|
|
Posted by Steve on 09/19/07 14:56
"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:1190196325.1431.0@proxy02.news.clara.net...
> Shelly wrote:
>
>>
>> Scientifically speaking, there is no experimental evidence for the
>> existence of a god. It is a pure faith statement to assert the existence
>> of god. You can hold your opinion, and you are entitled to it, but it
>> scientifically without foundation. (Reminder: I, personally, believe in
>> the existence of God as a matter of faith)
>>
> Scientifically speaking there is no experimental evidence for the
> existence of any noumenous concept, that goes from God right down to
> electrons.
>
> At best these are ideas dreamed up by people that:-
>
> - produce a simplified picture of what's going on and
> - do NOT CONFLICT with experimental evidence.
> - do something useful by way of prediction and
> - are not excessively complicated (Occams razor)
>
> Now if you ditch all science, God is indeed a very useful and simplified
> description of what is going on. Sadly the ways of god passeth mans
> understanding blah blah, which gives God essentially no predictive power
> as a concept whatsoever. So religions fail on step 3 as being
> scientifically meaningful.
>
> They pass all the other criteria though.,
no, most (christianity specifically) fail at the final point given what god
claims to be and be able to do...most of which is logically impossible and
the rest outseated by something more simple provided by science - thus
satisfying occam.
take the notion of attonment. original sin. jesus as god only after decared
so in around 327AD by the council at niceanea (sp). omniscience yet
free-will yet predeterminatory. the trinity. the list goes on, conflicting
idea after conflicting idea. the babble is excessively complicated to the
nth degree. further, the pentatuch (sp) is the birth right of judeism,
islam, and christianity. sorry, all of them just got of to a bad start. from
there, the convolution just multiplied.
so, really, religion only meets the first criteria since there is no
experimental evidence to be had in which it could be conflicted. religion is
completely lacking a key scientific requirement...it is not falsifiable.
therefore, irrelivant.
and, with item number 1 being the only thing left...it may be a simplified
picture of what's going on, however historically, that picture has not been
correct once the truth was discovered or unearthed. in the end, from this
perspective, religion is essentially useless in any discourse of
science...save history/mythology.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|