What is the purpose of life?

[saevel25]

No - you have to prove that it is possible. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The onus is on you to prove such a ludicrous notion.

Here's a proposition:

Which scenario do you think most likely?

A) Jesus rose from the dead.

B) He wasn't actually dead but they thought he was,

C) The story was made up.

Why is the least probable (impossible) scenario the one which people cling so desperately to? Please explain that.

I can state what I think is the most probably. I still can't prove that any of them didn't happen, even how least likely.

[Duff McGee]

Because they can. Prove that someone didn't rise from the dead once? The seas being parted was explained before. Who said it wasn't divine influence on a natural lowering of the river during that time that made it possible for them to escape at that moment? Prove that Mary wasn't a Virgin? You can say prove that she was. I might say, well she says she was, or at least stories says she was. I don't know. I might consider the bible first hand knowledge and give her the benefit of the doubt.  Doesn't matter. Creationism isn't really a bible story, but a flawed human interpretation of trying to fit a story into something more believable. No one knows the exact timeline of those 7 days. 7 days to a deity could be a very long time. You think an eternal being perceives time like we do. 7 days could be a huge amount of time. Heck one day from another might not even be the same interval of time. Why not, sounds like a fun experiment. Well maybe not for the tortoise. How can any sane person say they can't believe in something when there is no evidence to directly disprove it. #LogicReversed ;) I am not going to say that something can't or can not happen with out evidence to the contrary. Has evidence proven ghosts exist, probably not. I still will not dismiss the option they do not exists, yet I can not sit and claim that they do.   Would he? Does God go through trial and error to prove something or doesn't he already know all? Nothing worse than a know it all ;) He doesn't need science because he has all the answers.  Science is just something created by Humans to justify our own curiosity. Maybe some of the answers are just the methods god used to create our universe and give it balance.  Ok so lets say Atheism isn't a belief. Than an Atheist can not claim deities do not exist. They can only claim an absence of a belief they exist. Meaning they would belief if there was evidence. Yet if they say that deities do not exist then they are stating a fact that is not based on evidence and would then be a belief. If we agree that Atheists have an absence of a belief in a deity then we must agree that they must stay neutral until other evidence is shown to prove otherwise.  If an Atheist ask for evidence and then disproves the evidence then they should say, "That evidence doesn't prove anything, I still will not believe they exists, yet I will not claim they do no exists such that this claim would require me to prove they do not exists which I surely can not"

If someone comes up and tells you that leprechauns exist and are secretly running the world, are you: A) sure enough that this isn't true to make statements like the guy is crazy or just wrong? B) say, "sure that might be true and since no one has proven it false, it just might be true." It would be dishonest to say that you think it is possible. Atheists are 99.9999999999999999% sure that none of the religions on earth are true. Sure, there is a chance, but the chance is so small it is basically 0. But that doesn't shift the burden of proof. We do not have to be any more "neutral" than Christians are about the existence of Zeus or the Hindu Gods. Don't you see?

[saevel25]

If someone comes up and tells you that leprechauns exist and are secretly running the world, are you:

I wasn't talking about burden of proof. You say that Atheist do not have a belief in a deity. Yet to claim a deity doesn't exist is a belief that they do not exist. Not having a belief means you can not form an opinion on it because you do not have evidence to support that opinion. You can say things like, "Well most likely they are not true, but I do not have the proof to say 100% certainty". For Atheist to say 100% certainty that deities do not exist then they must show their burden of proof because they have stated a belief with out evidence to the contrary.

[Duff McGee]

I wasn't talking about burden of proof. You say that Atheist do not have a belief in a deity. Yet to claim a deity doesn't exist is a belief that they do not exist. Not having a belief means you can not form an opinion on it because you do not have evidence to support that opinion. You can say things like, "Well most likely they are not true, but I do not have the proof to say 100% certainty". For Atheist to say 100% certainty that deities do not exist then they must show their burden of proof because they have stated a belief with out evidence to the contrary.

