Arguments for (or against) the existence of God

[jcd11235 0]

billvon

Sure you can.

Nope. You can try, but to be good at one implies being quite bad at the other. Newton and Copernicus both tried and failed, for example.

billvon

(You can also go to Comic-con and be a good scientist, even though Superman couldn't really spin the world backwards and make time go backwards as well.)

Right. They understand that Superman is a fictitious character.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[DanG 1]

Quote

...even though Superman couldn't really spin the world backwards and make time go backwards as well.

Citation needed

- Dan G

[billvon 2,396]

>You can try, but to be good at one implies being quite bad at the other. Newton and
>Copernicus both tried and failed, for example.

And Francis Bacon, Blaise Pascal, Robert Boyle and Johannes Kepler are examples of people who tried and succeeded. (What, exactly, did Newton fail at, by the way?)

>Right. They understand that Superman is a fictitious character.

Just as most Christians recognize that large parts of the Bible are fictitious.

[rehmwa 2]

DanG

Quote

...even though Superman couldn't really spin the world backwards and make time go backwards as well.

Citation needed

{[laughter]} - thank you

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[gowlerk 1,909]

Quote

On cannot be a good religious person and a good scientist.

Sure you can. You just have to get to a slightly wider understanding of what makes a "good religious person". Science and religion both require that you accept that some things will remain a mystery.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[rehmwa 2]

gowlerk

Sure you can. You just have to get to a slightly wider understanding of what makes a "good religious person". Science and religion both require that you accept that some things will remain a mystery.

"I have no issues with religious people. As long as they don't: talk out loud in public, have personal opinions, hold any jobs in science, public service, engineering, or otherwise. Or are seen in public."

perhaps we should build a wall and keep them out

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[DJL 232]

Video proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjgsnWtBQm0

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[rehmwa 2]

DJL

Video proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjgsnWtBQm0

what, YOUTUBE? just as well be referencing FOX News, heck, the Fox NETWORK

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jcd11235 0]

billvon

>You can try, but to be good at one implies being quite bad at the other. Newton and
>Copernicus both tried and failed, for example.

And Francis Bacon, Blaise Pascal, Robert Boyle and Johannes Kepler are examples of people who tried and succeeded.

All of which came from a time when the scientific method was in its infancy, and its implications still largely unknown.

billvon

What, exactly, did Newton fail at, by the way?

Being a good religious person. His work in physics led hime to understand that a personal god was an impossibility; if there was a god, that god could not interfere once the universe was set to motion.

billvon

Just as most Christians recognize that large parts of the Bible are fictitious.

They're not very good Christians, then. Certainly many of them are good people, just not good Christians.

I will reassert: The intersection of embracing faith and rejecting faith is empty.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 2,396]

>All of which came from a time when the scientific method was in its infancy.

All the more reason to admire the tremendous contributions they made to science, even before the more formal processes we use now to guide scientists became common.

>Being a good religious person. His work in physics led hime to understand that a
>personal god was an impossibility; if there was a god, that god could not interfere
>once the universe was set to motion.

He was quite religious and expressed his views on religion frequently:

"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being."

"When I wrote my treatise about our Systeme I had an eye upon such Principles as might work with considering men for the beliefe of a Deity and nothing can rejoyce me more then to find it useful for that purpose."

He wrote several treatises on religion, including "Rules for interpreting the words & language in Scripture" " Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel" and "The Apocalypse of St. John."

Sounds quite religious to me - and he clearly spent a lot of his time expressing his views on religion, and supporting them with his work in the sciences. Hard to argue that that makes him a "bad religious person."

>They're not very good Christians, then.

By whose definition? Yours?

>I will reassert: The intersection of embracing faith and rejecting faith is empty.

Of course; by definition. The intersection of embracing skydiving and rejecting skydiving is also empty, but skydivers can still make OK scientists.

[jcd11235 0]

billvon

>All of which came from a time when the scientific method was in its infancy.

All the more reason to admire the tremendous contributions they made to science, even before the more formal processes we use now to guide scientists became common.

I disagree. The more formal processes used today are what make science [I]science. They are the defining characteristic. While early philosophers may have laid the groundwork, it is indeed a stretch to call them good scientists. That's a bit like saying the Wright brothers were great astronautical engineers.

billvon

Sounds quite religious to me - and he clearly spent a lot of his time expressing his views on religion, and supporting them with his work in the sciences. Hard to argue that that makes him a "bad religious person."

It's quite easy and logical to make such an argument, actually. He eliminated the possibility of a personal god.

billvon

>They're not very good Christians, then.

By whose definition? Yours?

It's not reasonable to consider one who disregards large portions of the book upon which Christianity is based to be a "good Christian."

billvon

>I will reassert: The intersection of embracing faith and rejecting faith is empty.

Of course; by definition.

Exactly. And religion requires embracing faith, while science requires rejecting faith. The intersection is empty. Success at one implies inevitable failure at the other.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 2,396]

>They are the defining characteristic. While early philosophers may have laid the
>groundwork, it is indeed a stretch to call them good scientists. That's a bit like saying
>the Wright brothers were great astronautical engineers.

Well, no - it's like saying the Wright Brothers were great _aeronautical_ engineers - even though they didn't have good wind tunnels (until they built one, that is) or simulations or good propellers or even a decent engine.

>It's not reasonable to consider one who disregards large portions of the book upon
>which Christianity is based to be a "good Christian."

It is entirely reasonable. An American can reject large portions of US law and still be a good American. A skydiver can reject large parts of the SIM and still be a good skydiver. (Indeed, many foreign skydivers - and people from Lodi - do just that.)

You seem to have a somewhat naive vision of religion. You seem to think that a "real" religious person must be a caricature you have constructed in your mind; someone who believes that God created Eve from Adam's rib, or that the Earth stops rotating every once in a while, or that Moses parted the Red Sea. And that's absurd. Very few people I know - including several priests and people in Christian religious orders - believe that. Now, you may call a priest who has spent his career teaching biology to high school students a "bad Christian" and that's fine. It is a definition that's so far out in left field, though, that no one is going to take you seriously.

>Exactly. And religion requires embracing faith, while science requires rejecting faith.

Religious faith and science are not exclusive; they are orthogonal. You do not have to reject skydiving to have faith, or to be a good scientist.

[kallend 1,623]

billvon

(What, exactly, did Newton fail at, by the way?)

He wasn't able to turn lead into gold, despite spending more time on alchemy than on dynamics.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jcd11235 0]

billvon

>They are the defining characteristic. While early philosophers may have laid the
>groundwork, it is indeed a stretch to call them good scientists. That's a bit like saying
>the Wright brothers were great astronautical engineers.

Well, no - it's like saying the Wright Brothers were great _aeronautical_ engineers - even though they didn't have good wind tunnels (until they built one, that is) or simulations or good propellers or even a decent engine.

No. It was correct the way I wrote it, and far more analogous to your claim about early philosophers being great scientists than after your changes.

billvon

Religious faith and science are not exclusive; they are orthogonal. You do not have to reject skydiving to have faith, or to be a good scientist.

No, they are not orthogonal.

You seem to have an unconventional understanding of science. Most (correctly) understand that science requires one not take anything on faith, but to draw conclusions only when justified by the evidence/data.

If one embraces faith, they've set themselves up for failure in science. If they reject faith, they've set themselves up for failure in religion.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 2,396]

>You seem to have an unconventional understanding of science. Most (correctly)
>understand that science requires one not take anything on faith, but to draw
>conclusions only when justified by the evidence/data.

Agreed. And you can do great science during the week, and be a devout Muslim on the weekends.

>If one embraces faith, they've set themselves up for failure in science. If they reject
>faith, they've set themselves up for failure in religion.

That is pure nonsense. You might as well say that if you love and value your family (a purely emotional, subjective decision) then you cannot be a scientist, since a scientist must be objective, not subjective.

[jcd11235 0]

billvon

And you can do great science during the week, and be a devout Muslim on the weekends.

I don't think being a part-timer qualifies anyone as devout.

billvon

You might as well say that if you love and value your family (a purely emotional, subjective decision) then you cannot be a scientist, since a scientist must be objective, not subjective.

Nonsense. That's not at all analogous.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 2,396]

>I don't think being a part-timer qualifies anyone as devout.

So someone who goes to church every weekend, is active in their church's charity programs, sends their kids to Sunday school there, advocates for their religion to the people they know - in your mind, would not be devout, because they are only "part time?"

>Nonsense. That's not at all analogous.

It is quite analogous.

You claim that scientists must be objective; that they will fail if they accept anything other than objective, provable science. People who love their families are experiencing - and accepting - something completely subjective. Therefore, by your standards, they will fail at science, since they are not objective.

[ibx 2]

Quote

You claim that scientists must be objective; that they will fail if they accept anything other than objective, provable science. People who love their families are experiencing - and accepting - something completely subjective. Therefore, by your standards, they will fail at science, since they are not objective.

Actually emotions aren't that subjective at all. You can literally look at somebody love somebody else in an MRI. Further, the reason people love their families is pretty well understood in social science. I know it's a soft science, it is science none the less.

It's also a huge stretch to equate believing in people returning from the dead and finding a reason for loving your family.

[billvon 2,396]

>It's also a huge stretch to equate believing in people returning from the dead and
>finding a reason for loving your family.

I agree - which is why I did not equate them. I did state that love is subjective, by definition. If scientists will fail if they accept anything other than objective, provable science, then any scientist who loves someone will fail. (Fortunately that assumption is not the case.)

[jcd11235 0]

billvon

So someone who goes to church every weekend, is active in their church's charity programs, sends their kids to Sunday school there, advocates for their religion to the people they know - in your mind, would not be devout, because they are only "part time?"

My comment about being a part-timer was in reference to your example of someone who is only devout on the weekends.

billvon

It is quite analogous.

