# Out of Curiosity, Why Does Science Need to Prove or Disprove The Existence of God?



## BAYLOR (Oct 13, 2014)

Or an afterlife for that matter ? 

It seems to me that it's nothing more then an exercise in futility.


----------



## HareBrain (Oct 13, 2014)

I think the question contains a fallacy. Science doesn't "need" to do any such thing.

Nor does Science (as though that were one thing) seek to disprove the existence of God. That would be impossible. It seeks, broadly, to demonstrate explanations for things in terms of physical laws. This might of course prove that there are other explanations than God for those particular things.

Scientists who do seek to "prove" the existence of God tend to be religious, and the explanation is then obvious.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Oct 13, 2014)

Does it?

Some atheists would like to disprove the existence of god, I suppose. And some of these might use scientific rationalism as a tool for there arguments.

But the fact is that, deep down, science says nothing at all about the issue really. As HB says.


----------



## BAYLOR (Oct 13, 2014)

Ever read the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins ?


----------



## Ursa major (Oct 13, 2014)

I'm not sure "science" wants, or has, to do either. At its simplest, science is a process, not a philosophy.

And how would you disprove the existence of anything? Proving negatives is quite difficult, unless there's a situation with a finite number of possibilities, all of whose existences are provable: prove one of them is true and you've disproved the others (in that situation).


Some people who happen to be scientists may wish to do so, but that may or may not have anything to do with their scientific enquiries.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Oct 13, 2014)

BAYLOR said:


> Ever read the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins ?



I haven't so I'm afraid you will have to expand your thinking regarding how this relates to your original question, please!


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Oct 13, 2014)

BAYLOR said:


> Ever read the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins ?


But that is nothing to do with science. It's a philosophy of Atheism as a religion, no matter how he may claim to be applying science. Real science has nothing to say about the subject. Philosophy is important, but it's not science.

Even if Dawkins is correct in his belief, how can it be Science?


----------



## BAYLOR (Oct 13, 2014)

Ray McCarthy said:


> But that is nothing to do with science. It's a philosophy of Atheism as a religion, no matter how he may claim to be applying science. Real science has nothing to say about the subject. Philosophy is important, but it's not science.
> 
> Even if Dawkins is correct in his belief, how can it be Science?



The book argues that based on what we currently know,  evolution is the likely mechanism for how life arose, so in that regard it's  bringing science into the discussion.

The book is definitely worth reading.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Oct 13, 2014)

Evolution or Creation is actually irrelevant to the Question: "Why Does Science Need to Prove or Disprove The Existence of God".
Especially arguing against particular US viewpoints on "creation". 
Anyone that regards The Book of Genesis or the Creation theology or writings of any religion as literally historical scientific claims is making the same mistake from a different starting point.
"Creation vs Evolution" is totally pointless debate:
1) "Creation" can mean nothing to Science and you can move the goal posts to suit all known facts ("God as Watchmaker")
2) "Evolution" is a scientific attempt to explain development of species etc from Single cell thingys to stuff today. It says nothing about God. Nor does science answer questions like "what is the point of it all?" It's like trying to decide if the Mona Lisa is a good painting by analysis paint, or advocating taking care of the poor by explaining how babies are produced.

Religion, Torah, Old Testament, Koran, Buddhism, Hinduism, Jain, Theology are not God. They are Man's record of trying to understand God, no matter if you are believer and think the writing is inspired by God OR are an Atheist convinced God is delusion not fit for "Rational" beings. Evolution has no knowledge of Rational. It's just a description of what has happened and an explanation of why that happens without having to invoke a "god" directing it. If there is no God, then Gaia too is a myth and evolution is no more philosophically important than how a Sun 'burns' hydrogen to helium, we are no more of significance than a bacteria, just complicated enough to realise we aren't the same and ask why?

By definition you can't "prove" God exists or is imaginary. Poking fun at primitive theology says nothing about God and only proves that some people that believe in God are not very logical, or well educated.

Dawkin's "evangelical" Atheism is his starting point in interpreting Science and some of it embarrasses Atheists.


