The single greatest scientific pardox revealed.....er....nevermind

[Gerioke]

I have to ask (and keep in mind that I ask kindly and out of genuine curiosity without any sarcasm intended) if you are truly grounded in your belief that God does not exist why are you here?

In their most abstract sense, God and the Big Bang are on an equal philosophical footing. Both are causeless causes.

Why does the subject require discussion for you?

Because we want to know what is right. So you conceed that God does exist and need to be reassured?

Why do you believe that your children should be free to follow their chosen path? That path could end in a mosque, a cult, a coven or worse.

If they are any bit like me, my children will be the last people on Earth to become unthinking religious fanatics.If they are anything like me, they will have a great deal of trials before coming to know the truth.

If you have chosen atheism, and are sure of your beliefs, why are you not raising your children to believe as you do?

Because we aren't raising them to be atheists. We are raising them to think critically, to decide for themselves what they want to be. If they choose Christianity, so be it. If they choose atheism, so be it. All I can do is nourish their critical faculties; I would not presume to choose for them.

Parents have a duty to show their children the right path.

I will teach my children the things I believe to be correct, but I do not know what religious view, if any, is correct. I do not know that the supernatural exists at all. I will not lie to them.

God would not lie to you either. Listen to what He has to say.

[MeCajunboy]

Ok heres the paradox. An atheist cannot rely on God to prove that God doesn't exsist obviously so he must rely on science. In an atheists response they say "God doesn't exist because [PLACE SCIENTIFIC FACT HERE]". Now before anyone gets defensive I want to point out that there is nothing wrong with this. The problem arises when one tries to refute the scientific finding. The main principle of science is the ability to test things.[EXAMPLE] my theory is that a balloon will float when filled with helium regardless of its color. The scientific test is essential to the art of science. Now when an atheist says "God doesn't exist because so and so is this and that. It gives the believer a chance to partake in the scientific way of thinking. So, thinking like a scientist, they refute the claim, over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over using different arguments each time. When the atheist derails every single claim you can only come to one conclusion and that is the claim cannot be tested. So here is the contradiction and thus the paradox.

[sTATEMENT]

God cannot exist because he cannot be tested by science, and is therefore illogical.

[END STATEMENT]

No person can show any evidence to show that the statement is untrue.

The statement is not scientifically testable because nothing can be provided to show it is untrue.

Since the statement cannot be tested by science the statement is therefore illogical.

What amazes me even more is that even scientist base their beliefs mainly on theories, as their are many holes in their information, as well! And I think all of we Christians are well aware that God chooses not to reveal HIMSELF to us until the end times, which means that we are inclined and encouraged to "believe" more than search for facts. I'm guessing that any facts instilled here on earth referencing or signifying God, can be dusputed with ease, especially since God wishes not to be revealed! And God knows that if we can not "definitively" proove God's existence as yet, neither can a non-believer "DISPROOVE" IT! What an awesome God we have to trust in!

Blessings

Cajunboy

[MorningGlory]

In their most abstract sense, God and the Big Bang are on an equal philosophical footing. Both are causeless causes.

If there WAS a Big Bang then God created it. I don't understand what you mean by 'both are causeless causes' since neither is a cause (God being an absolute and the Big Bang a theory),

Because we want to know what is right.

Good, you have come to the right place and I pray that you find the way.

If they are any bit like me, my children will be the last people on Earth to become unthinking religious fanatics.

No one would want that; unthinking, blind fanaticism is usually associated with Islam (but not exclusively). No one becomes a Christian without doing a great deal of thinking, IMO.

Because we aren't raising them to be atheists. We are raising them to think critically, to decide for themselves what they want to be. If they choose Christianity, so be it. If they choose atheism, so be it. All I can do is nourish their critical faculties; I would not presume to choose for them.

Children usually do not have the judgement to find their own way to Salvation, my friend.

I will teach my children the things I believe to be correct, but I do not know what religious view, if any, is correct. I do not know that the supernatural exists at all. I will not lie to them.\

If you are not sure which view is correct how could you lie to them? At the same time that I am worrying about your soul and those of your children I commend you for trying so hard to find the truth. I pray that you do.

[Michael333]

... But there are many systems of belief, and how should we choose which ones to believe, if any? If I were to subscribe to a religion, I would want to know it had some basis in reality, and some factual advantages to other religions out there. I would use the facts to determine what to believe in. But that's just me.

I find that a thorough examination of what we know to be true, such as documented historical facts and writings of people of the time of Christ and earlier, allows me to make a very informed decision (or hypothesis if you will) that there is a God. A one, true God that sent his Son named Jesus. The other choices being 'there is no God' or 'there are many Gods'. I then examine the choices:

1. There is no God: If everything of this world happend by chance, and we are all in essence, animals, then the motivation of living is of the body and of this world only. But I then ask myself, if this is the case, why do we think the way we do? Why do we reason? Why did so many people before us beleive or acknowledge that there has to be some sort of 'Super Being' that is responsible for everything around us? Take a look at most if not all civilizations acknowledged some sort of 'God' or 'Gods'. So in my opinion, and from what I reason from examining my surrondings is that there must be at least 1 God responsible for all this.

