[Stargazer]

Originally Posted by Tormod

To be honest, I think we all do this to some extent, religious or not.

And "the concept of religion" is not "baseless, blind faith". And it does not have to clash with science.

Okay, strange coming from me, I guess. But I do have scientist friends who are religious. They are not deeply so, perhaps verging on agnostic, but nevertheless they do believe in a creator in some sense. They are neither close-minded nor alien to the scientific method.

Well if religion was actually the search for truth as some claim, if it was all about observation and experimentation, and gathering of empirical evidence, etc., would it be religion then? No not really. Religion is indeed about superfluous suppositions that often have no base in anything. Or I'm just misunderstanding religion, and in that case tell me where. I mean, when I hear people say that they have strong reasons to believe whatever fairytales are true, and that they reject that which is actually supported by evidence, then I can't ever take religion seriously.

[Stargazer]

Originally Posted by C1ay

That depends. Can you prove there is no God? Without proof it is simply a leap of faith that he/she/it doesn't exist..

Wow. People still use this argument. Fascinating.

Are you open to the possibility that maybe there is a God and we just haven't seen enough evidence to support it? That would be open-minded wouldn't it.

Well, the way some people describe god and his actions, I don't think I'm gambling by saying that there is a certainty that he doesn't exist. We created god.

I'm personally agnostic because I don't believe anybody can prove that there is or is not a God(s). I have no particular belief either that there is a God or intelligent designer but I will not rule out the possibility without proof. IMO, there is no evidence to support any conclusion as to where and how life began. Since it cannot be ruled out I believe that I must acknowlege that creation is a possibility however remote that possibility is. For me, that is an open-minded belief.

Same thing can be said for the IPU, or the Great Flarbur.

I think to a large extent we are like thinkers as scientists. I am a firm believer in scientific method so I am resistant to discard anything I cannot disprove as impossible. In this vein I think I would be a hypocrit to simply claim that creation is impossible because I myself cannot disprove it. That does not mean that it is a theory I support, just that I cannot disprove it. I think it is fair for either side of this debate to call on the other side to prove their position. Since I cannot prove there is no God I feel I must concede to those which believe in God that their theory is possible.

It's not about proving that god isn't there. It's about making a claim and then not support it, which is exactly what the fundamentalists do. They say all kinds of things and then never back it up. I must conclude that they don't have any reason to believe, or they simply refuse to share the evidence with everyone else.

[Tormod]

I think it is important to distinguish between "the concept of religion" and people who are religious.

[Stargazer]

Originally Posted by bumab

I don't think the concept of religion is blind faith. It's faith based on evidence- but a different sort of evidence then science operates in. It's personal experience, others, and people through history. Sure, it's not scientific evidence, and I would never claim otherwise. Religions talk about a God that wants a relationship with YOU, not a relationship with a tree. I doubt there's any interaction there.

Ah, finally we're getting somewhere with the evidence question. See, I was asking for evidence in another thread. Evidence for the biblical creation, among other things. Not surprisingly at all there is none yet and I am certain I wont see any evidence presented, either. Oh well. :-)

On that note, I would be dismayed if the universe required a God to sustain itself. That's hardly the good creation envisioned by the creation stories in so many religions, not just my own.

Furthermore, the universe almost certainly lack meaning, because it wont exist forever, at least not in a way that can sustain life - which is what the universe is fintuned to sustain, according to some. Interesting, isn't it?

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by C1ay

That depends. Can you prove there is no God? Without proof it is simply a leap of faith that he/she/it doesn't exist.. Are you open to the possibility that maybe there is a God and we just haven't seen enough evidence to support it? That would be open-minded wouldn't it.

You claim that because *I* do not have any faith in a god (I don't bother that *you* like to label it as faith) then I am close-minded? Who gave you a monopoly on "Truth"?

Then you proceed to say...

Since it cannot be ruled out I believe that I must acknowlege that creation is a possibility however remote that possibility is. For me, that is an open-minded belief.

Sounds to me that you are equating "possibility" with "must believe". Just because there is a possibility that there are endless copies of me in an infinite university, and just because this is not provable, that it follows that I need to *believe* that it is true. This is illogical. It would be just as easy to take the opposite stand and say, "since it cannot be proved that god exists, it is open-minded not to believe in a god".

