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 73 by JoeyKnothead]

The belief in something is neither scientific, nor non-scientific. It's the evidence and conclusions based therupon that make it one or the other.

That's correct. Thanks for pointing that out.
Perhaps I should have said evidence for the existence of God is scientific - denial of that evidence is unscientific.
The problem with that was, it couldn't fit the title box.
So I chopped it up, and tried to make it fit, and came up with that title.
Thanks though. Such a title is flawed.

I have already used the expression "is in line with science", so I 'll continue to use this.

Given the paucity of evidence for the many proposed gods, the most rational conclusion is that such gods do not exist. Further, as the god in question is more and more defined, there's a greater paucity of evidence, and a greater rationality for believing they don't exist.

That's interesting, because every scientist that speaks of evidence of something out there that can help them understand why and how the universe came, mentions God.
Higgs boson, a particle in physics sometimes referred to as the God's Particle

[youtube][/youtube]

Is that a form of mockery, or what?
I was of the opinion that it seems to be.
Stephen Hawking also made reference to the "Mind of God",
It looks more to me like a quest to reach the ultimate and say, "Hey folks. Look. This is God. We have found God! It this tiny particle called xPUltima. Ha Ha Ha."

Professor Michio Kaku - theoretical physicist is specializing in String Theory - The Physics/Theory of Everything
He seems to be the chief spokesman for CERN (I'm not sure).
This is an older video, but you can watch a new playlist of his videos here.

[youtube][/youtube]The quest to find the fifth Force.
Found it! - CERN researchers confirm existence of the Force

Can I get your opinion though?
Do you think my opinion holds any water?
If it does, then it sounds to me like not just God, but "gods" do exixt.

I just found it amusing though, when I got to the 35th minute.
"The only way..."

Well, I'm just going to sit in my living room and...

Water-rich gem points to vast 'oceans' beneath Earth's surface, study suggests
Magma in mantle has deep impact: Rocks melt at greater depth than once thought

Affirm. God is a concept.

Affirmed. Many people do hold your option.
They havn't proven that.
So to say it is a concept period, is not accurate. It is a possibility, and if that possibility is a reality, then it is more than a concept.

As no supernatural, "god given" miracles have ever been shown to have happened, it's far more rational to conclude they don't.

Really?

They are even looking into making superhumans (imortals), real magicians
And they believe these civilizations may already exist -
After watching these, tell me - is it irrational?
Unless you think this guy is a nutcase?

This guy actually says that biological evolution (excluding micro-evolution) has ceased.
He seems to know a lot of things.

Just as Mother Goose is a book of nursery rhymes.

When we hear tales of the fantastical - zombies strolling about town, animals conversing with humans, gods who can't be shown to exist - the most rational conclusion is we are hearing of myths, or some such similar term.


While it may be enchanting for the theist to ask for scientific evidence that counters the claims of the theist, we have every right to reject claims that have no basis in reality. Regarding the request we "prove God don't exist" (among others in the OP), the bottom line is that science deals in reality, not the make believe world of The Walking Dead or Mr Ed.

This is just a repeat.
And again, no proof is given, to even consider.
I hope you watch, and enjoy the videos above.
If that isn't science, then I give up.

However, I appreciate your input.
The thing with science as we see, is, it's an ongoing process.
Sometimes you have to wait a long time for verification, and even then it may not be the correct conclusion. We just have to wait, and see if they get there.
Scientists prepare to rewrite the physics textbooks

The Bible is only an arms length away, and we don't have to wait years to get solid reliable facts, that do not change, over time. Christians know full well, why that is the case.
They have the evidence.

I hope I can get some feedback on what I asked... maybe tomorrow. :sleep:

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 84 by theStudent]

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.

But in truth, there is absolutely no connection between these two extremely disconnected ideas of a "God" at all.

The God of the Bible is an extremely egotistical, jealous, and even patriarchal God who obviously becomes extremely angry and wrathful over ever little thing, including getting all bent out of shape over how humans might have sex.

Clearly there is absolutely no connection at all, between your extremely abstract speculations about a "God" like physicists are talking about and the God of Hebrew mythology.

So all these references that you make to science don't even support the Biblical God anyway. In fact, those two different concepts of a "God" aren't even remotely compatible.

You seem to think that the term "God" must necessarily refer only to the God of the Hebrew Bible. But trust me, when physicists use the term God they don't mean the God of the Hebrew Bible. They are thinking about a totally different abstract notion of a "God" concept.

The God of the Bible isn't compatible with much of anything other than becoming wrathful over how humans might have sex to the point of threatening to cast them into a state of eternal damnation if he they don't perform sex precisely as he demands.

