Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  9 10 11 12 13 (13 total)
photo
DougSmith
What isn't potentially sensitive?
12:40 AM on 07/03/2010
The debate is not between religion and science but really between fact and superstition.

Live in the matrix if you wish but I prefer to live in the real world.
photo
emmanuel goldstein
NSA = Needlessly Surveilling Americans
01:28 AM on 07/03/2010
How uninformed your understanding of religion is.
http://www.ipnatlanta.net/camaga/vidyarthi/Dancing%20Shiva.htm
12:37 AM on 07/03/2010
I love the story about the banana, who's to say its not true.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
sassafra
I yam what I yam and tha's all what I yam
01:02 AM on 07/03/2010
yes, and if god is such a fantastic civil engineer, in the case of humanity's sexual organs why did he build the amusement park so close to the sewage treatment plant...hmmmmm?
photo
emmanuel goldstein
NSA = Needlessly Surveilling Americans
01:29 AM on 07/03/2010
Some people like that.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
StephenJK
All your consciousness are belong to us
01:47 AM on 07/03/2010
both are, as you so eloquently put it, sewage treatment.....BOTH have dual purpose as amusement parks........ding....your move.
dave1111
My macro-bio is empty.
12:31 AM on 07/03/2010
I think Kirk is just a little too friendly with that banana.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chaapai
just an earthbound misfit, I
12:17 AM on 07/03/2010
it cant. its just that simple. Science and religion are incompatible! One seeks the truth, the other seeks to bog you down in superstition and mumbo jumbo. It hopes, no... it commands that you not seek answers for yourself.

There is no god. Science can never be used in a manner to prove that their is. No God. Bad religion.
Simple as that.
12:58 AM on 07/03/2010
You make the assertion that there is no God. Did you get your proof from science or is that your opinion?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
UnderTheHedgeWeGo
Show me some evidence.
01:28 AM on 07/03/2010
Please give any example of the interaction of God with the human race.

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Hirnlego
07:11 AM on 07/03/2010
Faith is useless in a science lab because faith doesn't prove anything.
12:16 AM on 07/03/2010
When you understand that the conflict between religion and science is a matter of method--not facts--then you will understand why I have called you naive.
photo
Uncle Bob
Darwin loves you.
12:11 AM on 07/03/2010
"There is more to ponder, here, of course, and I'm the first to admit that there is no evidence to tip the balance."

evidence would be nice, no doubt, but I'd settle for just a falsifiable hypothesis.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Clay Farris Naff
Blogger, science journalist, & author
10:55 AM on 07/04/2010
My hypothesis is falsifiable. It will be falsified if and when physics shows that either a) it is impossible to create a bubble universe from within an existing bubble universe or b) there is no way in principle to control or guide that process. Thanks for commenting, and I regret if I did not make my meaning clearer in the first place.
photo
Uncle Bob
Darwin loves you.
09:39 PM on 07/05/2010
You have a very odd definition of "falsifiable". Your only prediction is what won't be discovered, and you insert the answer you'd prefer while waiting for science to come up with evidence for something that we very well may never have ANY real evidence for.

Reminds me of the "crockoduck" challenge.
10:09 PM on 07/02/2010
If God is real, science will find Him. Saying science is one thing and religion another has been a ruse to try to keep religion in the game after people (scientists) started finding out a lot of religion's "certain beliefs" were just wrong. Religion and science weren't separate to the people who made the religions we now "worship." They wanted truth, and they did the best they could with what they had. Loyalty to the religious founders (eg, via faith) is misplaced. Sorry, but we have to grow up. For reasons it would be out of place here to go into, I am 100% convinced in the existence of God. That is as certain to me as knowing that I exist. We just don't have the details yet, and since we're talking about God, let's call them the "Sacred Details." It's all truth. Science is our best bet to get the true truth because it's a mechanism that allows us to to pool our intellectual resources together and build on the accomplishments of our ancestors. Let's call it "hard core God." Science WILL take us there. Don't be afraid of science: God is at the other end.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bsmithslo
11:11 PM on 07/02/2010
Science and Religion aren't separate in the way that you believe people are claiming them to be. Science and Religion are separate in the way they reflect on the evidence. Science works methodically, step by step interpreting new evidence based on previous evidence that has been proved. Religion begins with an assumption (the world is made by a benevolent God) and interprets the evidence based on how the world would work if that assumption is true. The only thing science can prove about Religion is whether or not the evidence used to support the existence of God actually supports the current definition of God.

