Belief in existence of God scientific. Denial - unscientific

[theStudent]

The length of the thread, in the link below, is largely due to repeated questions.on the contained information. The following is open for debate.
Belief in the existence of God is scientific. Denial - unscientific.

For those who disagree with the above, please state why, and/or provide evidence for the following:

• God does not exist.
• God exists only in the mind of the believer.
• Miracles do not happen.
• The Bible is a book of myths.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 78 by Divine Insight]

Thanks for sharing this with me.
I will like to make some comments, not with intent to change your mind.
I know from what you already said, that you believe this God is lacking greatly, if he has to use a book to communicate with earthlings, but from my own experience, I have seen the truth of what the Bible says about God's power.
Without going into detail, he used his power to have it written, and he continues to use his power to shed light of understanding to those who value it.

My own experience showed me too, as it is written in the same Bible, that he uses his power to prevent those who do not value it, but search it with a view to finding fault with it, from understanding it.

I think that is highly moral, fair, and wise.
I wouldn't want to share anything of high value with anyone who does not appreciate it.
That would be imo, equal to "throwing pearls before swine", which the wise son of God, discouraged his servant from doing.

Concerning the command at Exodus 20:13, many translations read, "You must not murder", because they get the understanding that the Hebrew word ratsach means to murder, or slay.

Original Word: רָצַח
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: ratsach
Phonetic Spelling: (raw-tsakh')
Short Definition: manslayer

So rather than meaning "kill", it refers especially to murder.

However, even though some translations use "kill", it is my opinion, that that is no stumbling block to anyone, who has a heart of love toward truth.

With regard to apointing judges to execute wrongdoers. That is small potatoes imo.
Again, I won't go into detail.
An all-wise creator knows what he is doing. He doesn't need advisors, like kings of the earth do.
He knows when, how, what, and why.
When to prepare people; how to prepare them; what to prepare them for; He has responsibility over his domain, and therefore has the right to see to it that his will is carried out.

I personally see nothing wrong with a human king appointing judges, much less the sovereign of the universe. This imo, is beneficial to both the ruler, and the one he appoints. If that's stupid, then I am on the side of stupidity.

The Bible says that certain laws were in place, to make sure that an innocent person was not put to death by the appointed judges.


In conclusion

But clearly when I do that, you attempt to belittle me by suggesting that I must think I'm omniscient to be able to decide what constitutes or or bad behavior.

How could suggesting that you are not omniscient, be an attempt to bellitle you?
If I asked if you are omniscient, can you in honesty reply, yes?
No. It is a fact that you are not omniscient.
The only way that can be belittling to you, is if you believe you are "all up there, sitting in the heavens, as a god".
If you believe that, it certainly wouldn't be me trying to belittle you. It would be the fact that you aren't that belittles you.

I already made it clear that I have nothing against anyone making their choice.
I have made my own decision, based on the evidence that the Bible contains facts, written by the early followers of truth - not myth.
That's why I can put it before you, to prove your claims that it is a book of myths. Because I know you can't. You can only repeat the claim, but can never prove it.

That is what I would expect of truth.
No matter how many times they put the Bible, on trial, there are no witnesses, however false, that can disprove the Bible.
Why should I not believe the Bible to what it is - the word of God?

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 85 by Divine Insight]

As usual, your speculations are totally unfounded. You continue to assume that if there exists any sort of "God" or "Mind of God" at all (even if that's just a metaphor for vibrating strings), that his then somehow supports the God of Hebrew mythology.

I did not say that Divine Insight.
Please read my post carefully.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 86 by Bust Nak]

Okay, you think there are other approach to science other than what it has always been? Wouldn't that be a whole new discipline as opposed to another approach? I mean how is it science if you abandon the scientific method?

I'm not exactly saying that.
I'm just saying, be fair and honest.
SETI gave a reason why their hypothesis is valid.
Recent scientific discoveries demonstrate that supernatural beings should not be ruled out.

However, I am not griping with that. Whether scientists accept God or not doesn't matter. Their discoveries are saying all we need to know. And those who have eyes to see, will see.

They say you don't understand the Bible, you say they don't understand the Bible. From the outside without preconception, the is no question that text literally says the Earth is flat and stationary, it literally says man are created as is in 6-days. Some take it more literally than you and others don't take it as literally. So it's your words against flat Earth Christians against Christians evolutionists. So which camp's words are untrue, invalid? How can it be resolved?