No it isn't. To use your term, it is orthogonal to the faith <--> evidence_based_conclusion axis. You're comparing apples and temperatures.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[grimmie 173]

This is from the "Can't make this shit up" file. This was on a friend of mine's facebook page. Her and her husband run a church in Puerto Rico.
After I read this today, I could only conclude that if there is a God, it is one sick and twisted entity.




This is Bob and Mary Johnston. Dear Missionary Friends of ours for 17 years years. Bob and Mary served in Haiti until she was accosted while a gang member held a gun to her then young son's head forcing him to watch. Right after that, they moved to the other side of the island, to the Dominican Republic. They planted their roots there and started a ministry to the Haitians. After that, Bob was struck by lightening. Then he and Mary were hijacked while on a flight back to the states. Bob had cancer twice. Mary was diagnosed with Leukemia 3 years ago and is now in remission. Their young son, who was forced to watch Mary be accosted came back to the States when he turned 18, was in a serious car accident and is now a quadriplegic. Bob brought her back to the States every 6 months to get her blood checked. While driving in Missouri last week, traffic abruptly stopped on the highway they were on. Bob rear-ended the vehicle in front of him. They were in a 1968 Dodge Dart. A semi then rear ended Bob and Mary sending the vehicle into the air, it rolled over, pinning Bob and killed him instantly. My children, Bill and myself are heartbroken for this couple. They have a large mission to the Haitian refugees and run a Bible school. When I spoke to Mary a few days ago, she said, "Karen, I'm headed back. I'll see you soon." After I hung up I told my husband what she said. This is their life's motto. They were called and they've answered the call...no matter what came their way. Please stop and pray for Mary as she is faced with running this dynamic mission alone.

[RonD1120 58]

grimmie

This is from the "Can't make this shit up" file. This was on a friend of mine's facebook page. Her and her husband run a church in Puerto Rico.
After I read this today, I could only conclude that if there is a God, it is one sick and twisted entity

This is Bob and Mary Johnston. Dear Missionary Friends of ours for 17 years years. Bob and Mary served in Haiti until she was accosted while a gang member held a gun to her then young son's head forcing him to watch. Right after that, they moved to the other side of the island, to the Dominican Republic. They planted their roots there and started a ministry to the Haitians. After that, Bob was struck by lightening. Then he and Mary were hijacked while on a flight back to the states. Bob had cancer twice. Mary was diagnosed with Leukemia 3 years ago and is now in remission. Their young son, who was forced to watch Mary be accosted came back to the States when he turned 18, was in a serious car accident and is now a quadriplegic. Bob brought her back to the States every 6 months to get her blood checked. While driving in Missouri last week, traffic abruptly stopped on the highway they were on. Bob rear-ended the vehicle in front of him. They were in a 1968 Dodge Dart. A semi then rear ended Bob and Mary sending the vehicle into the air, it rolled over, pinning Bob and killed him instantly. My children, Bill and myself are heartbroken for this couple. They have a large mission to the Haitian refugees and run a Bible school. When I spoke to Mary a few days ago, she said, "Karen, I'm headed back. I'll see you soon." After I hung up I told my husband what she said. This is their life's motto. They were called and they've answered the call...no matter what came their way. Please stop and pray for Mary as she is faced with running this dynamic mission alone.

Satan is the spiritual power causing the maladies. He hates a dedicated saint and will do anything to stop their work. Haiti is the principle western country practicing Vodou.

Note, in your example the missionary work is continuing. It takes a special Christian to engage in missionary work. Most all suffer to some extent.

If all the posters here in the SC were gathered in one arena and Coreeece and I et.al walked in and verbally expressed our faith, what do you think the outcome would be? Now expand that thought to a savage country.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[ibx 2]

Quote

f all the posters here in the SC were gathered in one arena and Coreeece and I et.al walked in and verbally expressed our faith, what do you think the outcome would be? Now expand that thought to a savage country.

Maybe God is trying to show these people to not prostelyze in Haiti. What would it take for these stubborn people to finally get Gods message?

[RonD1120 58]

ibx

Quote

f all the posters here in the SC were gathered in one arena and Coreeece and I et.al walked in and verbally expressed our faith, what do you think the outcome would be? Now expand that thought to a savage country.

Maybe God is trying to show these people to not prostelyze in Haiti. What would it take for these stubborn people to finally get Gods message?

God's message is to go into the world and make disciples.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[DanG 1]

Quote

If all the posters here in the SC were gathered in one arena and Coreeece and I et.al walked in and verbally expressed our faith, what do you think the outcome would be? Now expand that thought to a savage country.

Do you really think you would be accosted, beaten, raped, and murdered?

You would probably have a good verbal discussion about faith with a few people, while most others would find something more interesting to do.

People don't hate you for your faith. They are annoyed by your preachy, sanctimonious, and hypocritical tone, but they don't hate you. And most people just ignore you.

No matter how badly you want it to be true, there is no war on Christians.

- Dan G