The author says that "The only mystery, to (his) mind, is why anyone would believe that a world plagued with earthquakes, tornadoes, and HIV is the product of a divine being". The claim that God created the world as it is, to remain as it is, would certainly exclude the existence of a divine moral being. I don't know of anyone in the history of Religious thought who believes the claim of religion is that God has created a perfect world and we are in it. The belief is that God created the world and sin entered it, and God has promised to redeem it after a period of time and return it to its perfect state. Darwin suffered from the same assumption of the author. There is no need for the world to be perfect in order to accept a biblical view of God's creation.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
BOBinPS
Really?
11:49 PM on 07/02/2010
" I don't know of anyone in the history of Religious thought who believes the claim of religion is that God has created a perfect world and we are in it. The belief is that God created the world and sin entered it, and God has promised to redeem it after a period of time and return it to its perfect state"

Even theists understand that the world is not perfect. But instead of the logical conclusion that it was not created by a perfect, omniscient, compassionate god, they rationalized the unpredictability of existence as man's, not god's. Sin. What a lifestyle....! Beliefs based upon mental masturbation, guilt, and ultimately control.... And yet the fools believe and don't ask for proof....
photo
Uncle Bob
Darwin loves you.
12:14 AM on 07/03/2010
"There is no need for the world to be perfect in order to accept a biblical view of God's creation."

I'd like to hear what the world would look like that would convince people that the biblical view of god's creation was false.

It seems that a perfect world would falsify the god in question. What else?
01:04 AM on 07/03/2010
Your post was wonderful! You are absolutely right about everything.. Science will be used to find God very soon.. Maybe finding God is the "new era" or big event that the Mayans attribute to 2012.

To believers it would seem like heaven on Earth.. To atheists it would seem like hell

The solution to the problem of contacting God is so brilliantly creative, it had to come from a female

I'll give you a hint.. It involves a plant and a book that hasn't been written yet
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
UnderTheHedgeWeGo
Show me some evidence.
01:38 AM on 07/03/2010
"To believers it would seem like heaven on Earth.. To atheists it would seem like hell".

You seem to be confusing atheist with demons. You act as if atheists believe there is a God and deny his existence just to..........what? What is it you believe about atheist? We hate God and believers. We are just jerks?

Give me the slightest evidence of the existence of God and I will consider changing my mind. But you will not because you can not. Yet you are certain he exist because..........why? Why do you think "He" exists?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dan Jighter
08:26 PM on 07/02/2010
As for multiple universes, the answer is admittedly speculative and has its problems. This is just the way cutting edge science works. However, the notion that the universe seeming designed for us is just the result of us winning a cosmic lottery does not hing on there being multiple universes. Even for a one and only universe to win the lottery is a possibility, regardless of the low probability and expectation.

Also notice that Clay proposes the possibility that there was an intent behind creating the universe. Proving such an intent is a tall order and everything Clay has mentioned falls well sort of it. Back to the "cosmic lottery", by analogy if you are playing poker and get an ace-high straight flush (which is incredibly unlikely), that is hardly evidence that the dealer intended to give you the hand. To prove intent we need far more than having won a cosmic lottery.

Note that (which the author admits) no evidence is put forth. If I am to accept God's existence, I require evidence, not speculation of evidence. In fact, the author's concession of no evidence strongly favors such an atheist position.

As for that final speculation "Let's suppose there's a Creator out there with limited power..." it should be readily apparent that there are notions of god that are consistent with our understanding of the universe. However, a proposition being consistent with other knowledge is hardly evidence or proof that the proposition is true.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
StephenJK
All your consciousness are belong to us
02:11 AM on 07/03/2010
Be honest, at least. The odds of hitting a royal flush are incredibly great when compared with the chances that you and I exist by pure luck of the draw. It's a very poor analogy you make. You should make the analogy something like, if I were to jump off of the Sears Tower and survive the fall.......
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dan Jighter
02:25 AM on 07/03/2010
Use whatever analogy or odds you want. Low probability does not imply intent.

Surviving a fall from the Sears Tower has probability zero. If you jumped off of the Sears Tower, you would be splattered on the ground, 100% guaranteed. If you managed to survive such a fall, the impossibility of it would be what is astounding.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Hirnlego
07:14 AM on 07/03/2010
Not the same. The odds for you existing is very low mathematically, just calculate all the needed sperms and eggs which must have come together for a very long line of generations.

Yet you exist. The complexity and improbability argument is a weak one.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dan Jighter
08:14 PM on 07/02/2010
Finally a decent article around here and someone other than the atheist commenting who actually get it! Finally someone who wants to have a serious conversation about whether the existence of god can be proven using scientific inquiry. Overall the article says a lot of great stuff, so I hope no one minds if I point to where I disagree.

