Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The God Debate: Hitchens vs. D'Souza

PerpetualPerpetual Registered User
edited May 2010 in Debate and/or Discourse
Before I start, I'd like to issue a blanket apology for creating yet another religion thread. You guys have probably gone through countless iterations of these in the past, and are probably either rolling your eyes or slitting your wrists by now.

However, the reason I wanted to have a discussion is a very interesting debate that I came across the other day. The debate itself was held about a week ago in Notre-Dame University, so it is pretty unlikely that it was covered in previous threads.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V85OykSDT8

It is 1 hour 48 minutes long. At first I figured I'd just watch the parts where Hitchens talks, because frankly I wasn't very interested in what the other side had to say (mainly I was looking for something specific that Hitchens has reportedly say, but I digress).

But a very interesting thing happened: I ended up watching the whole thing, because D'Souza's arguments were actually very well-made and eloquently delivered.

The main point he made was that science is actually "guilty" of a lot of things that atheists accuse religion of. He gave the example of dark matter. Scientists did calculations and found out discrepancies in their measurements of the mass of galaxies, clusters of galaxies and the entire universe made through dynamical and general relativistic means. They then said, "hey, there must be something else that is responsible for these discrepancies, something we can't see or hear or feel, but can account for the effects of. So let's call this thing dark matter." D'Souza says this is the exact same reasoning that religious people use when they say God exists. They say the existence of God, while not proven by sight and smell and sound etc., is the current best explanation for the things that we cannot explain.

There are many other interesting points made by both sides of the debate. The thing I liked the most out of everything Hitchens said was that there are many religions in the world, and by their definitions and claims, only one of them can be correct. He says that this is a very strong evidence that religion is man-made. He also says that many subspecies of humans (such as the Neanderthals) had religions of their own (as seen by their cave paintings), but they went extinct. Which would mean that their gods left them behind. So how do we know that our God, if it exists, will not do the same to us? He supposes that the species that looks upon our Sun as it is dying, millions of years from now, will be a very different species, probably with its own god(s).

Request: Please watch at least some of the debate before responding. I probably haven't done justice to their arguments. Thank you.

Perpetual on
«134567

Posts

  • Mad_Scientist_WorkingMad_Scientist_Working Registered User
    edited April 2010
    The main point he made was that science is actually "guilty" of a lot of things that atheists accuse religion of. He gave the example of dark matter. Scientists did calculations and found out discrepancies in their measurements of the mass of galaxies, clusters of galaxies and the entire universe made through dynamical and general relativistic means. They then said, "hey, there must be something else that is responsible for these discrepancies, something we can't see or hear or feel, but can account for the effects of. So let's call this thing dark matter." D'Souza says this is the exact same reasoning that religious people use when they say God exists. They say the existence of God, while not proven by sight and smell and sound etc., is the current best explanation for the things that we cannot explain.
    Stupid god person is stupid. We can detect dark matter if it exisists.

    Mad_Scientist_Working on
  • KalTorakKalTorak Way up inside your butthole, Morty. WAAAAY up inside there.Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    The main point he made was that science is actually "guilty" of a lot of things that atheists accuse religion of. He gave the example of dark matter. Scientists did calculations and found out discrepancies in their measurements of the mass of galaxies, clusters of galaxies and the entire universe made through dynamical and general relativistic means. They then said, "hey, there must be something else that is responsible for these discrepancies, something we can't see or hear or feel, but can account for the effects of. So let's call this thing dark matter." D'Souza says this is the exact same reasoning that religious people use when they say God exists. They say the existence of God, while not proven by sight and smell and sound etc., is the current best explanation for the things that we cannot explain.
    Stupid god person is stupid. We can detect dark matter if it exisists.

    Plus there's quite a bit of difference in presuming the existence of matter because we can measure its effects and presuming the existence of an omnipotent being because we can't explain some things.

    KalTorak on
  • MelksterMelkster Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Request: Please watch at least some of the debate before responding. I probably haven't done justice to their arguments. Thank you.

    Watching/listening to it now. As someone with a B.A. in Religious Studies - and an atheist - I, of course, have a particular interest in this sort of thing. Be back in an hour and a half, then!

