God&Einstein: Religion vs Science

[Goatboy]

First off, I have seen the vast majority of prophecy fulfilled (not just 1 lucky percent or something), and the fulfillment of the rest seemingly upcoming. Nextly, I may have learned these things, in part, from scripture of previous time, but I have come to know that it is true. I have found the doctrine I believe to make perfect logical sense, and have prayed and received confirmation of their truthfulness. In my church, at least, we don't believe in just blind faith. We are encouraged to find out for ourselves if things are true. I really have found that they are true, and cannot honestly deny them.

Read this Wikipedia article on Confirmation Bias.

tl;dr - People tend to see proof of their beliefs in everything.

This is evidenced by religious people "seeing God in a rainbow." You are not seeing God, you are seeing Total Internal Reflection. It is a scientific event that can be explained by the laws of physics. Similarly, people who "die" on the operating table and see themselves from above aren't having a religious experience. It is a psychological occurrence wherein your body becomes hyper-aware of your surroundings in an attempt to find a way to save itself.

People who experience these events more often than not will chalk them up to God. This is a prime example of Confirmation Bias. People take something with a sound scientific explanation, and turn it around into a religious affirmation. It is this bias that wrongly leads people to religious faith.

[faazshift]

It seems you will never even consider the possibility of a higher intelligence. You make these claims, but I have my own knowledge, beliefs and testimony. It seems pointless trying to convince you of these things, so im just going to stop here.

[Goatboy]

It seems you will never even consider the possibility of a higher intelligence. You make these claims, but I have my own knowledge, beliefs and testimony. It seems pointless trying to convince you of these things, so im just going to stop here.

For those of you that will continue in this thread, I want to draw attention to this post.

At no point in my previous posts did I say there is no God. I would like to make that very clear. What I have said, however, is that I see no evidence of God. It would be incredibly stupid of me to claim 100% that there is no God, just as it is incredibly stupid for anyone else to claim 100% that there is a God.

Now clearly, faazshift is a dedicated Christian and is very rooted in his beliefs. I have no problem with anyone's beliefs. That is another thing I want to make very clear. What I do have a problem with is people who claim to be 100% certain of the existence of God.

Normally I would refrain from ad hominem arguments, but I would like to end by saying that what faazshift did here was essentially what many parents do when arguing with their children. After being faced with too many contradicting pieces of information, they refuse to discuss the issue any farther.

[faazshift]

Fine, maybe I did overreact a bit. I do, however, believe 100% that there is a God, so I guess that will just have to bug you. I just haven't found convincing evidence in your posts that there is not a God.

[neuromanta]

This is an interesting descussion . As I can see, faazshift is a zealot, and he thinks that Goatboy is a zealot too. You think that Goatboy is just as certain in that there is no God, as you are, that there is a God.
I personally am quite sure that there is a higher intelligence. Not because my parents are christan, but because I experienced it on several occasions in my life. I don't believe in the christian God, Just as I don't believe in Jahve, or Baal, Osiris, Moloch, Astaroth, Alah, or any other religion's god-portraits. I think that every religion is talking about the same thing, whether it is the Higher Self, Alive Higher Truth (as in hungarian mythology), Universe, God, Nature, etc. You can name it anything. But I'm sure that there is "something". I'm not absolutely sure about it, just as I cannot be absolutely sure that there are atoms, and quarks, and there is gravity.

[donod]

if you remember eistein did .........................;;; belive in god as many others scientifics so maybe it you should edit the title

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." (Albert Einstein, 1954)

hi

"There are people who say there is no God, but what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views."

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_Einstein_believe_in_God

[Goatboy]

if you remember eistein did .........................;;; belive in god as many others scientifics so maybe it you should edit the title

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." (Albert Einstein, 1954)

hi

"There are people who say there is no God, but what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views."

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_Einstein_believe_in_God

Sorry, misunderstanding.

I was not rebutting his statement about Einstein, I was clarifying it. Einstein did not believe in the Christian God, but rather of the process that created and maintains the universe. In this sense, we are on the same page. I was not quoting Einstein as a way to say there is no god, as that would be hypocritically stupid according to my earlier posts.

I should have made that post more clear, and I apologize.

