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.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

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.

Provide evidence that:

• Hercules never existed.
• Hercules is purely imaginary
• The miraculous feats attributed to Hercules never happened.
• Accounts of the great feats accomplished by Hercules are nothing but myths.

Once I see how it is done, I will accept your challenge.

[Bust Nak]

Moderator Action

Moved to science and religion.

______________

Moderator actions indicate that a thread/post has been locked, moved, merged, or split.

[Bust Nak]

For those who disagree with the above, please state why...

The "God" thesis is untestable and unfalsifiable and hence unscientific.

As Richard Lewontin so eloquently puts it:

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen."

God does not exist.
God exists only in the mind of the believer.

First define God in a manner that can be tested scientifically.

Miracles do not happen.

Please define miracles in a manner that can be tested scientifically. The one found in your member's note "an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws" ruled itself out of scientific inquiry, and by that definition, is inherently unscientific.

Another definition found there "occurrences that excite wonder or astonishment." Well, those kinds of miracles happens every day. Why would you expect us to provide evidence that they do not happen?

The Bible is a book of myths.

By book of myths, do you mean it's contains nothing but myths, or that it contains myths? If it is the latter, the Bible teaches a flat Earth. Is that mythical enough to qualify?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 1 by 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.

Sorry, theStudent,

Only someone with a profound misunderstanding of the scientific method would ask such questions. Therefore, it would be rather pointless to try to answer the questions using scientific criteria.

In fact, I would say that the questions also demonstrate a lack of good common sense. What I actually understand by the questions is that the poster suffers from a extra bad case of confirmation bias and intellectual laziness.

This "Prove me wrong" attitude isn't what I consider to be the start of a serious debate.

If a student actually wants to learn something, being closed minded to whatever might disagree isn't the way to go about it.

[Kenisaw]

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.

You can't prove something does not exist. That is false logic. You can only prove something does exist. If you cannot prove something does exist, the only rational conclusion to reach is that it does not.

I don't claim that gods, or miracles, or any other supernatural claim, do not exist. I state that there is no known empirical evidence or data that show these claims to be true. Without the data, there is no reason to consider them plausible or realistic.

I have asked you, specifically, to provide even one single scrap of empirical evidence for these things. You haven't. You've posted a few quote mines and some youtube videos showing people's unfounded claims, but you still haven't given us any actual data. No cultist ever has, and the reason why is perfectly obvious - there isn't any. If there were it would have been on every news station and billboard in the country.

Once again I thank you for starting a thread about a topic that has already been explained to you in previous versions, for which apparently I can only conclude you learned nothing from...

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 2 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Hi Tired of the Nonsense,

Did you read the post in the link?

If you did... then...

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 4 by Bust Nak]

The "God" thesis is untestable and unfalsifiable and hence unscientific.

As Richard Lewontin so eloquently puts it:

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen."

First define God in a manner that can be tested scientifically.

That is the biased approach to science, of course, imo.
Especially since they claim that the SETI is a testible hypothesis base on the fact that

they note that the existence of intelligent life on Earth is a plausible reason to expect it elsewhere,

However, in that case, it appears scientific.
Nevertheless, since science is unable to prove whether God exists or not - we don't need science for that purpose then. Do we?
There would obviously be more reliable ways of proving God, as I showed in the post.
Point covered.

Please define miracles in a manner that can be tested scientifically. The one found in your member's note "an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws" ruled itself out of scientific inquiry, and by that definition, is inherently unscientific.
Point covered.

Another definition found there "occurrences that excite wonder or astonishment." Well, those kinds of miracles happens every day. Why would you expect us to provide evidence that they do not happen?

The same as above applies to miracles of a supernatural source also.

By book of myths, do you mean it's contains nothing but myths, or that it contains myths? If it is the latter, the Bible teaches a flat Earth. Is that mythical enough to qualify?

No where in the Bible does it teach a flat earth.
If you insist, please provide evidence.

[H.sapiens]

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.

This is naught but a futile effort to massively try to shift the burden of proof by ignoring the fact that it is impossible, prima facia, to prove a negative. What a waste of time and effort.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 5 by Blastcat]

That's pretty insulting Blastcat.
I would have thought that your being here longer than I have, you would have left that for me - the less experienced.

All that to say you don't want to take part in the debate?
Or is there something you are trying to understand from the post?