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.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 91 by JoeyKnothead]

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.

I think one thing we need to do is remember what we are.
I think most humans tend to forget that they are just that - humans.
As soon as they get a bit of knowledge, they think they are above the stars, and moon.

I think thats the biggest problem in the world - lack of humility - pride.
I mean, what do we know?

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.

We can detect a great many things that are not just concepts.
When the first airplane was built, many people thought it was just a concept. It was real.
Before magnetism was discovered, it was probably considered a concept.
Many scientific discoveries, started with concepts. The thing existed.
It didn't now exist because scientist discovered it.

People say religious people have a preconceived ideas. I think however, that pretty much can be said of those who deny God. Would you agree?

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.

I wasn't indicating that they are referring to a god of religion.
Just pointing to the fact that God is in use quite regularly.

Things act according to their properties. Nothing special there.

Do you seek to declare this as evidence of god/s?

No. I was just showing that the more scientists discover, the more they realize the little they know, because they always need to be adjusting what they thought they knew.
Hope I haven't confused you with 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.

Let me just use an example.
Say you encountered someone from a different country, who never saw a Living Rock Cactus, and you say, "We here have a living rock cactus that grows like a flower on the ground."
Would you say that your words are just a concept, because the person has never seen a Living Rock Cactus?

Possibility is not fact. Probability ain't even fact.

I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.

But what if in reality, you are Teddy Roosevelt?
Notice I said

if that possibility is a reality, then it is more than a concept.

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.

I'm just showing you that the existence of a superhuman performing miracles, is not far fetched.

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?

Where does a rainbow end?

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?

Thee question I would ask is, is the poking of the stick, causing the change?

Do you propose we can snuggle up inside a whale for three days, and survive?

Yes. So long as the one keeping you there doesn't "release" you.

What evidence can you now present for us to consider regarding the existence of your proposed god?

You have it all. Why do you keep asking?
Why not just say like I do, when they tell me they have evidence that the evolution theory is true, "I don't see it." End of story.
You can do the same, when we present it over and over.
Instead of repeatedly asking for it, simply say, "Well I don't see it, so there must be zero."
I guarantee you, there ain't no Christian who is going to bite your head off for that.

Hope ya slept well.

Yeah, I did. Thanks.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 106 by theStudent]

I think thats the biggest problem in the world - lack of humility - pride.
I mean, what do we know?

Says the guy who believes he's part of a beloved chosen species of the almighty creator of the universe...

People say religious people have a preconceived ideas. I think however, that pretty much can be said of those who deny God. Would you agree?

Unlike magnetism though, and other similar concepts, no test has ever succeeded at actually 'proving' God.

No. I was just showing that the more scientists discover, the more they realize the little they know, because they always need to be adjusting what they thought they knew.
Hope I haven't confused you with that.

And whenever you find something scientists currently do not know, you tend to stick God right there in the gaps.

Say you encountered someone from a different country, who never saw a Living Rock Cactus, and you say, "We here have a living rock cactus that grows like a flower on the ground."
Would you say that your words are just a concept, because the person has never seen a Living Rock Cactus?

I would say "What the heck is a Living Rock Cactus?" because I at that point in time have never heard those three words used that way. Is it a cactus in a place called Living Rock? Is the person talking about a rock that is alive and also a cactus?
You see, this is why we need definitions. I'm pretty sure that so far on this thread, you have yet to define what you mean by the word God.

But what if in reality, you are Teddy Roosevelt?

Does this mean it makes sense for us to be calling JoeyKnotHead "Mr President" on the off chance that he is Teddy Roosevelt?
There are absurdities, tS, and then there are absurdities.

I'm just showing you that the existence of a superhuman performing miracles, is not far fetched.

Show me a superhuman doing superhuman things. Are we talking Superman, leaping tall buildings in a single bound and being faster than a speeding bullet?

Yes. So long as the one keeping you there doesn't "release" you.

So find us a whale and show us that in its insides, it keeps enough oxygen, food and water to sustain a man for 3 days.

