I am curious...why should God "have to be provable"?

[Skeleon]

I only demand proof where proof is due.
So, if you keep religion as your personal spiritual thing, I don't care.
But as soon as you try to force religion into science, I demand proof and refutability. I demand that of anything when it comes to science.
If you keep your religion out of my science, we're cool.

*giant picture snip*

That thing is awesome.

 

[SsilverR]

I am not trying to spark a religious discussion.
Don't say "This will not end well...".

I am just simply requesting reasons as to why people would demand something along a scientific, provable, guidlines for personal self-reliance.

because people don't want to follow strict rules and alter their lives dramatically when it's all for nothing

 

[LewsTherin]

Because some people need proof for everything.

 

[Unreliable]

Why should Russell's Teapot "be provable"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russel%27s_teapot


What about the invisible, ethereal unicorn behind you? Why should that "be provable"?

 

[sramota]

Because some people need proof for everything.

Indeed, those fools called "intellectual" and "sane"..


"Oh there's a bearded fella flying above us without a plane despite 6-7 billion others being unable? Oh he's also invisible, creating everything and the only one of his kind and he created all this from nothing, for no reason, and made us because he loves us, even though he couldn't love if he didn't create emotions so he can not love without creating love and then it's just a machination of his own device, quite like a sociopath proclaiming "love" for someone...? Yeeeeah you might want to give support for that claim."

In contrast to mr Christian who goes "That makes PERFECT sense!"
Damn scientology look-a-likes...

 

[SsilverR]

I believe in god. The day i believe in evolution is the day i see a building gather all the materials needed to build itself and then builds itself. That is next to impossible.That is like 900 quadrillion to 1.

bio organisms can develope and evolve on their own, they're alive .. concrete isn't .. i'm sorry man but that is by far one of the worst arguments i've heard

 

[sramota]

Why should Russell's Teapot "be provable"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russel%27s_teapot


What about the invisible, ethereal unicorn behind you? Why should that "be provable"?

It shouldn't, and that's mr. Dawkins whole point: DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME IF IT WON'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

There's a God? Right. And do I have to do anything? Oh believe in him? Why? Because if not I'll burn forever in eternal damnation? Right. And what did he ever do for me? Cause the death of a MINIMUM of 33 million people, only by accounts of a book over 2000 years old, so we're missing 2000 years of killings? Right. You know what, we're human, we're habitual creatures, if I'm tossed in a fire for ALL ETERNITY, you can bet your ass I'm going to adapt to it and be fine. So. Suck it God.
(For a Killcount of the Bible alone: http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2007/01/how-many-has-god-killed-complete-list.html )

I believe in god. The day i believe in evolution is the day i see a building gather all the materials needed to build itself and then builds itself. That is next to impossible.That is like 900 quadrillion to 1.

bio organisms can develope and evolve on their own, they're alive .. concrete isn't .. i'm sorry man but that is by far one of the worst arguments i've heard

I'd like to see one of these whackjobs get the swineflu despite having taken the flu shot and then argue against evolving organisms....

 

[ZZ-Tops89]

I am not trying to spark a religious discussion.
Don't say "This will not end well...".

I am just simply requesting reasons as to why people would demand something along a scientific, provable, guidlines for personal self-reliance.

I feel that this is actually a very valid question, and deserves some careful and considered thought.

End well this will not.

Probably right.

ya'll postin in a troll thread.

Yes, but maybe we can overcome that and avoid a stupid discussion.

On to the point, my opinion is that there are two paradigms for God, one of which requires proof and one which does not. The first is a God that guides "personal faith"; that is, a person is religious for personal reasons and freely decides to have faith in God. I have no problem with personal faith despite being a self-proclaimed Atheist.

The other paradigm is what I'll call the "missionary/moralist" perspective. This is where a person tries to have non-secular laws passed. In this case, one is trying to force other people to accept the religious peoples' beliefs. This is the case with issues such as granting homosexuals the legal benefits of marriage. The reason why god must be proven in this case is that one must ultimately make an argument for why it is acceptable to impose on everyone else. In short, I shouldn't be able to impose on your actions in society without having a sufficient justification. Ultimately, any argument for a law based on religion necessitates the religion be true. Likewise, if one were to demand government funding for a construction project, they would need to go through a number of processes to ensure they actually do the project correctly and provide the public benefit they claim to provide (among other things).

