Is There Life Elsewhere in the Universe? Is There a God?

[ArmenianKid]

The existence of God cannot be proven or disproven. You either believe in God or you believe there is no God.

eons of truth and fighting caputred into one sentance....creepy.

[winoman]

There are beliefs (or lack of) that make more sense then others.

[Anonymouse]

There are beliefs (or lack of) that make more sense then others.

Why? If they are beliefs why should they make more sense than another? This statement amounts to the "proving God" doctrine.

[ArmoBarbi]

Arman, I agree with wino in that one makes more sense. If you accept the current scientific method, you should understand the difference between something that is scientifically supported and something that is based on "blind faith".

Look at it from a lawyer's point of view. The Theory of Evolution HAS scientific support, which can be presented in a court of law. The Theory of Creation has only one support, and it is as good as "hear say" testimony in a court room.

How can you base such a belief on what another human being wrote? Why not believe what all literature says then? Oh wait...forgot...God wrote the Bible...

[Anonymouse]

Arman, I agree with wino in that one makes more sense. If you accept the current scientific method, you should understand the difference between something that is scientifically supported and something that is based on "blind faith".

Look at it from a lawyer's point of view. The Theory of Evolution HAS scientific support, which can be presented in a court of law. The Theory of Creation has only one support, and it is as good as "hear say" testimony in a court room.

How can you base such a belief on what another human being wrote? Why not believe what all literature says then? Oh wait...forgot...God wrote the Bible...

This is precisely the issue I was addressing, namely that all belief is be inferred from science. It is from this thinking that leads people to say "You cannot prove God". That reasoning is similar to what you and wino are saying about some beliefs are more reasonable than others because they are scientifically supported. That all knowledge comes from research and not from revelation is itself a metaphysical assumption. This goes back to the statement that one can neither prove or disprove God.

God is something intangible, and ethereal. As such God is outside of the physical world. Science and logic are very limited and confined to this physical world and time. What is beyond this world we cannot know. Therefore to use science as the yardstick by which to judge belief is a fools game. Science being limited to this physical domain, cannot have anything to say of what is beyond the physical world. Therefore to state that to believe in no God is more reasonable than to believe in God is a fallacy of immense measures.

My point is that all things are eventually reduced to belief and the sum of ones experiences. But apparently this concept is too hard for dry empiricists and rationalists to grasp.

[ArmoBarbi]

I am arguing that one is scientifically supported and one is not. Dont try to stretch my claim in something more.

Once again, you accuse me of being "dry". Why must you put a negative spin on rationality?

[Anonymouse]

I am arguing that one is scientifically supported and one is not. Dont try to stretch my claim in something more.

Once again, you accuse me of being "dry". Why must you put a negative spin on rationality?

I am arguing that you cannot claim one is more reasonable because it has scientific support, and the other is less reasonable because it has no scientific support. I am arguing that the two are mutually exclusive, as the case with God, and you cannot prove or disprove it. That you believe if something is more 'scientifically supported' is better, is your belief, but in the grand march of existence, it means no more and no less than one's belief in something that is beyond the physical world.

And yes rationalism is dry and limited. Men make cults of rationalism and accuse the cultists of God of the same thing.

[ArmoBarbi]

Fine, I believe that having scientific support makes a theory superior to any theory that doesnt. I will not argue for the sake of convincing you. I just state my claims as you state yours. As to where I got this belief?...Oh right, the Rationalist Cult.

[Anonymouse]

Fine, I believe that having scientific support makes a theory superior to any theory that doesnt. I will not argue for the sake of convincing you. I just state my claims as you state yours. As to where I got this belief?...Oh right, the Rationalist Cult.

You are correct, it is a belief that something scientific is more valid than something that isn't. For if science deals with the natural world of observation, how can science explain the intangible, the ethereal, God? Hence, God cannot be proven or disproven. Rationality and rationalism are two different things. The initial is open ended and allows room for possibilities, the latter is fanatical and makes things conform to reason.

[ArmoBarbi]

And who came up with these definitions for "rationality" and "retionalism"? Rationalism is an ideology that is based on rationality, which it a characteristic. I am a rational thinker, and thus a rationalist. I do not belong to a cult or wish for everyone/thing to conform to my reasoning any more than you.