Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

YH8

Has Science Proven the Existence of God?

Has Science Proven the Existence of God?  

52 members have voted

  1. 1. Has Science Proven the Existence of God?

    • 1) Yes.
      4
    • 2) No, but it (science) can/has the ability to.
      6
    • 3) No, and it (science) can't/doesn't have the ability to.
      35
    • 4) I don't know.
      3
    • 5) Other (please explain below).
      4


Recommended Posts

I'm just on high alert when it comes to discussions involving religion...high alert for deception, evasion, denial. double talk, shfting focus off the subject, illogical thinking, fallacies, that sort of thing.

Ah! I am also, especially on scientific topics as well. :P

Share this post


Link to post

S.L.

I know you have 2 post I havne't replied to but at this point I must stop and I will be going away for a few weeks. I'm not sure whether I'll post when I return. In the next few day I might but once I'm away I might lose interest/momentum. Right now I'm into it but by the time I get back I probably won't be. I might decide to start looking into science more. I think I've gathered plenty of information on mormonism, to form an opinion, more than I need.

Share this post


Link to post

Without religion we would be better off.

I disagree and tend to side with Dostoyevsky when he said that "If God does not exist, all things are permissible." Without any higher law or standard, why should I obey any law? If I cease to exists when I die - what does it matter what I do in this life. Good or bad, it all ends in eternal nothingness.

Also, there have been some states that have lived up to your secular utopia - Nazi Germany and the USSR. They really got along well with others.

Share this post


Link to post

Religiously Free -

I think I've gathered plenty of information on mormonism, to form an opinion, more than I need.

You're kidding again right?! I have been in for decades and would never claim this......... truly, I cannot fathom you think you have the skinny about Mormonism already. I suspect you are much, much too quick on the draw in thinking you now have just enough to understand. Come now, there are those of us who have been with it for decades and decades and do not have enough, and that is after serving in several callings on the inside, as well as reading truly thousands of books, articles, reviews, and manuals...........I sincerely cannot fathom one saying such, but to each her own. I wish you well in your future.

Share this post


Link to post
Are you saying that 'notice' can not be used as a verb?

No.

I've heard... things infer.. people imply..is that correct? 

No.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest The Headless Laban
Without any higher law or standard, why should I obey any law? If I cease to exists when I die - what does it matter what I do in this life.

If this is how you feel, please don't stop believing in God. :P The counter argument would be some religious people put God's laws above man-made laws. Do you think the islamic nut cases care about international laws? When God tells them to blow up infidels, it doesn't matter what the man-made laws say.

As an agnostic, I believe in respecting the rights of my fellow man and living within laws that men of goodwill created. I guess I would credit it to evolution. Our ancestors who just went around acting like a menace to society, were killed off by society. Those who worked within the system, and built alliances with other people, survived and passed on their genes to future generations. Wars are fought and people are killed over political ideologies, no doubt about it. But religion is just as dangerous, in some cases more so, because people are willing to die for God. Right now the biggest powder keg is in the middle east, and that is religious based. The terrorists are blowing themselves up and killing civilians in the name of God. And of course religion influenced the mountain meadows massace. I had to toss that one in there. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Guest The Headless Laban
Religiously Free -
I think I've gathered plenty of information on mormonism, to form an opinion, more than I need.

You're kidding again right?! I have been in for decades and would never claim this......... truly, I cannot fathom you think you have the skinny about Mormonism already. I suspect you are much, much too quick on the draw in thinking you now have just enough to understand. Come now, there are those of us who have been with it for decades and decades and do not have enough, and that is after serving in several callings on the inside, as well as reading truly thousands of books, articles, reviews, and manuals...........I sincerely cannot fathom one saying such, but to each her own. I wish you well in your future.

How long does it take to read the Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C and Pearl of Great Price? It may seem like decades while you're reading <_< but it really only takes a few months to get through all that at the most. Fast readers can get through it even faster. Those books are the standard works. They are the 'doctrine' of mormonism - that is it. If you get through those four books, what else is there? The Journal of Discourses? Mormon Doctrine? The Ensign? Yeah, right. :P Everything outside the standard works is simply man-made opinions and interpretations of the scriptures. Mormon doctrine itself is found only in the standard works, and therefore you can know everything about mormonism by reading those four books, and it doesn't take decades.

Share this post


Link to post

Religiously free, I can appreciate speculation, investigation, reason, and even agnosticism, but also think that when one openly seeks to face the truth of the beginning cause it is necessary to use plain common sense.

