Author Topic: Proof of the Conservative's Mythical Sky God  (Read 1709 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline GenericIrvineResident

  • Tourist
  • *
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 4
  • -Received: 8
  • Posts: 62
Proof of the Conservative's Mythical Sky God
« on: April 05, 2021, 04:31:21 PM »
This thread is dedicated to any scientifically, reputable, reproducible proof that there is, in fact, a God.

I'll be waiting for legitimate proof from sources that do not assume the Bible is inherently accurate.

Offline irvinehomeowner

  • The Unicorn Hunter
  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 2644
  • -Received: 3988
  • Posts: 22914
  • 3CWG
Re: Proof of the Conservative's Mythical Sky God
« Reply #1 on: April 05, 2021, 09:03:53 PM »
Because there is no scientific proof that there isn't a God?
Once you go 3-car garage... your junk can never go back.
3CWG: 3-Car Wide Garage
FCB: Foreign Cash Buyer
I recommend:
www.irvinerealtorsite.com
member: Soylent Green Is People (loans/refis)

Offline Kenkoko

  • O.C. Resident
  • ***
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 176
  • -Received: 276
  • Posts: 932
Re: Proof of the Conservative's Mythical Sky God
« Reply #2 on: April 05, 2021, 10:20:18 PM »
This thread is dedicated to any scientifically, reputable, reproducible proof that there is, in fact, a God.

I'll be waiting for legitimate proof from sources that do not assume the Bible is inherently accurate.

Personally, I don't really care if there is a God or not.

We are already on the path to godlessness in America

In 2000, 70% of Americans belonged to a religious congregation. Already down to 47% by 2020.

This is looking like a very rapid trend of secularization of the country with no sign of reversal.

That said, I do have issues with conservative politicians using the Bible as building blocks to their "infallible conservative value" & "anti-science" politics.

Technically, nowhere in the Bible does Jesus mention America.

And nowhere in the Constitution does America mention Jesus.

Offline Kenkoko

  • O.C. Resident
  • ***
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 176
  • -Received: 276
  • Posts: 932
Re: Proof of the Conservative's Mythical Sky God
« Reply #3 on: April 05, 2021, 10:33:00 PM »
I'll be waiting for legitimate proof from sources that do not assume the Bible is inherently accurate.

The Bible is 100% accurate, especially when thrown at close range.

Offline morekaos

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 536
  • -Received: 505
  • Posts: 4516
Re: Proof of the Conservative's Mythical Sky God
« Reply #4 on: April 06, 2021, 11:42:51 AM »
Don't immediately shoot the messenger but look deeper into the argument made...

3 Major Scientific Discoveries In The Past Century That Point To God
Three major discoveries during the last century contradict the forecasts of scientific atheists, pointing instead in a distinctly theistic direction.

First, cosmologists have discovered that the physical universe likely had a beginning, contrary to the expectations of scientific materialists who had long portrayed the material universe as eternal and self-existent (and, therefore, in no need of an external creator).

Lemaître also showed that Einstein’s equations describing gravity most naturally implied a dynamic, evolving universe, despite Einstein’s initial attempt to gerrymander his own equations to depict the universe as eternally existing and static — i.e., neither contracting nor expanding. In 1931, Einstein visited Hubble at the Mt. Wilson observatory in California to view the red-shift evidence for himself. He later announced that denying the evidence of a beginning was “the greatest blunder” of his scientific career.

This evidence of a beginning, later reinforced by other developments in observational astronomy and theoretical physics, not only contradicted the expectations of scientific materialists, it confirmed those of traditional theists. As physicist and Nobel Laureate Arno Penzias observed, “The best data we have [concerning a beginning] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the first five books of Moses, the Psalms, and the Bible as a whole.”