[H.sapiens]

This whole "humility" thing is such crap. Religionists have clearly got it quite backward ... science promotes humility by showing what a small place in all of the universe you are, religion is based on egotism, the idea that your biological and intellectual distinctiveness is fated by some invisible friend to live forever.

[Divine Insight]

Who is worshiping a religion???

Anyone who worships the stories of an ancient religion as though it represents the words and directives of a specific anthropomorphic Godhead is worshiping a religion.

If anyone can show me that the Qur'an is the truth, I will accept it.

I hold out the same challenge to Biblical enthusiasts and thus far none of them can show that the Bible is the truth. To the contrary, the apologies they offer for the contradictions contained in the Bible are themselves void of any rational logic or consistency.

In fact, the Biblical theists have already demonstrated that they can't even convince each other of their own interpretations. Christendom is even more divided than the Republicans and Democrats.

There is no consensus even among Christians when it comes to what "truths" the Bible supposedly contains. Also, we can't really ignore the Jews and the Muslims views in this either since both the Jews and the Muslims are actually nothing more than different opinions concerning this very same collection of myths.

So the whole "Abrahamic Mythology" is just one big confused religious myth, that clearly can't contain any truth since it's so extremely divisive.

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.

Just because superstitious myths came before intelligent inquiry doesn't make the superstitious myths true.

Don't forget the "God of the Gaps" actually refers to these theistic arguments for God that have been proven to be wrong by science over the centuries.

No God causes volcanoes to erupt.
No God causes lightening to strike.
No God causes diseases to plague people.
No God causes the motions of the planets.
Etc.

All you are doing is attempting to try to keep moving the "God of the Gaps" arguments ahead of what science already knows.

That is a futile endeavor. All your arguments for your God is a typical "God of the Gaps" argument. And that theistic strategy has been proven to fail repeatedly.

Did I say you claim to know everything?

Perhaps not precisely, but you did imply that I would need be omniscient in order to conclude that the Biblical description of God is false, yet that charge is clearly false. It can easily be shown that the Biblical description of God must necessarily be false due to the need for extreme logical contradictions, and omniscience is not required to be able to recognize and acknowledge this.

We can easily show that the Biblical God is necessarily a logical contradiction.

Of course you could argue, as many theists do that the Biblical God doesn't need to be logical or behave in any logical fashion, but that would then make the Biblical God totally untrustworthy in terms of human reasoning. How could you trust a God who does illogical and thus unreasonable things?

Divine Insight wrote:
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.

You've taken this totally out of the context in which I had stated it. I am saying that physics explains the evolution of this universe completely without any need for a baby-sitting God (or unexplained mysterious forces)

In fact, this is what Stephen Hawking means when he says that there is no "need" for a God. In terms of physics it's simply not required.

You have turned this entirely on its head in an attempt to suggest that science actually confirms that the things you have listed above may potentially be possible.

For one thing, I agree that science cannot say that "supernatural entities" cannot exist. All that science can say is that up to this point we have never had a need to postulate the existence of any such things. Up to this point science has been able to explain everything that we currently understand about the universe, without any need for any "supernatural intervention".

So once again you appeal to a "God of the Gaps" argument where you propose that their may come a time in the future when science might be unable to explain something using natural processes. But that hasn't happened yet.

So your argument on that front is entirely speculative and therefore is not compelling.

Furthermore, even if a supernatural entity were required at some point, again I need to point out that this wouldn't automatically load support to Allah or Yahweh, or Apollo, or Jesus, etc.

Buddhism would be supported just as much as any mythological religion. And not that Buddhism is not based on mythology, it's based on philosophical ideas.

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.

The very idea that a well-organized God is an explanation for a well-organized universe is meaningless and misguided. How would that explain anything?

Then you would be stuck with a well-organized God that has NO EXPLANATION.

A non-explanation hardly constitutes and explanation.

So these kinds of arguments are circular and self-defeating.

Just take a moment to stop and think about what you are proposing here.

