Question for atheists: is "God did it...

Question for atheists: is "God did it" a science stopper?, part 1 of 4

There are 338 comments on the Examiner.com story from May 12, 2011, titled Question for atheists: is "God did it" a science stopper?, part 1 of 4. In it, Examiner.com reports that:

Is "God did it" a science stopper? Responding in the affirmative are the New Atheists.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Examiner.com.

First Prev
of 17
Next Last
nina

Ottawa, Canada

#1 May 12, 2011
only in the way that
"will you read my screenplay" is a conversation stopper

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seminole, FL

#2 May 12, 2011
nina wrote:
only in the way that "will you read my screenplay" is a conversation stopper
OK, that was pretty funny.

But if you were serious in your question, no, it would not be. Science would still be investigating *how* he/she/it did it.

“"VERITAS OMNIA VINCIT" ”

Since: May 11

Douglas, Ga

#4 May 12, 2011
I wouldn't say it's a "science stopper", after all partly to blame for the origins of science,was the desire to understand "God" and his methods. However, that is not to say that "God" himself and the validity of his existence is not above reproach by science or any other such methodology. I see "God" as the ultimate mystery, and what purpose is there to science unless it is to solve such mysteries. I would also like to say that in some cases "god did it" can be seen as a stopping point for science. Not all people posses the insight or curiosity (call it what you like) to realize that saying "God did it" is not a satisfactory answer to discover any underlying causation. In order for "god did it" to be truly be satisfactory you must first determine if such an entity exists. Anyway, thats my thoughts as of this moment, feel free to debate it.

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#5 May 12, 2011
Atheists are cenobites? Clive Barker would be proud.

“"VERITAS OMNIA VINCIT" ”

Since: May 11

Douglas, Ga

#6 May 12, 2011
Discord wrote:
Atheists are cenobites? Clive Barker would be proud.
Depends on your definition of "religion"

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#7 May 12, 2011
K0R3I wrote:
I wouldn't say it's a "science stopper", after all partly to blame for the origins of science,was the desire to understand "God" and his methods. However, that is not to say that "God" himself and the validity of his existence is not above reproach by science or any other such methodology. I see "God" as the ultimate mystery, and what purpose is there to science unless it is to solve such mysteries. I would also like to say that in some cases "god did it" can be seen as a stopping point for science. Not all people posses the insight or curiosity (call it what you like) to realize that saying "God did it" is not a satisfactory answer to discover any underlying causation. In order for "god did it" to be truly be satisfactory you must first determine if such an entity exists. Anyway, thats my thoughts as of this moment, feel free to debate it.
You're interesting. Please feel free to stick around.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

#8 May 12, 2011
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
You're interesting. Please feel free to stick around.
Agreed.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#9 May 13, 2011
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed.
As for Mariano Grinbank however, he's just a silly kitten-hater.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#10 May 13, 2011
K0R3I wrote:
I wouldn't say it's a "science stopper", after all partly to blame for the origins of science,was the desire to understand "God" and his methods. However, that is not to say that "God" himself and the validity of his existence is not above reproach by science or any other such methodology. I see "God" as the ultimate mystery, and what purpose is there to science unless it is to solve such mysteries. I would also like to say that in some cases "god did it" can be seen as a stopping point for science. Not all people posses the insight or curiosity (call it what you like) to realize that saying "God did it" is not a satisfactory answer to discover any underlying causation. In order for "god did it" to be truly be satisfactory you must first determine if such an entity exists. Anyway, thats my thoughts as of this moment, feel free to debate it.
I think the properties of this entity should be defined by the people who invent it.

Once they are defined, its very easy for logic and science to disprove its existence.
nina

Ottawa, Canada

#11 May 13, 2011
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, that was pretty funny.
But if you were serious in your question, no, it would not be. Science would still be investigating *how* he/she/it did it.
it wasn't my question, robboblogger posted it

but I agree, it's not a science stopper since science is about the natural world and that excludes supernatural

so it's beside the point when it comes to science.