Second, physicists have discovered that we live in a kind of “Goldilocks universe.” Indeed, since the 1960s, physicists have determined that the fundamental physical laws and parameters of our universe have been finely tuned, against all odds, to make our universe capable of hosting life. Even slight alterations in the values of many independent factors — such as the strength of gravitational and electromagnetic attraction, the masses of elementary particles, and the initial arrangement of matter and energy in the universe — would have rendered life impossible

Finally, discoveries in molecular biology have revealed the presence of digital code at the foundation of life, suggesting the work of a master programmer. After James Watson and Francis Crick elucidated the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953, Crick developed his famed “sequence hypothesis.” In it, Crick proposed that the chemical constituents in DNA function like letters in a written language or digital symbols in a computer code.

Functioning computer code depends upon a precise sequence of zeros and ones. Similarly, the DNA molecule’s ability to direct the assembly of crucial protein molecules in cells depends upon specific arrangements of chemical constituents called “bases” along the spine of its double helix structure. Thus, even Richard Dawkins has acknowledged, “the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like.” Or as Bill Gates explains, “DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.”

No theory of undirected chemical evolution has explained the origin of the information in DNA (or RNA) needed to build the first living cell from simpler non-living chemicals. Instead, our uniform and repeated experience — the basis of all scientific reasoning — shows that systems possessing functional or digital information invariably arise from intelligent causes.

We know from experience that software comes from programmers. We know generally that information — whether inscribed in hieroglyphics, written in a book, or encoded in radio signals — always arises from an intelligent source.

So the discovery of information — and a complex information transmission and processing system — in every living cell, provides strong grounds for inferring that intelligence played a role in life’s origin. As information theorist Henry Quastler observed, “information habitually arises from conscious activity.”

https://thefederalist.com/2021/04/02/3-major-scientific-discoveries-in-the-past-century-that-point-to-god/

Offline Mety

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 211
  • -Received: 268
  • Posts: 2462
Re: Proof of the Conservative's Mythical Sky God
« Reply #5 on: April 06, 2021, 01:10:28 PM »
This thread is dedicated to any scientifically, reputable, reproducible proof that there is, in fact, a God.

I'll be waiting for legitimate proof from sources that do not assume the Bible is inherently accurate.

How about a legitimate proof that says God does not exist? Can you find any scientific proof?

Some people don't believe in God and some don't care if there is God or not like our friend, Kenkoko here. He's right that America is on a path to godlessness. However, America NEVER was a "Christian country" to begin with anyways.

To be real accurate, technically only Israel was God's nation. The Pentateuch written by Moses along with the nation's history written by many prophets and apostles are all documented in a book we call The Bible. Though God chose Israel out of all nations to be His nation at the time, He did not limit His election. His love is for ALL nations as documented clearly in the Bible. God just chose Israel to be the instrument of speaking of His love though the nation has so far failed to do the job mostly, which is another discussion.

Israel's history along with many witnesses of other nations' histories are the initial documented sources of God's existence. Now to believe that or not to believe is completely up to you. But there should be a counter source to argue against God's existence to have a good discussion in this thread.

Offline GenericIrvineResident

  • Tourist
  • *
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 4
  • -Received: 8
  • Posts: 62
Re: Proof of the Conservative's Mythical Sky God
« Reply #6 on: April 06, 2021, 03:33:22 PM »
This thread is dedicated to any scientifically, reputable, reproducible proof that there is, in fact, a God.

I'll be waiting for legitimate proof from sources that do not assume the Bible is inherently accurate.

How about a legitimate proof that says God does not exist? Can you find any scientific proof?

Some people don't believe in God and some don't care if there is God or not like our friend, Kenkoko here. He's right that America is on a path to godlessness. However, America NEVER was a "Christian country" to begin with anyways.

To be real accurate, technically only Israel was God's nation. The Pentateuch written by Moses along with the nation's history written by many prophets and apostles are all documented in a book we call The Bible. Though God chose Israel out of all nations to be His nation at the time, He did not limit His election. His love is for ALL nations as documented clearly in the Bible. God just chose Israel to be the instrument of speaking of His love though the nation has so far failed to do the job mostly, which is another discussion.

Israel's history along with many witnesses of other nations' histories are the initial documented sources of God's existence. Now to believe that or not to believe is completely up to you. But there should be a counter source to argue against God's existence to have a good discussion in this thread.

I dislike this retort because it is essentially akin to the following.

