Why did God create Atheists?

As more and more questions early man faced that required the evocation of God as an answer are becoming answered by science, why are we still looking for God for answers?  Science provides a much more satisfyingly answer to many previously unanswerable questions than a simple shrug and attribution to a deity.  Scientists are making great strides in telling us where we came from and what we don't know yet, people are making careers out of finding it out.  If modern science stays the course, I think that the mainstream notion of a creator will be gone in a few generations.

All you've narrowed it down to is the cornucopia of gods that claim to have created the universe.

That implies a Greek deity!

So what you're saying is that you can conceive of a being that can create not only the universe but itself as well because it's so infinitely big ad powerful but you can't conceive of a universe so vastly huge and powerful that it couldn't create itself?

Well, I think part of your problem is that you are conceiving of the universe anthropomorphically without even realizing it.  It's inappropriate to use an adjective like "powerful" to describe an entity without purpose.  But it makes sense to apply it to the intelligent Creator of the universe.

Basically if God can exist without any creator, why can't the universe?

Because it appears so clearly designed.

Also, let's assume for a moment that you're right that a 'god' created the universe, there's still no reason to get down on your knees and worship it because which god do you worship? All you've narrowed it down to is the cornucopia of gods that claim to have created the universe.

Ultimately which deity you worship is a personal issue.  I choose to be a Christian because it is the view that it seems most sensible to follow to me.  Honestly I'm not sure God cares, as long as you believe in Him.

Natural selection does nothing to explain how something came from nothing.  Natural selection is a prime example of something coming from something.

Natural selection is an example of something complex coming from something (relatively) simple. There are likely to be other "cranes" out there (as Richard Dawkins puts it) which provide the remainder of the link between total lack of information and the world we see today.

Yes, as has already been explained, the existence of God does nothing to explain how everything came into being.  We'll never know exactly how God came into being; such concepts are beyond our grasp.  Our intelligence, relative to His, is not even that of an ant relative to ours; the universe is infinitely more complex than we will ever be able perceive.  That doesn't mean there aren't good reasons to believe in His existence.

So basically, you explain the existence of the Universe by making the unfounded claim that it is so complicated we cannot explain it. Good strategy.

If modern science stays the course, I think that the mainstream notion of a creator will be gone in a few generations.

I rather doubt it.

Natural selection is an example of something complex coming from something (relatively) simple. There are likely to be other "cranes" out there (as Richard Dawkins puts it) which provide the remainder of the link between total lack of information and the world we see today.

Right, except we're not talking about simple to complex, we're talking about nothing to something.  How many times bigger is 1 than 0?  0.1?  0.0000000000000000000001?

So basically, you explain the existence of the Universe by making the unfounded claim that it is so complicated we cannot explain it. Good strategy.

Why mess with a winning formula?

Right, except we're not talking about simple to complex, we're talking about nothing to something.  How many times bigger is 1 than 0?  0.1?  0.0000000000000000000001?

Natural selection picked up where the previous crane, whatever it might have been, left off. The first crane (perhaps gravitation) initiated the process in a universe devoid of information. 1/0 is undefined.

Why mess with a winning formula?

Because it makes no sense, and because it is unscientific to assume things.

Honestly I'm not sure God cares, as long as you believe in Him.

Why does God care if I believe in it or not?  I can see why an origination that derived its funding from a percentage of income of the population it entertained once a week would want to contrive reasons for keeping people coming back.  However, I cannot understand why an all-everything deity would need me to praise it?  Was God so lonely that it created people so it could have something to worship it?  As a cruel twist, you had to accept its nebulous teachings or be unimaginably tortured for longer than any mind has the capability of understanding.  That last bit sounds an awful lot like another tactic to keep people coming back every week.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 20, 2009, 11:57:52 PM

Right, except we're not talking about simple to complex, we're talking about nothing to something.  How many times bigger is 1 than 0?  0.1?  0.0000000000000000000001?

Natural selection picked up where the previous crane, whatever it might have been, left off. The first crane (perhaps gravitation) initiated the process in a universe devoid of information. 1/0 is undefined.

No matter how you justify it something had to come from nothing at some point in time.  I understand the crane analogy, I've read The God Delusion too.  The point is that at some point in the past something came from nothing.  What initiated the first crane?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 20, 2009, 11:57:52 PM

Why mess with a winning formula?

Because it makes no sense, and because it is unscientific to assume things.

Why should what's scientific influence my belief in something that is unexplainable scientifically?

