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.

[Talishi]

To paraphrase:

1) God says don't kill.

2) God gets angry and kills.

Frost:...Would you say that there are certain situations - and the Huston Plan was one of them - where the president can decide that it's in the best interests of the nation, and do something illegal?

Nixon: Well, when the president does it, that means it is not illegal.

Frost: By definition.

Nixon: Exactly, exactly.

[Clownboat]

Word, .. He created the universe from His Word, .. that's what I see and understand from the Bible.

Readers, does it make any sense to claim that a god concept can create universes with words, but when it comes to killing off an entire planet (save 8) for example, he uses a flood for which there is no evidence for?

Universes with words, but gotta get rid of the sin from Adam and Eve, gotta have me some blood shed.

Define water?

H2O, .. words, see!?

Define biological life: A, C, G, T, .. DNA, see!?

No evidence of a flood? Lol, .. maybe all them quantum specks Big-Banging everywhere, and the crackling of bones evolving in the graves distracted your scientific observation of a world-wide flood Clownboat!?

I don't even know why you post sometimes.
You didn't even attempt to refute my point, which is again:
"Universes with words, but gotta get rid of the sin from Adam and Eve, gotta have me some blood shed."

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.
(quantum specks Big-Banging - bones evolving in the graves)
Why such a lack of effort? At this time, I must assume that you cannot refute my point.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 1 by theStudent]


Well you can't prove a negative as they say....

And that is why God most probably exists

If a gambler plays 4 royal flushes in a row, unless you can utterly prove the negative, that he didn't cheat, you know that he most probably did.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 1 by theStudent]


Well you can't prove a negative as they say....

And that is why God most probably exists

First, welcome to the forum

Your logic makes no sense or at the very least you haven't explained if fully. If I said "A pink unicorn named Bob ran through my yard last Thursday" and you can't prove it didn't happen does that mean it most probably did?

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 293 by Guy Threepwood]

I think I understand what you are saying, but I don't want to jump to conclusions, so let me know if I understand correctly.
The fact that something can't be proven false, suggests there is a high probability that it is true. In fact it remains a probability until proven false.

In fact science uses a similar reasoning, the only difference is that they call it fact.
For example, they say, as long as the hypothesis is tested, and the results cannot be disproved, then it is a fact. As an example - gravity.

So if I applied your reasoning scientifically, I would say you are right.
The evidence thus far demonstrates the existence of the supernatural, so since it cannot be disproved, it more than likely is a fact.

I hope i have understood you in the right way.
If not I stand corrected.

Thanks for your input.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to benchwarmer]

Thank you

That's why I gave the example,

I would't assume bob was real no

But are you saying that if you worked at the fraud dept in a casino, and you watched a gambler sit down and play a royal flush at every table 4 times in a row.

You would assume he was lucky? of course not. Unless you can prove the negative, that he absolutely did NOT cheat, then you know he probably did.

Similarly if the police find someone with an axe in the back of their heads, until they can prove no assailant, they must assume there was one.

i.e. the implication of not being able to prove a negative.. depends entirely on the scenario does it not?

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 295 by theStudent]

As above, I'm saying it depends entirely on the scenario,

A unicorn or a missing suspect at a crime scene...

In both cases, we cannot prove the entity does not exist right?

but that does not lead to the same conclusion in both cases.


For God, I would argue the scenario looks more like the crime scene.. hmm maybe that's not the best analogy! but you take my point?

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 297 by Guy Threepwood]

Not sure I'm following.
Would you mind elaborating somewhat?
And I wouldn't mind if you explained where I went wrong in understanding your thoughts. Thanks.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to theStudent]

Simply that yes, I agree, if we can't disprove God, then we can assume he probably does exist.


But that this is not true in all scenarios, like Benchwarmers unicorn analogy.


Though having said that, I think it's somewhat less improbable, that a pink unicorn called Bob just ran through my yard... than an entire universe like ours blundering into existence for no particular reason!

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to benchwarmer]

Thank you

That's why I gave the example,

I would't assume bob was real no

But are you saying that if you worked at the fraud dept in a casino, and you watched a gambler sit down and play a royal flush at every table 4 times in a row.

You would assume he was lucky? of course not. Unless you can prove the negative, that he absolutely did NOT cheat, then you know he probably did.

Similarly if the police find someone with an axe in the back of their heads, until they can prove no assailant, they must assume there was one.

i.e. the implication of not being able to prove a negative.. depends entirely on the scenario does it not?

Bob is hurt you don't believe in him. He just ran by with tears in his eyes. Sorry, couldn't resist.

Ok, back to your analogy. You are comparing two different concepts. God is unobserved, the card player is observed. If I was part of casino security there would be video and the opportunity for me to walk down and watch the player in action. This is nothing like God or the pink unicorn for which there are only stories. That was my point with the unicorn. You can't verify it for yourself, so you likely won't believe it. Same with a god concept.

Assuming something probably exists because there is no negative proof is a dangerous way to go I would think.

Can you prove Vishnu doesn't exist? I guess probably he does then.
Can you prove Zeus doesn't exist? I guess probably he does then.
Can you prove Bob the unicorn doesn't exist? I guess probably he does then.

See how this is going?

At best we can say God as depicted in the Christian Bible MAY exist since we can't prove or even show good evidence He does or does not. If anything, using the internal words of the Bible alone, many can make solid claims He doesn't exist due to contradictions. That gets into infallibility, interpretation, and all manner of issues though. So one can hardly make a claim that God probably exists because we can't prove He doesn't. It makes no logical sense. In this sub forum of Science and Religion we like to see evidence or at the very least logical consistency.