No scientific proof of god

[BetheButterfly]

Then your god is neither all powerful, nor is he benevolent. If anything, this makes "him" malevolently lazy and uncaring.

 

I can understand why you think that, but I personally don't agree. I see God as a superior being than the human species, much like humans could be argued to be superior in some ways to bugs.

 

God states that humans are like grasshoppers (in comparison to Him), accounted by the prophet Isaiah: (I boldened some.)

 

Isaiah 40 NIV - Comfort for God?s People - Comfort, - Bible Gateway

 

"21 Do you not know?

Have you not heard?

Has it not been told you from the beginning?

Have you not understood since the earth was founded?

22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,

and its people are like grasshoppers.

He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,

and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

23 He brings princes to naught

and reduces the rulers of this world to nothing.

24 No sooner are they planted,

no sooner are they sown,

no sooner do they take root in the ground,

than he blows on them and they wither,

and a whirlwind sweeps them away like chaff.

 

25 “To whom will you compare me?

Or who is my equal?” says the Holy One.

26 Lift up your eyes and look to the heavens:

Who created all these?

He who brings out the starry host one by one

and calls forth each of them by name.

Because of his great power and mighty strength,

not one of them is missing."

 

 

As for humans and grasshoppers, I know many humans who have no problem with killing bugs or allowing bugs to kill each other, yet these same humans do have a huge issue with anybody killing humans.

 

Bugs can't see the bigger picture, as far as we know. In the same way, many humans can't see the bigger picture. When one can't see the bigger picture, than it's understandable that they only see the only pieces of the puzzle they can see.

 

Let's take for example me and my dog. My dog doesn't understand why I give her a bath. She doesn't like baths, but she allows me to bathe her because she understands it makes me happy. I wish she would understand about not rolling in cat doodoo, but she just knows I get really not happy when she does that. (And it seems that sometimes she doesn't care!)

 

She doesn't like medicine. I wish she could understand that medicine is for her good, but she gives me a hard time when I give her meds. I have to disguise it with treats.

 

In the same way, God is more "advanced" you could say than people. Jesus is known by Christians as our Good Shepherd for a reason, and I personally have no problem being one of his "sheep"! John 10 NIV - The Good Shepherd and His Sheep - Bible Gateway

 

 

Again, assuming very much. As for the responsibility part, that's not on me, and I never said men weren't responsible for it. But this apparently all caring, all loving deity you choose to worship has seen fit to require vast amounts of suffering, chaos and destruction on humanity's part, and in the same sentence claim to be all loving, all powerful, and all wise.

 

God is like a puzzle... there are many pieces of who He is and what He allows that make Him hard to understand when one is only looking at some pieces. However, God knows the whole picture of who He is and why He allows what He does, since He sees all and knows all.

 

Allowing such things shows an impotence of power verging on the obscene. The internal conflict between omnipotence, self responsibility, and love is one you, as a christian, have to rectify, not me. I don't claim to be all loving, all caring, and then sit idly as millions die in a firestorm of despair.

 

Christians don't claim to be God either.

The free will question is an interesting one. How is this explained? We have free will because we have no choice not to have it, not because it's a convenient smoke screen to deflect questions about the validity of one's faith.

 

Free will has been part of the teachings of Christian beliefs for a long time. It's not considered by Christians to be a "convenient smoke screen" but is rather considered to be a huge responsibility, since free will involves making daily decisions which do most definitely affect others.

[BetheButterfly]

Can God make a rock so heavy he can't lift it?

 

Boom. God is dead! He's been disproven! We humans are such geniuses!

 

Funny!

[soccerrprp]

God could literally kick some people in their azz, and they still wouldn't believe in Him!

 

...apparently god isn't doing this enough to wake humankind up from it's constant propensity to repeat its sins.

[worldgonewrong]

Worth a read-

The missing pics are of the 'flying spaghetti monster'.

HATESEXY: In which I argue that Christianity has a serious PR problem.

