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.

[Divine Insight]

The problem YOU have... is that your programing has been partially erased. AND as we all know.... you'll burn in hell for that.

Actually my programming has been completely erased.

Especially and fears of being cast into hell. In fact, I never truly had that fear at any point in my life. As embarrassing at this may be to confess I've always been a "goody two shoes". And I was often called a "mommy's boy". In part because my father died when I was 9 years old and I really respected my mother and tried to help her out as best I can. And because of this I never really thought of myself as being a candidate to be doomed to hell.

I also respected the idea of God and Jesus as a youngster. I always thought of God and Jesus as being my "friends", not my enemies. In fact, this actually led me to officially accepting Jesus as savior and becoming a "Born Again" Christian.


Ironically it was that act that ultimately caused me to want to teach the word of God, and that required that I actually LEARN and UNDERSTAND the word. After all, how could I teach something if I wasn't totally clear on precisely what it has to say myself?

Like most Christians I simply accepted that all God wants from us is to be good. Period. But upon actually studying the Bible I quickly found that it's filled with tons of immoral garbage and directives that go far beyond merely asking people to be good. In fact, many of the directives actually require that people behave pretty poorly including killing sinners!

Now is it true that Jesus rebuked the stoning of sinners in the New Testament. But isn't that too little far too late? And also problematic when he claims that he did not come to change the law?

So it was pretty easy for me to trash this whole religion with absolutely no fear of being cast into hell for recognizing that it can't possibly be true.

I confess, that I still cling to the unrealistic "dream" that some truly benevolent loving entity or entities underlying our reality. It would be super great if after this life is over we could miraculously wake up in some type of utopia where everything is nice and the are no threats of needless harm and suffering. Who wouldn't like for that fairy tale to be true?

But the thought that I would be cast into hell for not supporting an immoral religion?

No. That programming never took in the first place, so it never really needed to be erased. I never had any good reason to think that I would ever be damned. A truly decent loving God would not have any good reason to damn me. Only an evil God would do such an unrighteous and undeserving thing. So that was never a threat to me.

Why should I feel threatened by a decent loving God who only wants what's good? A God who wants what's good would be on the same page with me.

A good God could never be my enemy.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 81 by Divine Insight]

Actually my programming has been completely erased.

OK

I confess, that I still cling to the unrealistic "dream" that some truly benevolent loving entity or entities underlying our reality.

AHA !!.... a teeny bit of programming "left behind", perhaps?

[Inigo Montoya]

The scientific method revolves around experimentation, repeatability, and verification/analysis of results.

None of said method can be applied to an immaterial, timeless, spaceless, invisible ''god.''


Whatever the point of your thread is, theStudent, it has nothing to do with science.

[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?