[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 217 KB, 504x672, godscience.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2259515 No.2259515 [Reply] [Original]

While I'm not necessarily religious in the sense that I conform to one specific belief, I don't deny the possibility that there was some sort of intelligent superbeing or beings that "seeded" Earth and helped life prosper. Considering how almost every theistic religion has the same general path and concepts - a supreme being or group of beings creating the world and teaching humans to not be dicks - I think such a belief is, at the least, feasily plausible.

But is it really that outlandish for creationists to accept the idea of evolution? From a creationist point of view, it seems reasonable enough. Ideally, God would want to start life off in the style of evolution, rather than just making static creatures off the bat.

Think about it: the Genesis model of creation supports an evolutionary process. First, there was the ground. Then, there was water, and presumably simple life within that water. Then there was vegetation. Then complex life in water and "birds" - flying creatures in general, probably insects. Then complex ground animals and finally men.

Assuming this God exists - not necessarily exactly as the Christians imagine him, but a supreme being (or race of beings, see angels, seraphim and such) creating and directing the course of life existing on Earth - would it be far-fetched to imagine that this God would prefer to make evolution happen, so that creatures can adapt to their surroundings and actually flourish on Earth?

But I guess that's just too silly of an idea to consider, and that just because the english word "day" is used to describe the periods of time God made life in, that must mean, arbitrarily, it is indeed days.

>> No.2259525

You're wondering what unicorn horns taste like.

what are the odds that even if such supreme beings exist, they're anything like what the bible of all crap says they are?

who cares how imaginary creatures act... or taste.

>> No.2259536

>>2259525

Specific portions of the Bible are not generally reliable due to translation errors and additions by churches in order to control the populace. But religious texts, generalized and viewed as a whole, support my model of thinking.

Reactions do not occur without a stimulus - thus, people would not invent religion without some kind of external stimuli. The idea of "ancient astronauts" - whether it's a race of intelligent, technologically supreme beings, or even a hyperevolved sentient cloud of thought - would provide the kind of stimuli needed to develop religion and have that development be uniform across so many different human cultures despite complete isolation from one another.

>> No.2259542

Lol. Your such a retard. God doesnt exist, and your a close minded dipshit for even trying to pretend he does.

Go pretend you have imaginary friends somewhere else XD

>> No.2259538

>>2259536
just because something supports your idea that you invented to explain that something in the first place, doesn't make it true.

Shit.
Bad troll!

>> No.2259545

>>2259538

It doesn't make it true, but it makes it plausible. The idea of God or a group of gods being ancient life, technologically or evolutionarily advanced, is a perfectly solid and logical theory.

>> No.2259550
File: 133 KB, 935x606, facepalm..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2259550

>>2259538

just because someone has a different opinion than you doesn't make them a troll

>> No.2259551

>>2259545
no, it's a weakly supported and inferior hypothesis.

it is possible, but better explanations for the evidence have been advanced by others already.

read the god delusion and get back to us.

>> No.2259556

>>2259550
someone positing a spirit life or arguing for biblical plausibility on /sci/ is certainly a troll...

but I call all OP's troll, and mostly I'm correct.

>> No.2259558

>>2259551
The God Delusion is dribble unfortunately. I'd love to talk to Dawkins and convert him. It would be easy.

>> No.2259560

But...OP is...making sense. I am...confused.

>> No.2259572

>>2259560

The "ancient astronaut" theory is perfectly sensible if you can get past the idea that people are talking about religion.

I don't think of God or Gods as actual omnipresent, omnifiscient deities. I think of them as ancient visitors to the Earth that used advanced technology to seed life and then direct and control the process of evolution. Later on, after mankind evolved to become sentient, they taught man how to act ethical and moral, which, man being man, backfired horribly.

Religion was designed with good intentions in mind - but then it was used to control and dominate.

>> No.2259582

>>2259572
Or, in reality, you cannot die and it is boring, so you are sent here. The machine you are tapped into is made of God therefore nothing bad can happen on the other side.

>> No.2259586

>>2259572
chariots of the gods is possible, but there's no evidence of it happening.

there is evidence that humans have solid motives for imagining spirits, supreme beings and whatnot.

with two possible hypotheses explaining the same phenomenon, the one without any evidence whatsoever is discarded even if plausable.

you lose, dawkins wins. sorry troll.

>> No.2259590
File: 46 KB, 171x169, wut.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2259590

>>2259582

>> No.2259596

>with two possible hypotheses explaining the same phenomenon, the one without any evidence whatsoever is discarded even if plausable.

By this logic, religion > atheism. The same phenomenon (the existence of god) is explained by two possible hypotheses (god exists and god does not exist.)

There is evidence for the existence of God in the collective texts written and the serious, founded belief and faith in his existence. Therefore, by the logic states here, God exists.

>> No.2259604

>>2259596
learn what exactly constitutes empirical evidence, and rethink yourself please.

>> No.2259610

>>2259604

Yet there's no evidence God doesn't exist

>> No.2259614

>>2259610
there's a ton of evidence that god doesn't exist so long as god is defined as incorporeal, conscious, and in our universe.

which incidentally god must be in order to be called a god rather than something else.