    Melkster on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    KalTorak wrote: »
    The main point he made was that science is actually "guilty" of a lot of things that atheists accuse religion of. He gave the example of dark matter. Scientists did calculations and found out discrepancies in their measurements of the mass of galaxies, clusters of galaxies and the entire universe made through dynamical and general relativistic means. They then said, "hey, there must be something else that is responsible for these discrepancies, something we can't see or hear or feel, but can account for the effects of. So let's call this thing dark matter." D'Souza says this is the exact same reasoning that religious people use when they say God exists. They say the existence of God, while not proven by sight and smell and sound etc., is the current best explanation for the things that we cannot explain.
    Stupid god person is stupid. We can detect dark matter if it exisists.

    Plus there's quite a bit of difference in presuming the existence of matter because we can measure its effects and presuming the existence of an omnipotent being because we can't explain some things.

    There is also the fact that he is arguing for a god of the gaps.

    Couscous on
  • Jademonkey79Jademonkey79 Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I don't know how anyone can honestly take the Cult of the Sky Wizard seriously. As others have pointed out, they throw out the most simple explanation for anything they cannot understand, while Science at least tries to understand the fundamentals of the problem.


    Carl Sagan says it best:
    "In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time someting like that happened in politics or religion."
    -Carl Sagan

    Still, it's a good debate and at the very least it's entertaining.

    Jademonkey79 on
    "We’re surrounded. That simplifies our problem of getting to these people and killing them."
  • surrealitychecksurrealitycheck the search for the means to put an end to things an end to speech is what enables the discourse to continue ~ * ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) excelsior * ~Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    The dark matter analogy is kind of flawed. Dark matter has the bare minimum properties necessary to explain the effects it is posited as an explanation for - and it isn't accepted as fact.

    God on the other hand has a million and one extraneous properties that have nothing to do with what he's used as an explanation for.

    surrealitycheck on
    obF2Wuw.png
  • SmokeStacksSmokeStacks The Myth, the Legend, the Bowman, the Shambler FuckerRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Oh, Skycake.

    To be fair, the "First there was nothing, and then nothing exploded, and then there were planets and people and stuff" does sound kind of ridiculous, but compared to "A Wizard did it" it gets considerably more plausible.

    Carl Sagan has it all wrong though:
    In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time someting like that happened in politics or religion.

    Religious views and ideas change all the time, usually when some new King or Church decide that they want to retranslate/edit the Bible.

    SmokeStacks on
    73CQcJZ.png
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Aren't there some fairly sound explanations that take a shot at what came before the big bang, but require a great deal of knowledge to understand?

    MKR on
  • DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Dark matter analogy isn't exactly anything new. It hasn't also become any less retarded.

    Scientist also rarely worship dark matter and believe it's responsible for anything except gravitational effects on the universy, nor do they give it any personality or claim it has affected their lives personally. I suppose if you go to ultra-abstract theism you might find some parallers, but when you got that deep the only difference between "God" and "Dark matter" is the name.

    I'll try to listen to the debate though, although I can't stand Hitchens.

    DarkCrawler on
  • surrealitychecksurrealitycheck the search for the means to put an end to things an end to speech is what enables the discourse to continue ~ * ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) excelsior * ~Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I'll try to listen to the debate though, although I can't stand Hitchens

    Would you like him more if he got his old beard back?

    surrealitycheck on
    obF2Wuw.png
  • GungHoGungHo Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Dark matter analogy isn't exactly anything new. It hasn't also become any less retarded.

    Scientist also rarely worship dark matter and believe it's responsible for anything except gravitational effects on the universy, nor do they give it any personality or claim it has affected their lives personally. I suppose if you go to ultra-abstract theism you might find some parallers, but when you got that deep the only difference between "God" and "Dark matter" is the name.
    I don't think he's saying he thinks dark matter/energy is being worshiped. He's saying the theory is a product of "science of the gaps". I don't believe it's a valid attack on science as a whole, but it holds more water as an attack on that, specific theory.