Person 1: "bigfoot/zeus/the loch ness monster/ganesha/some religious deity exists!"
Person 2: "don't be preposterous. that's the stuff of legends/lore. where is your proof?"
Person 1: "where is your proof it doesn't exist?"


If this is your method of logical reasoning, then anything and everything that is made up from anyone's imagination exists until someone explicitly proves it doesn't. That's a terribly uninformed and illogical way to go about life and is not how court cases/the scientific method is practiced.



If you purport the existence of a mighty being, be prepared to provide undeniable proof instead of relying on a BS concept like "faith"

Offline GenericIrvineResident

  • Tourist
  • *
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 4
  • -Received: 8
  • Posts: 62
Re: Proof of the Conservative's Mythical Sky God
« Reply #7 on: April 06, 2021, 03:38:57 PM »
Don't immediately shoot the messenger but look deeper into the argument made...

3 Major Scientific Discoveries In The Past Century That Point To God
Three major discoveries during the last century contradict the forecasts of scientific atheists, pointing instead in a distinctly theistic direction.

First, cosmologists have discovered that the physical universe likely had a beginning, contrary to the expectations of scientific materialists who had long portrayed the material universe as eternal and self-existent (and, therefore, in no need of an external creator).

Lemaître also showed that Einstein’s equations describing gravity most naturally implied a dynamic, evolving universe, despite Einstein’s initial attempt to gerrymander his own equations to depict the universe as eternally existing and static — i.e., neither contracting nor expanding. In 1931, Einstein visited Hubble at the Mt. Wilson observatory in California to view the red-shift evidence for himself. He later announced that denying the evidence of a beginning was “the greatest blunder” of his scientific career.

This evidence of a beginning, later reinforced by other developments in observational astronomy and theoretical physics, not only contradicted the expectations of scientific materialists, it confirmed those of traditional theists. As physicist and Nobel Laureate Arno Penzias observed, “The best data we have [concerning a beginning] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the first five books of Moses, the Psalms, and the Bible as a whole.”

Second, physicists have discovered that we live in a kind of “Goldilocks universe.” Indeed, since the 1960s, physicists have determined that the fundamental physical laws and parameters of our universe have been finely tuned, against all odds, to make our universe capable of hosting life. Even slight alterations in the values of many independent factors — such as the strength of gravitational and electromagnetic attraction, the masses of elementary particles, and the initial arrangement of matter and energy in the universe — would have rendered life impossible

Finally, discoveries in molecular biology have revealed the presence of digital code at the foundation of life, suggesting the work of a master programmer. After James Watson and Francis Crick elucidated the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953, Crick developed his famed “sequence hypothesis.” In it, Crick proposed that the chemical constituents in DNA function like letters in a written language or digital symbols in a computer code.

Functioning computer code depends upon a precise sequence of zeros and ones. Similarly, the DNA molecule’s ability to direct the assembly of crucial protein molecules in cells depends upon specific arrangements of chemical constituents called “bases” along the spine of its double helix structure. Thus, even Richard Dawkins has acknowledged, “the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like.” Or as Bill Gates explains, “DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.”

No theory of undirected chemical evolution has explained the origin of the information in DNA (or RNA) needed to build the first living cell from simpler non-living chemicals. Instead, our uniform and repeated experience — the basis of all scientific reasoning — shows that systems possessing functional or digital information invariably arise from intelligent causes.

We know from experience that software comes from programmers. We know generally that information — whether inscribed in hieroglyphics, written in a book, or encoded in radio signals — always arises from an intelligent source.

So the discovery of information — and a complex information transmission and processing system — in every living cell, provides strong grounds for inferring that intelligence played a role in life’s origin. As information theorist Henry Quastler observed, “information habitually arises from conscious activity.”

https://thefederalist.com/2021/04/02/3-major-scientific-discoveries-in-the-past-century-that-point-to-god/

I think it would be cool if we lived in a simulation. A sort of experiment done by an ultra-intelligent being..

But if this were the case, then life would be just as nihilistic as there would be no such thing as an actual, non-simulated "afterlife" in a simulation.