This is an extremely petty and superficial concept of a "God". Undeserving of the term actually. The Hebrews most likely only accepted this idea of a "God" because the Greeks had already allowed that Gods can behave precisely as humans, being just as immature, egotistical, wrathful and vengeful, etc.

After all, a God who would condemn people over how they have sex is a pretty immature and vengeful God. Yet, according to the Bible this is an extremely important thing for this God that he obviously becomes quite angry about.

How does that equate to a "Mind of God" that is a bunch of vibrating strings that Michio Kaku is attempting to describe?

[Bust Nak]

Call it biased if you want, but you cannot deny that science has worked with that same bias ever since its inception when it was still called "natural philosophy," ever since the term "science" was coined; and wow, has it worked.

Notice.
I did not say science is biased.
I said

That is the biased approach to science, of course, imo.

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 am merely going by what you relayed to me.
I told you believing in the existence of God, is in line with science. You said not.
Discoveries in science proves an existence of the supernatural.
[video cropped]

No, it doesn't. It can't. These are just two different way of framing the fine tuning argument. Neither prove the existence of the supernatural.

1. There are many forms of science. Are you referring to all, or one particular branch?

All of it.

2. The Bible says that there are people who have seen sufficient evidence that a supernatural creator exists, but they have denied that evidence. Is that a possibility?

Depends on what the Bible means by "evidence." We have seen sufficient empirical evidence that a supernatural creator exists, but have denied that empirical evidence? No, that is not a possibility.

Winston Churchill

Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.

Good quote.

IMO, if anyone wants to understand the Bible, they will.
If I take your words, and interpret them, any which way I want, it does not mean that your words are untrue, invalid, or mean what I say.
Anyone can take up a Bible, and say anything.

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?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 84 by theStudent]

SCIENCE? WHAT SCIENCE !!??

The belief in something is neither scientific, nor non-scientific. It's the evidence and conclusions based therupon that make it one or the other.

That's correct. Thanks for pointing that out.
Perhaps I should have said evidence for the existence of God is scientific - denial of that evidence is unscientific.
The problem with that was, it couldn't fit the title box.
So I chopped it up, and tried to make it fit, and came up with that title.
Thanks though. Such a title is flawed.

I have already used the expression "is in line with science", so I 'll continue to use this.

Ok, great.

Now that we have cleared that up, I have two questions:

1. WHAT scientific evidence proves a god of any kind exists?
2. Isn't denial of science what creationists do?

Given the paucity of evidence for the many proposed gods, the most rational conclusion is that such gods do not exist. Further, as the god in question is more and more defined, there's a greater paucity of evidence, and a greater rationality for believing they don't exist.

That's interesting, because every scientist that speaks of evidence of something out there that can help them understand why and how the universe came, mentions God.
Higgs boson, a particle in physics sometimes referred to as the God's Particle

"The God Particle" is just a nickname. It has NOTHING to do with a theological "God" concept. And even if a scientist MENTIONS God.. it DOES NOT MEAN he has any evidence for a god , or PROOF for a god. If even ONE scientist did, he would immediately become the most famous person in the world.

Some scientists are Christians and talk about their god.

Some Christians try really hard to convince themselves that science proves their god.
But of course, it just doesn't.

[Clownboat]

Where really, did the knowledge of God/gods come from?

It's obvious IMO.
Rulers created god concepts to answer the unknowns (why am I hear and what happens when I die etc...) and to control the followers (our god wants us to go to war).

In a nutshell:
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.

[RonE]

In reviewing the postings on this topic I think it is perfectly obvious what needs to happen with this debate topic.

When I was reading your last reply to my earlier posts it was obvious that you were still trying to twist science into your own meanings & means as witnessed by your new manifesto linked to in the OP.

So, I think we must return to basics.

In this and other postings you have, and continue, to make claims of your god. Your god is supposed to have supernatural powers. He/she/it is supposed to be the creator of the universe. Supposed to be the intelligence behind "intelligent design". Since YOU make these claims I am challenging you to provide evidence, scientifically credible evidence, of your god. The rules of this forum state that you must provide evidence of your claims.

[Donray]

theStudent: Do you anything about your God? Since you seem to like science then you can explain the following.

What is the material aspect of your God? That is, is he organic or mineral? What type of organic material? Is he just an energy ball? If so explain how this energy is contained.

Explain how your Gods brain works.

Explain where he resides. Please be sort of exact. Like does he live outside of this universe? If so, how does he travel the billions of light-years back and forth? Id Jesus still in the process of getting to heaven? After all, Jesus has a physical body and cannot travel faster then light.

