Mitt Romney's halo

[Chairman Bill]

You're so right. They belong to the Establishment religion of 'Scientism', which has perverted Science into a series of pc dogmata to which one must do obeisance for preferment. Christians, Buddhists, Hindus on the other hand have never pressured me.

Evidence?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Evidence?

No, no, Bill, you got to believe!

[Ray]

No offense taken.  One of the things that science can not explain is how something can be created without a creator.  I think that it takes a whole lot more faith to believe that everything (Humans, plants, animals etc) just "happened".  This way of thinking would lead one to believe that you could take a watch, disassemble it, put it in your pocket, and at some point (maybe in a million years) the watch would just happen to not only be reassembled, but be running and have the exact time.  That takes an awful lot of faith.

C'mon now Bryan. That's an argument that leads nowhere. If there's a creator, then who or what created the creator?

Another issue which boggles my mind, is how anyone could believe that he has a direct insight into the mind of an imagined creator of this vast universe, the extent of which was not even remotely envisaged by the originators of our main current religions.

Belief, in anything, is a force in itself, whether in reality it is true or not. It's known as the placebo effect.

[Bryan Conner]

Neither could religion. Otherwise, who created the "creator"?

Chuck Norris?  

Why does religion have to prove that it's Creator is real?  The burden of proof always lies on the accuser.

[Chairman Bill]

No offense taken.  One of the things that science can not explain is how something can be created without a creator.  I think that it takes a whole lot more faith to believe that everything (Humans, plants, animals etc) just "happened".  This way of thinking would lead one to believe that you could take a watch, disassemble it, put it in your pocket, and at some point (maybe in a million years) the watch would just happen to not only be reassembled, but be running and have the exact time.  That takes an awful lot of faith.

A number of things follow from this though - who created this 'Creator', being one of them. And the 'just happened' bit is a straw man. Compare the scientific explanation for humans (all that complicated evolution stuff) with the simple-minded 'goddidit' of religious explanations. Which is closer to a 'just happened' explanation?

[Chairman Bill]

Chuck Norris?  

Why does religion have to prove that it's Creator is real?  The burden of proof always lies on the accuser.

The burden of proof lies on the one making the positive assertion. You claim there's a god, you provide the unambiguous, incontrovertible evidence to support the claim. In the complete absence of such evidence, I'm perfectly justified in not accepting your claim.

[Bryan Conner]

C'mon now Bryan. That's an argument that leads nowhere. If there's a creator, then who or what created the creator?

Another issue which boggles my mind, is how anyone could believe that he has a direct insight into the mind of an imagined creator of this vast universe, the extent of which was not even remotely envisaged by the originators of our main current religions.

Belief, in anything, is a force in itself, whether in reality it is true or not. It's known as the placebo effect.

The argument that there is no creator also leads nowhere.  You are back to believing that everything just happened at random.  And, like you said, belief in anything is a force in itself, whether it is true in reality or not.  I firmly believe (LOL) that this debate will never end.  I do not think that either side will ever be able to prove the other side wrong.  The debate will always exist as long as Humans exist.  

[Bryan Conner]

The burden of proof lies on the one making the positive assertion. You claim there's a god, you provide the unambiguous, incontrovertible evidence to support the claim. In the complete absence of such evidence, I'm perfectly justified in not accepting your claim.

We can play word games all day.  You seem to be of the belief that people that believe in God are wrong....that there is no God.  Correct?

[Bryan Conner]

A number of things follow from this though - who created this 'Creator', being one of them. And the 'just happened' bit is a straw man. Compare the scientific explanation for humans (all that complicated evolution stuff) with the simple-minded 'goddidit' of religious explanations. Which is closer to a 'just happened' explanation?

Evolution had to have a beginning.  I accept that you believe that God is not real.  I have no problem with that.  I can not explain either side of this argument beyond a doubt, no one can.  So, we will just have to wait until the end to find out...like everyone else since the beginning of time.....oooops.....who created time...

[markadams99]

A number of things follow from this though - who created this 'Creator', being one of them. And the 'just happened' bit is a straw man. Compare the scientific explanation for humans (all that complicated evolution stuff) with the simple-minded 'goddidit' of religious explanations. Which is closer to a 'just happened' explanation?

Evolution (to which I subscribe) is not a 'scientific explanation for humans', it's a scientific explanation for speciation from earlier species or a common universal ancestor of which 'the ascent of man' is one example. The origin of Life isn't explained. There simply isn't a scientific explanation for Life, Matter, Time etc. The Big Bang may be a singularity that stops further enquiry. The only scientifically accurate position is that of Hamlet (a Christian as it happens):

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

[Bryan Conner]

Evolution (to which I subscribe) is not a 'scientific explanation for humans', it's a scientific explanation for speciation from earlier species or a common universal ancestor of which 'the ascent of man' is one example. The origin of Life isn't explained. There simply isn't a scientific explanation for Life, Matter, Time etc. The Big Bang may be a singularity that stops further enquiry. The only scientifically accurate position is that of Hamlet (a Christian as it happens):

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

I believe in evolution too.  But, I know that there had to be a cause of evolution.  Everything in our existence (as we know it) is cause and effect.  Action and reaction.  I can not find (in my way of thinking) any logic in the thought that a creator (the cause) is not necessary.  If I meet the creator, I will ask him who was his creator.  If I do not meet him, I will probably not have a question to ask...or exist in order to ask.

[Ray]

 You are back to believing that everything just happened at random.

You've reminded me of another Einstein quote in response to the Heidelberg Quantum Mechanics principle of uncertanty; "God does not play dice".

That everything may happen at random is not necessarily a belief, but may be the truth according to best observation and thought. Photonic shot noise is an example of this. Wow! I've just made the thread relevant to Photography again.  

[stamper]

The best description of religion that I have read is that it is a psychological crutch. When life throws up problems then some people turn to faith and pray for an answer. They believe that when an answer is provided then it comes from above. Like most I was taught to be a Christian and for the first few years of my life I believed what I was taught. I then, like most, looked for evidence of a God and when I found that there wasn't any I stopped believing and relied on rational thought to get through life. Religion unfortunately is the source of most of the problems in the world. Many wars have been started because the practitioners of faith can't agree on who has the best faith. A good life without religion is certainly possible and in the long run there would be less problems in the world?

[stamper]

Quote Ray

Wow! I've just made the thread relevant to Photography again.

Unquote.

Ray this is the coffee corner. For all things unrelated to photography. You are trying to take the thread off topic. Please desist or a bolt from above will render you to six feet under.

[Ray]

I can not find (in my way of thinking) any logic in the thought that a creator (the cause) is not necessary.  If I meet the creator, I will ask him who was his creator. 

And who was the creator of his creator, and so on. I know I have a grandfather, and great grandfather, and great, great, great grandfather. So does God have grandfathers?

Let's be sensible for Christ's sake.  

[Chairman Bill]

We can play word games all day.  You seem to be of the belief that people that believe in God are wrong....that there is no God.  Correct?

No, I just see absolutely no evidence that they're right. I see as much evidence for God as for any other deity, including Quetzalcoatl, Zeus, Odin, Ra, the Invisible Pink Unicorn (bbhhh), and so on. Hell, even the Tooth Fairy has as much going for her/him as any god. The lack of evidence leads me to have no belief. That's not the same as having a belief in the absence of something, just an absence of belief.

If you make a claim about reality (that there are gods), that impacts my reality. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of facts. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. Claims about reality require evidential support, or they are blind assertions, and that which can be asserted without evidcence can be dismissed without evidence.

Some 'god claims' can be dismissed because they are lacking in internal consistency. For example, a claim of an omnipotent god falls because omnipotence is a nonsense concept. Can this god create a rock too big for him/her to lift? Either way, something is then beyond its ability, and so omnipotence can't be supported. Other god claims can be dismissed because there is no evidence and they are unfalsifiable - see Russell's Teapot. But the latter are dismissed only because the same argument can be extended to anything. It's not a killer argument against all possibilities. So in the final analysis, unless a concept can be falsified, it can't be falsified, and if it can't be falsified, we can't 100% dismiss the possibility, however slight.

So there might be a god, or gods. I don't know. But equally I can't 100% dismiss the invisible dragon in Carl Sagan's garage, or the pixies at the end of my garden. Do you believe in pixies?

[Chairman Bill]

Evolution had to have a beginning.

Of course. It requires life to have come into existence before that life could evolve. That's a question of abiogenesis, and science has revealed some tantilising things regarding that.

... I accept that you believe that God is not real.

I have no beliefs about gods generally. Do you believe in Quetzalcoatl? What about Hera, or Lugh?

... I can not explain either side of this argument beyond a doubt, no one can.

There's always room for doubt in science. Unless you're claiming that all swans are white for instance.

So, we will just have to wait until the end to find out...like everyone else since the beginning of time.....oooops.....who created time...

Ah, the ultimate get out - we'll have to wait 'til we're dead to find out. Except that we'll be dead.

[Chairman Bill]

Evolution (to which I subscribe) is not a 'scientific explanation for humans', it's a scientific explanation for speciation from earlier species or a common universal ancestor of which 'the ascent of man' is one example.

And as humankind is a primate species, with clear DNA ancestry indicating a commonality with earlier hominids, and going back, with other apes, other mammals, and so on, evolution does seem to explain us quite well.

The origin of Life isn't explained.

That's because that's abiogenesis, not evolution.

There simply isn't a scientific explanation for Life, Matter, Time etc. The Big Bang may be a singularity that stops further enquiry. The only scientifically accurate position is that of Hamlet (a Christian as it happens):

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Well, science is increasingly casting a light on all these things, and there are indeed scientific explanations for many of them. And those many things in heaven & earth - most of what we know about them derives from science, and precious few (if any) from religion.

[32BT]

Enough already…

Read your classics...

[Bryan Conner]

And who was the creator of his creator, and so on. I know I have a grandfather, and great grandfather, and great, great, great grandfather. So does God have grandfathers?

Let's be sensible for Christ's sake.  

So you agree that you have a creator?     

 Does God have grandfathers?  I can not answer that one, but if I get to meet Him, I will be sure to ask for you if you have not already gotten the chance!