----------



## Mirannan (Oct 13, 2014)

Ray - Yup. Asserting that there is a supernatural entity who created the universe and everything in it doesn't cause any problems. Asserting that a particular book has the true and unimpeachable explanation of precisely how the entity did it might. As might asserting that that entity has talked to you personally and given you a set of rules for everyone to follow.

Speaking entirely personally, I think that of two ideas - the first that God created the seed of the Universe and all its laws, knowing that in the fullness of time it would develop life and sapience, the second that everything was put together "by hand" and needs continual maintenance and interference for it to work properly - the first is far more impressive.

I rather like the idea that God can break the rules any time She wants, but doesn't need to because She built the universe properly in the first place.


----------



## Boneman (Oct 14, 2014)

Because God likes us folk to puzzle over something? I can prove there is/isn't an afterlife, but I'd have to kill you to do it.... Being somewhat healthily cynical, I'd say it's so scientists can be gainfully employed, with research grants from people/organisations who should know better. Until the second coming (which IIRC is due in the next 20 years) there can only be endless speculation...


----------



## Nick B (Oct 14, 2014)

Science doesn't need or want to do anything of the sort. Some scientists may want to, just as some footballers, or possibly some accountants may want to. Science however is just science.


----------



## Rafellin (Oct 14, 2014)

There is an argument that when science can, we will have become gods. 

As for Dawkins, don't get me started. I have never encountered a man who is so religious in his insistence of having no religion, and so fanatical in attacking those who disagreed with his view. Atheists, like any religious sect (and I include sports fans in that) are fine providing they don't start ramming their views down everybody else's throats. 

A scientist - for personal reason or reasons - may be determined to prove or disprove the existence of gods. Outside of that, the disciplines that are clustered under the term 'science' are indifferent to the concepts of divinity.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Oct 14, 2014)

I prefer Terry Prachett as an Author to Dawkins.

T.P. claims to be an Atheist too.


----------



## farntfar (Oct 14, 2014)

I agree that the reality of evolution or creation in no way proves or disproves the existence of God, but as has been said, it's largely irrelevant.

Zap: the earth, but without form and void.
Zap: the heavens
Zap: the seas and the land.
Zap: the birds of the air and the beasts of the field.
Zap: Adam
Hold on Adam old bean. Give me one of your ribs.
Zap: Eve.

I expect Dumbledore could do as nearly as well.

But:
I’ve designed a system of physical and chemical laws that will do it all for me over billions of years starting from a big bang.

Now that I find impressive. That takes some *really* intelligent design.

Having said that, I don’t believe that someone who could do either of those would part seas or get cross with David for sleeping around, or send people to heaven or hell, or be interested whether I go to church or not.

So if you exist, God old son, I say,” You did a good job, one way or the other. If you’re still watching, I hope you enjoy it. 
For my part I’ll be good or bad, moral or amoral by my own judgement and I'll take full responsibility for my own actions. I won’t ask any special favours or expect any special punishments.

But if you don’t exist, I won’t be surprised either.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Oct 14, 2014)

Is there a philosophy section?  Discussing the 'nature' of God isn't appropriate for a Science/Nature section.


----------



## HareBrain (Oct 14, 2014)

I think the original question -- concerning the extent to which science can and does (or doesn't) set out to prove the existence of God -- is fine in the Science and Nature forum. But yes, posters would do well to limit themselves to that. Other speculation or assertion about the existence or nature of God isn't appropriate here.


----------



## farntfar (Oct 15, 2014)

I apologise.


----------



## HareBrain (Oct 15, 2014)

No worries -- and I was mainly wanting to prevent future thread-creep rather than tackle any previous post.

There is (I believe) a sister-site for people interested in discussing religion and philosophy. Perhaps @Brian Turner can remind us what it is?


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Oct 15, 2014)

Yes there is.

Brian must be asleep because in the old days (Ah I Remember the old Ones) he'd have shut this thread down for being more suitable on that site

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/search.php?searchid=574849

Is the basic link. Used to be a Brian sister site - not sure if that's still the case.

Don't be put of - The discussions are lively cross faith and none abusive (or were).

When I used to visit there was less moderation than this site, but in general it seemed to work.

