God.

[-Live_Free-]

I guess I'd say weak, I'm more of an evolutionist I guess, but I still believe theres something greater.

[Relambrien]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism

Originally Posted by Wikipedia - Weak and strong atheism

Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any type of non-theism which falls short of this standard.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia - Agnosticism

Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of God or gods; or, alternatively, that while individual certainty may be possible, they personally have no knowledge.

There's some info for you, Live Free, so you can check to see exactly what you are.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of God or gods; or, alternatively, that while individual certainty may be possible, they personally have no knowledge.

The former being "Strong" agnosticism and the latter being "Weak" agnosticism

[Lucky11]

This thread is most amusing. I personally believe there is a God, do not believe in evolution, but in creation. What amuses me is that while we can't positively prove their is a God, "science" can't prove their isn't. One thing science can't and won't explain is the supernatural. Science has always been to observe, test , theorize, and then hopefully prove. I say hopefully because in the end a theory is just an educated guess based on what we believe will happen. Yes, their are proved laws of nature that science has found, but their are also many unexplainable things which science is still guessing. Now for those who say their isn't any such thing as a God i would have to say prove it and good luck cause you will need it. But to those who believe there is a God it is not up to you to prove there is or really its not necessary for you to prove it that s the freedom of faith.

Now before I go I will say that, while not necessarily having a place in this thread, evolution is as much a system of faith as any religion. Evolution is just a theory, IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN. Yet because scientist refuse to except a God, they have to constantly change their hypothesis to fit new evidence. Most amazingly the same evidence most scientist use to further their theory's of evolution, even scientist can't agree with each other on how it was accomplished, is used by those who believe in a creation existence. I use the word scientist loosely because it is misleading anyone who uses science is a scientist and both sides use science but everyone will get the picture. If someone would like to really discuss this issue I think a new thread should be opened an if so i would be pleased to respond.

[GuidoHunter]

You were going really well until the secone paragraph...

Originally Posted by Lucky11

Evolution is just a theory, IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN.

True, like everything else scientific. However, it does have mountains of evidence to support its hypotheses. You could say that the theory of gravity hasn't been proven until you're blue in the face, and you'd be right, but the merit of a scientific theory is judged by how much evidence supports it, and evolution has a ton of it.

Yet because scientist refuse to except a God

Pretty bold statement there, especially considering how most of the brilliant scientific minds in all of history were religious.

they have to constantly change their hypothesis to fit new evidence.

Yes. This is a good thing and is how science works. Science is worthless if it begins to consider constructs such as God. Again, science, in order for it to carry any weight at all, MUST reject constructs of all kinds, and it is HAPPY to not touch religion at all. At all.

Most amazingly the same evidence most scientist use to further their theory's of evolution, even scientist can't agree with each other on how it was accomplished, is used by those who believe in a creation existence.

This is Critical Thinking, where we have a higher standard of grammar in posting. I actually can't even feign knowing what you're trying to say here because of the awful grammar. Please try harder and make sure you have verbs to go with subjects and subjects with verbs next time.

I use the word scientist loosely because it is misleading anyone who uses science is a scientist and both sides use science but everyone will get the picture.

Mmmmmmmno. A scientist is anyone who adheres to the scientific method when testing a hypothesis. You can only test things that are disprovable, which Divine Intervention isn't. The instant you start explaining phenomena with God you are no longer a scientist. There's nothing wrong with that at all, but you just can't call yourself a scientist, because doing that is not scientific.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[ledwix]

Originally Posted by Lucky11

It's up to the atheist to prove there is no god. (or something along those lines)

Since people are born without opinion or knowledge of God (more like an agnostic than a devout atheist or devout theist), you are sort of shifting the burden of proof here. God is infalsifiable; you can't disprove his existence. Likewise, it's extremely difficult to prove his existence, since there is no evidence that any atheist would consider valid in the least bit. Any atheist could easily translate your argument to something like, "I propose that a teacup orbits Jupiter. It's too small to detect with our telescopes. Prove it doesn't exist." This argument is often applied to the situation.

[MixMasterLar]

True, like everything else scientific. However, it does have mountains of evidence to support its hypotheses. You could say that the theory of gravity hasn't been proven until you're blue in the face, and you'd be right, but the merit of a scientific theory is judged by how much evidence supports it, and evolution has a ton of it.

One can argue that there's evidence that supports a living God, so I dont really see were your coming from.

