Is there ANY scientific evidence could show there is no God?

[Danmark]

Is there any scientific evidence that, if discovered, would prove to a Christian that the God of the Bible is man made and does not correspond to reality? In other words, is there anything you can imagine that would demonstrate there is no God?

Many Christian apologists appeal to science to support their belief in the Christian God; however, I suggest those apologists do not actually accept any scientific evidence that might suggest this 'God Story' is a hoax. I would like to test this hypothesis by asking if there is anything science could report that would convince believers in the God of the Bible that the Biblical claims about God are false?

[For_The_Kingdom]

TSGracchus pretty much covered it, but perhaps this will also help:

FTK, if you can't prove invisible purple pixies don't exist, how is Christianity a viable position?

First of all, I don't know what a pixie is. Second, your non sequitur above doesn't reflect the point that I made, which was if you can't prove something, how do you maintain a disbelief position based on that alone?

That was my point.

Atheism is not a positive belief, it is a lack of belief in all presented god concepts. i.e.
1) Zeus: I don't believe it
2) Thor: I don't believe it
3) Christian/Jewish God: I don't believe it
...
etc.

Ok, so what is the difference between an atheist and a agnostic? Both lack a belief in god, right?

Your point only stands when someone makes the assertion that God does NOT exist. This is more than atheism. This is a positive statement that needs to be backed up. I don't recall anyone here making that statement. If someone has, take it up with them, they do not represent atheism.

Oh, ok. Hey BUST NAK...go ahead and tell the people here that God does not exist.

[Divine Insight]

The evidence is there...it is the acceptance part..that is the difficulty.

There is no compelling evidence for the Biblical God. To the contrary, all the evidence points to it being nothing more than Hebrew mythology.

If you can present any evidence for this God please do so.

Until then all you are doing is making claims that you can't back up with evidence.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 130 by For_The_Kingdom]

For_The_Kingdom: "Maybe I worded that wrong. Maybe I should of asked 'So, if you can't prove that God doesn't exist, how is atheist a LOGICAL position'."
(That should be terminated with a questions mark. Logicians and mathematicians have to be strict with definition, syntax and notation.)

Deductive logic is about conclusions derived from premises by formal laws. It is a branch of mathematics.

All men are mortal. (Premise 1: For any x IF x is a man, Then x is mortal.) [Universal Generalization]
Socrates is a man. (Premise 2: There exist an x, Socrates, such that Socrates is a man.) [Existential instantiation]
Therefore: Socrates is mortal. (Conclusion by the logical rule of modus ponens.)

In propositional logic, modus ponens (/ˈmoʊdəs ˈpoʊnɛnz/; MP; also modus ponendo ponens (Latin for "mode that affirms by affirming") or implication elimination) is a rule of inference. It can be summarized as "P implies Q and P are both asserted to be true, so therefore Q must be true." --https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_ponens

If the premises are true, and if the rules of logic are applied correctly, the conclusion is necessarily true. Note that an argument can be formally valid but the conclusion may be untrue, if the premises are contrary to fact; and if the premises contain a contradiction then any conclusion may be reached, no matter how ridiculous. This is a logical argument form called reductio ad absurdum, and is a proof that one or more of the premises is contrary to fact, or at least, inconsistent with other premises.

Inductive logic is about conclusions derived from observation. For instance, by observation we have observed that all men are mortal. We have no contradicting observation, so by inductive logic we reach only a tentative conclusion.
"All swans are white." This was an inductive conclusion until black swans were discovered in Australia.

If we have no direct observations of deity, nor any verifiable or repeatable evidence of such, nor verified premises that lead to a logical conclusion of a deity, there is no deductive or inductive reason to believe in such.

For_The_Kingdom: "Now that that is out of the way...you said 'An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a deity'.
Hmm. That is strange. If you say "I don't believe God exist"...yet, you maintain that you can't "prove" that God doesn't exist...then it seems to me as if agnosticism is the best position. Just sayin."

Theism and atheism (non-theism)are about belief. Gnosticism and agnosticism are about knowledge. Most theists, although not all, claim to know that a deity exists. They would be gnostic theists. Some are willing to admit they only believe it. They would be agnostic theists. Some atheists claim to know that a deity doesn't exist. They would be gnostic atheists. Most atheist just don't believe it. They would be agnostic atheists. And some folks claim to know that the existence or non-existence of can't be proven. I guess you could call them "gnostic agnostics". Perhaps that sounds ridiculous, but it is a perfectly respectable position until either theism or atheism is proven.

For_The_Kingdom: "Yeah, they've softened their approach there over the past 20 years or so. When it was brought to their attention how illogical their position was, they've had to backtrack and take a more "agnostic" approach (as I alluded to above). They are now what is called "soft atheists"."

It's more like that atheists have clarified and corrected the misunderstanding of theists. But let us agree to terms as used today, for this discussion.

For_The_Kingdom: "But then again, if that is the case, then there is really no difference between a soft atheist and a agnostic. Same thing."

As I just explained, they are not the same thing. But let us agree on terminology: A theist is someone who believes in a deity. An atheist (non-theist) is someone who does not. We can discuss gnosis (knowlege) later.

But, shall we call a theist who can't prove deductively or demonstrate inductively, the existence of of a deity a "soft theist"? I would suggest in that case that the "soft" is unnecessary since I have never encountered a theist who was other than soft.

