Could Science Prove that the God of the Bible DOES Exist?
Offline 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?
- Login to post comments
Well there are a few things that we must keep in mind, 1 what is god (a proper scientific definition would be great, but at least a workable definition would be required as it changes from sect to sect really, we would have to start with your definition and see if it is workable) 2 a way to falsify any tests done to prove god (an invisible tea pot floating between earth and the moon that cannot be seen using any known instruments cannot be dis-proven however it cannot be proven either and therefore really doesn't exist) 3 a way to prove that the test subject that it could not be any other god known throughout human history.
See if any of the test to prove god are not falsifiable then there is no way to prove god exists in the scientific communities really. There has to be a way to prove it or disprove it via testing methods. Of course having this being that you call god available for testing would be far better, however since that being has never been seen, in a provable way, except in literature and the unprovable claims of the followers of this religion, my default position is that there is no god, not your god or any other human constructed god, as there has been no evidence to suggest that any god exists, and the definition of such said god(s) vary all the time, as human knowledge increases the reality of existence of god diminishes every time.
Yeah, science could prove god exists. Consider that while god is transcendental he's also everywhere. That means we should be able to detect him in this universe, even if we can't detect him outside of it. If god is an active, personal god who can intervene in this reality then he must do it using natural means. If there's a god, he built the universe using natural means so it's not like he has an aversion to quarks or anything.
I think it's important to talk about the probable non-existence of god. Christianity really just plasters the word 'god' over everything we can't explain as well as some things, like evolution, that science has proved. Given these assertions and the peculiar doctrine that supports them, a faith that trademarks the best qualities of humanity and slaps all of us around the head with a genetic fallacy, it's important to question vigorously. As an unbeliever I think there's nothing in christianity or islam that is proven and much that is myth, fallacy, invention or outright theft of esteemed anthropomorphic qualities. Anytime the data supports a new position I'd be happy to consider it. If there was no religion I would not discuss it. But there is religion and it's based on arguments from silence, arguments from ignorance, as well as violence and threat. Morally, I must oppose any god who is a bully, a torturer or a murderer.
Your final question is a bit thorny, given we have no sensible definition of god. The 3-O attributes are ludicrous. Things like perfect, eternal, loving, just and all the rest are just reification of human concepts. I'd need good evidence. More than an implied existence and more than a doctrine hijacking my imagination to flesh out a deity with a projected physical form that did not exist in this reality. You know, extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, and all that. I'd need god to be real and his claims to be widely and personally demonstrated and I would not want to have to do all the leg work in my head. Reality has a separate existence identifiable through my senses, I'd want god to be proven to exist in that external reality. Just showing up for my birthday would be a good start.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
I'm sure you'll hear many opinions. Here's mine.
No, science cannot prove that God exists.
Some parts of Christianity could be disproved. For example, if Jesus' tomb were ever found, that would disprove the concept of Jesus' resurrection.
Generally speaking, however, most of the Abrahamic religion is not falsifiable, accordingly it is outside the purview of science and in the realm of metaphysics.
-----
"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
It is not necessary to be able to prove whether God exists or not to justify either position.
It only requires us to be able to assess what seems to be most likely, based on all available evidence. So it is very relevant to discuss this evidence.
It might be possible to show that some very powerful conscious being probably exists, if various strange events happened that were very difficult to explain in any other way, but there is no way to prove that any such being matches the concept of God in the Bible.
It would be impossible for any mortal to actually know the motives or intentions of a being with anything even approaching the power of the biblical God.
It is logically impossible for there to be evidence proving that any being is omnipotent, infinite, or omniscient, to finite beings like us.
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
I have a degree in Systems Engineering and have been working IT for years. Why are so many engineers theists? Makes no sense to me.
Science examines entities and objects that can be measured in some fashion, correct? So is your god measurable? Yes? Then we can prove something about that entity. No? Then no, science can not examine or prove anything about an entity that can not be measured.
Different people have different purposes. But many of us believe that believing in god/s/dess puts limits on knowledge. Too many people use the bible and god excuse to stop learning and examining their environment. "The bible says the earth is 6000 years old. The bible says man was made in god's image and Eve was made from Adam's rib." And so on. Completely denying the evidence of their own eyes. And denying the findings of science. If god/s/dess gave them brains, why the heck aren't they using them? Reminds me of the old joke:
There was a big flood. And a very religious man was in the middle of the flood waters. They were up to his porch and a row boat came by. "Would you like a lift to higher ground?" "No, god will provide." The waters were up to the second story and a motor boat came by. "Want a lift?" "No, god will provide." The waters were up to his roof and a helicopter flew over. "Let us take you to safety!" "No, god will provide." So the man drowns. He gets to heaven and asks god, "Why didn't you help me?" God says, "What? I sent two boats and a helicopter."
So that is my purpose for discussing all the nonsense people believe. To try to get them to use their brains. If they insist god/s/dess gave them brains, then how can they believe s/he/it/they want them to let their brains stagnate on 3000 year old writings by a bunch of bronze age goat herders and olive farmers? Really, how could that ancient person understand genetics, geology, cosmology, evolution, ecology, chemistry, physics, and all the other knowledge we have today? Let alone, how could god/s/dess explain a billion years to this person? They didn't have a zero, and couldn't count to a million.