 

[similar.squirrel]

Doesn't have to be probable. In a secular society, at least.
But when people start to meddle with things like abortion law on religious grounds, they'd better have some sort of factual grounding for their reasons. You can't dictate people's lives on the grounds that some hypothetical deity might not like it.

 

[LewsTherin]

Because some people need proof for everything.

Indeed, those fools called "intellectual" and "sane"..


"Oh there's a bearded fella flying above us without a plane despite 6-7 billion others being unable? Oh he's also invisible, creating everything and the only one of his kind and he created all this from nothing, for no reason, and made us because he loves us, even though he couldn't love if he didn't create emotions so he can not love without creating love and then it's just a machination of his own device, quite like a sociopath proclaiming "love" for someone...? Yeeeeah you might want to give support for that claim."

In contrast to mr Christian who goes "That makes PERFECT sense!"
Damn scientology look-a-likes...

I would suggest studying the theology you seem so keen on insulting, before blowing a gasket in such a fashion. But, freedom of speech and all that. Cheers.

 

[Tdc2182]

Don't say "This will not end well...".

It won't y'know.

But as to your question, A deity needs to be provable because I refuse to waste a decent portion of my life worshipping something that probably doesn't exist. Prove it exists and will be pissed off if I don't worship it and I will.

Listen to the Captain.....

Does anyone remember when everyone used to beleive in religon? But why do religous people have the pressure of proving god. Why don't unreligous people prove that god doesn't exist. You can't. Heres the thing, it is most likely that no religion has gotten it right. I beleive there is a higher power that is to complicated for any human mind to comprehend. And me beleiving in a god personally makes me feel somewhat more prepared to die. Unlike most atheist I will not be afraid of death and neither will god fearing people.

 

[tenlong]

I believe in god. The day i believe in evolution is the day i see a building gather all the materials needed to build itself and then builds itself. That is next to impossible.That is like 900 quadrillion to 1.

bio organisms can develope and evolve on their own, they're alive .. concrete isn't .. i'm sorry man but that is by far one of the worst arguments i've heard

So you are saying a building can build itself? Get me a plane ticket i like to see it. On a side note how do explain paranormal events like ghost and demons etc. My family and i seen paranormal events that science can't explain. {No we don't do drugs or are insane.]

 

[Tdc2182]

Because some people need proof for everything.

Indeed, those fools called "intellectual" and "sane"..


"Oh there's a bearded fella flying above us without a plane despite 6-7 billion others being unable? Oh he's also invisible, creating everything and the only one of his kind and he created all this from nothing, for no reason, and made us because he loves us, even though he couldn't love if he didn't create emotions so he can not love without creating love and then it's just a machination of his own device, quite like a sociopath proclaiming "love" for someone...? Yeeeeah you might want to give support for that claim."

In contrast to mr Christian who goes "That makes PERFECT sense!"
Damn scientology look-a-likes...

I could easily be skeptical about your non-beleif. If a god is real than he is most likely unable to comprehend, making narrow minded people like you needing proof for something that you would never be able to process. And who says he has a beard.

 

[Sparrow]

Well, this has not ended well.

Seriously, we all told you. Several times. Religious debates always spin into flaming because of some backhanded comment, or some snide word used somewhere. It then roles over into someone flaming them, which rolls over into a quote war.

Two sides, opposite beliefs. IT NEVER ENDS WELL.

 

[ILPPendant]

I don't feel like arguing with people at the moment, although I probably will later...so I'm just going to answer the thread question.

When a rabbit jumps through the snow, it leaves a footprint. Think about that for a moment. Cause and effect. This is elementary logic. Nothing happens without some sort of reason. I have a chart, and it's going to offend people, but I don't care.

[http://tinypic.com]

'Nuff said.

Isn't it lucky that humanity as a whole has then graduated from "elementary" logic and has moved on to more advanced fields of thought? Really, now. What does your little rewording of Pascal's wager have to say about those people who don't believe in God (different from disbelief, which is an active mental process)? What about pre-colonisation Native Americans or people in the Far East? Would they have been condemned to Hell simply for being unlucky enough to be born in a place where Christianity had not spread?

To quote the almighty Douglas Adams:
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

My two cents:
I'm not a theist - theism is the belief in the presence of a higher power.
Nor am I an atheist - atheism is the belief in the absence of a higher power.
I just don't care.