I want to know why these threads go on and on like this. In the end no one changes their mind and people just sit here and get angry at each other. I believe there is a God, I have many reasons to believe that, and telling you in a forum wont really change your mind. Guido seems to believe that a God doesnt exist, and him telling people probably wont change their minds unless they were unsure of God in the first place (and that's as good as not believing).

In the end, one has the decide wether he believes In Evolution or not.

there is no evidence that any atheist would consider valid in the least bit.

Agreed. Likewise Ive learned that it's true both ways.

[ledwix]

I think Guido believes in God. Just because he exposes some of Lucky's flawed reasoning doesn't mean he rejects God in general. I don't think CT is about getting mad at each other, either.

[purebloodtexan]

I bet a good handful of FFR members believe in God, but have the logic to know the difference between unlikely divine powers and proven science.

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by Lucky11

What amuses me is that while we can't positively prove their is a God, "science" can't prove their isn't.

I'm assuming that because science can't prove God doesn't exist, you believe God exists? That's what it sounds like to me. If that's the case, please look at this:

Originally Posted by devonin in Logical Fallacy and You!

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam or Appeal to ignorance - The argument that a statement is true simply because it has never been proven false, or that it is false simply because it has never been proven true. NOTE: This does not mean that any time someone points out the lack of proof for something, that they are commiting this fallacy. It is only fallacious to point to lack of evidence if you use that to -CONCLUDE- that the argument is false/true. Pointing out a lack of evidence in general is just good debate.

You believe that because science cannot disprove God, that God exists, which is wrong. At least, that's the impression I got from the part of your post I quoted above. If that wasn't the impression you wanted to give, please feel free to clarify.

Originally Posted by Lucky11

One thing science can't and won't explain is the supernatural. Science has always been to observe, test , theorize, and then hopefully prove. I say hopefully because in the end a theory is just an educated guess based on what we believe will happen.

Do you even know the definition of a scientific theory? There's a difference between a "hypothesis" and a "theory." A "hypothesis" isn't so much an "educated guess" but more of a "tentative explanation." It's an explanation or a prediction based on current knowledge, which can be tested.

If a hypothesis is tested and supported by several, and I mean -several-, experiments, it becomes a theory. A "theory" is a hypothesis supported by large amounts of evidence. A "law" goes even further, to the point where any other explanation is all but impossible (such as gravity). While new information may lead to the law being disproven, it is extremely unlikely that will be the case.

So no, a theory is not an educated guess. A hypothesis is more than an educated guess, even.

Originally Posted by Lucky11

Now for those who say their isn't any such thing as a God i would have to say prove it and good luck cause you will need it. But to those who believe there is a God it is not up to you to prove there is or really its not necessary for you to prove it that s the freedom of faith.

So let's take these examples:

Person A: There is no supernatural or divine being.
Person B: Prove it.
Person A: Uhh...

and...

Person A: There is a supernatural being.
Person B: Prove it.
Person A: I don't have to, because I have freedom of faith!

See the problem? While the burden of proof does lie with the person who brings up an argument, you aren't exempt from providing evidence to support your side simply because you have freedom of faith. You can believe whatever you want, but you can't avoid presenting evidence and expect people to believe you, or take you seriously.

Originally Posted by Lucky11

Now before I go I will say that, while not necessarily having a place in this thread, evolution is as much a system of faith as any religion. Evolution is just a theory, IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN.

No, but by the definition of a theory, it has mountains of evidence that support it. Proof is difficult in most scientific situations, but evidence which makes any other system highly unlikely is quite common. Of course, anything divine is inherently impossible to disprove, simply because it cannot be observed and therefore cannot be proven to exist or not to exist.

Originally Posted by Lucky11

Yet because scientist refuse to except a God, they have to constantly change their hypothesis to fit new evidence.

Welcome to Scientific Method 101. Today we'll learn the point of science: to explain phenomena and relationships using data currently available as best as possible. Science is -supposed- to change with new evidence. Of course it would be a heck of a lot easier to say "God did it," but then that isn't observable and therefore not scientifically feasible.

Originally Posted by Lucky11

Most amazingly the same evidence most scientist use to further their theory's of evolution, even scientist can't agree with each other on how it was accomplished, is used by those who believe in a creation existence.

...Umm, what?

Originally Posted by Lucky11

I use the word scientist loosely because it is misleading anyone who uses science is a scientist and both sides use science but everyone will get the picture.

