I serve an amazing God

[The Dude]

You shouldn't always accept anecdotal evidence, but you do only when there is the lack of any other better evidence...which is true of religion. It's anecdotal, but those who believe, it is better than nothing.

What makes one wild conjecture better than any other?

Nothing. If it's anecdotal evidence it doesn't hole much of it's own to scientific evidence of either kind. If science can prove that God exists, which it can't, that would hold more water to me than anecdotal evidence saying that it does or doesn't. Conversely, if science can prove that God doesn't exist, which it also can't, that would hold more water to me than anecdotal evidence saying that it does or doesn't.

The point is anecdotal evidence of any kind, from any side, is still anecdotal evidence. Your anecdotes are no more or less credible than JJs or Sharks.

How is there still confusion about burden of proof? It's not science's responsibility to prove things don't exist. It's the responsibility of the people claiming the existence of something to support it.

I agree that if I used anecdotal evidence in an attempt to prove something, it wouldn't be any more or less credible that JJ's or Shark's, but since I didn't, I'm not sure what you're getting at.

 

[knapplc]

For those claiming the non-believers need to prove God doesn't exist, can you show me how this is done? For example, can you prove the Jedi don't exist?

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

You shouldn't always accept anecdotal evidence, but you do only when there is the lack of any other better evidence...which is true of religion. It's anecdotal, but those who believe, it is better than nothing.

What makes one wild conjecture better than any other?

Nothing. If it's anecdotal evidence it doesn't hole much of it's own to scientific evidence of either kind. If science can prove that God exists, which it can't, that would hold more water to me than anecdotal evidence saying that it does or doesn't. Conversely, if science can prove that God doesn't exist, which it also can't, that would hold more water to me than anecdotal evidence saying that it does or doesn't.

The point is anecdotal evidence of any kind, from any side, is still anecdotal evidence. Your anecdotes are no more or less credible than JJs or Sharks.

How is there still confusion about burden of proof? It's not science's responsibility to prove things don't exist. It's the responsibility of the people claiming the existence of something to support it.

I agree that if I used anecdotal evidence in an attempt to prove something, it wouldn't be any more or less credible that JJ's or Shark's, but since I didn't, I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Is it not necessarily science's job to prove things don't exist? Tell me something, does cold exist?

What we're (meaning I'm on the same side of the fence as you are) asking believers to do is prove God exists and the best they can throw at us is anecdotal evidence, which we then say, "NO YOU CAN'T USE THAT, THAT HAS NO CREDIBILITY."

So then they throw back at us the question, "prove that He doesn't exist". And what do we say, "WE DON'T HAVE TO BECAUSE IT ISN'T SCIENCES JOB TO PROVE THINGS DON'T EXIST, SCIENCE SAYS WE DON'T HAVE TO, SO WE'RE MORE RIGHT"?

I don't think religion has to prove to science that God exists much in the same light that science doesn't have to prove to religion that God doesn't exist. We are not going to find any evidence whatsoever to tip the scales either way.

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

For those claiming the non-believers need to prove God doesn't exist, can you show me how this is done? For example, can you prove the Jedi don't exist?

For those claiming the believers need to prove God does exist, can you show me how this is done? For example, can you prove the Jedi exist?

 

[knapplc]

BBBXII, that's not accurate at all. It is the burden of believers to provide proof. The fallacy in your post is that, in the absence of proof by believers, you're accepting their response "We can't prove it, so you disprove it." That's not an acceptable response. If something is asserted to exist, the burden of proof always lies with those making the assertion.

 

[The Dude]

You shouldn't always accept anecdotal evidence, but you do only when there is the lack of any other better evidence...which is true of religion. It's anecdotal, but those who believe, it is better than nothing.

What makes one wild conjecture better than any other?

Nothing. If it's anecdotal evidence it doesn't hole much of it's own to scientific evidence of either kind. If science can prove that God exists, which it can't, that would hold more water to me than anecdotal evidence saying that it does or doesn't. Conversely, if science can prove that God doesn't exist, which it also can't, that would hold more water to me than anecdotal evidence saying that it does or doesn't.

The point is anecdotal evidence of any kind, from any side, is still anecdotal evidence. Your anecdotes are no more or less credible than JJs or Sharks.

How is there still confusion about burden of proof? It's not science's responsibility to prove things don't exist. It's the responsibility of the people claiming the existence of something to support it.

I agree that if I used anecdotal evidence in an attempt to prove something, it wouldn't be any more or less credible that JJ's or Shark's, but since I didn't, I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Is it not necessarily science's job to prove things don't exist? Tell me something, does cold exist?

