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.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to benchwarmer]

No analogy is perfect but let me define it better- let's say you see nothing unusual on the vid. i.e the central point is, that you have zero evidence whatsoever of any intelligent agency involved in the 4 royal flushes

The random card shuffler has no creative intelligence, it represents materialism.

Which do you suspect behind the order of cards played- random chance or ID? ID of course but why?

Because in reality, you would need to prove the negative, be so utterly positive the card player did not cheat, in order to accept chance, that the level of proof is impossible. You may not have enough to convict him, but you would not let him gamble any more!

Can you be this sure no God exists? defined as an intelligent agency behind the shuffling of our extraordinary universal deck of cards?


Sorry about Bob! if it's any consolation:

http://wavy.com/2016/02/26/escaped-unic ... alifornia/

This unicorn was called Juliet, but 'Bob' could easily be chosen for her (hey it's california!) , the odds of it trespassing on my property? also far from impossible.

Compare this to the odds of just putting the universal constants in a lotto machine, and spitting them all back out in the right order, I have more faith in Bob!

[Clownboat]

[Replying to benchwarmer]

Thank you

That's why I gave the example,

I would't assume bob was real no

But are you saying that if you worked at the fraud dept in a casino, and you watched a gambler sit down and play a royal flush at every table 4 times in a row.

You would assume he was lucky? of course not. Unless you can prove the negative, that he absolutely did NOT cheat, then you know he probably did.

Similarly if the police find someone with an axe in the back of their heads, until they can prove no assailant, they must assume there was one.

i.e. the implication of not being able to prove a negative.. depends entirely on the scenario does it not?

Please supply us with a god concept that can be viewed like this gambler you describe.

I would hate to think you are comparing something observable to something that is not observable and thinking that the two are equal.

Welcome to the forum.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 302 by Clownboat]


The 4 royal flushes are directly observable

The universe is directly observable

Any act of intelligent agency behind each is not.

Thanks for having me!

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 299 by Guy Threepwood]

Thanks for clarifying.

I realize that it is often said that God is not observed, but could you verify if my reasoning makes any sense.

Is the wind observed?
No. The effect of the wind is observed.

Is Dark Matter, and Dark Energy observed?
No. The effect of them are observed.

My question is, why is it expected that God be observed?

Was the so-called Big Bang observed?
Was the so-called Last Universal Common Ancestor observed?
Is the so-called macroevolution observed?

No. Yet they are accepted as having happened.

Are we putting the same weights to these scales, or are loaded weights being used on the evolution scale?

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 302 by Clownboat]


The 4 royal flushes are directly observable

The universe is directly observable

Any act of intelligent agency behind each is not

Why did you fail to supply a god concept that is observable like the gambler in your scenario?

Gamblers are real. I have observed them and even been one at times.
Please show that the gods are real. I would hate to waste time comparing something real to something that is make believe.

(Either way, to check for consistency)
Can you prove Vishnu doesn't exist? No? So Vishnu is real?
Can you prove Zeus doesn't exist? No? So Zeus is real?
Can you prove Allah doesn't exist?...

It's seems that if we were to use your logic, we would need to believe in all sorts of un-evidenced things. Including competing gods.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 299 by Guy Threepwood]

Thanks for clarifying.

I realize that it is often said that God is not observed, but could you verify if my reasoning makes any sense.

Is the wind observed?
No. The effect of the wind is observed.

Is Dark Matter, and Dark Energy observed?
No. The effect of them are observed.

My question is, why is it expected that God be observed?

Readers, his question is nonsensical.
His question, in order to stay consistent should be, 'why is it expected that a gods effect on our world should be observed.' You know like what we get with Dark Matter.

Are we putting the same weights to these scales, or are loaded weights being used on the evolution scale?

It doesn't seem like he is.
He goes from observing the effects of dark matter to wondering why we don't observe the gods directly. In reality, if the gods effected our world, we would be able to detect it even if we cannot detect the gods directly.

Could there be gods that don't interact with our world? That seems possible, though the idea is not needed to explain anything.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 305 by Clownboat]

It's about deducing the probability of chance v ID, not the person - but no problem, let's remove that distraction!

You are flying over a deserted island, no sign of any person having ever been there.

In fact it's radioactive, heavily guarded, anyone trying to land is shot on sight

But you see 'HELP' spelled out in rocks on the beach.

