Do we need science to back up religion?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Religion is based on faith- but faith doesn't mean believing something that is wrong or ludicrous. Also, YECs don't try to "prove" the bible- they simply try to interpret evidence under a biblical model.

---

Faith IS irrational! It IS the belief in something wrong and ludicrous! You can't see a god. You can't prove he/she/it exists. And yet millions/billions of people believe in a supernatural being. This belief is irrational. Why does one believe in something they can't see or prove, even to themselves? A book? They need science in order to validate their positions. Otherwise, it is just "dust in the wind".
A biblical model cannot stand on its own when confronted with all kinds of scientific evidence. The evidence is 'mutated' to fit these kinds of models.
The answer to the TOPIC "Do we need science to back-up religion", is a resounding "YES!!". It needs all the help it can get.

I've read better debates on bathroom walls. Both sides, Craig and Tooley, were severely lacking in content. Craig appealed to abstract concepts for the proof of a god. But any of those proof, as Tooley mentioned, can be used for the existence of any supernatural creator. These 'proofs' are weak at best. Tooley pointed out some errors in his arguments but his debating skill are lacking (mine aren't any better). I didn't learn anything from that garbage.I was laughing when Craig gave his 'proofs' or 'plausibility' of the existence of a god. He made a major mistake is the first of the two contentions. He said that "I. There are no good reasons to think that atheism is true, ". Atheism is not a world view. Atheism cannot be true or untrue. Atheism is the denial of theism, that's it, that's all, and nothing more. It is the atheist who demands proof from the theist, not vice-versa. But that is off topic.If there wasn't any modern science, there wouldn't be any serious objections to religion (they'd get burned at the stake). Now that scientists have removed the yoke of religion they are free to follow evidence instead of irrational faith.

quote:

---

there is a good basis (intellectually) for being a theist

---

What good 'intelectual' reasons? Those that Craig gave? Those are just poorly understood ideas. Sort of like the ancient Greeks thought that Apollo flew across the sky everyday in a chariot drawn by white swans. We certainly don't believe that anymore, although it does make good fantasy reading. Why do we need to need to project human attributes to unexplained abstract ideas? "God did it!" is not a valid answer to those ideas. Just because we do not know 'where it came from' or 'why it's here', does not put into supernatural providence.

quote:

---

Also, YEC is not neccesary for religion.

---

YEC, IS the religion.

quote:

---

No, actually a YEC is a Young Earth Creationist. This abbreviation does not conform to a particular religious perspective. There are Christian, Mormon, Muslim and what not YEC's

---

Christian, Mormon and Muslim are what--types of cheese? NO, they're religions! Only religions can enforce their dogmatic laws about YEC at the risk of excommunication. The rest of the human race has a choice. I'm not saying that ALL religions force one to believe in YEC, because not all do. I'm just saying that YEC is a tenet of most religions. If you don't believe, you're a blasphemer! One can be a slave to a religion and not believe YEC but you can't be a believer in YEC and NOT be part of religion. Not with any rational basis anyway.

quote:

---

Secondly, the fact that one cannot "see" God/God's is hardly a good intellectual reason for rejection. Can you "see" electrons? Can you "see" gamma rays? Whoops, I suppose belief in electrons and gamma rays is wrong and ludicrous.

---

OK. I concede. I'm not a debater nor am I a logician.btw-You can't 'believe' in electron and gamma radiation. Their 'existence' is based on evidence. Check-out any book on chemistry or physics.
The last time I checked there was evidence for electrons and I even saw the evidence. My notebook entitled "My rational evidence for God" is surprisingly empty (except for the doodles).

quote:

---

Seriously though, what exactly about Craig's evidences did you find unconvincing?

---

OK, here goes:
Reason #1 "God provides the best explanation for the existence of abstract entities"
"God did it" is not a reason. I certainly don't understand numbers but that is not a reason to point to a god and say "He did it"
Craig says: "So what is the metaphysical foundation for such abstract entities? The theist has a plausible answer for that question: they are grounded in the mind of God.""I can't understand--so God did it". I don't understand alot of stuff in the world but I'm not about to tell everyone that God did it. Evolution is kind of hard to get my mind around. Does that mean that it is grounded in 'the mind of God'?Reason #2--"God provides the best explanation of why the universe exists rather than nothing"The 'God did it' proof again.
http://www.creationists.org/robertgentry/abstract2.htmlThis paper by Dr. R.Gentry is a little technical for me but it fits with this 'reason' by Craig.
(Not very good at debating--I'm giving you amunition)Reason #3--"God provides the best explanation for the complex order in the universe"Here a quote from his argument--"The number of seconds in the history of the universe is about 1018, ten followed by eighteen zeros. The number of subatomic particles in the entire universe is said to be about 1080 . Now with those numbers in mind consider the following: Donald Page, one of America's eminent cosmologists, has calculated the odds of our universe existing as one chance out of ten to the power of ten to the one hundred and twenty-fourth power ---a number which is so inconceivable that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement."
Even I know that's not how you calculate probabilities. as Tooley pointed out in his rebuttal.Reason #4--"God provides the best explanation for objective moral values in the world"I don't know how to logically deconstruct this argument. I've seen it done though.
The only thing I know is that I've been an atheist for 3 years and I've yet to kill, rape or torture anyone.Reason #5--"God provides the best explanation for the historical facts concerning the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus."This argument is built on the premise that the Bible is the actual word of God. That is a problem for me.Reason #6--"God can be immediately known and experienced""This isn't really an argument for God's existence; rather it's the claim that you can know that God exists wholly apart from arguments simply by immediately experiencing Him."
"If you're sincerely seeking God, then God will make His existence evident to you."I'm a passive seeker. Will he make himself known to me?
I think what Craig is trying to say is that deep religious experience is intensely personal and private. It is entirely subjective, it is not measurable, and it is not currently explainable in physical terms in any convincing manner. That is a hard sell to atheists.I'm not here to make enemies. I'm here to learn.
I'll try to keep my discussion on a more pleasant tone, less argumentative and more inquisitive.Now I have a sincere question for you snake: How is my disbelief in a god due to the lack of physical evidence constitute irrationality?
This is a serious question...I really don't know.P.S. What's a 'strawman argument'?

quote:

---

"So, if God decided it was good and moral behavior to murder and pilliage at will, would it then be considered perfectly OK to murder and pilliage?"

​

Snake replied:
I suppose so.

---

I hope that was sarcastic, snake. Please let it be sarcasm!
You can't really follow something that blindly!?!

quote:

---

Hopefully what I just said is not as confusing as I think it is

---

It sure was confusing. But I think I caught the meaning.
I just have one problem with it. You said that my moral code was the moral code that your god gave me. I disagree because...there is no God (IMO). My real problem with your answer is that we live in this universe not some alternate one. Would it be possible for your god's moral code to change in this universe. If so, how would it come to you (via a new-NT or voices in your head (the movie Se7en))? and how would you judge it to be true? This is just for idle speculation, not a change of faith for you. I know, for you, that the bible is never changing and thus the moral code is the same forever.I just want to know how you can justify your "I suppose so" answer in this universe. take care

quote:

---

I think humans have to think for themselves about many issues, but I think everyone knows obvious moral wrongs, such as murder.

---

So we humans, whether: Christians(Protestant, Catholic, JW, Mormon), Muslims, Hindu, Native Americans, or Communist all get our moral code from your Christian god. The only difference is how we interpret them. Is that what your saying? How do you account for the murderer who is doing 'God's work' (ie. the pro-lifer who kills abortion doctor to save the little children)?This discussion should be in another thread. Sorry it's off topic.