and btw, i never said one should pray for a long time....Mary simply said, "they have no wine" and that was enough for God to work His first miracle

i already explained why they are mutually exclusive earlier. if we believe the scientific explanation to be correct, which says matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed and, conceding that God would have to defy this law in order for him to have created matter and energy, he would have to be supernatural in order to do this. if he is supernatural he, by definition, is mutually exclusive against science. it's either or. science is about that which can be explained scientifically. you can't have it both ways. if God cannot be explained by science or does things that defy the laws of science, he is, by definition, unscientific.

because faith, especially religious faith, means "belief accompanied by a complete lack of evidential justification". religion is, therefore, no more than a conspiracy theory. rational belief, on the other hand, is belief based on evidence. it is, in essence, the exact opposite of faith. and i will provide a quick response to a person who posted to the question asked in the link you presented:

"Going strictly by your definitions, faith could be rational. You could believe something that's reasonable or sensible without having proof that it's true. For example, it's reasonable for me to believe that my wife is a nurse, even though I've never actually visited her at her job."

this is wrong. he would not have faith that his wife is a nurse. after all, she brings home a paycheck, wears a nurse's outfit before claiming that she's going to work and leaving, brings a stethoscope with her, etc. one could assume 1. she is a nurse, just as she tells me she is or 2. (among other possible assumptions) she is a prostitute who dresses as a nurse for her clients. using Occam's Razor we can say that it is reasonable to believe that she is telling the truth and this would not be faith, but rather rational belief. also, if we so choose, we can test this belief by visiting her workplace, much like we can test evolution, gravity, and numerous other scientific theories.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

So im saying God is supernatural, he creates matter/energy and all the "concepts behind" the laws of science....so I don't see the two arguments you're making, saying they are mutually excessive, when i say they aren't

FIN

I think they should change the law to: "New matter can't be created out of existing matter"... isn't that what it's really saying?

i thnk i need a break, where's everyone else? lol... i wont tackle why "faith is irrational" i personally dont believe in blind faith

God, by definition, would have had to have created matter and energy. It's inherent in the definition of God (or at least the God of the Christian religion and most others), just like a bachelor is unmarried by definition. To obey science, God would not be able to create matter or energy or destroy them. Therefore either 1. God defies the 1st law of thermodynamics and therefore modern science or 2. God is not God (by the common definition given -- creator of everything).

No, that is not at all what they are saying. Simply put, the amount of matter and energy in the universe today is EXACTLY the same amount as it has always been, they have simply changed forms (energy decays into matter and anti-matter and matter and anti-matter combine into energy). Not a single elementary particle of matter can be created OR DESTROYED. This does not mean science can't be wrong, but it means that it isn't likely by our current scientific standards.

The distinction between faith and blind faith is a false distinction. It's either there is no evidence for something (or the "evidence" that people fallaciously consider to support their preconceived notions are not evidence for it at all) and the person believes it to be true anyways, which is faith, or there is actual evidence supporting it and the person believes it, and that is rational belief.

No. Any honest scientist would tell you that the "evidence" is not actually evidence at all. Claiming the bible as evidence is like claiming all the books written on the existence of vampires are evidence that vampires exist. And claiming that religious monuments from thousands of years ago is evidence that people back then believed in God too, but it does nothing to provide evidence that God exists. All you have is faith and things you fallaciously claim as evidence. Is there something wrong with that? No. You chose to have faith, as most people do, and you use it to guide your life in the right direction. That's admirable. It's just not scientific. There's nothing wrong with not following science, but you can't have it both ways.

If that person REALLY cares that much to know that his wife's sister is a nurse, he can visit her job by flying to where she lives and finding out for himself. Who cares what she does though? With God, it is of utmost importance to people that he exists and we've searched high and low and found no evidence supporting his existence.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

Added (02/Feb/10, 7:11 Pm)
---------------------------------------------
Btw, I was chatting with this atheist about science and God, and he said something... since I guy with his vocabulary isnt doing anything, care to decipher?:

Once philosophical analysis, historical record, cultural patterns, and good 'ol common sense is used to defeat the holy book's god, we then use science to tackle what is left.

He is right, science does depend upon and study the uniformity of the universe. But quantum physics is suggesting otherwise, that perhaps the universe may not be uniform. But I don't know why he would assume that a god creating an inconsistent universe would mean anything or act as a point.

