Suave

Show me some evidence that everything was NOT created by some spiritual being or force. Science fanboys unite.

the_marq

The role of science is not to prove things do not exist, but rather to prove they do.

For example:

Prove there is no such thing as Bigfoot (or Yeti).

It simply cannot be done, by looking at the emperical evidence from a stricly objective POV most people from a scientific background would say, "We are 99.999999% sure that they do not exist." There is always a little room for error as we can't possible scour every inch of the planet (or planets) and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they DO NOT exist.

If science had to prove negitives all kinds of bizarre possibilites would arise:

**Prove there are no monkeys living on the bottom of the ocean
**Prove there is no man alive that has 3 peni (penises)
**Prove that dogs cannot do algebra
**Prove that rocks cannot reproduce sexually

The same basic premise holds true for your "Prove their is no God challenge." It is not up to me (or science in general) to prove that He does not exist. The onus falls to you, the true beliver to prove that He does.

__________________
The Truth:

Johnny Cash could have kicked Bruce Lee's ass if he wanted to.

#3 in a series

tropple

Well said. I always hate hearing those prove a negative arguments.

__________________
+++++++++++Boom!

aurigus

See the_marq's post on how science does not work by proving things don't exist. To borrow the legal terminology, the burden of proof is on your side.

Fibrosa

Fair enough, but first you have to show me a 'spiritual being' or 'force'.

I mean,why should we just assume these sorts of things can exist?

To be perfectly frank, the reason that everything wasn't created by a 'spiritual being' or 'force' is that both of those concepts are incoherent.

__________________
D'oh!

asaris

Now there's a statement I'd like to see some evidence for.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

flstf

How can we, isolated on this little planet in our lonely corner of the universe expect to have any evidence one way or the other? We will most likely never know in our lifetime so it's probably best to just keep an open mind. We have only just begun to learn a little about how life has evolved here.

fckm

But why just One great being?
It seems, that from our vantage point, there's equal probablity for having two Great Beings. Or three. Or four. Or five. etc etc
In fact, there are all kinds of spiritual beliefs that people have. Sometimes the Being is humanlike, sometimes its animal like. Sometimes they live on Mt. Olympus, sometimes they live in a volcano.
It seems to me that all of these views, while holding equal probablility, are also all mutually exclusive. The only logical alternative, is to believe that none of them are true.

__________________
And if you say to me tomorrow, oh what fun it all would be.
Then what's to stop us, pretty baby. But What Is And What Should Never Be.

Mantus

Oh that's easy. No one can prove that some "spiritual being or force" exists in the first place thus we would be getting ahead of ourselves in assuming that it created something.

Suave

I posted this thread as a not-so-subtle parody of the other one, because I personally think that trying to use science to explain religious phenomena and religion to explain scientific phenomena is downright silly. Science will never be able to tell us how the universe was created, if it ever was, just as religion can't explain why peanut butter is gooey. So no, I didn't really expect an actual attempt at an answer, and I was being a facetious douchebag. It's my thing.

coash

yeah lock my thread but not this one -_-

coash

'please search before posting' wth does that mean...obviously someone didn't see the not-so-subtle parody of this one

Lak

hell, I could tell coash was taking the piss, and it my MY thread he was taking the piss of

__________________
ignorance really is bliss.

CSflim

So religion never intrudes on science and science never intrudes on religion. Isn't that just grand. What a wonderfully tolerant picture of the world we have.

Unfortunately a false one. (Ask your local creationist).

__________________

Fibrosa

Well the onus isn't actually on me, so if you believe they exist, you'll have to define them first and then I could possibly show you how they don't exist.

__________________
D'oh!

Suave

That's how I use them, and how I believe they should be used. I'm not saying that everyone views them that way. Doesn't it make sense to you for them to be used that way though?

1010011010

To invalidate the claim being made by the original poster, we need to find only one object that was not created by a "spiritual being or force".

Ignoring the fact that the claim is so ill defined as to be meaningless... presumably humans do not fit the bill of "spiritual being or force"... so I point to: cars, laptops, the internet, war, crop rotation, bottled water, Faberge eggs, high fructose corn syrup, the Habermann Process, boolean logic, and all the other stuff humans have created... including other humans (either in a purely biological sense, or in a psychological/social shaping way).

To dispute these examples, the OP needs only demonstrate the role played by a "spiritual being or force" in all of them.

__________________
Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions

MSD

The other thread was closed. I didn't see this one or I would've closed it at the same time. WE don't need a parody of a thread that has been done repeatedly.