Offline Mety

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 211
  • -Received: 268
  • Posts: 2462
Re: Proof of the Conservative's Mythical Sky God
« Reply #8 on: April 06, 2021, 03:57:31 PM »
This thread is dedicated to any scientifically, reputable, reproducible proof that there is, in fact, a God.

I'll be waiting for legitimate proof from sources that do not assume the Bible is inherently accurate.

How about a legitimate proof that says God does not exist? Can you find any scientific proof?

Some people don't believe in God and some don't care if there is God or not like our friend, Kenkoko here. He's right that America is on a path to godlessness. However, America NEVER was a "Christian country" to begin with anyways.

To be real accurate, technically only Israel was God's nation. The Pentateuch written by Moses along with the nation's history written by many prophets and apostles are all documented in a book we call The Bible. Though God chose Israel out of all nations to be His nation at the time, He did not limit His election. His love is for ALL nations as documented clearly in the Bible. God just chose Israel to be the instrument of speaking of His love though the nation has so far failed to do the job mostly, which is another discussion.

Israel's history along with many witnesses of other nations' histories are the initial documented sources of God's existence. Now to believe that or not to believe is completely up to you. But there should be a counter source to argue against God's existence to have a good discussion in this thread.

I dislike this retort because it is essentially akin to the following.

Person 1: "bigfoot/zeus/the loch ness monster/ganesha/some religious deity exists!"
Person 2: "don't be preposterous. that's the stuff of legends/lore. where is your proof?"
Person 1: "where is your proof it doesn't exist?"


If this is your method of logical reasoning, then anything and everything that is made up from anyone's imagination exists until someone explicitly proves it doesn't. That's a terribly uninformed and illogical way to go about life and is not how court cases/the scientific method is practiced.



If you purport the existence of a mighty being, be prepared to provide undeniable proof instead of relying on a BS concept like "faith"

I did provide my sources with historic records of Israel and other nations'. Which I guess you see as a "BS concept like faith."

Let me know if you're ready to see and discuss as a documented historical record (BTW scientific records are also documented studies) before seeing as some kind of a conservative's fabrication. 

The following member(s) thanked this post:


Offline Mety

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 211
  • -Received: 268
  • Posts: 2462
Re: Proof of the Conservative's Mythical Sky God
« Reply #9 on: April 06, 2021, 04:10:45 PM »
Don't immediately shoot the messenger but look deeper into the argument made...

3 Major Scientific Discoveries In The Past Century That Point To God
Three major discoveries during the last century contradict the forecasts of scientific atheists, pointing instead in a distinctly theistic direction.

First, cosmologists have discovered that the physical universe likely had a beginning, contrary to the expectations of scientific materialists who had long portrayed the material universe as eternal and self-existent (and, therefore, in no need of an external creator).

Lemaître also showed that Einstein’s equations describing gravity most naturally implied a dynamic, evolving universe, despite Einstein’s initial attempt to gerrymander his own equations to depict the universe as eternally existing and static — i.e., neither contracting nor expanding. In 1931, Einstein visited Hubble at the Mt. Wilson observatory in California to view the red-shift evidence for himself. He later announced that denying the evidence of a beginning was “the greatest blunder” of his scientific career.

This evidence of a beginning, later reinforced by other developments in observational astronomy and theoretical physics, not only contradicted the expectations of scientific materialists, it confirmed those of traditional theists. As physicist and Nobel Laureate Arno Penzias observed, “The best data we have [concerning a beginning] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the first five books of Moses, the Psalms, and the Bible as a whole.”

Second, physicists have discovered that we live in a kind of “Goldilocks universe.” Indeed, since the 1960s, physicists have determined that the fundamental physical laws and parameters of our universe have been finely tuned, against all odds, to make our universe capable of hosting life. Even slight alterations in the values of many independent factors — such as the strength of gravitational and electromagnetic attraction, the masses of elementary particles, and the initial arrangement of matter and energy in the universe — would have rendered life impossible

Finally, discoveries in molecular biology have revealed the presence of digital code at the foundation of life, suggesting the work of a master programmer. After James Watson and Francis Crick elucidated the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953, Crick developed his famed “sequence hypothesis.” In it, Crick proposed that the chemical constituents in DNA function like letters in a written language or digital symbols in a computer code.

