• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Does Religion Have the Burden of Proof?

sangha said:
Should we expect that people in love prove that their love exists?

And the idea that Genesis makes any scientific claims is undermined by the fact that when Genesis was written, science wasn't yet discovered.
Click to expand...

That's not what I said.

"...has been validated through and by modern science..." =/= "made a scientific claim".

"....meets or exceeds the modern scientific standard..." =/= "made a scientific claim".

Point being, valid proof exists for those who desire proof. However, proof doesn't create faith, it would be wise not to expect it to.
 
Last edited:
MistressNomad said:
Did god create the universe or not? Regardless of whatever metaphyiscs it brings up, it is still, ultimately, a claim that god created the universe.

You won't even allow anyone to know what your argument actually is, because you will have to resort to telling them you don't have any evidence.
Click to expand...

I don't know how you would test this in current science. God creating the universe would a be metaphysical action since before the universe existed physics and sciences don't exist. So it being metaphysical matters a great deal. Again, we are talking about what is considered evidence here. If you want to use physics which wouldn't even have existed when the actions happened and can't answer the question at hand, then you a misusing science. Unless there is some other scientific field that studies metaphysics that I don't know about, the watchmaker argument can't be answered by science. To rely on science here would be unreasonable.
 
hallam said:
I don't know how you would test this in current science. God creating the universe would a be metaphysical action since before the universe existed physics and sciences don't exist. So it being metaphysical matters a great deal. Again, we are talking about what is considered evidence here. If you want to use physics which wouldn't even have existed when the actions happened and can't answer the question at hand, then you a misusing science. Unless there is some other scientific field that studies metaphysics that I don't know about, the watchmaker argument can't be answered by science. To rely on science here would be unreasonable.
Click to expand...

Well, that's a very limiting (and probably scientifically untrue) view of our universe. And science is, indeed, taking on that very question. The main problem here is actually your very small view of what science is, and indeed what the universe is.

Very likely (since every other hidey-hole that "god" has formerly lived in has turned out this way), it is a question science will eventually answer, or at least, it has an answer. This is very likely because the god vs. science score is nil to millions.

Metaphysical theories exist in quite a few areas which are already areas of scientific research, and they are usually based on some sort of religion, and they are usually blind conjecture as such.

It's not as though metaphysics can claim a terrority, and it's not as though it has to leave once science enters that terrority. This is almost a silly argument and I can't see what it has to do with anything. The subject itself isn't metaphysical. The only thing that would make it metaphysical is to apply metaphysics to it. You can just as easily apply science to it.
 
You know though - it's a multi-layered issue when it comes to 'proof'

There are several beliefs rolled into certain faiths:

1) Belief that God exists
2) Belief that he created heavens/earth/people - etc
3) Belief that this creation makes him the one we need to worship
4) Belief that he is good and just - and therefor that we need to actually do what he says

And so on.

Someone might believe he exists but sees no evidence that he's the one to worship - or that his teachings and guidance are worth following. . . and so on.
 
MistressNomad said:
Well, that's a very limiting (and probably scientifically untrue) view of our universe. And science is, indeed, taking on that very question. The main problem here is actually your very small view of what science is, and indeed what the universe is.

Very likely (since every other hidey-hole that "god" has formerly lived in has turned out this way), it is a question science will eventually answer, or at least, it has an answer. This is very likely because the god vs. science score is nil to millions.

Metaphysical theories exist in quite a few areas which are already areas of scientific research, and they are usually based on some sort of religion, and they are usually blind conjecture as such.

It's not as though metaphysics can claim a terrority, and it's not as though it has to leave once science enters that terrority. This is almost a silly argument and I can't see what it has to do with anything. The subject itself isn't metaphysical. The only thing that would make it metaphysical is to apply metaphysics to it. You can just as easily apply science to it.
Click to expand...

Again, prove that science can answer this question since science only has the capabilities to study the natural world and when being created the nature world wouldn't have existed. It is very limiting because science limits itself. This is not an imposition by me.

Further, it is nothing but your hope that science will answer these questions. You have yet to detail which scientific field will do this or even produce theories that accurately measure God. Praying that these events will happen in the future doesn't make them so now. Prove that metaphysical theories exist in science currently, hard science I might add. Creationism isn't going to fly here.

You are making a claim that science can prove these questions; the burden of proof is on you to show it.
 
Jerry said:
That's not what I said.

"...has been validated through and by modern science..." =/= "made a scientific claim".

"....meets or exceeds the modern scientific standard..." =/= "made a scientific claim".


Point being, valid proof exists for those who desire proof. However, proof doesn't create faith, it would be wise not to expect it to.
Click to expand...

