LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksIt would be a bit pointless if he existed.
Obviously not much point answering god does nnot exists as that is excluded in the question.
August 7th, 2009, 09:46 PM
It would be a bit pointless if he existed.
Obviously not much point answering god does nnot exists as that is excluded in the question.
The study of religion really has nothing to do with whether god(s) really exist or not, and not all religions even have god(s) per say.
Considering there are thousands of extant and extinct religions in human history and prehistory, many of which are mutually exclusive and contradictory and, therefore, not of the same god(s), it would be scientifically irresponsible not to study this human condition even if one or more gods were shown to exist.
Is there any reason to continue this discussion further?
If the little green refrigerator light man was actually CAUGHT running back to his hiding place too slowly after turning on the fridge light when you open the door, should we study him scientifically?
Like this is a valid question? It's the same thing this thread asks.
August 8th, 2009, 12:28 AM
You know what a theologian is?Originally Posted by esbo
Let's say that God really exists. Let's say He/She/It (I don't know) created the Universe, life and all the rest. Then who created God? That's the interesting question for me.
August 8th, 2009, 07:08 AM
Are there any Theologians who do a scientific study of religion? I don't think so. My impression is very few actually do anything resembling science, most starting from certain unprovable truths.You know what a theologian is?
August 8th, 2009, 01:32 PM
No.You know what a theologian is?
The point is that if God is outside science, then it would be pointless using science to study him, rather like using computer to prove humans existed.
Your god exists wholly within science; it's nothing more than a fantasy created by the human brain. In fact, it would fall wholly in the realm of psychology: why does the human brain insist on creating a father figure that it will staunchly deny contrary science proof in favor of?
It's something that makes me shake my head in puzzlement. For decades now.
There's your error: this isn't "The Scientific Study of Esbo's God" subforum, its the scientific study of religion. Religion is an affliction that affects every human culture with thousands of extant and extinct gods other than your own. Therefore, your premise is so utterly flawed as to be embarrassing.The point is that if God is outside science, then it would be pointless using science to study him, rather like using computer to prove humans existed.
What's outside of science? The utterly unobservable, whatever has no detectable presence or influence. If a God exists that is "outside science", then that God has no measurable influence on the universe. No creation, no intervention, no miracles, no relevance to anything.The point is that if God is outside science, then it would be pointless using science to study him, rather like using computer to prove humans existed.
I don't think there is any academic consensus about this (about the nature of it being mutually exclusive, contradictory, etc etc)
In fact its not uncommon to encounter an atheist who determines theism to be some sort of primeval response to something deeply seated in our DNA/subconsciousness since the evidence of similarity between cultures that are (geographically, culturally and/or chronologically) separated is overwhelming
Depends on what sort atheist one is I guess.Is there any reason to continue this discussion further?
philosophy, a subject which details issues that that surround our coinage of terms like "reality"What's outside of science?so do you want to argue that reality does not house that which can not be measured?
The utterly unobservable, whatever has no detectable presence or influence.
You began with something to the effect that god cannot be measured. (perhaps a detail of the idea that something is required to be measured in order to exist)If a God exists that is "outside science", then that God has no measurable influence on the universe. No creation, no intervention, no miracles, no relevance to anything.
Now you are making the claim : therefore there are no issues of intervention etc that surround god.
This is quite strange since the nature of taking measurement, being propped up by implied and inferred terms, is incomplete. For instance, its easy to refer to a cup of water, but no amount of funding on the planet can tell you exactly what it contains ..... this doesn't make it any less real however .....
August 10th, 2009, 10:17 PM
Did he mean that we shouldn't bother studying things that exist? The man's an idiot. :x
Why would there need to be a "consensus?" One need only observe the cult records of ancient civilizations and read the cult texts of modern ones to simply observe the differences between the many gods, LG.
It's also not uncommon to encounter those deluded by their own particular notions of theology and the supernatural who claim that there is one god and that all of humanity's gods and religious beliefs are but many ways of achieving the same goal, purpose, ends, etc. These sorts of "theists" are generally given to post-modern notions and rant on an on about "atheist materialists" and the like, but never stop to actually observe humanity and human culture to see where the cult differences actually are; where the contradictions actually reside between their different gods; or show how the post-modernist flavor of "theology" is demonstrably true.In fact its not uncommon to encounter an atheist who determines theism to be some sort of primeval response to something deeply seated in our DNA/subconsciousness since the evidence of similarity between cultures that are (geographically, culturally and/or chronologically) separated is overwhelming
Instead, they'd prefer that you just take their word for it. After all, this type of theology 'must' be true since nothing can really be proved anyway, therefore the 'materialists' have it all wrong.
By the way, LG, you'll need to pick one username and stick with it. Consider this official warning #1.
because you talk with an air of finality about the subject.Why would there need to be a "consensus?"
and hence the issue about their said mutual exclusiveness/similarity continues .....One need only observe the cult records of ancient civilizations and read the cult texts of modern ones to simply observe the differences between the many gods, LG.
Actually I was discussing atheists who entertain the notion that a primeval similarity underrides theism as it crops up.In fact its not uncommon to encounter an atheist who determines theism to be some sort of primeval response to something deeply seated in our DNA/subconsciousness since the evidence of similarity between cultures that are (geographically, culturally and/or chronologically) separated is overwhelming
It's also not uncommon to encounter those deluded by their own particular notions of theology and the supernatural who claim that there is one god and that all of humanity's gods and religious beliefs are but many ways of achieving the same goal, purpose, ends, etc. These sorts of "theists" are generally given to post-modern notions and rant on an on about "atheist materialists" and the like, but never stop to actually observe humanity and human culture to see where the cult differences actually are; where the contradictions actually reside between their different gods; or show how the post-modernist flavor of "theology" is demonstrably true.
Instead, they'd prefer that you just take their word for it. After all, this type of theology 'must' be true since nothing can really be proved anyway, therefore the 'materialists' have it all wrong.
Even though I am not interested in hearing your opinion of it, I'm sure you've heard of the "god gene".
You may have your own special form of atheism, and even your own special form of criticism of theism (which arguably all that a special form of atheism is about anyway).
Demanding that this is the last word on the subject however makes for a disingenuous discussion
If its a crime to create a new username when one loses the password/email details of the last one, the warning is duly acknowledged.By the way, LG, you'll need to pick one username and stick with it. Consider this official warning #1.
(Check the log in details if you think I have simultaneously been sockpuppeteering)
| « Was Eve justified in eating of the tree of knowledge? | cargo cults » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
