I want a kind and loving God to exist, but just because I want it, doesn't mean its there.

As such, I do not make moral choices due to the possibility of a heaven and reward, but I make moral choices due to what I know is right and wrong.

If you think that I told something wrong tell me what's wrong

Would someone mind explaining in what way the presence or lack of a vacuum effects the argument of whether creationism should be taught in schools?

It's all very interesting, but I don't see how it relates. Dumb it down a notch for us non-physicists please

And the moral issue , have anything to do with creationism ?

However If vacuum does not exist , one of the strongest argument in favour of creationism might be dropped
You dont have to explain where the matter come from , simply because its existance is a direct consequence of physical laws

Is this claim an insult to the common sense ?

Are you able to you explain to us in plain words why the earth is attracted by the sun ?

At Newton's time , there was one only reasonable explanation : The God's will

Einstein 300 years later proposed a natural explanation
Nowadays nobody evokes the God's will anymore but if you reflect for a while the " action at distance " is a great mistery same as the existance of matter

The moral issue is based on the argument that religions are bad, because they make people do bad things. I would argue that religious people do bad things IN SPITE of the teachings of their religions, which usually (there are exceptions) teach people to do good things.

Tiles and Lukas (if I've understood them correctly, have claimed that they only use 'science' to judge what is true or false, and not their feelings or intuition. I am arguing that they are using their feelings of what is 'right' and 'wrong' to judge religions anyway, so it is an apparent flaw in their logic.

To me, the physical laws are a sign of God's existence in themselves. Sure, we may discover a source for these physical laws, but this 'cause effect' reasoning will go back to infinity.

I still maintain that God is outside of the realm of science and direct human observation. It is a matter for the feelings and intuition. As long as belief in God does not directly contradict reality, I think it is a logical assumption for the cause of the universe, even if is based on feelings and intuition. Just like it's logical to assume that murder is wrong, because I would 'feel' bad if someone tried to murder me.

On the other side, the claim has been made by many people that there is a God. While the books about these 'prophets' do have some problems in the details (specifically the Bible), the overall message is pretty clear. That people came with a claim to prophecy, that God had communicated to them, and that there is a higher purpose for the universe.

So as humans, it's easy to make the connection between our 'feeling' that there must be a creator, and our 'feelings' of 'right' and 'wrong', and the claim of the prophets that there actually is a creator, and that He will judge which of us acted on what is 'right' from those of us who acted on what is 'wrong'.

I agree that it's not science, but it still remains a plausible explanation for the origin of the universe.

To repeat some of my earlier posts, I am not arguing that Biblical creationism should be taught in science class. I agree that the age of the universe, as well as evolutionary theory have done serious damage to the credibility of the Bible, at least in regard to the creation story, so as to render it 'unscientific'. But religion and God does not begin and end with the Bible.

Belief in a single Creator is not even limited to Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Many cultures, from certain Egyptian dynasties, to Native Americans to Aztec religions, and even some Hindu sects, have at some time or another made the same claim - to a single, all powerful creator God.

I have not studied every human culture in detail, but every one I have studied so far, will mention this belief at some point in their history. To me this is a historical evidence to the claim of the Quran, that God has sent a messenger to every 'nation'.

You have misunderstood me at that point. I don't use science to judge what is wrong or right. Moral is not measurable. That is not part of science.

My wrong or right is based at the laws of the society i live in. And that laws are much more accurate than religious laws. Because they live in nowadays, and not in an ancient time. My wrong or right is based at how i grew up. What i have learned. I grew up in a western, christian society. And so my moral is also based at that. Plus my wrong or right is based at what i call common sense.



Proof?


Proof?



Proof that they talked to a god?



Hm, i am human. And do the opposite. And the facts tells me that i am right



You mix cause with effect. Religion was in ancient times the only way to explain the world. It all started with the first shaman. The shaman benefits from being the shaman because now he has a very high position. The tribe benefits from that because now they have somebody who explains the world for them, holds contact to the unknown forces and shelters the tribe. A Win Win situation. And such a situation will not vanish. It will continue. And it continued in nowadays religions.

To interpolate from that that there must be a god and that this god has talked to lots of people is simply wrong.

This just means that other Human beings long before there Christian, Muslim aso. Friends, believed something wicked and superstitious. Just because a billion people believe something it doesn't make it true.



What sources do you have to make such an assumption other than your feelings or holy book ?



Just say it there are no sources it just your feelings, as I said earlier. What is more likely ? That all the laws of physics where altered at some point in history or that you are simply mistaken ?



Why do you need God than ? You already seem to grasp the nature of morality that also can be found in other non human animals.



No its not an explanation at all, you just set a very complex thing at the beginning where everything was very simple. We see in nature that things don't just happened to be very complex we see a gradual process from simple to complex things.



So you are inventing a place outside of everything to put God there I mean seriously when do you start to put the idea of God into “Neverland”.

It is funny that it is pretty easy to get human and non-human animals to behave superstitious because we and other animals search for patterns to survive we also see patterns where there aren't any and this is what led to religion.

Dooley just face it you are making the claim that there is a God, then you should provide evidence, if you have no evidence your assumption is simply wrong. But I guess you really want to live in a world where there is a god and nothing against that will convince you and it should be good to have an open mind but not so open that your brain falls out.

But you already selling certainty without proof and even worse you undermine the evidence that speak against your claim, this will not hold up in any discussion.

You're both still missing my point. That not everything requires, or can be judged by scientific proof. Science is limited to what can be observed, and repeated.

You yourselves freely admit this when it comes to morality, and you are willing to judge people based on your subjective morality. You cannot 'prove' that murder is wrong, Yet you 'believe' it is.

Yet, when I use my intuition and feelings to determine whether I believe in God, you claim that I'm a fool, or that my brain fell out.

If you think that God is just about people deluding themselves, that's fine. But you'll have to eventually admit that morality is a delusion too. I don't know what kind of society it is that you'll be living in, but good luck.

Just answer the questions !

No there is no point from your side, everyone who brings something supernatural or a god in a discussion already made a very silly statement.
By the way I explained that morality is not human exclusive why are you claiming it is and yes I do think people, who believe in god are deluding themselves.

What is the connection between morality which is a part of evolution that is not made up, fe. chimpanzees do it, living in small groups, helping each other and the believe in an imaginary creator ?

Well I live in a society of open minded people and not close minded religious lunatics.

But Dooley you will never get it, because you don't want to, as I said earlier you want to live in such a world, where there is a god and you don't care about the truth.

The good luck comment was funny that is typical for religious people, they feel that they are somehow superior but we all know believing something silly is not making you special. So if you have no argument, please don't wish other people good luck who have an open mind because I don't love my enemies I really hate them.

If the enemies of reason would stay in private, I wouldn't have a problem but and thats the theme of that thread, they want to impose there religious idea on society and that just one small example.

But the world is made of scientic things. It is NOT made by fairytales.

The limit is at your side. You believe. I know



It is a free one. Where no popan tells me lies or tells me how i have to have sex. A world where i am not burnt down because i think something differen than the official allowed.

A better world.


Err, my point was that this is not measurable. That this is a highly subjective thing. I don't believe or disbelieve anything here. I say murder is neither good nor bad. Because there is no good or bad. There is not just black and white.

It's you that connects everything thinkable and unthinkable with a disproven god.

To repeat myself: proofs for the existance of your pink elephant called god please. Then let's talk again