Moderator: Moderators
See post 30.RonE wrote:what you give us is just garbage
theStudent wrote: [Replying to post 19 by Tired of the Nonsense]
The law of identity says, A is A. If something exists, it exists.Tired of the Nonsense wrote:It's relatively easy to prove that a physical thing physically exists, simply by provided the "thing" in question. It's a good deal more difficult to prove that a thing does not exist however, since it is not possible to provide a non extant "thing." The best that can be done is to provide reasons why the apparently non extant probably does not exist.
You are asking for physical proof that a thing with all of the qualities of being non extant does not exist. I am simply suggesting that you first provide us with an example of how one goes about providing physical proof that a non extant thing does not exist! Because none of us has any idea of how to do that. The best we can do is provide reasons why a non extant thing probably does not exist.
The law of non-contradiction says, A cannot be, and yet not be. If something exists, it can't not exist.
The law of excluded middle says, A must either be, or not be. Either it exists, or it doesn't.
I understand that if someone does not know of something, then they cannot know if it is, or is not.
If something physical is shown to someone, they have physical eyes to see it, and therefore know that it exists.
A physically blind person may not know, because they have no way of knowing, unless it is something they are already familiar with, and the other senses may aid them in detecting it.
If something non-physical is shown to someone, they cannot use their physical eyes to detect it. They may have to use other senses that may be able to detect it. If all senses fail to detect it, do they write it off as non-existent? Obviously no.
Are they any non-physical things that we cannot use our physical senses to detect? Certainly.
Magnetic fields
Magnetic fields existed long before man got to know they existed - but they did not not exist (sorry if that's confusing. Just think about it), because man had not discovered, and got to know they exist.
Even so. Man cannot detect these with his physical senses, unless he uses instruments.
The point
Because something is not detected with man's physical senses, doesn't mean it is non-existent.
Because someone cannot take something in existence, and physically show someone, doesn't mean it is non-existent.
Everything has it's own makeup, and is detectable only by what it can be detectable with.
Take "Dark Matter", as it is called...
Dark matter is an unidentified type of matter...So questions, since none but one individual, has stated why he disagrees with the information in the link.Although dark matter has not been directly observed, its existence and properties are inferred from its gravitational effects such as the motions of visible matter, gravitational lensing, its influence on the universe's large-scale structure, and its effects in the cosmic microwave background. Dark matter is transparent to electromagnetic radiation and/or is so dense and small that it fails to absorb or emit enough radiation to be detectable with current imaging technology.
If God exists, is it possible to know?
If God exists, with what can we detect him?
If God is omnipotent, who can put him under their physical instruments?
I hope these questions are not as impossible as proving the first four, which by the way I find interesting, since most of you are so bold in your statements, to say,I would have thought all of them would have been easy to prove.
- God does not exist.
- God exists only in the mind of the believer.
- Miracles do not happen.
- The Bible is a book of myths.
Why say something so dogmatically, if you have no proof for those claims?
Would it be fair to expect that Christians should respond?
And how about your example TON... Should Christians follow your example, "Well if you can answer my questions, then I'll answer yours"?
Well I suggest they do, anytime they are drilled for proof of those four claims, on the premise that you admit, they are impossible to prove.
But not even the one about the Bible being a book of myths, and folklore?
Truly, that one has go me stunned.
Thank you.Tired of the Nonsense wrote:Well of course there is this one physical proof. All experimentation and observation have resulted in the recognition of a law of physics known as the law of conservation of energy. It simply states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but only changed in form. Since Einstein established that E=MC^2, which establishes that mass is simply one of the forms that energy takes, it becomes physically apparent that no creator created mass/energy. Because mass/energy cannot be created, according to all observation. That is about as definite as physical evidence of the non existence of something is likely to get. Physical evidence has no effect on, and does not limit the imagination however. Which is perfectly capable of conjuring up matter/energy creators with a single thought.
Matter can also turn into energy, and energy into matterSo would I be safe to say that one or both, always existed?because mass (like energy) can neither be created nor destroyed, the quantity of mass and the quantity of energy remain the same during a transformation of matter (which represents a certain amount of energy) into non-material (i.e., non-matter) energy. This is also true in the reverse transformation of energy into matter.