>> No.2259621

>>2259610
There's plenty of evidence that the Judaic-Christian-Islamic god doesn't exist. There's also plenty of evidence that the gods of other human religions don't exist either.

There might be a god, but if there is, chances are it doesn't have much to do with anything we've conceived of past, present, or future.

>> No.2259624

>>2259604
Technically he's right. Atheism relies on the LACK of scientific evidence that God exists, yet doesn't have any evidence to prove that in fact, God doesn't exist.

>> No.2259630

>>2259596
Argumentum ad populum.

Lots of people use to think that the Earth was flat and wrote about it and carved pictures of it into tablets. Doesn't mean it's true.

>> No.2259634

>>2259614
Or that would limit God's qualities and he must in fact do both of those things.

>> No.2259636

>>2259630

But can you prove that the Earth isn't flat? Not to an absolute certainty, you can't. You can only make observations using in-universe tools and make statements based off those observations.

>> No.2259637

>>2259624
no, atheism doesn't.

my atheism relies on the following well supported theories:

all life is made in part of matter.

no life can be made without matter.

consciousness is an aspect of some life.

consciousness cannot exist without life.

thus consciousness requires matter.

We can imagine universes where these theories don't hold true, but in our universe they do. If a god participates in our universe it must obey the causalities of our universe or destroy the results of those causalities by negating physics.

thus an incorporeal conscious god cannot exist in our universe, OR everything we think about biology is incorrect. So far there's no reason to toss out biology, which is strong reason to toss out god.

>> No.2259649

>>2259637
Are atoms alive?
Are you made of atoms?
How are you alive if you are made of none alive parts?
Can something out of legos become alive? They are atoms too.

So is it because of carbon atoms? Hmmm.

Ask yourself this: How can you build a computer out of meat?

>> No.2259650

>>2259637

Your argument is unsound, because "consciousness" is not a corporeal, tangible entity and thus cannot be explicitly defined by our current level of knowledge.

>> No.2259652

>>2259637

Mmmm sure is "No True Scotsman" in here.

>> No.2259656

>>2259636
That's not the issue here. The issue is that you can't argue something exists just because lots of people say it exists.

>> No.2259659

>>2259650
consciousness is both tangible and corporeal by any reductionist scientific definition.

I agree that you and the rest of the unwashed lumpen masses don't know what it is, but you can read up on the subject and learn if you're interested.

>> No.2259663

>>2259649
not sure if your criticisms have any relevance. I'm saying that life can't exist without matter, not that all matter must be alive or that a wheel is the same as a car.

>> No.2259664

Just like 19th century

We knew many evidences that light is wave.
We knew few evidences that light is particle.
Light must be either wave or particle.
So light must be wave.

Your logic

>> No.2259672

>>2259652
no true scottsman only because I skipped the lengthy argument on why god must be conscious, incorporeal and in our universe.

If you like, feel free to propose a god that isn't all of those things and I'll explain why it isn't properly called a god because it's already been named something else...

>> No.2259676

>>2259664
yes, if new evidence arises my inductive logic fails.

you've had several thousand years now, where's your evidence?

>> No.2259693

>>2259676

Your logic is not right in the light example.
Therefore your logic is not absolutely right in all circumstances.
Therefore your logic may be wrong in this case.

You cannot prove anything if your logic is not absolutely right.

That is my point.

>> No.2259698

>>2259693
you are trying a deductive proof on inductive logic.

not sure where you're going with that, but it isn't logic.

>> No.2259699

>>2259672

Because you said "my atheism".

>> No.2259708

>>2259699
ah.

only one example. I didn't intend to demonstrate that all atheists are atheists because of evidence rather than by lack of it. More to show that some are.

I certainly didn't mean to imply that a person can't be an atheist for any reason or no reason at all.

>> No.2259715

>>2259515
>> But I guess that's just too silly of an idea to consider, and that just because the english word "day" is used to describe the periods of time God made life in, that must mean, arbitrarily, it is indeed days.

Either days is literal, and science fucks it, or it's metaphorical, in which case plants existed a long time before the sun, and you're again fucked.

This is just the start of the blatant factual inaccuracies in the bible.

>> No.2259720

>>2259515
>Considering how almost every theistic religion has the same general path and concepts - a supreme being or group of beings creating the world and teaching humans to not be dicks - I think such a belief is, at the least, feasily plausible.
How does everyone having an inconsistent sky fairy myth give credence to the sky fairy myth again? Instead, it strikes me as good evidence that people are very prone to believing in fairy tales, and that the whole lot is false.

>> No.2259722

>>2259545
>It doesn't make it true, but it makes it plausible. The idea of God or a group of gods being ancient life, technologically or evolutionarily advanced, is a perfectly solid and logical theory.
Logical, yes.
Sound? Maybe. Depends on what you accept as truth.
Theory? Only the the colloquial sense of guess. It's not falsifiable, so it's not a scientific theory.

>> No.2259725

>>2259558
The god delusion isn't drivel, though I admit it's not terribly compelling in its central argument. It was a good read.

>> No.2259726

>>2259708

Just pointing it out. Religious opinions differ greatly even among those of the same belief.

