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.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 6 by Kenisaw]

You can't prove something does not exist. That is false logic. You can only prove something does exist. If you cannot prove something does exist, the only rational conclusion to reach is that it does not.

Let's test that against the Laws of logic.

The police claim John Killed Joe.
The police can't prove John Killed Joe.
Therefore, John killed Joe.
FAILED

Group A claim God exists, and miracles take place.
Group B claim they can't prove it.
Therefore, Group A's claims are false - God does not exist, nor do miracles happen.
FAILED

The Law of thought isn't working here.
Therefore, this is not logical, but irrational thinking.

Your total erroneous display of logic here is stunning. I'm starting to wonder why I continue to engage you in conversation when you can't seem to grasp any of the fundamentals of the topics you keep trying to debate with everyone.

Did you really not realize that your "failed" argument above represents your argument, not mine????

Look it at, Student. You claim god exists. You can't prove that god exists. Therefore, you claim god exists anyway.

My argument would be:
The police claim John killed Joe
The police can't prove John Killed Joe.
Therefore, there is no plausible reason to think John killed Joe.

My argument is a logical outcome.

Then you go to your "group A", "group B" scenario. Group A makes a claim, and there is no supporting data or evidence for the claim. So it is rational and logical to conclude that group A's claims are false. That is NOT a failed argument.

If this represents your understanding of how logic and reason work it is little wonder why you continue to have problems grasping the arguments that are being presented to you my myself and others...

I don't claim that gods, or miracles, or any other supernatural claim, do not exist. I state that there is no known empirical evidence or data that show these claims to be true. Without the data, there is no reason to consider them plausible or realistic.

I have asked you, specifically, to provide even one single scrap of empirical evidence for these things. You haven't. You've posted a few quote mines and some youtube videos showing people's unfounded claims, but you still haven't given us any actual data. No cultist ever has, and the reason why is perfectly obvious - there isn't any. If there were it would have been on every news station and billboard in the country.

I don't agree with you Kenisaw.
I showed that there is evidence.
And just because a person does not understand something, that doesn't disprove it.

I'm beginning to understand why you think you've presented "evidence". You obviously don't comprehend what empirical data is or why it matters when proving something. You have no grasp of logic, and no scientific understanding of scientific things. You haven't showed anything, but you think you have. No wonder you keep starting threads with the same arguments over and over again.

Are you sure you viewed the right post, because I don't recall it containing videos.
It does contain this quote however,

some things are not scientifically explainable.

And isn't that the truth. So how are they able to deduce what is indeed a miracle from a supernatural, or even what is supernatural?

Thank you.

No, it's not the truth, and you have no idea why. That much is obvious...

[Kenisaw]

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.

You can't prove something does not exist. That is false logic. You can only prove something does exist. If you cannot prove something does exist, the only rational conclusion to reach is that it does not.

The OP asked for evidence, not proof.

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

This continuous conflation of evidence with proof causes the worst disruptions of this forum.

They are NOT the same thing and lack of evidence for a thing is not proof of the lack of existence of that thing as the black swan fallacy reminds us.

Everyone, please realize that truscott knows very well that "proof" in this context is used as a synonym of "evidence". But he likes to play this useless card from time to time in an attempt to circumvent the meant of the problem, which is that you cannot prove a negative.

He knows that it is the responsibility of the claimant to provide evidence supporting the claim. Had he evidence or empirical data showing the existence of the supernatural, he would have just posted that loudly and proudly. That he didn't tells you all you need to know - there isn't any. Which is exactly what is being explained to Student...

He also trots out the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" line. This still doesn't PROVE any of the supernatural claims cultists make of course. And it doesn't change anything I wrote in my original post, which is that there is no plausible reason to consider supernatural claims given the complete lack of data for them.

But nice try truscott...

[RonE]

[Replying to post 14 by theStudent]

I don't agree with you Kenisaw.
I showed that there is evidence.
And just because a person does not understand something, that doesn't disprove it

So many people have questioned your claims of evidence I'd think you would eventually catch on. Maybe you are in denial as you seem to reference here:

Merely saying something is true does not make it true.
We as humans like to have proof.
Gullible people accept things, because it suits them...

