I tend to get annoyed with the instantaneous dismissal of creationism simply because the physical world can support itself by itself, similar arguments. Or just the general idea that theists are theists because "science can't explain this phenomenon, therefore God did it". Nobody seems to recognize that "God" is outside the box of the universe; he isn't just some finite entity made of dark matter who at random times manipulates the physical realm in ways that science can't explain... eh.. what i'm getting at is that so what if science does accurately explain event X, what if we can even use science to explain everything that happens in the entire universe!? When a creationist says that God set the world into motion, that doesn't mean that said creationist has to pretend centripetal force and inertia is made up by God-haters and it is actually the  physical hand of God spinning the earth and whirling it around the sun... that means said creationist believes that the centripetal force due to gravity is God's doing. This idea can apply to the Big Bang theory as well, even evolution for all I know. When the Bible says that God created the Earth in 6 days and I hear a counter argument that goes something like "oh well the earth was actually formed in x amount of days so explain that" I just say "the hell if I know" because I don't know! Go argue against a fundamentalist! I don't know if the Bible is speaking literally at that instance or not, if so, maybe it really was? who's to say at what point in the earth's creation did God start counting? Who's to set the precise definition of the word "day" in that verse? The point is that there are too many dang variables for anyone to outright dismiss God because of what's in the Book of Genesis, unless YOU are the one reading the Bible like a fundamentalist.

What I personally get from the Bible has absolutely nothing to do with science. You can't just compare science against God like they are two conflicting views of what happens in the universe. From a purely scientific point of view, I'm saying that maybe the deists or agnostics have it right in the sense that God may or may not intervene in the physical world and who the heck knows or even cares if He's actually moving stuff around or not. Worrying over "proving" that He does or does not exists is not the point, because science simply can't do that either way! Its just an endless cycle of opinion.

The Bible isn't intended to leave you worrying about finding tangible evidence for God. Finding God is a heart issue, not a science issue. I think that is what the Bible is all about. :)

 

Views: 1558

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

And another thing... there is no god in my heart.  There is awe, wonder, humility, etc. at the magnificence of the cosmos and life, but no god.  So what does that prove? Absolutely nothing except, I suppose, that I'm a curious, sentient being. 

Someone else believing in god in his or her heart does nothing for me.

But that IS God!  Don't you know that he is omnipresent, too?  God is everything!

 

Which reminds me of a saying; if everyone is my brother, then no one is my brother.

Hmmmm, but there is a definite answer for the individuals who do decide to follow God, the hard part is trying to demonstrate that He is real to those who have not yet found Him.. and what it ultimately comes down to is living the most loving life you can and praying on a daily basis that those who have not yet found Him will, because it isn't up to the believer what another chooses to believe.

I tend to get annoyed with the instantaneous dismissal of creationism simply because the physical world can support itself by itself, similar arguments.

 

I agree that no position should be dismissed instantaneously. The trouble with creationism though, is that the evidence doesn't support it or contradicts it's claims outright.

 

Or just the general idea that theists are theists because "science can't explain this phenomenon, therefore God did it".

 

I also agree that belief can be multifaceted. The reason I believed may not be the same as why you believe and why others believe.

 

Nobody seems to recognize that "God" is outside the box of the universe;

 

Ah, but if he's outside the universe, then he doesn't interact within our universe, influence our universe or intervene in our universe. A deistic god would be one that is unfalsifiable, as it has nothing to do with our reality after it started the ball rolling. Gods like the Christian god don't fall in this category though. He's said to perform acts in our universe, come to Earth, interact with people, answer prayers, etc. All of these are interventions within our universe. Things that are fair game to scientific inquiry. These specific claims can be tested. Take the flood story for example. We know from all the evidence contrary that Noah's flood never occurred. Granted, that doesn't disprove god, but it does go toward discrediting the very book to claim his existence to begin with.

 

what i'm getting at is that so what if science does accurately explain event X, what if we can even use science to explain everything that happens in the entire universe!? When a creationist says that God set the world into motion, that doesn't mean that said creationist has to pretend centripetal force and inertia is made up by God-haters and it is actually the  physical hand of God spinning the earth and whirling it around the sun... that means said creationist believes that the centripetal force due to gravity is God's doing.

 

One could take that approach, but it sounds like the god of the gaps argument to me. If we look at the evidence, we have a natural explanation that explains everything rather elegantly. But I feel that tacking god (any god) at the top is intellectually dishonest. Since there isn't evidence to suggest a specific god or any god is the cause of the natural laws, what justification is there to set any being into a causal role? If you say it was the Christian god that did it, and someone else says it was Zeus and there is equal evidence (none) between them, then they claims are of no merit or worth. One could claim their Uncle Tim did it and be just as justified.

