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.

[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"?

[Divine Insight]

You asked us to prove your god does not exist. Is that because you know one cannot prove a negative?

Actually this is a widely believed fallacy. Believed and supported even by far too many scientists who should know better.

It is possible to prove a negative, mathematicians do this all the time. I always use the very common and popular example of the proof that there cannot be a rational solution to the square root of two. This proves a negative. It proves that no such solution can exist. And there are countless examples within mathematics of proofs of the non-existence of things.

All that is required to prove that something cannot exist is to simply demonstrate from the definition of the object in question results in a contradiction if it did exist.

This is called "Proof by Contradiction".

This method of proof can easily be applied to the Biblical God because the Biblical God is defined in great detail by the Biblical Narrative and that that description of God necessarily leads to impossible contradictions, thus proving (by contradiction) that the God cannot exist.

There are many ways to prove that the Biblical God cannot exist as defined by the Bible. One obvious contradiction that I often point out is that the God of the Bible is supposed to be omniscient and have a Master Plan, and not be surprised or shocked by things happening that he wasn't anticipating, yet in the story of the Great Flood the Bible has God repenting that he had ever created mankind when he had to drown them out.

That is a proof by contradiction that this God character cannot exist. A truly omniscient God who knows the future and has a Master Plan would never repent because his Master Plan isn't going the way he had expected. Therefore for this God to be consistent he would have had to have been thrilled at the time of the Great Flood because that could only mean that everything was going precisely according to his Master Plan.

But clearly the authors who made these stories up didn't realize this and instead they had God repenting that he had ever created man, thus revealing the fictional character of their make-believe God.

So the Bible proves the non-existence of its own God.

And the example I gave above is only one of many such proofs by contradiction contained within the Bible that prove that the Biblical God, as defined by the Bible cannot exist. It would be a self-contradiction if it did exist.

Therefore, it's not only possible to prove a negative, but its actually quite easy to demonstrate why the Biblical God cannot exist as defined by the Bible.

And as I say, this is only one of many examples of how the Biblical God can be show to be non-existent via proof by contradiction.

The Biblical God has indeed been proven to be non-existent by the Bible itself repeatedly throughout the entire Biblical canon. There can be no doubt that this narrative of a God is clearly false.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 94 by Divine Insight]

I always use the very common and popular example of the proof that there cannot be a rational solution to the square root of two. This proves a negative.

You've said this loads of times, DI. Isn't what's happening here in fact disproving the contrary? What I see happening here is you saying to me "There cannot be a rational solution to the square root of two". So I take the contrary statement "There is a rational solution to the square root of two" (for those not familiar with mathematical terms, a rational solution is a number that doesn't end in an infinite series of decimals. 1 is a rational number, but 1.213349...going on for infinity is an irrational solution) and then disprove that.
I'm not proving a negative statement directly. I'm disproving a positive statement.

[Donray]

[Replying to post 94 by Divine Insight]

Your thing about the square root of 2 does not sense. Please tell me the negative you are trying prove and what you use for the proof. As far as I know, we know what the square root of 2 is.

Why not supply the proof that unicorns do not exist.

Do you see how I phased the above. Please do this for whatever you think the problem is with sq root of 2.

Here are more examples:

Prove that God does not exist.

Prove that Zeus does not exist.

I don't know how you will phase your example. Are you saying the sq root of 2 does not exist? If so you are wrong.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 94 by Divine Insight]

I always use the very common and popular example of the proof that there cannot be a rational solution to the square root of two. This proves a negative.

You've said this loads of times, DI. Isn't what's happening here in fact disproving the contrary? What I see happening here is you saying to me "There cannot be a rational solution to the square root of two". So I take the contrary statement "There is a rational solution to the square root of two" (for those not familiar with mathematical terms, a rational solution is a number that doesn't end in an infinite series of decimals. 1 is a rational number, but 1.213349...going on for infinity is an irrational solution) and then disprove that.
I'm not proving a negative statement directly. I'm disproving a positive statement.

That is correct. However in proving the positive you have simultaneously proven the negative. This is why it's called a Proof by Contradiction.

It's still a "proof" that no rational solution for the square root of two exists.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 94 by Divine Insight]

Your thing about the square root of 2 does not sense. Please tell me the negative you are trying prove and what you use for the proof. As far as I know, we know what the square root of 2 is.

Not only do we know what the square root of to is, but we have "proven" that no rational solution to it can exist. Thus we have proven the negative via a proof by contradiction.

Why not supply the proof that unicorns do not exist.

You cannot prove that unicorns do not exit using logic because there is no logical reason why they can't exist.

In fact, in theory, genetic engineers could produce a unicorn thus proving that they "can" exist but simply never evolved naturally.

Do you see how I phased the above. Please do this for whatever you think the problem is with sq root of 2.

It's not a problem with the square root of 2. It's a problem with the CLAIM that a there can exist a RATIONAL SOLUTION to the square root of 2.

If you make that positive claim, we can prove that your claim is necessarily false because no such RATIONAL SOLUTION can exist. So we have proven a negative via proof by contradiction.

Here are more examples:

Prove that God does not exist.

What do you mean by "God"?

Give me your precise description and if your definition of "God" contains logical contradictions then I can prove that your "God" can't logically exist because it would be a contradiction if it did exist.

Prove that Zeus does not exist.

Ironically I can't prove that Zeus does not exist. Unlike the Biblical God the fables of Zeus don't contain any obvious logical contradictions that I'm personally aware of. Such contradictions may exist, but I haven't personally seen them. So I can't disprove the existence of Zeus.

I don't know how you will phase your example. Are you saying the sq root of 2 does not exist? If so you are wrong.