>> No.2259727

>>2259720

And by attempting to demean it by implying "sky fairies", your logic is bullshit. Fuck off, mate; adults are speaking here.

>> No.2259729

>>2259610
>Yet there's no evidence God doesn't exist
Depends. If you mean "There's no positive evidence against the existence of all theist gods", then you are correct. If you mean "There is no positive evidence against the jesus god myth", then you are mistaken. We have lots of evidence that Genesis is false, Noah's flood is false, and more.

>> No.2259733

>>2259727
No. Just because you don't like my fair characterization of your delusions does not render my logic incorrect. Get over yourself, and accept valid criticism that would be justifiable in any other context. Stop treating your religious beliefs as beyond reproach. You might actually get closer to truth if you do that.

>> No.2259738

>>2259726
thanks for that, though if you read the comment I was responding to you'll see why you were mistaken.

also atheism supported by evidence isn't religion.

>> No.2259743

>>2259733
It is not a fair characterization and your "logic" is a straw man. Your idea that you can make up whatever beliefs you choose and impute them to others to "disprove" their religion is utterly laughable.

>> No.2259744

>>2259733

Bringing the term "sky faries" into this discussion is like calling guns "murder machines". It just shows that you put a fairly large spin on an issue in order to make your opinion sound stronger to yourself. It's essentially bringing name calling into a rational debate.

>> No.2259747

>>2259743
I don't think I applied a straw man, though I admit I used language which would paint this in a different light.

The main thrust of the argument is that people all over the world have developed a similar, story if you will, concerning creation. They all have similar details in many ways. However, they also have very important differences. No two are consistent.

IMO, this is much more likely as a result of independent story creation as a result of some intrinsic aspect of human behavior than it is evidence of true in the stories, any of them, or their shared parts.

>> No.2259761

>>2259744
I always call my guns murder machines or long-distance perforators.

truth should be celebrated.

>> No.2259769

>>2259744
Also, I'm a supporter of individual gun rights, and I don't mind guns being called murder machines. That is their purpose, which is an essential and integral part to the reasoning to have individual gun rights.

Yes yes, I used inflammatory language. I'm not really sorry about it because I think it's an accurate assessment of it, but if you prefer I won't for the rest of the thread.

>> No.2259808

>>2259769
You may not care, but by calling them "murder machines" you concede the point to gun control advocates for the most part. Surely they should be illegal if they're specifically intended for murder. I should think your argument would be that very few guns are used for murder and many are used for self-defence, deterrence or sport. Guns are built for killing, but not every killing is a murder and you're not obligated to use something for its designed purpose (e.g. you could use your gun built for killing to shoot at paper targets).

Similarly, "sky fairy" is not just inflammatory, it largely forfeits the argument for the religious perspective. Every reasonable person would agree that a "sky fairy" is a rather arbitrary sort of being. Why a fairy? Why in the sky? It has nothing in common with God, who is conceived as a sort of all-encompassing and formless consciousness. There are no corresponding questions that could be posed about arbitrary characteristics of God's form, because He has none, nor about his location, because he is everywhere and nowhere. Whenever you impose your own meaning on somebody else to make that person argue from the weaknesses you've built into the terminology, that's a straw man.

>> No.2259814

>>2259808
Oh. I see. Murder is defined as unjustified killing. Sorry, I conflated murder and killing for a moment because a machine capable of one is highly likely to be just as capable as the other.

And why sky fairy? Because that's frequently the imagery invoked, if not literally claimed (like Apollo, etc.). Again, not sure how inflammatory language immediately makes me lose the argument. Are you interested in truth or elementary school games?

>> No.2259838

Hey, Op... I couldn't help but notice that there is a troll in your pic

>> No.2259864

>>2259725
I'll give you that it wasn't drivel. I'll say he is obviously very intelligent and to cover my ass: it was said for literary effect.

>> No.2259900

>>2259814
I explained why that terminology is inappropriate in my post. I'm not going to repeat my reasoning just because you fail to read or answer it. You can go on talking about sky fairies for all I care, but in that case it is pointless to discuss anything about religion with you because you are immune to reason and will process anything I say through a cognitive filter that substitutes terms and turns it into gibberish before giving it any consideration.

>> No.2259910

>>2259900
(cont.) I guess, then, that we can end on a note of agreement. Yes, it is indeed quite absurd to believe a sky fairy created the Universe. Yes, anyone believing that must be stupid. That seems to be about all anyone can say to you on the topic.

>> No.2259913

>>2259900
Different anon replied to you. I did read what you say. I believe I'll stick with
>Yes yes, I used inflammatory language. I'm not really sorry about it because I think it's an accurate assessment of it, but if you prefer I won't for the rest of the thread.

I won't mention the phrase sky fairies again, unless you do.

>> No.2259918

The original text used the word 'Elohim', not 'God', and the Elohim were a race or organization acting on instructions. The sources I've read say the Elohim made some changes on the planet, started a new breed of human in the area of Mesopotamia, and left, apparently having a few human organizations carry out some instructions in their absence.

I'm still not sure how the whole 'creating the stars' story came about. It may have been added by the Romans but I don't want to make any assumptions