Do You Believe In God, Why? Don't You Believe In God, Why?

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, but it is not T = 0. T = 0 can't be observed in principle, because in principle for science as testing requires humans and they don't exist at T = 0.

You are conflating in time with no time.

You make no sense at all.
Sounds like you are throwing up nonsensical additional requirements in a rather desperate attempt to try and make some sense.

It's not working.

No, direct observation is not always necessary.
And yes, logical inferences like "if A is an inherent part of B and if B doesn't exist, then A doesn't exist" are perfectly valid things to say.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You make no sense at all.
Sounds like you are throwing up nonsensical additional requirements in a rather desperate attempt to try and make some sense.

It's not working.

No, direct observation is not always necessary.
And yes, logical inferences like "if A is an inherent part of B and if B doesn't exist, then A doesn't exist" are perfectly valid things to say.

You are confusing logic with science as such. Logic is a part of science, but science is not just only logic. There is more to it.

 

[Altfish]

Uhmm...
I think the "time" concept is what obfuscates this rationale.
I like to think "eternal" kind of "always was" instead.
Then "came from" is moot

I'm not sure it does?
Whatever term you want to use "Eternal" or "always was" can be used with the universe as easily as it can with a god.
Maybe 'came from' was not a useful phrase

 

[WalterTrull]

So science doesn't require observation directly or through instruments.

Unfortunately, the only truism here is: that we observe. What we observe is open to debate. I like to apply what I believe to be a scientific approach, albeit not of a physical reality. I suppose that disenfranchises me from many of these conversations. I butt in occasionally anyway.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Unfortunately, the only truism here is: that we observe. What we observe is open to debate. I like to apply what I believe to be a scientific approach, albeit not of a physical reality. I suppose that disenfranchises me from many of these conversations. I butt in occasionally anyway.

As long as you can separate subjective and objective, you can observe all you like.

 

[janesix]

Yes, I am an atheist/ignostic/apatheist.

But I *do* take responsibility for my actions. Theists are the ones that don't: all they need to do is ask for forgiveness (honestly) and they are released from responsibility. As an atheist, I have no such out. If I do wrong, I find a way to make up for it and not do it again.

And I don't do wrong because I respect other people, not because I fear the wrath of some invisible deity. I don't expect benefits for doing the right thing. I don't expect punishment for doing the wrong thing. But I try to always do the right thing as I understand it because it is the right thing to do.

Sorry, I apologize. I don't really believe what I said about atheists not taking responsibility. I was just irritated and being a jerk.

 

[janesix]

Seriously?!

You really don't know this? Did you never learn about natural selection and how it works?

There is no striving. Natural selections selects beneficial traits and eliminates non-beneficial ones -- all automatically. For stone age man living in small bands of hunter-gatherers, strong group solidarity, altruism and co-operation was beneficial. These traits, values and attitudes were selected for.

I can't believe people still believe Darwinian garbage.

 

[janesix]

If that's the case consciences aren't very reliable, and seem to differ considerably between cultures.
If consciences were the same values and morals would be universal as well, but, as Subduction Zone and Polymath pointed out, they're not. Different cultures can have very different ideas of right and wrong.

So is my cat.
So why do feelings of right and wrong vary so much between cultures?
Huh? What are you talking about? Canonical laws = the laws and constants of physics?

Canonical laws are the laws of the universe that God created by using numbers and geometry. Musical laws.

 

[Skywalker]

I don't, for the simple reason that I have no rational justifiable reason to.

I believe that everyone knows that God is real, because of the starry heavens above and the moral law within.

 

[Polymath257]

I can't believe people still believe Darwinian garbage.

After being extended to include what we know of genetics, it has become the foundation for our understanding of biology.

People believe it because it is testable, makes sense, and fits all the data.

 

[Polymath257]

Canonical laws are the laws of the universe that God created by using numbers and geometry. Musical laws.

Well, then, how do we know there are such? In particular, how do we know that the laws of nature were created by a deity?

Musical laws are conventions, not basic laws. Numbers and geometry are *our* ways of making sense of the universe.

 

[Polymath257]

I believe that everyone knows that God is real, because of the starry heavens above and the moral law within.

And you can believe that whether it is true or false. The starry heavens don't show the existence of a God, nor do the variety of moral viewpoints.

 

[janesix]

Well, then, how do we know there are such? In particular, how do we know that the laws of nature were created by a deity?

Musical laws are conventions, not basic laws. Numbers and geometry are *our* ways of making sense of the universe.

I know because it is being taught to me. It isn't obvious.

 

[Skywalker]

And you can believe that whether it is true or false. The starry heavens don't show the existence of a God, nor do the variety of moral viewpoints.

Where does morality and an orderly creation come from, if not an intelligent designer? Morality comes from God, the lawgiver.

 

[Skywalker]

I know because it is being taught to me. It isn't obvious.

Even musical laws, numbers, and geometry have order and design. They are an example of the laws of nature. They are not man-made.

 

[Polymath257]

I know because it is being taught to me. It isn't obvious.

In my view, the laws of physics are descriptive. They were not 'created' at all, but explain how *other* things can be formed. They are not 'things' that need to be created.

 

[janesix]

Even musical laws, numbers, and geometry have order and design. They are an example of the laws of nature. They are not man-made.

Maybe they are God made.

 

[janesix]

In my view, the laws of physics are descriptive. They were not 'created' at all, but explain how *other* things can be formed. They are not 'things' that need to be created.

Perhaps.

 

[Polymath257]

Even musical laws, numbers, and geometry have order and design. They are an example of the laws of nature. They are not man-made.

Musical laws are, clearly, man made.

Numbers and geometry are NOT laws of nature. They are a *language* we use to help us describe the world around us, organizing our thoughts.

But, there are many possible number systems and many possible geometries to choose from in that endeavor. Euclidean geometry is NOT the most helpful.

 

[Skywalker]

In my view, the laws of physics are descriptive. They were not 'created' at all, but explain how *other* things can be formed. They are not 'things' that need to be created.

They dictate how other things can be formed. Order has to be behind those laws.