2. There are many Gods: Some beleive/beleived that there was a God of the sea and of the sky and of the land....etc. We see this is Greek mythology or in civilizations that were primarily uneducated or pagen.

3. There is one true God: From a thorough study of history, I have come to form the 'hypothesis' that there is one true God. And that this God created all in the universe. Also, looking at history, we can see that the Christian civilization is the most advanced.

Now lies the next big question: "how should we choose which religion to beleive?"

Looking at all the major religions, Christianity makes the most sense and is backed by a multitude of historical facts. Obviously I am not giving this question as much answer as I could as it could end up being 100+ pages. But the main idea here is to do the research, keep a close eye on reliability of sources you use (because there are a lot of bad ones!), and make an educated decision.

If your decision ends up being Christianity, then your faced with a multitude of denominations. Now it seems were back to square 1: "how should we choose which denomination to beleive?" One may ask "why would God want all these different denominations, although all believing in Jesus Christ, that argue or disagree amongst themselves?" Some have very few differences while others have many differences. Which is the "right one"?

I look at it like this: Everything in God's plan has a purpose, a system, a law. Look at nature. It is very systematic, well thought out, well planned, and has lasted a very long time. Looking at history, which denomination is systematic, well thought out, well planned, and has lasted a very long time? A denomination by its very definition that is universal, for all Christians.

Question for the non-christians: What is your thinking on why NOT to beleive in God? I would think it would include a total disregard for all of the historical facts and documentation that prove at the very least that there was a man named Jesus who claimed to be the son of God. I am just trying to get a better insight on how you concluded that there is no God.

Thanks

[Zceiv]

Well that's what I don't get. Scientists wont except the evidence. I don't understand why tangible evidence should be provided for an intangible being. For instance I say that if you have faith in God/Jesus and pray for something you will get it, and with that comes proof, but the whole idea is rejected by science. It's not so much that God can't be tested, but anyway to prove he is real is shut down by the scientists asking for a photo. If a scientist asked for a photo of gravity he would be laughed at because you can only SEE the effects of gravity, but the gravity itself can't be seen. God can't be seen but his effects can, so why should asking for photos of God be any different than asking for photos of gravity? (I mean the actual pull itself not the bowling ball being pulled towards the Earth)

Scientists dont exept the evidence because they are dead in their sins.

If you were to disprove their claims a 1000 times over they would still beleive their claims because they are blind to the truth.

they will only see if god allows them.

Edited January 1, 2007 by Zeiv

[MorningGlory]

I have to ask (and keep in mind that I ask kindly and out of genuine curiosity without any sarcasm intended) if you are truly grounded in your belief that God does not exist why are you here? Why does the subject require discussion for you? Why do you believe that your children should be free to follow their chosen path? That path could end in a mosque, a cult, a coven or worse. Parents have a duty to show their children the right path. If you have chosen atheism, and are sure of your beliefs, why are you not raising your children to believe as you do?

Why am I here? Well, I'm bored.

I find intellectual conversation stimulating. It's fun! Believe it or not, I rarely visit Christian boards. This is the first I have gone to in around 2 or 3 years or so, and I don't go to any others, so I certainly don't need discussion, but I simply like it.

The problem of cults and extremely conservative religions grabbing my children does concern me, and naturally I would try to steer them away from such a group, but the main point of a universal religious education is giving them the spiritual light to find their own way in this world, finding their own truth.

Finally, your last question. Why do I not want to raise my children in an atheistic way?

There's two answers.

1) The odds of me finding an atheistic wife are very, very slim.

2) I view intellectual honesty to be paramount. I refuse to be a party to brainwashing, and I will not fill the heads of my children to the point where they cannot question their beliefs, even if the beliefs they hold run parallel to mine. This, and the fact that I view, as an atheist, this decision to have little consequence compared to the significance that religious people give it, so I simply care a lot less about the subject, and recognize that religion simply works for some people psychologically in ways that atheism cannot.

Thanks for the honest answer. I stated this before but will do so again; children do not have the judgement to be cast adrift to find their own way; heck, it's hard enough to find your way when you're forty. I personally do not know anyone who is an admitted atheist so you may have a point about an atheistic wife. The reason we Christians try to make nonbelievers see the truth is because the Lord doesn't want any of his children to perish. Without Him you have nothing to sustain you in difficult times and no hope of avoiding damnation. Don't be offended; I am merely telling you the truth. I am being sincere when I say I pray for your soul.

[Observer of dreams]

Our power went out for 2 day but the post underneath was the last one I read.

Which is why my children will be raised Unitarian and be allowed to examine all the options, from Christian to Muslim to Wiccan to atheistic. Brainwashing children into believing something so much that everything else is shut out of their vision is immoral at best and evil at worst, and I will not be a part of it.

I'm actually very grateful that I've always been a skeptic, disbelieving what I'm told, in that I now have the mental equipment left intact to examine all the sides in this issue and choose the one that made the most sense. I was not raised an atheist, but came to it after concluding that the possibility that there is no god is the most logical, reasonable, and possible.

