Rick Reuben wrote:Your answer to the question, "Is there a God?" is also 100% opinion. Whatever you answer, there is no science to support it.

I'm a bit skeptical of this sort of reasoning.

If I had the time to do so, I would like to read Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker, where he tries to show that all relevant scientific data leads to the very high probability that life was not designed.

Maybe if someone's read that book they can chime in here.

If There Is No God

If there is no God,
Not everything is permitted to man.
He is still his brother's keeper
And he is not permitted to sadden his brother,
By saying there is no God.

Czeslaw Milosz


I like this. I don't think I could attack someone's belief in God because I think a lot of beliefs we most treasure are based in faith, even if they aren't necessarily religious.

Rick Reuben wrote:

steve wrote:No. Atheism is the lack of an affirmative belief in God. It is not an expression of faith -- it is an expression of a lack of faith.

Nope. It is faith in the absence of God. It's a belief.

It's flat out unscientific to state unequivocally that there is certainly no god. Thus, I know few atheists who do this. You're right - we don't know for certain that there is no god. We're pretty sure of it, and as far as science has taken us, we've seen no evidence of it. God exists or he doesn't exist. That means there is an answer to the question, and perhaps someday science will lead us to it. Perhaps not. We simply don't believe in things for which there is no evidence. That isn't faith, that is a lack thereof, and if evidence can be given, we will probably change our minds. For the time being, we have zero evidence, and see no reason to waste our time believing in something that in all likelihood will never reveal itself to us. I'm pretty sure that there are no microscopic dragons in my kitchen, but I suppose it's possible.

Informed, intelligent, and scientific atheists don't claim to know 100% that there is no god. If that means that they are in fact agnostics, then I guess there are no atheists.

Rick Reuben wrote:
1-God exists.

2-God does not exist.

Nothing lies outside the boundaries of science.

FYP

tocharian wrote:If There Is No God

If there is no God,
Not everything is permitted to man.
He is still his brother's keeper
And he is not permitted to sadden his brother,
By saying there is no God.

Czeslaw Milosz


I like this. I don't think I could attack someone's belief in God because I think a lot of beliefs we most treasure are based in faith, even if they aren't necessarily religious.

I'm not so sure about that poem. I don't like the last line. If I think that the claims of organised religion don't stand up to scrutiny, it is unreasonable to withhold that opinion simply because of the chance I might 'sadden' my 'brother'. I think that way of thinking would stifle any meaningful debate on the subject. If my 'brother' is an emotionally mature person, he will be able to accept that not everyone shares his religious beliefs. And if my 'brother' becomes angry when his beliefs become the subject of debate, I may get the impression that he is not truly comfortable with what he believes. How treasured a belief is has no bearing on how deserving that belief is of criticism.

Rick Reuben wrote:Science cannot prove either of these statements:

1-God exists.

2-God does not exist.

Those, as generalities, aren't even coherent statements. Science can prove, and has proven, that the gods that people claim are false; science can't prove or disprove your generalized "might-be" god because it has no characteristics.

If you asked a zoologist if he could confirm or deny the existence of the greater honksnoggler, and when asked what such a thing would be told him that nobody knows, he would tell you that you're a fool and should quit wasting his time.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Antero wrote: Science can prove, and has proven, that the gods that people claim are false; science can't prove or disprove your generalized "might-be" god because it has no characteristics.

Wrong. To prove the absence of a god- any god- science must be able to survey the entire universe, and be able to explain the origins of matter and energy in the universe. Science can do neither. All theories remain active.

Unsurprisingly, you invoke the fallacy of negative proof.

I would like to beat a hardcore born again Christian to death with a baseball bat, that's what I would like to do.

I would get a massive amount of joy from it. Just thinking of doing it is making me smile. Hearing them call out to their imaginary friend in the sky for help, them asking why, oh god why?
Wack!! Wack!!! Wack!!!!

Rick Reuben wrote:

DregsInTheCrowd wrote:

Rick Reuben wrote:
1-God exists.

2-God does not exist.

Nothing lies outside the boundaries of science.

FYP

Wrong. The boundaries of science have yet to catch up to the aspirations of science.

Yes. That's what makes science worthwhile - pushing against the limits of what we know and discovering more as a result. We need to be patient and humble rather than propose something as ridiculous as an invisible creator simply because we don't have the answer yet. Perhaps there are no boundaries.

You're talking about science like he's some dude at a bar. It's just Latin for "knowledge." As far as I can tell, there are no limits to what we can learn.