Re: religion vs science
Well hey dude I wasn't talking about the whole religion topic, I was just explaining why his example couldn't be used. He gave an example that he could choose whether or not a god was there, but if he closed his eyes then his cat still existed, and I argued that point from a physics and metaphysics standpoint.
Originally Posted by House
But if you really want to draw me into the religion aspect then here it goes. There is no definitive proof for any deity, or any religion. But on the other hand there is no definitive proof denying the existence of a deity.
Well this topic gets tricky because it is impossible for any of the deities of Judaism, Islam, or Christianity (same deity really just different attitudes and prophets) to exist in this universe because of the overarching characteristics that define the deity of those religions. Those three religions define their god by three basic principles, 1.All knowing, 2. All-powerful . 3 All good or benevolent.
So because of the existence of evil in this universe we can deny that all three of those principles are true. It could be any combination of them but a deity could not be all three without denying the existence of evil in it's entirety, which cannot be done. So monotheistic religions cannot be true, but that does not definitively prove the absence of a higher power.
People didn't believe in gravity or even know what gravity was for a long time. However even when the idea of gravity came around there was no proof. There were experiments done that gave evidence for it but it wasn't until much later when the mathematical explanation for gravity came to be. So by the logic most people are using now gravity didn't exist until s short time ago because there was no proof.
By the way I am not arguing that there is a god or God just that you can't say that there isn't because you haven't seen proof.