is their really a god?

[ioioouiouiouio]

Mechanism

I disagree.
If 'intelligence' means 'the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge' and 'faith' means 'trust or belief without evidence':
One is more likely to acquire useful knowledge if one believes only things which have evidence; if prescence of evidence did not increase the chance of something being true and useful, it wouldn't be considered evidence.
That is, if one has no 'faith', one is more likely to acquire useful evidence which can be applied.

Being at the pinnacle of intelligence will bring one to faith. Therefore, faith is the pinnacle of intelligence. Just look at Einstein. Realy smart dude. Also christian. Remember, Without science, religion is blind. Without religion, science is lame.

Quote:

I think that faith is a type of belief, not an evidence.

That's the point

Quote:

Science is science.
Whether or not someone is a theist makes no difference to their science.

Oh, you's be suprised. Atheistic science says that there is no God. Theistic science says there is a God. The two radically different worldveiws create differences  

[Gendou]

First of all, Albert Einstein was hardly a Christian. He rejected the idea of a personal God and believed that while there might be a Prime Mover, that this Prime Mover did not concern itself with the affairs of man. The quote about the relationship between science and religion comes a much longer conversation in which Einstein makes clear that he has no religious affiliation whatsoever.
This should speak to the dangers of quoting people out-of-context: it creates a false impression about a person.

Secondly, there is absolutely no evidence for your claim that "Being at the pinnacle of intelligence will bring one to faith." There are brilliant men and women who reject faith, just as there are brilliant men and women who embrace it.

And thirdly, there is no such thing as 'theistic' and 'atheistic' science. There is only science. Science does not speak to the existence of God in any way, shape or form. Science simply speaks to what is known. It is a process by which we process empirical knowledge. Empirical evidence for God does not exist, so Science cannot address the existence or non-existence of God.  

[Gilwen]

I've met smart and stupid atheists, and I've met smart and stupid Christians. The Bible doesn't differentiate between intelligence and lack thereof, and some people are simply born without the capacity to be very intelligent. This doesn't mean that they are less apt to follow the LORD. God calls people from that group as He does from the "smart" group. Intelligence is helpful, but it's not a virtue, and seeking God earnestly in His Word can bring about knowledge of Him just as intelligence can. Jeremiah 29:13

Let me change Mechanism's wording just slightly, though: Science is science.
Whether or not someone is a theist should make no difference to their science.

It's widely understood that in observational science a preconceived bias toward an outcome can lead to the experiment resulting in that very outcome. This is not because that outcome is true to life. It's because when a scientist is less than meticulously careful, their prejudices can have an adverse effect on the outcome of a scientific study, unfortunately. This would explain how there exists simultaneously heaps of evidence for a God and heaps of evidence against, when, as Gendou sort of said, God is supernatural and cannot be proven or disproven through natural science.

Mechanism

Aye, but how do you explain the existence of that Force? Surely it must have quite a lot of complexity in order to be intelligent; How did that occur?

The intelligent answer to those questions would be: "You don't" and "I don't know"

Since "that Force" is supernatural and infinite and our minds are natural and finite, it would not hurt her argument to not be able to explain the existence of God. In fact, it would be somewhat more suspicious if someone professed belief in an infinite being and then tried frantically to explain it in human terms. That's not to say the inability to explain God's origins proves Him in some way, but it certainly does not disprove Him. (Remember that the Being we're discussing is supposed to be infinite, which is hardly logical, and supernatural, which is hardly explainable, so a logical explanation would not necessarily be required. Logic and explanation could easily be confines of the limited human mind rather than the tools by which everything can be explained. I wouldn't know. I've never operated outside of the limits of my mind.)  

[Sinner]

Gilwen

Let me change Mechanism's wording just slightly, though: Science is science.
Whether or not someone is a theist should make no difference to their science.

It's widely understood that in observational science a preconceived bias toward an outcome can lead to the experiment resulting in that very outcome. This is not because that outcome is true to life. It's because when a scientist is less than meticulously careful, their prejudices can have an adverse effect on the outcome of a scientific study, unfortunately. This would explain how there exists simultaneously heaps of evidence for a God and heaps of evidence against, when, as Gendou sort of said, God is supernatural and cannot be proven or disproven through natural science.

I'd have to disagree slightly on this point.

Although bias is inevitable, if a scientist allows his bias to change his conclusion, then it's not a scientific conclusion.