Functioning computer code depends upon a precise sequence of zeros and ones. Similarly, the DNA molecule’s ability to direct the assembly of crucial protein molecules in cells depends upon specific arrangements of chemical constituents called “bases” along the spine of its double helix structure. Thus, even Richard Dawkins has acknowledged, “the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like.” Or as Bill Gates explains, “DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.”

No theory of undirected chemical evolution has explained the origin of the information in DNA (or RNA) needed to build the first living cell from simpler non-living chemicals. Instead, our uniform and repeated experience — the basis of all scientific reasoning — shows that systems possessing functional or digital information invariably arise from intelligent causes.

We know from experience that software comes from programmers. We know generally that information — whether inscribed in hieroglyphics, written in a book, or encoded in radio signals — always arises from an intelligent source.

So the discovery of information — and a complex information transmission and processing system — in every living cell, provides strong grounds for inferring that intelligence played a role in life’s origin. As information theorist Henry Quastler observed, “information habitually arises from conscious activity.”

https://thefederalist.com/2021/04/02/3-major-scientific-discoveries-in-the-past-century-that-point-to-god/

I think it would be cool if we lived in a simulation. A sort of experiment done by an ultra-intelligent being..

But if this were the case, then life would be just as nihilistic as there would be no such thing as an actual, non-simulated "afterlife" in a simulation.

This universe's existence, undeniable physical laws, biological molecules are what I brought up in the other thread. Interestingly that's what this article talks about also. Yet, there are people who would just say we don't know how these things came to existence because it's just not good of evidences enough for them to accept God is the one who created these. Well, God already wrote about all these scientific laws way before we started finding these facts and existences in our world if you really carefully studied the Scripture.

Offline morekaos

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 536
  • -Received: 505
  • Posts: 4516
Re: Proof of the Conservative's Mythical Sky God
« Reply #10 on: April 06, 2021, 04:12:58 PM »
Don't immediately shoot the messenger but look deeper into the argument made...

3 Major Scientific Discoveries In The Past Century That Point To God
Three major discoveries during the last century contradict the forecasts of scientific atheists, pointing instead in a distinctly theistic direction.

First, cosmologists have discovered that the physical universe likely had a beginning, contrary to the expectations of scientific materialists who had long portrayed the material universe as eternal and self-existent (and, therefore, in no need of an external creator).

Lemaître also showed that Einstein’s equations describing gravity most naturally implied a dynamic, evolving universe, despite Einstein’s initial attempt to gerrymander his own equations to depict the universe as eternally existing and static — i.e., neither contracting nor expanding. In 1931, Einstein visited Hubble at the Mt. Wilson observatory in California to view the red-shift evidence for himself. He later announced that denying the evidence of a beginning was “the greatest blunder” of his scientific career.

This evidence of a beginning, later reinforced by other developments in observational astronomy and theoretical physics, not only contradicted the expectations of scientific materialists, it confirmed those of traditional theists. As physicist and Nobel Laureate Arno Penzias observed, “The best data we have [concerning a beginning] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the first five books of Moses, the Psalms, and the Bible as a whole.”

Second, physicists have discovered that we live in a kind of “Goldilocks universe.” Indeed, since the 1960s, physicists have determined that the fundamental physical laws and parameters of our universe have been finely tuned, against all odds, to make our universe capable of hosting life. Even slight alterations in the values of many independent factors — such as the strength of gravitational and electromagnetic attraction, the masses of elementary particles, and the initial arrangement of matter and energy in the universe — would have rendered life impossible

Finally, discoveries in molecular biology have revealed the presence of digital code at the foundation of life, suggesting the work of a master programmer. After James Watson and Francis Crick elucidated the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953, Crick developed his famed “sequence hypothesis.” In it, Crick proposed that the chemical constituents in DNA function like letters in a written language or digital symbols in a computer code.