What we're (meaning I'm on the same side of the fence as you are) asking believers to do is prove God exists and the best they can throw at us is anecdotal evidence, which we then say, "NO YOU CAN'T USE THAT, THAT HAS NO CREDIBILITY."

So then they throw back at us the question, "prove that He doesn't exist". And what do we say, "WE DON'T HAVE TO BECAUSE IT ISN'T SCIENCES JOB TO PROVE THINGS DON'T EXIST, SCIENCE SAYS WE DON'T HAVE TO, SO WE'RE MORE RIGHT"?

I don't think religion has to prove to science that God exists much in the same light that science doesn't have to prove to religion that God doesn't exist. We are not going to find any evidence whatsoever to tip the scales either way.

Throwing back that dumb question is something they shouldn't do in the first place, unless their reasoning skills are broken.

 

[muzicman0]

FWIW Mrs. carlfense said that gas is the most likely cause.

Surely we are not going to presume to diagnose this cause of pain over the internet, are we?

That's the problem...she is trying to diagnose after the fact. It's easy to say it was gas after the pain went away, simply because the pain went away...Kidney stones don't go away on their own, so it must be gas...unless of course God healed it.

 

[tschu]

Just my own thoughts, but I always laugh at people who try to prove that god exists by trying to say that our scientific work is false. My favorite is this one: "Evolution doesn't exist! Science has no evidence that it does! After all it is just a theory!" LOL...well, gravity is just a theory too - apparently you don't know what "theory" means in the science world. And we have TONS of evidence for evolution. Now, it often occurs on such a huge time scale that we can't observe it in our lifetime. But we have observed it occurring in numerous, numerous cases. Not only does natural selection and evolutionary theory explain how life diversified and became what it is up to this point, but it fits amazingly well with the fossil record, and ties together everything we know about biology.

If the believers want to point to something as evidence that god exists, do what I do and look at the stuff that science can't explain. Like the formation of the universe. How did the Big Bang happen. Hell, why did it happen? Why are the laws of physics what they are, and not different?

I'm a Christian guy, and my science background definitely clashes with my faith. But I think that religion is very important for a lot of people - it helps many people function in their daily lives and find some happiness, and I think there is nothing at all wrong with that. I may not be able to take the Bible at face value, but I can follow its teachings to make myself a better person and improve my life and the lives of those around me. I don't feel the need to prove that God either exists or doesn't exist. I feel perfectly comfortable knowing that science can explain the world around me. But the fact that the universe exists at all - who knows, maybe it is a work of God...

 

[NUance]

I always laugh at people who try to prove that god exists by trying to say that our scientific work is false. My favorite is this one: "Evolution doesn't exist!

Yeah. Are evolution and God mutually exclusive? I don't understand why many people on both sides of the fence seem to think this.

If the believers want to point to something as evidence that god exists, do what I do and look at the stuff that science can't explain. Like the formation of the universe. How did the Big Bang happen. Hell, why did it happen? Why are the laws of physics what they are, and not different?

I think we are just scratching the surface of scientific understanding. Even with all the technology in the world we could not build a single butterfly.

I'm a Christian guy, and my science background definitely clashes with my faith. But I think that religion is very important for a lot of people - it helps many people function in their daily lives and find some happiness, and I think there is nothing at all wrong with that. I may not be able to take the Bible at face value, but I can follow its teachings to make myself a better person and improve my life and the lives of those around me. I don't feel the need to prove that God either exists or doesn't exist. I feel perfectly comfortable knowing that science can explain the world around me. But the fact that the universe exists at all - who knows, maybe it is a work of God...

It is remarkable that there are so many intelligent people who have--in their own minds--ruled out this possibility.

 

[The Dude]

Just my own thoughts, but I always laugh at people who try to prove that god exists by trying to say that our scientific work is false. My favorite is this one: "Evolution doesn't exist! Science has no evidence that it does! After all it is just a theory!" LOL...well, gravity is just a theory too - apparently you don't know what "theory" means in the science world. And we have TONS of evidence for evolution. Now, it often occurs on such a huge time scale that we can't observe it in our lifetime. But we have observed it occurring in numerous, numerous cases. Not only does natural selection and evolutionary theory explain how life diversified and became what it is up to this point, but it fits amazingly well with the fossil record, and ties together everything we know about biology.

If the believers want to point to something as evidence that god exists, do what I do and look at the stuff that science can't explain. Like the formation of the universe. How did the Big Bang happen. Hell, why did it happen? Why are the laws of physics what they are, and not different?