"Science" is a process by which people use a logical process to observe an event and determine characteristics or values associated with the event. In other words, the scientific method. You're only a scientist if you use the scientific method. For your reference, here's the general outline of the scientific method. It can get more complex, but this is the general idea:

1) State a problem or question
2) Hypothesize a possible solution to the problem or answer to the question
3) Design an experiment to test the hypothesis in relation to the problem or question
4) Observe and record the results of the experiment.
5) If the data supports the hypothesis, publish in a scientific journal. If not, revise the hypothesis and experiment again.

Originally Posted by Lucky11

If someone would like to really discuss this issue I think a new thread should be opened an if so i would be pleased to respond.

This thread is titled "God" I think it fits just fine in here.

[GuidoHunter]

/me does his practicing Catholic wave to MixMasterLar.

I'm actually glad to see he got that impression, though, because that means I'm doing something right by leaving my faith at the door when discussing matters of scientific proof.

Fact is, Lar, that God (as defined by the popular concept of the invisible, omnipotent ruler) cannot be disproven; therefore, people who are trying to prove his existence scientifically are just spinning their wheels.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[MixMasterLar]

Fact is, Lar, that God (as defined by the popular concept of the invisible, omnipotent ruler) cannot be disproven; therefore, people who are trying to prove his existence scientifically are just spinning their wheels.

--Guido

And I think that's the first statment that we both compleatly agree with.

Truth is, you cant prove either compleatly. If there is one thing that CT has thought us is that no one will win in a "God vs Evolution" thread.

That does it for me. Good Night gentlemen

[Rhapsodic Truth]

Everyone interested in this topic should read: Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

It discusses clearly how both the thoughts of God and Science are flawed, so inevitably, no one is right. Science is thought, just as much as God is. We cannot see the laws of Science, we cannot see the law of gravity. That is the same as not being able to see a divine being, but who is to say it does not exist? Gravity will be there whether we believe it is or not. As God may be too.

This is a short response. Sorry for any errors.

[Lucky11]

Brilliant, really I must applaud every who commented on my post. Yes, what I said was very allusive and to me at least open ended. The trouble I have found is that in the end it all comes to a matter of faith. Those who place their faith in a system of belief do so in the hopes of explaining that which can't be readily explained. The best part of this is that science is as much to do with beliefs as anything else. If I believe there is no God and I see some evidence I will make the assumption that God had nothing to do with it, however the inverse is true as well. I am well aware of the scientific method, I had a Great teacher who summarized it into I think 13 points I will try to find it I seem to have lost my copy, but the point I was going to make is this the first an foremost item is the observation the actual seeing done by the scientist. This is possibly the best tool to use and the can also be of great contention, if you read any science book it will state that the earth formed approximately 4.6 billion years ago, but who saw it, its a guess an educated one without doubt but still a guess. Now notice I said that it will state it, the text will not leave room for any major doubt but present it as fact, which everyone here should at least agree no one saw it happen. Don't get me wrong I know that what we do is observe how things occur then calculate back the necessary time for say a riverbed to achieve a certain depth. This works really well however because we haven't been able to watch the entire process from start to finish we can't be sure of something out of the ordinary didn't occur, like say a decade of unusually high precipitation. Instead we would take the flow of water as is, the field of debris that are currently being moved, and make the calculation. But what if during that decade, twice the amount of water flowed, this would throw off any dating we could do. The problem lies in the fact that the more time between when something is formed to present the more chances we have to make unforeseeable mistakes. Take carbon-14 dating, I know its been proven unreliable but it emphasizes my point, we take a rock see how much carbon-14 it has then use the half life of the element to determine age. But what if a piece broke off sometime in its history using this method we would say its younger than it is, or what if for some reason it was move into an area with more carbon-14 we would age it greater. Without being able to observe from start to finish we are bound to make mistakes.

Now heres my real pet peeve. I don't have a problem with saying that the earth is 4.6 billion years old, but stating it as fact with no supporting evidence is not very scientific. Instead it should maybe read that according to the theory of evolution, or the Big Bang, or relative Doppler Shift, the earth is yada yada yada. Instead we teach the theory of Evolution as fact from primary to high school with the use of wording whether deliberate or accidental. Now when you ask a child how old is the earth they will say 4.6 billion years old and they believe it is fact because they have been told it over and over and over without out refute. Whats the phrase " if you say a lie long enough you'll begin to believe it."

