joe,
your last comment is quite flawed.
Quote:stuh505 wrote:
How can this possibly be the right track? There is simply not enough evidence to prove it either way using this kind of logic...
Your statement demonstrates that you're still not getting it. By questioning the lack of "evidence," you're still insisting on an inductive method. irichc's argument isn't faulty because his evidence is slim, it's because his logic is flawed. Your argument, in contrast, isn't faulty because your logic is unsound, it's because your strict reliance on empirical evidence is unwarranted.
1 - if this statement were true, then a correct proof of God's existence could be written from the premesis he wrote...
2 - both inductive and deductive reasoning require evidence for premesis. but for something like proving/disproving a God, the necessary facts will *never* exist, so a deductive proof will *never* work.
3 - Unlike deductive reasoning, Inductive reasoning is not designed to produce mathematical certainty. Induction occurs when we gather bits of specific information together and use our own knowledge and experience in order to make an observation about what must be true.
Quote:Without an eternal soul, the concepts of heaven, hell, and reincarnation are meaningless. That does not mean that there are no gods, just that the Christian notion of God is incorrect.
yes, but using inductive logic we can assume that a God's consciousness would also need a physical brain and body to supply it with the necessary energy. and where would this physical form be? and yes, an all-powerful form could have had a hand in evolution...someday perhaps this can be inductively disproven by approximately measuring the rate that evolution takes place and comparing that to the fossil record. if it matches, then it shows there was probably no outside influence. but it seems illogical to assume that any form could defy the laws of physics. I'm sure that we don't understand many of our laws 100% (often just how they behave, not why they behave) and I'm also sure that there are more laws we haven't discovered...but if they exist, they exist, and in order for a God to manipulate other's DNA would certainly be defying some laws depending on how he did it. if he just "willed it," then that would be defying basic newtonian laws as well as many complex molecular.
Quote:The brains of 6 week old embryos are not developed enough to allow consciousness or memory. Yes, they react to stimuli, but so does a robot. Based on the kinds of brain waves produced by fetuses, consciousness is probably not possible before about 24 weeks of gestation.
I believe research has been actually done to show that memory exists earlier than this, before posting I did some light research and read that memory has been detected at 6 weeks of age (up to 24-hours long term memory).
Quote:Agreed that we have no reason to think that a god was necessary to create galaxies, stars and planets, but there is a lot we still don't know about cosmology such as what dark matter and dark energy really are.
this is very true. and into this list, i think you could also put the most puzzling question for myself: where did the expanse of nothingness come from, and how did so much matter get there? can matter create itself from "nothingness" over billions of years using some law that we don't know of? however, I've never heard a theory for a God that attempted to describe these phenomena while assuming that planets and galaxies evolved naturally
Quote:Faith is belief without proof, not necessarily illogical belief. Religious leaders can construct what appears to be a consistent and entirely logical belief system, as long as followers do not question the basic premises or examine it too closely.
Not according to my dictionary:
Quote:Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence
that key word "logical" makes all the difference...
Quote:But there are enough coincidences and anecdotal tales of miracles to convince many people of God's existence.
very true
