man_in_the_box Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 I'm not denying any of that to be honest. I don't know why you call it 'my' god because I haven't said that I believe there must be a god. In the realm of science it is indeed pointless to discuss god. Otherwise in a more philisophical approach I don't see it as necessarily wrong. If only tangible, scientifically supported phenomena should be discussed then this is going to be hell of a boring discussion. To get back to the (possible) existance of god. I don't know. I don't know anything about what's outside our physical world. Perhaps there's other dimensions where different laws of physics apply that do allow for the existance of gods, perhaps our concept of scale and size does not end at our universe and it is simply a small part of a bigger entity, perhaps there is an 'inter-dimensional' realm which allows for the existance of god-like entities, perhaps god can interfere but does not do so. Is it so wrong for humans to at least ask him/herself these questions? Isn't it natural for humans to want to know what is unknown? Link to post Share on other sites
man_in_the_box Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 Join the United States Marine Corps and go through an Iraqi artillery barrage or mortar barrage? And come out the other side of it! After about 37 million shells or a couple of billion tons of explosives and close to a million casualties at Verdun the French and Germans decided that there was something as hell on earth. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
TaxAHCruel Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 In the realm of science it is indeed pointless to discuss god. Yes and no. It really would depend on how exactly one is defining "god" and I have seen so many definitions of that word now in my life that I would not feel safe making any assumptions. For example to borrow text from a writer on another forum that I have been emulating on this one - I define god as "A non-human intelligence responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe" and there is nothing in that definition that specifically allows us to expect OR preclude evidence from science. However I find it is theists more often than atheists who refer to "Scientific evidence". I certainly do not limit the conversation to such - despite the number of theists who act like I have. I specifically ask for ANY arguments, evidence, data or reasoning that lends credence to the notion that such an entity exists. Nothing in that sentence specifically demands scientific answers. You go on to play a game of "Ifs" and "perhaps". All good fun - and mentally stimulating - and who knows perhaps such a god as postulated in your writing does exist. However given there is currently not a shred of a reason to think there is - I find myself compelled to act by and on that fact in many discussions - and how I act in society - and how I envision the society I would like to live in working. Link to post Share on other sites
sillyanswer Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 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. Faith-based concepts only require enough 'proof' as is required to give you belief. Those who have belief have enough proof for them, and that's great. I feel slightly sorry for the genuine agnostics who are seeking their own proofs, but if you're just debating the point that there's "no proof" or "evidence" etc as if there's an argument to win then you're either doing it for effect or totally missing the point of faith-based concepts (or Religion). It's an interesting thing to debate from time to time (while it remains good-natured), so long as you don't expect to get "scientific proof". (I'm non-religous, btw.) Link to post Share on other sites
man_in_the_box Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 You go on to play a game of "Ifs" and "perhaps". All good fun - and mentally stimulating - and who knows perhaps such a god as postulated in your writing does exist. However given there is currently not a shred of a reason to think there is - I find myself compelled to act by and on that fact in many discussions - and how I act in society - and how I envision the society I would like to live in working. All the possibilities I conjured in that previous post are not actually that relevant - I just produced them to make a point in the post I was reaction to. I think god exists but before I dabble into that debate there's a couple of things relevant: - My definition of "god" is as non-defined as possible. - My views aren't necessarily a truth for me. If I find something more convincing then I'll happily adjust my views. - The topic at hand is whether "science can disproof god" so I don't really want to start the "does god exist?" debate. It's really not the case that I by definition believe in god and will put all my effort into keeping that belief alive. I have just my own reasoning for believing in something outer-universal and I have so far not been convinced that its non-existance makes more sense than its existance. I have however at several times adjusted my views because others inspired new insights or something I overlooked didn't make sense anymore. It's not black and white. Link to post Share on other sites
TaxAHCruel Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 - My definition of "god" is as non-defined as possible. That makes it impossible to discuss it with you though. Unless it is clear what you are actually talking about I have only my own assumptions to go on - which likely differ from yours. - The topic at hand is whether "science can disproof god" so I don't really want to start the "does god exist?" debate. Actually it appears to be that the topic is the lack of any scientific proof of god. Not whether science can disprove it. Science can not disprove unfalsifiable claims - simple as that. Link to post Share on other sites
man_in_the_box Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 That makes it impossible to discuss it with you though. Unless it is clear what you are actually talking about I have only my own assumptions to go on - which likely differ from yours. Actually it appears to be that the topic is the lack of any scientific proof of god. Not whether science can disprove it. Science can not disprove unfalsifiable claims - simple as that. Well yeah, you're right - it is about the lack of scientific evidence. I thought it was to elaborate to go into my personal convinctions on the existance of god and better to focus at the lack of scientific evidence in this thread. Link to post Share on other sites
strongnrelaxed Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 Hey SD:), I haven't seen any scientific evidence that the God of Christianity doesn't exist. There is an overwhelming body of evidence that there is no god. If we were in a criminal court, the believers would be set free because the standard of proof is high "Beyond a reasonable doubt" But just as OJ Simpson was found guilty in civil court, so too would god lose by a "preponderance of the evidence" The problem is that believers do not look at evidence. There is no amount of evidence that could possibly exist that can overcome such deep indoctrination. Literally millions of people believe this stuff. I watch darkmatter2525 on youtube. He does a clever and thorough job of debunking these myths. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
sb129 Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 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. Pretty tough challenge you've set yourself there seeing as scripture often contradicts itself. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
sb129 Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 I don't know why I've bothered to wade into this again. Neither side ever budges. Link to post Share on other sites