However, the posts were lengthy sometimes.

They did have prettier Avatars though.


----------



## Dave (Oct 15, 2014)

I partly agree with Harebrain. I don't think that Science and Religion can mix (the scientific principle being based on the need to test a hypothesis, but religion being based upon faith) however there are many scientists who are religious and therefore must obviously disagree with me. And yes, as an example, you can see how fruitless a task it is to use science to try to prove or disprove creationism. 

To make this more of an SFFChronicles thread, why don't we ask why science fiction authors need to prove or disprove the existence of god. I think there are way too many 'god is an alien' or 'ancient gods were aliens' or 'Jesus was a spaceman' or 'Jesus was a time traveller' books. It is an over-used trope and a overworked mine.


----------



## chrispenycate (Oct 15, 2014)

As with the best riddles, the answer is in the question – just out of curiosity. Good scientists have a lot of it, or they wouldn't be what they are, and a hypothesis like 'God exists, is omniscient, omnipotent and loves all his creations' is a sort of challenge. The fact that the existence of a God, of multiple deities of a variety of genders, of a general anthropomorphic creative principal (a universal headmaster) or whichever mechanism you choose to lay down the essential physical laws that allow the development of life and humanity is orthogonal to the study of those laws, and the universe they have brought into being is recognised by almost all, which doesn't prevent a large percentage of those scientists (who are not all good, by any means; I too have met the 'my theory is right and thou shalt not criticise, let alone devise experiments to disprove it' iconodules, science's equivalents to pedants) are theists for a wide range of different religions, seeing no contradiction in this position.

As indeed there is no contradiction. The two sets of knowledge are independent, non-interacting, each irrelevant to the other. And you can burn infidels at the stake for either, so fun is maintained.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Oct 15, 2014)

Curiosity is only sometimes science.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Oct 15, 2014)

Dave said:


> however there are many scientists who are religious and therefore must obviously disagree with me.


False conclusion.
People can be religious or have faith or believe in God quite separately to job or career or being a Scientist. 
(religious or have faith or believe in God can be three unrelated things: I.e. The devil or Satan if real certainly isn't religious or having Faith, people can have the same sort of Faith in things other than God and religion doesn't require Faith or actually a God).


----------



## Parson (Oct 15, 2014)

To deal with the original question of this thread. I think that Science doesn't "have" to do anything. It is a method of inquiry which yields repeatable results given the same inputs. It is based on the so far indisputable conclusion that there are no exceptions to the rule that "results will always be the same if the inputs are always the same." 

This method of inquiry seems to be inherently at odds with religion which has at its heart that there is truth beyond rational explanation. To hold to that philosophy demands faith in something which has defied any attempt at trial and error provability. Obviously then many scientific researchers hold religious faith to be the haunt of weak minded individuals. Thereby creating the illusion that science, in general, needs to be in conflict with religion, in general.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Oct 15, 2014)

Scientists, like mathemeticians like to deal in definites; they hate variables, and God is the biggest variable of them all. Personally I don't think that scientists try to prove or disprove God; but they may attempt to explain some previously unexplainable occurrences that have been attributed to God. 

And anyway , what would be the point in proving such a thing? Ironically, the more people try to explain that there isn't a God, the stronger, the more determined, the faith of those who believe is. For what is God without faith? 

And in my opinion the more wonders, the more impossibilties that science discovers, the more likelihood that there truly is a God.


----------



## Ursa major (Oct 15, 2014)

TheEndIsNigh said:


> They did have prettier Avatars though.


Thread Bear has come round to your point of view.

Well, he agrees that _your_ end is nigh....


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Oct 15, 2014)

The existence of god or not will become relevant to those that believe when intelligent life is found on another planet. (hopefully before the end obviously)

For creationists (one's that believe in a maker or some such) they will have three possibilities to consider.

A. They are just wrong.

If this is too unpalatable then there are two possibilities.


B. If the new life form is more advanced: then we were the prototypes (the pigs if you like) and the new top dogs are the ones that really have the maker's favour. And by implication we are at the disposal of the new life form in a similar way a maker might allow his top creation to have rule over a world: say.