Why does God care if I believe in it or not?

Because His reason for creating us was to have beings capable of believing in Him.

No matter how you justify it something had to come from nothing at some point in time.  I understand the crane analogy, I've read The God Delusion too.  The point is that at some point in the past something came from nothing.  What initiated the first crane?

If the first crane was, as I suspect, gravitation, then it was probably the random spatial variations in density in the early universe.

Why should what's scientific influence my belief in something that is unexplainable scientifically?

It shouldn't, as long as you acknowledge that it is simply a belief and that the universe's existence does not inherently imply Creation.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 21, 2009, 12:09:35 AM

No matter how you justify it something had to come from nothing at some point in time.  I understand the crane analogy, I've read The God Delusion too.  The point is that at some point in the past something came from nothing.  What initiated the first crane?

If the first crane was, as I suspect, gravitation, then it was probably the random spatial variations in density in the early universe.

Oh, so you're not talking about the ultimate origin of the universe, then, but about what happened afterwards.  Okay, my argument was that science will never explain the ultimate origin of the universe.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 21, 2009, 12:09:35 AM

Why should what's scientific influence my belief in something that is unexplainable scientifically?

It shouldn't, as long as you acknowledge that it is simply a belief and that the universe's existence does not inherently imply Creation.

Maybe not inherently; these are questions man was not meant to truly understand.  The implication is still pretty strong.

Well, I think part of your problem is that you are conceiving of the universe anthropomorphically without even realizing it.  It's inappropriate to use an adjective like "powerful" to describe an entity without purpose.  But it makes sense to apply it to the intelligent Creator of the universe.

Rubbish. I would describe a volcano as 'powerful' the sun as 'powerful' because it is full of power.

Because it appears so clearly designed.

I utterly disagree. We live on a rock that is mostly unihabitable  for us without help, full of things which have evolved to kill us, orbiting a star which, with one burst could wipe us out in a heartbeat. 98% of all creatures that have ever lived are now extinct. Entire galaxies smash into one another, and even if every star in the sky had an Earth-like planet orbiting then the universe is still a mostly inhospitable wasteland.

Are you telling me that an infinite creator of the universe would create this to support life? It would be like a farmer owning 1,000 acres and growing one, solitary pea pod right in the corner

Ultimately which deity you worship is a personal issue.  I choose to be a Christian because it is the view that it seems most sensible to follow to me.  Honestly I'm not sure God cares, as long as you believe in Him.

Where do you get that fantasy? I can somewhat understand somebody who recites bits of the Bible but this is just your own fiction painted on top. There is NOTHING in the Bible about God not giving a damn about other god worshipping, there's plenty about him being a 'jealous god' and 'none get to the father but through me'.

If you honestly believe in a loving, forgiving god who'll take you in no matter who you worship as long as you were basically nice then the god you believe in is not the Christian one, no matter how you kid yourself.

Quote

Well, I think part of your problem is that you are conceiving of the universe anthropomorphically without even realizing it.  It's inappropriate to use an adjective like "powerful" to describe an entity without purpose.  But it makes sense to apply it to the intelligent Creator of the universe.

Rubbish. I would describe a volcano as 'powerful' the sun as 'powerful' because it is full of power.

In different contexts, sure.  But implying that the universe is powerful enough to create itself reeks of anthropomorphism.  Like I said, you just didn't realize it.

Quote

Because it appears so clearly designed.

I utterly disagree. We live on a rock that is mostly unihabitable  for us without help, full of things which have evolved to kill us, orbiting a star which, with one burst could wipe us out in a heartbeat. 98% of all creatures that have ever lived are now extinct. Entire galaxies smash into one another, and even if every star in the sky had an Earth-like planet orbiting then the universe is still a mostly inhospitable wasteland.

Are you telling me that an infinite creator of the universe would create this to support life? It would be like a farmer owning 1,000 acres and growing one, solitary pea pod right in the corner

I would say that beings to worship Him are a bit more gratifying than a solitary pea pod.  But it's not just that: he was showing off to us what he was capable of.  The universe is like a work of art he gave us to appreciate.

Quote

Ultimately which deity you worship is a personal issue.  I choose to be a Christian because it is the view that it seems most sensible to follow to me.  Honestly I'm not sure God cares, as long as you believe in Him.

Where do you get that fantasy? I can somewhat understand somebody who recites bits of the Bible but this is just your own fiction painted on top. There is NOTHING in the Bible about God not giving a damn about other god worshipping, there's plenty about him being a 'jealous god' and 'none get to the father but through me'.

If you honestly believe in a loving, forgiving god who'll take you in no matter who you worship as long as you were basically nice then the god you believe in is not the Christian one, no matter how you kid yourself.

Well, the people who wrote the Bible wanted people worshiping their God.  The Bible is largely a collection of folk tales, after all.  It's not the most conservative position, I know.  But I think the overall point was that He be worshiped.  Look now, there are three major world religions that have sprouted from the same work, and that's not even counting all the sects of Christianity there are!  Obviously there's room for difference in interpretation.

My opinion on this matter isn't quite as controversial as you make it out to be.  You're generalizing; not all Christians are evil fundamentalists (boooo, right?).  My relationship with God is colored by my philosophical leanings.

In different contexts, sure.  But implying that the universe is powerful enough to create itself reeks of anthropomorphism.  Like I said, you just didn't realize it.

Not at all, if it 'created itself' as part of a cyclical system like a star forming itself from the dust, blowing up and reforming again there's no need for a beginning or an end.

I would say that beings to worship Him are a bit more gratifying than a solitary pea pod.  But it's not just that: he was showing off to us what he was capable of.  The universe is like a work of art he gave us to appreciate.

You missed my point, he could have, if he was a good designer either created a tiny, life-universe for us to live in (If he just wanted the one little pod he could have kept us in a platic pot, so to speak) or a universe flooded with life, making use of every possible environment (Growing 1,000 acres of pea pods)

I'm not impressed by a creator whose 'work of art' causes untold suffering for billions of life-forms.

Well, the people who wrote the Bible wanted people worshiping their God.  The Bible is largely a collection of folk tales, after all.  It's not the most conservative position, I know.  But I think the overall point was that He be worshiped.  Look now, there are three major world religions that have sprouted from the same work, and that's not even counting all the sects of Christianity there are!  Obviously there's room for difference in interpretation.

My opinion on this matter isn't quite as controversial as you make it out to be.  You're generalizing; not all Christians are evil fundamentalists (boooo, right?).  My relationship with God is colored by my philosophical leanings.

But that's the point, you've added your own philosophical quirks to the religion and by doing so invented a new one. How can you say that you believe in a god who isn't described by the Christian Bible and call yourself a Christian?

Christianity -> "I am a jealous god, worship no others but me" but you can be forgiven if you accept in the end that Jesus is right.

Roundyism -> "I am a forgiving god, it really doesn't matter who you worship." Whether you change or not.

The bible, and Christianity, are just people's interpretations of God Chris, I would agree with Roundy that God doesn't mind what interpretation you use, I'm sure he understands the difficulties in interpreting something that you don't directly experience (God) so he wouldn't get angry about you using these interpretations so long as your heart is in the right place.

There's nothing scientific in saying there's a god, even if you believe science will never answer what created existence that doesn't open the discussion of the topic to speculation. The whole point in science is it's a method of finding truths about our world which can be performed by humans whilst eradicating our perceptual bias and natural superstitions, the moment you make an assumption with no backing you step out of the realm of science and into religion. When you say there is a god who started existence you are making a clear statement which is that in the beginning of everything was a conscious entity, this has no proof and the only reasoning for this assumption is that you think nothing else would be capable of creating existence. Your science is no better than a creationist who's arguement is his own ignorance regarding evolution.

A real scientific perspective would be to say that we don't know what started existence, we don't even fully understand existence, and therefore any theory or assumption as to what started existence has no reasoning or logic behind it.

What I find quite comical though is you make this assumption of god knowing fully well that there is no evidence and therefore there is no trace of it anywhere to be found, but yet you still think you're qualified to discuss what this god wants from humans and how it feels.

A real scientific perspective would be to say that we don't know what started existence, we don't even fully understand existence, and therefore any theory or assumption as to what started existence has no reasoning or logic behind it.

This.

Oh, so you're not talking about the ultimate origin of the universe, then, but about what happened afterwards.  Okay, my argument was that science will never explain the ultimate origin of the universe.

Neither will anything else.

Maybe not inherently; these are questions man was not meant to truly understand.  The implication is still pretty strong.

Not in the slightest.

The bible, and Christianity, are just people's interpretations of God Chris, I would agree with Roundy that God doesn't mind what interpretation you use, I'm sure he understands the difficulties in interpreting something that you don't directly experience (God) so he wouldn't get angry about you using these interpretations so long as your heart is in the right place.

You misunderstand me, you can believe whatever you want about God, that doesn't make it the Christian God though. It's only our modern morality which sees a jealous, overzealous god as wrong. There's nothing in scripture about 'give it your best go and I'll let you off if you fail."

Quote from: Colonel Gaydafi on August 21, 2009, 02:18:48 AM

The bible, and Christianity, are just people's interpretations of God Chris, I would agree with Roundy that God doesn't mind what interpretation you use, I'm sure he understands the difficulties in interpreting something that you don't directly experience (God) so he wouldn't get angry about you using these interpretations so long as your heart is in the right place.

You misunderstand me, you can believe whatever you want about God, that doesn't make it the Christian God though. It's only our modern morality which sees a jealous, overzealous god as wrong. There's nothing in scripture about 'give it your best go and I'll let you off if you fail."

I'm not sure what your point is. I think what Roundy meant by him choosing to follow the Christian God is that he chooses to follow the traditions of that religion, not that he believes that God is what is represented in the scriptures.

Quote from: Robosteve on August 21, 2009, 05:04:36 AM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 21, 2009, 12:27:53 AM

Oh, so you're not talking about the ultimate origin of the universe, then, but about what happened afterwards.  Okay, my argument was that science will never explain the ultimate origin of the universe.

Neither will anything else.

Which is why it's perfectly natural and logical to speculate on God's involvement in the origin of the universe.  Until the concept of something from nothing makes sense scientifically there's no reason not to attribute the phenomenon to an intelligent Creator.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 21, 2009, 12:27:53 AM

Maybe not inherently; these are questions man was not meant to truly understand.  The implication is still pretty strong.

Not in the slightest.

Well, then we're in disagreement, although I think your opinion is probably tainted by your own desire to reject the concept of God.

Quote from: Jeffs on August 21, 2009, 02:51:06 AM

A real scientific perspective would be to say that we don't know what started existence, we don't even fully understand existence, and therefore any theory or assumption as to what started existence has no reasoning or logic behind it.

This.

Well, this has already been covered; there's no scientific reason to believe in God, only spiritual ones.  But it is heartening to me to see that so many atheists seem to agree with me that Dawkins was spouting bullshit when he said that God is a phenomenon that can reasonably be examined scientifically.  I think we're making progress.

Quote from: Chris Spaghetti on August 21, 2009, 06:11:11 AM

Quote from: Colonel Gaydafi on August 21, 2009, 02:18:48 AM

The bible, and Christianity, are just people's interpretations of God Chris, I would agree with Roundy that God doesn't mind what interpretation you use, I'm sure he understands the difficulties in interpreting something that you don't directly experience (God) so he wouldn't get angry about you using these interpretations so long as your heart is in the right place.

You misunderstand me, you can believe whatever you want about God, that doesn't make it the Christian God though. It's only our modern morality which sees a jealous, overzealous god as wrong. There's nothing in scripture about 'give it your best go and I'll let you off if you fail."

I'm not sure what your point is. I think what Roundy meant by him choosing to follow the Christian God is that he chooses to follow the traditions of that religion, not that he believes that God is what is represented in the scriptures.

Bingo.  I think it's a bit anachronistic in this day and age to try to pit the various religions against each other, since it's clear that they all say essentially the same thing.  It's our values (which of course is a direct consequence of our upbringing) that determine which Holy Book we choose to follow.

Which is why it's perfectly natural and logical to speculate on God's involvement in the origin of the universe.  Until the concept of something from nothing makes sense scientifically there's no reason not to attribute the phenomenon to an intelligent Creator.

You're right, something from nothing makes no sense whatsoever. Therefore any complex system must have a creator. Therefore the universe had a creator, which had a creator, which had a creator, which had a creator, which had a creator, which had a creator, which had a creator, which had a creator, which had a creator, and so on ad infinitum with increasing complexity and decreasing entropy. We just disproved the Second Law of Thermodynamics, everybody.

Well, then we're in disagreement, although I think your opinion is probably tainted by your own desire to reject the concept of God.

Just as I think yours is tainted by your desire for there to be a God. I don't see any reason why looking at system A and saying "gee, I don't know how that formed" implies that there must be a system B many times more complex which must have formed it.

Well, this has already been covered; there's no scientific reason to believe in God, only spiritual ones.  But it is heartening to me to see that so many atheists seem to agree with me that Dawkins was spouting bullshit when he said that God is a phenomenon that can reasonably be examined scientifically.  I think we're making progress.