Me, I want 10 foot tall angels with real wings and they use the wings to fly down to earth and they inscribe with flaming swords on the nearest wall - "CJ, believe in god right now!" It has to be swords, not lasers or some other cutting tool. The wings have to be attached as if they grew out of their back and with soft white feathers - but no feathers or protofeathers anywhere else on their bodies.
But I'll take an amputee regrowing a limb through prayer as a substitute for the angels. Though that is not as dramatic as I would like. I'm sure the amputee would consider it dramatic enough.
PS- sorry about your neat paragraphs, but when replying, it was just making it harder to read, so I removed the html codes.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Are angels in the bible? I'm sure last time I was researching the subject on a high-brow intellectual website - I think it was Cracked.com - I discovered the appalling truth there were no angels with wings in the bible. Seraphim with like, 6 wings to stop humans from being blinded by their neon torsos but no classic flying people with one set of wings. Generally angels only appear in dreams tho' at the alleged tomb of jesus the angels were just bright-faced and sincere young men. Possibly marketing graduates.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Is always going to founder for mine. The trouble is the use of the word 'unimaginably' to describe anything in a logical or rational way. If we can't imagine it, then what are we talking about? The trouble with god is that he is too great for us to conceive and we can therefore say nothing and know nothing about him, or he is entirely constrained by the human imagination (which I think he is) and reduced to being an impossibly elevated mortal with a fringe of blatant assertion.
Would you agree that if Alf is inside space time as well as outside he should be detectable? And if he's not detectable at all, how can anyone ever know anything about him they do not invent?
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Good point - "unimaginably" powerful probably wasn't the best choice of words. the superiour power of a god to anything we know in the universe may prevent accurate analysis of him...
As far as our understanding of power things that exist goes, by his very nature Alf would have to at least be equally powerful as all the measurably powerful things in the universe put together, measuring his power beyond this may well be impossible...
If Alf is in space/time i would agree he would have to be detectable in the sense he could choose to make himself visible, phyisical, take actions that cause an impact in the physical realm, display his power by performing unexplainable actions that appear to break our current laws of physics/science
I am particularly fond of Michelangelo's cherubim. Just think how splendid it would be if god/s/dess conjured them up just for me.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Any science performed on the bible shows me the God of the Bible couldn't exist. The only way around my science which I've introduced into debate thousands of times is to utilize faith which is void of science.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
Well here is the issues we have, first off understanding physics, nothing can be every where at once, hence your first problem, the vast amount of distance in the universe and the laws of physics prevents this from actually happening. Your definition has an issue at this point, this being is cannot exist as it stand with this definition being included. Now since your god exists in our universe he is bound by those laws of physics that he supposedly creates, unless your going to include one of those 3 omni's that you said you don't want to use. As for your other qualities, well god has to have a physical being of sorts, because in order to interact in the physical universe that we exist in, god has to have a physical attributes that we can test, now of course there is the kicker really. God could not exist both inside our realm and outside our realm of reality at the same time, logically it makes no sense, and of course physically it makes no sense, just like the whole god exists everywhere at once bit. Control of everything....in what sense, and then of course we have to know how this happens, magic doesn't count here because well, magic does not exist, it is merely the answer to something we don't know or understand, it is the statement of the ignorant really. How can god control something that happens randomly as what happens at the quantum level? See the definition you have given are really just vague definitions, supremely powerful, compared to what? How are we defining all powerful, and supremely powerful? If god created everything, what created god?
For example the part of god being everywhere at once, physically it's impossible, there is no way to test for that either, as we cannot be everywhere at the same time to test that hypothesis of ours, it's not falsifiable. Now say we use the WHOLE bible part of creating humans (forget all the scientific data that proves the bible crap on this one) if such a being exists, then re-creating life from clay and using his breath shouldn't be hard, if such a being exists, and they could do that for scientific testing, such as doing step by step with scientists watching every bit, testing every step to make sure nothing else could explain it, sure that could prove the god of the bible exists.
As for falsifying test for a god seems in reality illogical since your definition of god is illogical at this point, we cannot do the a test that would be falsifiable regarding god is everywhere since we cannot be everywhere, and the all powerful is not testable since we have nothing to test against it. At this point science cannot prove your god exist using the definition you have provided really. falsifiable tests require the logical possibility of what you have asserted could be shown as false by observation or test. Now we could do it in a theoretical setting, for example your god is everywhere bit, we know that it is impossible, due to the distance in the known universe and of course the laws of physics for a being to be everywhere at once and to know or control everything in the universe. As such your definition of god at this point is an illogical possibilty .
Welcome, Phillip,
The simplest, most basic, least controversial definition of atheism is simply a 'lack of belief in any god or gods.' What we *do* believe is up to each individual to decide for themselves. The only thing that unites all atheists is that none of us believe any of the 'god claims' of theists.
Which god of the Bible? It seems to me there are at least four of them if you count Yahweh, Jesus, the Holy Ghost, and Satan. More if you count the angels and demons.
And even more if you consider that each person interprets the Bible differently, so that their personal 'god' strangely reflects more their own beliefs than any unified description from the Bible.