Whether or not there is an omnipotent deity up there (or down there, if that's your thing) is something the individual should decide, based on what they've experienced.

Mmmm... No it isn't. Atheism is the absence of belief in a higher power. I no more "believe" there is no god than I "believe" that grass is green and the sky is blue.

I believe in god. The day I believe in evolution is the day I see a building gather all the materials needed to build itself and then builds itself. That is next to impossible. That is like 900 quadrillion to 1.

Where'd you get that number from? I wasn't aware you were scholar of particle mechanics.

It shouldn't, and that's mr. Dawkins whole point: DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME IF IT WON'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

There's a God? Right. And do I have to do anything? Oh believe in him? Why? Because if not I'll burn forever in eternal damnation? Right. And what did he ever do for me? Cause the death of a MINIMUM of 33 million people, only by accounts of a book over 2000 years old, so we're missing 2000 years of killings? Right. You know what, we're human, we're habitual creatures, if I'm tossed in a fire for ALL ETERNITY, you can bet your ass I'm going to adapt to it and be fine. So. Suck it God.

Whoa, there, matey, calm down. I'm sure that was a rhetorical question.

So you are saying a building can build itself? Get me a plane ticket i like to see it. On a side note how do explain paranormal events like ghost and demons etc. My family and i seen paranormal events that science can't explain. {No we don't do drugs or are insane.]

OK, I was being facetious earlier but allow me to spell it out for you. Do you equate a cell (could be plant, animal, bacterium... anything) with a building? If you surround a building with stacks of coal and water barrels, will it manage its own electricity and plumbing? If you provide it with enough piles of concrete and I-beams, will it eventually clone itself to produce another, identical one? If you can find me such a building then I will gladly pay your plane fare, and mine as well, because such a creation would fascinate me too.

 

[The Maddest March Hare]

Some people do not have the desire to worship something on faith alone. They shouldn't be disrespectful to people who have this ability (as they so often are) but require something solid to believe in.

I am one of those who need the facts before I can devote myself to something, maybe I'm just too distrustful and cynical, but I cannot believe without facts, and even then, would not feel the need to worship what I believe.

 

[Sipo]

when christians stop criticizing my beliefs, ill stop criticizing the existance of god

 

[YuheJi]

Modern empiricism demands that everything be observable, definable, and repeatable, or it doesn't exist. Modern science is so completely full of itself it has decided it is the only possible answer to absolutely everything. God does not fit into the modern empiricist's view and cannot be observed, defined, or made in a test tube, and therefor cannot exist, they say. Of course, in the end, everyone still has faith in science, as the average person doesn't have access to a particle accelerator, or knowledge of quantum physics, even if they did. In short, most people are actually taking scientists' word for it, in much the same way people of faith take holy books' or religious leaders' word for it. It was actually quite amusing to me, the day I realized that modern science is in many ways a religion.

This. It is curious how science becomes so much like religion. We trust other people without much of a basis, like having faith that your significant other won't cheat on you, or that your friends will help you in your time of need. How could having faith in God be that much different?

 

[sramota]

Because some people need proof for everything.

Indeed, those fools called "intellectual" and "sane"..


"Oh there's a bearded fella flying above us without a plane despite 6-7 billion others being unable? Oh he's also invisible, creating everything and the only one of his kind and he created all this from nothing, for no reason, and made us because he loves us, even though he couldn't love if he didn't create emotions so he can not love without creating love and then it's just a machination of his own device, quite like a sociopath proclaiming "love" for someone...? Yeeeeah you might want to give support for that claim."

In contrast to mr Christian who goes "That makes PERFECT sense!"
Damn scientology look-a-likes...

I could easily be skeptical about your non-beleif. If a god is real than he is most likely unable to comprehend, making narrow minded people like you needing proof for something that you would never be able to process. And who says he has a beard.

Ah, but if people like me are unable to comprehend a proof of God, then by design, I'm flawed and doomed to Hellfire anyways, because of God. So we're still on square one we're God either made me flawed in a way which he refuses to redeem my soul, or, he just plain doesn't exist and I'm just a sane and intellectual sceptic with a rather severe case of tourette's.
And on that point, I'm saying he has a beard,
are you to question the gender and looks of God? Like you KNOW anything about that, Believer.