The way I see it, there are two ways of looking at God. One is a rational scientific hypothesis which can be debated and examined according to the scientific method, which as far as I can see would very quickly be abandoned by any rational person. The other is an irrational faith-based construct, which cannot be debated or examined due to being outside all the laws of our universe. While it is the right of the individual to believe in such a concept, it makes no sense to say that its existence is implied by anything we can see, because its very nature places it outside such rationalisation.

You're right, something from nothing makes no sense whatsoever. Therefore any complex system must have a creator. Therefore the universe had a creator, which had a creator, which had a creator, which had a creator, which had a creator, which had a creator, which had a creator, which had a creator, which had a creator, and so on ad infinitum with increasing complexity and decreasing entropy. We just disproved the Second Law of Thermodynamics, everybody.

Well, I'll ask again: what conceivable theory about the ultimate origin of the universe doesn't disprove the Second Law of Thermodynamics?  The very concept of "something from nothing" does that on its own, doesn't it?

Just as I think yours is tainted by your desire for there to be a God. I don't see any reason why looking at system A and saying "gee, I don't know how that formed" implies that there must be a system B many times more complex which must have formed it.

But it's not not knowing how things formed that give evidence of a Creator, it's actually knowing how things formed.  Seeing the well-defined laws that underlie all of Creation and how they produced this beautiful universe in which we live, the end result being absolutely miraculous beings like us, who are able to observe and appreciate the wonder of it all.  The better we understand the universe the more it looks like there was an intelligence behind it all along.

The way I see it, there are two ways of looking at God. One is a rational scientific hypothesis which can be debated and examined according to the scientific method, which as far as I can see would very quickly be abandoned by any rational person. The other is an irrational faith-based construct, which cannot be debated or examined due to being outside all the laws of our universe. While it is the right of the individual to believe in such a concept, it makes no sense to say that its existence is implied by anything we can see, because its very nature places it outside such rationalisation.

I've already explained why I think it's rational to believe in God.  Our existence, and our ability to observe His creation, are reason enough in my mind to speculate about His existence.  After all, it's not just the ultimate origin of the universe that religion seeks to answer.  Our own purpose and destination are under question; in an existential, Godless world such questions are meaningless.  How is it rational to assume that we are entirely purposeless beings?

Well, this has already been covered; there's no scientific reason to believe in God, only spiritual ones.  But it is heartening to me to see that so many atheists seem to agree with me that Dawkins was spouting bullshit when he said that God is a phenomenon that can reasonably be examined scientifically.  I think we're making progress.

I'm pretty sure he didn't mean god in the way you're portraying. I think it's perfectly reasonable to seek answers as to why so many of our world population place faith in various superstitions. I'm not going to fully debate as to why and how this can be achieved because Daniel Dennett has done such a good job for us already, and if you're seriously interested in the topic then I suggest you read his book "Breaking the Spell".

I've already explained why I think it's rational to believe in God.  Our existence, and our ability to observe His creation, are reason enough in my mind to speculate about His existence.

Roundy, how did you get from speculation to belief? That's a big gap in what you claim was a rational process.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 21, 2009, 11:34:46 AM

I've already explained why I think it's rational to believe in God.  Our existence, and our ability to observe His creation, are reason enough in my mind to speculate about His existence.

Roundy, how did you get from speculation to belief? That's a big gap in what you claim was a rational process.

Are semantics all you have, Wilmore?

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on August 21, 2009, 11:40:35 AM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 21, 2009, 11:34:46 AM

I've already explained why I think it's rational to believe in God.  Our existence, and our ability to observe His creation, are reason enough in my mind to speculate about His existence.

Roundy, how did you get from speculation to belief? That's a big gap in what you claim was a rational process.

Are semantics all you have, Wilmore?

This is anything but a semantic point. I can speculate all day about what may or may not be, but it is not logical to believe in something simply because I have speculated about it. I too have speculated about the existence of god, and it's obvious that so has everyone else in this topic. Even if you justify speculation, how does that in itself justify belief?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 21, 2009, 11:43:58 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on August 21, 2009, 11:40:35 AM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 21, 2009, 11:34:46 AM

I've already explained why I think it's rational to believe in God.  Our existence, and our ability to observe His creation, are reason enough in my mind to speculate about His existence.

Roundy, how did you get from speculation to belief? That's a big gap in what you claim was a rational process.

Are semantics all you have, Wilmore?