Exactly. But most atheists aren't doing that. Do you tell your kids that monsters under their beds are "probably not there but they could be?" Do you actually believe that? You can't prove they don't exist.

[Shorty]

For Atheist to say 100% certainty that deities do not exist then they must show their burden of proof because they have stated a belief with out evidence to the contrary.

No. That is not correct.

There reaches a point where something is so improbable that it can categorically be denied.

A person falling out of a plane will not fall onto a giant inflatable castle filled with cotton wool and bounce to safety.

I can't prove that it won't happen, but it obviously won't.

I don't know for sure that there isn't a Titleist #1 buried 100 metres below your kitchen. But I'm sure enough that there isn't to bet my life on it.

A person who is dead will not rise and be alive again.  Why would you say it "may have happened once"? Because it can't be disproven (what can, according to the logic of some?) doesn't mean it's possible.

[saevel25]

Exactly. But most atheists aren't doing that.

Do you tell your kids that monsters under their beds are "probably not there but they could be?" Do you actually believe that? You can't prove they don't exist.

If I am a awesomely hilarious mean parent I would ;) Have you seen Monster's Inc.!

A person who is dead will not rise and be alive again.  Why would you say it "may have happened once"? Because it can't be disproven (what can, according to the logic of some?) doesn't mean it's possible.

The only problem is you categorize all those religious actions as something so absurd it has to be taken as not to have happened. That is your opinion on it. You choose to close of divine interaction. Not saying I believe it to have happened. I am just pointing out your clear biased argument.

[RGoosen]

No. That is not correct. There reaches a point where something is so improbable that it can categorically be denied. A person falling out of a plane will not fall onto a giant inflatable castle filled with cotton wool and bounce to safety. I can't prove that it won't happen, but it obviously won't. I don't know for sure that there isn't a Titleist #1 buried 100 metres below your kitchen. But I'm sure enough that there isn't to bet my life on it. A person who is dead will not rise and be alive again.  Why would you say it "may have happened once"? Because it can't be disproven (what can, according to the logic of some?) doesn't mean it's possible.

Do you believe that something can come from nothing? It is blatantly obvious what you don't believe. So, what do you believe?

[Shorty]

The only problem is you categorize all those religious actions as something so absurd it has to be taken as not to have happened. That is your opinion on it. You choose to close of divine interaction. Not saying I believe it to have happened. I am just pointing out your clear biased argument.

I admit to being biased.

I am guessing that you are living in the U.S.A. where in many places religion is something that holds together the whole fabric of communities from social, educational, sporting and cultural ectivities, even employment. People are told certain things at a young age and see no reason to question them. Most people they meet are of a similar disposition and people who are different are not in then fold and can be described as "odd" "heathen or whatever.

My guess is that if I went to a school or workplace or dinner party in your community and declared myself an atheist it would ruffle feathers.

But if If a Christian came to dinner in here, in most places in Australia or China or England or almost anywhere else in the world and was quizzed about their beliefs it would end in tears because that person has no leg to stand on in a discussion with rational people.

There are cultural differences between us. I have no problem with people being Christian or Buddhist or whatever, but when they claim that parables and biblical stories are fact, or "might be" it makes me question their ability to think for themselves. The fact that so many of them live in a few places but not in others must say something to you.

[JonMA1]

I will be the first to admit I am too stupid and lazy to read and comprehend The Bible , Kuran or The Grand Design . I cannot imagine distances between galaxies, so vast they are measured in light years, or how much time 13 billion years is, mostly because I have nothing in my life to reference it to. And ever since I was a little kid, I've tried unsuccessfully to wrap my mind around the concept of infinity.

But I know better than to blindly trust what people say - whether they are people of science or people of faith.

I believe what science has done up to this point is take baby steps towards the truth. That's not meant to marginalize what some of these great men and women of science have done. These people were and are freaks of nature - and I mean that in a good way. They not only have an unbelievable understanding of math and science, but the imagination to come up with theories and then support those with the math and science.