    GungHo on
    "Adios, mofo" -- TX Gov Rick Perry (R)
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Perpetual wrote: »
    The main point he made was that science is actually "guilty" of a lot of things that atheists accuse religion of. He gave the example of dark matter. Scientists did calculations and found out discrepancies in their measurements of the mass of galaxies, clusters of galaxies and the entire universe made through dynamical and general relativistic means. They then said, "hey, there must be something else that is responsible for these discrepancies, something we can't see or hear or feel, but can account for the effects of. So let's call this thing dark matter." D'Souza says this is the exact same reasoning that religious people use when they say God exists. They say the existence of God, while not proven by sight and smell and sound etc., is the current best explanation for the things that we cannot explain.
    This is god of the gaps vs a working explanation for observable effects.

    Religious guy analogy fail.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • WassermeloneWassermelone Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    There are some corollaries. Science of the gaps/whatnot. On the other hand, things like dark matter end up getting thrown out wholesale if ever there ends up evidence to the contrary.


    See, aether.

    Wassermelone on
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    GungHo wrote: »
    Dark matter analogy isn't exactly anything new. It hasn't also become any less retarded.

    Scientist also rarely worship dark matter and believe it's responsible for anything except gravitational effects on the universy, nor do they give it any personality or claim it has affected their lives personally. I suppose if you go to ultra-abstract theism you might find some parallers, but when you got that deep the only difference between "God" and "Dark matter" is the name.
    I don't think he's saying he thinks dark matter/energy is being worshiped. He's saying the theory is a product of "science of the gaps". I don't believe it's a valid attack on science as a whole, but it holds more water as an attack on that, specific theory.

    But I mean... no scientist anywhere at any time thinks Dark Matter is a good theory. It's literally here until we figure out something less dumb.

    You can't really compare that to "and we take on faith the immutable truth of the creator".

    durandal4532 on
    Take a moment to donate what you can to the International Rescue Committee, the National Immigration Law Center, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the American Civil Liberties Union. There has never been a more urgent moment to do so.
  • Mad_Scientist_WorkingMad_Scientist_Working Registered User
    edited April 2010
    GungHo wrote: »
    Dark matter analogy isn't exactly anything new. It hasn't also become any less retarded.

    Scientist also rarely worship dark matter and believe it's responsible for anything except gravitational effects on the universy, nor do they give it any personality or claim it has affected their lives personally. I suppose if you go to ultra-abstract theism you might find some parallers, but when you got that deep the only difference between "God" and "Dark matter" is the name.
    I don't think he's saying he thinks dark matter/energy is being worshiped. He's saying the theory is a product of "science of the gaps". I don't believe it's a valid attack on science as a whole, but it holds more water as an attack on that, specific theory.

    But I mean... no scientist anywhere at any time thinks Dark Matter is a good theory. It's literally here until we figure out something less dumb.

    You can't really compare that to "and we take on faith the immutable truth of the creator".
    So why the hell are we testing for Dark Matter if it is such a dumb theory?

    Mad_Scientist_Working on
  • WassermeloneWassermelone Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    GungHo wrote: »
    Dark matter analogy isn't exactly anything new. It hasn't also become any less retarded.

    Scientist also rarely worship dark matter and believe it's responsible for anything except gravitational effects on the universy, nor do they give it any personality or claim it has affected their lives personally. I suppose if you go to ultra-abstract theism you might find some parallers, but when you got that deep the only difference between "God" and "Dark matter" is the name.
    I don't think he's saying he thinks dark matter/energy is being worshiped. He's saying the theory is a product of "science of the gaps". I don't believe it's a valid attack on science as a whole, but it holds more water as an attack on that, specific theory.

    But I mean... no scientist anywhere at any time thinks Dark Matter is a good theory. It's literally here until we figure out something less dumb.

    You can't really compare that to "and we take on faith the immutable truth of the creator".
    So why the hell are we testing for Dark Matter?

    Because thats how science works? Test for the hypothesis?

    Wassermelone on
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Yeah I mean same thing as Aether: "Jeez. Well. Maybe it's just this... this magic shit? Argh" then you test and test and test and then someone goes "haha! Totally disproved that."