 

Despite the term "HATESEXY", it's not a salacious blog at all.

[todreaminblue]

Most of those tests are easy enough to reproduce. Try to get this concept: I don't believe because someone many generations ago said it exists, i believe because I can verify it myself.

 

 

So you think there's a cause and effect between praying and experiencing what you prayed for? That is what you're saying, right? That you pray and good things happen to you? If that were the case, many people in the world must be using the wrong technique.

 

 

Honestly, as a libertarian this is a tough spot for me. I believe in the freedom of everyone to worship whatever god or object they want to worship, but history has showed and continues to show us what happens when large groups of people lack the ability to reason. The danger of religion is that it promotes exactly that: young childeren are indoctrinated not to question things they are told, they are thaught that what is in some book is the truth and to never doubt it, and in most cases that people who disagree with them are not on an equal level as them. Think about how frightening and sad that is.

 

It was obvious from context that I was refering to religious people putting people on fire because they had the crazy idea that the earth revolved around the sun, the Spanish inquisition and the likes. Imagine how many centuries humanity lost due to religion, if we could have just skipped over the crusades and had geniuses like Copernicus, Newton, Galileo, Michelangelo and countless others work without being prosecuted or needing to hide their discoveries and self-censor out of fear, imagine what we would be capable of if every modern scientific discovery happened centuries before it did!

 

Just as many? There were about 9 million women killed for withcraft by people believing the same book you believe in.

 

lol

 

 

 

Most of those tests are easy enough to reproduce. Try to get this concept: I don't believe because someone many generations ago said it exists, i believe because I can verify it myself.......end quote

 

 

A judge verifies his decision he makes by the cases that were similar before ....they can hang or be decided on precedents purely due to historical records kept...he doesnt actually have to believe or "verify" what is right in front of him..or decide the outcome or sentence based on his own personal knowledge or bias, he will take into consideration the sentence handed down for a similar crime......the historical importance of being true to what justice is determined by set laws that were made to protect the people as a whole....bible is another book containing laws to protect the people and to provide happiness that god wants all of us to have......

 

we all make decisions and choices........in my life...i judge how i live it what i have done, how i treat people and i try to do the right thing....... i learn from my mistakes and i try to do it right next time....i go by bible prinicipals of love and compassion..........but most importantly....I know that i have the right to choose to believe.......as you have the right to choose not too....my faith has gotten me through times that science cannot...no theories no therapy no answers to why...just faith.......and i actually feel this thread is triggering sadness.......a sadness that i am just not an intellectual par to argue and debate with likes such as yourself..it woudl eb ni8ce to ....but i have othr gifts to excel with..so i will go on believing and having faith........and when i wrote that part about not being intellectually capable...i got a warm heart feeling...i call it an internal hug.....and i believe that was from the holy spirit to flag my heart....so i leave smiling....and i wish you well....good luck in life......deb

[TaxAHCruel]

Well what is true is that it can't be proven.

 

By you. That does not mean it can not be. Maybe it can. All I can do is ask the people who think they have evidence there is a god what they think that evidence actually is.

 

Really, I can't be asked to discuss this any further

 

To my knowledge - which is limited as for all I know perhaps there is something beside you with a gun to your head - no one is forcing you to.

 

Sorry. I meant pedantic 9-year-old

 

I wonder why it is that it is the theist side that always needs to go for the insults and ad hominems. Is this the level of rhetoric being religious brings you? A friend of mine gave me a great motto in life which might serve you well "Insults demean only the insulter - never the target - ever".

 

Nobody expects or demands that you change your mind, so I really don't know where your gripe lies.

 

Actually there are people who very much want to change your mind. From the lowly door to door religious sales man - to the insipid suicide bomber blowing up the unbeliever.

 

And in between these two extremes you have hosts of people actively trying to modify and moderate public policy in our halls of power, politics, education and science to reflect their religious view points.