Did the waves wash them up that way by chance? or do you suspect that somehow, someway it is the act of creative intelligence?

why?

Same thing right? we must prove an impossible negative, that it couldn't possibly have been the work of creative intelligence, before we would dream of being forced to accept the improbability of random chance achieving this.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 305 by Clownboat]

It's about deducing the probability of chance v ID, not the person - but no problem, let's remove that distraction!

I'm sorry, what is about deducing the probability of chance vs ID?
Your scenario where you compare something observed with something that is not observed? Sorry for my confusion.

You are flying over a deserted island, no sign of any person having ever been there.

In fact it's radioactive, heavily guarded, anyone trying to land is shot on sight

But you see 'HELP' spelled out in rocks on the beach.

Did the waves wash them up that way by chance? or do you suspect that somehow, someway it is the act of creative intelligence?

I would assume that a person spelled out 'help'. Heck there even seems to be guards there and I would think they have the ability to spell.

why?

Because I observe people spelling out words all the time. It is consistent with reality.

Same thing right? we must prove an impossible negative, that it couldn't possibly have been the work of creative intelligence, before we would dream of being forced to accept the improbability of random chance achieving this.

What is this random chance mechanism that you keep referring to? Please define 'random chance' in this instance because I want to see if you are really talking about something that is random or not, much less 'chance'.

Either way, you seem to be inconsistent with your logic because you continue to refuse to answer the question that shows this to be an illogical approach.
(Either way, to check for consistency)
Can you prove Vishnu doesn't exist? No? So Vishnu is real?
Can you prove Zeus doesn't exist? No? So Zeus is real?
Can you prove Allah doesn't exist?...

If we apply your logic to the gods, we must believe that all of them are real. Please address this.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to Clownboat]

The card shuffler that deals the hands in the Casino

The action of waves and rocks on the beach

both can randomly produce those same results right?


Yet you deduce ID instead , even where it is actively guarded against, even where arrest and death are threatened.

Why?


"If we apply your logic to the gods, we must believe that all of them are real. Please address this."

this was covered earlier with Bob the unicorn. But its about the power of explanation provided by ID, whether or not it is visible. Bob doesn't provide any particular explanation for anything

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 305 by Clownboat]

It's about deducing the probability of chance v ID, not the person - but no problem, let's remove that distraction!

You are flying over a deserted island, no sign of any person having ever been there.

In fact it's radioactive, heavily guarded, anyone trying to land is shot on sight

But you see 'HELP' spelled out in rocks on the beach.

Did the waves wash them up that way by chance? or do you suspect that somehow, someway it is the act of creative intelligence?

why?

Same thing right? we must prove an impossible negative, that it couldn't possibly have been the work of creative intelligence, before we would dream of being forced to accept the improbability of random chance achieving this.

Sorry, I'm a few posts behind, but Clownboat has been asking exactly what I would ask.

Let's break your above down and see if we can understand each other.

You are flying over a deserted island, no sign of any person having ever been there.

Ok, I'm flying over an island and you say there's no sign of any person. Got it, barren island, nothing man made or disturbed by human activity is visible.

In fact it's radioactive, heavily guarded, anyone trying to land is shot on sight

Hold on. First, how do I know it's radioactive? Do I have a geiger counter on the airplane that's going off? Let's say I do. Ok, radioactive island. How did it get that way? Isn't that a sign of human activity? Maybe not, let's continue.

Heavily guarded? I thought there was no sign of any person being there. Where are the guards? You just changed a deserted island with no sign of human activity to one with guards and radioactivity.

But you see 'HELP' spelled out in rocks on the beach.

Um, 'HELP' is a definite sign of people so I would not think the island is deserted anymore. That and the guards. And maybe the radioactivity. Sounds like a lovely place to vacation.

Did the waves wash them up that way by chance? or do you suspect that somehow, someway it is the act of creative intelligence?

I would expect that either there is someone in need of help on the island (it is radioactive and surrounded by trigger happy guards apparently) or one of the guards did it to lure me in and shoot me down.

Why do I think this? Because only people know how to spell help with rocks.

How does this relate to a non observable god? Did this god do something we've witnessed a god doing before? I've seen people spell stuff with all kinds of things, so I know a person likely did it. The waves doing it is possible, but highly unlikely.

I'm lost how your analogy relates to a god.