This is anything but a semantic point. I can speculate all day about what may or may not be, but it is not logical to believe in something simply because I have speculated about it. I too have speculated about the existence of god, and it's obvious that so has everyone else in this topic. Even if you justify speculation, how does that in itself justify belief?

I think it's only through speculation that one can truly come to a belief in this matter.  I think that when most of you speak about speculating you are really doing it from the stance of the non-believer, and you thus have the specific goal in mind of destroying the concept rather than supporting it.  I approached these questions from the stance of the agnostic, and the pieces certainly seem to fit together well.  From a zetetic standpoint, the God Hypothesis certainly has a lot of support; it's only those who are blinded by science that see any reason to reject it.  I think that science supports the God Hypothesis, because it's broken the universe down into laws that led to our inevitable conclusion: beings capable of recognizing His existence.

I think it's only through speculation that one can truly come to a belief in this matter.  I think that when most of you speak about speculating you are really doing it from the stance of the non-believer, and you thus have the specific goal in mind of destroying the concept rather than supporting it.

Well, by that logic if you speculate 'from the stance of the believer', one could just as easily argue that you thus have the specific goal in mind of upholding the concept rather than rejecting it. As it happens, I don't subscribe to that line of thought, no matter which way you run it. I can assure you, my speculation was genuinely open-minded.

From a zetetic standpoint, the God Hypothesis certainly has a lot of support; it's only those who are blinded by science that see any reason to reject it.

The reality is that the idea of God is at odds with Zetetic thought, the essence of which is to make no assumptions and 'proceed by inquiry'. Without evidence for god, belief in god is an assumption, regardless of what superficially rational arguments you choose to gild it with.

I think that science supports the God Hypothesis, because it's broken the universe down into laws that led to our inevitable conclusion: beings capable of recognizing His existence.

If you can use the scientific method to prove the god hypothesis, be my guest. Otherwise you cannot claim that 'science supports the God hypothesis'.

Well, by that logic if you speculate 'from the stance of the believer', one could just as easily argue that you thus have the specific goal in mind of upholding the concept rather than rejecting it. As it happens, I don't subscribe to that line of thought, no matter which way you run it. I can assure you, my speculation was genuinely open-minded.

I speculated from the stance of the agnostic.  I reached the conclusion that something intelligent created the Earth independent of any bias one way or the other.

The reality is that the idea of God is at odds with Zetetic thought, the essence of which is to make no assumptions and 'proceed by inquiry'.

It is specifically from making no assumptions and proceeding by inquiry that one comes to the conclusion that there is a God.  The mountain of evidence is far more comprehensive than the evidence that the world's airlines are involved in a Satanic cabal.  It's only your bias toward non-belief (a strong undercurrent in society today) that leads you to conclude otherwise.

If you can use the scientific method to prove the god hypothesis, be my guest. Otherwise you cannot claim that 'science supports the God hypothesis'.

I can't.  It's the overall results that support the God hypothesis: the empirical evidence, independent of any rationalizations regarding their existence.

I speculated from the stance of the agnostic.  I reached the conclusion that something intelligent created the Earth independent of any bias one way or the other.

Any genuine speculation is agnostic by nature.

It is specifically from making no assumptions and proceeding by inquiry that one comes to the conclusion that there is a God.  The mountain of evidence is far more comprehensive than the evidence that the world's airlines are involved in a Satanic cabal.  It's only your bias toward non-belief (a strong undercurrent in society today) that leads you to conclude otherwise.

There is no evidence that god exists. Belief in god is based on assumption, and belief based on assumption is the least Zetetic thing there is.

Quote

If you can use the scientific method to prove the god hypothesis, be my guest. Otherwise you cannot claim that 'science supports the God hypothesis'.

I can't.  It's the overall results that support the God hypothesis: the empirical evidence, independent of any rationalizations regarding their existence.

So therefore science does not 'support the God hypothesis'.

Quote from: Jack on August 21, 2009, 02:55:39 AM

Quote from: Jeffs on August 21, 2009, 02:51:06 AM

A real scientific perspective would be to say that we don't know what started existence, we don't even fully understand existence, and therefore any theory or assumption as to what started existence has no reasoning or logic behind it.

This.

Well, this has already been covered; there's no scientific reason to believe in God, only spiritual ones.  But it is heartening to me to see that so many atheists seem to agree with me that Dawkins was spouting bullshit when he said that God is a phenomenon that can reasonably be examined scientifically.  I think we're making progress.

I respect theists and their beliefs. However, I believe finding what started existence is a futile progress, whether you subscribe to religion or science. It is an infinite regress.