scientific reasons for believing in god?

Original post by Can'tStumpTrump

prove it, then you can make that argument, until then it's speculation

Well prove then that the cosmological constant is the result of fine 'tuning'...

Neither argument is just pure speculation....and these are exactly the kinds of disagreements that this thread should encourage IMO, as long as they are explored both ends thoroughly.

Reply 722

Plantagenet Crown

20

Original post by Can'tStumpTrump

yeah, not the point at all though, sorry

Mind explaining how it isn't?

Reply 723

Good bloke

Original post by Can'tStumpTrump

prove it, then you can make that argument, until then it's speculation

It ill-behoves someone who believes in deities to criticise someone for speculation. If, following your logic, you were not allowed to introduce any speculation into the discussion, it would be a very short one indeed, wouldn't it?

Original post by FluffyCherry

An amusing plagiarisation of Paley's watchmaker anaology, which has been exhaustively refuted by believers and non-believers alike. Thanks for the laughs. :tongue:

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 726

Original post by Hydeman

An amusing plagiarisation of Paley's watchmaker anaology, which has been exhaustively refuted by believers and non-believers alike. Thanks for the laughs. :tongue:

I genuinely laughed, too, at this attempt at an 21st century makeover

Reply 727

troubadour.

Original post by leavingthecity

I genuinely laughed, too, at this attempt at an 21st century makeover

It really is quite mind-boggling, the kind of thing that people will start to believe constitutes a good, original argument when they spend most of their time in the echo chamber that is the TSR I-Soc. :beard:

It's very easy to imagine this being greeted with cries of 'MashaAllah' and 'Alhamdulillah, sister' there. :tongue:

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 728

Original post by Can'tStumpTrump

yeah, not the point at all though, sorry

It is actually. Just pointing you in the direction of an understanding of probabilities and how they work....

Reply 729

Original post by Hydeman

It really is quite mind-boggling, the kind of thing that people will start to believe constitutes a good, original argument when they spend most of their time in the echo chamber that is the TSR I-Soc. :beard:

It's very easy to imagine this being greeted with cries of 'MashaAllah' and 'Alhamdulillah' there. :tongue:

"Echo chamber". Very well described. I like that a lot.

Reply 730

Recuvan

4

Original post by mangala

scientific, logical evidence which points towards the existence of god

convert me from atheism

Do these even exist?

Reply 731

Good bloke

Original post by FluffyCherry

Hmm. For some reason, though, you'd believe that a mediaeval desert warlord might have come across a human body while walking in the desert, and announced to the world that it was made from clay - which exists in neither the desert nor the human body.

Reply 732

Original post by Recuvan

Do these even exist?

Not within this thread

Reply 733

Recuvan

4

Well, I wrote a 1000 words long speech about why do I hate the attitude of Christians towards their religion... I guess I have nothing to say here, just that atheism answers all the questions in a rational way, believing in something makes life easier.

Reply 734

chemting

16

Original post by Hydeman

An amusing plagiarisation of Paley's watchmaker anaology, which has been exhaustively refuted by believers and non-believers alike. Thanks for the laughs. :tongue:

What Islam apologists (for example Hamza Tzortzis) do not understand (or maybe they do) is that these ideas are not new... they have been presented by Christian apologists decades ago (and even now) - and some, like Paley's watchmaker - are centuries old and have been refuted.

Some of these "talking points" are direct carbon-copy (even to the hand movements!) of Christians apologists such as Prof. William Lain Craig, Kent Hovind and Ken Ham.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 735

frankieboy

13

The universe is so large and full of combinations and possibilities that some formations are inevitable. A mobile phone is nowhere near as complex as a plantery body, or an ecosystem. These things are created by natural forces over time in accordance with the laws of chemistry, biology, and physics. In many other places, these things fail to create themselves due to the laws of chance not favouring them.

A mobile phone is a silly irrelevant plastic object made by man. I don't see the comparison.

Religious types always seem to resort to these pseudo-logical saccharine soundbites in an attempt to "prove" themselves.

If I roll one million dice enough times, I'll get one million sixes. That doesn't mean there's anyone controlling it, or it's for a reason. It's pure chance.

Reply 736

troubadour.