Functioning computer code depends upon a precise sequence of zeros and ones. Similarly, the DNA molecule’s ability to direct the assembly of crucial protein molecules in cells depends upon specific arrangements of chemical constituents called “bases” along the spine of its double helix structure. Thus, even Richard Dawkins has acknowledged, “the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like.” Or as Bill Gates explains, “DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.”

No theory of undirected chemical evolution has explained the origin of the information in DNA (or RNA) needed to build the first living cell from simpler non-living chemicals. Instead, our uniform and repeated experience — the basis of all scientific reasoning — shows that systems possessing functional or digital information invariably arise from intelligent causes.

We know from experience that software comes from programmers. We know generally that information — whether inscribed in hieroglyphics, written in a book, or encoded in radio signals — always arises from an intelligent source.

So the discovery of information — and a complex information transmission and processing system — in every living cell, provides strong grounds for inferring that intelligence played a role in life’s origin. As information theorist Henry Quastler observed, “information habitually arises from conscious activity.”

https://thefederalist.com/2021/04/02/3-major-scientific-discoveries-in-the-past-century-that-point-to-god/

I think it would be cool if we lived in a simulation. A sort of experiment done by an ultra-intelligent being..

But if this were the case, then life would be just as nihilistic as there would be no such thing as an actual, non-simulated "afterlife" in a simulation.

I’ll let the architect explain... ;) ;D


Offline Soylent Green Is People

  • Abiding Dude. Housing focused NMLS Licensed
  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 1009
  • -Received: 1199
  • Posts: 2544
  • Gender: Male
  • Isaiah 58: 6-11
Re: Proof of the Conservative's Mythical Sky God
« Reply #11 on: April 06, 2021, 04:52:16 PM »
Kenkoko -  I'm a committed Christian, but... dang... that's a funny line! I'm going to steal it if you don't mind.

To the OP - What you would accept as an undeniable fact for the existence of a creator God? What baseline or standard are you wanting those who hold a Theistic worldview to meet?

The challenge of providing "any scientifically, reputable, reproducible proof that there is, in fact, a God" is easily waived away by saying "But what if the reproduction of this proof was done in another manner? or "That's not science, that's theory - as theistic evolutionists will use to rebut those who support the theory of macro evolution.

Narrow this down to one or two precise things you can live with as fact and we can see where this leads. Everyone has a "bottom line" on this question. Let's find it and work from that point forward.

My .02c
« Last Edit: April 06, 2021, 05:02:27 PM by Soylent Green Is People »
My .02c

SGIP

The following member(s) thanked this post:


Offline GenericIrvineResident

  • Tourist
  • *
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 4
  • -Received: 8
  • Posts: 62
Re: Proof of the Conservative's Mythical Sky God
« Reply #12 on: April 06, 2021, 05:01:41 PM »
Kenkoko -  I'm a committed Christian, but... dang... that's a funny line! I'm going to steal it if you don't mind.

To the OP - What you would accept as an undeniable fact for the existence of a creator God? What baseline or standard are you wanting those who hold a Theistic worldview to meet?  Everyone has a "bottom line" on this question. Let's find it and work from that point forward.

My .02c

I created this thread in response to the other thread titled "Dispelling Leftist/Atheist Nonsense".

I don't think anything besides scientifically reproducible evidence will convince me otherwise. That is, a process that follows the scientific method to prove that there is a divine creator. A method that other scientists can confirm/deny.

So what if there are historic texts documenting these sorts of things? People are known to be liars. I wouldn't trust a person's account of anything without seeing proof, much less a historical person that I have no ties to.

I'm not denying the possibility of god's existence. Sure anything is possible as we don't know one way or another... but I'm not going to live my life under the presumption that there is potentially a god (Pascal's wager).

My moral compass is shaped by the idea that we are here on earth to enjoy our lives and we should not infringe on others' opportunities and rights to enjoy theirs.