    Science is all about having truths that exist only until someone comes along to knock them down.

    durandal4532 on
    Take a moment to donate what you can to the International Rescue Committee, the National Immigration Law Center, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the American Civil Liberties Union. There has never been a more urgent moment to do so.
  • Mad_Scientist_WorkingMad_Scientist_Working Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Yeah I mean same thing as Aether: "Jeez. Well. Maybe it's just this... this magic shit? Argh" then you test and test and test and then someone goes "haha! Totally disproved that."

    Science is all about having truths that exist only until someone comes along to knock them down.
    The aether was supposed to interact with matter. Dark matter on the other hand supposedly can travel right through you and you would be none the wiser.

    Mad_Scientist_Working on
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Yeah I mean same thing as Aether: "Jeez. Well. Maybe it's just this... this magic shit? Argh" then you test and test and test and then someone goes "haha! Totally disproved that."

    Science is all about having truths that exist only until someone comes along to knock them down.
    The aether was supposed to interact with matter. Dark matter on the other hand supposedly can travel right through you and you would be none the wiser.

    And the aether theory was discarded because it no longer fit the data not because the power of Christ compelled us

    you can point out bad science all you want but the only thing that beats bad science is good science.

    nexuscrawler on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2010
    Yeah I mean same thing as Aether: "Jeez. Well. Maybe it's just this... this magic shit? Argh" then you test and test and test and then someone goes "haha! Totally disproved that."

    Science is all about having truths that exist only until someone comes along to knock them down.

    Right. And hopefully in all that testing, you find some more data that can help you formulate a new hypothesis. It's not like scientists are sitting around smoking weed and someone says, "Hey, hey guys, what if there was, like, this matter, but it was all dark?" and BAM! a new hypothesis is born. Dudes look at data and try to come up with the least-crazy idea that explains everything. Except sometimes the least-crazy idea is still pretty wacko because the universe is a weird-ass place.

    Anyone (read: D'Souza) suggesting that a major religion has just floated the God idea until they can come up with a better way to explain things is full of shit.

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • WassermeloneWassermelone Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Yeah I mean same thing as Aether: "Jeez. Well. Maybe it's just this... this magic shit? Argh" then you test and test and test and then someone goes "haha! Totally disproved that."

    Science is all about having truths that exist only until someone comes along to knock them down.
    The aether was supposed to interact with matter. Dark matter on the other hand supposedly can travel right through you and you would be none the wiser.

    And antimatter destroys matter when they touch!

    That sounds ridiculous to me too, but its (sort of) true. You can certainly make dark matter sound ridiculous (and maybe it is) but that doesn't mean it might not end up as scientific theory. Its not yet, but its possible.

    Wassermelone on
  • KalTorakKalTorak Way up inside your butthole, Morty. WAAAAY up inside there.Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Anyone (read: D'Souza) suggesting that a major religion has just floated the God idea until they can come up with a better way to explain things is full of shit.

    Particularly since people are still following counterproductive religious teachings long after science has come up with the "better way to explain things."

    KalTorak on
  • shosarshosar Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    If I recall correctly, (I'm likely wrong) Dark matter isn't really a "thing", it's more the name astrophysicists are using for a phenomenon of the matter we observe accounting for only about 30% (I have no idea of the actual percentage, I'm just pulling this from memory) of the gravity that we're able to measure. We only really call it dark matter because that's a better name than "stuff we can't figure out yet" Similar to the fact that dark energy is not actually a kind of energy, it's more of a name for whatever is causing our universe's expansion to accelerate. Or at least that's what I've learned from a couple of Neil Degrasse Tyson lectures.

    shosar on
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Yeah I mean same thing as Aether: "Jeez. Well. Maybe it's just this... this magic shit? Argh" then you test and test and test and then someone goes "haha! Totally disproved that."

    Science is all about having truths that exist only until someone comes along to knock them down.
    The aether was supposed to interact with matter. Dark matter on the other hand supposedly can travel right through you and you would be none the wiser.

    And antimatter destroys matter when they touch!

    That sounds ridiculous to me too, but its (sort of) true. You can certainly make dark matter sound ridiculous (and maybe it is) but that doesn't mean it might not end up as scientific theory. Its not yet, but its possible.

