The debate "God exist religon is necessairy to soceity and there is scientific proof" was started by
November 27, 2016, 3:32 pm.
10 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 12 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Blue_ray posted 1 argument, neveralone posted 10 arguments to the agreers part.
PoliticsAsUsual posted 1 argument, M3phisto posted 2 arguments, TheExistentialist posted 6 arguments to the disagreers part.
neveralone, Blue_ray, sabrina, Matthew_Daniel, Ematio and 5 visitors agree.
PoliticsAsUsual, M3phisto, TheExistentialist, arpita00, historybuff, Parallax, ProfDoke and 5 visitors disagree.
'to show that he absolutely 100 percent exist... depends. u would have to experience him to believe in Him. though if u can't accept that then yes there isn't because God prefers faith.'
exactly, the only "evidence" is anecdotal. Anecdotal evidence is the weakest "kind" of evidence.
"could u explain what u mean by predictably instead of order?"
sure, order is a concept of structural organization. So when we look at a phospholipid for example, it's orderly. It has a phosphorous head with 2 lipid tails. The lipid tails are carbon chains with a bunch of hydrogen molecules bonded to it, etc... that's order.
The second law of thermodynamics tells us that this "order" is only possible through the addition of energy. If we have a closed system "like the universe" entropy will eventually ensue.
Entropy; a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system.
lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder
predictability is then our ability to predict the decay of order or the rise of order. So when we have gas trapped in a liquid under pressure (like deep under the ocean), we can predict that the gas will be partially released when it reaches the surface of the ocean. If we have a mole of carbon 14 for example, we know that half of the carbon 14 will have decayed in 5,730 years. We don't know which molecules in particular, but we know roughly half the carbon 14 in the mole will become Nitrogen 14 in about 5,730 years.
The universe is therefore not orderly, it is a constant change of order vs chaos through the addition or absence of energy in a system which causes the changes in the states of order vs chaos. This change of order vs chaos is predictable through the energy put into the system or the energy required to maintain a system.
to show that he absolutely 100 percent exist... depends. u would have to experience him to believe in Him. though if u can't accept that then yes there isn't because God prefers faith.
sorry wrote that part was dumb.
could u explain what u mean by predictably instead of order?
isn't science by nature supposed to be unbiased? also sorry for that comment. it was wrote in anger.
None of this constitutes proof or necessity. You've demonstrated utility. Necessity means you have to show that God MUST exist.
" like what to do about a problem in ur family. then God answers and u obey and every time not just once or twice this has worked for me”
This is anecdotal and doesn't show necessity. You don't NEED god to solve family problems. You can figure interpersonal relationships out yourself. There is nothing here that necessitates the existence of God.
"how can the universe act on rules if it is made in chaos"
This would be an argument from personal incredulity. Essentially a special case of an argument from ignorance. Just because you don't understand how natural laws function and why they occur doesn't mean there is something supernatural causing them.
"Einstein even said there had to be a God-like figure"
So what....if I tell you about brilliant scientists that say there is no God, does that constitute as evidence against God?
"experiment 1 if you looked at my life u will see several times I have asked God ...”
This isn't an experiment....this is anecdotal and you should know that it's not evidence let alone proof.
"also what would u say to all the order that we have in this universe?"
Order is a strong word...I don't know if that's the correct way to describe the universe. Predictable is more apt. However, this doesn't constitute evidence for God. If things are natural you'd expect them to be predictable. You'd have a much better case if the universe was unpredictable (meaning natural laws are sometimes suspended). Also, see argument from ignorance again.
"but if all scientist are biased like u then there's no hope for it."
All science is by nature bias. The principal of science is that natural, verifiable, repeatable, and falsifiable causes dictate events. Godly acts are essentially a suspension of the natural order and so in science ignores god as a cause for events since the assumption is that events have natural causes. Your personal beliefs outside of the lab can be whatever you want them to be, but in the lab, every scientist is an atheist when it comes to their field of study.....or at least the good ones are.
You have still not shown that there is proof of God or that God is somehow necessary. I'd say it's an impossible task for anyone to make substantiate these claims, and you've pretty much demonstrated that with your sources and your arguments.
no that's not my argument. mine is about guidance. not getting from point a to b. like say u have two big choices in front of u. like what to do about a problem in ur family. then God answers and u obey and every time not just once or twice this has worked for me. that is why I stated it as a hypothesis
how can the universe act on rules if it is made in chaos? Einstein even said there had to be a God-like figure.
can u control ur enemy's? no God can but he gave us free will. idk if this is good or bad sometimes. I mean on a more personal level as well
wow... did any part of that seem scientific to you? if so you don't know what scientific means. if I pray to Zeus to get home safely from work and then I do, does that prove the existence of Zeus? that is the argument you are making.
secondly, why do you assume order requires a god? you assume that order can't happen naturally, but there is no evidence it requires a creator.
if God rewarded faith then why did islam take over so much of the world? why did pius, Christian Constantinople fall to the Ottoman Turks? why did the pagan Mongols massacre countless Christian, Muslim (and pretty well every religion) armies? there is no evidence that God has ever intervened to reward the faithful.
ok I had a bunch of info but it kicked me out so I'm just going to focus on the big one.
u want science. ok.hypothesis if I trust in God to guide me then he will guide me wisely. experiment 1 if you looked at my life u will see several times I have asked God for guidance. every time without fail he has done so. so my hypothesis is correct. but wait how could a being that's not alive do this? simple he is alive.
also what would u say to all the order that we have in this universe?
also God rewards faith.why wouldn't he. u could call it a test if u will. but why would he not test u?
on a side note I love science all my life and planned to be one but if all scientist are biased like u then there's no hope for it.
nonsense huh. funny how any site that doesn't agree with u turns into nonsense.
No, any site that doesn't disclose their sources, doesn't provide information about the author, and doesn't show the publication date is nonsense.
so if all of society deemed rape ok ur on board with it?
No, I have personal preferences against living in such a society, so I wouldn't be OK with legalizing rape, murder, etc... However, there is no logical conflict between my moral code and society changing its moral code.
why can't they simply coexist?
They can, I never claimed they couldn't. Youre making strawman arguments. I'm saying in order to be considered NECESSARY it has to be better than science and philosophy in some aspect, otherwise you can't call it necessary, you can only call it ancillary. Please understand this point or ask for clarification if you don't get what necessary means and what implications that word has. Stop trying to twist my arguments. I don't do it to you, so please show me the same courtesy.
---- this is why you really need to learn to evaluate your sources!!! Please note there are no references in the article. So I had to dig up some information about this. There is in fact NO published work by dr. Kaku about primitive semi-radius tachyons.
If you research primitive semi-radius tachyons you will also find no mention of them in scientific literature. There was also no reference by dr kaku himself about this claim.
Another nonsense website.
This one basis it's claims on a misunderstanding of thermodynamics. Please read up on why thermodynamics don't apply to evolution... I'll give you a hint EARTH IS NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM!!!!!
The watchmaker argument has been argued to death and doesn't constitute "proof" rather it shows a lack of understanding of evolution.
Let me know if you want to argue any of the claims made on this junk site further, I'd happily school you in a bit of science.
nonsense huh. funny how any site that doesn't agree with u turns into nonsense. it gives facts. it doesn't fully side either way if u had just read it.
so if all of society deemed rape ok ur on board with it?
why can't they simply coexist? u need to eat correct? but u also need to drink. both are required. neither is better than the other.
---First off, Ballard found evidence of a flood and some human activity; not a global flood. He found the evidence that likely started flood myths like the epic of Gilgamesh. We have long known that there had been a local flood in the area of the black sea. However, nothing in his "research" indicates that this was Noah's flood, or that the flood was anywhere close to being global. Ballard also admits his findings could have been the result of an earthquake, a massive storm, or perhaps the sheer weight of the ocean waters, none of which demands a worldwide flood (See U.S. News & World Report “Mysteries of the Bible," November 2004). So again, this is speculative at best.
If you want to argue that the biblical flood was just a retelling of the epic of Gilgamesh and likely stemmed from that same event, sure, I can get on board with that. However, to claim that all of civilization was wiped out is just plain false. All evidence points to a human population of about 100 million during the time of the flood, and there is no evidence for a global decimation of any of the six major civilizations during that time.
----ummm....what is this nonsense?.....I'm not about to read a blog post by some random guy on a web-builder that anyone can generate. Please evaluate your sources.
"if ethnics are ok to change then rape murder theft ect. are fine because to them it's right and we cannot punish."
---Sort of.....You're wrong in saying that because ethics is fluid that it makes certain actions ok. It simply means that we can agree to changing ethics. However, since ethics is a social contract, society would have to deem murder, rape, theft, etc... ok.
"ur saying some of the smartest men of their time and known to be great are wrong?"
When it comes to the topic of "needing religion", absolutely I think they were wrong. Many great men throughout history were wrong.
"it doesn't need to be better because it isn't agaisnt it"
it needs to be better in order to be considered necessary. If it isn't better, then it isn't necessary, it's ancillary. Read the original claim again.
if ethnics are ok to change then rape murder theft ect. are fine because to them it's right and we cannot punish.
one of many of religion is to guide us. we have a map to know where to go.
ur saying some of the smartest men of their time and known to be great are wrong?it doesn't need to be better because it isn't agaisnt it
why do we not need one?
faith has facts. do u want examples or not.