It seems that you are claiming religions are all made up? Is that an accurate statement? Perhaps I got you mixed up with someone else. The only blind faith is the faith of the blind. God has proven Himself over and over. Just look at the record of His dealings with Isreal in leading them from Egypt to Canaan.

If there is a God, and this God is good, and this God wants to reward those who seek Him in spirit and truth, it would seem reasonable that He would have said something to someone sometime. The proof of the resurrection of Jesus from current evidence, historical evidence, eyewitness testimony of those who knew Him and those who were just reporting on the matter, as well as the impact He still has on millions of people for good - If there is a God, He has not left His creation in the dark, but has stepped into time with powerful impact.

Life has purpose and meaning, those who discover and acknowledge it seldom abandon it.

In all your investigations, have you read Lee Strobel's other book?

Case for Christ

Case for a Creator

Case for Faith

and then there is also Rick Warren's THE PURPOSE DRIVEN LIFE.

You will likely find better evidence for real faith in those writtings to explore the various viewpoints of differing religions, is there a God, does He care about me, and can I have a life that has real and lasting meaning and purpose.

Best wishes!

Share this post


Link to post
How long does it take to read the Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C and Pearl of Great Price?

That is fundamentally irrelevant. To read is one thing, to understand is an entirely different matter............. I still find myself learning something new on a daily basis in the scrptures, and I had them read decades ago as a teenager. They are nigh unto inexhaustible.

Share this post


Link to post
religious individuals can't handle the challenge

Right. Not only are the intelligent ones among them "frankly dishonest," but, in general, they're unable to stand the heat.

It's the same old stuff, same old lies and deception.

There's the charge of dishonesty again.

The supernatural beliefs of all religions are man created fiction.

And with one wave of "religiously free's" magisterial hand, all of the world's faiths are swept away.

How religions started and their development is interesting.  I've learned J. Smith is to Mormonism what Paul is to Christianty.  Both of these men  created myths and to some extent both stole in doing so, Paul less so than J. Smith.  Paul stole from Judaism, its sacred books, its concepts  as well gnosticism and mystery religions of his day to create Christianity..his version of  Judaism with added twists.

No controversy in those claims. Anybody who fails to accept them, we know, can only be doing so out of dishonesty.

J. Smith stole Mr. Spaulding's  manuscript to write his  BOM, as well as sections from the bible, and took over Christianity's sacred text and added his unique and creative twists to create mormonism.

Whew. I'm glad that's settled.

Anyhow like I say,  I've done a fair and decent amount of investigation on which to form an opinion of mormonism.

It's absolutely undeniable that "religiously free" knows enough to form opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Me:  It's the same old stuff, same old lies and deception.

D: There's the charge of dishonesty again.

Let me give you an example Daniel. I found this the other day..I don't know if the site is pro or con mormon but I briefly read some article by Dallin Oaks and I know nothing about this fellow I'm only going by his words. I'm assuming this fellow is no dummy. My comments are in blue.

It's at : http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/respons...Historicity.htm

He writes near the end of the article:

In this message I have offered some thoughts on about a half-dozen matters relating to the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

1. On this subject, as on so many others involving our faith and theology, it is important to rely on faith and revelation as well as scholarship.

In order to determine the historicity of the BOM it is not important to rely on faith and theology and no where has he proven that. The actual BOM is not evidence of its own proclaimed truth, nor is personal revelation or faith.

2. I am convinced that secular evidence can neither prove nor disprove the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

What on earth is wrong with secular evidence? Is he playing dumb or is he being disingenuous. He should know better. Of course secular evidence is of value and if there was any evidence the church would be using it. The church not only would welcome secular evidence, it wants it. And of course if there was secular evidence, linguistic, archeological, genetic, anthropological whatever, it would help prove claims of the BOM. Lack of evidence is not disproof but if the evidence lacks when there should be evidence that is a form of negative evidence. If he truly believes the BOM is true ...then he should not be making comments that secular evidence can't prove authenticity. I suspect he want to discourcourage secular evidence because it might actually prove the BOM false, I can see no other reason for making a claim that secular evidence can not prove the authenticity of the BOM. What he might have said had he been forthright and honest is that 'I don't believe we will ever find secular evidence to prove the BOM...but that's not what he said.