Offline Soylent Green Is People

  • Abiding Dude. Housing focused NMLS Licensed
  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 1009
  • -Received: 1199
  • Posts: 2544
  • Gender: Male
  • Isaiah 58: 6-11
Re: Proof of the Conservative's Mythical Sky God
« Reply #13 on: April 06, 2021, 05:10:36 PM »
How is your moral compass better than let's say anyone else's? There was a period of time where people were encouraged to do whatever they wanted - the "feel good" 1960's creating the "Me Generation". They thought it was OK to do things as they saw fit, acceptable to them and their circle of friends - but was it objectively correct? I'd argue it wasn't right or sustainable given how morally bankrupt the Boomer Generation really is.

Subjective views are subject to change. Ever changing views can lead down some pretty dark roads. What was morally unimaginable in 1925 for those who considered themselves "good people" shifted in a terrible way within 10 short years. It's not unreasonable to hold that objective truth then should be the standard.

What to you is a reliable source of objective truth? Per your recent post - only scientific proof is an acceptable standard here. Which branch of science is preferred? Biology? Physics? Chemistry? Astronomy, etc.  A fixed target helps focus what responses others may provide.

Thanks!

To add... there was an interesting Netflix movie called "The Discovery" that somewhat aligns with this discussion. The concept was this: Scientist Robert Redford proves without any doubt or question the existence of an afterlife. What do people do in response? Mass suicide, preferring to take a chance on whatever new start they may have to whatever this present life can offer. Drab and depressing, but my guess is not that far off from what would happen if science was ever able to confirm an afterlife/parallel universes ect.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2021, 05:20:29 PM by Soylent Green Is People »
My .02c

SGIP

Offline GenericIrvineResident

  • Tourist
  • *
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 4
  • -Received: 8
  • Posts: 62
Re: Proof of the Conservative's Mythical Sky God
« Reply #14 on: April 06, 2021, 05:53:42 PM »
How is your moral compass better than let's say anyone else's? There was a period of time where people were encouraged to do whatever they wanted - the "feel good" 1960's creating the "Me Generation". They thought it was OK to do things as they saw fit, acceptable to them and their circle of friends - but was it objectively correct? I'd argue it wasn't right or sustainable given how morally bankrupt the Boomer Generation really is.

Subjective views are subject to change. Ever changing views can lead down some pretty dark roads. What was morally unimaginable in 1925 for those who considered themselves "good people" shifted in a terrible way within 10 short years. It's not unreasonable to hold that objective truth then should be the standard.

What to you is a reliable source of objective truth? Per your recent post - only scientific proof is an acceptable standard here. Which branch of science is preferred? Biology? Physics? Chemistry? Astronomy, etc.  A fixed target helps focus what responses others may provide.

Thanks!

To add... there was an interesting Netflix movie called "The Discovery" that somewhat aligns with this discussion. The concept was this: Scientist Robert Redford proves without any doubt or question the existence of an afterlife. What do people do in response? Mass suicide, preferring to take a chance on whatever new start they may have to whatever this present life can offer. Drab and depressing, but my guess is not that far off from what would happen if science was ever able to confirm an afterlife/parallel universes ect.

I did not say my moral compass is better, people just seem to always bring up "how do you get your morals?" when I say I don't believe in the Christian god.

My problem is when politics decide that the bible/christianity is a good benchmark for morals when it was written in an antiquated time. Like you mentioned, morals change a lot depending on the current zeitgeist, so is it really fair to continue basing policy on an ancient religion? Especially when your constituents are not all Christian?


Whichever branch of science is fine (physics/biology/chemistry/astronomy/astrophysics), so as long as it is not pseudoscience.

 

Talk Irvine Links

[Recent Posts]
[FAQ / Rules]

Site Supporters


Recent Posts

Re: The Meadows, Lake Forest by Toll Brothers by aquabliss
[Today at 01:05:00 AM]


Re: The Meadows, Lake Forest by Toll Brothers by ryan3398
[Today at 12:46:25 AM]


Re: coronavirus by irvinehomeowner
[Today at 12:42:16 AM]


Re: coronavirus by morekaos
[Yesterday at 10:36:53 PM]


Re: coronavirus by irvinehomeowner
[Yesterday at 07:20:42 PM]

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2021, SimplePortal