Forums → WEPR → The studies to prove/disprove a god's existence
| 71 | 29524 |
Alright, after a long time off of this wonderful sight, I decided to come back on and pose a question from a different debate I'm participating in.
I would like to ask: Is/Are there any studies, experiments or otherwise known physical laws, mathematical formulas or the like which explicitly prohibit and exclude the existence of a god (which one is not important for this question) or explicitly prohibit all things in existence being the result of a god?
this is the quote from one of the theists on the thread. so the question is: does any formula or theory disprove/prove a god in any way?
- 71 Replies
You people are sooooo pathetic. You and your holding on to your asinine beliefs that you had brainwashed into you in public school. I'm really lucky that I didn't have to put up with the "all and all, you're just another brick in the wall" society of modern education where schoolchildren are not allowed to not believe in evolution. So, Keep it commin'. *snickers*
It's quite astonishing how many of them there are. I'm not really sure how, but someone has managed to indoctrinate all of these people with the misguided dilusion that they are the unbiased party and that everyone else is "brainwashed" into being skeptical of their beliefs. They never stop to consider who is actually "not allowed to not believe".
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...........
You people are sooooo pathetic. You and your holding on to your asinine beliefs that you had brainwashed into you in public school. I'm really lucky that I didn't have to put up with the "all and all, you're just another brick in the wall" society of modern education where schoolchildren are not allowed to not believe in evolution. So, Keep it commin'. *snickers*
Don't try to sidestep questions. It's childish and pathetic.
Answer the questions and partake in the thread, or don't bother showing up at all.
WTF? where does these reply come from?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...........
You people are sooooo pathetic. You and your holding on to your asinine beliefs that you had brainwashed into you in public school. I'm really lucky that I didn't have to put up with the "all and all, you're just another brick in the wall" society of modern education where schoolchildren are not allowed to not believe in evolution. So, Keep it commin'. *snickers*
and anyways, in what place and time did schoolchildren was taught not to believe in evolution ? in my current school they still taught us evolution and were told to believe it, even though my school was a christian school
and anyways, in what place and time did schoolchildren was taught not to believe in evolution ?
He said "not allowed to not believe[...]", which is false. One may not believe in evolution, but they may received backlash for it, similar to one not believing in germ theory.
in what place and time did schoolchildren was taught not to believe in evolution ?
Anywhere for just about the entirety of the seventeenth century, and various religious extremist "schools" to this day (the term "schools" is used loosely here, and should not be confused with schools as we know them).
It is unfortunate that they are indoctrinated in this way. Because they receive negligible input from outside sources, everything they learn is outrageously biased, but because they are taught to accept their faith without question, they often lack the ability to reflect upon their beliefs or consider the validity of other views. A few might escape, but most seem to be permanently trapped in this theological doublethink.
can anyone answer my first question? i can't find the ones saying that
why? is it offending to some extent? this guy seems to have a lot of comments deleted for various reasons ( not trying to stray from the OP, but i'm really curious)
so, i have one more stone to throw to the people doubting the existence of god. I read in a debate journal based book, and they say that if god doesn't exist we won't have norms or basic rules of society; we wouldn't have any society at all. care to explain that point? i can explain what i meant, but it's pretty long and right now i'm pretty sleepy................... so maybe tomorrow
so maybe tomorrow
Yes, please do. I don't see their point. Why would a bunch of social empathic people not be able to organise themselves into a society?
and they say that if god doesn't exist we won't have norms or basic rules of society; we wouldn't have any society at all. care to explain that point?
Utterly false. Society is not built upon religion and religion does not beget morals. A god is not needed for people to come to a commonly agreed upon view of right and wrong.
Even with people believing in gods, we see VAST disparities between moral values. Culture is a far bigger influence, and culture is what makes society.
Morals arise because society cannot exist with people running amok and doing whatever they want, murdering and stealing and causing trouble. It's axiomatic that morals must exist in order for civilization to exist. A god is not necessary for morals. It is in everyone's best interest that common law exist, because they themselves are protected by it.
why? is it offending to some extent? this guy seems to have a lot of comments deleted for various reasons ( not trying to stray from the OP, but i'm really curious)
Well, to pick just one reason, it starts off with 11 repetitions of "lol".
I read in a debate journal based book, and they say that if god doesn't exist we won't have norms or basic rules of society; we wouldn't have any society at all. care to explain that point?
This is a confusion of cause and effect. Religion is not the prerequisite, but the product of society. People living as hermits don't need an incentive to avoid cheating, robbing, or killing people they have no interactions with; only settled communities do. Allow me to quote from Scott Adams:
Husband: I'll be back in an hour. I'm going to go covet my neighbor's wife.
Wife: You can't do that.
Husband: Why not?