Clay states that the New Atheists take the view that "if God didn't create the Universe, brick by brick, according to his Grand Blueprint, then He must not exist." Firstly, the New Atheists acknowledge that some take the view that God didn't design life, he just set evolution in motion. That said, often the god being disputed is the Christian God or similar, not the deist god. The New Atheists argue that we can understand the universe without appealing to a god having created it. This does put any god hypothesis into serious question if there are hypotheses like evolution without god that fit the evidence. The point is maybe God created the universe, but we have no reason to believe he did. Also, some of this gets back to "There is a fundamental error in any religious narrative that portrays the world as designed by an all-powerful, all-knowing, and beneficent God. The world just ain't built that way."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bluebloodsbastardson
12:47 AM on 07/03/2010
proof of the existence of God lies within E=MC2, find the trigger for the Big Bang and you will have the true Creator, was it God or the Higgs-Bosun particle, or something else? Hawkings is betting against the H-B P ever being discovered by CERN and is looking forward to the day his fellow geniuses get their act together and rethink their approach to Creation.....I'm down with Stephen on this one, FWIW it ain't rocket science and the answer is pretty obvious if you really, really think about it. BTW we cycle between eternal Big Bangs, Black Holes are an integral component in Creation.....Do the math and you'll have your answer.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dan Jighter
01:48 AM on 07/03/2010
I hope you realize that Steven Hawkings is an atheist. Anyways...

You are diving into cutting-edge, speculative physics here. I'd be very careful in doing so. Modern physics is very abstract and counter-intuitive and thus is beyond the read understanding of a layperson and even confuses the experts at times. Unless you've personally done the math, you might not know what you are talking about. The sort of physics you are talking about are still hypotheses or speculation that have yet to build a solid body of evidence. Even if the speculation is correct, there are many open problems that seem to beg for a god of the gaps and many things we are still coming to understand about such physics. I caution against hastily looking for proofs of God here.

Perhaps it is "something else" rather than God or the H-B P. Just because it is not the H-B P really doesn't mean anything more. You can't conclude from it not being the H-B P or some other popular theories that it's God, that's just a god of the gaps argument.

It's fun to name drop E=MC2, Black Holes, etc. It's also fun to speculate about how and why the Big Bang occurred. But you can't just speculate that God did it, you need evidence. Do you have serious evidence that strongly indicates that there is a God? Something for which within reasonable doubt God is the only explanation for the evidence.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
BOBinPS
Really?
07:33 PM on 07/02/2010
" Let's suppose there's a Creator out there with limited power. "

Here is where the rubber leaves the road. If you are a theist, at some point within the scientific dialogue you have to insert god. The drive to do so isn't required by the scientific evidence, it is required by faith. So, how is different from a watered-down version of intelligent design? It isn't.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Clay Farris Naff
Blogger, science journalist, & author
10:00 AM on 07/04/2010
Thanks for commenting. I think you haven't quite grasped the distinction. Admittedly it's hard to break out of the theistic mindset when talking about a creator, but it can be done within a scientific framework.

The drive to explain the evidence requires hypotheses. Among these can, quite legitimately, be a creator, provided one isn't positing magic. I am not. Can a bubble Universe be deliberately created? Uniengeering, as one might say? There is a body of speculative physics that suggests the answer is yes. (See Michio Kaku's book Parallel Worlds, for example.) Would an advanced civilization in a dying Universe have any incentive to do so? Sure. The Darwinian Imperative is to keep life going. Will we one day do so? Maybe, if we don't tear our civilization apart now, and survive into the far future, when this Universe will be dying. Are we the products of the same process? Perhaps.

You tell me: why does it require faith to posit any of this?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:12 PM on 07/02/2010
"Science can't prove what it can't see, it just explains it in it's own science". However, that what you can't see, was made into that which you can see. If I were to say, there is no God, but his name is God, then how do you prove it. What if I were to say, there is no religion, but it's name is religion, then how do you defend that which is, but is not?
Fire is in water, and water is in fire. When a [bolt] of lightning comes out of a cloud, when is it water, and when is it fire? :)
06:49 PM on 07/02/2010
Therefore, I am agnostic. A radical agnostic. Not only do I say I don't know, I say one CANNOT know. Not you, not the pope, not the Dalai Lama. No one.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
StephenJK
All your consciousness are belong to us
02:15 AM on 07/03/2010
Yes, the deists, like me, take a stance one way or the other. It's now impossible for me to imagine a Universe without the creator. Literally. I'm 100% convinced. Atheists go the opposite route.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Hirnlego
07:20 AM on 07/03/2010
No, uncertainty is what brings atheists out of religious beliefs and most remain uncertain to the degree that they could like myself really be called agnostic atheists.
photo
peterg76
Freelance medical transcriptionist
06:48 PM on 07/02/2010
Once you define 'God', the "the Puzzle of God" solves itself. But God as created by human culture is metaphorical, and can never fit any concrete definition.
06:47 PM on 07/02/2010
God requires faith. Science requires reason. Faith is the antithesis of reason. Ergo, science cannot "solve the puzzle" of god. (big G or little g)
06:50 PM on 07/02/2010
Therefore, I am agnostic. A radical agnostic. Not only do I say I don't know, I say one CANNOT know. Not you, not the pope, not the Dalai Lama. No one.
photo
Uncle Bob
Darwin loves you.
12:16 AM on 07/03/2010
I hope you are as militant about belief in santa claus too. I'd be disappointed if you weren't consistent.