Considering that most god claims, especially those associated with the Bible, are logically contradictory, I doubt science could ever hope to tackle the question. Before science can proceed on identifying an entity, the entity must first have a sensible definition.
Could the God of the Bible prove that the God of the Bible exists?
Perhaps a more sensible question you should ask yourself is whether the god you believe in has the power to prove that he exists.
Surely, an omnipotent god *must* know what evidence would be sufficient to satisfy the doubts of any skeptic. And surely an omnipotent god *must* have the power to present that sufficient level of evidence to every skeptic in existence.
Logically, such a god must be able to prove its own existence. So, why doesn't he? Does he actually want atheists to be atheists? If he didn't want that, then why do atheists exist?
There is an easy explanation for this problem, from the point of view of atheists: Yes, such a god should logically be able to prove its own existence. Therefore, either such a god exists, and *wants* us to be atheists, or such a god simply does not exist. Either way, we are justified in being atheists.
For theists, there is no good answer. You can, of course, try all the typical excuses, but none of them will convince anyone who does not *already* believe in your god.
Good question. Why are you here discussing it? What purpose is there for you to come to this forum to discuss the existence/non-existence of God?
I can tell you that I have many reasons, and none of them depend on whether or not a god actually exists. They depend on how people who *believe* that such a god exists choose to act in the *real* world. Such as, by flying planes into buildings, to give an extreme example. But there are many things that theists do that are less extreme, but no less harmful on a global scale. Would you like a list of such harm that god-belief causes? It's quite easy to find thousands of examples on this forum or via google or whatever.
Again, I don't think science itself would be able to even begin to tackle that question.
But as for myself, I have a very very simple piece of evidence that would convince me personally that the God of the Bible exists. All that needs to happen is for me to hear "I am the God of the Bible", and have my foreskin miraculously regenerate without the aid of any human intervention, such as a surgical transplant or anything like that. Just poof, one day I wake up with my foreskin back in one piece, hear the god identify itself, and I'll be a true believer.
Strangely, this has never happened.
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!
I dont believe this statement is valid, because it assumes that the laws of physics are constant - which is certainly true from our experimental observation of the operation of the universe, however i dont neccisarily belive that this always has to be the case. If Alf is powerful enouch to create the universe and the laws of physics in which they operate by, then logically it would pose no difficulty for him to manipulate any of these laws in any way he sees fit, and if he decides that he wants to be in more than one place at once then i dont se why that would not be possible. Weather or not we could explain it, or measure this attribute is another question again.
Again if Alf is powerful enough to create the universe and the laws that govern it it is no problem for him to control things even that hapen on a quantum level - things that appear completly random and unpredictable to us (such as the exact location of an electron at any one time) From Alf's perspective these would simply be following out a preset course with no randomness whatsoever
Well that might be the start of an answer to my question supposing Alf is able to complete this test satisfactorly
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 must be falsifiable by definition of science.
If a theory is not falsifiable it does not belong to science, and science cannot be applied to such theory.
There is only one God revealed in the complete bible - true it is confusing that he has 3 distict persons but i think that discussion may be best left for another time as it is a tangent from the discussion at hand. It is definatly true that every second person has a different opinion on the God of the Bible and more often than not this is based more on their personal beliefs but i dont think this gross level of misinterpretation means that the God presented in the Bible is inconsistant or illogical.
No he doesn't want want atheists to be atheists, Yes he deliberatly does not reveal himself obviously to people and this results in atheists existing.
Fair enough, hypothetically that test would be a no problems for Alf
Thankyou for this,
i can see how perticular aspects of God - such as existing everywhere may not be able to be measured with a falseafiable experiment however i do belive some of his other characteristics could be measured with falseafiable experiments
definitly know that my belief in this God can be falseified easily - just show me Jesus's body and “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.... if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile;.... we are of all people most to be pitied." -1Cor15
There are several gods revealed [as you put it] in the bible; Read the first commandment carefully "Thou shalt have no other god before me" ; clearly your god was some kind of worried about comptition. Baal, Marduk, Ra, Amun among others. The writers of the bible considered them as real as Yawah they just didn't want you to follow them. False prophets are delt with later in the ten commandments.
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
That is a very good point Jeffrick, throughout the bible many other gods are refered to, in the OT perticulary they are often refered as false gods and have false prohets which follow them. I should clarify the statement chich i made before - that there is only one God in the Bible. What i meant to say was there is only one True God in the bible, all the other Gods are simply imagined beings, or created entities although having supernatural powers they are still part of the creation and are not eternal beings and therefore not true gods. I do not want to get side tracked discussing the existance of other false gods at this moment but it would be a good topic for different discussion.
You've never seen the bodies of hundreds of millions of other random dead people and you do not believe they are the immortal sons and daughters of god, do you?
This lack of a corpse means that really the only proof of an individual claimed to be the son of god rests in the dubious arms of the literary historical method. The bible is the only 'strong' proof for the existence of Jesus - Josephus is almost certainly forged, Tacitus probably is. There's precious little else apart from the NT and the Nag Hammadi works.
Now if we consider openly and honestly the concept of source criticism - I'm quoting Olden-Jorgensen and Thuren here - we have to accept this: "That the tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias - tendencies should be minimised or replaced with opposite tendencies". In light of this, can we really say the NT is not concerned with the projection of its own veracity? I think we cannot and this undermines the NT as a strong proof of the existence and life of jesus using the historical method.