Wife (thinking fast): Um...God said so. He's an omnipotent being. If you don't obey him, you'll burn in hell.
Husband: Whoa, that was a close one. Thanks for warning me...How about if I kill her husband first?
Wife: Ooh, bad news on that, too.
The Dilbert Future, p. 108
ok sorry guys i kinda forgot to explain what i meant. beliefs, which include religion are necessary to bind people with differences, if you look at the dawn of civilization around the world like the ancient settlement of Gobeklii Tepe, Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa, they always contain temples to worship their god, the first is even an exclusive religious settlement. coincidence? maybe not. even Stonehenge in England is used for both astronomy and religious purposes, pyramids in Gaza is a massive tomb littered with ancient writings depicting their gods in their religion and showing the apparent apotheosis of the pharaohs. Megalithic culture in ancient history is littered with huge rock monuments like the Menhir( it's in Indonesian i don't really know the English version sorry ), upright rock fields which is designed to made honor their ancestors, and we know that some of the rocks can be very heavy like 40 tons, that needs serious manpower, not mentioning if you want to make a rock field filled with dozens of those heavy rocks. this is therefore can't be the work of one tribe, but the work of multiple tribes somehow making the same monuments to honor their "god" (ancestors), which must be managed and thoroughly managed to avoid circumstances which would destroy the process
The same beliefs are also important in making society. let's assume that there is 20 people in a tribe, one person from the tribe kills its fellow tribesmen due to some argument gone wrong. at this point, the tribe's chief would interfere to ensure there aren't anymore bloodshed.but what happens if the victim is not from the same tribe? let's assume the murderer's tribe is tribe A and the victim is from tribe B. well what happens is a tribe war and brawls, since there is no third person who knows the general problem. now what's the solution? if the one tribe is becoming more powerful due to winning all the time and they wishes to create a reason to not start to chop each other heads off, they can do that with a religion of sorts, because religion (even primitive one like animism and dinanism. that one tribe with a new religion as it's "glue" would be more united, recruit more powerful warriors from their tribe filled with religious fervor, and would just steamrolled over the other, not-so united tribes, creating even more complex society like chiefdom and finally states. the real example of this happening is the Zulu tribe rapid expansion during the age of colonization in the middle Africa. they acquired guns and then use them to take over other tribes that didn't have guns until they form a large body of society which they strengthen the bond between the fellow tribesmen using both religion and effective decentralization of power. as a result, they steamrolled over the other tribes and the result is a Zulu state with it's own legislative branch with around122 offices
That's for HaHiHa,now for Kasic
Utterly false. Society is not built upon religion and religion does not beget morals. A god is not needed for people to come to a commonly agreed upon view of right and wrong.[quote]
what proof you had that society isn't built upon religion? one of the first known permanent settlement , Gobekli Tepe in the fertile crescent , is littered with pillars and symbols designed to describe their "belief" in the supernatural (a precursor to god, animism). also if in the first we have no unifying belief or the same God, ( remember, atheism is also a belief like religion, the latter came first ) then how do we create chiefdoms from god-variant tribes? the belief that god exist, even if he doesn't, is the "glue" that unify people from different backgrounds. the same god means the same right and wrong, same norms, same rules in life and most importantly the same entity for one to prove that he/she is righteous
now for Fish
[quote]This is a confusion of cause and effect. Religion is not the prerequisite, but the product of society. People living as hermits don't need an incentive to avoid cheating, robbing, or killing people they have no interactions with; only settled communities do.
let me ask you, did hermits exist from the dawn of civilization or are their people choosing to live solitary in the later days from the first civilization? even hermits usually live solitary for religious purposes, they don't live solitary for no reasons at all. plus, if you would like to show me your atheistic way of thinking, name me one hermit living solitary because he just wants to be alone and compare it with the ones that isolates himself for religious purposes. therefore your hermit argument makes no sense to me at all. what society exist first with government first then religion later? name just one and explain to me how they can make the society durable with only governmental (like chiefs) power, especially if you're talking of a collection of tribes organized into chiefdom which may number 2000+, making all people knowing each other pretty impossible. if you are looking at the present age when all religion are equal (tolerance), then that is a pretty recent event because once people kill each other for different beliefs.
the real example of this happening is the Zulu tribe rapid expansion during the age of colonization in the middle Africa. they acquired guns and then use them to take over other tribes that didn't have guns until they form a large body of society which they strengthen the bond between the fellow tribesmen using both religion and effective decentralization of power. as a result, they steamrolled over the other tribes and the result is a Zulu state with it's own legislative branch with around122 offices
Unless you are suggesting they regarded their guns as animistic deities, I don't see how this is relevant.
what proof you had that society isn't built upon religion? one of the first known permanent settlement , Gobekli Tepe in the fertile crescent , is littered with pillars and symbols designed to describe their "belief" in the supernatural (a precursor to god, animism).
