Do you believe in god?

[Grey Acumen]

Rath said:

Grey Acumen said:

highwaystar101 said:

Strategyking92 said:
Anyone else notice this:
08/08/08 ?


Anyway, I believe in Christ, my lord and savior.
I really can't see how people can't believe in any god, I mean, that must be so depressing knowing once you die, you will slowly fade away into nothing. At least with a religion, you believe there will be something better for you.

so basically, you believe what you believe o you don't have to face a harsh reality. To me that makes absolutley no sense.

 

It's not a matter of a harsh reality being unaceptable, it's a matter that lies always eventually crumble. If god doesn't exist, then there is no "reason" for anything, hence the very continued survival of humanity would only be capable by lying, hence, by now, it logically should have broken down and we should have died out simply from lack of motivation to continue.

Yet we still exist and continue.

Life continues. Basically life is an accident that was bound to happen and the species that survive are the ones which are excellent at continuing to live. Humans fit that role nicely. Not having a God doesn't mean humanity can't exist.

 

Actually, Superchunk really has the right point here. It's one I've argued on numerous times is that Faith and Science dictate entirely different areas, but both are working to explain teh universe, Science the "How" of the universe and religion the "Why"

The things science can prove are only in the category of "how" like explaining how a electrictity stimulates teh electrons in a wire, but resistance creates excess heat and light as the energy is bled off, and that is how a light bulb works. Science can never prove WHY the universe works teh way it does, because by it's own stated limitations, it only deals in teh observable, since God can't be observed, science cannot study god or recognize him as a possible presence as the underlying motivation behind the entire continual function of the universe.

Science will never be able to prove or disprove God, it's like trying to run binary or hex code through your spellchecker. There just aren't any words there to check. Primitive spell checkers would go "hey, there are a couple letters there, but they don't spell any words that I recognize, so they must be spelled wrong", modern spell checkers recognize their own limitations and go "hey, these have numbers mixed in, it's not something I should even be messing with" and so they don't get underlined.

Ultimately, Science is still in that primitive stage.

Well that makes a huge assumption - that God is not observable. In any case science is the 'how' of the universe, why does there need to be a why? Does there really need to be a reason for existence?

there's no assumption being made. If god were observable by scientific means, then there wouldn't be any contention of his existence. Simply by the fact that there is contention within a completely logical and fact based system shows that there is no current method of observing and verifiably identifying god. Of course, for us to EVER be able to observe God, we would first have to know before hand what god IS. Since we don't know what god IS, we'll never be able to use scientific methods to identify signs of his presence, and thus never be able to identify him to observe what he is.

as the for the second underlined part; because How doesn't answer all the questions. Using science we can build an atomic bomb, split atoms, clone living things, travel through land, sea, air, and space, and create limited, but steadily advancing artificial intelligence. Should we clone humans simply because we can? Should we use nuclear weapons simply because we are capable of creating them? "Why", just as much as "How", is a question upon which our very survival as a race has been hinged. To imply that there isn't any need for it is naive.