Grumpybutfun Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 This isn't up for debate. That is why neither side ever (wins.) People believe or they do not. In order to be involved in a personal relationship with God, you have to have an open heart and mind to that relationship while not caring what other people believe or think. If you believe, then you do not need other people's approval or to convert them. Religion, on the other hand, is all about conversion and isn't what the OP was asking about. A personal spiritual journey can be taken without religion but religion needs some form of deity or ideology in order to survive. Grumps Link to post Share on other sites
pureinheart Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 There is an overwhelming body of evidence that there is no god. If we were in a criminal court, the believers would be set free because the standard of proof is high "Beyond a reasonable doubt" But just as OJ Simpson was found guilty in civil court, so too would god lose by a "preponderance of the evidence" The problem is that believers do not look at evidence. There is no amount of evidence that could possibly exist that can overcome such deep indoctrination. Literally millions of people believe this stuff. I watch darkmatter2525 on youtube. He does a clever and thorough job of debunking these myths. LOL, indoctrination- yes, I was indoctrinated by secularism, but not anymore. Link to post Share on other sites
pureinheart Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 Ok, SNR... I was being sarcastic. I don't believe in indoctrination at all, I think people do what they want when they want, and also beieve that it's all faith based, even if there is no faith at all. If I'm indoctrinated then so are you and everyone else for that matter. Link to post Share on other sites
strongnrelaxed Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 Ok, SNR... I was being sarcastic. I don't believe in indoctrination at all, I think people do what they want when they want, and also beieve that it's all faith based, even if there is no faith at all. If I'm indoctrinated then so are you and everyone else for that matter. True. Socialization is a process of indoctrination. This is important. We all need to know what the rules are in order to function as a society. Most religions (especially the Abrahamic ones) do a good job of breaking the critical thinking skills in children. To believe the myths and legends found in the bible as if they are truth is a truly evil thing to do to another human being. The one thing that makes us truly distinct (as best we can tell) from all other living beings is the ability to question and reason and wonder. Religion not only kills that, but it claims the opposite. Very nasty and insidious. Link to post Share on other sites
strongnrelaxed Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 I don't know why I've bothered to wade into this again. Neither side ever budges. There is no need to budge. God, spirits, and magic do not exist. Period. Claims of all sorts are made and debunked all the time. Most charlatans are shamed and go away. Religion has irreparably harmed humanity so much so that people believe that there is an actual debate happening. There is no debate. There are no gods. Period. Until I see a unicorn, bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster or a chupacrabra, and those beings are analyzed by trusted scientists and that evidence is put up to the scrutiny of peer review, they will remain myths to me. Same with god. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
dtj567 Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 If we had scientific proof of god, he wouldn't be god. To think that a supreme being would be so small, so humble that we could discover him is beyond me. Link to post Share on other sites
TaxAHCruel Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 If we had scientific proof of god, he wouldn't be god. To think that a supreme being would be so small, so humble that we could discover him is beyond me. To me however that sounds no different to a feux-magician pulling an invisible rabbit out of a hat that no one can see or detect - and then declaring that it would not really be _magic_ if you could see the rabbit. It is an attempt to make the mark feel guilty for failing to see any reason to believe the charlatan - rather than the charlatan realizing that what he is espousing is entirely devoid of even the remotest level of substantiation and he is in fact making it up as he goes along. Link to post Share on other sites
TaraMaiden Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 makes me laugh...... Link to post Share on other sites
dtj567 Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 All I'm saying is the very nature of god makes it impossible to prove. I'm not trying to make anyone believe or guilty. you either believe do or you don't. The choice is personal. Link to post Share on other sites
TaxAHCruel Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 All I'm saying is the very nature of god makes it impossible to prove. I know. And all I am saying in reply is that there is no reason to think this is true. People merely define god to beyond the realms of evidence - so that they do not require evidence. They are - in essence - building truth into the definition in order to define it into being true. But ask yourself - if the "nature of god" puts it beyond the realms of evidence and reason - then how do you even know this IS the "nature of god". Clearly you are - by the tenets of your own definition not even mine - simply making it up as you go along. The choice is personal. For you maybe - and I am in awe of this because I simply am not capable of it. I can not _choose_ to believe something if there is no reason to believe it. I simply can not. If you give me an empty box I could not - no matter how much mental effort I pour into the task - choose to believe there is something in it. It will always be an empty box. Since there is literally no reason on offer - much less on this thread - to think there is a god therefore - I simply can not "choose" to believe it. I am simply incapable of believing it. Link to post Share on other sites
dtj567 Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 So what's your problem? You don't believe and... Link to post Share on other sites
TaxAHCruel Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 I do not recall suggesting I had one. The thread was created discussing a given topic and I am doing so along with everyone else. Do I require a "problem" in order to do this? Link to post Share on other sites
BeholdtheMan Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 So far, no one has proven god.Well, I am absolutely shocked! Thankfully, I can still pray to the tooth fairy Link to post Share on other sites
TaraMaiden Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 I do not recall suggesting I had one. The thread was created discussing a given topic and I am doing so along with everyone else. Do I require a "problem" in order to do this? I think he just wants to know what your point is. The thread title is "no Scientific proof of God". How does that affect you? Link to post Share on other sites
TaxAHCruel Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 How does that affect you? Same answer. It is the topic that is being discussed. No one told me I had to be affected by it (or not) in order to participate. I discuss many things I am not affected by. I am not a woman or gay but you will see me on many threads about gay rights or womens rights for example. Points were made - I made counter points - that is how a discussion goes. Why the shift away from the thread topic and on to me personally? I came to discuss the topic - I will continue to do so as and when it seems useful. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts