Belief In God Plummets Among Youth

[PHOENIX TRADING]

Quote from kut2k2:

Wrong again. Science cannot ABSOLUTELY answer the question but it can deduce a probability, which is so close to zero as to be practically indistinguishable from zero. When people adhere to a belief for which there is not one iota of a shred of real evidence, it's pretty clear where the real problem lies .... Hint: it ain't with science, nor with the disbelievers.

Religion gives you the warm fuzzies. Good for you, but that doesn't mean you're living in the real world, silly boy. Go join the nerds at Comic Con; they get the warm fuzzies a lot from imaginary beings as well.

I think you are exactly wrong.
I think it's going to take science a few thousand years to catch up to the religions on the subject of the existence of God.

Civilization will be quite advanced by the time the study of God becomes scientific in nature by the masses.

 

[jcl]

Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:

I think you are exactly wrong.
I think it's going to take science a few thousand years to catch up to the religions on the subject of the existence of God.

Civilization will be quite advanced by the time the study of God becomes scientific in nature by the masses.

Science can never "catch up to the religions" because it has a different subject. Science aims for truth, while religions aim for something that can indeed be described as the warm fuzzy feelings.

Science can not generally give insight into the existence or nonexistence of gods, but it can very well make statements about the existence of a particular god, such as the god of a literally understood old testament. When many of the events attributed to this god can not have happened because they had left traces that aren't there, then this particular god can not have existed.

Unless of course you assume that the god did exist, but has carefully removed all his traces and created a false earth history with the help of miracles. I wonder however why a god should do that.

 

[PHOENIX TRADING]

Quote from jcl:

Science can never "catch up to the religions" because it has a different subject. Science aims for truth, while religions aim for something that can indeed be described as the warm fuzzy feelings.

I'm sorry that's just not true, you are demonstrating the limits of western cultural thought where there is sharp distinction between observer and subject being observed.

Heisenberg proved this is not possible.

 

[jcl]

Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:

I'm sorry that's just not true, you are demonstrating the limits of western cultural thought where there is sharp distinction between observer and subject being observed.

Heisenberg proved this is not possible.

Well, as far as I know, Heisenberg has proven nothing of that sort. You probably mean Niels Bohr, who found that interaction by an observer causes the object's wave function to collapse.

However, I do not really see what this has to do with western culture or scientific statements about god. Or do you want to say that God's wave function collapses when scientifically examined?

 

[PHOENIX TRADING]

Quote from jcl:



However, I do not really see what this has to do with western culture or scientific statements...

Yeah , I know and I 'm okay with accepting your confusion.



Your mode of thought is correct(for now) whilst science is in it's infancy.
However that will not forever be the case , the study of man's spirit and God will become scientific in the future as both man and science evolve.

 

[jem]

Quote from kut2k2:

LMAO at some shyster in Southern California presuming he knows physics.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_design#Argument_from_fine_tuning

typical et atheist adhom... attack the messenger instead of learning science.

----
Suskind states here are 4 possibilities to explain the knife's edge fine tuning...

1. God (that is correct... susskind says it)
2. luck
3. megaverse/ multiverse
4. someday find a theory of everything.

http://www.closertotruth.com/video-...d-Susskind-/431

 

[pupu]

and Bill maher was calming credit for this all to himself on his last realtime show.

I kid I kid

 

[kut2k2]

Quote from jem:

----
Suskind states here are 4 possibilities to explain the knife's edge fine tuning...

1. God (that is correct... susskind says it)
2. luck
3. megaverse/ multiverse
4. someday find a theory of everything.

http://www.closertotruth.com/video-...d-Susskind-/431

LOL!

Let's recap:

kut2k2: When people adhere to a belief for which there is not one iota of a shred of real evidence, it's pretty clear where the real problem lies .... Hint: it ain't with science, nor with the disbelievers.

jem: Why do atheists always make this ridiculous claim.
They say there is no evidence of a Creator.
Bullshit.
Open your eyes. learn physics

kut2k2: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_design#Argument_from_fine_tuning

jem: Suskind states here are 4 possibilities to explain the knife's edge fine tuning...

1. God (that is correct... susskind says it)
2. luck
3. megaverse/ multiverse
4. someday find a theory of everything.


So suddenly your "evidence for a Creator" becomes merely one of four possibilities (there are probably more than four).

You have a lot of gall telling others to learn science when you are so dazzlingly ignorant of the subject yourself. Your god theory is no more likely than any other theory explaining fine-tuning. The fact that you cling to it so desperately as "evidence of god" like a drowning man clutching at a straw tells logical people all we need to know about your "scientific" acumen. LMAO!!

BTW your god theory fails Occam's Razor spectacularly.

 

[jcl]

I've always wondered why creationists come up with the "fine-tuning" argument anyway. After all, the idea that the universe was fine-tuned by some god for producing life is anti-creationist. It assumes that the universe is indeed 13.7 billion years old and life indeed was created by abiogenesis and evolution. Otherwise the "fine-tuning" would obviously not have been necessary.

 

[kut2k2]

Quote from jcl:

I've always wondered why creationists come up with the "fine-tuning" argument anyway. After all, the idea that the universe was fine-tuned by some god for producing life is anti-creationist. It assumes that the universe is indeed 13.7 billion years old and life indeed was created by abiogenesis and evolution. Otherwise the "fine-tuning" would obviously not have been necessary.

Some of them are willing to accept the evidence for evolution and the Big Bang Theory so long as they still get to claim "God did it". It's like the last gasp of the gaps theists: as long as they can cling to fine-tuning as somehow unexplained by natural causes, therefore God! LOL