C. If the new life form is less advanced: then maybe the maker was so disappointed with us, that he felt bound to try again. In other words they are his new best creations.

So:-

 If 'science' is able to find another planet with intelligent life it might not be able to prove or disprove the existence of a creator, but it should raise questions of those that do believe, in whether they can be certain they still enjoy her/his/it's favour.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Oct 15, 2014)

Intelligent life elsewhere says nothing about God's existance. It  may contradict the theology of some groups.


----------



## farntfar (Oct 15, 2014)

TEIN. I would steer you to the books of C.S.Lewis, known as his Cosmic Trilogy, (namely Out of the silent planet, Perelandra, and That hideous strength), to see one way at least that both higher and lower intelligent extraterrestrials could be built  almost seamlessly into the Christian faith system.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Oct 15, 2014)

TheEndIsNigh said:


> The existence of god or not will become relevant to those that believe when intelligent life is found on another planet. (hopefully before the end obviously)
> 
> For creationists (one's that believe in a maker or some such) they will have three possibilities to consider.
> 
> ...



Easy to explain away. If they have a God then that strengthens belief. If they haven't heard of God , then it was meant to be us as his messengers. How advanced they are is irrelevant. Whatever the situation, a strong case can (and will) be made both for and against the existence of an all-powerful being.


----------



## Gramm838 (Oct 15, 2014)

Someone needs to disprove it, so that we can get rid of most of the stupidity in the world (and the cause of most wars as well)


----------



## paranoid marvin (Oct 15, 2014)

People have been killing each other long before religion came along. Just because it is used as a reason for going to war doesn't necessarily mean that is the cause.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Oct 15, 2014)

It's hardly the main reason, for most religions. A Religion isn't the same thing as God.


----------



## HareBrain (Oct 15, 2014)

Gramm838 said:


> Someone needs to disprove it, so that we can get rid of most of the stupidity in the world (and the cause of most wars as well)



I think you'll find religious people don't hold a monopoly on being ill-informed and belligerent.

Also, please restrict posts to something within half a mile of the topic.


----------



## BAYLOR (Oct 15, 2014)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Intelligent life elsewhere says nothing about God's existance. It  may contradict the theology of some groups.



The fact that life exists and we exist, there has to be more to  it then mere chance and coincidence.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Oct 15, 2014)

I happen to think it's likely that many thousands, perhaps 5,000 to 15,000 stars in our own Galaxy have planets with life. But without some science & technology we don't yet have, we can't know. Unlike the question of God, it may be question we can answer some day.
I've avoided saying what I think about the existence or not of God, because I think my own belief or lack of belief and the whole issue of God is irrelevant to science.

I hope someday we discover that something like a Jump Drive, Stargate and/or an 'Ansible' is possible and we can examine more closely the question of life elsewhere. To me, looking at characteristics of Stars, "Goldilocks zones", evolution and more orthodox and logically framed Theologies it seems likely that life must also be elsewhere if Evolution is purely blind chance, or there is a Cosmic Watchmaker or a Personal God. It would seem extraordinary anthropocentrically egotistical (or whatever the word is) for the Atheist *or* Believer to insist Earth has the only life in our Galaxy, or the Universe, or even to insist we are the only sentient life.

If you are an Atheist you have to believe that life here is mere chance (claiming it blew in from space via a comet or aliens doesn't solve it ultimately being chance for an Atheist). If you have faith in a Creator God, then even if every aspect of the theories of evolution are true, you can't believe it's chance. Life elsewhere only reinforces BOTH viewpoints, because of course a Creator God can create life anywhere and the size of space could be a quarantine to stop mutual interference. The Atheist will say, "well of course evolution produces life wherever the conditions are right."
Science and Observation can't aid the Atheist or Believer. Many Believers believe in fact God deliberately ensures existence can't be proven or disproven scientifically. Serious Philosophers that are Atheists would agree that God can't be scientifically proven to be imaginary or real. In the purest sense. Yes you can pick out various beliefs and theologies of actual religions and ridicule them as illogical nonsense. But that doesn't dispose of God. Sometimes too the 'logic' might not be scientific either but assuming that something is impossible because you can't understand it or repeat an experiment.