    Yeah I don't get your problem Mad Scientist, Dark Matter is weird and sounds dumb, but it's the best stopgap explanation we have at the moment. The second there's something that's more parsimonious, we'll hop to that.

    I mean you may as well be all 'Yeah but Darwin can't even explain how traits get passed along'!

    durandal4532 on
    Take a moment to donate what you can to the International Rescue Committee, the National Immigration Law Center, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the American Civil Liberties Union. There has never been a more urgent moment to do so.
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2010
    shosar wrote: »
    If I recall correctly, (I'm likely wrong) Dark matter isn't really a "thing", it's more the name astrophysicists are using for a phenomenon of the matter we observe accounting for only about 30% (I have no idea of the actual percentage, I'm just pulling this from memory) of the gravity that we're able to measure. We only really call it dark matter because that's a better name than "stuff we can't figure out yet" Similar to the fact that dark energy is not actually a kind of energy, it's more of a name for whatever is causing our universe's expansion to accelerate. Or at least that's what I've learned from a couple of Neil Degrasse Tyson lectures.

    Yep, pretty much (though I think it's 10%, not 30%.)

    Assorted calculations behave as if there was a vast amount of extra matter in the universe, but we can't see it. Dark Matter is the idea we currently go with because it explains what we see, and doesn't really contradict anything outside of the fact that we can't directly measure it. I wouldn't say it's dumb, just inelegant.

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • BethrynBethryn Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Perpetual wrote:
    The thing I liked the most out of everything Hitchens said was that there are many religions in the world, and by their definitions and claims, only one of them can be correct. He says that this is a very strong evidence that religion is man-made.
    This is a terrible argument.

    "There are x propositions. They are all mutually exclusive; only one proposition can be true at most. Therefore, all the propositions are wrong."

    Bethryn on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2010
    See, if we're going that route, you could also say that the numerous similarities between religions means that they're not man-made. If most religions have a flood story, clearly that means that God really did make a big flood.

    Of course, battling to see who can make the most terrible argument isn't really a great idea.

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    That's not an argument for the non-existence of God, as far as I can tell. I think the point of the quoted statement is just to establish that people clearly like to make up religions, which is a quality of ours that some people overlook. Instead, they might think it ridiculous that something as complex and pervasive as their religion was just a series of stories some dudes came up with, especially if they're the type who generally view complexity as a compelling argument for the existence of God.

    I.E. Life is complex, therefore it couldn't have come together randomly and there is a God.

    Robos A Go Go on
  • SniperGuySniperGuy Also known as Dohaeris Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Why do people keep thinking Science and Religion are mutually exclusive? They're not. At all.

    Stop it.


    Even if we observed 100% of the universe, understood everything, knew for a fact the big bang happened, and knew for a fact the Universe was still expanding etc etc all that jazz, religion isn't discounted.

    As my sixth grade teacher explained it, maybe God just said "bang!"


    Also, the whole "All religions say that they're right and others are wrong, thus none can be right" (aside from being incorrect) is a silly, silly argument. Like, a brain meltingly stupid argument and why does this guy get to give lectures again?

    SniperGuy on
    Twitch Streaming T/W/TH and more
    Dohaeris210 on PSN / SniperGuy710 on Xbone Live
    Me on Steam
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Even if we observed 100% of the universe, understood everything, knew for a fact the big bang happened, and knew for a fact the Universe was still expanding etc etc all that jazz, religion isn't discounted.
    Just the parts everybody cares about.

    Couscous on
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    They're not exclusive in the sense you're describing,. A God with all the qualities typically afforded to the concept would be able to create a universe that could plausibly exist without a God to create it in the first place. So, if you think your God might do something like that, then nothing in the universe can disprove God. Good for you.

    Still, they are exclusive in the sense that a scientifically minded person cannot argue that God itself is plausible without fudging his or her logic a bit. And of course, anyone who does that can just as easily replace God with FSM or some other nonsense to achieve the same results. Basically, any imaginary thing with qualities that prevent its existence from being directly disproved cannot be directly disproved.

    Robos A Go Go on
  • Xenogears of BoreXenogears of Bore Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    Even if we observed 100% of the universe, understood everything, knew for a fact the big bang happened, and knew for a fact the Universe was still expanding etc etc all that jazz, religion isn't discounted.
    Just the parts everybody cares about.

