If Science Revealed God

[Purple Knight]

Question for Debate: If science actually proved God, would you change the way you lived your life?

And if so, why? Also, what would it be based upon? If it just so happens that the person in front of the computer posting as Purple Knight created the universe, do I gain any special moral credibility from that action? The way I see it, no, I don't. If I created the universe, so what? Your parents created you, and if they're bad people who want you to do bad things, you can still (and should, to my mind) say no.

[Tcg]

It's worth just pondering anyway, that we all have a "God" for some it is themselves...

Nope. I don't and I'm not alone in that.


Tcg

We're all subject to someone's will even if it's our own.

That brings up a whole other kettle of fish as some don't accept that free will is a reality. In any case, it doesn't change the fact that I have no god/gods and that I am not alone in that.

Yes free will does come up and its far from clear scripturally whether we have it or not (not that scripture is relevant to you of course). Referring to ourselves, our idols as "God" is something found in the Bible, so that's where I get this analogy.

That explains the error.

Oddly, for some theists, worshiping god/gods is so important to them that they can't imagine anyone else not sharing their devotion to a god or gods of some sort.

Yes there are fanatics, much as some atheists like Richard Dawkins regard anyone not sharing his atheistic beliefs as suffering from a delusion (and the guy's not even an MD!).

That's quite a shift. Not sure how it in any way address anything being discussed.

It would be like someone telling me they don't like Brussel sprouts and I responded by telling them that everybody loves Brussel sprouts. Well, guess what? Some people don't.

I used to hate them, but if they're grilled I find they can be OK.

Yep, everyone is different and to suggest otherwise is a mistake.


Tcg

[Sherlock Holmes]

It's worth just pondering anyway, that we all have a "God" for some it is themselves...

Nope. I don't and I'm not alone in that.


Tcg

We're all subject to someone's will even if it's our own.

That brings up a whole other kettle of fish as some don't accept that free will is a reality. In any case, it doesn't change the fact that I have no god/gods and that I am not alone in that.

Yes free will does come up and its far from clear scripturally whether we have it or not (not that scripture is relevant to you of course). Referring to ourselves, our idols as "God" is something found in the Bible, so that's where I get this analogy.

That explains the error.

Oddly, for some theists, worshiping god/gods is so important to them that they can't imagine anyone else not sharing their devotion to a god or gods of some sort.

Yes there are fanatics, much as some atheists like Richard Dawkins regard anyone not sharing his atheistic beliefs as suffering from a delusion (and the guy's not even an MD!).

That's quite a shift. Not sure how it in any way address anything being discussed.

It would be like someone telling me they don't like Brussel sprouts and I responded by telling them that everybody loves Brussel sprouts. Well, guess what? Some people don't.

I used to hate them, but if they're grilled I find they can be OK.

Yep, everyone is different and to suggest otherwise is a mistake.


Tcg

Well I say what I did about Dawkins as he seems to believe science reveals there is no God else he'd have no basis for claiming such a belief was delusional, not that there's anything wrong with being deluded.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Tcg in post #71]

I was in the same boat. For decades I searched for god - and thought I found it. But I realized I could convince myself of anything if I tried hard enough, especially growing up in a small, christian town, unable to learn about other religions and POVs until later in life.
I've found that the claim of 'god reveals himself to those who seek' is nothing but bunk. It's a way for believers to justify their own faith AND the fact that others haven't found what they claim is real and will 'reveal himself to those that look for him'. Nothing more.

Never forget that religion is a love affair. If you do not love God, you will not find Him. If you do, you will.

Best wishes, 2RM,

It's more like one of those romance novels. It's fantasy, but some people enjoy them.


Tcg

It's worth noting, even the bible doesn't omit steamy, lustful romances like those romance novels. It has it all: sex, death, reward, punishment, incest, rape, revenge, justice, plagues, infanticide, virgins, prostitutes, angels, demons, devils, miracles, sci fi...even poetry and songs... no wonder so many love it.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #83]

So guys. I have long since given up on the idea of trying to argue anyone into belief. And all you really need to know is that, should you ever need Him, God will be there for you.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #83]

So guys. I have long since given up on the idea of trying to argue anyone into belief. And all you really need to know is that, should you ever need Him, God will be there for you.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Why one would want to 'argue anyone into their belief' instead of being a witness to god's glory and power says it all right there.

