Does God Have a Future?

[_keithb]

Which is? The Big Bang explains the Big Bang?

Why does the Big Bang need an explanation? If I flip a coin and it lands heads, do I need to explain why that coin came up heads?

Which is the Big Bang. Did the Big Bang just "happen"?

Again, why do we need a teleology behind the Big Bang? The Big Bang happened. Period.

However it got here? Wasn't that the Big Bang. But what created or initiated the Big Bang?

Okay, I will grant you that we don't know what "initiated" the Big Bang, if it was "initiated" at all. However, there is no reason to believe that the Big Bang was "initiated" by God any more than there is a reason to believe that it was initiated by some unknown physical law.

And, again, why do we need teleology at all in Physics? If I flip a coin and it comes up heads, why did it come up heads? Is it part of some grand design in the universe that it came up heads that time and not tails?

Neither do I, but it doesn't answer the question of origin.

Again, why do we need a "cause" for our origin?

Agreed.

Does that mean God doesn't exist?

Does it mean he does exist?

We are not talking about "religion", or "tribal gods". Tell me where you see Shermer saying he knows that "God doesn't exist" (not even Dawkins has said that), or that we have scientific proof that God doesn't exist.

I don't think that Shermer, Dawkins, me, or any other scientist would say that anyone knows if God exists or not. Indeed, I didn't even say that in my original response. What I did say is that (1: There is no objective evidence for the existence because (2: Every falsifiable claim that religion makes has (to my knowledge) been falsified.

Does that ultimately mean that God doesn't exist? No. But, by I would argue that, without objective facts to support a belief in God, a belief in God is just as rational as -- and has the same level of objective support as -- one in werewolves or Bigfoot.

But what does that mean? That God doesn't exist? If they can't argue against it, then it's still an open question, isn't it?

Again, just because there is no evidence for the existence of werewolves, does that mean that they don't exist? If you can't argue against it, that means the existence of werewolves is still an open question, isn't it?

Shermer doesn't believe in UFOs/aliens either, and he, like Carl Sagan, deliberately chooses to ignore hardcore evidence staring him right in his face, uttered by competent professionals for over 60 years now. Their willingness to turn a blind eye to these mountains of evidence tells me a lot more about their bias, than their objectivity. They will write off as "nutballs" and "crazies" anyone who doesn't agree with their "rational and scientific views", and Deek Chopra hit the nail on the head when he said that they are like "Jihadists" for materalism.

Do look into the thought of Robert Anton Wilson someday, "obviously" another "crazy".

I am unaware of any objective, independently verifiable evidence of UFO's, etc. If you have links to some evidence of this, I would appreciate you sharing them with me, as I would be fascinated to see this evidence.

With all the benefits we have gained from science, and I fully acknowledge them, we still have cartels of dogma-driven bigots in science, whose minds are about two inches open in a virtually unlimited universe.

The nature of humanity is to close our minds to possibilities, and scientists are no exception. However, I would argue that, relative to other people scientists would tend to be among the more open minded segment.

For example, I grew up believing in God. Because of evidence and arguments that I have seen/heard during my adult life, I have shifted my personal beliefs towards atheism. However, if objective, verifiable evidence were presented that lent support to the existence of God, I would happily reconsider my world view.

[_Ray A]

I am unaware of any objective, independently verifiable evidence of UFO's, etc. If you have links to some evidence of this, I would appreciate you sharing them with me, as I would be fascinated to see this evidence.

I have to take this one first. You mean you haven't examined the evidence yet? You're asking me to provide you with the evidence? You haven't looked into it at all? Yet you have a conclusion? You are "unaware" of any evidence? Or is it just a case of you haven't searched?

Did some kind of blinder tell you "this cannot be"? Because it doesn't fit with my "rational worldview"?

[_Ray A]

Why does the Big Bang need an explanation? If I flip a coin and it lands heads, do I need to explain why that coin came up heads?

So it's all "chance"? We are here by "accident", the "flip of a coin". Something even Shermer doesn't except, if you view the video properly.

He and Harris just plainly don't want admit that behind all this may be, wait for the heresy - a "designer". Our moral sense, our loves, our compassion, our empathy for other human beings, or desire for unity, community, and to make our world a better place - just arises out of randomly assembled molecules that came together by - "chance".

