Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta

Do you believe in God? watch

  • View Poll Results: Do you believe in God?
    Yes
    42
    35.00%
    No
    78
    65.00%

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dead sheep eater)
    ... No one knew that until the 17th century. By your argument gravity didn't exist until we had evidence for it; which is patently false.
    Oh dear. A common fallacy.

    No, Newton did not invent gravity. People before him had noticed the effect that things tend to fall down rather than up. Certainly the ancient Greeks had written about the effect even if they had not codified the formulae as Newton did. And it was Galileo - before Newton - who came up with the feather / dense object experiment
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Simes)
    Oh dear. A common fallacy.

    No, Newton did not invent gravity. People before him had noticed the effect. Certainly the ancient Greeks had written about the effect even if they had not codified the formulae as Newton did. And it was Galileo - before Newton - who came up with the feather / dense object experiment
    Please stop talking about logic when you just tried to use a deductive argument with two terms, it's quite ridiculous. Besides the beating around the bush with history; I have already demonstrated that your argument makes no sense, on the basis of a) it's a formal fallacy (two terms), b) that's not even what Occam's razor is and c) you can use the argument to invalidate anything we have not yet studied.

    No one knew about general relativity until when exactly? Does that mean it doesn't exist? No.

    Qualitative study of gravity is not relevant.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dead sheep eater)
    Qualitative study of gravity is not relevant.
    You brought it up by trying to claim that because Newton invented gravity in the 17th century (snigger) and you think nobody had noticed it before then, that there must be a god or gods because although there is no evidence now for a god or gods, someone must find some in the future because that is what happened to gravity.

    An interesting thought experiment.

    Try switching to decaff.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yes indeed I do! This world is way too complex and way to astonishing to be an accident..


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Simes)
    You brought it up by trying to claim that because Newton invented gravity in the 17th century (snigger) and you think nobody had noticed it before then, that there must be a god or gods because there is no evidence now for a god or gods, but presumably because someone will find some in the future because that is what happened to gravity.

    An interesting thought experiment.

    Try switching to decaff.
    I never said Newton invented gravity (L2 read). Newton may not have been the first one to observe gravity; but his is the theory most accepted until the early 20th century, the rest are just not relevant except for historical curiosity.

    Conclusion.

    L2 logic (two terms lmao)
    L2 read
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dead sheep eater)
    Newton may not have been the first one to observe gravity; but his is the theory most accepted until the early 20th century, the rest are just not relevant except for historical curiosity.
    So do you now accept there is evidence for gravity? Are you OK with that?

    But there's still no evidence for there being a god or gods.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dead sheep eater)
    There is no evidence for gravity.
    Therefore, there is no gravity.

    It's not even a valid form of argument it only has two terms lol.

    So this would have worked before the 17th century?
    There is plenty of evidence for gravity, from the equations to the fact that the moon is orbiting us, we were orbiting the sun, and the sun is circling the centre of the galaxy, in the Orion arm of the Milky Way.

    There is no evidence for God, but there is evidence for gravity. Therefore "There is no evidence for gravity. Therefore, there is no gravity." Is not a valid point against "There is no evidence for God. Therefore, there is no God.". This kind of logic may not be solid, this is arguable.

    For example:

    Do you believe that everything around you, the people and this planet is real? Do you think you can trust your five main senses to tell really from a fake construction of it? Prove it.

    You can't prove anything is real, but that doesn't necessarily mean that nothing is.

    It isn't about what worked before the 17th century, it's about what works now.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Username unknown)
    There is plenty of evidence for gravity, from the equations to the fact that the moon is orbiting us, we were orbiting the sun, and the sun is circling the centre of the galaxy, in the Orion arm of the Milky Way.

    There is no evidence for God, but there is evidence for gravity. Therefore "There is no evidence for gravity. Therefore, there is no gravity." Is not a valid point against "There is no evidence for God. Therefore, there is no God.". This kind of logic may not be solid, this is arguable.

    For example:

    Do you believe that everything around you, the people and this planet is real? Do you think you can trust your five main senses to tell really from a fake construction of it? Prove it.

    You can't prove anything is real, but that doesn't necessarily mean that nothing is.

    It isn't about what worked before the 17th century, it's about what works now.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Why do people find this concept difficult to understand? I am not a ****ing idiot I know about the evidence we have for gravity; and lets not pretend its easy anyway quantum physics and relativity has made that one even more complicated.

    To clarify,

    His argument was this.

    We have no evidence for God.
    Therefore there is no God.

    How is that sound? We had no evidence for relativity and quantum physics until the 20th century, does that mean they did not exist? No.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    A rather simple question asking for a PERSONAL opinion. Yet certain people can't comment on it without insulting other peoples belief in a god, or lack of belief in a god.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I was a "catholic" when I was younger but am now an atheist.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Posted from TSR Mobile

    We care said no one.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    No. All my issues with religion aside, I don't be believe in God (any creator, regardless of his/her/its personal traits, or lack thereof) simply due to the lack of empirical evidence of a divine being.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Lonely_Goatherd)
    People at/offer holders for Oxbridge CAN believe in God, you know
    I would be amazed if any did, doing science, perhaps divinity though
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Yes I do believe there is a God.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Gott der Zweite)
    I would be amazed if any did, doing science, perhaps divinity though
    There were science students and professors who believed in God, when I was at Oxford :yep:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dead sheep eater)
    Why do people find this concept difficult to understand? I am not a ****ing idiot I know about the evidence we have for gravity; and lets not pretend its easy anyway quantum physics and relativity has made that one even more complicated.

    To clarify,

    His argument was this.

    We have no evidence for God.
    Therefore there is no God.

    How is that sound? We had no evidence for relativity and quantum physics until the 20th century, does that mean they did not exist? No.
    That was more or less my point... Although I don't believe in God. I was saying that the way you first illustrated this wasn't the best way to get your point across because there is proof for gravity's existence.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Lonely_Goatherd)
    There were science students and professors who believed in God, when I was at Oxford :yep:
    Did they say in any detail their stance on religion with science or were they just brought up Christian?
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Gott der Zweite)
    Did they say in any detail their stance on religion with science or were they just brought up Christian?
    They are actively Christian :yep:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Lonely_Goatherd)
    They are actively Christian :yep:
    Fair enough then
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Define "God". I assume due to the capitalisation you mean the typical deity purported to exist by the Abrahamic religions? If so no. But I still need a definition to answer.
 
 
 
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
Useful resources
AtCTs

Ask the Community Team

Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

Welcome Lounge

Welcome Lounge

We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.