It is of course fine to have an opinion about a god existing. Postive or negative. However, if you think there is a god and then use misunderstandings and simplistic over generalizations about science to back up your opinion, you end up sounding kind of silly.
Says you. I never said that I was here to prove anything. Ever.
I didn't use the word "prove" in my comment. I was talking about some of the things you have said that are so far off base its ridiculous. Such as:
As far as "Nessy" goes, who is to say that we have discovered all of the lifeforms on earth. The same could be said about Bigfoot, although I don't know how we could miss something so large, considering the technology of today. But... new species are being discovered quite often. And since life begets life... it is logical to assume that all life spawned from the original source of life.
What's wrong with that, you ask? The problem is that it shows that you are not even casually acquainted with current biology. When you asked "who is to say that we have discovered all the lifeforms on earth", you don't seem to be aware of the fact that we discover around 20,000 new species every year. You are clearly aware that new species are possible, but your argument is not based on reality, but just something you made up in your head. Yes, you do add that "new species are being discovered quite often". But since you asked the "who is to say" question", you asked it like new species were not really all that common, so your addendum seems to indicate that you think that just a few new ones might be discovered occasionally.
Am I being nitpicky? Yep. But I have to be when people are making blanket statements based on opinion, rather than reality.
It is bad enough when people fill the gaps in human knowledge with their god and say that his existence is the only explanation. But when people fill their ignorance with their god, it gets embarrassing.
Funny. I don't feel embarrassed at all. And what ignorance are you referring to? I honestly don't care if you feel I disgraced myself or not. That would be your opinion.
If you are not inspired to learn enough about science to argue against it cogently, you might try sticking to moral issues and and leave the physical world alone. You are not helping your cause otherwise.
When did I argue against science? Strawman much?
Well, perhaps "against" was the wrong word. I probably should have worked "distain" in there instead. I was commenting on this particular post:
Because is appears that everything that has a beginning in this universe has an end. Therefore whatever/whoever created the universe would have to be infinite. If the universe had a beginning, which most scientists say it did, something had to be the catalyst to cause it to exist. Something just cannot start on it's own unless something else forces it to do so.
Your statement "Therefore whatever/whoever created the universe would have to be infinite" is an assumption that you are wording as if it is a fact. It may be, but we don't know that. That "we" includes you. You appear to be going through the standard believer routine of being incredulous that something could appear out of nothing. Complete nothing. Yet that is one of the possible scenarios. In other words, you know nothing about nothing, and that is a shortcoming.
Again, you are allowed to believe that god did all this stuff, but you shouldn't be tossing in science that you don't understand very well as proof of said god. Your blanket statement in this case did not impress.
It is the job of science to explore, discover, invent and theorize, among other things. It is an ongoing process that will never be able to discover everything. Religion takes it upon itself to tell us it has all the important answers already. Which would be less of a problem if any of the religious explanations matched reality in useful quantities. They don't. I tend to assume that Christians and muslims in particular are very interested in there being an afterlife, and they seem forced by their hopes to mold this life in such a way that it end up looking consistent with said afterlife. Dissing science is one tactic of believers. And most practice what they preach by not knowing diddley about it.
I never "dissed" science at all. Why are you bringing this up to me? Please don't use your prejudice to assume that I am like all the rest.
I haven't seen any sign that you respect science, so I used "diss" to describe your attitude. If I am wrong, you need merely make sure your statements about science reflect a basic knowledge of the subject at hand. Right now you sound like someone who may, and I stress the word may, have rushed through a wikipedia article or two before posting.
I would love there to be some sort of afterlife that I could enjoy. The ill-defined christian heaven holds no appeal, but if after death I could continue on in some other form and enjoy the universe a bit more, I'd love it. However, my hopes for such things, my opinion that there should be an afterlife, are completely irrelevant because they do not match anything we know about death. Hence I ignore my hopes because I know there is nothing to base them on.
The ill defined definition of Christian heaven is one of the reasons I have a tendency to lean towards Christianity in my theism. How can something unearthly be described in a way in which we could comprehend when we have no reference to base it on? Christ described it as paradise to one of the poor buggers hanging next to Him during the crucifixion. Whatever it is, it must be pretty good, that is if it exists at all.
See, that didn't hurt, did it. You said something about your beliefs without tossing in misunderstood science to back yourself up. That's what I have been hoping for.
As Azdgari said a few posts back, the universe is not subject to your opinion. Nor is it subject to mine or anyone else's. Through science, we humans do our best to take biases out of the picture as we search for truth. (I don't for a second claim that science is without any bias. Scientists exist within cultures, and said cultures have remarkable power over individuals and institutions. But science does what it can to minimize such influences. ) Religions must, by their very nature, keep their own biases on the front line of the debate and spend most of their time insisting they are truths. They even go so far as to claim that the lack of proof is in and of itself proof that something powerful and intelligent is responsible for the universe.
Lack of proof is not proof. The universe either had a sentient creator or it did not. I don't dismiss science and I hope it does indeed one day discover how the universe was formed. Eventually it may. The problem with science however is that it can only go back to the starting point of the universe. Anything before that would be impossible to prove. Science can hypothesize, but that is all it can really accomplish regarding this.
Not necessarily true. Physicists are looking at the possibility that some of the movement in our universe is caused by other universes tugging on it. And they feel confident that if that is the case, they can show evidence for it. They are also exploring the possibility that black holes form new universes, and are looking into that. If they can convincingly demonstrate that to be the case, then they don't have to look back in our universe to see how it was formed. They would only need to look at black holes in our universe to see how they formed other ones. This is of course currently conjecture (though strongly backed by mathematics), but your use of the blanket statement "impossible to prove" was out of place.
I personally prefer to go where the evidence takes us, even if it means that I don't get to comfort myself in my old age about a pending "streets of gold" experience. The pursuit of truth is far more important to me than is fooling myself for my own convenience.
That's great. You go ahead and do that. I do not dismiss scientific truth either. Peace.
And so right after you replied to me, you said in your next post:
We don't have all the facts. A person is allowed to have ideas and attempt to fill in the gaps. Are you saying that what we don't know about the universe doesn't exist? I can have the opinion that the universe was created and that is an honest opinion. I don't care if you agree or not about this issue, and I am not going to discuss it with you any further. Intelligent design is a possibility and that's that.
Yep, people are allowed to have ideas and fill in the gaps, but it becomes harmful if they start believing what they have made up. And the way you word your posts, it often sounds like that is the case with you. I too have opinions and ideas about the universe, but I don't for a second think that any of them are accurate, because, if for no other reason, I don't think I my brain is capable of coming up with anything fantastic enough to be right. I do it for fun, not for philosophical justification.
The effect of making up your own science is the same as dismissing the real thing. That you politely mix real science with your own opinions does not make the outcome much better.
I was suggesting that you be careful with your statements about science, because you are not demonstrating a high level of proficiency, yet you are basing some of your philosophical stances on your assumptions. That is a bad idea.
For you, for me, for anyone, being wrong is problem enough. Being wrong for bad reasons is worse.