Could Science Prove that the God of the Bible DOES Exist?

Phillip J. Fry
Theist
Phillip J. Fry's picture
Posts: 34
Joined: 2010-11-17
User is offlineOffline
Could Science Prove that the God of the Bible DOES Exist?

Hi,

 

I am a n00b to this forum but am looking forwards to some positive discussion.

Firstly I just wanted to say openly that I am a Christian (Which is a Very misused term > so more specifically I am a believer of the God who has revealed himself in the Bible). I am also a believer in science – I am a Mechanical and Electrical Engineer by trade.

I am here because I am seeking to understand what exactly atheists believe/don’t believe and how they have come to this conclusion.

It seems to me that it is generally accepted that the existence of God cannot be disproven - assuming that the Flying Spaghetti Monster/Invisible Pink Unicorn arguments hold true (Please correct me if this is not the case). Therefore I have 2 questions that I wish to ask, If these questions have been asked elsewhere please point me in the right direction, however I have been unable to find sufficient discussion on them so far. My questions are as follows:

1)                Could Science Prove that the God of the Bible Exists?

If science is unable to prove that the God of the Bible exists, then my second question is:

2a) What is the purpose of discussing the existence/non-existence of the God of the Bible on this forum or elsewhere, if the existence of the God cannot be proven or disproven?

If science is able to prove that the God of the Bible exists, then my second question is:

2b) Supposing the God of the Bible does exist, then what scientific evidence would be sufficient to convince the atheists reading this forum that the God of the Bible does exist?

 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
The above link

The above link touches upon some of the more basic talking points of Stenger's work, but there is no way that I could give you all of the summations of that book. You would probably have to read it. I personally believe that the God of the Bible is an impossibility. Not saying that I am basing all of my non-belief or lack of belief in the Biblical god off of Stenger's work, But I found it to be one of the best available books that refuted all the ideas of God being discovered by science.

Stenger had an interesting point that I would like to bring about. Science does not endorse a faith, science only tries to break things down to better understand them. I am fairly certain that scientists would LOVE to be able to find a God in the Universe, then it would give them new avenues of research and study. The grants to study such a discovered deity would probably be very great indeed. BUT, based upon what we know right now, I don't see any real evidence for the existence of a god. I see no evidence for the existence of the Biblical god. I don't think science has uncovered any evidence that points to the existence of an intelligent design, let alone a god. Science is really not out to prove/disprove anything, it only wishes to discover how things work. Based upon what we know at this time, the evidence is a whole lot stronger that we came from nothing, that the evolution of our species was almost accidental (have you heard the argument about how backwards are eyes are formed) and that while a HUGE majority of the species on this planet have become extinct, our own survival seems to not indicate a miracle, but a product of evolution.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
XaosPeru wrote: Yes, I'm

XaosPeru wrote:

 

Yes, I'm quite aware of the base assumptions of science, such as methodological naturalism which posits that everything physical can be explained without ever having to say, "God did it."  The point that I should like to make is that there's a big difference between metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism.  Metaphysical naturalism claims quite simply that God doesn't exist.  That seems to be the POV of most people here (considering it is an atheist board).  However, such an assumption is not necessary in order for someone to be a scientist.  Properly understood science confines itself to natural explanations without saying anything (one way or another) about the existence of God.

Now, as to the crux of your post, yes, it's true that many people do believe in the Big Bang Theory.  However, there are a number of problems with this theory, not the least of which is the observations of quasars located between us and galaxies.

This picture calls into question the underlying assumptions of the Big Bang Theory, namely that red shift can be used as a proxy for distance because this redshift is due to the Doppler Effect.  The related page goes on to "say, "The Big Bang Theory is false - not because I or others claim it to be false - but because it has been scientifically falsified."  I would tend to agree.

Of course even if the Big Bang Theory is demonstrably false that doesn't mean that the laws of physics weren't different some 14.5 billion years ago.  You might be completely right.  That's not my question: The question is, could we do some sort of test that might possibly determine if this theory was wrong?  The second question would be, when could we expect that someone will actually try to do said experiment?

See this is another problem we have here, lack of understanding about what has been used to prove or at least show that the big bang theory is on the right track, it is not merely just one part, such as redshift, there is more to the theory that just one part, such as background radiation, hubble's law and expansion of space, , and of course galactic evolution and distrbution of galaxies and last time I checked quasars....quasars are not a problem for big bang theory, although they are a riddle of it all, they do not destroy the big bang theory at all, hence I see your misunderstanding of it all.

Tests that can be used are determined by the hypthesis, once a they are tested and proved true, they become theories, now, if those theories can be shown to falsify an existing theory, then one of 2 things happen, the theory is modified to explain the new theory (which very well could happen with quasars) or the whole theory is changed, IF there is no other alternative explanation.


Phillip J. Fry
Theist
Phillip J. Fry's picture
Posts: 34
Joined: 2010-11-17
User is offlineOffline
Sorry for my absence - the

Sorry for my absence - the weekend called.

Much has been discussed in the meantime, however on the original question of the ability of the existance of God to be proven through science, Some people seem to be saying that it would be possible to measure some characteristics of a God but our measurements would be limited by our own restrictions of being within space/time and under the laws of physics, which might hinder a complete anaysis.

However others are saying:

BobSpence1 wrote:
It is logically impossible for there to be evidence proving that any being is omnipotent, infinite, or omniscient, to finite beings like us.

XaosPeru wrote:

No, science cannot prove that God exists.


Either way,
1) ASSUMING science is unable to convincingly prove that God exists with evidence...
AND
2) ASSUMING
butterbattle wrote:
Atheists do not believe in God.

AND
3 ASSUMING
100percentAtheist wrote:
A falsifiable theory (like a theory that God exist, for example) must include a set of conditions, which, if fulfilled, will mean the theory is false.
...
ANY SCIENTIFIC THEORY IS FALSIFIABLE, or it is NOT a scientific theory BY DEFINITION.


THEN LOGICALLY IT FOLLOWS THAT

Since the belief of atheist that God does not exist cannot be falsified by proving his existance, therefore it cannot be a valid scentific theory. 

-------------

I am sure you do not believe this (please correct me if this is wrong), 
So all i would like to know is which of these 3 assumptions is/are invalid. Do you agree with what BobSpence1 and XaosPeru have said about God's existance not being able to be scientifically proven? or not? It seems to me that there is some disaggreement between people, i would just like that to be cleared up? Can you scientifically prove gods existance or not?




 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Based upon

Phillip J. Fry wrote:

Sorry for my absence - the weekend called.

Much has been discussed in the meantime, however on the original question of the ability of the existance of God to be proven through science, Some people seem to be saying that it would be possible to measure some characteristics of a God but our measurements would be limited by our own restrictions of being within space/time and under the laws of physics, which might hinder a complete anaysis.

However others are saying:

BobSpence1 wrote:
It is logically impossible for there to be evidence proving that any being is omnipotent, infinite, or omniscient, to finite beings like us.

XaosPeru wrote:

No, science cannot prove that God exists.


Either way,
1) ASSUMING science is unable to convincingly prove that God exists with evidence...
AND
2) ASSUMING
butterbattle wrote:
Atheists do not believe in God.

AND
3 ASSUMING
100percentAtheist wrote:
A falsifiable theory (like a theory that God exist, for example) must include a set of conditions, which, if fulfilled, will mean the theory is false.
...
ANY SCIENTIFIC THEORY IS FALSIFIABLE, or it is NOT a scientific theory BY DEFINITION.


THEN LOGICALLY IT FOLLOWS THAT

Since the belief of atheist that God does not exist cannot be falsified by proving his existance, therefore it cannot be a valid scentific theory. 

-------------

I am sure you do not believe this (please correct me if this is wrong), 
So all i would like to know is which of these 3 assumptions is/are invalid. Do you agree with what BobSpence1 and XaosPeru have said about God's existance not being able to be scientifically proven? or not? It seems to me that there is some disaggreement between people, i would just like that to be cleared up? Can you scientifically prove gods existance or not?




 

 

Based upon the amount of knowledge that we have at our disposal, at this time, I would say that it is not possible to prove the existence of God. Does this mean that science will always be in this category ? I doubt it. If modern civilization holds up and we don't nuke ourselves out of existence, and mankind continues to progress, then there is no way of determining what the future of science may hold. Look at what the learned men of say the 1500's, the 1700's and even the early 1900's had to work with. Compare that, to say, our time vs. 500 years from now and there is probably no way to know what science would get to. However, unless God is deliberately hiding his existence from us or messing with the evidence (which does not logically make sense to me) there is always a chance that science may make some brand new discovery that could point to a probable existence of some sort of intelligence. The difficulty would be in determining if this intelligence would have anything to do with the god of the bible, the koran, the ancient Germanic myths of Thor or any other deity that has been worshipped. Would the discovery of an intelligence mean that it is the intelligence that created our world? Would the discovery of an intelligence mean that this intelligence is actually concerned with us ? Would the discovery of  this intelligence indicate that it would be a "GOD" or another life form ? I don't think that it is an impossibility to say that God could be discovered by science, but I think if any discovery were ever to be made, that would only begin to scratch the surface of what God might be. If the God of the Bible does exist, is out there, then I think that it would be possible for it to be discovered. But, me personally, I do not personally believe such a thing exists and I personally do not think that unless there is some sort of direct evidence for it governing our lives and this planet, there would be no need to even try and look for it. That is just the way that I see it.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Phillip J. Fry wrote:Since

Phillip J. Fry wrote:
Since the belief of atheist that God does not exist

Atheism is not necessarily the belief that God does not exist. More broadly, it is simply non-belief.

Phillip J. Fry wrote:
cannot be falsified by proving his existance, therefore it cannot be a valid scentific theory.

If atheism is the belief that God does not exist, then this is true. But, atheism is not a scientific theory regardless. It is not necessarily a positive claim, and it is certainly not an explanation of natural phenomena.

Phillip J. Fry wrote:
So all i would like to know is which of these 3 assumptions is/are invalid.

The second and third are good. The first one is too sweeping, maybe. It depends on how God is defined.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Phillip J. Fry
Theist
Phillip J. Fry's picture
Posts: 34
Joined: 2010-11-17
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote: Atheism

butterbattle wrote:
Atheism is not necessarily the belief that God does not exist. More broadly, it is simply non-belief.


Non-belief of what? Non-belief in any God claims? I claim to believe in the God of the bible. A God who claims that he does in fact exist...Do you believe my God claim or not?