So guys, what 2RM said that's not entirely true!
It's only true for those who have created god in their heads. They can make god say/do anything that fits their needs and chosen lifestyle agenda.

[Sherlock Holmes]

I'd like to ask, what do people think science does reveal if not God?

[Difflugia]

I'd like to ask, what do people think science does reveal if not God?

A subset of the things that exist. As long as it's a proper subset, there's still some room for God in "things that exist." He might instead be in the "things that don't exist" set, though. In itself, that offers no knowledge about which set He might be in and the relative probabilities between them. That's exactly as true, by the way, for leprechauns and for exactly the same reasons.

The question is how much overlap there is between "what science does reveal" and "places that God should be if He's real."

The set of "places that leprechauns should be if they're real" is very heavily weighted toward "at the ends of rainbows, fondling their pots of gold." Science has elminated that space by showing that rainbows don't have ends. Perhaps there's an analogy there that can be applied to God.

[Sherlock Holmes]

I'd like to ask, what do people think science does reveal if not God?

A subset of the things that exist. As long as it's a proper subset, there's still some room for God in "things that exist." He might instead be in the "things that don't exist" set, though. In itself, that offers no knowledge about which set He might be in and the relative probabilities between them. That's exactly as true, by the way, for leprechauns and for exactly the same reasons.

The question is how much overlap there is between "what science does reveal" and "places that God should be if He's real."

The set of "places that leprechauns should be if they're real" is very heavily weighted toward "at the ends of rainbows, fondling their pots of gold." Science has elminated that space by showing that rainbows don't have ends. Perhaps there's an analogy there that can be applied to God.

So stripping away the superfluous and irrelevant from that, you say science reveals "a subset of things that exist" that's it? Your answer need not refer to God, I'm asking simply what does science reveal and you say "a subset of things that exist" that's all it does reveal in your view, yes?

[Difflugia]

So stripping away the superfluous and irrelevant from that, you say science reveals "a subset of things that exist" that's it? Your answer need not refer to God, I'm asking simply what does science reveal and you say "a subset of things that exist" that's all it does reveal in your view, yes?

Yes. An analogy is if someone starts, but hasn't completed, a survey of horses and someone asks, "If not unicorns, what does your survey of horses include?"

"Some of the horses."

Would an ennumeration help?

Things science has revealed:

• Light waves don't need the æther as a propagation medium.
• Caffeine and theine are the same molecule.
• The evolutionary divergence of human beings, chimpanzees, and gorillas likely occurred within the last ten million years.
• At standard temperature and pressure, any gas will contain the same number of molecules per volume regardless of molecular mass.
• In a vacuum, bricks fall at the same rate as feathers.
• Etc.

[Sherlock Holmes]

So stripping away the superfluous and irrelevant from that, you say science reveals "a subset of things that exist" that's it? Your answer need not refer to God, I'm asking simply what does science reveal and you say "a subset of things that exist" that's all it does reveal in your view, yes?

Yes. An analogy is if someone starts, but hasn't completed, a survey of horses and someone asks, "If not unicorns, what does your survey of horses include?"

"Some of the horses."

Would an ennumeration help?

Things science has revealed:

• Light waves don't need the æther as a propagation medium.
• Caffeine and theine are the same molecule.
• The evolutionary divergence of human beings, chimpanzees, and gorillas likely occurred within the last ten million years.
• At standard temperature and pressure, any gas will contain the same number of molecules per volume regardless of molecular mass.
• In a vacuum, bricks fall at the same rate as feathers.
• Etc.

I see so this isn't quite what you said is it. The list seems to be about relationships between things that exist, not simply things that exist. Like the relationship between terminal velocity and atmospheric density/viscosity or pressure and volume and temperature being related to Avogadro's constant.

So what does the presence of these relationships reveal do you think?