    Actually you would prove the existence of god if you understood exactly how everything happened, for you would be god in a sense.

    But one can only know what they know, and learn some things that they don't from their perspective. Knowing everything would also entail being everything.

    Xenogears of Bore on
    3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    Even if we observed 100% of the universe, understood everything, knew for a fact the big bang happened, and knew for a fact the Universe was still expanding etc etc all that jazz, religion isn't discounted.
    Just the parts everybody cares about.

    Actually you would prove the existence of god if you understood exactly how everything happened, for you would be god in a sense.

    But one can only know what they know, and learn some things that they don't from their perspective. Knowing everything would also entail being everything.

    It sounds like you're quoting a JRPG.

    Robos A Go Go on
  • Xenogears of BoreXenogears of Bore Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    It's quite possible some JRPG or comic has used that justification before, but it's true enough.

    Knowing everything exactly as it happened without flaw is basically impossible as is being perfect at anything. God like as it were.

    Xenogears of Bore on
    3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
  • Raiden333Raiden333 Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    It's quite possible some JRPG or comic has used that justification before, but it's true enough.

    Knowing everything exactly as it happened without flaw is basically impossible as is being perfect at anything. God like as it were.

    Sounds like someone really liked "The Last Question"

    Raiden333 on
    steam_sig.png
  • Xenogears of BoreXenogears of Bore Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    No fucking clue what that is.

    Xenogears of Bore on
    3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    That's not an argument for the non-existence of God, as far as I can tell. I think the point of the quoted statement is just to establish that people clearly like to make up religions, which is a quality of ours that some people overlook. Instead, they might think it ridiculous that something as complex and pervasive as their religion was just a series of stories some dudes came up with, especially if they're the type who generally view complexity as a compelling argument for the existence of God.

    I.E. Life is complex, therefore it couldn't have come together randomly and there is a God.


    Yeah, the argument is not "all these religions are obviously false" but more "what makes your religion different?"

    It's like the observation that we haven't found God yet, it is not proof of non-existence but it is certainly evidence pointing towards him not being there.

    Julius on
  • Raiden333Raiden333 Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    No fucking clue what that is.

    http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

    Short story by Asimov. Considering your theory, you might find it very interesting, it's one of my favorite stories.

    Raiden333 on
    steam_sig.png
  • GungHoGungHo Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    GungHo wrote: »
    Dark matter analogy isn't exactly anything new. It hasn't also become any less retarded.

    Scientist also rarely worship dark matter and believe it's responsible for anything except gravitational effects on the universy, nor do they give it any personality or claim it has affected their lives personally. I suppose if you go to ultra-abstract theism you might find some parallers, but when you got that deep the only difference between "God" and "Dark matter" is the name.
    I don't think he's saying he thinks dark matter/energy is being worshiped. He's saying the theory is a product of "science of the gaps". I don't believe it's a valid attack on science as a whole, but it holds more water as an attack on that, specific theory.

    But I mean... no scientist anywhere at any time thinks Dark Matter is a good theory. It's literally here until we figure out something less dumb.

    You can't really compare that to "and we take on faith the immutable truth of the creator".
    So why the hell are we testing for Dark Matter if it is such a dumb theory?

    It's not a dumb theory. But, it is an incomplete one. It's being used as a "plug number" to make mathematics align with our observations. It could be dark matter. It could be an incomplete understanding of "standard" matter. It could be cosmic strings. No one knows. They just know to look for something because we obviously don't have it "down" yet when there's a big gap in our theories. Hence my "science of the gaps" comment.

    GungHo on
    "Adios, mofo" -- TX Gov Rick Perry (R)
  • ChillyWillyChillyWilly Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    Even if we observed 100% of the universe, understood everything, knew for a fact the big bang happened, and knew for a fact the Universe was still expanding etc etc all that jazz, religion isn't discounted.
    Just the parts everybody cares about.

    How so?

    ChillyWilly on
    PAFC Top 10 Finisher in Seasons 1 and 3. 2nd in Seasons 4 and 5. Final 4 in Season 6.
Sign In or Register to comment.