“"VERITAS OMNIA VINCIT" ”

Since: May 11

Douglas, Ga

#12 May 13, 2011
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
I think the properties of this entity should be defined by the people who invent it.
Once they are defined, its very easy for logic and science to disprove its existence.
That is a good point, However I think all claims of a "god" have one thing in common and that is this entity is the creator or originator of the universe. We do not necessarily need to know how or what method such an entity used to create the universe to substantiate whether it exists or not. So long as this entity interacts with what most of us see as reality, science should be able to detect this interaction. If such an entity exists outside of physical reality and does not interact or has not since creation, then science really can't say much about its existence other than it's highly unlikely and until it can be verified that there is such a thing as "outside of reality" (call it what you like i.e supernatural) then its not rationally justified to believe such an entity exists.

I think many theists assume that science is out to smash religion, but for many scientists and researchers believe in a god has been motivation to begin studying the natural world. However, many find out eventually that the natural world and the properties of their god conflict. Taking this conflict into consideration, some change their definition of god to better match the natural world, while others stop believing all together. The fact of the matter is that anyone who chooses to accept how the natural world (at least what we know of it) works, then it becomes very hard to hold a logical, rational belief in a god. This is not to claim that god absolutely does not exist anywhere, instead the claim should be that there is not enough evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the positive existence of a creator or "designer" that is responsible for the universe. I think this is all science can say about a god at present and the evidence continually being found just casts more doubt on its existence.

I realize this is where faith probably come in for most, but is this kind of faith (believing despite contradictory verifiable evidence) really a good thing? I think that personal experience is the only thing that one could use to justify their belief in a god and even personal experience is questionable, especially if you take into account the multiple ways our own brains and senses can fool us.

p.s. Holy crap I didn't mean to write so much, but thats how I see the issue :)
nina

Ottawa, Canada

#13 May 13, 2011
K0R3I wrote:
<quoted text>
That is a good point,...p.s. Holy crap I didn't mean to write so much, but thats how I see the issue :)
excellent post

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#14 May 15, 2011
K0R3I wrote:
<quoted text>
That is a good point, However I think all claims of a "god" have one thing in common and that is this entity is the creator or originator of the universe. We do not necessarily need to know how or what method such an entity used to create the universe to substantiate whether it exists or not. So long as this entity interacts with what most of us see as reality, science should be able to detect this interaction. If such an entity exists outside of physical reality and does not interact or has not since creation, then science really can't say much about its existence other than it's highly unlikely and until it can be verified that there is such a thing as "outside of reality" (call it what you like i.e supernatural) then its not rationally justified to believe such an entity exists.
Thanks for understanding this point so well. I would even say that you understand this better than some of the people here claiming to be atheist.

Ie: The Dude, Chimney. These people can't seem to grasp this very imporant point.

Simply entertaining the possibility of god is not rational. Considering scientists have slaved away for decades building up our verified reality, which disproves SOO many religious assertions.
K0R3I wrote:
<quoted text>
I think many theists assume that science is out to smash religion, but for many scientists and researchers believe in a god has been motivation to begin studying the natural world. However, many find out eventually that the natural world and the properties of their god conflict. Taking this conflict into consideration, some change their definition of god to better match the natural world, while others stop believing all together. The fact of the matter is that anyone who chooses to accept how the natural world (at least what we know of it) works, then it becomes very hard to hold a logical, rational belief in a god. This is not to claim that god absolutely does not exist anywhere, instead the claim should be that there is not enough evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the positive existence of a creator or "designer" that is responsible for the universe. I think this is all science can say about a god at present and the evidence continually being found just casts more doubt on its existence.
Exactly. The distinction I try to make is "I'm not saying god can't exist, I'm saying god is not real." And its the specific god that the theist believes in.
K0R3I wrote:
<quoted text>
I realize this is where faith probably come in for most, but is this kind of faith (believing despite contradictory verifiable evidence) really a good thing? I think that personal experience is the only thing that one could use to justify their belief in a god and even personal experience is questionable, especially if you take into account the multiple ways our own brains and senses can fool us.
p.s. Holy crap I didn't mean to write so much, but thats how I see the issue :)
That's logically and rationally consistent. You one of the few who seems to "get it".
LMT