P.S. I don't think this section is suitable to discuss actual Beliefs (or not) in God. Perhaps Private messages or email. People can get irrational about Religion, Faith, God, Theology, Rationalism and Atheism on a forum thread!


----------



## BAYLOR (Oct 15, 2014)

If we exist here on Earth, then it's a reasonable guess that there is life elsewhere. If they could find life on Mars or under the frozen surface of Europa, that that would prove it.

Mars for example had  an active  planetary core  warmer climate,  liquid water, a thicker atmosphere about 3 billion years ago. It's possible that those condition may have exited long enough for some kind of microbial life to have developed.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Oct 15, 2014)

I'd not hold my breath for life elsewhere in our solar system. But there must be maybe 100,000+ suitable planets in other systems just in our own Galaxy. Now that we can spot ever smaller planets and even atmospheres on other stars the estimates for vaguely Earth like planets (iron core, rocky crust, water)  in a suitable zone with a suitable star keep going up.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Oct 15, 2014)

*Ray:
*
P.S. I don't think this section is suitable to discuss actual Beliefs (or not) in God. Perhaps Private messages or email. People can get irrational about Religion, Faith, God, Theology, Rationalism and Atheism on a forum thread!

*Which is why Brian used to shut these types of discussion down*.

However, we can ask ourselves certain questions and see how that relates to our personal situation.

Since this started with the scientific proof of the none existence.  (Oddly, IMO the scientific proof of the existence has more hazards of the type you suggest)

*IF, IF, IF,* it could be proven that god did not exist where would that put an individual.

For the believers - disbelief.

For the none believers - no change.

I think everyone owes it to themselves to address the possibility that their belief is absolutely flawed to it's core.

That black is white and that 1 + 1 rarely makes 2.

If at the end of the exercise, you are prepared for the dichotomy it reveals - happy days.

Strangely though, I could argue that the belief in the existence (even the belief of others in proximity to none believers) is the thin veneer that holds society together. Without that large percentage of people that believe in something 'else', I fancy we wouldn't have to wait long for an end.

If you like, they act as the buffer against raw savage nature that is the human being.


----------



## The Ace (Oct 16, 2014)

I never thought it did.

The Biblical creation account is little different from other creation myths, the result of a people attempting to explain the Great Questions - it takes a special type of mind to take the whole thing literally.

Sometimes even scientists have to take a leap into the dark, simply believing there's somebody out there big enough to catch them.  I believe that God gave us capable brains and curiosity for a reason, but I've never doubted his existence.


----------



## farntfar (Oct 16, 2014)

TheEndIsNigh said:


> Strangely though, I could argue that the belief in the existence (even the belief of others in proximity to none believers) is the thin veneer that holds society together. Without that large percentage of people that believe in something 'else', I fancy we wouldn't have to wait long for an end.



If I have understood you correctly, TEIN, you're saying that the threat of the ultimate big stick or carrot is what keeps us in line.
Either a threat to our afterlife (whether we end up in heaven or hell) or a more immediate threat of plagues of boils etc*.
That as a race, we're not capable of "being good" without it.

It's a terrible thing to admit, but you may well be right.
And furthermore, that even if you're a non-believer, you have nevertheless learnt the ideas at school or wherever, and are conditioned by them.

Trying to come back to science part of the question (and stay in the box), as we progress to the point where we are perfectly capable of wielding the ultimate big stick ourselves, does God become less required.
I suppose, that until we can supply the ultimate carrot as well, we still need him.
If he/she exists, of course, which I don't rule out, we need him even more precisely because we can wield it.

(* These example are necessarily Judeo/Christian/Muslim, because it's what I know. A better/worse reincarnation or Nirvana, I suppose for Buddism. Better treatment in Hades, Happy hunting grounds, Asgard,  etc. also apply. I don't know the sanctions of other religions)


----------



## Brian G Turner (Oct 16, 2014)

I had the same physics teacher all through secondary school and up - from age 11 to 18. And one of the wonderful things about him was that he allowed us to see the mysteries of science.