What is the universe if not a system? It may be closed or not, that is still up for debate. The law is arguing that, as I said, we have exactly the same amount of energy and matter/anti-matter that we have always had in the universe. It is not increasing or decreasing and it never will if modern science is correct. There is an exact amount of matter and energy in the universe that will never increase or decrease. That is what modern science tells us and that is why there are articles talking about how in the past, religion had already been "debunked" by science, but today, because of recent scientific discoveries, even God as creator is at jeopardy.

You know what, I must say that I am wrong. I forgot about earlier arguments I'd had. Overall I do not believe in a distinction between faith and blind faith, but at the root of all knowledge there is a faith every human must have to believe that everything around us is real. Idealism makes this a reality. There is no evidence to prove that our senses are functioning properly and so all we know (and even this is debatable) is that we think and therefore, by extension, exist. Someone who believes that reality isn't "real" and is simply a projection of our minds (otherwise known as an idealist) is believing based on a blind faith. Someone like myself believes based on a faith that is more reasonable, and hence it is not a blind faith, however, regardless, there is no evidence to support my view. Outside of this example, however, there is no dichotomy between reasonable faith and blind faith (at least not that I know of).

No, I'm saying precisely what you are; the basic belief in God defies the laws of physics and so a scientist who believes in God must 1. attempt to challenge the first law of thermodynamics or 2. accept their belief in God as unscientific.

if my sister claimed seriously to live in Wonderland I'd find where she actually lived and send her to a psychiatrist lol.

If God defies science he defies science. That's all there is to it. He can't defy science only on one thing and still be scientific. And what I'm arguing is this: even if the first law of thermodynamics is wrong, what is more likely, an infinitely complex being that created everything or a rudimentary particle (ie: the Higgs Boson) that grew more complex and eventually everything became more complex from this natural process?

Nah, I_Guy, that was an argument s0dr presented from an atheist. He wasn't arguing for God. S0dr wanted to understand what dude was saying. I agree it isn't a very good argument though.

S0dr, he's using the premise of science defined as the study of consistent patterns to show that God is illogical. He then states that God (specifically if he is omnipotent) is illogical because his existence would make the universe inconsistent (though he does not use any evidence or logic to justify this claim) and the universe shows high consistency. The problem with this logic, as I_Guy pointed out, is that quantuum physics shows this to be untrue. The universe is unpredictable at the quantuum level. To paraphrase a quantuum physicist, it has been said that exactly when you claim to understand quantuum physics is when it becomes apparent that you don't understand quantuum physics.

There's no evidence for that either though. Regardless, you'd be interested in the writings of Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einstein. They were pantheists. It sounds like you have a similar ideology.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

So because I don't believe in God or the supernatural I'm an immoral person???? I'm sorry but I find that assumption, for one, offensive and, for another, blatantly false, especially considering it is against what studies show. The truth is that there is a correlation between the amount of atheism within a nation and its crime rate being low. The crime rate in Buddhist countries (they are, for the most part, atheist), which are about 80% atheist, are some of the lowest in the world, while America and Islamic countries tend to have some of the highest crime rates in the world and we are considered religious extremists (80% Christian on the part of the US).

Take a philosophy course. Those arguments have all been negated philosophically but, amazingly, they still get brought up in argument by theists. It's quite nerve-racking and tiring for atheists.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

Have you ever experienced psychedelic drugs? If not, then you can't even begin to comprehend what I am speaking of, at least when it comes to 'evidence'. I'll check out those references you gave me. I'm fairly familiar with Einstein's philosophy towards the concept of God.

Added (05/Feb/10, 12:50 Pm)
---------------------------------------------
eboyd do you believe in god?

I am an agnostic atheist, agnostic meaning that I claim no knowledge, atheist meaning that I do not believe in a God. Therefore, I am open to the possibility that a God may exist (though that possibility is quite minimal in my opinion), but I personally do not believe in a God and actually consider it highly improbable (to a degree of virtual impossibility) and therefore I do not bank on the possibility. This is the same position that well over 90% of atheists take. It is also the position that approximately 80-90% of scientists and the world's leading intellectuals take. I believe in logic, reason and science. Minus the faith I have that my senses are working correctly, my ideology has no place for faith.

Neither of those are "proof" or even evidence.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

That's just your brain acting up on drugs LOL . Shamans used drugs to "communicate " whit Gods but of course they didn't understand that those substances are HALLUCINOGENIC . LOL