Medina, OH

#15 May 15, 2011
I'm inclined to say it IS a science-stopper, because the correct response to the unknown would be, "That's beyond our understanding right now, but I'm confident that one day we'll have the answer."
When someone says, "God did it," that tells me that the light of curiosity just went out.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#16 May 15, 2011
-Skeptic- wrote:
Ie: The Dude, Chimney. These people can't seem to grasp this very imporant point.
Simply entertaining the possibility of god is not rational.
Yet you keep claiming the concept is scientific.
Ironic, no?
:-p

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#17 May 15, 2011
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet you keep claiming the concept is scientific.
Ironic, no?
:-p
Which concept?

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Level 7

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#18 May 15, 2011
K0R3I wrote:
<quoted text>
That is a good point, However I think all claims of a "god" have one thing in common and that is this entity is the creator or originator of the universe. We do not necessarily need to know how or what method such an entity used to create the universe to substantiate whether it exists or not. So long as this entity interacts with what most of us see as reality, science should be able to detect this interaction. If such an entity exists outside of physical reality and does not interact or has not since creation, then science really can't say much about its existence other than it's highly unlikely and until it can be verified that there is such a thing as "outside of reality" (call it what you like i.e supernatural) then its not rationally justified to believe such an entity exists.
I think many theists assume that science is out to smash religion, but for many scientists and researchers believe in a god has been motivation to begin studying the natural world. However, many find out eventually that the natural world and the properties of their god conflict. Taking this conflict into consideration, some change their definition of god to better match the natural world, while others stop believing all together. The fact of the matter is that anyone who chooses to accept how the natural world (at least what we know of it) works, then it becomes very hard to hold a logical, rational belief in a god. This is not to claim that god absolutely does not exist anywhere, instead the claim should be that there is not enough evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the positive existence of a creator or "designer" that is responsible for the universe. I think this is all science can say about a god at present and the evidence continually being found just casts more doubt on its existence.
I realize this is where faith probably come in for most, but is this kind of faith (believing despite contradictory verifiable evidence) really a good thing? I think that personal experience is the only thing that one could use to justify their belief in a god and even personal experience is questionable, especially if you take into account the multiple ways our own brains and senses can fool us.
p.s. Holy crap I didn't mean to write so much, but thats how I see the issue :)
Nice post.

I think the concept of god is used as a explanation of things people don't understand. For example, lightning was god's punishment until the discovery of electricity. There's still a lot of unanswered questions about the universe and some concepts are quite mind boggling. For me, the concept of infinity starts making me dizzy if I think about it too long.

I'd say people don't seem to handle uncertainty well. For many, it's more comforting to come up with any explanation, such as saying goddidit, than to leave the question open. In effect, god becomes a placeholder. Problem is when they start taking their version of god and force it upon others.
ArthurianDaily

Chicopee, MA

#19 Sep 22, 2011
There is Scientific Proof of The Virgin Birth, and it's being taught in public schools:

http://arthuriandaily.wordpress.com/2011/09/0...

Level 1

Since: Dec 10

Broomall, PA

#20 Sep 22, 2011
I could not read the entire article. When someone starts out with something like "young people are too dumb to understand, and simply don't believe because they are rebeling", that's where I stop. It is obvious to me that the author is the worst kind of theist apologist.
If during the article he provided some proof that god is real, let me know.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#21 Sep 22, 2011
ArthurianDaily wrote:
There is Scientific Proof of The Virgin Birth, and it's being taught in public schools:
http://arthuriandaily.wordpress.com/2011/09/0...
I'll fetch a kitten now, shall I?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 17
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 2 hr marksman11 163,061
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 9 hr Agents of Corruption 222,265
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 10 hr Regolith Based Li... 32,461
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 14 hr Science 1,412
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 15 hr Dogen 78,757
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! Aug 19 Science 814
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) Aug 5 yehoshooah adam 4,381
More from around the web