Animism isn't a precursor. It's a type of established religion. It just happens to be popular among isolated groups of rustic folk.
also if in the first we have no unifying belief or the same God, ( remember, atheism is also a belief like religion, the latter came first ) [...]
No. Atheism is the absence of belief. It is not like religion in any way. Furthermore, a unifying belief does not have to be religious. I would argue that the most important unifying beliefs are secular, such as a belief in equality and justice, communal living, and the value of knowledge.
the belief that god exist, even if he doesn't, is the "glue" that unify people from different backgrounds. the same god means the same right and wrong, same norms, same rules in life and most importantly the same entity for one to prove that he/she is righteous
Historically, a different background generally means a different faith. With the exception of certain polytheisms, this generally results in an irrational conflict.
let me ask you, did hermits exist from the dawn of civilization or are their people choosing to live solitary in the later days from the first civilization?
Hermits (as in recluses, not eremites) predate the onset of civilization, which is a gradual transition. Therefore, it is clear that the former is correct.
even hermits usually live solitary for religious purposes, they don't live solitary for no reasons at all.
False dichotomy: Not doing so out of faith is not equivalent to having no reason to do so. Wanting to be alone is a reason and, in my opinion, a very good one.
if you would like to show me your atheistic way of thinking, name me one hermit living solitary because he just wants to be alone and compare it with the ones that isolates himself for religious purposes.
I'll give you your choice of Burkhard Heim and Henry David Thoreau.
what society exist first with government first then religion later? name just one and explain to me how they can make the society durable with only governmental (like chiefs) power, [...]
Iceland.
if you are looking at the present age when all religion are equal (tolerance), then that is a pretty recent event because once people kill each other for different beliefs.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. People are still killing each other due to differences in belief.
Unless you are suggesting they regarded their guns as animistic deities, I don't see how this is relevant.
no it's not, they regard their deities as god and enforce them on the conquered tribe. after careful assimilation, they can make the conquered tribe to feel as a part of a larger circle rather than a part of a defeated tribe
Animism isn't a precursor. It's a type of established religion. It just happens to be popular among isolated groups of rustic folk.
you don't get it do you? Animism is the first belief system created by us humans that pre-date other types of religion. in the distant past one all people on the planet believe in Animism. it's not a religion because the belief in the presence of spirits inside nonliving objects is very varied among different body of people. For example, if i was to believe in Animism, i would believe that my Great-great grandmother lives inside this rock. but you wouldn't believe that. because it is the first type of beliefs, it is therefore a precursor to monotheism and polytheism in religion we know today.
No. Atheism is the absence of belief. It is not like religion in any way. Furthermore, a unifying belief does not have to be religious. I would argue that the most important unifying beliefs are secular, such as a belief in equality and justice, communal living, and the value of knowledge.
actually Atheism is belief of the absence of deities and god. so yes, it IS a type of religion, because you BELIEVE in the nonexistence if god, even if you can't prove the actual absence of god. so it's like in Christianity, where you believe in the presence of god, even though you can't prove the actual existence of god. pretty similar right? your second argument is true to some extent, but that secular belief exist only later in history. the first unifying belief is religious, not secular
Historically, a different background generally means a different faith. With the exception of certain polytheisms, this generally results in an irrational conflict.
exactly. but historically we also see "evolution" and transitions in the belief system that people in an area. take India for example, before the massive migration of the Aryan people, they all believe in Animism and Dynamism. but after the subsequent migration and assimilation with the Dravida people ( indigenous people), they invented Hinduism and later Buddhism, even Islam is created in an area where once all people in the region ( arab peninsula) believe in Polytheism, but each area has it's own god
Hermits (as in recluses, not eremites) predate the onset of civilization, which is a gradual transition. Therefore, it is clear that the former is correct.
any about proof this?
False dichotomy: Not doing so out of faith is not equivalent to having no reason to do so. Wanting to be alone is a reason and, in my opinion, a very good one.
i pretty sure i said usually. yes of course there are those that want to be alone purely, but it is in far lower number than those that have religious purposes. take Buddhist monks for example. a good number of them preferred living solitary as in hermits to acquire greater links to their belief(like by meditating or praying and so forth).
Iceland.
ah iceland, well on the first days of it's history they are inhabited by indigenous people practicing Animism, only later that the Norse vikings came and create the state with of course the pagan religion of the Vikings. so i don't really get what you're implying
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. People are still killing each other due to differences in belief.
well what I'm trying to say, is that most people today are encouraged to be tolerant to other people with different religions, which is pretty recent in history
except you're implying that Iceland is previously not habitable previously before the subsequent colonization by the vikings which is false, since Gaelic monks have lived there before in an effort to live as a hermit
You must be logged in to post a reply!