I'll use an illustration.
If two persons listening to your words, go away with two completely different meanings, how can they get the real meaning to your words?
Only by you. You have to explain it.

The same with the Bible.
If the Bible is really the word of God, as I believe it to be, its author is God.
So then, it would be his words. He would be the one to explain what he meant.
So how does God convey his words?
It's not always by word of mouth, or pen and ink.
The Bible speaks of a force, God uses - for which he can use to guide, and communicate with humans.

It is with that same force he used to communicate his thoughts to Bible writers, that he also uses to guide man's understanding.
So whereas, his words are written down, he actively aids persons in understanding those words. So that the Bible is basically "alive" - it speaks for itself, and those who are guided by that powerful force, understands.

I believe this, although it is foolishness to some, and some don't understand.
It really doesn't matter, because I know that man is but a shadow - fleeting - and he only uses less than 1% of his brain's capacity during those fleeting years.
So I don't expect us to know, or understand everything.

That belongs to the one who started everything.

[H.sapiens]

While you have yammered on and on and on, you have yet to deal with the basic flaw in the OP:

The length of the thread, in the link below, is largely due to repeated questions.on the contained information. The following is open for debate.
Belief in the existence of God is scientific. Denial - unscientific.

For those who disagree with the above, please state why, and/or provide evidence for the following:

• God does not exist.
• God exists only in the mind of the believer.
• Miracles do not happen.
• The Bible is a book of myths.

This is naught but a futile effort to massively try to shift the burden of proof by ignoring the fact that it is impossible, prima facia, to prove a negative. What a waste of time and effort.

[RonE]

[Replying to post 103 by theStudent]

If the Bible is really the word of God, as I believe it to be, its author is God.

So, where is your evidence of your god, as I asked you for earlier today?

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 91 by JoeyKnothead]

Here the issue is the "scientificalness" of the conclusions. Sure, we've got us a great big ol' world - that's scientific. What ain't is to propose an undetectable, invisible sentient entity is the cause of it. All available evidence indicates sentience is a product of the physical brain - so the god issue becomes one of how can a sentient entity create the physical before he's all sentient and all.

I think one thing we need to do is remember what we are.
I think most humans tend to forget that they are just that - humans.
As soon as they get a bit of knowledge, they think they are above the stars, and moon.

I think thats the biggest problem in the world - lack of humility - pride.
I mean, what do we know?

Our problem here is how can we determine the properties of something we can't detect to be "in line" with anything other'n it being a concept.

We can detect a great many things that are not just concepts.
When the first airplane was built, many people thought it was just a concept. It was real.
Before magnetism was discovered, it was probably considered a concept.
Many scientific discoveries, started with concepts. The thing existed.
It didn't now exist because scientist discovered it.

People say religious people have a preconceived ideas. I think however, that pretty much can be said of those who deny God. Would you agree?

Being quite literally minded, I'm having trouble sorting the tongue-in-cheek from anything of a factual, scientific nature.

I would propose though that finding The Force does nothing to convince me a god is behind it.

I wasn't indicating that they are referring to a god of religion.
Just pointing to the fact that God is in use quite regularly.

Things act according to their properties. Nothing special there.

Do you seek to declare this as evidence of god/s?

No. I was just showing that the more scientists discover, the more they realize the little they know, because they always need to be adjusting what they thought they knew.
Hope I haven't confused you with that.

Our very words are concepts. Such that, merely saying "god" is to offer a concept for others to ponder. Having no means to confirm this concept exists as an actual entity, 'specially one of supernatural ability, we can withhold belief, or reject belief - 'specially when considering "following claims" of the proposed god.

Let me just use an example.
Say you encountered someone from a different country, who never saw a Living Rock Cactus, and you say, "We here have a living rock cactus that grows like a flower on the ground."
Would you say that your words are just a concept, because the person has never seen a Living Rock Cactus?

Possibility is not fact. Probability ain't even fact.

I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.

But what if in reality, you are Teddy Roosevelt?
Notice I said

if that possibility is a reality, then it is more than a concept.

Now we're stuck defining 'miracle'. As I understand it, humans creating 'superhumans' would not fit the religious definition.

