Posted: 12/16/2003 11:24:32 AM EDT
|
OK first off, this one is PURELY HYPOTHETICAL so let's not get too upset over it. IF (please note the word "if") science proved conclusively (in other words fact not theory) that God did NOT exist, would you still adhere to your religion/faith? And if so why? Further disclaimers: 1. While science has on occassions debunked some "parts" of some religions, it has never conclusively proven or disproven the existence of God. 2. If God was proven to actually exist, then it would become science by definition of the word "science." 3. The basis for my question is my personal observation that many people follow faiths that have a questionable founding history and many probably don't believe many of the "stories" of their religion BUT they follow and perpetuate their religion for other more positive reasons. Would you continue based exclusively on "faith" despite science? Or would you simply adopt an alternate lifestyle altogether, which encompassed the positive aspects of religion BUT no longer promoted a belief or aith in God? |
|
Quoted: IF (please note the word "if") science proved conclusively (in other words fact not theory) that God did NOT exist, would you still adhere to your religion/faith? And if so why? Tough call. I revere scientific knowledge (tho many think I don't) Yet, I see IMMENSE benefit to mankind when they obey the tenets that I beleive to be delivered by God. Would God be proven a false notion, I still see benefit to mankind in obeying "God's" tenets and teachings. (For lengths sake, I'll forego giving examples of "God's" tenets that benefit mankind) |
|
Quoted: IF (please note the word "if") science proved conclusively (in other words fact not theory) that God did NOT exist, would you still adhere to your religion/faith? And if so why? If it could be "scientifically" proven that gun-ownership was directly responsible for crime, tyranny, poverty and halitosis, I would STILL not give up my firearms and reject the RKBA. Would you? EDITED TO ADD: But if science "proved" God DID exist, I wouldn't have any stronger belief in God than I do now. In fact, I'd doubt very much that it was really "God" that was proven to exist. (damn I hate typing faster than I think. [BD]) |
|
Quoted: I would question the "science" behind the proof more than I'd accept it's conclusion. And that is why I stated this is purely hypothetical and began with IF. Quoted: If it could be "scientifically" proven that gun-ownership was directly responsible for crime, tyranny, poverty and halitosis, I would STILL not give up my firearms and reject the RKBA. Would you? IF the actual data (not jumbled numbers which include 21 year old gang members) proved conclusively that gun ownership contributes to crime I would absolutely accept the truth of the data. However, the fact that other people guns contribute to crime does not mean mine do, even if I am the ONLY person whose guns didn't contribute to the problem and as a result would not want to be regulated by the masses. That is mob rule and that is why we have a Cosntitutionally protected Democratic Republic to prevent us from being ruled by the whim of pure Democracy. |
|
Quoted: EDITED TO ADD: But if science "proved" God DID exist, I wouldn't have any stronger belief in God than I do now. In fact, I'd doubt very much that it was really "God" that was proven to exist. (damn I hate typing faster than I think. [BD]) Again that is why the IF and hypothetical were included. But this begs a question and possible hijack. According to the OT God used to hang out with us and talk to us all the time in a real sense. I can think of nothing more that would difinitivly PROVE his existence. So how come the big guy don't rap with us anymore? And before anyone offers the "it's about faith" response, there were quite a few doubters in the OT. |
|
Quoted: nope. but then God exists outside our understanding of quantum space time. so it's a moot point. science can't disprove what exists outside it's matrix. it's kind of like asking to prove the existance of an orange by looking only at a basket of apples. THANK YOU. You may be the first person on this site, that I have ever seen use the word moot instead of (the incorrect) mute. There is a God. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: If it could be "scientifically" proven that gun-ownership was directly responsible for crime, tyranny, poverty and halitosis, I would STILL not give up my firearms and reject the RKBA. Would you? IF the actual data (not jumbled numbers which include 21 year old gang members) proved conclusively that gun ownership contributes to crime I would absolutely accept the truth of the data. However, the fact that other people guns contribute to crime does not mean mine do, even if I am the ONLY person whose guns didn't contribute to the problem and as a result would not want to be regulated by the masses. That is mob rule and that is why we have a Cosntitutionally protected Democratic Republic to prevent us from being ruled by the whim of pure Democracy. Back to your hypothetical, personally, to imagine science proving for a fact that God did NOT exist would be like proving that 3=5. So I would continue to doubt that specfic aspect of scientific research that came to that conclusion rather than accept the conclusion itself because I see it as a contradiction of science itself. |