---yes, please show me facts. I don't think conjecture is a valid form of argument
who says God didn't put us here and we evolve as we go?
---this would be conjecture and speculation. It also doesn't eliminate the issue of not needing a savior.
"dude this is God do u think he has limits?....."
---again, conjecture. We actually know quite a bit about the history of the earth. For example, we know that a global flood couldn't have happened during the time the bible claims since we have written records of the first dynasty in china during the time. We also have evidence of thriving civilizations in south america at the time, we also have records of civilizations in the Mediterranean at the time of the flood. We also have physical evidence that no such flood could have happened. We know that coral reefs couldn't have survived such a flood and that they would take at least 100,000 years to regrow. We know that the water levels would have had to reach over 29k feet (height of Everest) above current sea levels which would have meant that Noah and his ark would have had to survive in the "death zone" for at least 150 days (i think the current record is 90 hours without supplemental O2). We know from genetics that we couldn't have had a genetic bottleneck like the flood.
"the big bang states that nothing existed...."
that's not what the "big bang theory" states.....the big bang theory is derived from a vector calculation which gives us a singularity. We know that through quantum mechanics we don't need any supernatural being to get matter during the big bang, so simply inserting "God" here isn't really valid since we understand the natural processes that gave us matter (hurray Higgs Boson field!!!)
"if we go by that then ethnics arnt real. what's right to u could be wrong for me..."
and what's wrong with that? isn't that the way the world works? aren't ethics constantly evolving? if they are objective, wouldn't they need to be unchanging?
"u seem to have an idea that science and religion are constantly at war..."
no, I'm simply saying that religion is not needed. I don't think they are at war, I just don't see a purpose for religion. You're trying to insert an intent that is simply not present.
"our forefathers said that a country without religious guidance will not stand"
They were wrong.....show me where religion is superior to science and philosophy.
did u take a breath while saying that? haha.
faith has facts. do u want examples or not. I think for now I'll look at what u said
who says God didn't put us here and we evolve as we go?
dude this is God do u think he has limits? also we probably don't know a ton of things about the earth. also after the said flood could God not just reform the land?
the big bang states that nothing existed and then all of a sudden it exploded into existence. now in the Bible it says God spoke it into existence. would u not say it would be instantaneous?
if we go by that then ethnics arnt real. what's right to u could be wrong for me. God is unchanging so therefore he is a constant we can count on.
u seem to have an idea that science and religion are constantly at war. this is simply not true there is plenty of cases where they have worked together.
our forefathers said that a country without religious guidance will not stand.
education is relevant since it teaches facts which are in direct opposition to the christian faith. Professors who are christian don't diminish this fact, hypocrisy doesn't make a position valid.
Let's take something like evolution for example. If evolution is taught in schools and students accept it as fact, then they must dismiss the idea of a savior. For, if evolution took place, then there never was an Adam and Eve. If there never was an Adam and Eve, then no one could have eaten from the forbidden fruit and a savior was never needed.
If we study history and genetics, we can also see that the biblical flood couldn't have possibly occurred. This means there is no covenant between God and man.
If we look at the Big Bang and quantum physics, we know that the Bible was absolutely wrong in the order of creation.
We can also look at genetics, neuroscience, etc... and inform our ethics. We know for example, that homosexuality is likely not a choice (we have strong evidence to suggest this through various studies including twin, sibling, and other genetic studies) so we have largely dismissed it as being somehow unethical.
Essentially, education disproves a lot of the claims made in the Bible, the Tora, and the Koran (along with most other scriptures). Education also shows us methods for developing moral codes which are more inline with our understanding of the world and human nature. There is simply nothing that religion offers which is superior to science and philosophy.
There are certainly aspects where religion comes in on-par with science and philosophy, however, I challenge you to show me an aspect where religious doctrine is superior to science and philosophy in any way, shape, or form.
On a side note;
the topic states that "religon is necessairy to soceity and there is scientific proof"; can you demonstrate either or both of those propositions since you agreed with it?
what does Ed. have to do with what u believe. their are a total n of professors who r Christian.
Oh and if religion was necessary in the past, it certainly isnt anymore today. Mostly because of the advanced education.
I dont think god's existence can be proven or disproven but i'm opened to every attempt. It ofc was good for society but also bad. But no, there is absolutely to real proof of his existence, other than 'faith' or the bible.. which are not really that solid.
did you read the link before you posted it? you pretty much showed the best attempts to prove God were hoaxes...
running low on data had to use googleweblight sorry.
Still waiting on that proof.
I'll wait for you to present the proof.