 

This idea can apply to the Big Bang theory as well, even evolution for all I know. When the Bible says that God created the Earth in 6 days and I hear a counter argument that goes something like "oh well the earth was actually formed in x amount of days so explain that" I just say "the hell if I know" because I don't know! Go argue against a fundamentalist! I don't know if the Bible is speaking literally at that instance or not, if so, maybe it really was? who's to say at what point in the earth's creation did God start counting? Who's to set the precise definition of the word "day" in that verse?

 

There are actually many issues with the six day creation story... There are two different versions of it, things are created in the wrong order, we know it didn't happen as recently as the Bible suggests, we know it didn't happen in six days, etc... And the Bible does seem literal about the six day period. Remember the Genesis defines a day as a period of morning to evening in the creation story. Come to think of it, morning and evening are concepts common to residents or planets. So are we to assume that god was on a planet whilst creating?

The point is that there are too many dang variables for anyone to outright dismiss God because of what's in the Book of Genesis, unless YOU are the one reading the Bible like a fundamentalist.

What I personally get from the Bible has absolutely nothing to do with science. You can't just compare science against God like they are two conflicting views of what happens in the universe. From a purely scientific point of view, I'm saying that maybe the deists or agnostics have it right in the sense that God may or may not intervene in the physical world and who the heck knows or even cares if He's actually moving stuff around or not. Worrying over "proving" that He does or does not exists is not the point, because science simply can't do that either way! Its just an endless cycle of opinion.

The Bible isn't intended to leave you worrying about finding tangible evidence for God. Finding God is a heart issue, not a science issue. I think that is what the Bible is all about. :)

 

I'm sure there are people who read the Bible with bias both for and against. I myself read it while I was a believer wanting to believe and understand my faith to the very best of my ability. However the more I read and learned, the more questions I found myself with. So I was reading with a positive bias, yet still wound up turned away. :)

Ah but Kasu, Jerod has apparently found some way of determining truth OTHER than with science and logic.....I am still waiting for him to divulge more information on this new method.

No, we don't, Jerod.

@ Rod - Baaahaha. I was just waiting for someone to say something like that.

Rod was sayin' what we're all thinkin'!

I would just like to point out that we are still waiting for a definition of this "other form of logic outside of what modern cultures calls science.".

philosophy?

 

..i mean.. i normally would never end that with a question mark, but you are making me a bit uncertain...

I apologize. When I think of the word "philosophy" I tend to think of only moral philosophy.  While I suppose science does encompass natural and metaphysical philosophy.

What I'm getting at is moral philosophy. Ask me what that is and I will know that I am being trolled.

The point is that there are too many dang variables for anyone to outright dismiss God because of what's in the Book of Genesis, unless YOU are the one reading the Bible like a fundamentalist.

 

Hey, fundamentalists are the ones on the winning side of the theological argument, because they take the Bible seriously. Insofar as you reject fundamentalism, you reject the fundamentals of your belief system. It's just picking and choosing what jives with modern knowledge and modern ethics, and getting rid of the preposterous stuff. But who says you can do that? Why is that cop-out allowed? Both Bible God and atheists want to hold people to their convictions.

If taken literally, the Abrahamic books can certainly be proven false. If taken metaphorically, the Abrahamic god is, to put it lightly, an asshole. You can cherry pick the occasional bible verse talking about loving your neighbor and giving to the poor if it makes you feel good, but in doing so you have to ignore the countless passages condoning, among other things, rape, violence, slavery, genocide, and a lovely children's story about a heavenly father drowning all his children in a bathtub when they misbehaved. It's ok though. There's a rainbow at the end.

 

Regardless, "you can't prove god doesn't exist" is not a valid argument. Burden of proof is on the one making the claim. If there is no evidence to convict someone, the case is dismissed due to lack of evidence. Since there is no more evidence for the existence of Yahweh then there is for any of the others thousands of man-made gods, the case should be dismissed.

 

For a moment, please try to imagine you had not been indoctrinated to believe in the culturally acceptable deity of the era and place in which you were born. What would have led you to logically conclude that your god exists or that the bible is true? The warm fuzzies? Do we base what is true off of warm fuzzies?

RSS

Forum

How do you cure Insanity???

Started by Belle Rose in Advice. Last reply by Pope Beanie 37 seconds ago. 62 Replies

A relapse.....

Started by Belle Rose in Small Talk. Last reply by Unseen 58 minutes ago. 7 Replies

The Elephant in the Room...

Started by Belle Rose in Small Talk. Last reply by Belle Rose 2 hours ago. 25 Replies

An awakening.....radical acceptance.....

Started by Belle Rose in Crime and Punishment. Last reply by Pope Beanie 5 hours ago. 2 Replies

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service