But to believe we finally have it figured out and we can now start dismissing spiritual beliefs as bull@#^^ is a bit conceited.

And here's something else that's always bothered me. If life is all about biology and nothing more, then kindness and compassion must be either weaknesses in our biological make up, or a self-serving form of preservation in our species. This means that a child who is born into some sort of horrible scenario, knows nothing but cruelty and abuse for her entire life and finally dies a horrible, painful death before the age of 3, is no different than Ted Bundy - just a group of cells.

Now that might be exactly what it is, I sure as hell don't know the truth. But that notion is as hard for me to wrap my mind around as is the concept of infinity.

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by saevel25

The only problem is you categorize all those religious actions as something so absurd it has to be taken as not to have happened. That is your opinion on it. You choose to close of divine interaction. Not saying I believe it to have happened. I am just pointing out your clear biased argument.

I admit to being biased.

I am guessing that you are living in the U.S.A. where in many places religion is something that holds together the whole fabric of communities from social, educational, sporting and cultural ectivities, even employment. People are told certain things at a young age and see no reason to question them. Most people they meet are of a similar disposition and people who are different are not in then fold and can be described as "odd" "heathen or whatever.

My guess is that if I went to a school or workplace or dinner party in your community and declared myself an atheist it would ruffle feathers.

There are cultural differences between us. I have no problem with people being Christian or Buddhist or whatever, but when they claim that parables and biblical stories are fact, or "might be" it makes me question their ability to think for themselves.

When anything is taken as dogma, we have an issue with people thinking for themselves.

This includes evolution. Charles Darwin considered many things and even had long discussions with his wife regarding Christianity. He started to lose faith in the dogma, but still considered himself as agnostic for many years. After he wrote "Origin of Species", he moved further away from Christianity. It is a compelling and well written book, but not complete.

Darwin also wrote " Decent of man ", where he discusses different evolutionary stages of man existing at the same time. When I read a passage to an African American friend of mine he found this to be particularly offensive. I read more and eventually figured it was written by just another man who is subject to making mistakes any human makes. . .  Does anyone in this century find this to be scientific truth as well?

Getting back to evolution, even with over a century of technological breakthroughs we can't prove there are absolute links between completely different species. We have proven there are adaptations, and compelling evidence of inter-special adaptations. Quite possibly the connections could be found. Even so, it still does not disprove the existence of God.

Growth of scientific knowledge is based upon available technology, and the invention of new technologies based upon existing ones. The more things we build and invent the more things we can discover. The flip side is that we are limited by existing technology to prove any theories. If we do not have measuring devices for some phenomenon we can't know anything about it.

So, on the one hand we have Evolution Theory and the Origin of Species, on the other the same person who came up with this also came up with "Descent of Man". If we believe in one should we believe in the other as well? After all it was written by the same person. He must know everything, right? Maybe, not. . .

Technology has not developed to the point where we can prove anything in absolute terms. We don't even have a complete unified theory for the universe yet. We can't even measure the entire electromagnetic spectrum, nor do we know how to link everything including gravity. Nothing is complete, and what I think we'll find at the end of this journey, is. . .??? Probably not the "theory of everything".

So, as I mentioned before, keep Religion and Science separate. That's where they belong, separate.

[newtogolf]

No - you have to prove that it is possible. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The onus is on you to prove such a ludicrous notion.

Here's a proposition:

Which scenario do you think most likely?

A) Jesus rose from the dead.

B) He wasn't actually dead but they thought he was,

C) The story was made up.

Why is the least probable (impossible) scenario the one which people cling so desperately to? Please explain that.

There are documented medical cases where people were determined to be technically dead and came back to life?  There weren't any medical instruments back then, he could have been in a coma with such a weak heartbeat they deemed he was dead.

Where's science on how the first living organism came to life?  Prove it.