Explain why your God like kill things off and torture babies by drowning them.

You also have failed to prove other gods don not exist. Why is that? You asked us to prove your god does not exist. Is that because you know one cannot prove a negative?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 81:

As much as I love me some rancor, it's nice to have a conversation without it here and there

Perhaps I should have said evidence for the existence of God is scientific - denial of that evidence is unscientific.

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.

The problem with that was, it couldn't fit the title box.
So I chopped it up, and tried to make it fit, and came up with that title.
Thanks though. Such a title is flawed.

I always 'preciate those who are quick to clarify.

I have already used the expression "is in line with science", so I 'll continue to use this.

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.

That's interesting, because every scientist that speaks of evidence of something out there that can help them understand why and how the universe came, mentions God.
...
...

I'll leave that to such folks to defend or sort out. My experience is they use reference to gods as a useful tool, and not as a statement of fact.

The quest to find the fifth Force.
Found it! - CERN researchers confirm existence of the Force

Can I get your opinion though?

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.

Water-rich gem points to vast 'oceans' beneath Earth's surface, study suggests
Magma in mantle has deep impact: Rocks melt at greater depth than once thought

Things act according to their properties. Nothing special there.

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

God is a concept.

Affirmed. Many people do hold your option.
They havn't proven 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.

So to say it is a concept period, is not accurate. It is a possibility, and if that possibility is a reality, then it is more than a concept.

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

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

As no supernatural, "god given" miracles have ever been shown to have happened, it's far more rational to conclude they don't.

Really?

They are even looking into making superhumans (imortals), real magicians

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.

And they believe these civilizations may already exist -
After watching these, tell me - is it irrational?
Unless you think this guy is a nutcase?

I fess to not watching. That said, I see little problem with thinking civilizations exist - having been witness to one in my own lifetime.

...
...
And again, no proof is given, to even consider.

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?

The thing with science as we see, is, it's an ongoing process.
Sometimes you have to wait a long time for verification, and even then it may not be the correct conclusion. We just have to wait, and see if they get there.

Just as we've waited some two-thousand years for the theist to produce his god.

...
The Bible is only an arms length away, and we don't have to wait years to get solid reliable facts, that do not change, over time.

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?

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

Christians know full well, why that is the case.
They have the evidence.

Only don't it beat all, every time they present that "evidence" in a scientific environment, it fails to live up to the hype.

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

I hope I can get some feedback on what I asked... maybe tomorrow.

I respect that here in the Science & Religion subsection, we'd do well to offer something more'n just "reasonable and rational conclusions", and that hard, physical, holdable, lookatable data'd be prefered.

It's just kinda hard to hold or look at something that ain't there, in order to tell how much of it, it ain't.

Hope ya slept well.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 77 by theStudent]

You keep saying God is immoral. yet you admit that you are not omniscient.
If you are not all-wise, on what basis can you say God is immoral.

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?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 65 by Divine Insight]

It makes no sense to say that the God of the Bible hates immorality when he himself is grossly immoral.

You keep saying God is immoral. yet you admit that you are not omniscient.
If you are not all-wise, on what basis can you say God is immoral.

Has he broken one of his laws?
Can you at least provide me with one example?

Here are 3:



Stealing

Exodus 20:15
“You shall not steal.

Exodus 23:30
Little by little I will drive them out before you, until you have increased enough to take possession of the land.

There are more examples, but let's start with those.

Better yet, since it's Jesus...
Matthew 21

As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage on the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, 2 saying to them, “Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me. 3 If anyone says anything to you, say that the Lord needs them, and he will send them right away.�

If Jesus had just magicked up the animals, why have them at a village ahead of himself? Why not just conjure the animals right in front of him?
It's not a case of divine wisdom to say that 1st century Jerusalem, there would be animals tied up at nearby villages. That would be a given for that period. It's as awe-inspiring as saying that there are horses at that stable over there.
So here we have Jesus telling his disciples to go to a nearby village, find a donkey and her colt, untie them and bring them to him. Well, if they're tied up, that would indicate that they're someone's property, wouldn't it?
Imagine that playing out today. Jesus sends out his disciples saying "Go to the nearby town. In the parking lot, you'll find a bunch of cars. Find the lamborghini. Break into it and bring it to me. If anyone says anything, say that the Lord needs it"
Wow...in that modern context, the Lord our God has just clearly commanded Grand Theft Auto. And here I thought this was supposed to be where we get our morality from? Is it really as simple as "obey commands from this here Jesus guy"?