I best heard it explained that everyone goes through life with a pair of glasses on. The glasses represent our basic assumptions about life in which we then judge everything else upon. A evolution believer will look on a fossil and say, "aha, here it is, the proof of evolution, this is the transition stage we need to prove it." But a creation believer will look at the same fossil and say, "ha here it is, this shows that there is a creator, no accidental mutation could randomly cause such a specific change to occur."

Now I will end with two examples I find fascinating. First, if you've ever watch the discovery channel when they do an expo on sharks they occasionally show the shark cleaning caves. This is were sharks go and allow the fish that live there to clean there scales and teeth, its really quite neat. But what kind of evolution would have had to occur at precisely the same time to allow a predator to not eat a fish that decides to enter its mouth. What kind of change would convince a species of fish to just decide hey lets eat off of that great big eating machines teeth, after all what could happen. This type of behavior can't be explained either a random physical or behavioral evolution, and the two just don't occur over night. It certainly isn't a just a one sided evolution, otherwise those poor fish just turned into a race of suicidal maniacs, definitely not healthy.

The other example I like has to do with how DNA works. DNA is the building blocks for all cell of living creatures. Thats the possibility of millions of combinations to achieve say a human instead of a bee. Lets say we dismantle a 747 we take it apart, everything down to the insulation on the wires. We take all those pieces stuff them into a bag and give it a good shake. Just how long and how many shakes would it take to get a flight ready 747 out of that bag. It won't happen, the fact is it takes a being separate from the plane to make it work. I believe the same thing is necessary for life, a bunch of goo didn't just randomly piece itself together and suddenly form life, just doesn't happen. So whats left? Well, it only leaves us with one option, something did it for us my answer is that it was God.

[devonin]

If it weren't 4:40am, I'd point out all of the fallacious logic and poor examples in that post. If nobody else has done it by the time I get up, I'll take a stab, but anyone else can feel free.

[Grulps]

Originally Posted by Lucky11

Evolution is just a theory, IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN.

Evolution is a simple conclusion based on simple facts. If you deny evolution, you deny one or more of these facts.

And by the way, your posts are too long for me to see what you are really getting at. The length makes it look more like extreme bull**** instead of critical thinking.

[kommisar[os]]

many questions to be asked about god. If he created man to his image, that would mean he'd have a belly button. That means he came from somewhere =o

[MixMasterLar]

Evolution is a simple conclusion based on simple facts. If you deny evolution, you deny one or more of these facts.

One can argue how "simple" Evolution is.

However, it's not all based on facts that have been proven, as both Guido and I pointed out. I havent denied any facts believing in a God.

many questions to be asked about god. If he created man to his image, that would mean he'd have a belly button. That means he came from somewhere =o

Ah, the post that made me post

I could go on and on about little things like this, but to put it short: Adam and Eve probably didnt even have "belly buttons". That feature of humans is there just to help out with reproduction.

Oh and that post really makes no sense.

[Dragula219]

Originally Posted by Lucky11

This thread is most amusing. I personally believe there is a God, do not believe in evolution, but in creation. What amuses me is that while we can't positively prove their is a God, "science" can't prove their isn't. One thing science can't and won't explain is the supernatural. Science has always been to observe, test , theorize, and then hopefully prove. I say hopefully because in the end a theory is just an educated guess based on what we believe will happen. Yes, their are proved laws of nature that science has found, but their are also many unexplainable things which science is still guessing. Now for those who say their isn't any such thing as a God i would have to say prove it and good luck cause you will need it. But to those who believe there is a God it is not up to you to prove there is or really its not necessary for you to prove it that s the freedom of faith.

Hey, what if I said I believe in a invisible flying spaghetti monster and it is my god. Sure you can't prove it wrong, but that in no way means it exists. The problem with your argument is that science follows logic, and if there is no evidence that something exists the most logical explanation is that it doesn't exist. Of course the method doesn't say not being able to prove something is infallible proof that it doesn't exist, but that it is it is much more logical until some form of proof is found that it does.

Originally Posted by Lucky11

Now before I go I will say that, while not necessarily having a place in this thread, evolution is as much a system of faith as any religion. Evolution is just a theory, IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN. Yet because scientist refuse to except a God, they have to constantly change their hypothesis to fit new evidence. Most amazingly the same evidence most scientist use to further their theory's of evolution, even scientist can't agree with each other on how it was accomplished, is used by those who believe in a creation existence. I use the word scientist loosely because it is misleading anyone who uses science is a scientist and both sides use science but everyone will get the picture. If someone would like to really discuss this issue I think a new thread should be opened an if so i would be pleased to respond.

