Can you prove the non-existence of a god?

[Matabele]

Hey Dan, have you picked up a copy of this week's Time magazine? A very interesting debate between your hero, Dick Dawkins, and some genetesist who is a Theist.

Dawkins is pursuing exactly the same arguments that you did in our little debate two off-seasons ago.

The Theist is a bit smarter and more eloquent than I.

 

[Dan]

is there any online linkage, I dont buy time to oft

 

[Matabele]

www.time.com I guess.

 

[Dan]

nah you have to pay

 

[Matabele]

Oh well, I suppose an eternity in hell is worht less than a couple of bucks then.

 

[Dan]

I got it and am reading it now.

Funny how the church is constnatly trying to justify itself and get one up on science, shows they are running with a losing battle huh?

 

[Matabele]

Are you sure you're reading it?

 

[Matabele]

I think the best part of it is where Collins lampoons the 6 day creation mob. They really are becoming a cult.

 

[Dan]

I have been trying to read it but keep gtting side tracked by pesky work

 

[Dan]

Oh please. this takes the same standpoint that I told you.

You have to assume there is a god to subscribe to Dr Collins belief. That is the whole thing. We are not trying to prove there is NO god and neither is Dawkings etc. Instead we are trying to discover the secrets behind the universe.

Scientifically if you believe you are closing the book on the search and furtherment of science, because there is a point you stop asking questions.

I agree with Dawkings, saying a god is outside time and space and so on is the mother of all copouts

 

[Matabele]

I was highly amused when Dawkins admitted that the chances of intelligent life as we know it happening without intervention is 300 billion to one.

No wonder it is generally accepted that atheists have more faith than Theists.

 

[Fluffy]

there obvously isnt a god otherwise manly would win the premiership every year

game, set and match

 

[Dan]

I wasn't amused. We know the odds are large, but the odds of a deity are just as big.

What Dawkings is saying is that essentially there is an element unknown but this doesnt have to be a god. The Multiverse theory helps with this concept in your head.

The problem with this debate is exactly what Dawkings and I in a less articulate manner have been saying. Simply you take a pre-disposition and a leap of faith. You then turn and say "see a god exists" without factual evidence besides a few odds, which are narrowing by the day (i.e. the elements you refer to looking as though they have a fixed state therefore it is not as "miraculous" that the "random events" happened). Scientist and scientific Athiest prefer to say "look we just dont know what is out there, we dont know what caused it, but we are going to keep trying to find out"

It is highly unscientific and horrendously irresponsible to jump to conclusions.

 

[Ryan]

Even IF it is scientifically proven that life on earth was created through science, it still had to stem from energy in "some" form. No energy known to science is infinite, therefore, at SOME stage, an element of creation HAS to be included in the hypothesis.

We all can't be as self indulged so much as to think man was created in the 1st week according to Genesis (1st book of the bible), but there still has to be some ideal that when the 1st single celled omeaba hit planet earth, it wasn't and hasn't been around forever, but came from "something". Dirt / Fire doesn't automatically mean life forms are automatically popping up because the conditions are good to do so. There HAS to be some stage in evolution, when the 1st organism was created....so where was that 1st living organism created?

 

[Dan]

Ryan that exact thing is discussed in the article. Basically both the people involved in the discussion have a chuckle at 7th day creationists. Basiclaly they favour theory that genesis in actuality discusses the big bang and should not be taken (excuse the pun) for gospell.

An element of "creation" whilst this fits in a sentence nicely it links dangerously close to the assumption that I am arguing against. Creation infers a 3rd party had a hand in it.

Rather than creation, I think words better suited are "coming into being"

I find a theory thats answer such as a god, that is excluded from its own rules of creation and excluded from the theory is ridiculous. Dawkings mentioned it. That answering a question of extreme improbability with an answer that in turn has its own larger improbabilities is outside the reasons of science and logic.

I think a lot of Religious types are thrown by the fact that they see anyone who is Areligious or not following their doctorine is infact an Atheist. This is not something I claim to be, I simply do not have the intelligence or background in physics, chemistry, astro physics, neorology, theology and basically any other amount of the sciences and arts to be able to be an Athiest. Whenever someone tells me they are, my simple answer is "Do you think you are smart enough to be an Athiest"

I am not, and I refuse to believe that anyone here, barring perhaps The Gronk have the background to safely say "There is no god". This is where the religion side of the debate falls apart. Most of the "Atheist" scientists, are simply saying. "Look, we dont know what is going on. We wont know for a long long time, we have assumptions and theories, but we are working towards an answer. It may well be a god, it may be a random string of events, we just dont know, so lets sit back, not decide on an answer and study towards it"

I can tell you which camp is speaking the most logic there!

 

[earl]

I always thought there wasnt a god , but it now seems Im not smart enough to make that assumption.

 

[Dan]

You can make that assumption but I think you will find you and i and in fact every single person on this planet lacks the knowledge to definitively say there is or is not a god!

You my friend should subscribe to being an agnostic like the rest of us who are of enough intelligenc eto know the danger of ASSUMPTIONS

 

[Fluffy]

Even IF it is scientifically proven that life on earth was created through science, it still had to stem from energy in \"some\" form. No energy known to science is infinite, therefore, at SOME stage, an element of creation HAS to be included in the hypothesis.

We all can't be as self indulged so much as to think man was created in the 1st week according to Genesis (1st book of the bible), but there still has to be some ideal that when the 1st single celled omeaba hit planet earth, it wasn't and hasn't been around forever, but came from \"something\". Dirt / Fire doesn't automatically mean life forms are automatically popping up because the conditions are good to do so. There HAS to be some stage in evolution, when the 1st organism was created....so where was that 1st living organism created?

Could not have a more false statement.

Energy is infinate - it can be neither created nor destroyed, only its form can be changed. This is one of the most basic laws of physics.

 

[Dan]

What if you colide atoms or photons Fluffy?

 

[earl]

or split them with a chisel.