Quote:
|
Originally Posted by subversion I'm going to try to disprove your proof if that's cool. Ok, I'm not saying I believe in god. If you can explain nature without the need of god then please explain to me EXACTLY how life arose from non-life on planet earth. Furthermore, I would like you to do an experiment which recreates life in the laboratory from non-life in order to prove your hypothesis, since you are a scientist. |
Good try, but it's not more than a try.
What I mean by saying that I cane xplain nature without theneed of the idea of god is that I have never come along a problem which has requiered expresivelly to reduce an event or a phenomena to god, that is, miracles. Of course still there are many things I can't explain, why? Because I don't ahve the TOE, because I'm nto god and therefore I'm not omniscient. But I do think that we cannot deny god until science explains absolutelly everythign without him. However, as we live in a world based on statistics, all the way from physics and chemistry to sociology and economy, I can say that science ahs solved so many problems already without the idea of god that it won't need the idea of god in the future. I know, it's induction, but at least it's an argument (not like those who believe in god and just state it, but have nothing to background).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by subversion That's of course assuming you're a scientist which you have to be if you don't believe in god. So if you can explain nature without the need for god, you must explain how life started and you must recreate it in a lab. |
I don't know who told you that but it's stupid. There are many people not scientist or even not based on science in their lives that don't beleive in god. Most of the philosophers in the 20th century didn't believe in god. However I do find a very important thing to do what you say: explain the start of life and recreate it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by subversion Now I will use this to propose my proof that you cannot prove god doesn't exist. To prove god doesn't exist you must be able to explain how life started, and to prove that your explaination is correct you must recreate life in a laboratory. |
The theory and the experiment are neither the proof that there is no god nor the proof that there is a god. In fact we can't really determine whether god exists or not. It seems you didn't get the idea of my argument: it showed that agnosticism, which is that we can neither proof or disproof god, leads to atheism by occam's razor. It's that simple.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by subversion Therefore in trying to disprove god you'll end up proving that we could have been created by other beings, which is the notion of god if you will. |
Let's assume that I manage to explain how life arrased in nature and recreate it in a laboratory. Then I'm a being that has created life. Let's even assume that I have managed to recreate a whole universe in a laboratory, of course, it's small, but it has planets, solar systems, galaxies... And in some planets, life. Am I god? Well, it depends in what you mean by god. God wrongly defined si that who created everything, and then I would be god. But that's stupid you know why? Because that god created something is just an action, a behavior, and not himself. For example, I can write a post and so can you write a post, but that doesn't mean that you and me are the same person. The correct definition of god is around the thread "God" and is a perfect supreme being, and as I am obviously not perfect, then I'm not god even though I could create a universe and life.