P.S. Hope you don't feel put upon arguing with all of us at once, Phillip. Can't be easy - particularly given yours is a more than usually open christian position.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Welcome to the forum.
Atheists do not believe in God. Any other belief that an atheist might hold is not relevant to whether or not they are an atheist.
That depends on the specific God claim.
Claims that can be evaluated by science i.e. claims regarding the natural world can be 'disproven.' Claims that cannot be evaluated by science cannot be 'disproven.'
That is simply a matter of definition. If you've defined your God claim as something that can be evaluated with evidence, then yes. If not i.e. supernatural, then no. Of course, the rest of your claim would need to be consistent with that definition.
More practically, if the God of the Bible exists, he can just reveal himself unambiguously, with empirical evidence. That would be sufficient evidence for any God. If there is no empirical evidence, then obviously, we don't have enough evidence. That is essentially a tautology.
If evidence for the existence of God is insufficient, then belief in God is irrational. People should not dictate their actions based on irrational beliefs.
I don't know of any way to demonstrate the existence of the God of the Bible, specifically, unless God revealed himself in some grand way.
If you demonstrate that the Bible is infallible, then it would show that it was written by some higher intelligence, but not necessarily that specific God. If you can show that anything in the universe couldn't have appeared without an intelligent creator, you again have evidence for some higher intelligence, but still not necessarily the Christian God.
For such an extraordinary claim, it would be best to have multiple forms of corroborating evidence. For example, all the prophecies in the Bible give precise dates and all the prophecies for which the dates have past have come true on those dates + Christians, on average, follow their own moral guidelines better than all other people. I don't know of any well established theory in science that isn't supported by a wealth of evidence. For instance, evolution is supported by anatomy, genetics, geography, embroyology, and can be directly observed. You can't really point to a single specimen and assert that it 'proves' evolution.
Edit: The short answer to the main question you are asking here is yes. Just show us evidence. Evidence is evidence.
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
The issue at hand is the logical possibility of falsifable tests and god with the definitions provided it is not possible. To bear in mind you are right the laws of physics have not been this way all the time, some 14.5 billion years ago the laws where different, when the universe sprand forth. However for the last 14.5 billion years, give or take a few 100 million years they have been constant, since this is a reality, and nothing has shown to defy those laws, we have to assume they don't change, not to say they can't change, but thgat possibility seems very very remote. At tgis point god is an illogical possibility as per definition, unless you are able to provide evidence that the laws of physics can change at the will of a being.
Fair enough, I can understand that you don't take the NT as credible historical evidence - it seems to me like you have investigated it quite well and come to a different conclusion to me. I was merely trying to highlight my understanding of Christianity according to the Bible as one who does belive the NT as credible
No worries i have no problem discussing these things with you - the whole reason i joined this forum and not one of the 50 million others is specifically so i could talk to other athists - not other christians/theists
also you can call me Mark instead of Phillip J. Fry if you Like
You started off very well. I completely agreed at the beginning. The issue at hand is indeed the logical possibility of falsifiable tests.
However, you went on to say that the laws of physics were different some 14.5 billion years ago. Can you devise a series of tests that might possibly falsify that claim?
-----
"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
As far as I understand latincanuck, some laws of physics (actually, some (not all!) universal constants) are changing since the Big Bang and the beginning of the universe expansion. If we would find no evidence of the Big Bang and the expanding universe, then there is no reason to think the laws of physics are changing with time (and space) and the claim is thus falsified. However, so far the experimental data confirm the theory of the Big Bang and the concomitant changes of some universal constants.
something like this...
I don't think so. From my point of view, the god Satan is just as much of a god as the god Jesus. If you compare the Bible to other forms of mythology, such as the Greek gods, then you'll clearly see that the Bible contains many many gods, even if there's one particular god who tries to denounce all the others by proclaiming himself the only 'true' god. All it means is that particular god is a megalomaniac. It doesn't make the other gods less god-like.
The Egyptian gods, ancient Chinese gods, and the Hindu gods are also comparable to the various gods of the Bible.
So, if you're going to restrict the discussion to just the megalomaniacal Yahweh god, then that would be a good point to clarify.
It most certainly makes it inconsistent.
And who are you to say who is misinterpreting the Bible and who's getting it right? I guess you believe that you've got the right interpretation and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, eh?
First, how do you know that? Are you in communication with this god, and know what he wants?
Second, your two points are contradictory. If he doesn't want atheists, then he logically *would not* deliberately hide himself such that this would result in the existence of atheists. Doing so would be to act against his own desires, something an omnipotent god would logically be able to avoid.
The question remains: Does your god know what sufficient evidence would be required to convince every single skeptic in existence, and does he have the power to provide this evidence?
And yet.... Alf hasn't done it.
Do you actually believe in Alf? Do you actually believe in any god? I'm wondering if you're an atheist in theist's clothing. Just curious. I may be overly-suspicious here, so don't take offense at the question.
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!
It is one thing to admit that science does not talk in terms of absolutes. It is quite another to twist that admission to automatically become a 50-50 proposition.