As far as i can see you can only hold one of 5 positions regarding the God claim i make, either:

1) Believe my God claim based on evidence

This is a positive claim - a claim requiring valid proof to be consistantly held by the person who holds this position.

2) Remain undecided pending further scientific evidence.

If you hold this postion then this statement remains is true:

butterbattle wrote:
Atheism ... is not necessarily a positive claim

However in order to logically hold this position you must beleive that there is a possibility for sufficent evidence to arise in the future to validate my claim.
If this is your position my original question remains >
What scientific evidence would be sufficeint to validate my claim?

Some people have already said that scientific evidence would be unable to prove the existance of my God, others have said this might be possible. At best this is inconsistant and some clarity would be nice.
The people who beleive that scientific evidence would be unable to prove the existance of my God would not logically be able to still hold the position of remaining undecided pending further scientific evidence as there would be no possibility for their position to ever change from being undecided - therefore these people logically must reject my God claim. 

3) Reject my God claim  (assert that that my God does not exist) based on evidence

However in order to hold this position, you would now be making the negitive claim that my God does not exist - which just like any positive claim also requires an equal amount of valid proof to be consistantly held by the person who holds this postion.

Assuming that My God's existance cannot be definitivly proven with science (if you dont beleive this you logically should be holding position 2 as you would acknowledging that evidence could exist to validate my claim, but asserting that my claim is invalid anyway which would be dismissing the ability of evidence to proove claims)

My question to people who hold this position is:
What is your claim - That God does not exist, based on?

Using the scientific method to come to this belief would not be sufficeint basis for holding this claim, as this could not be done falseifiably as there would be no possible test you could conduct to prove my Gods existance to falseify your tests.


4) Accept my God claim without evidence

5) Reject my God claim (assert that that my God does not exist) without evidence
 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
I consider the Bible God to Be Not True

Phillip J. Fry wrote:

butterbattle wrote:
Atheism is not necessarily the belief that God does not exist. More broadly, it is simply non-belief.


Non-belief of what? Non-belief in any God claims? I claim to believe in the God of the bible. A God who claims that he does in fact exist...Do you believe my God claim or not?


As far as i can see you can only hold one of 3 positions regarding the God claim i make, either:

1) Believe my God claim

This is a positive claim - a claim requiring valid proof to be consistantly held by the person who holds this position.

2) Remain undecided pending further scientific evidence.

If you hold this postion then this statement remains is true:

butterbattle wrote:
Atheism ... is not necessarily a positive claim

However in order to logically hold this position you must beleive that there is a possibility for sufficent evidence to arise in the future to validate my claim.
If this is your position my original question remains >
What scientific evidence would be sufficeint to validate my claim?

Some people have already said that scientific evidence would be unable to prove the existance of my God, others have said this might be possible. At best this is inconsistant and some clarity would be nice.
The people who beleive that scientific evidence would be unable to prove the existance of my God would not logically be able to still hold the position of remaining undecided pending further scientific evidence as there would be no possibility for their position to ever change from being undecided - therefore these people logically must reject my God claim. 

3) Reject my God claim, and therefore assert that that my God does not exist.

However in order to hold this position, you would now be making the negitive claim that my God does not exist - which just like any positive claim also requires an equal amount of valid proof to be consistantly held by the person who holds this postion.

Assuming that My God's existance cannot be definitivly proven with science (if you dont beleive this you logically should be holding position 2 as you would acknowledging that evidence could exist to validate my claim, but asserting that my claim is invalid anyway which would be dismissing the ability of evidence to proove claims)

My question to people who hold this position is:
What is your claim - That God does not exist, based on?

Using the scientific method to come to this belief would not be sufficeint basis for holding this claim, as this could not be done falseifiably as there would be no possible test you could conduct to prove my Gods existance to falseify your tests.
 

I do not accept either the Jewish God of the Hebrew Bible as reality based or its derived morphed descedant with a Trinity.

Words in ancient many times copied over books do not a god make. No actual manuscripts exist dated to Moses who most scholars agree did not write the 1st 5 books anyway. If all it takes is ancient books from long ago to make a god, bow down and worship Enki and Enlil as at least books (clay tablets actually) from the time period exist.

 

The god of the Hebrew bible is a morphed god from ancient times. The christian god is a further morphing of this ancient Canaanite god into something even unsupported in the myths and legends of the Jews. Keeping this in mind as you are a Christian I would assume it's the 2nd morphed god you accept.

So:

1)The god of the Hebrew Bible has not been shown to be reality based simply from the stories it contains. Part of the source material for it was based upon prior stories from Sumer, Egypt, and Canaan. The original god El as well as Yahweh are to be found in Ugaritic writings and god stories but tell a far different story. Archeology tells a different story as does history from other cultures where available.

a)The major epic events of the Jews are not supportable by history or archeology. I have a thread which has been ongoing for a long time where I have been debating a Christian as to the myths, legends, and stories of the OT. See here - http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/17279 - This thread is still a work in progress and may take another year or so.

1-Noah and the Flood

2-Exodus and slave period in Egypt

3-wandering the desert for 40 years.

4-invading Palestine - a gradual influx of settlement is shown. Errors in regard to Ai, Jericho and others. The Sun stood still. No verification from the Assyrians or the Chinese who both were into astronomy.

5-vast numbers as indicated in the Hebrew Bible are not possible

6-no proof there was a united Israel, rather archeology indicates not so as Judah was very insignificant until after Israel was decimated.

7-major errors in Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel

b)single person accounts with magic and sci-fi that are no different than similar claims in other cultures which lacked knowledge and understanding.

c)no original documents dated to the period though they could have used the same clay tablets used by Assyria and Egypt. None have been found.

2)The Jewish god is morphed in a new direction by Paulinity. The morphing is far from what the Jews considered as what their scriptures indicated. For you to accept this morphing you must explain where the Jews went wrong. This is not simply, they didn't understand what was meant. Detail the exact errors they made including some of the supposed prophets which you utilize to justify the warped Pauline views.

a)2nd, 3rd, 4th hand accounts of Jesus aka Yahshua. Originals are not available. No clue who wrote them, only tradition by the RCC.

b)no verification Yahshua was a real person, no death warrants, no itemized invoices from a lodging house during Passover, no corroborative writing to support these events by writers who were in the area and should have noticed such a big following of a desert prophet rebel and his subsequent execution by the Romans for criminal acts of rebellion. Namely Philo of Alexandria who lived in Jerusalem when these events supposedly occurred and Justus of Tiberias a contemporary of both Jesus and Josephus. His major works discuss nothing in regard to Jesus the messiah though even Christian critics called him concise. He was from Galilee.

c)contradictory stories in the gospel accounts which indicate source materials were from legends, oral story telling from multiple sources. Untrue claims by both Luke and Matthew in their nativity stories. Contradiction between Luke and Matthew where the family went after Jesus was born. Fled to Egypt or went home to Nazareth. Multiple choice accounts of the Passion story, see my thread Easter Myth week found here - http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/20050 post #31 is called Choose your own passion adventure myth which shows the main contradictions between the stories.

I could go on and on why the morphed Christian Pauline god is questionable, and based in legends, stories and rebellion against the oppressing Romans, but there's enough to at least start a healthy skeptical investigation for most people.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Phillip J. Fry
Theist
Phillip J. Fry's picture
Posts: 34
Joined: 2010-11-17
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:I

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I do not accept either the Jewish God of the Hebrew Bible as reality based or its derived morphed descedant with a Trinity.
...
The major epic events of the Jews are not supportable by history or archeology.
...
no verification Yahshua [Jesus] was a real person
...
contradictory stories in the gospel accounts
...
there's enough to at least start a healthy skeptical investigation for most people.


Thanks for the very thorough list of the inconsistancies you have with the bible. They all seem quite valid points for you to be questioning.

It seems to me that you have drawn a conclusiong based on a apparent lack of evidence.

Would this be a fair summay of your position?
You seem to be saying that you do not accept my God as reality (a.k.a. you assert that my God does not exist) based on the apparent gross inconsistancies of people/events mentioned in his revelation in the bible and the general lack of sufficient supporting historicial and scientific evidence outside this revelation to confirm the validity of the revelation.


My question to you is:
Hypothetically if sufficient evidence did come to light (external to the bible) which confirmed all the people/events contained in the revelation in the bible and explained any apparent inconsistancies.

Would that be sufficient proof to cause you to beleive in the existance of my God?

I would guess not - as most historically accurate fictional movies based on perticular events in history (eg: ww2 films) based on real people would have a similar amount of histocially consistant  evidence to confirm their vailidity, however this would not mean that they are not still works of fiction.  

If confimation of the historical consistancy of the events in the bible would not be sufficient, what further evidence would be sufficient for you to confirm the existance of my God? 

If there is no possible evidence that would be enough to prove my God exists then you cannot assert that my god does not exsit.

At best you can say that he may/may not exist but you would never be able to know for sure. In this case any further discussion on the existance of God is pointless, as saying he exists or not would just be a guess. 

 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Phillip J. Fry

Phillip J. Fry wrote:


Non-belief of what? Non-belief in any God claims? I claim to believe in the God of the bible. A God who claims that he does in fact exist...Do you believe my God claim or not?

 

A god that makes the claim in the bible? No more of a claim than saying that superman is real because he claims he is real in the comic books

Quote:


As far as i can see you can only hold one of 5 positions regarding the God claim i make, either:

1) Believe my God claim based on evidence

This is a positive claim - a claim requiring valid proof to be consistantly held by the person who holds this position.

Yes so far we have no evidence or valid proof outside of the bible, and we know we need more than just the bible to make valid proof

Quote:

2) Remain undecided pending further scientific evidence.

If you hold this postion then this statement remains is true:

butterbattle wrote:
Atheism ... is not necessarily a positive claim

However in order to logically hold this position you must beleive that there is a possibility for sufficent evidence to arise in the future to validate my claim.
If this is your position my original question remains >
What scientific evidence would be sufficeint to validate my claim?

Some people have already said that scientific evidence would be unable to prove the existance of my God, others have said this might be possible. At best this is inconsistant and some clarity would be nice.
The people who beleive that scientific evidence would be unable to prove the existance of my God would not logically be able to still hold the position of remaining undecided pending further scientific evidence as there would be no possibility for their position to ever change from being undecided - therefore these people logically must reject my God claim. 

