Advanced search

Should We Thank God For Scientific Discoveries?

(173 Posts)
headinhands Mon 12-Aug-13 22:12:24

Hello Daftme

You say we should thank god for scientific advancements. I say what makes you think they have anything to do with god?

headinhands Wed 14-Aug-13 19:13:15

In the face of the unknown wouldn't it be logical to say we don't know instead of making stuff up.

DioneTheDiabolist Wed 14-Aug-13 19:26:21

I have no problem whatever in saying "we don't know". It is your belief that it can't be god because doesn't exist and that people (do you mean believers?) are "making stuff up".

headinhands Wed 14-Aug-13 19:48:36

My thinking is that I see no evidence for a god who is interested in earth. Rare stuff happens occasionally. Tsunamis, floods, conjoined twins, rare birth defects and so on. Would you attribute being born with a rare genetic defect as god's direct action?

headinhands Wed 14-Aug-13 19:51:29

Making stuff up alludes to humans having the propensity to fabricate stories to explain the world. Most cultures appear to do so throughout civilisation. I think the word used to describe this feature is 'patternosity'.

DioneTheDiabolist Wed 14-Aug-13 20:07:26

I would not describe making sense of the world with the knowledge available at the time as fabricatiin or making stuff up. I would call it being human.

DioneTheDiabolist Wed 14-Aug-13 20:09:50

What evidence would prove the existence of god for you?

headinhands Wed 14-Aug-13 20:25:33

But they still made it up though. I'm not 'making fun' of our ability to make up stories to believe in. Indeed it's part of our rich human heritage.

headinhands Wed 14-Aug-13 20:26:01

Which god?

DioneTheDiabolist Wed 14-Aug-13 20:28:44

Any god.

headinhands Wed 14-Aug-13 20:38:53

Will as its a fantastic claim then it would have to have fantastic evidence bit I think I'll have to say I don't know. If its a god who is interested in me it would have to be obvious in that way. It would have to be something that was testable and repeatable and observable by any independent witnesses. I would also want it to make it clear which god it was. I'm just guessing now.

curlew Wed 14-Aug-13 20:40:46

"Curlew what evidence do you have that god doesn't exist?"

As you can't prove a negative, it's a matter of balance of probabilities.

Things we don't now about and which could be attributed to the action of God are being explained by science, and science is growing and developing all the time, and more things are being explained.

There is no provable case of God doing what he apparently said he would- no prayers answered, no miracles.

And while absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, you would have thought that there would have been at least a couple of cases over the millennia which actually caused anyone thinking rationally to pause and wonder. But there aren't.

DioneTheDiabolist Wed 14-Aug-13 20:53:01

Curlew, you said "There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of a God. There is lots of evidence that ther (sic) isn't".

Why did you say that there was lots of evidence if there is none?

Hidden can you be a bit more concrete in giving an example of something that you would consider to be proof of the existence of god?

headinhands Wed 14-Aug-13 20:58:37

Do you mean me when you say 'hidden' Dion? I just don't know to be honest. What would you need to be convinced of a different god to your chosen one? Or a mythical being?

DioneTheDiabolist Wed 14-Aug-13 21:16:34

Apologies Head.blush

curlew Wed 14-Aug-13 21:18:49

"Why did you say that there was lots of evidence if there is none?"

What do you mean "none"? I would have thought the circumstantial evidence of millennia with no sigh of him actually doing any of the things he said he would do is pretty conclusive. Unless he is exists, but is either completely ineffective, completely incompetent or completely malevolent.

headinhands Wed 14-Aug-13 21:32:12

It's fine Dion! grin

headinhands Wed 14-Aug-13 21:42:21

Dione even shock

DioneTheDiabolist Wed 14-Aug-13 22:04:32

Curlew, what evidence do you want? What would convince you?

austenozzy Wed 14-Aug-13 22:39:02

I can't answer for curlew, but for me, it would have to be the second coming. Nothing else would satisfy the scientific method.

The bible is no good as it has been cherry-picked and edited by numerous self-interested parties over the millennia. Not to mention large parts written hundreds of years after the fact.

All of this is compounded by the simple fact that since nobody has ever actually seen or spoken to god (outside of an asylum), then it's impossible to judge any evidence as we can't describe what it's actually evidence for!

DioneTheDiabolist Wed 14-Aug-13 23:31:52

Given that you accept that the bible is an unreliable source, what do you mean by the second coming and how would it satisfy the scientific method?

People who pray would say that they are speaking to god, indeed many believe that their prayers have been answered yet they are not in asylums.

DioneTheDiabolist Wed 14-Aug-13 23:32:53

Don't sweat it Head, I knew you meant

curlew Thu 15-Aug-13 07:36:49

"Curlew, what evidence do you want? What would convince you?"

Well, a decent miracle would go some way......

sashh Thu 22-Aug-13 11:18:35

The Bible describes John the Baptist leaping for joy in the womb when his pregnant mother

How? Sorry but just how?

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now