3. Those who deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon have the difficult task of trying to prove a negative. They also have the awkward duty of explaining how they can dismiss the Book of Mormon as a fable while still praising some of its contents.

What on earth is he talking about? If he was honest he'd explain why those trying to prove a negative have the difficult task of proving. He knows by his observation that it would be difficult, that it is because if something isn't true and therefore the positive evidence does not exist ..then no positive evidence can ever be found! He should know the burden is not on the skeptic to disprove, it is on those making claims such as the BOM is true to do the proving. By wording his statement so as to place the burden on the skeptic he is being disingenuous ..the skeptic doesn't have the task at all as Mr. Oaks is trhing to have the reader believe. And as to his second sentence, so what someone believes the BOM is fiction and yet praises it. Sheesh. There is nothing awkward about it. Praise of anything has no bearing on the truthfulness of it.

We know from the Bible that Jesus taught his Apostles that in the important matter of his own identify and mission they were "blessed" for relying on the witness of revelation ("the things that be of God") and it is offensive to him for them to act upon worldly values and reasoning ("the things . . . that be of men") (Matt. 16:23).

Again he's putting down secular evidence "the things that be of men". Can he say with honesty that secular evidence should be ignored? Tell that to the judicial system, I don't think so and he knows the claim is utter nonsense. He is again disingenuous because he does know better.

5. Those scholars who rely on faith and revelation as well as scholarship and who assume the authenticity of the Book of Mormon must endure ridicule from those who disdain these things of God.

Excuse me, but if there is ridicule could the reason possibly be that it has nothing to do with whether the ridiculer believes in god or disdains anything with regards to the BOM. In fact the ridiculer may very well believe strongly in a god. Perhaps it might be that all the evidence and lack of evidence along with the ridiculousness of the claims made is why scholars who argue for the truth of the BOM are ridiculed.

6. I have also illustrated that not all scholars disdain the value of religious belief and the legitimacy of the supernatural when applied to theological truth. Some even criticize the "intellectual provincialism" of those who apply the methods of historical criticism to the Book of Mormon.

His wording is so convulted I can't make out what his point is. There is no theological truth, there is no legitimacy of the supernatural..and saying it in a sentence doesn't make it so. And what does he mean by "methods of historial criticism" If a person is honestly trying to prove or convince..they certainly wouldn't write such difficult to understand sentences.

So Daniel this is what I mean. When someone is honest and wants to present an argument to support their position, they are forthright and try to express themselves clearly. Mr Oaks appears to do the opposite. And they don't go out of their way and make illogical and points having the appearance of disingenuous because any honest individual wouldn't make them.. Mr. Oaks' essential argument is that secular evidence has little value and shouldn't be used. No honest man could say such a thing. Of course secular evidence has value in proof, the more the better, the more credible the better.

 

The supernatural beliefs of all religions are man created fiction.

And with one wave of "religiously free's" magisterial hand, all of the world's faiths are swept away.

Yes, Daniel I do require evidence to accept that religious books proclaiming the supernatural, or divine inspiration are anything more than man created fiction.

Me:  How religions started and their development is interesting.  I've learned J. Smith is to Mormonism what Paul is to Christianty.  Both of these men  created myths and to some extent both stole in doing so, Paul less so than J. Smith.  Paul stole from Judaism, its sacred books, its concepts  as well gnosticism and mystery religions of his day to create Christianity..his version of  Judaism with added twists.

Daniel: No controversy in those claims. Anybody who fails to accept them, we know, can only be doing so out of dishonesty.

People who fail to accept what I say can be doing so for a number of reasons. When I've brought up dishonesty, I'm talking about when someone is being deliberate in deception ..when they should know better. Highly intelligent people ...can be just as deceptive or immoral as anyone else. Intelligence doesn't guarantee high morals, honesty with oneself, or honesty with others.

When someone has a significant investment in something there is high motivation to protect their interest and hence it is human nature to not be as honest as one might normally be. Martha Stewart is a case in point. People who have devoted their entire lives to a religion typically have a significant investment to protect.

Me:  J. Smith stole Mr. Spaulding's  manuscript to write his  BOM, as well as sections from the bible, and took over Christianity's sacred text and added his unique and creative twists to create mormonism. 

Daniel:  Whew. I'm glad that's settled.

