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?

[Clownboat]

See the thread topic: Is there ANY scientific evidence could show there is no God?

Since it is generally impossible to prove that something that doesn't exist, doesn't exist, I instead offered you a the line of reasoning that you assuredly must have in place for why all other religions are false.

So, if you can't prove that God doesn't exist, how is atheism viable position?

Since the gods cannot be shown to be necessary, the position can be argued to be viable.

More importantly, do you now understand why I offered the line of reasoning that I did? Keeping your god concept off the table for the moment, have you acknowledged that men have invented all the available god concepts? If not, what religion/religions have a real god concept that supplied the belief system.

I was like you for 20 years. I believed all the other gods were invented by men and therefore false. Besides the one I was raised with of course. After all, my Mommy did say it was the one true and non invented god concepts out there.

Basically, you have been informed about how religions form. Not that you didn't know this already.

Again, showing how a belief was "formed" says nothing about the truth value of the belief itself. To continue to argue this way is to continue to argue fallaciously. There is a fallacy named just for this occasion; the GENETIC FALLACY.

You really need to realize that I'm not making a truth value. I'm just pointing out the fact that we both agree that all the god concepts on the planet are false and invented by men (yours still being off the table for the moment).

Your reasoning is fallacious, is what I am trying to say

It would be best if you understood my reasoning before making claims about it being fallacious.

I'm leaving your preferred god concept off the table, and yet you still think I'm making a truth value claim about your god concept. I assume this is an emotional reaction stemming from the realization that we both agree all god concepts are false.

You are likely subconsciously realizing that this logically applies to your preferred god concept as well even though we are not applying this to your god concept currently.

[For_The_Kingdom]

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

What evidence to the contrary?

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.

DI, you sure do a lot talking, sir. Have you ever actually engaged with the arguments? Have you?

[For_The_Kingdom]

[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.

[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.

Hey, its all good either way. According to Christian theology; on judgement day, there won't be a distinction between the atheist and the agnostic. They are both the same in God's eyes...

Neither one has accepted Christ as Lord and Savior..so while we can make these subtle distinctions here on earth (as if it actually makes a difference), it means absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Since the gods cannot be shown to be necessary, the position can be argued to be viable.

I wholeheartedly disagree based on the truth value of the Modal Ontological Argument.

More importantly, do you now understand why I offered the line of reasoning that I did? Keeping your god concept off the table for the moment, have you acknowledged that men have invented all the available god concepts? If not, what religion/religions have a real god concept that supplied the belief system.

No, I don't understand why you offered the line of reasoning. I fail to see any relevance to that reasoning, whatsoever.

You really need to realize that I'm not making a truth value. I'm just pointing out the fact that we both agree that all the god concepts on the planet are false and invented by men (yours still being off the table for the moment).

Ok, we've acknowledged that. Now, what's your point? What is the relevance?

I'm leaving your preferred god concept off the table, and yet you still think I'm making a truth value claim about your god concept. I assume this is an emotional reaction stemming from the realization that we both agree all god concepts are false.

Still don't see relevance.

You are likely subconsciously realizing that this logically applies to your preferred god concept as well even though we are not applying this to your god concept currently.

Oh, is that what you got out of it?

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 144 by For_The_Kingdom]

SMH. There is no truth value in the MOA. You plug the conclusion into the starting formula and, presto! it gets spit back out at the end. Neat trick.

Besides. You've already admitted arguments don't poof things into existence. Are you not troubled that your god's existence rests on argumentation as opposed to evidence?

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 144 by For_The_Kingdom]

SMH. There is no truth value in the MOA. You plug the conclusion into the starting formula and, presto! it gets spit back out at the end. Neat trick.

LOL. Maybe someday the MOA can be revisited.

Besides. You've already admitted arguments don't poof things into existence. Are you not troubled that your god's existence rests on argumentation as opposed to evidence?

There is evidence within the argument.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 146 by For_The_Kingdom]

No there isn't. It's an argument. Arguments are not evidence, nor are their constituent parts evidence. It's an argument, and a bad one.

[Clownboat]

Since the gods cannot be shown to be necessary, the position can be argued to be viable.

I wholeheartedly disagree based on the truth value of the Modal Ontological Argument.

More importantly, do you now understand why I offered the line of reasoning that I did? Keeping your god concept off the table for the moment, have you acknowledged that men have invented all the available god concepts? If not, what religion/religions have a real god concept that supplied the belief system.

No, I don't understand why you offered the line of reasoning. I fail to see any relevance to that reasoning, whatsoever.

You really need to realize that I'm not making a truth value. I'm just pointing out the fact that we both agree that all the god concepts on the planet are false and invented by men (yours still being off the table for the moment).

Ok, we've acknowledged that. Now, what's your point? What is the relevance?

I'm leaving your preferred god concept off the table, and yet you still think I'm making a truth value claim about your god concept. I assume this is an emotional reaction stemming from the realization that we both agree all god concepts are false.

Still don't see relevance.

You are likely subconsciously realizing that this logically applies to your preferred god concept as well even though we are not applying this to your god concept currently.

Oh, is that what you got out of it?

I don't believe that I'm going to be able to get the relevance of all of this to be understood by you. I don't know how I could make it any simpler or easier to understand.

At this point, I trust the readers see the relevance about where god concepts come from.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 146 by For_The_Kingdom]

No there isn't. It's an argument. Arguments are not evidence, nor are their constituent parts evidence. It's an argument, and a bad one.

Evidence can be used to support premises of arguments.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 149 by For_The_Kingdom]

I urge you to revisit that thread and watch how well the not-evidence fared when the shell game was exposed for what it is. The MOA is garbage that doesn't demonstrate anything but bizarre inputs as a presupposition, let alone do ANY work to demonstrate a god exists.