I think it is fair for either side of this debate to call on the other side to prove their position. Since I cannot prove there is no God I feel I must concede to those which believe in God that their theory is possible.

Faith in any god is not a theory. It is a conviction. An agnostic is a believer (or you might want to check your dictionary).

[bumab]

Originally Posted by Stargazer

Furthermore, the universe almost certainly lack meaning, because it wont exist forever, at least not in a way that can sustain life - which is what the universe is fintuned to sustain, according to some. Interesting, isn't it?

So limited time duration = lack of meaning? Just because the universe might not be around forever doesn't imply it lacks meaning. If so... everything under the sun is meaningless.

I think you were making the point that the universe is meaningless... but the argument doesn't make sense. Trying to anticipate the argument- since you see no evidence of meaning, the universe is meaningless. I can't give you physical evidence of meaning, so don't bother asking , but personal evidence, how we all feel about ourselves, how people throughout history have sought (and found meaning), perhaps thats something.

Or perhaps not- if you won't take that as evidence, ok. I see your arguement.

-b

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by Stargazer

Furthermore, the universe almost certainly lack meaning, because it wont exist forever, at least not in a way that can sustain life - which is what the universe is fintuned to sustain, according to some. Interesting, isn't it?

You are unclear. Is this YOUR point or are you laughing at someone? Because this is a hilarious statement. How can you know that A) the universe lacks meaning, B) that it won't exists forever C) that it is fine-tuned to life?

The universe certainly has a meaning to me.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Tormod

Sounds to me that you are equating "possibility" with "must believe".

Not at all. Just because something is possible does not mean it is true, just that it is possible. It could very well be wrong as well. I am only saying that I cannot claim someone's theory is untrue if I cannot prove that to be the case. I must extend them this because I expect the same.

Originally Posted by Tormod

Faith in any god is not a theory. It is a conviction.

How can you say that? I think for instance that we can agree that life began since we are here. The only other alternative I can think of is that life has existed for eternity.

Since life began it begs the question, how did it begin? Some hypothesize that it was created, some that it was the result of abiogenesis and some that it came here via a meteorite from another place which just means that it began somewhere else by one of the 2 previous methods and it was transported here. How can we claim that any of them are not theories? Some may believe creation to be an absurd theory but it is a theory none the less, is it not? Unless we can prove or disprove one or another, how can we discard it as untrue or impossible in our search for the truth?

Originally Posted by Tormod

An agnostic is a believer (or you might want to check your dictionary).

From Dictionary.com:

ag·nos·tic Pronunciation Key (g-nstk)
n.

1.

1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

Clause 1.2 applies to me, ie One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

[Tormod]

Okay, C1ay. For the record, I am not trying to flame you so please do not be offended. Okay? Just like yourself I am only trying to have a discussion, and I do NOT claim to own the truth.

Originally Posted by C1ay

Not at all. Just because something is possible does not mean it is true, just that it is possible. It could very well be wrong as well. I am only saying that I cannot claim someone's theory is untrue if I cannot prove that to be the case. I must extend them this because I expect the same.

You can claim it to be false unless they are able to provide evidence to the contrary.

However, you cannot ask for someone to disprove something they do not believe in.

See the difference?

Some may believe creation to be an absurd theory but it is a theory none the less, is it not?

It is not necessarily a scientific theory, which is the point of this exercise. A scientific theory must stand up to scrutiny, make predictions, and be testable. Whether the universe was created by a god (or any other higher being) requires that you make assumptions which cannot be tested, thus you cannot prove it.

The same is true for the Big Bang. We need to be able to test the theory in order for it to remain a scientific theory. It currently does match observations made through scientific experiments.

Note - I do think that all scientific experiments have a bias, and as such we cannot know that we are 100% correct about anything. Goedel's incompleteness theorem also shows that this is in fact a basic necessity in science.

Clause 1.2 applies to me, ie One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

That is fine. I have not said it is not (or if I implied it, that was wrong)! But it makes you a believer. A "true" atheist is not (I do not like to put the word "true" in front of "atheist" - either one is an atheist, or not).

[pgrmdave]

Clause 1.1 for me, I believe in God, but also believe that proof is impossible.