Chances that the Christian god of the bible is real?
0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%
Why? Because even before you get to the convoluted mythology full of bullshit claims of magic, talking snakes, talking bushes, humans magically popping out of dirt as adults, ghost sperm knocking up girls without a second set of DNA.....yadda yadda yadda..........even before all that.
You still have the core claim that all deity claims have in all of human history. The claim that something with an invisible non-material brain that resides "somewhere" and "nowhere" with human like thoughts and magical super powers, exists.
Thoughts require a material process and can only be a manifestation of a material process. So since that is a scientific FACT, until someone can come up with scientific proof that a thought can originate from a non material process, I am going to go with the more likely and extremely likely probability that HUMANS make up god claims and falsely believe them to be fact because "it feels nice".
Science most certainly debunks the bible, on just about every single page. Genesis alone is a joke scientifically much less virgin births or human flesh escaping rigor mortis. But as I said, even before you get to that book, the concept of a non-material brain existing, THAT by itself is a bullshit claim.
I cant disprove it STRICTLY from a statistical absolute, sure. But it most certainly is a claim worth discarding because of the overwhelming extreme improbability.
The problem is that the laymen takes scientific ethics in never speaking in terms of absolutes and twists that to automatically being a 50=50 percentage. IT IS NOT.
Your computer is most certainly something that exists to a 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% Even if one wants to claim nothing is ever 100% absolute, STRICTLY from a semantic point of view. But only an idiot would claim that it doesn't exist because of that semantic admission/
The likelihood of any type of non-material super magical omni-being existing makes it a pragmatic absurdity not worthy of any type of study other than a psychological one in that humans make them up as placebos for gaps in understanding the world around them.
Good logic does not work by disproving first.
Good logic works by collecting established data and TESTING FIRST, then replicating the test and repeating the test and having control groups to insure quality of data, then handing all that over to others outside your own bias who kick the tires with the same data and method and come up with the same data you do.
God claims work, not because a god, any god is real, they work because of emotional appeal and marketing. A history of believing false things does not constitute evidence.
Which makes more sense to you? Which to you has the highest likelihood of probability? Which to you has the lowest likelihood of probability?
1. Thor makes lighting
Or
2. Positive and negative charges in the atmosphere make lighting.
Which in reality has more TESTABLE evidence that can be universally falsified?
God claims do not work because they are merely products of human's wishful thinking in wanting a fictional super hero to be real. If there were evidence for any god claim we would have found it by now.
It makes much more sense to me that humans like what they believe and don't care to test what they believe.
Think about all the other god claims you dismiss without trying to debunk them and then you'll understand why we feel no need to take the time to debunk yours as well.
1. Your god is real? What is the likelihood of that actually being true BEYOND YOUR PERSONAL BIAS
2. It is all in your head? What is the likelihood of that actually being true BEYOND YOUR PERSONAL BIAS.
I would say that #2 is infinitely more likely, even if scientists never use the term 100%.
It is not only OK to throw bad claims into the trash bin of bad ideas, it is irrational to cling to claims that start out on horrible foundations in the first place.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Who are you talking to? no-one in this thread has discussed anything regarding the mathmatical probibility of christianity being true or not, much less assigning it a 50/50% figure. This thread is discussing the ability of science in proveing the existance of a theoretical God or not. If you wish to discuss somthing else i suggest you open a new topic.
Certainly, as i said before i am a christian
The only claim i make in regard to knowing what the God of the Bible wants is what i know from what i he has revealed in the Bible i cannot say any more about my God than that:
No he doesn't want want atheists to be atheists
>>> "God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth." -1Tim2
Yes he deliberatly does not reveal himself obviously to people and this results in atheists existing.
>>> "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him ... Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts... They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator." -Rom1
Ofcourse i do not expect you to belive this i am merely trying to show that i didnt make up that idea in my head, but it is fundamentally part of what christians believe about God. As for God not wanting atheists to be atheists being incompadible with him deliberatly not revealing himself obviously, i do not believe this this is true. Like a Parent diciplining their child so they learn, is not somthing the parent wants to do, but they do anyway for the childs benifit. Gods non-obvious revelation and allowance of people to not believe in him is a diciplining action also, in the hope they would see the truth. Again this is what Christians believe, i do not expect you to believe this, you just need know that what i have said is consistant with what the bible states
The bible is very clear in saying that God has both the knowledge and power to convince every skeptic in the world of his existance simutaniously, In fact he has already cleared his schedule and set aside a special day where he plans to do exactly this. A day where he will reveal himself to everyone and they will clearly see that he is God.
First off, if you really believe that is how parents discipline children, as a grandmother, I can tell you it doesn't work that way. And secondly, I can tell you god/s/dess must know doodly squat about learning theory if that quote is any indication.
Briefly - very briefly - rewards are when you receive something good, punishment is when something bad happens. A reward may be delayed and still have a good effect. For punishment to work, it needs to be immediate and appropriate. If you are punishing a child even if you don't want to, stop. My mom used to cry all over me when she spanked me. It was not productive. I still have problems from it 55 years later. I vowed never to do that to my children. I wasn't a perfect parent, but at least they aren't as screwed up as I am.