[Duff McGee]

When anything is taken as dogma, we have an issue with people thinking for themselves. This includes evolution. [URL=https://archive.org/details/originofspecies00darwuoft]Charles Darwin[/URL] considered many things and even had long discussions with his wife regarding Christianity. He started to lose faith in the dogma, but still considered himself as agnostic for many years. After he wrote "Origin of Species", he moved further away from Christianity. It is a compelling and well written book, but not complete. Darwin also wrote "Decent of man", where he discusses different evolutionary stages of man existing at the same time. When I read a passage to an African American friend of mine he found this to be particularly offensive. I read more and eventually figured it was written by just another man who is subject to making mistakes any human makes. . .  Does anyone in this century find this to be scientific truth as well? Getting back to evolution, even with over a century of technological breakthroughs we can't prove there are absolute links between completely different species. We have proven there are adaptations, and compelling evidence of inter-special adaptations. Quite possibly the connections could be found. Even so, it still does not disprove the existence of God. Growth of scientific knowledge is based upon available technology, and the invention of new technologies based upon existing ones. The more things we build and invent the more things we can discover. The flip side is that we are limited by existing technology to prove any theories. If we do not have measuring devices for some phenomenon we can't know anything about it. So, on the one hand we have Evolution Theory and the Origin of Species, on the other the same person who came up with this also came up with "Descent of Man". If we believe in one should we believe in the other as well? After all it was written by the same person. He must know everything, right? Maybe, not. . . Technology has not developed to the point where we can prove anything in absolute terms. We don't even have a complete unified theory for the universe yet. We can't even measure the entire electromagnetic spectrum, nor do we know how to link everything including gravity. Nothing is complete, and what I think we'll find at the end of this journey, is. . .??? Probably not the "theory of everything". So, as I mentioned before, keep Religion and Science separate. That's where they belong, separate.

I'm sorry Lihu but it just doesn't work that way. 1) Darwin set the stage but in no way knew everything about evolution. This is akin to creationists pointing to Newton as a Christian. He lived at a time when we knew almost nothing compared to what we now know. 2) again, of course Darwin didn't disprove God. THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE. Just like it is impossible to know for sure whether there truly are monsters under you kid's bed or whether the Lucky Charms leprechaun is real. We can say with as much certainty that is logically and humanly possible that they likely don't exist. Edit: for example, my daughter just came to me crying bc of some small scrape on her leg. Her mom was about to put a bandaid on her and she panicked and said "I need blanky! Blanky always heals me!" I cannot disprove her claim. Yet I know about as close as it is possible to know that her blanky does not heal her.

[newtogolf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duff McGee


I'm sorry Lihu but it just doesn't work that way.

1) Darwin set the stage but in no way knew everything about evolution. This is akin to creationists pointing to Newton as a Christian. He lived at a time when we knew almost nothing compared to what we now know.

2) again, of course Darwin didn't disprove God. THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

Just like it is impossible to know for sure whether there truly are monsters under you kid's bed or whether the Lucky Charms leprechaun is real.

We can say with as much certainty that is logically and humanly possible that they likely don't exist.

Edit: for example, my daughter just came to me crying bc of some small scrape on her leg. Her mom was about to put a bandaid on her and she panicked and said "I need blanky! Blanky always heals me!"

I cannot disprove her claim. Yet I know about as close as it is possible to know that her blanky does not heal her.

It doesn't matter, Darwin was a scientist, and like most scientists in the past he's been proven wrong, including Einstein.   Science is still wrong about things, and in some cases like Darwin, we won't know they're wrong until we're dead and smarter scientists figure out they were wrong.

