, powerful, and awesome. It's like saying "Dirty napkins = Your first born." There's no fucking comparison.

Says who? Do you have evidence to prove your hypothesis? Or is your evidence your personal belief that science is more "interesting, entertaining, enjoyable, beautiful, powerful, and awesome"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific ... and_biases

Unless you can provide quantifiable evidence that science is "cooler" than theology, then you're doing little but pointlessly rejecting my observations without any logical reason.

[Unhealthy2]

Says who? Do you have evidence to prove your hypothesis? Or is your evidence your personal belief that science is more "interesting, entertaining, enjoyable, beautiful, powerful, and awesome"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific ... and_biases

Unless you can provide quantifiable evidence that science is "cooler" than theology, then you're doing little but pointlessly rejecting my observations without any logical reason.

Come on, this is just stupid. It's COMPLETELY OBVIOUS that Bottle was doing nothing more than stating her opinion that she found science more interesting than religion. It's totally obvious that that's what she was doing, and you KNOW that's what she was doing.

[Bitchkitten]

Saying "God = Science" is a profound insult to science. Science is infinitely more interesting, entertaining, enjoyable, beautiful, powerful, and awesome. It's like saying "Dirty napkins = Your first born." There's no fucking comparison.

Says who? Do you have evidence to prove your hypothesis? Or is your evidence your personal belief that science is more "interesting, entertaining, enjoyable, beautiful, powerful, and awesome"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific ... and_biases

Unless you can provide quantifiable evidence that science is "cooler" than theology, then you're doing little but pointlessly rejecting my observations without any logical reason.

I wasn't aware the coolness of anything was provable.

[Unhealthy2]

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.

There exists a cheese pizza floating out in space. Furthermore, this cheese pizza exists in the space of an alternate dimension that cannot be accessed by us. In fact, no matter what we do, we will never, ever be able to access this dimension. Thus, it is beyond our science. Clearly, the pizza must exist, via your logic.

[Gaiso]

Saying "God = Science" is a profound insult to science. Science is infinitely more interesting, entertaining, enjoyable, beautiful, powerful, and awesome. It's like saying "Dirty napkins = Your first born." There's no fucking comparison.

Says who? Do you have evidence to prove your hypothesis? Or is your evidence your personal belief that science is more "interesting, entertaining, enjoyable, beautiful, powerful, and awesome"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific ... and_biases

Unless you can provide quantifiable evidence that science is "cooler" than theology, then you're doing little but pointlessly rejecting my observations without any logical reason.

And that is why you publish your results in a scientific journal and have them ripped to shreds in every imaginable way possible to form a more solid theory, with more evidence (or it gets disproven, in which case, you move on).

[Unhealthy2]

What I'm trying to explain is that (hopefully) everyone believes at least something to be true.

So? It takes a kind of self-refuting relativism to conclude that therefore all beliefs are equally valid.

Some consider that something to be God, and others consider Science to be the ultimate truth.

1. I don't care about what people believe. I care about what's ACTUALLY true.

2. What does it mean to say that science is the "ultimate truth"? What does that even mean? You are aware that science is a methodology and not a set of beliefs, yes?

Regardless, religion and scientific logic both exist to establish the truths of the universe.

And? They don't accomplish this goal with equivalent effectiveness.

Unfortunately, some are too stubborn to listen to and learn from such alternate viewpoints (example: Creationists).

No one has yet to propose an alternative view that works better than a combination of science and rational philosophy. What exactly is there to learn from religion, other than some anthropological and psychological facts about human behavior?

So sure, in our heads God =/= Science, but they serve the same roles, as different and conflicting as they are.

And a belief in epicycles serves the same role as the heliocentric model. That doesn't make them equally valid. It's simply absurd to suggest that it does.

[The Great Watchers]

I believe in God, and science. They are one in the same. If they work together,then they can work out the scientific part of religion.
"Religion isn't wrong. Science is just too young to understand."

[Unhealthy2]

I believe in God, and science. They are one in the same. If they work together,then they can work out the scientific part of religion.
"Religion isn't wrong. Science is just too young to understand."

Too young to understand what?

[The Great Watchers]

I believe in God, and science. They are one in the same. If they work together,then they can work out the scientific part of religion.
"Religion isn't wrong. Science is just too young to understand."

Too young to understand what?

Too young to understand some of the things the bible talks about.

You're an atheist, correct?

[Unhealthy2]

Too young to understand some of the things the bible talks about.

Which parts of the bible? Because I would argue that we're too mature as a species to understand many of the very arbitrary and somewhat barbaric laws.

You're an atheist, correct?

Yeah.

[The Great Watchers]

Too young to understand some of the things the bible talks about.

Which parts of the bible? Because I would argue that we're too mature as a species to understand many of the very arbitrary and somewhat barbaric laws.

You're an atheist, correct?

Yeah.

True, it was a different time back then. You have to admit the world was very barbaric a long time ago, correct? Even if you don't belive in the idea of God, you have to at least belive what it teaches help society (Most parts, I mean. I'm a bit thrown about the homosexuality part.). The parts that talk about not stealing, not lying, etc. Those parts had people lead much healthier lives. It was the first real step towards us treating each other fairly.

I was just asking your belief. I'm not here to bash anyone. Everyone has the right to an opinion.

[Gaiso]

Which parts of the bible? Because I would argue that we're too mature as a species to understand many of the very arbitrary and somewhat barbaric laws.



Yeah.

True, it was a different time back then. You have to admit the world was very barbaric a long time ago, correct? Even if you don't belive in the idea of God, you have to at least belive what it teaches help society (Most parts, I mean. I'm a bit thrown about the homosexuality part.). The parts that talk about not stealing, not lying, etc. Those parts had people lead much healthier lives. It was the first real step towards us treating each other fairly.

I was just asking. I'm not here to bash anyone. Everyone has the right to an opinion.

The bits about stealing and murdering are in China too, and were there before Abrahamic religions got there. They were also in Native American cultures. One does not need Abrahamic faith to not steal and not murder. It also seems that those who practice an Abrahamic religion are more prone to murder and theft, a la European Imperialism, the Crusades, Jihads, Inquisition, etc.

[Bitchkitten]

Which parts of the bible? Because I would argue that we're too mature as a species to understand many of the very arbitrary and somewhat barbaric laws.



Yeah.

True, it was a different time back then. You have to admit the world was very barbaric a long time ago, correct? Even if you don't belive in the idea of God, you have to at least belive what it teaches help society (Most parts, I mean. I'm a bit thrown about the homosexuality part.). The parts that talk about not stealing, not lying, etc. Those parts had people lead much healthier lives. It was the first real step towards us treating each other fairly.

I was just asking your belief. I'm not here to bash anyone. Everyone has the right to an opinion.

My Dad has an interesting theory on why the early Hebrews were so anti-homosexual. It's a two parter.

First of all, it differentiated them from most of their neighbors who were tolerant of homosexuality. Second, a small nomadic tribe, which they originally were, would want reproduction as high as possible. Hence all the prohibitions on any non-procreative sex.