If you make rules as a parent, you had best be prepared to enforce them with appropriate consequences. Otherwise, don't bother making that rule.
Now, this business of god/s/dess punishing people for not believing in him/her/it/them by not revealing himself. You have got to be kidding. What on earth am I going to learn by that? I learn that god/s/dess doesn't exist. QED
Say you are a parent - your child makes a mess - you proceed to hide from them to punish the child. Just what are you teaching the child? Not to avoid making messes, not how to clean up messes, not how to get along with adults in the child's world. You are teaching them that parents disappear for reasons unknown and unknowable.
Sounds like abuse to me.
As for the end days or armageddon or just dying and meeting your maker - so what? What I would tell god/s/dess is - "You gave me a brain, I assume you meant for me to use it. If you wanted me to kowtow to y'all, you should have given me better data."
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
No need to start another thread. EVERYTHING I said to you relates to good use of logic and scientific method so it is relevant. You merely don't like the direction I am taking the conversation.
Science has a lot to say about your Christian god, and has quite efficiently put it in the bin of myth where it belongs. Not my problem if you haven't caught up with modern times, you are not alone though. No different than when Galileo told the truth about the earth when most people refused to believe what he RIGHTFULLY TOLD THEM.
Thoughts require a material process. SCIENTIFIC FACT! That alone, without getting into any ancient book of myth, is enough to reject any and all god claims, not just your pet claim.
But since you call yourself a Christian, even easier to dismiss considering all the comic book claims in it.
Deity logic works backwards.
Naked assertion<=elaborate tripe<=POOF(therefore I am right by default )
Good use of logic works like this.
Collect prior established data=plug into established formula= projected outcome(repeat and falsify and independently confirm)
A history of claims does not make something true by default otherwise the Egyptian sun god would be real because they believed the sun was a god for over 3,000 years.
It is 2010 and we know what DNA is now. And considering that the virgin birth motif is not even original to Christianity, I would call such a claim absurd. It takes TWO sets of DNA to manifest into a zygote. So other than "POOF" where did this magical second set of DNA come from?
I'd say that considering the myth was written in an unscientific age, the only reason you are a Christian is the same reason other people like other beliefs. You merely like what you believe, just like a Muslim or Hindu or Jew. That is nothing but evidence that people make claims, so what.
Faith is only evidence that people like what they believe. Science goes way beyond "faith" and is a much more rational tool than simply believing because it feels nice.
I'd love to believe that Anjolina Jolie would give me a blow job, but I am not going to fool myself into believing such just because the idea is appealing to me.
There are no "chosen people" by any name, past or present, your religion or any other. There are merely humans who like the idea of a magical super hero swooping them off the tracks. It frightens most people around the world that this is all there is. It doesn't frighten me at all anymore than being frightened of what it was like before I was born.
If global warming doesn't kill us off, if nukes don't kill us off, if a meteor doesn't hit us,(likely at some point) but even if none of those things happened the SUN will expand and die and thus all life on our planet will die, and with it all our names of all the billions, famous or not, good and bad alike, and all their superstitions and gods will go extinct with the species as well.
The ride will end for our entire species, I simply see no need to assign an ancient book of comic book superstitions to the reality science allows us to observe.
If you can accept that the word "Allah" wasn't a claim that could be made 1 billion years ago, what makes you think that Jesus as a super hero claim will be around 5 billion years from now?
I know you believe that, but so what. Belief is only belief, not evidence of anything more than belief. You are talking to someone who knows and accepts what DNA is. DNA doesn't require simply "believing" it is FACT. You are talking to someone who knows what rigor mortis is. So selling me virgin birth stories and zombi god stories as being more than myth is pointless. I would suggest instead of trying to convince me you are right, stop trying to convince yourself you are right.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Well this assuming so far that science is correct and all the mathematical tests are correct that show that when we go back to the beginning of the universe and that it actually was a singularity (still the most current accepted theory although there are other competing scientific theories such as quantum loop gravity), at the singularity most of known laws of physics break down, there is a mathematical equation for this, however I will admit this is beyond my scope of understanding. However the laws of physics at this point seem to be stable and at this point as well there are no known beings able to defy the laws of physics. So yes there are tests, mainly mathematical equations that prove this.
[edit] Yes the laws of physics can change and some are changing (albeit over a extremely long period of time) however it is all due to natural causes, not some supernatural non-existing god, there are explanations that do not require the need to add god to the equation of what is occurring naturally.
"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.
"So we'll integrate non-progressional evolution theory with God's creation of Eden. Eleven inherent metaphoric parallels already there. Eleven. Important number. Prime number. One goes into the house of eleven eleven times, but always comes out one. Noah's ark is a problem." River
Brian - You have made many assumtions about what i believe and what i dont beleive, and what i am 'selling' to you.
The question i would like you to answer is the question of this thread >
Hypothetically if there was a god and he appeared to us, would you be able to apply sufficient scientific tests to him to prove his existance? If only some of his characteristics (or only parts of a particular characterisic which can be measured) could be falisfiably tested scientifically which characteristics would those be? and Would this evidence provide a sufficiant proof of the existance of this hypothetical God?
On logic and science: Again, two mutually exclusive tools of "proof."
Brian, "science has a lot to say about your Christian god, and has quite efficiently put it in the bin of myth where it belongs."