[_Ray A]

Okay, I will grant you that we don't know what "initiated" the Big Bang, if it was "initiated" at all. However, there is no reason to believe that the Big Bang was "initiated" by God any more than there is a reason to believe that it was initiated by some unknown physical law.

By talking about "unknown physical laws" you are also getting into the realm of faith. A materialistic faith. Which is what both Shermer and Harris seem to advocate. We are neurons, protons and molecules, basically robots entrapped and at the mercy whatever these material entities that make us "human" dictate. We are, basically, just "robots", material entities assembled by "chance". And when we die, that's it. The robot is dead, and that was the sum of our "material existence" which, of course is all there is. It's totally inconceivable to think it could be any other way.

Genesis 2:7 - "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

Let me know when a computer, even in the 25th century, can think and make decisions, and exercise "agency". Let me know when the most sophisticated human devised computer falls in love with another computer, and thinks and feels love and compassion like a human.

[_Ray A]

For example, I grew up believing in God. Because of evidence and arguments that I have seen/heard during my adult life, I have shifted my personal beliefs towards atheism.

And that is all it is - a belief (or disbelief)

What "evidence"? If "evidence" convinced you that "God doesn't exist", then you are claiming more than you can chew on. "I don't see God, so he doesn't exist". Science can explain everything! We looked for God through our telescopes and microscopes, and we didn't find him. Furthermore, Shermer and Harris say so! So it must be so!

I will venture my biased opinion here, that when the likes of Shermer, Harris and Dawkins finally see the results of what they have done to eradicate faith (with all of its faults, which could be improved), or the "end of faith" as they see it, they will come face to face with the social monster they have created.

It is now going that way, and has been for a long time, and the earth is "filled with violence", "as it was in the days of Noah", and family is against family, and "the love of many shall wax cold" (Jesus), and hearts are hardened and callous, and distrust reigns.

Maybe Shermer and Harris can come up with some "laboratory solutions" formed out of experiments based on the thesis that we are only and no more than "molecules assembled by chance".

[_keithb]

I am unaware of any objective, independently verifiable evidence of UFO's, etc. If you have links to some evidence of this, I would appreciate you sharing them with me, as I would be fascinated to see this evidence.

I have to take this one first. You mean you haven't examined the evidence yet? You're asking me to provide you with the evidence? You haven't looked into it at all? Yet you have a conclusion? You are "unaware" of any evidence? Or is it just a case of you haven't searched?

Did some kind of blinder tell you "this cannot be"? Because it doesn't fit with my "rational worldview"?

I haven't searched for evidence of UFO's, just like I haven't searched for evidence of Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster. Please, enlighten me.

[_keithb]

Why does the Big Bang need an explanation? If I flip a coin and it lands heads, do I need to explain why that coin came up heads?

So it's all "chance"? We are here by "accident", the "flip of a coin". Something even Shermer doesn't except, if you view the video properly.

He and Harris just plainly don't want admit that behind all this may be, wait for the heresy - a "designer". Our moral sense, our loves, our compassion, our empathy for other human beings, or desire for unity, community, and to make our world a better place - just arises out of randomly assembled molecules that came together by - "chance".

They don't want to admit it, but I may be willing to. Fine, we all came by chance.

Look, if you're going to invoke design, then you need to invoke it across the board, not just for the parts of the universe where you would like to see it. If this universe, and the things that happen in it are "designed" by an intelligent being, then where do you draw the line for things that happen by chance and those that happen because their supposed to? Was the planet Jupiter also designed by an intelligent creator? Why or why not? How about the rock in my front yard? Was it made to be exactly that weight and shape by God, or did it just get that way by chance? If you say that everything happens because of design, then my question about why the coin came up heads instead of tails really isn't that out of line.

[_keithb]

Okay, I will grant you that we don't know what "initiated" the Big Bang, if it was "initiated" at all. However, there is no reason to believe that the Big Bang was "initiated" by God any more than there is a reason to believe that it was initiated by some unknown physical law.

By talking about "unknown physical laws" you are also getting into the realm of faith. A materialistic faith. Which is what both Shermer and Harris seem to advocate. We are neurons, protons and molecules, basically robots entrapped and at the mercy whatever these material entities that make us "human" dictate. We are, basically, just "robots", material entities assembled by "chance". And when we die, that's it. The robot is dead, and that was the sum of our "material existence" which, of course is all there is. It's totally inconceivable to think it could be any other way.