NOTHING is infallibly proven! The point is there is MUCH more evidence saying that evolution happened than creationism. (Carbon dating, Obvious similarities is bone structure, ect.) Evlutionism isn't a system of faith at all, it follows logic. And the argument about scientists changing hypothesis is utterly ridiculous. We obviously do not know everything about the universe and new things are discovered, of course new information could change hypothesis. That is the way science works.

[Reach]

I am well aware of the scientific method

Apparently not, since;

The best part of this is that science is as much to do with beliefs as anything else

Belief and science (in practice) are seperate. You must leave your beliefs at the door when participating in scientific method or you will practice bad science.

If I believe there is no God and I see some evidence I will make the assumption that God had nothing to do with it, however the inverse is true as well

The problem here is there cannot be any evidence to support or not a supernatural God. Guido already mentioned this. Quite frankly any scientist that thinks they've found physical 'evidence' against or for a God is a bad scientist and is making biased assumptions.

Take carbon-14 dating, I know its been proven unreliable

I'd like to see some of this 'proof', since this isn't true.

we take a rock see how much carbon-14 it has then use the half life of the element to determine age. But what if a piece broke off sometime in its history using this method we would say its younger than it is, or what if for some reason it was move into an area with more carbon-14 we would age it greater. Without being able to observe from start to finish we are bound to make mistakes.

No offense to you personally, but I find it interesting that creationists *always* fail to understand the very things they're arguing against. -.-

1. Carbon 14 isn't used to date rocks. It is used to date things like bones, cloth, planets, and things that are not very old.
2. When an organism dies it stops intaking carbon. The carbon 12 in an organism does not decay and carbon 14 does. Carbon 12 and 14 are always present in the same amount in an organism at the time of death. Therefore...
3. It does not matter if the organism loses a piece of itself. We look at the ratio of carbon 12 to carbon 14.
4. Carbon 14 has a decay constant...meaning it does not change. There is no inherent error in this whatsoever. The only possible error is human error, and we have methods in place for avoiding these (there are a few other types of errors but we know about them and can then check and correct for them).

Now heres my real pet peeve. I don't have a problem with saying that the earth is 4.6 billion years old, but stating it as fact with no supporting evidence is not very scientific

Uh...the age of the earth is rounded because it's an approximate calculation...but:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html



I'll edit this with more later XD

Instead we teach the theory of Evolution as fact from primary to high school with the use of wording whether deliberate or accidental. Now when you ask a child how old is the earth they will say 4.6 billion years old and they believe it is fact because they have been told it over and over and over without out refute. Whats the phrase " if you say a lie long enough you'll begin to believe it."

A theory is a scientific model filled with facts. We use the facts to construct a model that describes everything, and therefore a theory is the pinnacle of scientific achievement. Evolution only changes in the way it describes things. The very foundations of evolution are written in stone as pure facts. Suggesting to children that the age of the earth *might not* be 4.5 billion years old, or that organisms *might not* evolve is more of a lie than telling them these things are facts.

The other example I like has to do with how DNA works. DNA is the building blocks for all cell of living creatures. Thats the possibility of millions of combinations to achieve say a human instead of a bee. Lets say we dismantle a 747 we take it apart, everything down to the insulation on the wires. We take all those pieces stuff them into a bag and give it a good shake. Just how long and how many shakes would it take to get a flight ready 747 out of that bag. It won't happen, the fact is it takes a being separate from the plane to make it work.

A classic (and very ignorant) creationist argument.

A 747 jet is built, and observed as being built by human beings. It is made of out man made compounds that are nonliving, and then pieced together by humans.

DNA is a nucleic acid...a living, organic substance that mutates and changes without any divine intervention. For example, when you reproduce and have a child, the DNA is copied but DNA is not a perfect copier...and therefore there are changes and mutations in the DNA with only natural interactions between organic molecules.

And what on earth does SHAKING A BAG have to do with evolution? Good lord that made me laugh out loud. If you have any similar, amazingly asinine and erroneous analogies to make, PM them to me (though don't post them, please).


oh, and back to kilga

Except the religious don't inherently denounce evolution.

If you're going to try to counter his statement, you should pick something the religious don't agree with.

I was specifically talking about creationists. 'religious people' don't inherently fit what devonian was talking about, but to classify as a creationist you have to not believe in evolution. The whole intelligent design movement was religion in disguise. It was created by creationists to try and get creation into the school system by making it sound like science. It has nothing to do with moderately religious individuals such as yourself.