No necessarily scientific evidence, just proper evidence or even a proper logic or just a logical claim, to date I have yet to have a christian provide logical argument on how god could exist. 

Quote:

3) Reject my God claim  (assert that that my God does not exist) based on evidence

However in order to hold this position, you would now be making the negitive claim that my God does not exist - which just like any positive claim also requires an equal amount of valid proof to be consistantly held by the person who holds this postion.

Assuming that My God's existance cannot be definitivly proven with science (if you dont beleive this you logically should be holding position 2 as you would acknowledging that evidence could exist to validate my claim, but asserting that my claim is invalid anyway which would be dismissing the ability of evidence to proove claims)

My question to people who hold this position is:
What is your claim - That God does not exist, based on?

Using the scientific method to come to this belief would not be sufficeint basis for holding this claim, as this could not be done falseifiably as there would be no possible test you could conduct to prove my Gods existance to falseify your tests.

Or reach that conclusion using logic, and making sure that those claim that you make either A make logical sense or B have some evidence to back up your claim, so far none has ever been provided.

Quote:

4) Accept my God claim without evidence

which millions if not billions already do

Quote:

5) Reject my God claim (assert that that my God does not exist) without evidence

considering that no proper evidence is given that god exists and logically it make no sense since we need to either suspend belief in reality to do so ,special pleading or some how bend the laws of logic for god to be real, the default position is to not believe until otherwise decided.

 


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Phillip J. Fry

Phillip J. Fry wrote:

Non-belief of what? Non-belief in any God claims? I claim to believe in the God of the bible. A God who claims that he does in fact exist...Do you believe my God claim or not?

No, I don't believe it.

Quote:

As far as i can see you can only hold one of 5 positions regarding the God claim i make, either:

1) Believe my God claim based on evidence

Nope. There is no evidence to speak of. All you have is a claim.

Quote:

2) Remain undecided pending further scientific evidence.

3) Reject my God claim  (assert that that my God does not exist) based on evidence

4) Accept my God claim without evidence

5) Reject my God claim (assert that that my God does not exist) without evidence

You're missing this option: A) Reject your claim (disregard it, not assert it is false) due to lack of evidence.

It is up to you to provide positive evidence for your god claim. We're just sitting back and letting you know we're unconvinced by your claims, and that we think your claims are silly and harmful.

If I told you I have an invisible intangible dragon in my garage, would you accept that (positive) or reject it (assert it's false) based on evidence or without evidence? Or would you simply disregard it as unsubstantiated because there is no evidence to speak of? Why should you believe it merely because I have claimed it's true?

That is how we view your god claims. They are simply unsubstantiated, void of evidence, and completely unconvincing. Why should we believe them?

We try to only believe in things when we have good reasons to believe them. When we don't have good reasons, we don't believe them. There are no good reasons to believe in any gods. None that I've ever heard, anyway. Give me a good reason and I might agree and believe. But until that day, I'm not going to let just any random idea barge into my brain and set up shop. I want to believe good ideas for good reasons. Not bad ideas for no reasons.

Do you believe every claim you hear? Why not? Why aren't you constantly considering whether invisible dragons are in people's garages? Or, more to the point, why don't you believe the god claims of Hindus or Muslims?

When you understand why you reject all other gods, you'll understand why we reject yours.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Literal or Metaphorical

Phillip J. Fry wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I do not accept either the Jewish God of the Hebrew Bible as reality based or its derived morphed descedant with a Trinity.
...
The major epic events of the Jews are not supportable by history or archeology.
...
no verification Yahshua [Jesus] was a real person
...
contradictory stories in the gospel accounts
...
there's enough to at least start a healthy skeptical investigation for most people.


Thanks for the very thorough list of the inconsistancies you have with the bible. They all seem quite valid points for you to be questioning.

It seems to me that you have drawn a conclusiong based on a apparent lack of evidence.

Would this be a fair summay of your position?
You seem to be saying that you do not accept my God as reality (a.k.a. you assert that my God does not exist) based on the apparent gross inconsistancies of people/events mentioned in his revelation in the bible and the general lack of sufficient supporting historicial and scientific evidence outside this revelation to confirm the validity of the revelation.


My question to you is:
Hypothetically if sufficient evidence did come to light (external to the bible) which confirmed all the people/events contained in the revelation in the bible and explained any apparent inconsistancies.

Would that be sufficient proof to cause you to beleive in the existance of my God?

I would guess not - as most historically accurate fictional movies based on perticular events in history (eg: ww2 films) based on real people would have a similar amount of histocially consistant  evidence to confirm their vailidity, however this would not mean that they are not still works of fiction.  

If confimation of the historical consistancy of the events in the bible would not be sufficient, what further evidence would be sufficient for you to confirm the existance of my God? 

 

Phillip ,

  Let me pose this question to you. Correct me if I am wrong, but I have encountered some theists that seem to interpret the old testament stories (i.e. Noah's Ark, Adam and Eve, The Ten Plagues of Egypt) as more in the line of allegory/metaphor/ symbolism and some that believe the Bible to be literal word of God, meaning that every event in the Bible took place as described. Which do you consider the stories to be ?

For instance, if the inconsistencies of what may/may not have happened with the Ten Plagues could be cleared up, or if several scientific observations could point to the fact that Noah's Ark could not have happened the way that the story was told, would that disprove the existence of the Biblical God for you ?Or do you see the stories of the Bible as symbolic ? Or would you believe that such events from so long ago would be hard to substantiate and therefore not applicable in trying to prove the existence of the biblical god.? What is your belief on, hmm let's say, the book of Revelations and the end of time ? Some theists that I have encountered believe the end of the world idea and some do not. The reason why I mentioned the Revelations idea, is the fact that if the signs started coming of the end times (made famous by so many Hollywood movies hehe) and science could not explain why so many mass occurrences straight out of the Seventh Sign movie were happening all at once, then there might be some sort of proof that "something" was taking place. But I would probably be hard pressed to belief the Apocalypse was at hand until I see the chariots descending from the sky (and then I might wonder if I were not experiencing some sort of hallucination brought on by mass suggestion). However, if the Revelations story were to be looked upon like the other biblical stories, as an allegory, than allegory and metaphors would probably put us back to square one. Is the proof of Biblical history applicable for you in proving/disproving the notion of the biblical god ?

To answer your question, if there could be some sort of proof that the Hebrews were actually slaves in Egypt or some of the other stories in the Bible took place, I don't think that would prove the stories to be divine in origin for me or proof of the existence of the biblical god. I could come up with reasons, I could explain those reasons, but alot of theists might take the position that I would not believe simply because I refused to believe and I do not feel that would be the case. Proof of Hebrew slaves in Egypt would only prove to me that they were slaves there, not that Moses or the Ten Plagues took place. I would need a little bit harder evidence that proved the ten plagues defied all logical explanations that we know of. I would probably need some kind of hard evidence that the ten plagues actually took place. Could such proof be obtainable ? If those events actually happened, I would think so.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Phillip J. Fry
Theist
Phillip J. Fry's picture
Posts: 34
Joined: 2010-11-17
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:It is up to

natural wrote:

It is up to you to provide positive evidence for your god claim.

Ofcourse i would have to provide positive evidence to validate my God claim - thats what i said under position (1). The whole reason i started this thread is to find out what evidence you need?

natural wrote:

If I told you I have an invisible intangible dragon in my garage, would you accept that (positive) or reject it (assert it's false) based on evidence or without evidence? Or would you simply disregard it as unsubstantiated because there is no evidence to speak of?

...

Why aren't you constantly considering whether invisible dragons are in people's garages?

I havent been able to detect any invisible intangible dragons, nor do i know anyone who has detected them in the past.  However i cannot say for sure that they do not exist as these dragons may infact exist and i am simply unaware of them.

Please describe this invisible intangible dragon in more detail, is this dragon detectable to me in any way. If it is not detectable then my conclusion would be that i am unable to know wheather or not the dragon exists.

If it is detectable, then i would only conclude that they exist  if someone brought me an invisible intangible dragon and allowed me to detect it,  then of course i would have to believe they exist. I am not kept awake at night pondering invisble dragons as insufficient evedeince is currently avalible to form a opinion.

natural wrote:

You're missing this option: A) Reject your claim (disregard it, not assert it is false) due to lack of evidence.

To reject my claim (or anyone elses) is to assert that it is false.

To disregard it and not assert that it is false, is to dismiss the claim pending further evidence which is the same as the position (2) i already identified.

natural wrote:

There are no good reasons to believe in any gods. None that I've ever heard, anyway. Give me a good reason and I might agree and believe.

This appears to be the position you take as you would be open to belief in my claim pending on a valid reason.

All i want to know is what would constitute a valid reason/sufficient evidence for you. Which is similar to the question i ask about the dragon > is my God detectable in any way? What would be required for him to be detected?

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Phillip J. Fry

Phillip J. Fry wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I do not accept either the Jewish God of the Hebrew Bible as reality based or its derived morphed descendant with a Trinity.
...
The major epic events of the Jews are not supportable by history or archeology.
...
no verification Yahshua [Jesus] was a real person
...
contradictory stories in the gospel accounts
...
there's enough to at least start a healthy skeptical investigation for most people.


Thanks for the very thorough list of the inconsistancies you have with the bible. They all seem quite valid points for you to be questioning.

It seems to me that you have drawn a conclusiong based on a apparent lack of evidence.

Would this be a fair summay of your position?
You seem to be saying that you do not accept my God as reality (a.k.a. you assert that my God does not exist) based on the apparent gross inconsistancies of people/events mentioned in his revelation in the bible and the general lack of sufficient supporting historicial and scientific evidence outside this revelation to confirm the validity of the revelation.


My question to you is:
Hypothetically if sufficient evidence did come to light (external to the bible) which confirmed all the people/events contained in the revelation in the bible and explained any apparent inconsistancies.

Would that be sufficient proof to cause you to beleive in the existance of my God?

I would guess not - as most historically accurate fictional movies based on perticular events in history (eg: ww2 films) based on real people would have a similar amount of histocially consistant  evidence to confirm their vailidity, however this would not mean that they are not still works of fiction.  

If confimation of the historical consistancy of the events in the bible would not be sufficient, what further evidence would be sufficient for you to confirm the existance of my God? 

If there is no possible evidence that would be enough to prove my God exists then you cannot assert that my god does not exsit.

At best you can say that he may/may not exist but you would never be able to know for sure. In this case any further discussion on the existance of God is pointless, as saying he exists or not would just be a guess. 