|
Quoted: According to the OT God used to hang out with us and talk to us all the time in a real sense. I can think of nothing more that would difinitivly PROVE his existence. So how come the big guy don't rap with us anymore? Still happens, we just lock those people up. |
|
Quoted: I would still question the "science" behind the proof more than I'd accept it's conclusion... I'm with [b]The_Macallan[/b] on this one... Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;... ... I would doubt the scientists/science before doubting my God, regardless of how convincing the "proof" was. |
|
Quoted: According to the OT God used to hang out with us and talk to us all the time in a real sense. I can think of nothing more that would difinitivly PROVE his existence. So how come the big guy don't rap with us anymore? And before anyone offers the "it's about faith" response, there were quite a few doubters in the OT. These doubters were caught up in their own religious practices, so it's not the existance of a god or gods that they doubted, just the Hebrew one... If the existance or nonexistance of a god was easy to prove, this argument would have been settled long ago. I became an Athiest within a couple of weeks of starting to question 'the things one shouldn't question'. I quickly realized how strong and deep the powers of human cultural, and individual self-deception were. Logically, you can say that I am suffereing from the same thing I say that you are, in that I'm fooling myself into believing that there is no god. Hence, each argument has a probability assigned. We each assign differing weights to our theories, which transforms them into beliefs. The 'religion' side simply has a cop out that I don't have, in that their fallback position is that god is all powerful and we are mere mortals, so we shouldn't expect to understand. |
|
Quoted: Ah, but I was actually leaning more towards a hypothetical scientific proof that you, yes YOU - [b]SteyrAUG[/b] - simply by owning firearms was the CAUSE of poverty and crime through some complex, yet entirely provable "psychological chaos theory" phenomenon. Would you reject the RKBA and give up your belief that you need firearms for protection? Refer to the part where I said fact NOT theory. I would not change MY beliefs about guns based upon theory and I wouldn't suggest a person change their faith based upon theory. But to play IF my guns were PROVEN to cause crime then I would in fact have to have been a criminal and guilty. And your argument fails here, you can't PROVE a theory, you can only provide evidence that supports it. If the evidence proves the theory, it is no longer theory but science. Quoted: Back to your hypothetical, personally, to imagine science proving for a fact that God did NOT exist would be like proving that 3=5. So I would continue to doubt that specfic aspect of scientific research that came to that conclusion rather than accept the conclusion itself because I see it as a contradiction of science itself. There are some that suggest for science to prove God does exist would be like proving 3=5, but we really aren't having that discussion. |
|
If we are deciding that this is a phrontistery and we are going to have have a discussion that is not going to sink to the level of bombastry, we are going to have to decide on which factors can be acceptable in the proof of the absentaneous nature of g*d. It may be argued that the entity in question is drogulus and the existince or not of the same may not be verifiable in our current situation. so there..... |
|
Quoted: If we are deciding that this is a phrontistery and we are going to have have a discussion that is not going to sink to the level of bombastry, we are going to have to decide on which factors can be acceptable in the proof of the absentaneous nature of g*d. It may be argued that the entity in question is drogulus and the existince or not of the same may not be verifiable in our current situation. so there..... |
| Steyr..to answer your question...My own personal belief is that I do not have enough info on the subject at hand to believe or dis-believe in the deity. Therefore, the results from scientists about that would not really effect my personal beliefs. I will continue my life as I have, remaining true to myself and my honour. |