 

We find our free speech censored - often through use of violence - by those who scream blasphemy at every turn.

 

We see whole realms of discourse from homosexuality rights to the right to die being infected by religious arguments while presidents of entire countries go to war telling the public that god told them personally to do it. While it is not even that much of a stretch to say that a world war could be precipitated by the well being or destruction of a single piece of architecture to my east.

 

Meanwhile we sit back and see horrific acts perpetrated in the name of religion such as parents who sit back and watch their own children die of easily treated diseases because their religion tells them medical intervention is a sin.

 

All the while people being conned out of their money by the Peter Poppoffs of this world.

 

So yes I do think it is time we stand up and say "Hey guys, the entire foundation you are building this entire house of horror on happens to be a single claim that is not just slightly but ENTIRELY unsubstantiated in any way whatsoever and we cant let you get away with that any more".

 

But certainly do not let any of these facts get in the way when you can just dismissively type stock copy and paste lines like "Suck it up" and "man up" in place of engaging in any level of intellectual discourse with another human being.

[TaxAHCruel]

God could literally kick some people in their azz, and they still wouldn't believe in Him!

 

Then take that up with "some people". If you want to discuss anything with me directly however that is related to something I have actually written/said then I am here for you.

[TaxAHCruel]

Here is a peer reviewed article on the mathematical argument that supports the intelligent design theory.

 

Peer reviewed by who exactly? The Discovery Institute publishing it's own stuff and lauding praise on it is not really how the peer review process works.

 

There is no real "mathematical argument" in that link either. Pasting mathematical equations is not the same as making a mathematical argument. We can all copy and paste.

 

Essentially all this link does is show that the universe seems to be describable using mathematics and that this fact amazes the author enough for him to assert based on nothing that therefore an intelligence _must_ have been involved. The entire paper is one elongated non sequitur therefore.

[TaraMaiden]

I can't be assed to continue this discussion, because it's utterly pointless, but could I just point out, I'm not theist.

 

I don't believe in God. It's just a 'not relevant' thing, to me...

 

I'm not Atheist either, because I can't state categorically without any definite evidence that he doesn't exist.... I'm not agnostic because it really doesn't matter to me, I'm not on the fence, I frankly don't care, one way or the other, it's too little a matter of debate in comparison to other things going on 'in my lap'.

 

It's irrelevant and what the Buddha has declared as an "Unconjecturable".

 

Yeah, I'm Buddhist.

 

And yeah, sorry about the 9-year-old thing.

WE all have our bad days.

I think mine was yesterday.

A couple of slapped knuckles from a Mod, proved that....

 

 

Prove, disprove, I really can't think why it should matter either way, to one who chooses to not be religious.

[TaxAHCruel]

I can't be assed to continue this discussion, because it's utterly pointless

 

You already said that - yet here you are. A friend of mine on another forum has a tongue in cheek "law" which he calls "The 1st law of internet forum posting" and it goes "The probability of a user posting again on a thread goes up in proportion to the number of times they have indicated they will not be".

 

Which suggests that you will be posting again on this discussion even though you claim you will not be. So I will reply on the assumption the above is a falsehood and you will be right back posting again like one of those people who storms out of the room before 5 minutes later coming back in saying "And one more thing.....!".

 

I also disagree that discussion is pointless. Discussion is NEVER pointless. In terms of the survival of our species locally and globally _discourse_ is the best single tool we have got. Talking - talking - and talking some more is essential in our species at every level.

 

I'm not Atheist either, because I can't state categorically without any definite evidence that he doesn't exist

 

Nor are you required to. There is no onus on anyone anywhere to prove an unfalisifable negative. The onus is entirely on those saying there is a god to evidence that claim - no one has to prove there is one.

 

The world is awash with people making claims. Not just religious ones. ALL kinds of claims. For me I simply evaluate whether claims are substantiated or not. I dismiss entirely the ones that are not. Such as the existence of god. I also resist their application in areas of discourse that actually _matter_ such as our halls of power, education and science.