 

I was pretty clear in that a book of stories from antiquity does not a god make. I said clearly that I consider it not to be true. There's not wiggle room as far as I am concerned as the only way anyone has knowledge of the god in question is from the book which has severe issues. As the origin is really no different than others lacking knowledge I have absolutely no reason to consider it anything more than stories justifying what the particular group considered to be their explanations of origins in the same way the Sumerians did.

There is no possibility of historical consistency for many of the issues I have expressed. The Hebrew Bible is not true in these places and can be shown to be not true.

As you said, fiction can contain references to real places.

I have issues from the 1st chapter of Genesis onward that it is based in myths and legend, I'd have to have explanations to show why the Hebrew legends should be considered any more real then Sumerian.

You already have departed from the original view of the god Yahweh in your morphed Pauline take on him and have to in detail describe where the Jews went wrong beyond that they didn't understand for 100s of years what their own prophets spoke. Explain that.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Phillip J. Fry

Phillip J. Fry wrote:
Non-belief of what?

God.

Phillip J. Fry wrote:
Non-belief in any God claims?

Yes.

Phillip J. Fry wrote:
A God who claims that he does in fact exist...Do you believe my God claim or not?

No, I do not.

Phillip J. Fry wrote:
2) Remain undecided pending further scientific evidence.

This is the closest.

I do not believe in your positive claim until I am provided with evidence for it is a better description.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


XaosPeru
Posts: 40
Joined: 2010-11-09
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:XaosPeru

natural wrote:

XaosPeru wrote:

[img]http://www.electric-cosmos.org/NGC7319quasarLabeled.jpg[/img]

This picture calls into question the underlying assumptions of the Big Bang Theory, namely that red shift can be used as a proxy for distance because this redshift is due to the Doppler Effect.  The related page goes on to "say, "The Big Bang Theory is false - not because I or others claim it to be false - but because it has been scientifically falsified."  I would tend to agree.

Xaos, you should provide actual links to the websites you reference, so that it is easy for others to check your sources.

For example, the website you 'would tend to agree' with is actually a notorious pseudo-science crackpot site promoting the 'electric cosmos' myth.

It does NOT look good on you to be referring to such gibberish ideas, especially if you simply regurgitate their ideas without providing a link.

 

Here's hoping you had a great weekend. Despite your guilt-by-association logical fallacy, I enjoyed your response more than the rest of the responses I've received to date and the reason for this is the word "crackpot." Birds of a feather "talk" together and using that word I was able to reach http://www.tim-thompson.com/faqs.html which was somewhat interesting and then I found http://www.electric-cosmos.org/Rejoinder.pdf which let me view the competing theories side by side. As for your complaint that the image came from a website you label crackpot, here's the same image from Wikipedia. and a similar image can be found on Arp's website (not surprising considering Arp took the photo). See http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/from_high_redshift_galaxies_to_the_blue_pacific/illustrations/ejection_wake_from_the_center_of_N... So my question is: Do you think the photo is a fake? Or do you think that we believe we are seeing a quasar in between us and that galaxy when we really don't? Or some other explanation?

-----
"The church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself, and also took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo's doctrine. Its verdict against Galileo was rational and just, and revisionism can be legitimized solely for motives of political opportunism." -Paul Feyerabend

"Let me just anticipate that nobody to date has found a demarcation criteria according to which Darwin can be described as scientific, but this is exactly what we are looking for." -Imre Lakatos


XaosPeru
Posts: 40
Joined: 2010-11-09
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:XaosPeru

latincanuck wrote:

XaosPeru wrote:

 

Yes, I'm quite aware of the base assumptions of science, such as methodological naturalism which posits that everything physical can be explained without ever having to say, "God did it."  The point that I should like to make is that there's a big difference between metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism.  Metaphysical naturalism claims quite simply that God doesn't exist.  That seems to be the POV of most people here (considering it is an atheist board).  However, such an assumption is not necessary in order for someone to be a scientist.  Properly understood science confines itself to natural explanations without saying anything (one way or another) about the existence of God.

Now, as to the crux of your post, yes, it's true that many people do believe in the Big Bang Theory.  However, there are a number of problems with this theory, not the least of which is the observations of quasars located between us and galaxies.

This picture calls into question the underlying assumptions of the Big Bang Theory, namely that red shift can be used as a proxy for distance because this redshift is due to the Doppler Effect.  The related page goes on to "say, "The Big Bang Theory is false - not because I or others claim it to be false - but because it has been scientifically falsified."  I would tend to agree.

Of course even if the Big Bang Theory is demonstrably false that doesn't mean that the laws of physics weren't different some 14.5 billion years ago.  You might be completely right.  That's not my question: The question is, could we do some sort of test that might possibly determine if this theory was wrong?  The second question would be, when could we expect that someone will actually try to do said experiment?

See this is another problem we have here, lack of understanding about what has been used to prove or at least show that the big bang theory is on the right track, it is not merely just one part, such as redshift, there is more to the theory that just one part, such as background radiation, hubble's law and expansion of space, , and of course galactic evolution and distrbution of galaxies and last time I checked quasars....quasars are not a problem for big bang theory, although they are a riddle of it all, they do not destroy the big bang theory at all, hence I see your misunderstanding of it all.

Tests that can be used are determined by the hypthesis, once a they are tested and proved true, they become theories, now, if those theories can be shown to falsify an existing theory, then one of 2 things happen, the theory is modified to explain the new theory (which very well could happen with quasars) or the whole theory is changed, IF there is no other alternative explanation.

Oh yes, there's quite a misunderstanding, but I rather think it's on your part... the problems stems from your use of the word prove. No scientific theory is or can be proved true. All scientific knowledge is conjectural in nature and is (ideally) updated frequently to reflect the results of the latest research into the matter.

This confusion makes your post unintelligible. For example you say that newly proven theories can falsify earlier theories. How can that be if those theories were previously proved true and that's why they gained theory status?!

But my real objection to your post is the tone. You sound like a zealot. My post contains phrases like "tends to" and "calls into question" which is a way of saying that I am advancing a tentative conclusion and that I'm not 100% certain. Your post, however, makes it sound like you are preaching a new gospel to the world and that questions are heresy.

-----
"The church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself, and also took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo's doctrine. Its verdict against Galileo was rational and just, and revisionism can be legitimized solely for motives of political opportunism." -Paul Feyerabend

"Let me just anticipate that nobody to date has found a demarcation criteria according to which Darwin can be described as scientific, but this is exactly what we are looking for." -Imre Lakatos


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
XaosPeru wrote: Oh yes,

XaosPeru wrote:

 

Oh yes, there's quite a misunderstanding, but I rather think it's on your part... the problems stems from your use of the word prove. No scientific theory is or can be proved true. All scientific knowledge is conjectural in nature and is (ideally) updated frequently to reflect the results of the latest research into the matter. This confusion makes your post unintelligible. For example you say that newly proven theories can falsify earlier theories. How can that be if those theories were previously proved true and that's why they gained theory status?! But my real objection to your post is the tone. You sound like a zealot. My post contains phrases like "tends to" and "calls into question" which is a way of saying that I am advancing a tentative conclusion and that I'm not 100% certain. Your post, however, makes it sound like you are preaching a new gospel to the world and that questions are heresy.

No I understand science very well, I know the best we can get is 99.9999999 never 100 percent, but that is merely in scientific terms, yes some theories are changed or modified as new evidence changes, as we get new tools and new understanding old theories are modified or completely discarded but the amount of theories actually discarded in the last 60 years are very few. See I understand that science is merely a tool used to test and try to explain the universe and all in it. How we come to those conclusions and as well it's methods for testing. Yet this is the beauty of it all in the end as well, science can admit to mistakes and correct them. Not so much in religion, and that is really what we are talking about, accepting explanations that can be proven vs explanation that require no evidence and huge leaps of faiths and suspension of reality.

As for Galileo, its verdict was far from just and rational, it was merely a way to keep the church in power, social consequences of proving a church wrong, were not so damaging to society as it was damaging to the church's power itself. I welcome a world in which we question things, however questioning things illogically or without any real merit does nothing to advance us. Accepting old traditions and old views merely because society accepts them as is, does not advance us, we are not achieved this much advancement in science and in technology because new questions are heresy, but because they are accepted. In the OP he asked a question, the problem lies in the reality that given the details of god, yes there may not be any real scientific way to prove god, however we can use logic and reality to view if god is even possible. My understanding, based on how the universe operates, the evidence of life and evolution, the evidence on how the universe formed and actual history itself, is no, and really no real new evidence has ever been given for any god(s) or any supernatural deity.

 


ThusSaidYAH
Posts: 11
Joined: 2008-07-24
User is offlineOffline
Asking a lot.

It's asking a lot of science to prove the existence of God.

Because science is the study of things observable to our 5 senses, how could it possibly "prove" the existence of God?

Our senses are only alert to things in the physical realm. If there are spiritual realities, how could we test them with physical instruments?

It is irrational to conclude that because we can't "experience" or "test" God, there is no God.

That would mean that we know everything, and that science has, or will have, given enough time, the answer to everything.


mohammed
mohammed's picture
Posts: 119
Joined: 2008-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Phillip J. Fry wrote: 

Phillip J. Fry wrote:

 

1)                Could Science Prove that the God of the Bible Exists?

If science is unable to prove that the God of the Bible exists, then my second question is:

2a) What is the purpose of discussing the existence/non-existence of the God of the Bible on this forum or elsewhere, if the existence of the God cannot be proven or disproven?

If science is able to prove that the God of the Bible exists, then my second question is:

2b) Supposing the God of the Bible does exist, then what scientific evidence would be sufficient to convince the atheists reading this forum that the God of the Bible does exist?

 

 

2a) Answer: The purpose for this atheist is to stop the major influence of a common delusion humanity is plagued by.

 

 2b)Answer:  I can not get evidence for something that has not made an observable effect in the world. When something has an effect on the real world depending on the effect it had, there are different types of evidence that would be used for proving that effect happened. Therefore if i can not know the type evidence that i am looking for then how can i know what evidence is required?

Also if i already have a simple explanation for effects in the world why would i choose a much more complex and unsubstantiated explanation.

 

The invisible dragon/god has the same effect in the world as no dragon/god at all. That is why this question is not even needed. One would need to start considering scientific proof only if explanations were needed for events that other explanations did not already do sufficiently. 