We have a universe that we can't explain where it came from, so in an effort to explain it we imagine the existence of a God that we can't explain how came to be who created the universe and we'll call that an explanation for the universe.

Does that sound like an explanation to you?

Seriously, you just don't seem to be taking the time to question the things you post. An unexplained imagined complex being as an explanation for an unexplained complex universe is no explanation at all. All that's been done is to pass the buck from one problem to another.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 92 by rikuoamero]

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?

That's a good question.
If you may be referring to God, first let me say...
The Bible says, righteous men questioned God. They obviously were not omniscient.
With regard to the question, "Is x immoral? One would not need to be all-wise, but one may need define immoral, since the standards of morality vary dependently.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 80 by benchwarmer]

Hi benchwarmer,

Murder

Quote:
Exodus 20:13
You shall not murder.


Quote:
Genesis 7:23
Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth.

Are you equating just punishment with murder?

Idols

Quote:
Exodus 20:4
You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.


Quote:
Numbers 21:8
The Lord said to Moses, Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live.

I think you forgot a little part at the end of Exodus 20:4.
The command isn't completed, until it reaches the end of verse 6.

Stealing

Quote:
Exodus 20:15
You shall not steal.


Quote:

Exodus 23:30
Little by little I will drive them out before you, until you have increased enough to take possession of the land.

So what did God steal?
Are you suggesting that God stole his own land? (Exodus 19:5)

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 93 by rikuoamero]

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"?

rikuoamero
Where do you find in scripture, that Jesus performed magic, or that he poofed a donkey into existence?

Of course the picture you painted above, would be outright theft.
Whose donkey was it?

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 94 by Divine Insight]

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.

The flaw that can be seen in this reasoning, is in mathematics too.
The ratio of the mathematicians who accept the law of contradiction in mathematics may be 100%.
The ratio of persons who may apply such a law to the Bible is 5% or less.
95% of Americans believe in some form of deity or higher power, according to a survey of the general public conducted by the Pew Research Center in July 2006. Specifically, more than eight-in-ten Americans (83%) say they believe in God and 12% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.

Three in Four in U.S. Still See the Bible as Word of God

Going by that, such a system cannot be a proper method of proof, unless of course, the proof is in favor of God, and the Bible... as usual..

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 80 by benchwarmer]

Hi benchwarmer,

Murder

Quote:
Exodus 20:13
You shall not murder.


Quote:
Genesis 7:23
Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth.

Are you equating just punishment with murder?

Do you consider killing every animal, bird, and infant alive at the time 'just punishment'? What did they do?

Idols

Quote:
Exodus 20:4
You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.


Quote:
Numbers 21:8
The Lord said to Moses, Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live.

I think you forgot a little part at the end of Exodus 20:4.
The command isn't completed, until it reaches the end of verse 6.

That's an interpretation debate. One point is to not make particular images. Another point is to not worship them. Why not simply say "don't worship anything except me" if that is what is really meant? Why complicate things?

Stealing

Quote:
Exodus 20:15
You shall not steal.


Quote:

Exodus 23:30
Little by little I will drive them out before you, until you have increased enough to take possession of the land.

So what did God steal?
Are you suggesting that God stole his own land? (Exodus 19:5)

No I'm suggesting He is asking one group of people to steal another people's land which I consider 'stealing by proxy'. This is even worse in my opinion. He is telling people not to steal, then turning around and telling them to steal because I'm going to make it easy for you. It's kind of like "Don't step on peoples toes. Here, let me take benchwarmer's shoe off so you can step on those toes".

You seem to be suggesting that since God owns everything, it's ok for His people to take something that doesn't belong to them, but belongs to God. So why bother with "Don't steal" if they are God's people and taking things that belong to God is not stealing?

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 95 by rikuoamero]

So now, I take this back.

The ratio of the mathematicians who accept the law of contradiction in mathematics may be 100%.

The ratio of the mathematicians who accept the law of contradiction in mathematics may be ?%.
I'll let the mathematicians work it out.
My brain is not that "wired".