I'd recommend you take a few more days off, again, to redesign your debate strategy.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 19 by Tired of the Nonsense]

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 identity says, A is A. If something exists, it exists.
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.

All of this above is very sound. I congratulate you on that.

Everything you mentioned, however, has been shown to exist because of empirical data and evidence. It has been verified and validated by others. We can prove, in other words, that magnetic fields and other phenomena that we can't see do in fact exist. We didn't accept that magnetic fields exist just because we THOUGHT they existed. We showed via the scientific method that they exist.

Can the supernatural be shown to exist? No. Can you present any empirical data or evidence that shows the supernatural exists? Obviously not. So is there any reason to think that it does? No.

The crux of the difference is in this statement from above: "Because someone cannot take something in existence, and physically show someone, doesn't mean it is non-existent."

If you can't prove it, there is no reason to think it is real. All the stuff we can't see, like gravity, can still be empirically shown to exist. We can't see virtual particles popping in and out of existence, yet we can empirically prove their existence. The ability to see it doesn't mean it isn't provable. The point everyone has been making to you over and over, in previous threads and this one, is that if you cannot show that something exists, there is no reason to think it does.

Got any data or evidence? Nope...

Take "Dark Matter", as it is called...
Dark matter is an unidentified type of matter...

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.

So, in other words, there is data and evidence showing it exists? So it nothing like supernatural god claims then. Perfect. That's exactly what we've been telling you...

So questions, since none but one individual, has stated why he disagrees with the information in the link.

This is a blatant lie. I suspect you don't realize why, but the fact is that everyone has stated why your OP is bogus and irrational. Everyone has responded to you with solid and detailed explanations.

If God exists, is it possible to know?

Absolutely. Because all god beings (not just your particular favorite) have interacted with the universe (like becoming human for instance), that means they have to leave evidence behind (laws of the universe). Which means that there should be gatherable data and information about them. Is there any empirical data for any of the god claims ever made in the entirety of human history? None has been presented. So the rational conclusion to reach is that gods don't exist.

If God exists, with what can we detect him?

Anything we have available. All gods would have to leave physical traces of their interactions of the universe behind.

If God is omnipotent, who can put him under their physical instruments?

If you claim that your particular god being is omnipotent, then that is a logical fallacy with automatically means that it can't possibly exist. It has been explained to you in previous threads my "omni" god claims are logical nonsense and any being that supposedly has such abilities cannot possible exist...

I hope these questions are not as impossible as proving the first four,

Not only are the questions NOT impossible, there MUST be evidence of all god beings and supernatural claims because the universe has conservation laws which are known to be true, and all the gods have supposedly interacted with this universe.

So, since you are the one claiming it exists, when do we get your evidence showing that it does???

which by the way I find interesting, since most of you are so bold in your statements, to say,

• 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?

That about 8 people have explained to you that a negative cannot be proven, and yet you make this absurd statement anyway, further demonstrates that you appear to have no interest in actually learning anything or participating in an exchange of ideas.

Would it be fair to expect that Christians should respond?

As Christians are the ones claiming for the existence of these things, it is required that Christians respond, and that they provide the data and evidence supporting their claims. Which they have totally failed at so far...

And how about your example TON... Should Christians follow your example, "Well if you can answer my questions, then I'll answer yours"?

He was trying to show you, via example, why your OP is nonsense. Maybe he should have told you it was nonsense as the indirect approach did not seem to get your attention...If you had tried to answer his question you would have seen why yours was nonsensical.

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.

Try reading every thread on this website the last six months and maybe you start to get it...

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.

Thank you.

Matter can also turn into energy, and energy into matter

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.

So would I be safe to say that one or both, always existed?
If yes,
Then let me add a fourth question. Can we know, and how would we know which one did if only one existed?

Matter is a form of energy, Student.....sigh.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 32 by Tired of the Nonsense]

First, I never say, "God does not exist." I habitually say, "I do not believe in the existence of God."

So

I do not believe

can be taken as the equivalent of a Christian saying I believe?
Fair enough.