 

And yeah, sorry about the 9-year-old thing.

WE all have our bad days.

 

We do indeed and religion can be an emotive issue. However no apology necessary. As I said when we act in such a way the only person we need to apologize to is ourselves - because that is the only person we have let down.

 

I did not give you that motto above to rile you up or troll you or get a one up on you. I genuinely think it a good one and I recite it to myself before hitting "Submit reply" on any post I write on forums like this. "Insults demean only the source never the target".

 

Prove, disprove, I really can't think why it should matter either way, to one who chooses to not be religious.

 

As I said a few times now I do not choose not to be religious. I simply can not be given the lack of substantiation for the position. If there is a god then I genuinely want to know this as it clearly is important information to have.

 

However I also live in a dominantly religious world and I see the repercussions it causes. I care about people - society - the future - my childrens future - politics - morality - sexuality - education - science and much much more. ALL of these things suffer attack from religion daily and therefore it is not that I care - so much as I am forced to care.

[Gunny376]

Well say what you will about the subject?

 

But personally I would rather live my life believing there is a God ~ only to die and find out thar' ain't one ~ than to live my life not beliving in God ~ only to die and find out there is ONE!

 

And for the record? I don't put any stock in "organized religion" but I am a very spirtiual person and do belive there's a God, and do so because I personally choose to believe and do so. And don't need any proof of such.

[TaxAHCruel]

I would rather live my life believing there is a God ~ only to die and find out thar' ain't one ~ than to live my life not beliving in God ~ only to die and find out there is ONE!

 

Ah - a poor rehash of Pascals Wager. Few problems there.

 

1) If belief is not a choice then you are not believing in it - but faking belief in order to try and fool said god. Which would likely only piss it off if it were annoyed by such things.

 

2) The distinction in your wager is mute if you are not really putting stock in organised religion given there is no other reason to think said god really gives a crap what you believe.

 

3) In those religions were right then your wager is actually a dangerous one in some cases. Take the 10 commandments for example. While some gods seem to dislike unbelievers they seem to like FALSE believers even less. The 10 commandments say nothing about atheism but do say a lot about being the wrong kind of theist. So MY wager for you is "You are safer living your life without belief and die to find you are wrong - than live with belief and die and find you got the wrong god".

 

I personally choose to believe and do so. And don't need any proof of such.

 

I honestly wish I knew how you do this.

 

As I have said a few times in the thread it is not a "choice" for me. I simply do not have this capability.

 

How far does this ability go for you? Can you believe an empty box is full of money if you try hard enough? Or that the blue sky is actually yellow? I can not do those either.

 

Unless there is a reason to think something is true - I can not just switch "belief" on like a switch. I am curious how people manage it.

[Clair93]

I can't understand how they expect us to believe in an omnipotence loving God when there is so much suffering in the world that god can, but chooses not to do anything about it.

 

I choose not to believe in a god that engineered the world so that innocent children are born in sin and couldn't forgive them for the sins they never committed unless he put himself on earth to be tortured and nailed to a cross, so that in the act he could forgive people for the sins they never committed.

[venusianx13]

I do no believe in the personified version of God; a God who controls our fate. I know that something is there, I connect with it. However, I am not qualified to explain it, because even if I were to attempt to explain it, I would only be using semantics to label "parts". I came to my own personal understanding of the workings of the universe through studying Buddhism. It brought me closer to god than through hardcore exposure to Catholicism for the first 20 years of my life. However, in this way, it's irrelevant to me. I try very hard to live my life in accordance with what I know is right. That knowing comes from my connection with the spiritual, and from the understanding that we are all connected through space and time; every living being.

 

Honestly, and I say this with all due respect, as I love and admire others' beliefs, we are all imprisoned by what we think we know.

Edited May 8, 2013 by venusianx13

[M30USA]

You have to actually prove he does. The burden is on YOU, making the claim.