 


 


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Let's take a look at this

Let's take a look at this hypothetical- limitlessly powerful, all knowing, (supposedly) benevolent, the odds of which actually existing diminish as natural sciences move forward, hasn't made a miracle happen in roughly two millenia, and can't be bothered to make it's presence known to everyone else?

Not likely, in the least.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


XaosPeru
Posts: 40
Joined: 2010-11-09
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:XaosPeru

latincanuck wrote:

XaosPeru wrote:

 

Oh yes, there's quite a misunderstanding, but I rather think it's on your part... the problems stems from your use of the word prove. No scientific theory is or can be proved true. All scientific knowledge is conjectural in nature and is (ideally) updated frequently to reflect the results of the latest research into the matter. This confusion makes your post unintelligible. For example you say that newly proven theories can falsify earlier theories. How can that be if those theories were previously proved true and that's why they gained theory status?! But my real objection to your post is the tone. You sound like a zealot. My post contains phrases like "tends to" and "calls into question" which is a way of saying that I am advancing a tentative conclusion and that I'm not 100% certain. Your post, however, makes it sound like you are preaching a new gospel to the world and that questions are heresy.

No I understand science very well, I know the best we can get is 99.9999999 never 100 percent, but that is merely in scientific terms, yes some theories are changed or modified as new evidence changes, as we get new tools and new understanding old theories are modified or completely discarded but the amount of theories actually discarded in the last 60 years are very few. See I understand that science is merely a tool used to test and try to explain the universe and all in it. How we come to those conclusions and as well it's methods for testing. Yet this is the beauty of it all in the end as well, science can admit to mistakes and correct them. Not so much in religion, and that is really what we are talking about, accepting explanations that can be proven vs explanation that require no evidence and huge leaps of faiths and suspension of reality.

You say you understand, but you couldn't help yourself and you slipped into your post the statement, "...accepting explanations that can be proven [vs. explanations] that require no evidence and huge leaps of [faith]..."

-----
"The church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself, and also took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo's doctrine. Its verdict against Galileo was rational and just, and revisionism can be legitimized solely for motives of political opportunism." -Paul Feyerabend

"Let me just anticipate that nobody to date has found a demarcation criteria according to which Darwin can be described as scientific, but this is exactly what we are looking for." -Imre Lakatos


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
God has never claimed anything

Phillip J. Fry wrote:

butterbattle wrote:
Atheism is not necessarily the belief that God does not exist. More broadly, it is simply non-belief.


Non-belief of what? Non-belief in any God claims? I claim to believe in the God of the bible. A God who claims that he does in fact exist...Do you believe my God claim or not?

 

It's fair to say, based on the evidence, that god has never claimed anything at all, or had any communication with this universe outside of alleged ESP between himself and some jewish priests who can hardly be described as unbiased witnesses. 

Ever since these dubious beginnings, christians simply rely on their own feelings of 'the right thing to do' working in tandem with begging god to cause them to know what is the right thing to do. The nature of this relationship is clear to see.

You'd assume the way god operates as a exo-universal intelligence then telekenisis would be going on but there's no indication of this, either.

I'd say I don't believe on the current evidence. If more evidence appeared I would think about it - perhaps god could appear in the mirror of the Hubble, juggling galaxies in real time like a giant skandar. That would be convincing. 

In any case, it will not be the hideous who wind up in hell, it'll be the dubious.

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
XaosPeru wrote:latincanuck

XaosPeru wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

XaosPeru wrote:

 

Oh yes, there's quite a misunderstanding, but I rather think it's on your part... the problems stems from your use of the word prove. No scientific theory is or can be proved true. All scientific knowledge is conjectural in nature and is (ideally) updated frequently to reflect the results of the latest research into the matter. This confusion makes your post unintelligible. For example you say that newly proven theories can falsify earlier theories. How can that be if those theories were previously proved true and that's why they gained theory status?! But my real objection to your post is the tone. You sound like a zealot. My post contains phrases like "tends to" and "calls into question" which is a way of saying that I am advancing a tentative conclusion and that I'm not 100% certain. Your post, however, makes it sound like you are preaching a new gospel to the world and that questions are heresy.

No I understand science very well, I know the best we can get is 99.9999999 never 100 percent, but that is merely in scientific terms, yes some theories are changed or modified as new evidence changes, as we get new tools and new understanding old theories are modified or completely discarded but the amount of theories actually discarded in the last 60 years are very few. See I understand that science is merely a tool used to test and try to explain the universe and all in it. How we come to those conclusions and as well it's methods for testing. Yet this is the beauty of it all in the end as well, science can admit to mistakes and correct them. Not so much in religion, and that is really what we are talking about, accepting explanations that can be proven vs explanation that require no evidence and huge leaps of faiths and suspension of reality.

 

You say you understand, but you couldn't help yourself and you slipped into your post the statement, "...accepting explanations that can be proven [vs. explanations] that require no evidence and huge leaps of [faith]..."

Of course I did, as I stated it is about accepting explanations, I never said the scientific method requires that, I figured you would comprehend that I mean people in general and claims made in general. I guess I have to be much more clearer with you, which won't be a problem.

Let me clear things up here for you. The OP requested if there was any scientific test that could prove god, well the reality is probably not, but if it was possible there would have to be a way to falsify the test as well. As it stand with the described qualities of this supposed chrisitian god the answer is no, due to the fact that this god defies all laws of physics and in many cases just plain logic. Now that aside, you asked if I understood the scientific method, and  that I do, the OP then goes on about other possibilities in accepting god and other methods and how this could all be achieved, now the reality is that most people, even atheists can accept various claims if enough evidence is provided, and it doesn't have to be from a scientific background either. Much like a jury doesn't need to use scientific method to figure out if someone is guilty or not when they are presented a case with evidence to sway them towards guilty or innocent.

Many people, including myself, function daily with accepting various claims if sufficient evidence is provided, and of course some trust in the person making the claim without using the scientific method to test any claims made by people. HOWEVER the claims of god(s) and various supernatural deities do require for the most part a suspension of reality to have them really be believed, if I were to tell you that there is a being that sacrificed himself to save mankind and then returned a few days later from the dead and then walked amoung us and eventually descended to the heavens, would you believe me? Of course not, what if I had some holy scriptures describing all the events? Probably not, and those claims are over 2000 years old as is the holy scriptures why not believe me? Chances are your not going to believe that Krishna actually existed.

However if I were to tell you that I designed a skyscraper and I am an architect, chances are that is far more believable than extraordinary claims of supernatural beings doing things that simply do not occur in day to day life. Heck you can even check me up online or via business centres or government background checks to verify my claims about myself (by the way I am not an architect) or find about the designed of the skyscraper I claimed to have designed and verify the information. Hence why I included that what we are REALLY talking about is accepting explanations that can be proven vs explanations that require no evidence and huge leaps of faiths and suspension of reality.

I am going to say that you did not properly read everything I posted and jumped the gun on that one.


XaosPeru
Posts: 40
Joined: 2010-11-09
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:XaosPeru

latincanuck wrote:

XaosPeru wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

XaosPeru wrote:

 

Oh yes, there's quite a misunderstanding, but I rather think it's on your part... the problems stems from your use of the word prove. No scientific theory is or can be proved true. All scientific knowledge is conjectural in nature and is (ideally) updated frequently to reflect the results of the latest research into the matter. This confusion makes your post unintelligible. For example you say that newly proven theories can falsify earlier theories. How can that be if those theories were previously proved true and that's why they gained theory status?! But my real objection to your post is the tone. You sound like a zealot. My post contains phrases like "tends to" and "calls into question" which is a way of saying that I am advancing a tentative conclusion and that I'm not 100% certain. Your post, however, makes it sound like you are preaching a new gospel to the world and that questions are heresy.

No I understand science very well, I know the best we can get is 99.9999999 never 100 percent, but that is merely in scientific terms, yes some theories are changed or modified as new evidence changes, as we get new tools and new understanding old theories are modified or completely discarded but the amount of theories actually discarded in the last 60 years are very few. See I understand that science is merely a tool used to test and try to explain the universe and all in it. How we come to those conclusions and as well it's methods for testing. Yet this is the beauty of it all in the end as well, science can admit to mistakes and correct them. Not so much in religion, and that is really what we are talking about, accepting explanations that can be proven vs explanation that require no evidence and huge leaps of faiths and suspension of reality.

 

You say you understand, but you couldn't help yourself and you slipped into your post the statement, "...accepting explanations that can be proven [vs. explanations] that require no evidence and huge leaps of [faith]..."

Of course I did, as I stated it is about accepting explanations, I never said the scientific method requires that, I figured you would comprehend that I mean people in general and claims made in general. I guess I have to be much more clearer with you, which won't be a problem.

Let me clear things up here for you. The OP requested if there was any scientific test that could prove god, well the reality is probably not, but if it was possible there would have to be a way to falsify the test as well. As it stand with the described qualities of this supposed chrisitian god the answer is no, due to the fact that this god defies all laws of physics and in many cases just plain logic. Now that aside, you asked if I understood the scientific method, and  that I do, the OP then goes on about other possibilities in accepting god and other methods and how this could all be achieved, now the reality is that most people, even atheists can accept various claims if enough evidence is provided, and it doesn't have to be from a scientific background either. Much like a jury doesn't need to use scientific method to figure out if someone is guilty or not when they are presented a case with evidence to sway them towards guilty or innocent.

Many people, including myself, function daily with accepting various claims if sufficient evidence is provided, and of course some trust in the person making the claim without using the scientific method to test any claims made by people. HOWEVER the claims of god(s) and various supernatural deities do require for the most part a suspension of reality to have them really be believed, if I were to tell you that there is a being that sacrificed himself to save mankind and then returned a few days later from the dead and then walked amoung us and eventually descended to the heavens, would you believe me? Of course not, what if I had some holy scriptures describing all the events? Probably not, and those claims are over 2000 years old as is the holy scriptures why not believe me? Chances are your not going to believe that Krishna actually existed.

However if I were to tell you that I designed a skyscraper and I am an architect, chances are that is far more believable than extraordinary claims of supernatural beings doing things that simply do not occur in day to day life. Heck you can even check me up online or via business centres or government background checks to verify my claims about myself (by the way I am not an architect) or find about the designed of the skyscraper I claimed to have designed and verify the information. Hence why I included that what we are REALLY talking about is accepting explanations that can be proven vs explanations that require no evidence and huge leaps of faiths and suspension of reality.

