Brian2
Veteran Member
You also seem to be an atheist/skeptic who says that it is not real because science has not found it.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Tell me why my personal belief is wrong
- Thread starter Spirit of Light
- Start date
You also seem to be an atheist/skeptic who says that it is not real because science has not found it.
Brian2
Veteran Member
Since we do not know, it is not God must also be a lame argument.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
It is not.
Due to the fact that things like space, time and gravity exist in the way that they do, the collapse of matter under gravity into a star is inevitable.
Nobody or no thing needs to "put that into motion". It happens automatically due to circumstances.
Or take the physical process of a river carving out a canyon through erosion. That too is inevitable due to the properties of rock, running water and again gravity.
Or take the physical process of biological evolution. Evolution also is inevitable due to the very properties of life and how reproduction happens. Living things are systems that reproduce with variation in an ever changing environment in which they are in competition with peers over limited resources. Evolution in such a context is once again inevitable.
Nothing or nobody needs to "kick start" these processes. They automatically occur due the very nature of space, time and the forces of nature.
If you are talking about the origins of the universe, there was no space-time continuum at that moment.
If you are not talking about that, then I don't know what you are talking about.
This "need" for a god only exists in the minds of the religious.
There is no such "need" in reality. Or at least, not one that can be shown.
For example, name me ONE natural phenomenon that would actually be better understood if you inject a mysterious, vague, undetectable god into it.
The fact is that you can't explain mysteries by appealing to even bigger mysteries.
When you do that, in reality not only have you NOT answered any open questions... instead, you trigger even MORE questions.
Injecting a god does not raise levels understanding. At all.
Not even by a long shot. If anything, it LOWERS it.
It is, if that god, as Neil deGrass Tyson once said, is an ever receeding pocket of scientific ignorance.
As in:
theist: "God created the earth!"
science: "err, no... planets form through gravity from accretion disc of the solar formation and blabla...."
theist: "ow but god created the star and the accretion disc!!!!"
science: "err, no... stars form through gravity again when matter collapses under gravity and reach critical mass which makes nuclear fusion set in"
theist: "ow but god created the matter and the gravity!!!!"
.....
And so it goes on and on and on and on.
I don't remember a single instance where after science tackled a problem that was previously attributed to "GOD DUN IT", it turned out that god was the correct explanation.
Instead, every single time, gods were shown to be completely obsolete and as unnecessary as undetectable centaurs.
Ow my. That is HILARIOUSLY ironic.... first you try to argue that you aren't engaging in a god of the gaps, only to then..... point out knowledge gaps in science for the purpose of plugging your god into it.
Absolutely hilarious.
Now, please tell us all: how have you determined that it is "impossible" for science to investigate and discover how life could originate?
Hilariously shameless projection.
So when scientific study and investigation occurs into phenomena that aren't understood yet, then that is "science of the gaps"????
That is just.... wow. I don't even know how to respond to such drivel.
You mean.... where humans claimed god did it while claiming they are speaking for their god of choice.
Not a hypothetical. It occurred in the past with literally almost every scientific discovery of natural phenomenon or other things that were not understood.
All of which were once attributed to a god or gods.
It's not like we don't have precedents of things that were attributed to a god which after scientific investigation turned out to be just natural phenomenon.
What "need" for a god?
Why would anyone presume anything for which there is no evidence?
Models of gravity also presume no undetectable pink graviton fairies. Do you consider that a problem also?
So what is the "spiritual side" of a planet forming under gravity? And how do you detect it?
You forgot to actually explain how you can show it.
Just claiming that you can is not going to cut it.
Both are physical things. Why wouldn't they be defined in physical ways?
I also fail to see how these are supposedly "atheist and skeptic conclusions".
A theistic scientist will also define such things in physical ways. Clearly there is nothing inherently "atheistic" about that. Or are you of the false opinion that every scientist is an atheist?
Again, this is not an "atheist or skeptic" statement.
It is just a true and valid statement.
Indeed, all evidence points to such.
If you have independently verifiable evidence available which points to something else, please share it and I'll be happy to accept it. But you don't have such evidence, do you?
So how is it false to say that all the evidence points to those things being physical?
First life factually, and by necessity, comes from non-life. This is true for atheists as well as theists.
At one point there was no life and then there was.
By necessity, that means that first life did not come from pre-existing life.
The actual question is "how did that occur?".
The difference between you and scientists, is that scientists don't presume to have the answers before actually asking and investigating the question. You however, do.
Neither of you know the answer.
The difference is that scientists then roll up there sleaves and go to work to find the answer.
You on the other hand, just point to your ancient religion and baselessly claim "my god dun it" - as if that answers anything at all.
I'll put my eggs in the basket that engages in the intellectually honest exercise of finding the answer, rather then just assert it religiously without evidence.
In the meantime, until rational and demonstrable answers are actually found, the only correct answer is "we don't know".
YOU here are the one with the a priori beliefs about how life originated. Not me.
YOU are the one with invested interest in holding on to this a prior belief. Not me.
YOU are the one with the emotional attachment to an a priori belief. Not me.
Me.... I'm fine going where the evidence leads. And if the evidence would lead to a god, I'ld happily accept that. But it doesn't. And because it doesn't, it doesn't even register as a plausibility. God's are as relevant to the question as undetectable cookie monsters are. The evidence also doesn't lead to undetectable cookie monsters.
The evidence so far, is leading to plain old (bio)chemistry.
So that's the direction scientists who study this subject are looking.
If the evidence would lead elsewhere, they'ld be looking elsewhere.
Says the guy with the a priori belief of how life originated.
I have to ask again: what conclusion?
Where have I ever stated that the origins of life are solved?
YOU are the one who is pretending to have the answer. Not me. Not science.
Yeah. Just like I have to call my house a brick box because I am not able to find and analyse the undetectable extra-dimensional goblins that bricks are actually really made off.
Do you know what else we are unable to find and analyse? Things that don't exist.
False.
I don't conclude "against" things that are unfalsifiable. That is a waste of energy.
Instead, I conclude FOR things that are in evidence.
And I conclude against things that are in contradiction with the evidence.
Here's a question: if it is impossible to "find and analyse spirit" - then how have you concluded that it is there?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Good thing that nobody is making that argument, then.
It's not even wrong.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
It is not about what science has found or what it has not. It is about total absence of evidence for God and soul.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe that is due to a lack of knowledge and understanding.
Muffled
Jesus in me
However that may be a personal belief is not one from God but from ones own reasoning and imagination. Added to that is the fact that the Baha't teaching does not come from God either but from the personal beliefs of the founding philosophers.
Orbit
I'm a planet
This has probably already been said, but why do you invite criticism? You are free to believe whatever you want to believe.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe I can help with that. God spoke things into existence. Magic is something different and the way a scientist views things he doesn't understand,
Muffled
Jesus in me
Perhaps but a person who wishes to have the truth must test the theories.
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
In your opinion
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, but that depends as such on how you test and what you consider a correct answer. As for truth as truth there are at least 5 different versions, which are not totally compatible.
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
I wanted to hear the critiques own opinion.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, you are one of the universalist. There is one road to God and that is yours. I am a relativist and individualist when it comes to God.
yet people are fallible and do so, even scientist. it took a couple of doctors decades to convince the medical establishment that a bacteria could cause ulcers in the digestive system, even using scientific research
it took decades more again to convince scientists that people could be allergic to meat because of a simple carbohydrate called alpha-gal found in other mammals.
Tick that causes meat allergy is spreading
I love it when people who do not agree still see the good in others beliefs. You are a beautiful person to reach out with love and the world I believe needs people like you.
Bird123
Well-Known Member
Your personal religious belief is wrong because you should be seeking Facts and Truth rather than ever being satisfied with mere beliefs. Beliefs point a direction by which one might search for the Truth. Beliefs are the beginning. Beliefs have never been the end.
That's what I see. It's very clear!!
Secret Chief
Veteran Member
Is it right for you?
You seem to me to be a seeker of validation. You do not need to, imo.
You're preaching to the choir here, but the explanation is either factual or false. Theories/explanations are generally spoken of as facts, even in science.
eg: Evolution as fact and theory - Wikipedia