 

 

Fairies are real. You can't prove they aren't.

 

The burden of proof applies to ANY claim. It says nothing about the exceptionalness or strangeness of the claim. ANYBODY making a claim, who chooses to defend it, has the burden of proof. Why? Because strangeness is mere PERCEPTION and not objective.

 

Pureinheart has the burden of proof is she chooses to claim that God exists. You, as well, have the burden of proof if you choose to claim God does NOT exist.

 

You are not above the burden just because your claim, by mere perception, appears less exceptional or out of the ordinary than pureinheart's.

Edited May 9, 2013 by M30USA

[M30USA]

I don't claim God does not exist. I don't believe that he does, but I do not claim to know that he doesn't. I have read many times on here people claiming to out and out know there is a god, and then shuck their burden when asked to prove it.

 

That's fair. If you are not claiming to know, for sure, that God does not exist, then that's fair.

 

For the record, I have never intended to argue that God exists. I believe he does. And I believe I'm right. But I know it's a futile endeavor to prove this.

 

All that I've ever intended to do was inform people about what Scripture says or doesn't say. I have intense zeal about keeping Scripture from being distorted or misunderstood. This goal, in my opinion, is proveable. Unlike proving God exists.

[BetheButterfly]

People's beliefs effect their actions. Try watching a woman being stoned to death because Allah instructed it, and not wanting to argue against religion.

 

That's a good point and yeah I have to admit I do argue sometimes with a few Muslims concerning this topic, as well as concerning the heavy-handed hammer laws like amputation of a hand when someone steals.

 

If it weren't for Jesus Christ' teachings to love, to do good, to bless, and to pray for others, I most definitely would not strive to follow Him. If Jesus taught to stone people or kill those who didn't believe in Him or amputate hands and so on, I would not follow Him.

 

That brings me to the point about arguing with people who see violence as being acceptable and even a way to "glorify" God. Most people who call themselves Christians do not stone people to death nowadays, and one of the main reasons is because Jesus Christ, our leader, did not stone anybody. It would be hugely hypocritical to stone someone when Jesus Himself didn't stone anybody and where Jesus Himself allowed people to torture him to death, you know?

 

As a Christian, I consider it part of my responsibility to grow in loving my enemies (which is hard but with God's help is possible) and remind fellow Christians about Jesus' teachings to love too. Loving one's enemies does not equal being violent to them, and since we say we follow Jesus Christ, we really need to grow in obeying His teachings.

 

If I was an Atheist, I would not waste my time arguing about the existence of God with Theists, but rather I would concentrate on Theists who are violent (whether "Christian" yet disobey Jesus Christ's teaching to love) or other religious groups who are violent. Like the valid example you gave concerning a woman being stoned to death, this is indeed violent. As a Christian, I feel it is my responsibility to rescue those who are hurting and in danger. While I wish I could go to countries where this is done and rescue this lady, the main thing I can do to help is show those who believe that is acceptable and pleasing to God that there is a Loving way and that Love is better than violence!

[TaxAHCruel]

There is no real scientific proof of macro evolution as well, so where do you suggest life originated?

 

Category AND Topic error here. Firstly this is off topic. This thread has nothing to do with Evolution. Secondly the origin of life and the subsequent evolution of it are also two entirely different topics, so you have made a category error.

 

Worse you are also committing an "Argument from Ignorance" fallacy here. Quite a lot of errors for just one sentence son.

 

Math proves that evolution is impossible.

 

No - it does not - but if you want to discuss this on a thread where it is actually the topic then I am more than happy to go through it with you.

 

I've been researching this for a while.

 

Doubt this claim given you clearly fail to understand even the basic differences between Evolution and Abiogenesis - two entirely different conversations.

[TaraMaiden]

Watch this: And quit the bickering.

 

(9 minutes or so....)