I am going to say that you did not properly read everything I posted and jumped the gun on that one.

Response composed off-line. You're right that the OP asked if there was any way that science could prove God's existence. My answer to that question can be found in this thread: No, science can neither prove nor disprove any metaphysical statement. Attempting to use science for these questions is like trying to paint your car using a hammer. It's the wrong tool for the job. Then you mentioned about someone who makes his way through life accepting or rejecting the probability of various events. There you made the argument that it's implausible to believe that the Christian God could exist. How would you respond to someone who told you that he found it implausible to believe that light could be both a particle and a wave at the same time? He assures you that such a claim is absurd, and contradictory. As absurd as postulating that a man could be his own father. Another question, imagine that I was retelling the tale of kibitzing a bridge game and the guy I was watching picked up the following hand (I write down the distribution) and my friend interrupts: "No, you didn't see that." "Didn't I?" "Do you realize the odds of him holding that hand are 1 in 3.95x1021?" Well, no shit Sherlock, that's because there happen to be 3.95x1021 possible distributions in the game. As for a final note about logic, I think that you don't understand it nearly as well as you think you do. To illustrate the strange conclusions that logic can arrive at, I will prove logically that you believe that God is omnipotent. First, we start with the postulate that God is omnipotent. This is logically equivalent to the statement "All beings are either omnipotent OR they are not God." In short, the only way to disprove the statement is to find a being that is both God and not omnipotent. I note that you do not believe in God. With that postulate (that God does not exist) we can conclude that all beings are NOT God. This proves that the statement "All beings are either omnipotent OR they are not God" is true, which is logically equivalent to the statement, "God is omnipotent." Impressed? I doubt it... but I've explained this to illustrate a point. Things that can be demonstrated by the rules of logic often defy the conventions of language. People don't go around saying things like, "The large, pink omnipotent elephant that bumped into me yesterday does not exist." This is because we don't assign properties to things that don't exist as a language convention. According to the rules of logic, however, you can and often do exactly that.

-----
"The church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself, and also took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo's doctrine. Its verdict against Galileo was rational and just, and revisionism can be legitimized solely for motives of political opportunism." -Paul Feyerabend

"Let me just anticipate that nobody to date has found a demarcation criteria according to which Darwin can be described as scientific, but this is exactly what we are looking for." -Imre Lakatos


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
XaosPeru wrote:Response

XaosPeru wrote:

Response composed off-line. You're right that the OP asked if there was any way that science could prove God's existence. My answer to that question can be found in this thread: No, science can neither prove nor disprove any metaphysical statement. Attempting to use science for these questions is like trying to paint your car using a hammer. It's the wrong tool for the job. Then you mentioned about someone who makes his way through life accepting or rejecting the probability of various events. There you made the argument that it's implausible to believe that the Christian God could exist. How would you respond to someone who told you that he found it implausible to believe that light could be both a particle and a wave at the same time? He assures you that such a claim is absurd, and contradictory. As absurd as postulating that a man could be his own father. Another question, imagine that I was retelling the tale of kibitzing a bridge game and the guy I was watching picked up the following hand (I write down the distribution) and my friend interrupts: "No, you didn't see that." "Didn't I?" "Do you realize the odds of him holding that hand are 1 in 3.95x1021?" Well, no shit Sherlock, that's because there happen to be 3.95x1021 possible distributions in the game. As for a final note about logic, I think that you don't understand it nearly as well as you think you do. To illustrate the strange conclusions that logic can arrive at, I will prove logically that you believe that God is omnipotent. First, we start with the postulate that God is omnipotent. This is logically equivalent to the statement "All beings are either omnipotent OR they are not God." In short, the only way to disprove the statement is to find a being that is both God and not omnipotent. I note that you do not believe in God. With that postulate (that God does not exist) we can conclude that all beings are NOT God. This proves that the statement "All beings are either omnipotent OR they are not God" is true, which is logically equivalent to the statement, "God is omnipotent." Impressed? I doubt it... but I've explained this to illustrate a point. Things that can be demonstrated by the rules of logic often defy the conventions of language. People don't go around saying things like, "The large, pink omnipotent elephant that bumped into me yesterday does not exist." This is because we don't assign properties to things that don't exist as a language convention. According to the rules of logic, however, you can and often do exactly that.

Yet still you are either misunderstanding what I am saying or just convoluting what I am simply saying. Someone is making a claim about a deity that defies not just logic, but physics and reality. I merely posted about another god that many Christians don't believe in, yet has a very similar story as their own jesus and has the exact amount of same evidence, which is to say next to none outside of holy text that the being exist or has ever existed. So what are we talking about here what is the OP trying to convey, from what I see what it would take for atheists to believe in his version of god. I am not talking about the laws of logic, just every day logical sense, you don't go around believing what happens in the world by using scientific method and the laws of logic, people behave in illogical ways at times and we can understand that happens, illogical things may happen to people or just plain bad things, however.

Make it easier, provide the evidence that god exists, and lets see if it can stand up, if not why bother believing, I don't believe because to date there has never been any evidence to suggest that god, more specifically the christian god exists, that I could not use to prove any other god exists. As well knowing the evidence at hand about the universe, planet formation, star formations, biology and all the evidence that contradicts many statements in the bible, well what can I say I am not one to believe merely to believe.

You seem to just making things far more complicated than is required and far more complicated than I am stating. If you can't see that well then I can't help you. But complicating things and taking things out of contexts, well doesn't do much for your argument.


Phillip J. Fry
Theist
Phillip J. Fry's picture
Posts: 34
Joined: 2010-11-17
User is offlineOffline
XaosPeru wrote:No, science

XaosPeru wrote:
No, science can neither prove nor disprove any metaphysical statement. Attempting to use science for these questions is like trying to paint your car using a hammer. It's the wrong tool for the job.
ThusSaidYAH wrote:
Because science is the study of things observable to our 5 senses, how could it possibly "prove" the existence of God?
Our senses are only alert to things in the physical realm. If there are spiritual realities, how could we test them with physical instruments?
latincanuck wrote:
The OP requested if there was any scientific test that could prove god, well the reality is probably not, but if it was possible there would have to be a way to falsify the test as well. As it stand with the described qualities of this supposed chrisitian god the answer is no, due to the fact that this god defies all laws of physics and in many cases just plain logic.
...
Many people, including myself, function daily with accepting various claims if sufficient evidence is provided, and of course some trust in the person making the claim without using the scientific method to test any claims made by people.
...
So what are we talking about here what is the OP trying to convey, from what I see what it would take for atheists to believe in his version of god.
Atheistextremist wrote:
I'd say I don't believe on the current evidence. If more evidence appeared I would think about it - perhaps god could appear in the mirror of the Hubble, juggling galaxies in real time like a giant skandar. That would be convincing. 
natural wrote:
There are no good reasons to believe in any gods. None that I've ever heard, anyway. Give me a good reason and I might agree and believe.


Thanks everyone for all the positive discussion - very helpful

It seems like most people are in agreement that there would be no possible way to scientifically prove that the christian God exists, as this God goes beyond our ability to measure. Therefore since we cannot prove or disprove the existance of this God scientifically, what does that mean? We cannot outright deny the possibility of this God existing, but what can we say?
 
Should we hold the agnostic position that there may be a slim possibility of this God (or any other God) existing  but we would never be able to know?

OR

Should we have a more open-minded perspective to this possibility, and still be able to form a position of the existance/non-existance on this God not based solely on reasonable scientific evidence but also based other forms of evidence and logic?


Personally, I think the agnostic position is a bit too closed minded for me. It seems that some of you guys would also be open-minded to reasonable evidence as sufficient proof - even though it could never be 100% definite as some things we simply could not measure. I think this would be is a reasonable way of forming a conclusion on this.

Now,

Hypothetically suppose the God of bible did exist, and he showed up on earth in the form of a man - called Beavis Heist.
Now beause Beavis was God, he knew everything, and therefore he was able to take archeologists to various locations around the middle east and show them where to dig to find various artifacts that provided very good evidence that all the historical events recorded in the bible happened. 
Next, upon ExtremeAtheist's request, Bevis takes on the form of a giant flying pink unicorn and begins juggling galaxies in real time infront of the hubble telecope (without destroying the earth of course)
Next Bevis is able to cause an quad-amputee to instantly grow his arms and legs back by touching him. He simutaniously cures everyone in the world of cancer which is observed on some patients in real under an MRI. Next he goes to the Wadi-us-Salaam Cemetary in Iraq and raises millions of people back to life.
He then proceeds to walk on water, and then fly around while controlling the weather to cause flaming, plasma, lightning, tsnumani tornadoes to dance around erupting volcanos.
Next he successfully constructs a perpetual energy machiene which is verified to be  creating energy out of nothing.
Next Bevis is able to create matter out of nothing and then in real time he is observed by many to form this matter into a talking dog with a British accent called Brutus the Third.
He is able to show his ability of knowing everthing by describing many intimate details that no-one else could have known, about various people in answer to their questions. He is able to consistantly identify the outcomes of experiments conducted in closed rooms on the other side of the planet. He is able to consistantly predict the outcome of each dice when 5000, D12 dice are rolled simultaniously, and this experiment is repeated many times.

When asked to explain how he was doing all these things that appear to defy the laws of physics he answers that the laws of physics wont be able to explain all the things he is doing.
All these events are ofcourse well documented on film and with many other forms of evidence that was avalible in the day.

Bevis then creates 2 amazing peices of beef jerky, that would allow 2 people to live an extra 2000 years more than normal. He gives them to you and your atheist friend which you both eat.
 
Finally Bevis says that he is actually Yeshua (Jesus) the God who revealed himself before in the bible. And that everyone now needs to trust him and live the way he already had said to and was recored in the books/letters of the apostles. Both of you beleive he is speaking the truth based on teh evidence he has shown to confirm his identity.
Yeshua then leave earth and says he will brb.