The scientific process itself is objective. When people stop using it and base their results on biased factors, then they aren't using science anymore.

Gilwen

The intelligent answer to those questions would be: "You don't" and "I don't know"

Since "that Force" is supernatural and infinite and our minds are natural and finite, it would not hurt her argument to not be able to explain the existence of God. In fact, it would be somewhat more suspicious if someone professed belief in an infinite being and then tried frantically to explain it in human terms. That's not to say the inability to explain God's origins proves Him in some way, but it certainly does not disprove Him. (Remember that the Being we're discussing is supposed to be infinite, which is hardly logical, and supernatural, which is hardly explainable, so a logical explanation would not necessarily be required. Logic and explanation could easily be confines of the limited human mind rather than the tools by which everything can be explained. I wouldn't know. I've never operated outside of the limits of my mind.)

I think you're slightly missing his point.

If, as you say, the Force cannot be explained, then why must the universe be explained by the Force?  

[Gilwen]

Sinner

I'd have to disagree slightly on this point.

Although bias is inevitable, if a scientist allows his bias to change his conclusion, then it's not a scientific conclusion.

The scientific process itself is objective. When people stop using it and base their results on biased factors, then they aren't using science anymore.

I understand your point, but it's almost impossible to keep some sort of bias from intruding upon what we call science. If we threw out every scientific explanation that had any sort of preconception (since we are imperfect an all operating under our human perceptions) attached to it, we wouldn't have much left. I'll just go with Kitcher on this one and say that what I'm referring to could be considered "bad science."

Sinner

I think you're slightly missing his point.

If, as you say, the Force cannot be explained, then why must the universe be explained by the Force?

I'm not saying that it must, but the questions do not disprove God, nor do they lend themselved to the debate at hand, since their answers are irrelevent to proving or disproving existence of God.  

[Sinner]

Gilwen

I understand your point, but it's almost impossible to keep some sort of bias from intruding upon what we call science. If we threw out every scientific explanation that had any sort of preconception (since we are imperfect an all operating under our human perceptions) attached to it, we wouldn't have much left. I'll just go with Kitcher on this one and say that what I'm referring to could be considered "bad science."

I'm not saying we throw out all scientific conclusions because of bias. I'm saying that when a conclusion is reached because of bias and not the scientific method, it shouldn't be called science.

Gilwen

I'm not saying that it must, but the questions do not disprove God, nor do they lend themselved to the debate at hand, since their answers are irrelevent to proving or disproving existence of God.

But see, you're still missing the point. His comment was not intended to disprove God. It's intended to disprove the argument that the complexity of the universe implies (or even requires) a God/Force.  

[Curium]

Cometh The Inquisitor

Mechanism

I disagree.
If 'intelligence' means 'the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge' and 'faith' means 'trust or belief without evidence':
One is more likely to acquire useful knowledge if one believes only things which have evidence; if prescence of evidence did not increase the chance of something being true and useful, it wouldn't be considered evidence.
That is, if one has no 'faith', one is more likely to acquire useful evidence which can be applied.

Being at the pinnacle of intelligence will bring one to faith. Therefore, faith is the pinnacle of intelligence. Just look at Einstein. Realy smart dude. Also christian. Remember, Without science, religion is blind. Without religion, science is lame.

Quote:

I think that faith is a type of belief, not an evidence.

That's the point

Quote:

Science is science.
Whether or not someone is a theist makes no difference to their science.

Oh, you's be suprised. Atheistic science says that there is no God. Theistic science says there is a God. The two radically different worldveiws create differences

well even though Einstein was Jewish (not christian) he was not a very religious person. And Einstein said that about science and religion because he believed that they should stay within their own "spheres" and science should be used to prove phenomena and religion should be the drive behind wanting to find how phenomena happen. And by religion he didn't mean having a personal God (as Gendou said), by religion, he meant the desire to find answers to the unknown. At least that's what my high school intellectual heritage teacher said when we went over Einstein's essay called Science v. Religion.  

[squeen_of_pades]

If we really knew if God existed, then we wouldn't be debating it.

I must admit, I am not a firm believer, in fact, I've only been to church a small number of times. I see that science has proven that God doesn't exsist. We've gone above the clouds and saw no heaven, we find fossils that suggest that we evolved. In my mind, without a doubt we a evolved. I wouldn't believe for a second that Adam and Eve story.
(I'm not trying to raise tempers or spark yet another debate on creationism, I am merely expressing what I feel to be true so you know where I'm coming from)

For all my life, I never would have said God existed...

