12 Apr 09
Originally posted by clearlightGod cannot ever be proven scientifically.
One of the slippery tactics employed by believers in a creator God is not to give any exact definition of what God is. This is because it is easy to refute the existense of God once we know what God is supposed to be - so they dont give any definitions other than unverifiable woolly mumbo-jumbo.
Another fault is failure to respond to refutations such a ...[text shortened]... as proof for god's existense but will be considered as proof of a lack of critical awareness.
Those who says so doesn't understand science, or doesn't understand religion.
Science and religion cannot ever be mixed.
13 Apr 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasI disagree. A scientific view point should lead you to believe that if God does exist then there should be scientific evidence for him. But maybe you believe that religion is self delusion in which case I might agree with you.
God cannot ever be proven scientifically.
Those who says so doesn't understand science, or doesn't understand religion.
Science and religion cannot ever be mixed.
13 Apr 09
Originally posted by twhitehead"If god exists then..." is the same kind of asssumption as "If you travel with a speed faster than that of light, then...".
I disagree. A scientific view point should lead you to believe that if God does exist then there should be scientific evidence for him. But maybe you believe that religion is self delusion in which case I might agree with you.
If you assume something unscientific, then every statement following cannot be right or wrong, just undefined.
The existance of god isn't a part of science, because it assumes that natural laws can be broken, therefore not scientific.
13 Apr 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat do you think you'd see for scientific evidence if God were real?
I disagree. A scientific view point should lead you to believe that if God does exist then there should be scientific evidence for him. But maybe you believe that religion is self delusion in which case I might agree with you.
Kelly
13 Apr 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasHey FF, hope you are OK, high and kicking!
"If god exists then..." is the same kind of asssumption as "If you travel with a speed faster than that of light, then...".
If you assume something unscientific, then every statement following cannot be right or wrong, just undefined.
The existance of god isn't a part of science, because it assumes that natural laws can be broken, therefore not scientific.
The case as posed by clearlight is related to the existence of probable philosophical theories and scientific facts and evidence pointing towards the existence of an entity which the religious people tend to call "god".
If there were such facts and evidence I would accept asap the existence of such an entity. If this entity was presented like, say, the force of gravity but with utmost conceptual awareness, and if its effects in the physical world were measurable the way the effects of gravity are, and if it was possible to prove that the "attitude" and the results caused by the force of the gravity were self imposed consiously and according to the will of this "Divine Gravity", which by the way is eager to be worshiped by the Human the way the Christians/ Muslims et al pose it, then yeap, I would accept that "god" exists (although I am not sure if I would like to worship such an entity regardless of its intelligence and its force).
In that case, the fact that the "Divine Gravity" distorts at will specific physical phenomena, it would necessarily mean that the natural laws could be broken solely by means of a "miracle".
Or have we to assume that the distortions caused by the black holes are anyway "miracles" that they are breaking the natural laws, and that the gravity itself as we know it is just one of the countless footprints of the existence of God?
😵
13 Apr 09
Originally posted by black beetleWhat god are we talking about? The one who inspired the scripture, or some magical entity who embodies in, say, gravitation?
Hey FF, hope you are OK, high and kicking!
The case as posed by clearlight is related to the existence of probable philosophical theories and scientific facts and evidence pointing towards the existence of an entity which the religious people tend to call "god".
If there were such facts and evidence I would accept asap the existence of such an ent ...[text shortened]... as we know it is just one of the countless footprints of the existence of God?
😵
We can do experiments with gravitation, but we cannot do it what we ordinarily call god. Therefore I don't like to name gravitation as god.
Science is science. Religion is religion. They cannot ever meet.
13 Apr 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasWe are talking about the concept of "god" in relation with the basic teleological and/ or cosmological "prove". The cosmological "prove" supposes that the existence of this supernatural entity is based on the cause-effect principle (according to which everything exists because of a specific cause and thus, since it is impossible for everything to exist without cause, then the univerce itself is created because of an unconceivable to the Human cause; and it is created by "god", as the religious people use to claim).
What god are we talking about? The one who inspired the scripture, or some magical entity who embodies in, say, gravitation?
We can do experiments with gravitation, but we cannot do it what we ordinarily call god. Therefore I don't like to name gravitation as god.
Science is science. Religion is religion. They cannot ever meet.
Therefore, according to the cosmological prove, the creation of the universe happened because the Creator had the will and the force to create it, and not because of the influential forces that we monitor by philosophical and scientific means. Of course, the religious people are confident that "god" stands above the cause-effect principle blahblahblahblah (some religionists even claimed that "god" is the cause of the existence of "god", mind you!).
Now, this "god" is supposed to be the agent who inspired and urged the Human to write down her/ his "word" and her/ his so called divine message in the so called holy scriptures, and s/he embodies everything known and unknown, the force of gravity included😵
13 Apr 09
Originally posted by black beetleOnly to see if I've understood you correctly:
We are talking about the concept of "god" in relation with the basic teleological and/ or cosmological "prove". The cosmological "prove" supposes that the existence of this supernatural entity is based on the cause-effect principle (according to which everything exists because of a specific cause and thus, since it is impossible for everything to exist ...[text shortened]... nd s/he embodies everything known and unknown, the force of gravity included😵
Do you think the existance of the christian god can be proven?
If so, can you bring up a scientific experiment to prove his existance?
Or do you think it's possible to prove there is a god, even if it is not the christian one, like the one god in particular responsible to gravitation?
13 Apr 09
Originally posted by Thequ1ckOur limitations does not give or take away meaning from anything
God is both a noun and a verb
13Then Moses said to God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?” 14God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”
This means that language is inadequete to describe him. ergo. 'God' is meaningless.
let alone God.
Kelly
13 Apr 09
Originally posted by dannyUchihaIf you don't know what to look for one way or another exactly how
I once heard that "absence of evidence is usually evidence of absence".
Just something to think about.
would you know real evidence isn't all around you, right in your face,
and you just simply don't know it, or acknowledge it?
Just something to think about.
Kelly
13 Apr 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasCmon FF, you know I think that the existence of the christian god cannot be proven🙂
Only to see if I've understood you correctly:
Do you think the existance of the christian god can be proven?
If so, can you bring up a scientific experiment to prove his existance?
Or do you think it's possible to prove there is a god, even if it is not the christian one, like the one god in particular responsible to gravitation?
But I thought you knew also that our theist friends use to claim that the universe itself and everything known and unknown that is contained within it, visible and invisible alike, are simply the footprints of the "god". This procedure, which imitates Philosopy, along with the religious axioms that they imitate the philosophical axioms, is the object of the well known "science" of Theology😵
13 Apr 09
Originally posted by KellyJayI guess the same can be said the other way around. How do you know it is there, right in your face?
If you don't know what to look for one way or another exactly how
would you know real evidence isn't all around you, right in your face,
and you just simply don't know it, or acknowledge it?
Just something to think about.
Kelly
I think it is easier to prove something is NOT there than prove it is. It has become quite clear to me that if God existed (or not), we simply can't tell.
I guess that's why they call it faith, instead of something like "the science of God".😉
13 Apr 09
Originally posted by clearlightEvolution rocks dude
One of the slippery tactics employed by believers in a creator God is not to give any exact definition of what God is. This is because it is easy to refute the existense of God once we know what God is supposed to be - so they dont give any definitions other than unverifiable woolly mumbo-jumbo.
Another fault is failure to respond to refutations such a ...[text shortened]... as proof for god's existense but will be considered as proof of a lack of critical awareness.