This thread is about whether science could answer fundamental questions of spiritual belief. And yet there are so many more mundane issues that science has struggled with.

For example, before the turn of the century, if you saw a bumblebee in flight, you were watching the rules of physics being broken before your eyes - because they are too heavy to fly. Same if you ever saw a dolphin swim - physics said they should not be able to swim so fast. Since then, advances in fluid mechanics have provided explanations, but I'm sure there are going to be many more small mysteries. Additionally, astrophysics was always marked by its intense sense of mystery - many theories are interpretations of data, but those interpretations are not necessarily correct.

In fact, before anyone even suggests we examine if science can ever describe God, I would like to see a viable explanation of consciousness. After all, belief in God depends upon perception of God, which in turn depends upon the fundamentals of consciousness. And so far, I have not seem any sound explanation of consciousness - theories, interpretations - but no proofs.

We are all, therefore, walking examples of scientific mysteries in ourselves.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Oct 16, 2014)

If we even knew what conciousness is!
We are a walking bag of mysteries!


----------



## HareBrain (Oct 16, 2014)

Brian Turner said:


> In fact, before anyone even suggests we examine if science can ever describe God, I would like to see a viable explanation of consciousness.



A shame SFF doesn't seem more interested in exploring this kind of question.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Oct 16, 2014)

It's very difficult!


----------



## Brian G Turner (Oct 16, 2014)

Ray McCarthy said:


> It's very difficult!



Pfft! Easy compared to the fundamental question of: which came first, the chicken or the egg? Let SFF answer _that_!


----------



## Ursa major (Oct 16, 2014)

Brian Turner said:


> Pfft! Easy compared to the fundamental question of: which came first, the chicken or the egg? Let SFF answer _that_!


In a foot race, the chicken.

In terms of genes, it must be the egg, as the two parents weren't (quite) chickens (and if they were -- or one of them was -- they/it started as an egg).


(And I've thought better of reproducing the dubious joke....)


----------



## Parson (Oct 16, 2014)

Ursa major said:


> In a foot race, the chicken.
> 
> In terms of genes, it must be the egg, as the two parents weren't (quite) chickens (and if they were -- or one of them was -- they/it started as an egg).
> 
> ...



*Ursa*, you've obviously grown soft boiled.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Oct 16, 2014)

He's gone into his shell.


----------



## Gramm838 (Oct 16, 2014)

BAYLOR said:


> The fact that life exists and we exist, there has to be more to  it then mere chance and coincidence.



I'm afraid that until we realise that its exactly chance and coincidence that brought us into being, we have no chance...


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Oct 16, 2014)

*Probably the grandparents of egg was a dinosaur?*
http://xkcd.com/1211/






See also
http://xkcd.com/1104/

http://xkcd.com/867/

Hover mouse on images on XKCD site for an extra punch line.


----------



## Mouse (Oct 16, 2014)

They had the chicken or egg question on QI and the answer was egg. Stephen Fry said it so it must be true.


----------



## Ursa major (Oct 16, 2014)

Mouse said:


> Stephen Fry said it so it must be true.


"Stephen Fry agrees with Ursa, so it must be true!" is what you meant to say.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Oct 16, 2014)

Only because someone gave Fry a script.


----------



## Ursa major (Oct 16, 2014)

Well, a fried egg doesn't come before a chicken, does it? (Not counting culinary abominations....)


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Oct 16, 2014)

If we fry all the eggs there will be no more chickens.


----------



## Parson (Oct 16, 2014)

But if we fry and eat all the eggs we will go extinct because of all the cholesterol in our veins.


----------



## BAYLOR (Oct 16, 2014)

Zeitoun Egypt 1968. You might find that date and place to be of interest.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Oct 17, 2014)

farntfar said:


> If I have understood you correctly, TEIN, you're saying that the threat of the ultimate big stick or carrot is what keeps us in line.
> Either a threat to our afterlife (whether we end up in heaven or hell) or a more immediate threat of plagues of boils etc*.
> That as a race, we're not capable of "being good" without it.
> 
> ...