If yes,
Then let me add a fourth question. Can we know, and how would we know which one did if only one existed?
First, I never say, "God does not exist." I habitually say, "I do not believe in the existence of God."theStudent wrote: God does not exist.
God exists only in the mind of the believer.
Miracles do not happen.
The Bible is a book of myths.
I would have thought all of them would have been easy to prove.
Why say something so dogmatically, if you have no proof for those claims?
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind. SoTired of the Nonsense wrote:First, I never say, "God does not exist." I habitually say, "I do not believe in the existence of God."
can be taken as the equivalent of a Christian saying I believe?I do not believe
You say.Tired of the Nonsense wrote:God exists in the mind of the believer. That God exists in any physical sense cannot be established to be true.
No unambiguous miracle can be established to have ever occurred. (By unambiguous I means well established and universally accepted to be well recorded and scientifically established to have been of supernatural origin).
As I said above - not true.Tired of the Nonsense wrote:The Bible relates stories of events that proclaim supernatural occurrences. But no unambiguous supernatural occurrences can be established to have ever occurred.
Hence my challenge - Prove that the Biblical accounts are not true, and are just stories/folklore.Tired of the Nonsense wrote:Myth- noun
an idea or story that is believed by many people but that is not true
a story that was told in an ancient culture to explain a practice, belief, or natural occurrence
has no place here. Bring the other back alive ordeal with this one here, I think.RonE wrote:Currently in other topics ...
There is no proof outside the bible that Jesus is a demigod (the son of a god and a mortal).theStudent wrote:Hence my challenge - Prove that the Biblical accounts are not true, and are just stories/folklore.
Can we use the same type of evidence as those who do believe? i.e. Christians point to the Bible and quote scripture to prove God exists, and call that evidence. If they can simply point to a book and consider that good evidence, then I guess so can I.theStudent wrote: 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.
To be fair, this research described by this book does not claim God 'exists only in the mind', but goes into what part of the mind is active when contemplating God (prayer, meditation, etc.) So, this book may be evidence for both sides.Andrew and Eugene d’Aquili offer a new explanation, at once profoundly simple and scientifically precise: the religious impulse is rooted in the biology of the human brain.
As the evidence for a miracle is always limited, as miracles are single events, occurring at particular times and places, the evidence for the miracle will always be outweighed by the evidence against — the evidence for the law of which the miracle is supposed to be a transgression.
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.theStudent wrote:That is the biased approach to science, of course, imo.
That rather underplays the importance of science. That science is unable to prove whether God exists or not, is a strike against God.Nevertheless, since science is unable to prove whether God exists or not - we don't need science for that purpose then. Do we?
I don't think you have covered my point. Your topic is about whether it is scientific or not. Even if I grant you that there are more reliable ways of proving God, even if God and miracles are philosophically/theologically proven, it's still not scientific to believe in the existence of God.There would obviously be more reliable ways of proving God, as I showed in the post.
Point covered.
It's not me who insist, but Christian flat Earthers who are insisting on such things. And I bet you know exactly what I am referring to, even if you disagree with the flat Earth interpretation. re: firmament and circle or the Earth. Which to the flat Earthers' credit, a stationary flat Earth surrounded by a sky dome with the sun and moon doing a circuit inside the dome was the common belief in ancient Mesopotamia. I mean, check with any Jewish historian, they will happily tell you the same thing about a flat Earth in a solid sky dome. They don't have a problem affirming that because scriptural inerrancy is not an issue for Judaism in the same way scriptural inerrancy is for Christianity.No where in the Bible does it teach a flat earth.
If you insist, please provide evidence.
By your own logic I could ask you to prove the accounts of the Iliad are not true. The Iliad meets the same criteria you have presented for the Bible being true and in fact it does the Bible one better in that an entire city was discovered solely using the information contained within its pages.Hence my challenge - Prove that the Biblical accounts are not true, and are just stories/folklore.
I have challenged you several times to provide evidence of your god.theStudent wrote: [Replying to post 24 by RonE]
See post 30.RonE wrote:what you give us is just garbage
But don't be disappointed if you find more "garbage".
It's actually from the same source.