I'm a Christian guy, and my science background definitely clashes with my faith. But I think that religion is very important for a lot of people - it helps many people function in their daily lives and find some happiness, and I think there is nothing at all wrong with that. I may not be able to take the Bible at face value, but I can follow its teachings to make myself a better person and improve my life and the lives of those around me. I don't feel the need to prove that God either exists or doesn't exist. I feel perfectly comfortable knowing that science can explain the world around me. But the fact that the universe exists at all - who knows, maybe it is a work of God...

God has always been the ultimate deus ex machina for people unwilling to really analyze a strange event. In ancient times, it was lightning, thunder, volcanoes, etc... now it's a cosmological event. With a sense of history, we realize that all these things eventually saw a naturalistic explanation; the Big Bang will likely be no different. God will then run and hide to the next dark corner of human knowledge.

I think we're all looking for answers to the same questions, some people are just satisfied with "welp, God musta done it." Others remain unsatisfied with that hypothesis.

 

[knapplc]

I think we're all looking for answers to the same questions, some people are just satisfied with "welp, God musta done it." Others remain unsatisfied with that hypothesis.

I find that to be a totally OK situation, too. As long as neither side says, "You don't have the same opinion as me, so you're wrong/bad/dumb/etc" then there's no problem. Room for everyone at the table.

 

[tschu]

God has always been the ultimate deus ex machina for people unwilling to really analyze a strange event. In ancient times, it was lightning, thunder, volcanoes, etc... now it's a cosmological event. With a sense of history, we realize that all these things eventually saw a naturalistic explanation; the Big Bang will likely be no different. God will then run and hide to the next dark corner of human knowledge. I think we're all looking for answers to the same questions, some people are just satisfied with "welp, God musta done it." Others remain unsatisfied with that hypothesis.

Good post.

 

[bennychico11]

God has always been the ultimate deus ex machina for people unwilling to really analyze a strange event. In ancient times, it was lightning, thunder, volcanoes, etc... now it's a cosmological event. With a sense of history, we realize that all these things eventually saw a naturalistic explanation; the Big Bang will likely be no different. God will then run and hide to the next dark corner of human knowledge.

I think we're all looking for answers to the same questions, some people are just satisfied with "welp, God musta done it." Others remain unsatisfied with that hypothesis.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson said something similar:

"God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller as time moves on."

"If you were so content in that answer...the day you stop looking because you're content god did it, I don't need you in the lab! You're useless on the frontier of understanding the nature of the world."

I pose a question to theists. I think most atheists, myself included, would perfectly accept a god if it were found out to be true that one existed. I have no problem with that. I would indeed accept that one existed if sufficient evidence were presented. Even be grateful if it was the reason for my existence (worship is a whole different question all together, though).

Now, I ask, if sufficient evidence were presented (hypothetically), would you accept the non-existence of the god. If all your questions were answered of how life began, how the universe began, what happens after you die, etc. etc....and non of that ended up being caused by a god, would you accept it?

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

BBBXII, that's not accurate at all. It is the burden of believers to provide proof. The fallacy in your post is that, in the absence of proof by believers, you're accepting their response "We can't prove it, so you disprove it." That's not an acceptable response. If something is asserted to exist, the burden of proof always lies with those making the assertion.

Certainly that was not my intention. It's not so much as I don't understand the whole burden of proof lies with those making the assertion as so much as it is my frustration with the rigidity of which "non-believers" have in acceptance of the anecdotal evidence provided by those "believers" and vice versa--the rigidity of which "believers" have in acceptance of the anecdotal and scientific evidence provided by "non-believers".

I just don't understand how it is one side or the other on this continuum. You're either falling under the belief that it is all science or it is all God. I'd prefer a place towards the middle.

 

[knapplc]

BBBXII, that's not accurate at all. It is the burden of believers to provide proof. The fallacy in your post is that, in the absence of proof by believers, you're accepting their response "We can't prove it, so you disprove it." That's not an acceptable response. If something is asserted to exist, the burden of proof always lies with those making the assertion.

Certainly that was not my intention. It's not so much as I don't understand the whole burden of proof lies with those making the assertion as so much as it is my frustration with the rigidity of which "non-believers" have in acceptance of the anecdotal evidence provided by those "believers" and vice versa--the rigidity of which "believers" have in acceptance of the anecdotal and scientific evidence provided by "non-believers".

Actually, what I find most irritating about this whole thread and that whole religious discussion hullapalooza is the inability of either side to empathize, or to try to understand the other side. And what's particularly even more frustrating to me is that both sides are intertwined, and yet huge outrageous arguments ensue about which is "more" right.

Then you're missing out on the intent of my posts, because I've spelled that out several times.