Is there ANY scientific evidence could show there is no God?

[Danmark]

Is there any scientific evidence that, if discovered, would prove to a Christian that the God of the Bible is man made and does not correspond to reality? In other words, is there anything you can imagine that would demonstrate there is no God?

Many Christian apologists appeal to science to support their belief in the Christian God; however, I suggest those apologists do not actually accept any scientific evidence that might suggest this 'God Story' is a hoax. I would like to test this hypothesis by asking if there is anything science could report that would convince believers in the God of the Bible that the Biblical claims about God are false?

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 146 by For_The_Kingdom]

For_The_Kingdom: "Maybe someday the MOA can be revisited."

Why don't we do that right now?

"Modal arguments: These are arguments with premises which concern modal claims about God, i.e., claims about the possibility or necessity of God’s attributes and existence. Suppose that we agree to think about possibility and necessity in terms of possible worlds: a claim is possibly true just in case it is true in at least one possible world; a claim is necessarily true just in case it is true in every possible world; and a claim is contingent just in case it is true in some possible worlds and false in others. Some theists hold that God is a necessarily existent being, i.e., that God exists in every possible world; all non-theists reject the claim that God exists in the actual world. The sample argument consists, in effect, of two premises:

God exists in at least one possible world.
God exists in all possible worlds if God exists in any.

A minimally rational non-theist would not accept both of these premises – they entail that God exists in every possible world whereas a minimally rational non-theists would insist that there is at least one possible world in which God does not exist. Given that that a minimally rational non-theist accepts that there is at least one possible world in which God does not exist, such a non-theist could offer the following counterargument:

God fails to exist in at least one possible world.
God exists in all possible worlds if God exists in any.

These premises entail that God exists in no possible world, and hence that God does not exist in the actual world. Considered together, the argument and the counterargument just mentioned plainly do not give anyone a reason to prefer theism to non-theism, and nor do they give anyone a reason to prefer non-theism to theism. So the sample argument is unsuccessful: it doesn’t supply an all-things-considered reason to prefer theism to non-theism (just as the counterargument doesn’t supply an all-things-considered reason to prefer non-theism to theism)." --- https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/onto ... #TaxOntArg

For_The_Kingdom: "There is evidence within the argument."

Please point out the evidence.

[For_The_Kingdom]

I don't believe that I'm going to be able to get the relevance of all of this to be understood by you. I don't know how I could make it any simpler or easier to understand.

At this point, I trust the readers see the relevance about where god concepts come from.

You said yourself; that my God (the only God that I believe WASN'T invented by man), was taken off the table for the moment. Now, we are just left with god's that WERE invented by man.

And? So now what? What is the relevance?

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 151 by TSGracchus]

So basically: "I will just copy/paste a bunch of stuff and have him play around with it, therefore, the MOA is false."

That is what I got out of it.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 153 by For_The_Kingdom]

No. Don't play with it. READ it. Simple, straight forward explanation, in crayon, showing you why the MOA is a useless circle-jerk. Whenever you're cornered (which is often), I hear Hitchens's voice in my mind, as he responded to Sean Hannity, "I hate to have to say it, but you give me the awful impression of someone who's never read the arguments against his position ever."

Rather than try in vain to argue against your own demise, you cry foul that it wasn't authored originally by TS?

SMH. LOL. SMH.

[Clownboat]

I don't believe that I'm going to be able to get the relevance of all of this to be understood by you. I don't know how I could make it any simpler or easier to understand.

At this point, I trust the readers see the relevance about where god concepts come from.

You said yourself; that my God (the only God that I believe WASN'T invented by man), was taken off the table for the moment. Now, we are just left with god's that WERE invented by man.

And? So now what? What is the relevance?

If I were to ask you, we would agree that gods concepts were invented by men. Except for your version of god concept of course.
If I were to ask a Muslim the same question, god concepts come from men, except for Allah of course.

This, then covers where all the god concepts came from.
Why would we ask for scientific evidence against a concept that was invented by man? Surely not because a Muslim insists that there god concept is the exception to the rule. To be consistent, the same standard applies to your god concept. No scientific evidence is even needed.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 153 by For_The_Kingdom]

No. Don't play with it. READ it. Simple, straight forward explanation, in crayon, showing you why the MOA is a useless circle-jerk. Whenever you're cornered (which is often), I hear Hitchens's voice in my mind, as he responded to Sean Hannity, "I hate to have to say it, but you give me the awful impression of someone who's never read the arguments against his position ever."

Rather than try in vain to argue against your own demise, you cry foul that it wasn't authored originally by TS?

SMH. LOL. SMH.

Why waste my time? I can just as easily copy/paste material of which supports my position of the MOA being a logically sound/valid argument.

Then what?

[For_The_Kingdom]

If I were to ask you, we would agree that gods concepts were invented by men. Except for your version of god concept of course.
If I were to ask a Muslim the same question, god concepts come from men, except for Allah of course.

This, then covers where all the god concepts came from.

This^ is the ultimate, text book example of a non sequitur. I am trying to wrap my mind around how it even REMOTELY follows that "This covers where all god concepts come from", from the premises that "Christians think that all Gods are made up by man, except the Christian God" (and vice versa for Muslims).

I can't wrap my mind around it because it just doesn't follow, whatsoever. I knew it was irrelevant (thus, why I kept asking for the relevance)..but I didn't know it was illogical as well.

Why would we ask for scientific evidence against a concept that was invented by man? Surely not because a Muslim insists that there god concept is the exception to the rule. To be consistent, the same standard applies to your god concept. No scientific evidence is even needed.

SMH. Ok. Whatever you say.

[DeMotts]

[Replying to post 157 by For_The_Kingdom]

I think the point is that if you believe that the Muslim concept for god is completely made up by man, then it stands to reason that your own concept for god could also made up by man and your closeness to the point precludes you from having an objective viewpoint of it. Of course you're going to think that you are right and everyone else is wrong. But surely you can see how someone else in a nearly identical situation is equally sure that THEY are right and YOU are wrong. It is entirely possible that you are wrong, or both of you are wrong.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 157 by For_The_Kingdom]

I think the point is that if you believe that the Muslim concept for god is completely made up by man, then it stands to reason that your own concept for god could also made up by man and your closeness to the point precludes you from having an objective viewpoint of it. Of course you're going to think that you are right and everyone else is wrong. But surely you can see how someone else in a nearly identical situation is equally sure that THEY are right and YOU are wrong. It is entirely possible that you are wrong, or both of you are wrong.

It also is possible that I am right, and all others (religions) are wrong. As long as it is even possible that I am right...the point is rather, irrelevant.

[DeMotts]

[Replying to post 159 by For_The_Kingdom]

So if you dispassionately analyzed all the cultural factors involved in the creation and maintenance of your religion, and saw how similar it was to other religions that you yourself are declaring man-made, you would begin to see our point.

The bottom line is you believe in something that is incredibly similar to other things that you declare utter nonsense. We are simply taking the category that you have created (nonsense religions made up by humans) and including 1 more.

It is absolutely preposterous that the Incan god Viracocha created the heavens and earth, and mankind by breathing into stones, and then destroyed the world with a flood as it displeased him. That is ridiculous.

Clearly the Hebrew war god Yahweh created the heavens and earth, and made mankind out of dirt and then destroyed the world with a flood. Obviously this is correct and the other explanation is completely made up rubbish.

Oh and they both walked on water BUT ONLY ONE REALLY DID IT AND IT WAS JESUS

Ask yourself a simple question: why is one of these true and not the other?