Quote:

In 1917 Einstein first attempted to understand the entire cosmos in light of his theory of General Relativity. At the time, Einstein was convinced that the universe was unchanging and static on its largest scales. However, since he knew that every mass in the universe gravitationally attracts every other mass, he concluded that he needed to add something to prevent the universe from collapsing under its own weight. To achieve a static configuration, Einstein introduced a “fudge factor” into his equations, creating a repulsive force that precisely balanced gravity. This term became known as the “cosmological constant.” In the late 1920s, however, cosmologist Georges Lemaître and astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that our universe is in fact expanding. Einstein realized that in an expanding universe gravity would simply slow the expansion down, just as the Earth’s gravity slows down the motion of a ball thrown upward, and no precise balance was needed. He therefore removed the cosmological constant from his equations, even though the theory definitely allowed for its inclusion, and for the rest of his life regretted having introduced it in the first place. Things took an unexpected turn in 1998, when two groups of astronomers discovered that not only is the cosmic expansion not slowing down, it is in fact speeding up. Moreover, the acceleration appears to be driven precisely by Einstein’s cosmological constant! So Einstein’s blunder was not the introduction of this term, rather it was its removal. For some geniuses, what initially appears to be a mistake can turn out to be great insight.

[Duff McGee]

It doesn't matter, Darwin was a scientist, and like most scientists in the past he's been proven wrong, including Einstein.   Science is still wrong about things, and in some cases like Darwin, we won't know they're wrong until we're dead and smarter scientists figure out they were wrong.

But you aren't getting it. Science is not against anything. It just observe facts so if something is later disproven it changes according to new data. I don't know why this is washing over everybody like this. It's like the world'slargest red herring. Science could be 100% wrong and it would help a theist's claims ZERO PERCENT. A god claim requires evidence. A claim of not believing in God does not. Science never sets out to disprove religion. Science is science.

[Golfingdad]

Science could be 100% wrong and it would help a theist's claims ZERO PERCENT.

I think he gets it just fine, but I think you're only looking at half of the story.  Wouldn't it also be accurate to say:

"Science could be 100% right and it would hurt a theists claims ZERO PERCENT?"**

I don't really like to label myself, but if you put a gun to my head I guess I'd call myself agnostic.  That said, I've always pondered some goofy philosophical questions, one of which is something like: At some point in time there was nothing and then there was something; who or what put it there and how?

**I'm speaking generally about the possibility of a God, not specifically about the Old Testament stories.

[JazzFatCat]

When anything is taken as dogma, we have an issue with people thinking for themselves.

This includes evolution. Charles Darwin considered many things and even had long discussions with his wife regarding Christianity. He started to lose faith in the dogma, but still considered himself as agnostic for many years. After he wrote "Origin of Species", he moved further away from Christianity. It is a compelling and well written book, but not complete.

Darwin also wrote "Decent of man", where he discusses different evolutionary stages of man existing at the same time. When I read a passage to an African American friend of mine he found this to be particularly offensive. I read more and eventually figured it was written by just another man who is subject to making mistakes any human makes. . .  Does anyone in this century find this to be scientific truth as well?

Getting back to evolution, even with over a century of technological breakthroughs we can't prove there are absolute links between completely different species. We have proven there are adaptations, and compelling evidence of inter-special adaptations. Quite possibly the connections could be found. Even so, it still does not disprove the existence of God.

Growth of scientific knowledge is based upon available technology, and the invention of new technologies based upon existing ones. The more things we build and invent the more things we can discover. The flip side is that we are limited by existing technology to prove any theories. If we do not have measuring devices for some phenomenon we can't know anything about it.

So, on the one hand we have Evolution Theory and the Origin of Species, on the other the same person who came up with this also came up with "Descent of Man". If we believe in one should we believe in the other as well? After all it was written by the same person. He must know everything, right? Maybe, not. . .

Technology has not developed to the point where we can prove anything in absolute terms. We don't even have a complete unified theory for the universe yet. We can't even measure the entire electromagnetic spectrum, nor do we know how to link everything including gravity. Nothing is complete, and what I think we'll find at the end of this journey, is. . .??? Probably not the "theory of everything".

So, as I mentioned before, keep Religion and Science separate. That's where they belong, separate.

I don't understand the first sentence in bold. The human genome has been mapped. Geneticists can point to a certain gene sequence that causes us to have certain trait (four limbs for example) and point to the same sequence in cats, dogs, etc... Isn't that enough evidence?