[Eclypse]

One thing I simply do not understand is blind faith. It is a very dangerous thing. I get that it was common in the Middle Ages when very few people could read or write, or even grasp the concept of a world existing beyond the borders of their shire. But surely now with the wealth of information available people can expand their minds and see beyond the bible.

 

That's my issue with religion. It's rigid and unchanging. The bible was written 2,000 years ago with no updates since then. Science asks questions and formulates theories. These often are updated, or even canned as new evidence or technology develops. Darwins theory of evolution for example had more holes than the Titanic when he released it, but with each new fossil or genetic mapping the picture becomes clearer. It will never be perfect in my opinion but our understanding of human history and life grows with each discovery. Science makes mistakes, but people strive to improve on them.

 

Take Tesla or Einstein. How many years did they spend working on duds and barking up the wrong alley before they achieved what they did? It was a lot. That's the exact opposite of what any major religion does. Actually take a look at poor old Galileo. How many centuries did it take for the Church to apologise for what they did to him and admit he was right?

 

Anyway to summarise, science doesn't have all the answers, but the goal is to keep searching. I refuse to blindly accept that we were created in 6 days with no evidence by God! That's blind faith! It's too easy to explain things we don't understand with "God did it/God works in mysterious ways".

[El Brujo]

So far, no one has proven god. When I ask a religious person for any evidence, all they tell me is to read the bible or to have faith. Faith and feelings are not proof. The bible is nothing but a book which also contradicts itself. I do not understand how anyone can blindly follow religion of any kind, not just christianity.

 

Well then, maybe someone ought to invent a God-O-Meter.

[HokeyReligions]

So far, no one has proven god. When I ask a religious person for any evidence, all they tell me is to read the bible or to have faith. Faith and feelings are not proof. The bible is nothing but a book which also contradicts itself. I do not understand how anyone can blindly follow religion of any kind, not just christianity.

 

There is no empirical data that God does not exist either. I do not understand how anyone can blindly only believe in ONLY what science and scientific THEORIES are put before them and not bother to think and question for themselves.

[TaxAHCruel]

There is no empirical data that God does not exist either.

 

Nor is there required to be. One can not provide data proving a non falsifiable negative. It simply can not be done. However to understand just how poor the above sentence is - one need only start writing a list of all the other things there is also no data proving the non-existence of. Your life time and that of your children and grand children will likely not be long enough to complete the list.

 

I do not understand how anyone can blindly only believe in ONLY what science and scientific THEORIES are put before them and not bother to think and question for themselves.

 

Strangely though it is only people like yourself who limit the conversation to science. I have no belief in god and I have not done so for example. Nor have I failed to ponder the question myself.

 

I ask theists if they have any arguments, data, evidence or reasoning at all to substantiate the claim there is a god. Nothing in that sentence limits the discourse to science.

 

Despite the wide net however nothing is forthcoming from these people. They will tell you how much they _want_ it to be true. And they will laud praise on themselves for believing it with no reason as if faith is some kind of virtue. But not one has every actually answered my challenge. Ever.

[man_in_the_box]

There is no scientific evidence for god... because by definition god falls outside the realm of science.

 

(Physical) Science is a product of humans intended to describe or perhaps at best approach what happens in our universe ranging from molecules, atoms and subparticles to planets, stars and galaxies. When were talking about a "god" were talking about something that is by definition outside this scope. Whether a god really exists or not is another question - but that there is no scientific evidence for one makes perfect sense.

 

Exactly what scientific evidence should "proof" (or disproof) a god? How does one measure a god?

[Mint Sauce]

There is no scientific evidence for god... because by definition god falls outside the realm of science.

 

Since the realm of science is everything that is detectable, direct or indirect, your god is by definition irrelevant. Either he can influence our life in a detectable and hence measurable way, and by consequence must undergo scientific scrutiny, or he cannot, which makes his existence irrelevant.

 

A metaphysical god with no influence on the physical universe can just as well not exist. If he has influence, we should be able to detect it, i.e. scientifically prove his existence.