Rationalising and reinterpreting the vague assertions in Genesis to (not quite) fit Scientific knowledge is not validation. Knowledge is inimical to faith.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Rationalising and reinterpreting the vague assertions in Genesis to (not quite) fit Scientific knowledge is not validation. Knowledge is inimical to faith.
Click to expand...

Sure, that's why the clergy were the most educated people. :roll: Only fools admire the intellect of know-it-alls (read that those that think science knows all).
 
hallam said:
I don't know how you would test this in current science. God creating the universe would a be metaphysical action since before the universe existed physics and sciences don't exist. So it being metaphysical matters a great deal. Again, we are talking about what is considered evidence here. If you want to use physics which wouldn't even have existed when the actions happened and can't answer the question at hand, then you a misusing science. Unless there is some other scientific field that studies metaphysics that I don't know about, the watchmaker argument can't be answered by science. To rely on science here would be unreasonable.
Click to expand...

The watchmaker argument is simply refuted by asking where did the watchmaker come from? The watchmaker is necessarily more complex than the watch.
 
Faith, love, and spirituality constitute personal emotive’s that cannot be gauged or quantified by external empirical means.

Various “articles of faith” are encapsulated within many religions, which is an implied up-front admission/declaration that they exist and manifest beyond the parameters of empiricism. One either internally accepts the concept of metaphysical encapsulation, or one does not. Rather than being inherently right or wrong, such acceptance or rejection is strictly an internal and individualistic endeavor.

Demanding scientific evidence of religion is a bit like counting blue cars.
 
American said:
Sure, that's why the clergy were the most educated people. :roll: Only fools admire the intellect of know-it-alls (read that those that think science knows all).
Click to expand...

If you know why the sun rises and sets, you don't need a God riding his fiery chariot across the sky every day.
 
Manc Skipper said:
The watchmaker argument is simply refuted by asking where did the watchmaker come from? The watchmaker is necessarily more complex than the watch.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree. The watchmaker argument can be refuted in this way depending on the assumptions. But that was not my point. MN stated that science could refute the watchmaker argument. To use science and hypothesis to defeat the argument cannot be done since science will never have the ability to study metaphysics. To say that science can refute the watchmaker argument is to falsify what science can do. Science, in a metaphysical argument, is a false standard.
 
(regarding website crash and restore to previous date...)

Damn... all the hard work Ikari and I put into beating down Sangha's logic and now it's gone.

Oh well... I'm confident there will be future opportunities ;-)
 
SlackMaster said:
(regarding website crash and restore to previous date...)

Damn... all the hard work Ikari and I put into beating down Sangha's logic and now it's gone.

Oh well... I'm confident there will be future opportunities ;-)
Click to expand...

And I'm sure there will plenty of words I'll have to explain the meaning of to atheists
 
SlackMaster said:
(regarding website crash and restore to previous date...)

Damn... all the hard work Ikari and I put into beating down Sangha's logic and now it's gone.

Oh well... I'm confident there will be future opportunities ;-)
Click to expand...

Only if you mean "logic" in the loosest of terms.
 
sangha said:
And I'm sure there will plenty of words I'll have to explain the meaning of to atheists
Click to expand...

Or plenty of hyperbole and exaggeration you'll try desperately to back track on and fail. It's all good. We've seen this song and dance. No need to repeat.
 
sangha said:
Well, SlackMasters posts have shown that atheists do use words is the loosest of ways :lol:
Click to expand...

Your posts have shown a penchant for hyperbole and intellectual dishonesty in your arguments. So those in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks.
 
Ikari said:
Your posts have shown a penchant for hyperbole and intellectual dishonesty in your arguments. So those in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks.
Click to expand...

The only intellectual dishonesty I've seen is from the militant atheists who claim that 90% of all theists claim Gods existence as a provable fact, and those "reasonable" atheists who sit silent while the militant ones rant nonsense
 
sangha said:
The only intellectual dishonesty I've seen is from the militant atheists who claim that 90% of all theists claim Gods existence as a provable fact, and those "reasonable" atheists who sit silent while the militant ones rant nonsense
Click to expand...

What about the militant theists who claim that no reasonable atheist addresses the problems with the "militant" atheist sub-group? To which the statement has been demonstrated false. To use it is to lie, and you already know this.
 
Ikari said:
What about the militant theists who claim that no reasonable atheist addresses the problems with the "militant" atheist sub-group? To which the statement has been demonstrated false. To use it is to lie, and you already know this.
Click to expand...

I don't remember any theist saying that. Do you have a quote because this wouldn't be the first time an atheist claimed a theist said something but couldn't come up with a quote.

That's why I asked that SlackMaster re-post his cartoon. It made an argument for theists that no theist has ever made IME
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom