Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Science isn't a worldview. It's simply the procedure for determining facts by use of the empiracal method.
And just because science hasn't garnered all the answers yet, does not mean that it is necessary to believe in a groundless, supersticious Entity, like God.
To do so is to succumb to the mindset which some call "The God of the Gaps."
If it weren't for science, we would not be having this discussion.
If it were not for religion, we would not be having this discussion.
As the "gaps" become smaller and less numerous, the holdouts, realizing the weakness of their positions, become more and more desperate to find something to keep from drowning in a sea of facts.
If it were not for religion, we would not be having this discussion.
As the "gaps" become smaller and less numerous, the holdouts, realizing the weakness of their positions, become more and more desperate to find something to keep from drowning in a sea of facts.
The sea of facts apply EQUALLY to God . . . until we have eliminated the non-explanations and euphemisms about WHAT our reality IS and WHY it is the way it is and not chaotic. IOW . . . as long as we must proclaim "It just is" . . . we are making God claims and acknowledging that an inscrutable God exists . . . no matter what name we assign. We only differ on the attributes and characteristics.
The sea of facts apply EQUALLY to God . . . until we have eliminated the non-explanations and euphemisms about WHAT our reality IS and WHY it is the way it is and not chaotic. IOW . . . as long as we must proclaim "It just is" . . . we are making God claims and acknowledging that an inscrutable God exists . . . no matter what name we assign. We only differ on the attributes and characteristics.
Back to that old crap?
Nature doesn't need to be renamed god since to be god includes adding attributes and characteristics YOU give it.
I know you don't like to believe that some of us can contemplate a god that doesn't includes those 'doctrines and precepts of religion'....but you have indeed, made a little religion of your own that adds things to your god that nature does not have.
You say to ignore that part of your belief but it is because of it that we won't call nature god.
Back to that old crap?
Nature doesn't need to be renamed god since to be god includes adding attributes and characteristics YOU give it.
Bull****!There is no need to add any attributes beyond what science has already discovered (including those we can't account for). They are sufficiently Godly to not require ANY others to qualify as God. ALL others that cannot be scientifically verified but are just PREFERRED (including YOURS) are BELIEFS ABOUT God . . . not necessary attributes.
Quote:
I know you don't like to believe that some of us can contemplate a god that doesn't includes those 'doctrines and precepts of religion'....but you have indeed, made a little religion of your own that adds things to your god that nature does not have.
You say to ignore that part of your belief but it is because of it that we won't call nature god.
And THAT is what makes your position non-scientific! Beliefs held ABOUT phenomena do NOT affect the scientific reality of the phenomena themselves. That is NOT science . . . that is opinion. The ignorance and intransigence over this distinction is unbelievably frustrating. You have a different set of beliefs about the phenomenon of God that you add but they have no more scientific validity than the ones I add that trouble you. You cannot scientifically establish lack of consciousness because you cannot even establish what consciousness is (the hard problem). You cannot scientifically establish no purpose, plan or design because any indices can equally be attributed to our ignorance and inability to discern (randomness, etc.). So get off your high horse and get real. Your position is as untenable as any other when it comes to the attributes you have so much trouble accepting.
He struggles because he isn't used to dealing with quick fire theist apologetics. Mind, O Reilly picks his points carefully:
(1) don't know for sure how the universe started. It's hard to get people raised on religion to sideline goddunnit and suspend belief.
(2) conditions for the existence of us required some luck. It also needed evolution to meet it half - way. Different conditions, different us
Leap to Biblegod and sideline all the others. Dawkins is on a loser quoting Apollo and Zeus as no -one believes in them now and Jews and Muslims believe in the same god - heck, they all do but Mr. O 'Reilly would say 'I'll stick with Jesus'.
Dawkins was fired some hot ones and then shut down with a hint that he was only in it for the dough. He must have wondered: 'what just happened?'
You cannot scientifically establish lack of consciousness because you cannot even establish what consciousness is (the hard problem). You cannot scientifically establish no purpose, plan or design because any indices can equally be attributed to our ignorance and inability to discern (randomness, etc.). So get off your high horse and get real. Your position is as untenable as any other when it comes to the attributes you have so much trouble accepting.
Unlike you, when it does come to that which cannot be scientifically established......I humbly say "we do not yet know"
My horse is quite low to the ground.
(Oh,BTW, the bolded you are saying science is not able to establish are negatives.....you know how that one goes, don't you?)
Unlike you, when it does come to that which cannot be scientifically established......I humbly say "we do not yet know"
My horse is quite low to the ground.
(Oh,BTW, the bolded you are saying science is not able to establish are negatives.....you know how that one goes, don't you?)
That IS the point . . . though it seems to be given a pass when accepting the description of your God "Nature" and anything attributed to Him as "natural" . . . since "Nature" is imbued with those very attributes that cannot be scientifically established. Odd . . . don't you think . . . especially since the assertions are so adamant. They are masked in assertions like your "we don't know" . . . but they are accepted as default by using them euphemistically as "explanations." The hypocrisy and deceit is palpable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