"God made a superhuman by getting humans to do it for him" seems a very weak argument.

I'm just showing you that the existence of a superhuman performing miracles, is not far fetched.

I propose my comments as reasonable and logical conclusions.

We note that "Prove God doesn't exist" is asking folks to prove a negative. I can't prove there ain't a bucket of gold at the end of every rainbow, but really, how many folks set after that bucket when they see 'em a rainbow?

Where does a rainbow end?

Even a blind squirrel can find a nut.

Do you propose that poking a stick in the ground can change the color or pattern of animal offspring?

Thee question I would ask is, is the poking of the stick, causing the change?

Do you propose we can snuggle up inside a whale for three days, and survive?

Yes. So long as the one keeping you there doesn't "release" you.

What evidence can you now present for us to consider regarding the existence of your proposed god?

You have it all. Why do you keep asking?
Why not just say like I do, when they tell me they have evidence that the evolution theory is true, "I don't see it." End of story.
You can do the same, when we present it over and over.
Instead of repeatedly asking for it, simply say, "Well I don't see it, so there must be zero."
I guarantee you, there ain't no Christian who is going to bite your head off for that.

Hope ya slept well.

Yeah, I did. Thanks.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 106 by theStudent]

I think thats the biggest problem in the world - lack of humility - pride.
I mean, what do we know?

Says the guy who believes he's part of a beloved chosen species of the almighty creator of the universe...

People say religious people have a preconceived ideas. I think however, that pretty much can be said of those who deny God. Would you agree?

Unlike magnetism though, and other similar concepts, no test has ever succeeded at actually 'proving' God.

No. I was just showing that the more scientists discover, the more they realize the little they know, because they always need to be adjusting what they thought they knew.
Hope I haven't confused you with that.

And whenever you find something scientists currently do not know, you tend to stick God right there in the gaps.

Say you encountered someone from a different country, who never saw a Living Rock Cactus, and you say, "We here have a living rock cactus that grows like a flower on the ground."
Would you say that your words are just a concept, because the person has never seen a Living Rock Cactus?

I would say "What the heck is a Living Rock Cactus?" because I at that point in time have never heard those three words used that way. Is it a cactus in a place called Living Rock? Is the person talking about a rock that is alive and also a cactus?
You see, this is why we need definitions. I'm pretty sure that so far on this thread, you have yet to define what you mean by the word God.

But what if in reality, you are Teddy Roosevelt?

Does this mean it makes sense for us to be calling JoeyKnotHead "Mr President" on the off chance that he is Teddy Roosevelt?
There are absurdities, tS, and then there are absurdities.

I'm just showing you that the existence of a superhuman performing miracles, is not far fetched.

Show me a superhuman doing superhuman things. Are we talking Superman, leaping tall buildings in a single bound and being faster than a speeding bullet?

Yes. So long as the one keeping you there doesn't "release" you.

So find us a whale and show us that in its insides, it keeps enough oxygen, food and water to sustain a man for 3 days.

[H.sapiens]

This whole "humility" thing is such crap. Religionists have clearly got it quite backward ... science promotes humility by showing what a small place in all of the universe you are, religion is based on egotism, the idea that your biological and intellectual distinctiveness is fated by some invisible friend to live forever.

[Divine Insight]

Who is worshiping a religion???

Anyone who worships the stories of an ancient religion as though it represents the words and directives of a specific anthropomorphic Godhead is worshiping a religion.

If anyone can show me that the Qur'an is the truth, I will accept it.

I hold out the same challenge to Biblical enthusiasts and thus far none of them can show that the Bible is the truth. To the contrary, the apologies they offer for the contradictions contained in the Bible are themselves void of any rational logic or consistency.

In fact, the Biblical theists have already demonstrated that they can't even convince each other of their own interpretations. Christendom is even more divided than the Republicans and Democrats.

There is no consensus even among Christians when it comes to what "truths" the Bible supposedly contains. Also, we can't really ignore the Jews and the Muslims views in this either since both the Jews and the Muslims are actually nothing more than different opinions concerning this very same collection of myths.

So the whole "Abrahamic Mythology" is just one big confused religious myth, that clearly can't contain any truth since it's so extremely divisive.

God came before any scientists, so how could one arrive at a term such as "God of the gaps"?
Is that an attempt on the part of limited men, who think they are so "up there", to feel superior?
In my opinion... Yes.