Really, which peer reviewed study or experiment? Please, I'd like to read it. Oh wait, you can only point to collections of secondary sources and pop science. Science is disinterested and dispassionate about your activism. At the point at which it joins your cause, it's failed by definition.
Brian, "Good use of logic works like this. Collect prior established data=plug into established formula= projected outcome(repeat and falsify and independently confirm)"
Not logic, it's science. Different rules and parameters. You expose yourself here. "Data" is not a logical parameter, only accepted premises. It (logic) is disinterested in how that premises gets accepted. Thus mutually exclusive from science.
Brian, "If global warming doesn't kill us off, if nukes don't kill us off, if a meteor doesn't hit us,(likely at some point) but even if none of those things happened the SUN will expand and die and thus all life on our planet will die, and with it all our names of all the billions, famous or not, good and bad alike, and all their superstitions and gods will go extinct with the species as well."
You go with your bad self.
On your last, what was DNA before we named it, agreed on it, and symbolized it? Hate to get all post-structural on you, but it fits with your jacked up paradigm.
"So we'll integrate non-progressional evolution theory with God's creation of Eden. Eleven inherent metaphoric parallels already there. Eleven. Important number. Prime number. One goes into the house of eleven eleven times, but always comes out one. Noah's ark is a problem." River
There's no positive scientific evidence against the existence of god. But at the same time there is no positive evidence for the existence of god.
You'd be going a long way out on a limb not accepting god as the reification of a human mental concept.
I'd be open to any argument or proof that isn't an argument from silence, ignorance or the manipulation of a gap.
The OP has not even defined 'god' comprehensibly, much less outlined any qualities that are testable or even possible.
Feel free to have a go at this yourself.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
The existence of such a thing might preclude the practicability of science. If miracles exist and nothing is impossible then you may not be able to determine the plausibility of your initial hypothesis. What scientific evidence do you have?
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Thanks, thats a good point for me to clarify, i did mention some posible characteristis of this hyperthetical God (Alf) which may/may-not be able to be tested, but it probbably wasnt done very clearly, so i will repeat them here and add some more - all based on the God of teh bible.
Theres afew characteristics we could assign to this hyperthetical god to start with to help assess his testability. If you can think of other charactertristcs that might be testable then feel free to add them in
AE: you are at best mixing burdens (more likely a shift). I was responding to the claim that science had "fact" and "proof" that God did not exist- Of which, is silly. I am as disinterested as science in the burden of proving God. However, I will engage the "evidence" or "logic" as opposition.
"You'd be going a long way out on a limb not accepting god as the reification of a human mental concept."
Insert "science" or "logic" or "atheism" or "snooky" and you get the same result (based on the accepted premise of "human mental concept"
. This does nothing for your identification of me as uniquely silly. You just place yourself in a different silly club across the quad.
"I'd be open to any argument or proof that isn't an argument from silence, ignorance or the manipulation of a gap."
Sorry, not interested. I'm happy in my foolishness and will periodically participate in the defense of "my people."
To me, Ad Ignoratium is the most interesting fallacy. There are about 17 people on this planet that can actually understand the applications of string and chaos, yet the 40-50,000 or so that write, teach and blog about it's "abstracts" are doing nothing but replicating the original 17's fallacies of Ad Ignoratium. Your signature on this blog represents this fallacy, as I'm sure your actual primary experiments are limited.
Perhaps Christianity (or insert religion B) does not commit Ad Ignoratium. . . as it's primary source is the primary experience. We are insane, but not appealing to ignorance
"So we'll integrate non-progressional evolution theory with God's creation of Eden. Eleven inherent metaphoric parallels already there. Eleven. Important number. Prime number. One goes into the house of eleven eleven times, but always comes out one. Noah's ark is a problem." River
What is the implied supernatural nature of the primary experience? Is there a hypothesis? I don't think you are somehow entitled to compare the supernatural to sense data on the basis of the metaphysical gap you've pulled open. That's just silly on stilts.
My core position on this stuff is that there are things I don't know. Nobody does. Will you admit this in relation to 'knowing' god? You can't just cheerfully make up a personal transcendental deity whenever you like.
At some point in your thought processes the whole thing must go completely sideways. Are there any characteristics to your god that are not contained in your own imagination?
And stop mocking my fireworks experiments. They rocked.
P.S. Additionally, StDis, this business of cherrypicking the extremities of the possibly unknowable in order to undermine all of science and legitimise an unknowable god is erroneous. Next time you're in an airplane ten kilometres high travelling at 1000 kilometres an hour ask yourself if you are ready for proof by experiment to stop working yet.