For_The_Kingdom: "The evidence is there...it is the acceptance part..that is the difficulty.'

The evidence is there? Well then, bring it here so we can examine and discuss it.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 133 by TSGracchus]

This post is a difficult one to comprehend. Either clarify the entire post for me, or we simply disagree with atheist/agnostic terminologies...and that being said we can keep it moving.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 131 by For_The_Kingdom]

Ok, so what is the difference between an atheist and a agnostic? Both lack a belief in god, right?

I'll try a simpler description. An atheist does not believe that gods exist, while an agnostic is on the fence and possibly apathetic as well. So one (atheist) definitely believes that gods don't exist, while the other (agnostic) is not convinced one way or the other, and may consider the whole issue irrelevant on the grounds that proof is not available.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 131 by For_The_Kingdom]

Ok, so what is the difference between an atheist and a agnostic? Both lack a belief in god, right?

I'll try a simpler description. An atheist does not believe that gods exist, while an agnostic is on the fence and possibly apathetic as well. So one (atheist) definitely believes that gods don't exist, while the other (agnostic) is not convinced one way or the other, and may consider the whole issue irrelevant on the grounds that proof is not available.

Yeah, but "not convinced one way or the other" still strikes me as "I don't believe it".

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 136 by For_The_Kingdom]

Yeah, but "not convinced one way or the other" still strikes me as "I don't believe it".

I think the atheist has the conviction to say "I don't believe it", while the agnostic has not yet reached that point of conviction and may instead say "I'm skeptical", or "I simply don't care." So the atheist is more sure of his/her position. I bounced this off of an agnostic friend who says he takes that position because he could be convinced either way, but has yet to find any compelling reason to choose one side or the other.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 134 by For_The_Kingdom]

Ok, I'll try again.

Gnostic theist: I know there is a god.
Agnostic theist: I believe there is a god.
Agnostic atheist: I don't believe there is a god.
Gnostic atheist: I know there is no god.

Notice that the statements of the agnostics require no sort of verification to be believed. Note also, that the statement of the agnostic atheist isn't the same as that of the gnostic atheist.

Moreover, note carefully, that the same person could truthfully make any of those statements, depending on the definition of "god".

To communicate effectively we must agree on consistent definitions. For instance if "The Easter Bunny" is a pink marshmallow confection on the shelf of a candy store, then I believe in the Easter Bunny. But if the Easter Bunny is a lagomorph who hops around the world laying hard-boiled eggs, I don't believe.

[William]

[Replying to post 138 by TSGracchus]

I think the definitions become confused when 'I Know' is conflated with 'I Believe' and until that is changed, until the two words are not accepted as able to be interchangable, the confusion will continue.

To further the point - your list;

Gnostic theist: I know there is a god.
Agnostic theist: I believe there is a god.
Agnostic atheist: I don't believe there is a god.
Gnostic atheist: I know there is no god.

Does not conflate 'know' with 'believe' - which is precisely WHY there is 'Gnostic' and 'Agnostic'.

To communicate effectively we must indeed, agree on consistent definitions.

For instance if the definition of "The Easter Bunny" is a pink marshmallow confection on the shelf of a candy store, then I know what the Easter Bunny is and can confirm it is real/exists. If the Easter Bunny is defined as that which hops around the world laying chocolate eggs, I can believe that it is real/exists .

The logic of believing such a thing can be questioned in that context.

[benchwarmer]

TSGracchus pretty much covered it, but perhaps this will also help:

FTK, if you can't prove invisible purple pixies don't exist, how is Christianity a viable position?

First of all, I don't know what a pixie is.

Exactly. You make my point. You have no idea how to disprove an ill defined or undefined entity. Yet you expect everyone to disprove your ill defined entity which you call 'God'.

Do you regularly disprove every possible hypothesis, no matter how outlandish before you land on the one you accept? That must be very time consuming. Most of us simply choose the ones that fit the data the best.

Second, your non sequitur above doesn't reflect the point that I made, which was if you can't prove something, how do you maintain a disbelief position based on that alone?

Sorry, I'm a little lost. Am I supposed to prove something or disprove something? Do you mean prove your god doesn't exist? You can't even prove it does and you have the positive claim.

If I ask you to believe in Gloogerblah and wonder why you won't disprove it's existence does that seem reasonable? Obviously you should be a Gloogerblahist since you can't disprove it's existence. Surely not believing in it is not a sensible position to maintain even though you've seen no evidence of this thing. Right?

Atheism is not a positive belief, it is a lack of belief in all presented god concepts. i.e.
1) Zeus: I don't believe it
2) Thor: I don't believe it
3) Christian/Jewish God: I don't believe it
...
etc.

Ok, so what is the difference between an atheist and a agnostic? Both lack a belief in god, right?

TSGracchus nailed it. Please see those posts. Technically you can be both. I will concede that many people use these terms loosely and differently. I used to be an agnostic theist, now I'm pretty much an agnostic atheist. I'm open to verifiable evidence either way.

Your point only stands when someone makes the assertion that God does NOT exist. This is more than atheism. This is a positive statement that needs to be backed up. I don't recall anyone here making that statement. If someone has, take it up with them, they do not represent atheism.

Oh, ok. Hey BUST NAK...go ahead and tell the people here that God does not exist.

Enjoy your chat with Bust Nak (assuming he actually made that assertion)