No, actually I am advocating the exact opposite of faith: I am advocating a non-belief in things that don't have physical evidence to support their existence. I have no idea what the term "materialistic faith" is supposed to mean (if anything), but if it means that I want people to believe in things that are provably real instead of superstition, I agree that I want people to have "materialistic faith".

As for whether or not there is no life after death, can we both just accept the very real possibility that there might not be? I mean, I would love for their to be life after death, I think. I really loved my mother, and I would like to see her again. But, if there isn't (and there is no objective reason to believe that there is), I accept that fact, however much I might dislike it.

Genesis 2:7 - "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

I personally like what the Greek Creation Myth has to say about the creation of man too:

Soon the Earth lacked only two things: man and animals. Zeus summoned his sons Prometheus (fore-thought) and Epimetheus (after-thought). He told them to go to Earth and create men and animals and give them each a gift.

Prometheus set to work forming men in the image of the gods and Epimetheus worked on the animals. As Epimetheus worked he gave each animal he created one of the gifts. After Epimetheus had completed his work Prometheus finally finished making men. However when he went to see what gift to give man Epimetheus shamefacedly informed him that he had foolishly used all the gifts.

Distressed, Prometheus decided he had to give man fire, even though gods were the only ones meant to have access to it. As the sun god rode out into the world the next morning Prometheus took some of the fire and brought it back to man. He taught his creation how to take care of it and then left them.

Let me know when a computer, even in the 25th century, can think and make decisions, and exercise "agency". Let me know when the most sophisticated human devised computer falls in love with another computer, and thinks and feels love and compassion like a human.

[/quote]

I think that you would be referring here to the "Turing Test", and, from what I have read, many Computer Scientists think that a computer who can pass the Turing Test is only about 50 years or so away. I mean, if you have a computer that wins Jeopardy, then why not one that is able to love?

[_keithb]

For example, I grew up believing in God. Because of evidence and arguments that I have seen/heard during my adult life, I have shifted my personal beliefs towards atheism.

And that is all it is - a belief (or disbelief)

What "evidence"? If "evidence" convinced you that "God doesn't exist", then you are claiming more than you can chew on. "I don't see God, so he doesn't exist". Science can explain everything! We looked for God through our telescopes and microscopes, and we didn't find him. Furthermore, Shermer and Harris say so! So it must be so!

I will venture my biased opinion here, that when the likes of Shermer, Harris and Dawkins finally see the results of what they have done to eradicate faith (with all of its faults, which could be improved), or the "end of faith" as they see it, they will come face to face with the social monster they have created.

It is now going that way, and has been for a long time, and the earth is "filled with violence", "as it was in the days of Noah", and family is against family, and "the love of many shall wax cold" (Jesus), and hearts are hardened and callous, and distrust reigns.

Maybe Shermer and Harris can come up with some "laboratory solutions" formed out of experiments based on the thesis that we are only and no more than "molecules assembled by chance".

I said that I don't believe in God. Again, I don't know for certain whether or not God exists.

I also don't believe in vampires, zombies, werewolves, Roswell aliens, or tree nymphs either. Why is my refusal to believe in any one of those creatures I listed any more offensive than my current refusal to believe in God?

[_Ray A]

I haven't searched for evidence of UFO's, just like I haven't searched for evidence of Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster. Please, enlighten me.

Which shows how open minded you are.

You draw a conclusion when you haven't searched the evidence, which is like, in legal terms, finding someone guilty on a guess, or a "rational hunch". This admission almost totally disqualifies you from being objective, but it doesn't surprise me. And you claim to be a "scientist"?

That doesn't surprise me, either. It's typical of all the modern "Jihadists" materialists, who insists on setting "standards" of "truth". You have no idea how you people make Mormon "bureaucrats" look open minded.

But that's what I'm here for, to make people realise how they've traded one form of dogma for another, and why many "modern" scientists are no less closed minded than the same "scientists" who burned Giordano Bruno at the stake. A goof who draws conclusions in any age without fully examining the evidence is a goof in all ages, no matter how many "letters" lie behind their name.