I also don't understand the point of the second sentence. The point of science is that some theories can be backed up with evidence and others cannot. "Descent of Man" was written at a time when the definition of species was still being debated and people were wondering whether the different races of human beings were of the same species or not. Is your counter argument to evolution really "well look this guy didn't know everything 150 years ago"?

I guess I also missed the posts where people were arguing for the unification of science and religion. The joining of religion and politics is what worries me.

[Lihu]

[QUOTE name="Lihu" url="/t/84340/what-is-the-purpose-of-life/288#post_1200381"]   When anything is taken as dogma, we have an issue with people thinking for themselves. This includes evolution. [URL=https://archive.org/details/originofspecies00darwuoft]Charles Darwin[/URL] considered many things and even had long discussions with his wife regarding Christianity. He started to lose faith in the dogma, but still considered himself as agnostic for many years. After he wrote "Origin of Species", he moved further away from Christianity. It is a compelling and well written book, but not complete. Darwin also wrote "[URL=https://archive.org/details/descentman00darwgoog]Decent of man[/URL]", where he discusses different evolutionary stages of man existing at the same time. When I read a passage to an African American friend of mine he found this to be particularly offensive. I read more and eventually figured it was written by just another man who is subject to making mistakes any human makes. . .  Does anyone in this century find this to be scientific truth as well? Getting back to evolution, even with over a century of technological breakthroughs we can't prove there are absolute links between completely different species. We have proven there are adaptations, and compelling evidence of inter-special adaptations. Quite possibly the connections could be found. Even so, it still does not disprove the existence of God. Growth of scientific knowledge is based upon available technology, and the invention of new technologies based upon existing ones. The more things we build and invent the more things we can discover. The flip side is that we are limited by existing technology to prove any theories. If we do not have measuring devices for some phenomenon we can't know anything about it. So, on the one hand we have Evolution Theory and the Origin of Species, on the other the same person who came up with this also came up with "Descent of Man". If we believe in one should we believe in the other as well? After all it was written by the same person. He must know everything, right? Maybe, not. . . Technology has not developed to the point where we can prove anything in absolute terms. We don't even have a complete unified theory for the universe yet. We can't even measure the entire electromagnetic spectrum, nor do we know how to link everything including gravity. Nothing is complete, and what I think we'll find at the end of this journey, is. . .??? Probably not the "theory of everything". So, as I mentioned before, keep Religion and Science separate. That's where they belong, separate. [/QUOTE] I don't understand the first sentence in bold. The human genome has been mapped. Geneticists can point to a certain gene sequence that causes us to have certain trait (four limbs for example) and point to the same sequence in cats, dogs, etc... Isn't that enough evidence? I also don't understand the point of the second sentence. The point of science is that some theories can be backed up with evidence and others cannot. "Descent of Man" was written at a time when the definition of species was still being debated and people were wondering [COLOR=252525]whether the different races of human beings were of the same species or not. Is your counter argument to evolution really "well look this guy didn't know everything 150 years ago"?[/COLOR] [COLOR=252525]I guess I also missed the posts where people were arguing for the unification of science and religion. The joining of religion and politics is what worries me.[/COLOR]

How do you know DNA wasn't a creation? I think I mentioned several times that faith and science are completely separate topics to me, but I guess people only read what they want and "understand" what they want. :-D

[Duff McGee]

I think he gets it just fine, but I think you're only looking at half of the story.  Wouldn't it also be accurate to say: "Science could be 100% right and it would hurt a theists claims ZERO PERCENT?"** I don't really like to label myself, but if you put a gun to my head I guess I'd call myself agnostic.  That said, I've always pondered some goofy philosophical questions, one of which is something like: At some point in time there was nothing and then there was something; who or what put it there and how? **I'm speaking generally about the possibility of a God, not specifically about the Old Testament stories.

it seems like our beliefs are very similar. I am also agnostic but I don't like using that word because the lay understanding of that term is that an agnostic is undecided, like 50/50, that that person's God exists. Agnosticism is the default position for most atheists because, like we all talked about earlier, you cannot prove a negative.