No, I'm not saying the square root of 2 does not exist. I'm saying that a rational solution to the square root of 2 cannot exist.

You need to pay attention to the details of precisely what is being proven here.

In a similar way I'm not saying that a logically consistent God cannot exist. For all I know Zeus may potentially be a logically consistent God. But if we are talking about proving things using logic then I can say with absolute confidence that the Biblical God cannot logically exist because according to the Biblical description of this specific God he necessarily represents a logical contradiction to the very character and properties that he's supposed to possess (just like in the case of a rational solution to the square root of 2)

In other words, if we are asking whether or not we can logically prove that the God of the Bible does not exist, then the answer is YES, we can prove that the God of the Bible is a logical contradiction concerning the properties and character traits that he is described to have.

Keep in mind that no one ever claimed the Zeus knows what going to happen before it happens or that he has a Master Plan, or that he was disappointed in how something went. So the logical contradiction I previously gave for the Biblical God would not apply to Zeus.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 96 by Donray]

Your thing about the square root of 2 does not sense. Please tell me the negative you are trying prove and what you use for the proof. As far as I know, we know what the square root of 2 is.

Re-read what DI said again. He's saying "No rational solution to the square root of 2 exists". A rational number/solution is a number that doesn't have an infinite number of decimals after it.
1 is a rational number.
2 is a rational number
3.4591832019...going on for infinity is an irrational number.
There are NO two identical rational numbers (as in, whole numbers with no infinite numbers of decimals after them) that when multiplied together equal 2. There are only 3 numbers that are a possibility, 0, 1 or 2 and when we examine them, none of them when added together equal 2.
0 x 0 equals 0
1 x 1 equals 1
2 x 2 equals 4

The only solution to the square root of two is a number with an infinitely long chain of decimals after it.
1.41421356237 is the answer, if we limit it to 11 decimal places.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 74 by Divine Insight]

I would say that this is an absolute mistake. They have every right, and even owe it to themselves to question whether or not they are being scammed by authors who merely claim to be speaking for some God but aren't.

Why should you just accept without question that these men speak for some God?

We have repeatedly pointed you to information to show you why we believe the Bible accounts, but we came to realize it is utterly hopeless. One more time, as if it would matter.

Would you blindly worship a religion that claimed to have a God who behaved in ways that you could clearly see as being ignorant, immoral, and far beneath your very own level of intelligence?

Who is worshiping a religion???
I certainly don't see that, so you must be right. I must be absolutely blind.

Your suggestion that we shouldn't question religions is absolute nonsense.

My suggestion??? Where did I suggest that???
You're right. It is absolute nonsense. Actually beyond.

Do you question the Qur'an as being the "Word of God"? And if so, WHY?

If anyone can show me that the Qur'an is the truth, I will accept it.
As far as I know, the Qur'an points to the prophets of the Bible as speaking from the God of truth.

If you are afraid to question a religion in the fear that you might be "Questioning God's Authority or Wisdom", then you have already fallen prey to its brainwashing tactics.

Thank you for using if, and not since.
And I would suggest that when you are alluding to anything I suggested, please quote my words, because you are misrepresenting my words to an extreme degree.

So what's your solution? That because scientists haven't figured out how this occurs there must be some God who is holding the galaxies together?

You can't be serious?

This is a GOD OF THE GAPS argument if I ever saw one.

They used to believe that God moved the planets in their paths. But now we know it's all done with gravity.

So now we aren't sure what holds galaxies together so you suggest that God is holding them together?

You've seriously got to be kidding.

Moreover, that kind of argument for a God isn't going to support the Bible anyway. The Pantheistic God of Buddhism could be holding the galaxies together just as easily. And let's not forget that this is a "GOD OF THE GAPS" argument anyway. Totally unimpressive.

God came before any scientists, so how could one arrive at a term such as "God of the gaps"?
Is that an attempt on the part of limited men, who think they are so "up there", to feel superior?
In my opinion... Yes.

Where did I ever claim to know everything? That's your STRAW MAN argument. I simply pointed out that an omnipotent God shouldn't need to guide every molecule of DNA to make evolution work, nor should he need to be floating around the universe holding galaxies together.

Just think about it yourself. A God who had to guide evolution would a God who was too inept to design a universe that can evolve on its own without any need for intervention. And a God who has to hold galaxies together would be a seriously inept galactic engineer.

Surely an omnipotent God could create galaxies that will stay together on their own?

Have you forgotten that "With God all things are possible"?

Yet your arguments for why you believe there needs to be a God all depend on God not being able to design anything that can work without him having to constantly fiddle with it.

Did I say you claim to know everything?

Physics explains how it works completely. Nothing more is required.

What part of that do you not understand?

Oh boy, am I glad you asked that.
I understand every part... and a bit more.
The "bit more", is that, it verifies everything the Christians have been saying for how long now? Things that have been vigorously denied even on these forums.

Supernatural beings - possible.
Resurrecting the dead - possible.
Walking around in fire - possible.
Controlling the elements - possible.

Need I say more?
I could fill this whole page.

Oh yeah. The Bible... It said all these things - before science discovered them.
For an entity possessing abundant knowledge of physics, mathematics... etc. - Achieving such tasks is a piece of cake.
That's why the Bible refers to God as the almighty.

Another thing I understand... It verifies what I said.
Not only does the Bible explain creation in a way that harmonizes with science but it also answers questions that science cannot.
This is what one astronomer said.
Allan Sandage

Science cannot answer the deepest questions. As soon as you ask why is there something instead of nothing, you have gone beyond science. I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery, but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.

Oh, and the statement

Physics explains how it works completely.

That's Not true.
We're still waiting for all the "probably"s and "maybe"s, to become "is", with still another question mark. And then there is still that 95% of... emptiness.


Understood.