Just because superstitious myths came before intelligent inquiry doesn't make the superstitious myths true.

Don't forget the "God of the Gaps" actually refers to these theistic arguments for God that have been proven to be wrong by science over the centuries.

No God causes volcanoes to erupt.
No God causes lightening to strike.
No God causes diseases to plague people.
No God causes the motions of the planets.
Etc.

All you are doing is attempting to try to keep moving the "God of the Gaps" arguments ahead of what science already knows.

That is a futile endeavor. All your arguments for your God is a typical "God of the Gaps" argument. And that theistic strategy has been proven to fail repeatedly.

Did I say you claim to know everything?

Perhaps not precisely, but you did imply that I would need be omniscient in order to conclude that the Biblical description of God is false, yet that charge is clearly false. It can easily be shown that the Biblical description of God must necessarily be false due to the need for extreme logical contradictions, and omniscience is not required to be able to recognize and acknowledge this.

We can easily show that the Biblical God is necessarily a logical contradiction.

Of course you could argue, as many theists do that the Biblical God doesn't need to be logical or behave in any logical fashion, but that would then make the Biblical God totally untrustworthy in terms of human reasoning. How could you trust a God who does illogical and thus unreasonable things?

Divine Insight wrote:
Physics explains how it works completely. Nothing more is required.

What part of that do you not understand?

Oh boy, am I glad you asked that.
I understand every part... and a bit more.
The "bit more", is that, it verifies everything the Christians have been saying for how long now? Things that have been vigorously denied even on these forums.

Supernatural beings - possible.
Resurrecting the dead - possible.
Walking around in fire - possible.
Controlling the elements - possible.

You've taken this totally out of the context in which I had stated it. I am saying that physics explains the evolution of this universe completely without any need for a baby-sitting God (or unexplained mysterious forces)

In fact, this is what Stephen Hawking means when he says that there is no "need" for a God. In terms of physics it's simply not required.

You have turned this entirely on its head in an attempt to suggest that science actually confirms that the things you have listed above may potentially be possible.

For one thing, I agree that science cannot say that "supernatural entities" cannot exist. All that science can say is that up to this point we have never had a need to postulate the existence of any such things. Up to this point science has been able to explain everything that we currently understand about the universe, without any need for any "supernatural intervention".

So once again you appeal to a "God of the Gaps" argument where you propose that their may come a time in the future when science might be unable to explain something using natural processes. But that hasn't happened yet.

So your argument on that front is entirely speculative and therefore is not compelling.

Furthermore, even if a supernatural entity were required at some point, again I need to point out that this wouldn't automatically load support to Allah or Yahweh, or Apollo, or Jesus, etc.

Buddhism would be supported just as much as any mythological religion. And not that Buddhism is not based on mythology, it's based on philosophical ideas.

Another thing I understand... It verifies what I said.
Not only does the Bible explain creation in a way that harmonizes with science but it also answers questions that science cannot.
This is what one astronomer said.
Allan Sandage...

Science cannot answer the deepest questions. As soon as you ask why is there something instead of nothing, you have gone beyond science. I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery, but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.

The very idea that a well-organized God is an explanation for a well-organized universe is meaningless and misguided. How would that explain anything?

Then you would be stuck with a well-organized God that has NO EXPLANATION.

A non-explanation hardly constitutes and explanation.

So these kinds of arguments are circular and self-defeating.

Just take a moment to stop and think about what you are proposing here.

We have a universe that we can't explain where it came from, so in an effort to explain it we imagine the existence of a God that we can't explain how came to be who created the universe and we'll call that an explanation for the universe.

Does that sound like an explanation to you?

Seriously, you just don't seem to be taking the time to question the things you post. An unexplained imagined complex being as an explanation for an unexplained complex universe is no explanation at all. All that's been done is to pass the buck from one problem to another.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 92 by rikuoamero]

tS- do I NEED to be all-wise before I can ask the question - Is X immoral? Or do I need to be all wise JUST in the case of God?

That's a good question.
If you may be referring to God, first let me say...
The Bible says, righteous men questioned God. They obviously were not omniscient.
With regard to the question, "Is x immoral? One would not need to be all-wise, but one may need define immoral, since the standards of morality vary dependently.