It is not equivalent. Do I need to explain why?

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 22 by KenRU]

Did you read the link in the OP?
If not please read it.

If you did, then you hold the key to understanding the thread.
If you still don't understand, then I'm sorry. I can't think of any way I can help you.

Find a way to help him? That would be new.

I have a great idea! Just blame him for not understanding, then you literally have to do nothing and you can maintain the idea that your understanding is superior.

Same with trying to defend the Bible, just keep telling yourself that if these people just had your level of understanding, they wouldn't have 'dropped out' of belief or they would worship your preferred god concept. If only they had your level...

Maybe not such a good idea after all. True, you can maintain that your beliefs are superior in your own mind, but such actions might come across as those of a pompous ass.

[Divine Insight]

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.

God does not exist.

Define what you mean by God.

The God described in the Bible cannot possibly exist as defined. So the Biblical God is off the table in any case.

God exists only in the mind of the believer.

The Biblical God is defined by the Bible. And the Bible defines God in extremely self-contradictory ways that cannot possibly be true.

"Believers", on the other hand, seem to think that they can invent their own non-Biblical version of God whilst still maintaining that their entirely made-up God has something to do with the Bible.

Miracles do not happen.

Miracles may or may not happen. That wouldn't help the Biblical God in any case. The Biblical God would already be untrustworthy, unrighteous, and according to the Bible he would also need to be an outright liar in order for the Bible to even be remotely true.

So even if Miracles do occur it wouldn't help the Biblical picture of "God".

The Bible is a book of myths.

There are clearly many stories in the Bible that are definitely myths. The story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden is definitely a myth. At best it could have been some sort of sick perverted metaphor.

The Great Flood and the story of Noah and the Ark has been scientifically proven to be a myth. There is no recovery from that. To think that the Bible could recover from this would be no different from thinking that Greek Mythology could recover from the fact that no Gods were found living on Mt. Olympus.

Many stories in the Christian New Testament Gospels are clearly myths as well. The claim that many saints rose from their graves and went into the Holy City to show themselves to the people there. The claim that God spoke from a cloud proclaiming Jesus to be his Son. The claim that Jesus rose from the dead and actually asked his disciples to stick their fingers in his wounds to prove that it was really him.

These stories are clearly myths based on extreme ignorance.

This religion simply isn't defensible, as written in the Bible.

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 22 by KenRU]

Did you read the link in the OP?
If not please read it.

If you did, then you hold the key to understanding the thread.
If you still don't understand, then I'm sorry. I can't think of any way I can help you.

Find a way to help him? That would be new.

I have a great idea! Just blame him for not understanding, then you literally have to do nothing and you can maintain the idea that your understanding is superior.

Same with trying to defend the Bible, just keep telling yourself that if these people just had your level of understanding, they wouldn't have 'dropped out' of belief or they would worship your preferred god concept. If only they had your level...

Maybe not such a good idea after all. True, you can maintain that your beliefs are superior in your own mind, but such actions might come across as those of a pompous ass.

I would have thought I deserved at least some effort. I did ask nicely, after all, lol.

All the best

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 37 by 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.

That rather underplays the importance of science. That science is unable to prove whether God exists or not, is a strike against God.

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.
..........
[youtube][/youtube]
[youtube][/youtube]

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.

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

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

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.

The relationship between Christians globe Earthers and Christian flat Earthers is the same as the one between theistic evolutionists and creationists. Theistic evolutionist does not take the Bible as literally as creationists, and you do not take the Bible as literally as flat Earthers; yet you all treat the Bible as authoritatively as each other and think it backs your wildly different views 100%.

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.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 38 by Wyvern]

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.

We all have to be able to know for ourselves, what is true, or not true.
Some people believe it when the so-called experts tell them that everything came into existence, and arranged itself, by blind chance. "We have the evidence." they say.
Well I, and millions of others don't see the evidence, and we don't believe.

So tell me why are you not worshiping the Greek pantheon when according to your own logic you can not disprove any of the Greek gods don't exist.

I am guessing, for the same reason, you don't worship your dreams.
You believe you dream, don't you?
So why don't you worship your dreams, since they exist?