No it's not settled. Witness have died, individuals such as Mr. Spaulding, Mr. Smith have died, lots of potential evidence is lost never to be obtained. Proving events of the past is extremely difficult. I did read affidavits of some of the people who knew Mr. Spaulding and more than one individual came forward to say that he had written it. There was not motivation for them to do so, hence I that added to their credibility. I am certain beyond all shadow of doubt that the BOM is fiction given the facts I've accumulated, exactly how it was put together is less certain.

Me:  Anyhow like I say,  I've done a fair and decent amount of investigation on which to form an opinion of mormonism.

D:  It's absolutely undeniable that "religiously free" knows enough to form opinions.

My opinion on whether the BOM is fiction or non, is based on a fair and sufficient amount of investigation such that I have no doubt it is fiction.

Share this post


Link to post

My hat goes off to you, Religiously Free, for a well made point. Very well spoken.

Share this post


Link to post

It seems that Religiously Free feels the burden of proof should be on those who say the Book of Mormon is true, while Daniel feels it should be on those claiming it is false.

Which is the right approach? Well, that is different for everyone. There was a thread on the subject a few weeks ago, with some good thoughts (but no one ventured a rule on how to choose where to put the burden of proof in any given situation. If someone has such a rule, I'd love to hear it.)

Clearly, it depends a bit on your personal status quo. If you are a Jehovah's Witness, you will think the burden of proof is on the Mormons to prove the Book of Mormon is true (Mormons will often accept this burden, by the way, in the form of Moroni's promise.) If you are LDS, you will probably feel that the burden is on others to prove it wrong. (As Elder Oaks does in that speech.)

It appears, as far as I can tell, that even those LEAVING the LDS Church, seem to want proof that the BoM is not true. It appears that Rel. Free is in between these two, spending most of his time insisting it is on Oaks, while ending with a testimonial that even with the burden of 'dis'proof, the BoM doesn't stand up, in his view.

Absent a spiritual witness of some kind, I would tend to agree that the burden is on the BoM, while for those who feel they have such a witness, the burden is on the detractors. Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post

Sounds good. Basically, the burden of proof always rests upon someone making a claim. If someone claims the Book of Mormon is false, then the burden rests on them to show it; they can't then put the burden on someone else to show it is true. One must support one's own arguments, or give a test of their correctness (repeatable experiments).

Share this post


Link to post
It seems that Religiously Free feels the burden of proof should be on those who say the Book of Mormon is true, while Daniel feels it should be on those claiming it is false.

No. Not so. The "burden of proof" is a concept from an entirely different discussion than the one I'm involved with, which is about the nature of the proof that would be required to validate or invalidate the Book of Mormon's claim to historicity. I don't actually expect such proof to show up on either side. So it's a purely theoretical discussion.

Incidentally, I hope it won't be forgotten that my actual initial claim -- the one that inspired "religiously free" to denounce me as dishonest, along with Dr. Polkinghorne and Elder Oaks and the majority of intelligent religious believers -- had nothing whatsoever to do with the Book of Mormon. I'll quote it, from the first page of this thread:

Current trends in certain areas of science -- notably in cosmology, but possibly also in molecular biology -- have made belief in some kind of God much more easily defensible on scientific grounds than it has been since the ascent of Darwinism.

"religiously free" knows "nothing" (that's her word) about quantum physics and cosmology, so she has decided, in lieu of substantive conversation, to denounce my statement as deceptive and dishonest.

Share this post


Link to post
Zeta Flux:  Sounds good. Basically, the burden of proof always rests upon someone making a claim. If someone claims the Book of Mormon is false, then the burden rests on them to show it; they can't then put the burden on someone else to show it is true. One must support one's own arguments, or give a test of their correctness (repeatable experiments).

Actually Zeta it's not just on someone making the claim. If the BOM didn't exist, or if there were not people believing it to be non-fiction there would be no reason or need to prove the BOM fiction. The burden in this case is on the one making the extraordinary claim. People who claim it is fiction are not making the extraordinary claim , those who claim it is non fiction are and they are the ones with the Burden of Proof.

Think about it for any extraordinary claim (out of the ordinary) that any lunatic wants to make it's not up to the scientific community to prove wrong. At some point common sense comes into play and the wackier or more extraordinary the claim the less other people will bother with the claim..because time is valuable to people and there are better things to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Actually Zeta it's not just on someone making the claim.

...

The burden in this case is on the one making the extraordinary claim.

If someone claims something, the burden rests on them to back up their claim. You seem to be contradicting yourself, and not refuting anything I said.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest The Headless Laban
Sounds good.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...