And then...
I find my self praying. I mean "please God" instead of "I hope"
I find I have so much to be thankfull in my life, but the only one i feel fit to thank is God. So, I thank him.
I feel relaxed when thinking that someone watches over me to see that I'll make it out all right.
I nearly feel pleased to see religious fanatics, put a few words from a book before what can stand true without much doubt based on science. These people have so much faith, it's heart-warming.

I am new to this feeling of warmth by religion. My heart bursts to feel this change through my body.

I'm not going to say that God exists, but I would never, in my right mind, flat out say he doesn't.

I leave you with a quote (rather a paraphrase of a quote, becuase I don't remember it exactly)
But seeing as how this is a Christian guild, then you've probably already heard it before, oh well, he goes nothing:

Would you rather believe in God all your life and find out that He that doesn't exist, or not believe in Him all your life, an find out that He does.

(I'm am so sorry if i butchered that terribly)  

[Sinner]

squeen_of_pades

Would you rather believe in God all your life and find out that He that doesn't exist, or not believe in Him all your life, an find out that He does.

Although the rest of your post is very nice, this is a bit of an issue.

This paragraph here is basically Pascal's Wager, albeit toned down a bit. But the essential logic is the same.

Pascal's Wager is faulty because there are more than two positions. The Wager only takes into account the Christian and atheistic viewpoints. However, there are also thousands of other religions, all with their own forms of god(s) and the afterlife.

Basically, if Christianity is correct, then this is fine. If the Egyptians are correct, however, then you're in the same boat as the non-believers. And given the vast number of religions out there, the odds are not in your favor, no matter what you do.  

[squeen_of_pades]

Sinner

However, there are also thousands of other religions, all with their own forms of god(s) and the afterlife.

All too true, but in my opinion, any belief is better then none, as long it strives for good.

Here's another quote:

"Religions are many and diverse, but reason and goodness are one."

This "reason and goodness" are the basis for nearly any religion. If we use both reason and goodness, both our life and afterlife should be favorable.
At least that what's im hoping for, otherwise im gonna be screwed.  

[Sinner]

squeen_of_pades

All too true, but in my opinion, any belief is better then none, as long it strives for good.

What "good"?  

[squeen_of_pades]

Sinner

squeen_of_pades

All too true, but in my opinion, any belief is better then none, as long it strives for good.

What "good"?

I was afraid that you'd ask that. A very good question indeed, but unfortunatley, with that question, you get into a philisophical debate. A debate that started many, many years ago, and still goes on today.

I'd love nothing else more then an actual answer, but seeing as how there is none, then we must have faith in what we were taught in school and by our parents.

I think most of mankind is on the right track. Perfect? No, not at all. But definatly a good place to start. Things could be a lot worse.  

[Sinner]

That's fine then. But clearly your ideas are based on subjective opinion, and don't hold up under objective scrutiny.  

[squeen_of_pades]

Of course!
That's why they are ideas.
By admitting they're only my opinions, I accept the fact that I can be wrong.
I like learning and experiencing new things, so I encourage a a critique of my ideas.

And this critique is what brought me here, to this guild. I'd like to open my mind and learn something about something that hasn't been in my life. Maybe even go to church regularly. biggrin  

[Mechanism]

It's nice to see Sinner here. How've things been?

squeen_of_pades

I'd love nothing else more then an actual answer, but seeing as how there is none, then we must have faith in what we were taught in school and by our parents.

I disagree; in the absence of knowledge, what reason is there to cling to whatever you're told?

Quote:

I think most of mankind is on the right track. Perfect? No, not at all. But definatly a good place to start. Things could be a lot worse.

Why do you think that most of mankind is on the right track?

squeen_of_pades

Of course!
That's why they are ideas.

Ideas can be non-subjective, you know.

Anyway, any objective 'good' seems to be meaningless unless there's actually reason to do it. Doing 'good' is of absolutely no consequence unless there is, well, consequence. Then again, if you don't want the consequence doing 'good', how is that 'good'?
So, I don't think that 'good' has meaning except in the context of a purpose.
For example, respecting others is good if you want to be respected and eating (a moderate amount) is good if you want to stay alive.