Ed: Clarity
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Suppose you had a 16 year old son who hated you, wanted nothing to do with you. He wouldn't speak to you because you didn't want him to hang out with some drug addict friends of his, because you know that he will end up screwing up his life if he goes down that path. He wants to runaway and will take any oppertunity to do so. What would you do? would you lock him up to stop him from destroying his life, but in the process have him hate you forever for locking him up? or would you let him leave knowing that he will certainly mess up his life and hit rock bottom, and hope that he will learn himself the hard way why you didnt want him to do that in the first place, and one day perhaps you will be able to have a relationship again. I would think either way would be an effective form of dicipline but only one of these ways could result in a restored relationship. That is why i believe when people want to reject God, He dosnt stop them from doing so, he has already revealed himself enough but many reject this so why would there be a need to do it more, he just lets them go.
reification is the process by which mental concepts are turned into actual concrete beings. You can't reify science or logic or snooky. You seem to be questioning whether or not we can actually know things at all.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Look, here is exactly what cj was talking about. First, you lock him up so he cannot hang out with drug addicts. And then you suggest to release him so he can go and hang out with drug addicts. Then you become an inconsistent parent and the best that you may hope for will be that your son will ignore you instead of using you as a cash-bag to buy drugs for himself and his friends. In other words, you made a mistake, and you suggest to double it.
Do you have kids, btw?
This is a coincidence. My middle son left home at age 16, lived on the streets awhile, sold some dope, generally managed to avoid serious trouble. He got straightened out eventually and is now a great person and father.
So, what did I do? Did I hide myself? Abandon him? Refuse any contact? No. I helped when I could. I was there for him. We talked on the phone, he went to visit his grandparents (he moved an hour away from us to where they lived), we helped him out with rent money and and showed up at his apartment with sacks of food. The money went directly to the landlord and we never sent him cash until he stopped with the dope dealing. I never punished him, never told him he was a bad person, never asked him to change how he was dealing with his life. I always loved him, still love him, and am glad I stuck by him.
What does god/s/dess ever do? Nothing. Not one damn thing. Random bad shit happens to good people and bad, to infants and old folks. Pray all you want, there will be no rent money, no food money unless you get a job and work your ass off. God/s/dess won't even talk to you - it's just you talking to yourself. I can self-hypnotize, too. It doesn't do me much good, but hey, I can affirm my inner beliefs and feel more relaxed after a spot of meditation.
Did you ever get a tweet from god? email? Nope? Well, I guess you can go on Facebook and find some joker who calls themselves god/s/dess and chat with them. I wouldn't expect that person to be able to regrow your foreskin, however.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
I'm guessing not, but if he does, they are very young. Wait until they are teens.....bwahahahahaaaaa
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Nice watering down of the daddy motif.
HE IS ALL POWERFUL(according to his fans), which means he didn't have to allow addicts in the first place. He also didn't have to allow child molesters either, but funny that, we have these monsters too.
Would you hire a baby sitter who said the following?
"Well Mr Fry, I have baby sat 100 kids. I stopped a child molester at the door and shot him with 25 of the kids. Another 25 I allowed the molester to come in, rape the kid, and only shot him after he left the house. Another 25 kids I allowed the molester to escape and let the police catch them later. Another 25 kids I allowed them to be butchered in front of me while I watched and let them escape never to be caught."
If you want to use the "free will argument" against adults, that would be more of an argument, even though still not a good one. But kids?
Are you telling me that because of Adam and Eve kids have to suffer rape, or cancer or bullying or watch their family members blown up in war, or be victims of genocide and hunger in Africa, or victims of the Nazis in WW2.
I wouldn't let such a deadbeat prick who allows children to suffer to walk my dog.
MIND YOU, again, I don't believe in a good god or bad god or any god. I am attacking the logic of the claims people make about the god they claim.
IF we go by your model, this is the response I would have to this model. THAT is all I am doing here.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
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?
-----
"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
I think bob said it best:
For this god to prove he is infinite, all powerful, and all good, he would have raise our mental abilities to "see" and understand the proof. He can't just say he is these things as he could be lying.
Yahweh could appear in the sky to everyone in the world simultaneously and say "I am Yahweh, the god of the bible" and then billions of little miracles could appear around the world at that time. This would be a pretty strong case for the existance of a very powerful concious being, however it would not prove that it IS the character in the bible, or that the being is "good" or merciful, or just in anyway. The being could be pretending to be Yahweh because he knows of our stories of him, the being could be Yahweh but not be anything like he says he is. The being could be yahweh from the bible, exactly how he is described in the bible, well then we are left with a very humanlike, emotional, egotistical, childlike, petty and violent being messing with our affairs, not good, but that's a hole other discussion. As far as proving the existance of your specific god, and all of his characteristics and attributes, a little evidence of this and that wouldn't do, he would have to bring us to his level to understand. Telling us he is infinite, all powerful and all "good" means nothing, again he could be lying.
Edit: This is why I tend to avoid the "prove your god doesn't exist" discussion, and lean towards the "let's assume your god does exist, is that a good or bad thing? Does it make sense?" discussion.
A person who claims he/she understands science and then states that many people BELIEVE in the Big Bang Theory (or any scientific theory) despite "problems" is either a liar or dumb.
Of course, ANY SCIENTIFIC THEORY IS FALSIFIABLE, or it is NOT a scientific theory BY DEFINITION.
Of course, the test that "might possibly determine" that the Big Bang Theory "was wrong" are RUN ALL THE TIME!
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.
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!
Much of these questions that you have posed were addressed in Victor Stenger's book, God the Failed Hypothesis. Matter of fact, some of the information in the following link may be of some help to answering your questions :
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:LW6SCFc8feUJ:www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/vstenger/Fail.pdf+god+the+failed+hypothesis&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
“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