Basically yes. But it's not so much the threat of the ultimate big stick that keeps none believers in line, so much as the "believing majority's" willingness to usurp the role of punishing miscreants on their god's behalf. While they are the majority they pass and enforce the laws in line with those beliefs and the system works (provided they don't overstep the mark). So we get the inquisition, the burning at the stake and the witch hunts. Yet even these were done with the willingness of the majority at the time - happy days.

When 'lets call it society' breaks down we just get a free for all. I suspect if everyone realised (and believed) that this life is all you get, the restraints would come off and it will be every man for himself. (I have a very low opinion of the human psyche)



Mouse said:


> They had the chicken or egg question on QI and the answer was egg. Stephen Fry said it so it must be true.



An egg is of little use without the DNA within. An unfertilised egg is just that - a complex paperweight at best.

Now there are those that say life begins at the point of fertilisation.

For them the egg is already a chicken.

In which case the question reverts to: which came first the chicken or the chicken.

Answer - Chicken.


----------



## farntfar (Oct 17, 2014)

TheEndIsNigh said:


> I suspect if everyone realised (and believed) that this life is all you get, the restraints would come off and it will be every man for himself.



Ah that's a shame. I had hoped it would be the other way round. (But I try to be an unreasonable optimist.)



Parson said:


> But if we fry and eat all the eggs we will go extinct because of all the cholesterol in our veins.



We could fry and eat all the chickens and kill the joke but not ourselves.


----------



## Parson (Oct 17, 2014)

farntfar said:


> We could fry and eat all the chickens and kill the joke but not ourselves.


  I'm not at all sure. Fried chicken has led to more than one stroke and heart attack.


----------



## farntfar (Oct 17, 2014)

Don't be so negative, Parson. Have faith. :


----------



## Parson (Oct 17, 2014)

Good advice!  

Hm, science vs. faith, that sounds like something to talk about.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Oct 31, 2014)

Actually, I've been thinking more on this recently and it occurs to me that the question/premise is the wrong way round.

Scientists don't need to prove or disprove the existence or none existence of a quasi-supernatural-mythical being.

They are not the ones proposing the theory.

It seems to me that it's the job of those that want to use their beliefs to impose limits and morals on others to come up with a proof that they have the backing of said entity. (That's two proofs - Existence and authority to act)

Faith is not enough. I can have faith the sun will rise tomorrow, barring exceptional circumstances (although I am aware those circumstances could occur). However, I am under no requirement to have faith in someone else's faith. I need actual proof of the existence of a 'rule maker' before I follow any rules that may be laid down by others in it's name. (However, I'm not implying those rules are bad. I actually think they form the basis of a reasonable way of living)

I've often used the argument that the *only* reason people believe in a god of some kind is because someone indoctrinated them. Had they been left alone in their formative years it's probable they would never have considered the possibility of a super being. Oh they might have wondered what* it's* all about and questioned how it all fits together, but it's most unlikely they would have come up a theory involving an all powerful, all seeing etc. entity.

This is easily demonstrated in the west by a child's belief in Father Christmas. A being that only exists in the imagination of the parents who indoctrinate children in his existence. Why do they do this? It's a control mechanism. Behave or else.... Be good and nice things will happen in the future. (sound familiar?).

What amazes me is why, when the child learns the truth, it doesn't think - What else have they lied about?

IMHO no one should be taught anything about any religion until they are old enough to vote.


----------



## Parson (Oct 31, 2014)

I respectfully disagree. I shudder to think what our world would become if everyone were completely convinced that s/he were the repository of truth and lived only to please one's self.


----------



## mosaix (Oct 31, 2014)

Parson said:


> I respectfully disagree. I shudder to think what our world would become if everyone were completely convinced that s/he were the repository of truth and lived only to please one's self.



That doesn't necessarily follow from not believing in God, Parson. It didn't for me, nor for my children. Who, in my opinion, have a better moral compass than many of my / their church going friends.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Oct 31, 2014)

And in that regard, as we're getting into discussions more specific to religion, rather than more general metaphysics, it's time to close this thread, and recommend that anyone who wishes to discuss it further do so at interfaith.org.


----------