[FreakFish]

i love these threads in forums, youll always find one this is my first post, and i am the mighty ><>FreakFish<><


its always good fun to have a debate with people about religeon... because they always come up with something new.
but since my last discussion like this on the internet i have done some debating with a religeous girl who sits next to me in quite a few lessons at school. as you may have guessed, i am not a believer.

i believe in science, all the way, right to the end of it where things just cant be explained yet. if it dosent make sense at first then it does eventually, and there is always a logical explaination for things. but here's my argument...

the girl in my school is a devout christian, a believer all the way. shes pretty sure that god exists, and im finding it very difficult to sway her form her belief. i ask her questions in english to answer, and the next day she will have an answer to it to try to shake it apart, but eventually her argument fails. it all goes back to the whole faith thing.

i asked her many things. i asked her why wouldent god just change our minds or reveal himself to us? she said because we have free will and he cant control that. but hold on a second, god is the ultimate power in the universe, and out of it for that matter. our good friend science has proved that the brain works with electrical impulses, similar to a computer. tiny little bursts of electricity running through your head, but we wont go into that electricity is electrons moving, which is physical. an actual physical movement of sub-atomic particles, or whatever electrons are classed as. in the bible, god has had physical effects on the world, like plumes of fire coming out of the sky and the seas moving to let the jews escape from the egyptians, or however that story went. the point is, god could change the way we think by moving the electrons in our branis and changing our thought pattens to ones where we believe in him, but he doesnt. when i suggested this to the girl in school she said that would be terrible, we would all be like robots then! but surely god and his infinate knowledge can handle a bit of brain surgery? somehow i think if he can create a universe from nothing he can create a universe from quite literally nothing out of nowhere he can change the mechanics of something that he created. but then of course there is the next argument which the girl didnt present, why would he want to? i can see that being used in the argument, --- as a side note, before you try and dismiss electrons and atoms, they may be theories but they are theories that make machines work, like the computer screen you are looking at right now. thats evidence, or at least better than wild speculation. --- but i have quite a good argument prepared against that aswell.

god loves us all dearly doesnt he? i mean, hes meant to be the perfect, ultimate being, creator of everything. so why would he allow us to suffer? or to condemn ourselves to hell mainly? he wouldent. he would do something about it. you cant go back to the whole free will thing now, i disproved it. hell shouldent even exist, and the things that led to hell and satan shouldent exist. an angel became proud and fell from heaven, but why would got create pride if he didnt like it, and then why allow an angel, an apparantly good soul that got to heaven to feel it? and surely while in heaven you are incapable of doing anything bad? or dont they have a legal system up there?

esentially, god wouldent let these things happen, or even create them so they could happen. if anything that god created is not perfect, which it definately is not, then neither is he. saying that life an the universe is a game to entertain god maybe? no that dosent really work either, because a perfect being would be content with nothing, and if he is enjoying the world in the state that its in at the moment then he has some real sadistic pleasure issues. there is far too much suffering in this world for a being that can see everything to enjoy.

and there lies my argument. score one for science, or six.

if you have anything that you think can challenge this please post it and i'll see whats wrong with it.


regards, and love, from ><>FreakFish<><

[Goatboy]

Having read Freak's post, I just thought of something:

The Bible is a book, which means it must have an author. That author was the men of Jesus' time.
Similarly, Harry Potter is a book which has an author. That author is J.K. Rowling.

Now, if we were to argue with J.K. Rowling about a part of Harry Potter, we would most certainly lose. Why? Because she wrote the book! She can interpret, change, delete, add, or in any other way modify the story as she pleases. If we spot an inconsistency, she can make up for it. If something seems wrong, she can invent a way to explain it.

The Bible is no different. When asked why God will never reveal Himself, a believer will simply say "In the Bible, it says He won't because..." and list 4 or 5 reasons why. Pretty convenient, isn't it? A book that has no flaws because it says it doesn't.

If you think about it, the Bible is really the most ingeniously coded program, capable of handling any error you can throw at it.

[FreakFish]

Having read Freak's post, I just thought of something:

The Bible is a book, which means it must have an author. That author was the men of Jesus' time.
Similarly, Harry Potter is a book which has an author. That author is J.K. Rowling.

Now, if we were to argue with J.K. Rowling about a part of Harry Potter, we would most certainly lose. Why? Because she wrote the book! She can interpret, change, delete, add, or in any other way modify the story as she pleases. If we spot an inconsistency, she can make up for it. If something seems wrong, she can invent a way to explain it.

The Bible is no different. When asked why God will never reveal Himself, a believer will simply say "In the Bible, it says He won't because..." and list 4 or 5 reasons why. Pretty convenient, isn't it? A book that has no flaws because it says it doesn't.

If you think about it, the Bible is really the most ingeniously coded program, capable of handling any error you can throw at it.

its starting to sound like skynet... any second now the terminator is going to jump out of a portal totally naked and destroy every bible on the planet