You know I agree with you here, at least when it comes to a belief structure. I have come up with beliefs that no-one agrees with because they are too self-centered in their beliefs. I don't agree with being called a Christian unless one is following the true meaning "follower of Christ". The closest my beliefs have come to a label would be gnosticism. I believe in searching for wisdom, following the books of the apocrypha, proverbs, and the new testament. I believe in searching for wisdom wherever it is.

My creed is this. "Upturn every stone; there is no stone big enough to hide the whole Earth from sight."

Runner's high;

Why is it God's fault?

[Observer of dreams]

I agree that science and God are separate and one shouldn't be used to validate the other.

[EXAMPLE] A man sees two kids drowning in the lake one is his own son, the other is a strangers child. He knows that he only has a 25% chance of saving his own son and a 90% chance that going after his son will cause both children to drown, but a 100% chance of saving the strangers kid. Logically he would choose to save the strangers kid, but do you think he would really do that? The element here is love, logic can't measure love. I see the love God has for me by things that happen in my life. I get to a point where I can feel him with me. I don't see science ever proving or disproving this. The truth is that I just don't care. To me during my search God has been a father to me. He is the one belief I hold to most dearly. I honestly feel I would not be alive writing this right now if it were not for him.

[Questioner]

Ok heres the paradox. An atheist cannot rely on God to prove that God doesn't exsist obviously so he must rely on science. In an atheists response they say "God doesn't exist because [PLACE SCIENTIFIC FACT HERE]". Now before anyone gets defensive I want to point out that there is nothing wrong with this. The problem arises when one tries to refute the scientific finding. The main principle of science is the ability to test things.[EXAMPLE] my theory is that a balloon will float when filled with helium regardless of its color. The scientific test is essential to the art of science. Now when an atheist says "God doesn't exist because so and so is this and that. It gives the believer a chance to partake in the scientific way of thinking. So, thinking like a scientist, they refute the claim[1], over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over using different arguments each time. When the atheist derails every single claim you can only come to one conclusion and that is the claim cannot be tested[2]. So here is the contradiction and thus the paradox.

[sTATEMENT]

God cannot exist because he cannot be tested by science, and is therefore illogical.

[END STATEMENT]

No person can show any evidence to show that the statement is untrue.

The statement is not scientifically testable because nothing can be provided to show it is untrue.

Since the statement cannot be tested by science the statement is therefore illogical.

There are a few things wrong with your argument. If someone has already pointed out the following things and you have already answered please don't waste your time and just tell me you already addressed those claims, I'll read the thread.

Firstly [1], you have a strange notion of how to test things. You seem to think that a theory can be tested by debating about it and you also seem to think that every refutation you attempt counts as a failed test once it's refused. Obviously, this has nothing to do with reality. Scientific theories are tested in labs doing "real things", i.e. observations. Only a theist could have come up with a way to test theories without doing any kind of observation.

What you're talking about is the thing we usually do on internet forums: exposing fallacies in someone's argument. That has nothing to do with testing scientific theories like the theory of gravity.

Secondly [2], if a theory is testable it means a test exist that shows that it's either true or false. No matter what the outcome of the test is, the theory is still testable. I just formulated a testable scientific theory: "every time I sit on that chair in the kitchen the lamp in my living room falls on the ground". The only way I can test the theory is to sit on that chair. I sat on the chair and nothing happened. Does that mean the theory isn't testable anymore? Obviously, the theory can still be tested. I can test it as much as I want - I like that chair.

So not only you completely misunderstood what testing is about; you also seem to think that every time a test fails a theory becomes a little less testable, until it's impossible to test it. This is absurd in the highest degree.

[Observer of dreams]

There are a lot of people I know that are quick to judge whether or not someone will go to heaven even though Jesus says it's wrong to do this. I don't get why people pick and choose what teachings from Jesus they will and will not follow. The only thing I can figure is that their denominations cloud their judgment. I didn't want to point this out originally but I seem to interact with a lot of atheist that used to be southern baptist or catholic. It seems the very religion itself is what is driving people away.

The conversation has gone away from this questioner but thanks for the input anyways

The paradox was this

[sTATEMENT]

God cannot exist because he cannot be tested by science, and is therefore illogical.

[END STATEMENT]

No person can provide any evidence to show that the statement is untrue.

The statement is not scientifically testable because nothing can be provided to show it is untrue.

Since the statement cannot be tested by science the statement is therefore illogical.

You refuted my own commentary but not the paradox itself. The statement is the observation. If there is no way to test the observation than the observation is unscientific. Just because I use the word statement instead of observation it doesn't change anything here look

[OBSERVATION]

God cannot exist because he cannot be tested by science, and is therefore illogical.

[END OBSERVATION]

No person can provide any evidence to show that the observation is untrue.

The observation is not scientifically testable because nothing can be provided to show it is untrue.

Since the observation cannot be tested by science the observation is therefore unscientific and illogical.

nice try though