Why We Believe In GodsFollow

Time (and space, as we know it) is infinite. No matter how infinitesimally small the chance of the specific circumstances that created life as we know it happening are, they were going to happen eventually and will again.

Also, everything has to be perfect if the goal is to make YOU, but there is no goal here. If things had worked out differently life would still exist, it would just look different.

That's not agnosticism, that's just being sick of listening to shit.

You have a double standard here. You are saying that the ability to prove something should determine its truth value, but then you ignore this attribute when it comes to believing that God doesn't exist.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is no way to prove that God does exist, therefore it would be impossible for someone to believe in God following your "logic," because it can't be proven that he does exist.

If it can't be proven true or false, it is just as arbitrary to assume that it is true as to assume that it is false. Both cases are assumptions without any evidence.



I think the argument here should be pointing to things like the universal constant or the gravitational constant. If these fundamental scientific laws that seemingly govern all matter were 1/10000000000th of a degree different, life would not be able to exist, as far as we can tell.

I think whats missing from this argument is the acknowledgment that we are trying to judge this from a very limited perspective. First of all our scientific laws aren't necessarily comprehensive or even true, we are limited to our ability to measure with the senses which is an extreme disability when it comes to studying subatomic particles which are mostly empty space, and we are operating from the assumption that the universe is intelligible to us in a way that we can understand.

And since when was there an actual comprehensive big-bang theory that could answer the fundamental questions such as "where did the big bang come from, what started it, etc..?) Could someone link that theory for me, because I haven't heard of one that existed that could actually explain the "big bang."

What route were you hoping for? The one that says us scientists are so smart we know everything. Well sorry honey, we don't.

We have not witnessed non-life becoming life, there is nothing to be consistent with.

I suppose that is what being agnostic really means to me. Acceptance that, as of yet, there are many questions about our origin, how life began, if it will begin again, if we are unique in this universe, if the universe has bound, etc, that are unanswered and lack any evidence to support any hypothesis.

That's just the thing though isn't it, you're in the nicest way possible trying to say "you just don't understand fully what you're talking about, so you're filling the blanks with your feelings". Which is true and is, at the base, my point. Religion, God(s) higher beings etc so on and so forth have been and will continue to be a part of our culture as a whole till our knowledge surpasses our insecurities.

Several things can happen from this point; our knowledge will progress to a point where we will no longer need the thought of a higher power to explain away the things we don't understand (possible). We'll continue to expand our knowledge, slowly, and continue to fill in the blanks with feelings, religion and assumption (likely). OR, we'll find out there is a higher being and it will take us all to the great whatever in the wild blue yonder (unlikely, but possible....not ruling it out).

I appreciate the restraint by the by.

I do. Sounds interesting, hell I'd pay.

Edited, May 7th 2009 3:06pm by Bauran

I think it is funny that the guy presents all the arguments against religion using all the same tricks he claims religion uses to convert us.

I didn't listen to all the questions people asked him, but I'm guessing they didn't ask that one.

Here's more what an actual scientific talk goes like:

"I'm really interested in topic Y. If we knew about Y, then it would lead to all kinds of great stuff (Z1, Z2, Z3). Well so-and-so did this experiment. And you could interpret the results one way or the other. So we decided to do another experiment to try to figure out which possible way it went. It seems to be going this way, but there was some lingering doubt due to this other factor. And the standard technique for examining that factor is X. Fortunately Smith and Jones were already looking into that (since my lab isn't set up to do X). And their results more or less seem to agree with ours. So that's why we think what we think. But it could still be interpreted this other way. And here's what we hope to do next: (new stuff). That should help shed some light on it. Questions?

Question 1: So I can take all your results you've talked about and interpret them this other way. Also, as I understand it, (new stuff) won't tell the difference between this other way and your result.

Great question! Ya, I didn't have time to talk about that. Smith and Jones already tried another technique X2 to tell the difference between your interpretation and other interpretations (mostly their own, since they are none to fond of ours). Anyhow, they got this result (which doesn't look good for your alternative explanation). The problem is, whenever you do X2, you get all this noise due to (something) and so you could well be right, but after Smith and Jones did it...well...nobody has gone back to it. Maybe you could do it. But I see there are other questions so maybe we can talk more about it after this session..."

In real science, you life for the next experiment - and although you hope it will give a clear result, it is never perfect. Every step in the chain of logic leading to your current best guess ("conclusion") is examined. The reason is, although you may not know anything about X, maybe there is an X expert in the audience who will run off and do that experiment.

Maybe all social scientists talk like this guy. I doubt it, but if they do, they are holding back the rate of progress in their own field.

I am aware of the fundamental difference. You are still not correct. Time and space exist completely dependently on human consciousness.



I never said that objects would cease to exist, nor that motion would stop, nor that spontaneous destruction and recreation would occur. None of those things are space and time; they are objects which we perceive. Space and time are not themselves objects. You can't perceive things that aren't objects, by definition. You don't perceive time; you perceive with time. Recognize the difference.

I'm agnostic leaning towards atheist. I think there is something out there. I don't know if you would call it karma or what ever but I don't believe in the whole God thing. I believe in evolution, I believe that this thing that makes us US, our souls, all of it links to something bigger. I just can't accept that when we die that it's over, nothing else. I think there is a lot out there still unexplained but I don't buy into religion as I think it's nothing more than a money making machine created to oppress people.

I'll explain why, but I have absolutely no desire to argue the subject with you.

I think that viewpoint is representative of the philosophies which are wrong, attempt to over complicate, abstract, and mystify a very concrete and simple idea, appeal to those who enjoy over thinking the simple and under thinking the complex, and do a disservice to the intellectual community.

I think you're wrong, but like I said I don't really want to argue the issue at this time.

I do not understand what you mean.

Edited, May 7th 2009 4:24pm by Allegory

Still not getting it, and I honestly don't feel the communication problem is on my end.