Now 2010 years pass so that it is now the year 4020 AD. Of cousre in this time many things happened. Initially the majority of the world beleived in Yeshua and the things he did and followed his commands. After ww3 and the inevitable zombie apocalypse, alot of the evidence that was originally recorded have been lost or destroyed. People who still beleive in the truth of the events are forced to rely on copied documents which werent as complete as the originals. After the buring of the libary of Wikipedia in 3053 by the artificial intellagence uprise, and the nuclear war of 3598 initiated by the now superpower of Yemen, more evidence is destroyed. Over time everyone who witnessed the events of Yeshua died. For the most part their childeren believed them that these events had happened. After a while many begin to doubt if these things even happened at all. Sciene and technology have continued to develop and are starting to hypothesise possible explanations of how this Yeshua guy could have made some of his "micirles" happen, although some of these theorys cannot be verified on the scale that Yeshua was recoreded to have done them. Many of the other events recorded - such as the creation of energy and matter, still have no possible scientific explenation, therfore some of this events are dismissed as made up, and the evidence that was recoded is identified as faked (like the moon landing Smiling ). By now your semi-immortal relapsed-atheist buddy has stopped beleiving that Yeshua was who he said he was and now thinks Yeshua was a technologically advanced trickster who was simply manipulating people using advanced methods that we dont yet fully understand, in order to decieve people and get them to do what he wants. This is the common opinion amongst the scientific community, and you are frowned upon for beleiving that Yeshua was who he said he was.

Now your Great x 20 Grandson is being taught the common scientific position of Yeshua in their school and asks you what he should beleive.

You could tell him to trust Yeshua because you trust him, because everything he showed you was consistant with what he claimed about himself, even though you are now unable to convinvingly present sufficient physical evidence to verify the events you witnessed actually happened as most of the evidence has been lost, .
OR
You can tell him to trust your buddy, who witnessed the same things but now denys Yeshua was really who he said he was. He cant prove his position sufficiently either, but instead trusts that there is a logical explanation to all of the events he witnessed (even though he cannot know this for sure), he just needs to keep looking harder untill he finds them all.

Would your Great x 20 Grandson be logical/rational to beleive either of you?
Either position he takes he will not have sufficient evidence to fully justify that position, so he is forced to make his decision on what he trusts to be most true.


He can either trust your account of Yeshua and the events he displayed to verify his identify
OR
He can trust that in the future science will eventually answer all the unanswered questions we have, even though this assumes that all things can be logically explained by us, and that all things can be tested and proven experimentally (which we have already agreed cant be done for God) - which is a very big assumption that must be trusted without knowing for sure if it is true.

I dont think if he took either position that he would be irrational.

Personally i trust jesus is who he said he is, and that the accounts of the people who saw what he did are true. The human brain has changed very little in the last 2000 years. People back then had pretty much the same ability to think as we have now. I dont think they werent idiots, they had the same sckepticism that people have today, requring evidence and justification before they would beleive somthing that seemed unsual. They just didnt have the same technology we had today. Im sure compared to the year 4020 our technology will seem pretty primitive too, and many people from 4020 will be thinking that we were pretty unintelligent people easily capable of beliving in crazy theories. They will be like, "What were you guys smoking when you came up with M-Theory! and why did anyone in their right mind take it serously, let alone some of the suposed leaders of science of the time - clearly V-Theory is correct, Those guys back then must have just been willing to beleive anything that seemed to explain things - no matter how crazy it was, Those guys were idiots"

I dont expect you to believe me, I dont think what you beleive is irrational, but i dont think its fair to call those who beleive what i beleive irrational either...

Thats my 2 cents anyhoo... Smiling    (by the length of my post its proably closer to $3.50)

 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Phillip J. Fry wrote:[Thanks

Phillip J. Fry wrote:

[

Thanks everyone for all the positive discussion - very helpful

It seems like most people are in agreement that there would be no possible way to scientifically prove that the christian God exists, as this God goes beyond our ability to measure. Therefore since we cannot prove or disprove the existance of this God scientifically, what does that mean? We cannot outright deny the possibility of this God existing, but what can we say?
 
Should we hold the agnostic position that there may be a slim possibility of this God (or any other God) existing  but we would never be able to know?

OR

Should we have a more open-minded perspective to this possibility, and still be able to form a position of the existance/non-existance on this God not based solely on reasonable scientific evidence but also based other forms of evidence and logic?


Personally, I think the agnostic position is a bit too closed minded for me. It seems that some of you guys would also be open-minded to reasonable evidence as sufficient proof - even though it could never be 100% definite as some things we simply could not measure. I think this would be is a reasonable way of forming a conclusion on this.

The agnostic is probably more open minded than you think, they accept the possibility that a god may a exist or many gods may exist or may not exist, however with the evidence at hand they say it cannot be said either way and then it comes down to are you agnostic theists or agnostic atheist?
 

Quote:

Now,

Hypothetically suppose the God of bible did exist, and he showed up on earth in the form of a man - called Beavis Heist.
Now beause Beavis was God, he knew everything, and therefore he was able to take archeologists to various locations around the middle east and show them where to dig to find various artifacts that provided very good evidence that all the historical events recorded in the bible happened. 
Next, upon ExtremeAtheist's request, Bevis takes on the form of a giant flying pink unicorn and begins juggling galaxies in real time infront of the hubble telecope (without destroying the earth of course)
Next Bevis is able to cause an quad-amputee to instantly grow his arms and legs back by touching him. He simutaniously cures everyone in the world of cancer which is observed on some patients in real under an MRI. Next he goes to the Wadi-us-Salaam Cemetary in Iraq and raises millions of people back to life.
He then proceeds to walk on water, and then fly around while controlling the weather to cause flaming, plasma, lightning, tsnumani tornadoes to dance around erupting volcanos.
Next he successfully constructs a perpetual energy machiene which is verified to be  creating energy out of nothing.
Next Bevis is able to create matter out of nothing and then in real time he is observed by many to form this matter into a talking dog with a British accent called Brutus the Third.
He is able to show his ability of knowing everthing by describing many intimate details that no-one else could have known, about various people in answer to their questions. He is able to consistantly identify the outcomes of experiments conducted in closed rooms on the other side of the planet. He is able to consistantly predict the outcome of each dice when 5000, D12 dice are rolled simultaniously, and this experiment is repeated many times.

When asked to explain how he was doing all these things that appear to defy the laws of physics he answers that the laws of physics wont be able to explain all the things he is doing.
All these events are ofcourse well documented on film and with many other forms of evidence that was avalible in the day.

Bevis then creates 2 amazing peices of beef jerky, that would allow 2 people to live an extra 2000 years more than normal. He gives them to you and your atheist friend which you both eat.
 
Finally Bevis says that he is actually Yeshua (Jesus) the God who revealed himself before in the bible. And that everyone now needs to trust him and live the way he already had said to and was recored in the books/letters of the apostles. Both of you beleive he is speaking the truth based on teh evidence he has shown to confirm his identity.
Yeshua then leave earth and says he will brb.

Now 2010 years pass so that it is now the year 4020 AD. Of cousre in this time many things happened. Initially the majority of the world beleived in Yeshua and the things he did and followed his commands. After ww3 and the inevitable zombie apocalypse, alot of the evidence that was originally recorded have been lost or destroyed. People who still beleive in the truth of the events are forced to rely on copied documents which werent as complete as the originals. After the buring of the libary of Wikipedia in 3053 by the artificial intellagence uprise, and the nuclear war of 3598 initiated by the now superpower of Yemen, more evidence is destroyed. Over time everyone who witnessed the events of Yeshua died. For the most part their childeren believed them that these events had happened. After a while many begin to doubt if these things even happened at all. Sciene and technology have continued to develop and are starting to hypothesise possible explanations of how this Yeshua guy could have made some of his "micirles" happen, although some of these theorys cannot be verified on the scale that Yeshua was recoreded to have done them. Many of the other events recorded - such as the creation of energy and matter, still have no possible scientific explenation, therfore some of this events are dismissed as made up, and the evidence that was recoded is identified as faked (like the moon landing Smiling ). By now your semi-immortal relapsed-atheist buddy has stopped beleiving that Yeshua was who he said he was and now thinks Yeshua was a technologically advanced trickster who was simply manipulating people using advanced methods that we dont yet fully understand, in order to decieve people and get them to do what he wants. This is the common opinion amongst the scientific community, and you are frowned upon for beleiving that Yeshua was who he said he was.

Now your Great x 20 Grandson is being taught the common scientific position of Yeshua in their school and asks you what he should beleive.

You could tell him to trust Yeshua because you trust him, because everything he showed you was consistant with what he claimed about himself, even though you are now unable to convinvingly present sufficient physical evidence to verify the events you witnessed actually happened as most of the evidence has been lost, .

Now the issue at hand here is the following the story presented in the bible is not up held for many reasons, one historical documents don't support anything, although the claim you make that all historical documents except one are lost is kinda funny because well there are many found from that era, and you would think that even those that mention jesus would mention beyond the fact that his followers follow the teachings of jesus. Which in all context is no more accepted evidence as documents that mention that the followers of kirishna follow the teachings of kirishna. We have to evaluate many things to see if such a claim can be real. Oh and the technologically advances tricksters, well a quote from Arthur C. Clarke pretty much covers that "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." and really that's the truth, how can you say for 100 percent sure the being isn't lying to you? You can't, and of course in 4020 if they could reproduce any of those events well then it's a trickster isn't it and with the advancement of technology who knows what is possible in 2010 years. The water to wine I have seen that trick, walking on water? Seen that trick, cured supposedly dead people (yeah seen documentaries about that as well in Haiti) and of course cured people with uncurable diseases, shit that happens to Benny Hinn every weekend if you actually believe in that crap. So really once we can do those supposed miracles are they miracles or are they tricks? Illusions?

With this day an age, there are many ways to see if such a person existed and of course the MASSIVE amount of recordings and of course legal and scientific evidence, testing that would go with it and of course it would have been written up and possibly taught in some point in todays standards, goverments would have documentation, that it is unimaginable that only one source would survive. But hey hypothetically speaking, your still in fantasy land. Everything that various god(s), deities, demi-gods, goddesses and so many other mythical creations are consistent with what is claimed about them, should we believe that a minotaur actually existed in a maze because everything described about the minotaur is consistent about minotaurs? Should be believe all the claims about Buddha because all the claims about him are consistent about Buddha? How about Thor all the claims about Thor are consistent? As you can see it gets to be kinda ridiculous to do such a thing.

Quote:

OR
You can tell him to trust your buddy, who witnessed the same things but now denys Yeshua was really who he said he was. He cant prove his position sufficiently either, but instead trusts that there is a logical explanation to all of the events he witnessed (even though he cannot know this for sure), he just needs to keep looking harder untill he finds them all.

Would your Great x 20 Grandson be logical/rational to beleive either of you?
Either position he takes he will not have sufficient evidence to fully justify that position, so he is forced to make his decision on what he trusts to be most true.

if no evidence at hand the position to take on regards to extraordinary claims that require the suspension of reality is that it didn't happen. The reality here is that the only people making the claim that god/jesus existed oddly enough is the church that created the bible and the churches that follow the teachings of the bible.

Quote:


He can either trust your account of Yeshua and the events he displayed to verify his identify
OR
He can trust that in the future science will eventually answer all the unanswered questions we have, even though this assumes that all things can be logically explained by us, and that all things can be tested and proven experimentally (which we have already agreed cant be done for God) - which is a very big assumption that must be trusted without knowing for sure if it is true.

I dont think if he took either position that he would be irrational.

Personally i trust jesus is who he said he is, and that the accounts of the people who saw what he did are true. The human brain has changed very little in the last 2000 years. People back then had pretty much the same ability to think as we have now. I dont think they werent idiots, they had the same sckepticism that people have today, requring evidence and justification before they would beleive somthing that seemed unsual. They just didnt have the same technology we had today. Im sure compared to the year 4020 our technology will seem pretty primitive too, and many people from 4020 will be thinking that we were pretty unintelligent people easily capable of beliving in crazy theories. They will be like, "What were you guys smoking when you came up with M-Theory! and why did anyone in their right mind take it serously, let alone some of the suposed leaders of science of the time - clearly V-Theory is correct, Those guys back then must have just been willing to beleive anything that seemed to explain things - no matter how crazy it was, Those guys were idiots"

I dont expect you to believe me, I dont think what you beleive is irrational, but i dont think its fair to call those who beleive what i beleive irrational either...

Thats my 2 cents anyhoo... Smiling    (by the length of my post its proably closer to $3.50)

 

You don't think the position is irrational, but many do, for the reasons I have explained above, your making extraordinary claims that require more evidence more than because I say so and because it's written in the bible. If that is the case do you believe in all the other gods that are actually real? If so why not follow Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva, after all their claim that they created all gods and that any god or goddess are born from them, and that there would be gods that would claim they are the true god an other gods are false (hey your god does that) but in reality all gods come from Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva and even more so this entire reality is a dream of Brahma and feels real to us (hey a matrix type of deal, try disproving this one if you like) and that once he wakes up it will end, which is in 7 days of the gods, which we are day 2 which according to hindu scriptures is about 6 billion years per day in our time give or take a few billion years (hey 12 billion years so far which is about 2 billion off of what science says about the age of the universe). So why not believe in the hindu gods? You cannot believe everything that is written in holy texts as actual facts, and this is why, you claims look ridiculous without the proper evidence, it becomes irrational to believe in Minotaurs, gods of thunders, reality is a dream and of course jesus is his own father that sacrifices himself to himself to save us from his own creation of sin.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
StDissonance wrote: "It is

StDissonance wrote:

 "It is logically impossible for there to be evidence proving that any being is omnipotent, infinite, or omniscient, to finite beings like us."

You are still conflating logic and science.  Both operate with independent parameters and rules.  It's a normal event for science to "discover" illogical events/phenoms. . . Something that has no reference is illogical (or a random product of induction).

Science could very well prove 3-0 being(s).  Whether or not they are "logical" is irrelevant. 

 

I stand by what I said.

By saying 'logically' impossible I meant precisely that, in that you logically and mathematically cannot prove that some quantity or quality is infinite with finite, physical tools,  or observations, which is what would be required to prove a classic omni- God.

Logic and Science are not independent - Science is constrained by logic, as is every other kind of coherent system of analysis and discovery. It employs logic and math as essential tools.

The additional tools Science employs such as testing, induction, analysis of probabilities using mathematical tools such as Bayesian techniques, all are ultimately founded on logic.

And if there was a being of overwhelming power and sentience, we could logically know nothing with any certainty of its nature and motives, since it would be capable of leading us to think, to 'observe', whatever it wanted.

'God' is ultimately an utterly vacuous concept, less deserving of serious logical or empirical consideration that the possible existence of Russell's orbiting teapot.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ThusSaidYAH wrote:It's

ThusSaidYAH wrote:

It's asking a lot of science to prove the existence of God.

Because science is the study of things observable to our 5 senses, how could it possibly "prove" the existence of God?

Our senses are only alert to things in the physical realm. If there are spiritual realities, how could we test them with physical instruments?

It is irrational to conclude that because we can't "experience" or "test" God, there is no God.

That would mean that we know everything, and that science has, or will have, given enough time, the answer to everything.

No mortal has access to 100% proof of such things.

There are a virtual infinity of scenarios, of 'possible' beings, that might exist that are undetectable to us, especially if you restrict it to what we can directly sense.

So how do you decide which one to adopt, and then require us to 'disprove'?

And science is NOT restricted to what is detectable to our senses. Anything that has any effect on the matter and energy of the Universe is theoretically detectable.

So only a God that never intervenes in any way in our Universe or our lives and minds could count on remaining undetectable.

Of course, if you accept that a extremely powerful, universe-creating being exists, then logically we can KNOW nothing with any confidence, since such an entity could indeed be intervening all the time, but in such a way to fool us into thinking it was all natural.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


XaosPeru
Posts: 40
Joined: 2010-11-09
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:Yet still

latincanuck wrote:

Yet still you are either misunderstanding what I am saying or just convoluting what I am simply saying. Someone is making a claim about a deity that defies not just logic, but physics and reality. I merely posted about another god that many Christians don't believe in, yet has a very similar story as their own jesus and has the exact amount of same evidence, which is to say next to none outside of holy text that the being exist or has ever existed. So what are we talking about here what is the OP trying to convey, from what I see what it would take for atheists to believe in his version of god. I am not talking about the laws of logic, just every day logical sense, you don't go around believing what happens in the world by using scientific method and the laws of logic, people behave in illogical ways at times and we can understand that happens, illogical things may happen to people or just plain bad things, however.

Make it easier, provide the evidence that god exists, and lets see if it can stand up, if not why bother believing, I don't believe because to date there has never been any evidence to suggest that god, more specifically the christian god exists, that I could not use to prove any other god exists. As well knowing the evidence at hand about the universe, planet formation, star formations, biology and all the evidence that contradicts many statements in the bible, well what can I say I am not one to believe merely to believe.

You seem to just making things far more complicated than is required and far more complicated than I am stating. If you can't see that well then I can't help you. But complicating things and taking things out of contexts, well doesn't do much for your argument.

No, I'm just challenging you to put pen to paper. You say that the Christian God is unlikely. How unlikely? What calculations have you made? To me it seems unlikely that light is both a wave and a particle, but I don't go around militantly preaching my hunches.

You say that religion X is against physics and against reality. We may know the current claims of physics, but we don't know reality and there's no way of knowing. All we can know is what we've observed and really that's less than 0.01% of the known universe.

I'm really not interested in metaphysical claims. If someone believes in Vishnu, Allah, Zeus, Thor, Jesus called Christ, or Buddha then more power to him (or her). Why argue about something for which there is no evidence one way or another?

-----
"The church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself, and also took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo's doctrine. Its verdict against Galileo was rational and just, and revisionism can be legitimized solely for motives of political opportunism." -Paul Feyerabend

"Let me just anticipate that nobody to date has found a demarcation criteria according to which Darwin can be described as scientific, but this is exactly what we are looking for." -Imre Lakatos


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
XaosPeru wrote:No, I'm just

XaosPeru wrote:

No, I'm just challenging you to put pen to paper. You say that the Christian God is unlikely. How unlikely? What calculations have you made? To me it seems unlikely that light is both a wave and a particle, but I don't go around militantly preaching my hunches. You say that religion X is against physics and against reality. We may know the current claims of physics, but we don't know reality and there's no way of knowing. All we can know is what we've observed and really that's less than 0.01% of the known universe. I'm really not interested in metaphysical claims. If someone believes in Vishnu, Allah, Zeus, Thor, Jesus called Christ, or Buddha then more power to him (or her). Why argue about something for which there is no evidence one way or another?

Because we can argue about them, because those claims can and tend to affect society and it's advancement or lack of advancement as well it's social behaviors towards others, because we can argue if something is irrational or should it be followed any ways or if it is rational.

However if you can prove to me that a being can be (Using the general claims of many christians and these claims can be found on these boards as well) that god is everywhere at once, which we know if physically impossible,  knows everything that everyone is doing and thinking anywhere and everywhere, yet another impossibility that requires the suspension of reality, c)created the universe is 6 days, again something we have now know is not true. The claim that god can stop time, again a claim that requires the suspension of reality. If one is going to make these types of claims, far more than just believe me because it says so in the bible is required.

It about discussing these claims about god, is it more rational to believe that thor or zeus creates lightning or that is an atmospheric discharge of electricity. I will take the one with more evidence, the scientific one. Or that earthquakes occur not because a shift in the earth's crust, but because god is angry or poseidon did it, or that the earth is held up by four elephants standing on a turtle that is balanced on a cobra and that when any of these animals move an earthquake happens, or that Loki causes the earthquake when he shakes his head to avoid the serpent's poison. hmmm which of these claims should I believe, the ones with no evidence and are told as stories or the one about the earths crust moving that has evidence to back up the claims. It is the claims about gods that I argue against or for, depending on the topic, however TO DATE, no one has presented evidence that god or any gods exist. Outside of the claims of holy books and mythology. The fact that we need to suspend belief in reality for the claims of these beings to be true make it seem more irrational to believe in them.

 


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Phillip J. Fry

Phillip J. Fry wrote:

100percentAtheist wrote:
A falsifiable theory (like a theory that God exist, for example) must include a set of conditions, which, if fulfilled, will mean the theory is false.
...
ANY SCIENTIFIC THEORY IS FALSIFIABLE, or it is NOT a scientific theory BY DEFINITION.


THEN LOGICALLY IT FOLLOWS THAT

Since the belief of atheist that God does not exist cannot be falsified by proving his existance, therefore it cannot be a valid scentific theory. 

 

Phillip,

I do not believe in gods, and I never believed in any of them.  And I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT God(s) DOES NOT EXIST!

I need nothing to prove or disprove my disbelief. I hear about several dozens of gods and to disbelief them I do not need to go through each of them personally and seek for evidence of their non-existence.  If you insist that I as an atheist still have to present a prove for non-existence of YOUR PARTICULAR GOD, then I would probably agree to do this if you play a fair game.  By this I mean that you tell me how YOU arrived to the conclusion that ALL GODS do not exist except YOUR PARTICULAR ONE.   

Best,

100%