NextEpisode wrote:Are you seriously comparing the limitations of a human, to the belief/faith of a higher power?...
If there was/is such a thing as a "god", does that - automatically - mean that we should be able to observe it, and its actions... No... Whilst, in regards to ‘jumping to Mars’, we are actually able to observe such an event, if it was possible.
No I'm comparing two ridiculous, implausible beliefs.
You use a phrase like 'faith of a higher power' like that's unbiased? that means nothing to somebody who doesn't believe in one. A belief is a belief.
There's no justification for giving the belief in god more automatic respect than any other number of ludicrous, improbable beliefs. You have to treat it the same, critically and logically.
As far as 'observing' a potential god... first of all, you're now pertaining to a specific type of evidence, which you're just declaring unlikely, that's too easy. The point is no proof nor no logical explanation for god has ever been provided. Sometimes it's okay not to have much hard evidence if the theory is obviously plausible and many other factors point to its probable truth.
Also, aside from wishful thinking and the want for an afterlife, or father figure... you have to justify the NEED for a god first of all. We've explained how all life on Earth is related and how it evolves, and just the idea of a conscious, self-aware god with thoughts... and intent... the fact this god would make life thrive on one planet of a galaxy, none of the others (as far as we know)... I mean, what is he doing, playing a practical joke?
Then think of the disasters, the injustice etc. and simply saying "god moves in mysterious ways" or "god has a plan" is not good enough. Obviously cruel things happen in nature and in the world, and they all make sense when you conclude nature is ruthless, and of its own, without an overlord. But when you propose the idea of an intelligent god creating and overseeing it, you'd have to concede that this god is evil and in which case you're then applying immorality and the concept of emotion to this deity... and how could something that complex come to be?
If god can just be there, the universe can too.
NextEpisode wrote:But as far as pre-birth & post-death, and in general, the beginning of materia/earth/universe, we really don't have a clue, just theories... Which - again - of course doesn't prove there was/is a "god", but nor does it prove there isn't/wasn't one.
I was not suggesting a 50/50 probability, I was questioning it. One cannot calculate possibilities when there is nothing to base the calculations on. But to dismiss the possibility of an alternative theory (a "god" or w/e you want to call it, in this case), when there is no actual proof for or against it, and blindly accepting another theory which can't be proven either, is not very open-minded, imo.
Well first of all, we do have a clue about pre-birth and post-death. We know that consciousness is contained in the mind, it's a byproduct of the brain, it's an awareness. So if your brain dies, consciousness dies, it's as simple as that.
If you turn the power of a PC off, it's no longer on and won't function, run programs etc.
We know about the human body, we know the stages of development in birth, we've observed all this for a long time. We aren't the people themselves, when people die but... we never know what's in each other's heads anyway, that doesn't make any theory which makes personal experience its fundamental is inherently plausible. We can still dismiss things through what we know.
We know that when you die heart stops pumping blood through your body, and to the brain. And without a brain, blood and a spinal cord, you have a corpse - no pulse = no life.
Any suggestion of afterlife is a fantasy. There's not been a single explanation for it or even... a hint of logic or reasoning to it. Ideas like this are useless, they're fiction. If you're going to claim something, which seems impossible, but then provide absolutely no explanation, proof or reasoning for that claim - you may as well not claim it to begin with.
Now, you keep saying no proof 'against' it - NO, the burden of proof is on those who make the claim. The point is, there's no proof FOR it. The claim is positive, it's the claim of the existence of something - that something (god) either exists or it doesn't, and given that we've never had a shred of evidence, none, what so ever, in thousands of years... makes the assumption that there isn't one more reasonable than the assumption there is one.
Here's a claim by me: there's a planet in a far away galaxy which we've yet to discover that is also inhabited by humans, but all with fur and crisps for hands. Now - there's no evidence against my claim either is there?... if so, show me? as I can't think of any...
We can all make an endless amount of claims that there's no evidence 'against' or that we can't technically 'disprove' - that doesn't automatically make them plausible and worthy of second thought.
You ironically say 'blindly' when that's exactly what belief in god is.
What other theory? I don't believe another theory for the beginning of everything. I know that evolution through natural selection has proven how life exists and changes, and is related and I know there's The Big Bang theory in regards to the Universe.
Now, I don't accept nor reject The Big Bang Theory, I'm impartial to it but I lean towards acceptance as it has acceptance within science and physics at large. That's not BLINDLY believing something as science has a process of verification. If an idea that big has been through so many decades of debate from the most informed science minds on planet Earth, and it's still around and still pushed, that would mean there's something to it. Science has a trusted process.
Where as religion just makes empty, wild claims, with no proof and no progress.
NextEpisode wrote:A critical, questioning, but open-minded way of thinking is how most scientists work. Thus, the observers should look at the result in a corresponding way, in my opinion. Too many people around the world blindly accept what they see & hear (whether it's religion or any other subject) with no sense of critical thinking. And based on what they "see & hear", they build up these prejudices.
But you can't take every claim or theory seriously or as seriously as the last, there needs to be a sorting process of credibility.
You're speaking as if scientists take the idea of god seriously or that it's a serious contender of an explanation. There are a handful of very good religious scientists, who were indoctrinated from children, didn't shake it and so they do science, alongside it, and believe in god.
However, the majority of scientists are atheists. They've long disregarded the god theory.
You're only given credence to the claim due to its status, history and the amount of people that believe it. But you or I could come up with any old wild theory on how the Universe came about, we could literally spew babble, tell a fairytale... and, if our theories had no logic, no justification, no reasoning, no explanation and no proof... would they be just as worthy as claims that did?
The answer is no, they're not as worthy, and neither is the god theory.
It's as nonsensical a theory as any in history, explains nothing and just creates the need for an even harder, bigger explanation (where did god come from). But before we even go there, try proving the existence of a god first. And saying god is outside of evidence is just weak.
NextEpisode wrote:"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
- Sir Martin Rees (astronomer)
Oh seriously? like people don't use this quote in every single god debate.
You could use that quote to theoretically justify a plethora of claims, endless claims off the top of your head that are currently 'outside of science / reach' and which cannot be disproven.
Yes there COULD be a god and because we don't have evidence of a god does not technically mean that's proof there isn't one. I COULD also have an invisible friend, a litterally invisible friend I claim, right beside me right now who you can't see, smell, hear, touch or sense in any way we know how... but, there's no proof... 'against' it? and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
But would you take that claim seriously or say it's worth debating or thinking about...
