14 Apr 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasThat is only true if you have a rather weird definition of "God". But you are using a strawman argument. You are telling Christians how to define their God then telling them he is unscientific.
"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.
Natural laws cannot be broken by definition. I suspect it is you that does not understand science. Science does not define laws then dictate to the universe to obey them. Science merely observes the universe and tries to understand what laws govern it. If what we believe to be laws are broken then it is our understanding that is wrong and not the universe breaking 'natural' laws.
If God exists then any effects he has on the universe are a part of the natural laws of the universe and thus are neither breaking any natural laws nor unscientific. Also they should be detectable unless God specifically goes to great lengths to make sure they are not in which case as a scientist we should simply assume they do not exist.
If a religious belief includes effects in the universe such as a world wide flood then there is nothing wrong with scientifically looking for evidence. If the evidence strongly points towards there never having been a world wide flood then one should conclude that either the belief is false or God covered up all the evidence deliberately. But to simply sit back and say science and religion don't mix is equivalent to saying all beliefs are necessarily false or covered up by God. I don't think you have good reason for such a claim.
14 Apr 09
Originally posted by dannyUchihaPersonally, the only way I think anyone can find God is for God to
I guess the same can be said the other way around. How do you know it is there, right in your face?
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".😉
show Himself to them, but even there they can still deny it as we can
deny anything we like.
Kelly
14 Apr 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo, I'm not telling Christians how to define their God, I'm asking for a definition of a god, any god. Christians can answer, or anyone else. The answer might be that the christian god is included in this definition, or perhaps excluded. I haven't seen such a definition that is based on more than opinions.
That is only true if you have a rather weird definition of "God". But you are using a strawman argument. You are telling Christians how to define their God then telling them he is unscientific.
Natural laws cannot be broken by definition. I suspect it is you that does not understand science. Science does not define laws then dictate to the universe to ob ...[text shortened]... cessarily false or covered up by God. I don't think you have good reason for such a claim.
If we don't define god, then how can we prove his existance? It cannot be done. Therefore I say that religion cannot be proven scientifically.
We both know that natural laws cannot be broken. If they can, we have to extend our knowledge about this natural law in particular. This is done experimentally. God cannot be part of natural laws, therefore he cannot be studied scientifically, or even be scientifically experimented upon.
Science and religion are two different worlds, two different views of the universe. I don't deny that there are things that cannot be covered by science. Everything is not science. What's left outside science can of course be religion. And there is a gray zone in between. Nothing strange with this. It's a myth that scientists knows everything, simply not true. It's also a myth that what scientists don't know about is religion. Not true either. (Ask for examples and I give gladly them.)
When a cristian says "God exists!" I say "Good for you!" But when he says "Gods existance can be proven scientifically!" I say "Don't bring science into this!" No religion cannot ever be proven scientifically, because if it can it's not a religion.
Religion and science cannot ever mix!
14 Apr 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasThere are many definitions, sure thing. According to, ie, Webster, “god” is the supreme or ultimate reality/ the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe.
No, I'm not telling Christians how to define their God, I'm asking for a definition of a god, any god. Christians can answer, or anyone else. The answer might be that the christian god is included in this definition, or perhaps excluded. I haven't seen such a definition that is based on more than opinions.
If we don't define god, then how can we prove ...[text shortened]... cause if it can it's not a religion.
Religion and science cannot ever mix!
The Christians consider as “God” the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit.
God is defined as an infinite Mind too, as a being or object or an entity of supreme value, as a powerful ruler that is believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; etc etc.
Therefore the differ definitions exist, and we can evaluate them easily by means of using Philosophy and Science😵
14 Apr 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasEdit:
No, I'm not telling Christians how to define their God, I'm asking for a definition of a god, any god. Christians can answer, or anyone else. The answer might be that the christian god is included in this definition, or perhaps excluded. I haven't seen such a definition that is based on more than opinions.
If we don't define god, then how can we prove ...[text shortened]... cause if it can it's not a religion.
Religion and science cannot ever mix!
“We both know that natural laws cannot be broken. If they can, we have to extend our knowledge about this natural law in particular. This is done experimentally. God cannot be part of natural laws, therefore he cannot be studied scientifically, or even be scientifically experimented upon.”
Over here our theist friends they state that everything, the natural laws included, are caused and initiated by “god”. Well, is the theory of “god” as a whole, false or right? In my opinion it ‘s quite problematic, but that’s all. For the time being the philosopher cannot simply reject or accept by means of scientific facts and evidence the existence of “god”. At the thread at which we were talking about the origins of gravity I told you that for the time being there 's no “because” -you can go all the way back to the point singularity but you cannot reach t=0, mind you!
I ‘m an atheist, but this has to do with my personal evaluation of the mind at this very moment, therefore in the future I may change my mind once we get sufficient datas.
All in all, as long as there will be not an holistic “because”, the concept of the religion alive will remain. But it ain't mean that I am forced to accept that this or that religious doctrine is the so called “word of god” and thus the “ultimate truth”, sure thing😵
14 Apr 09
Originally posted by black beetleDoes the Hindu gods fit in in Websters definition? Do all various gods of various religions fit in in this definition? I don't think so. It's christianocentric, or at least abrahamistocentric definition.
There are many definitions, sure thing. According to, ie, Webster, “god” is the supreme or ultimate reality/ the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe.
The Christians consider as “God” the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit.
God is defined as an infinite Mind too ...[text shortened]... er definitions exist, and we can evaluate them easily by means of using Philosophy and Science😵
Mr Webster: Not good. Redo!
And a correct definition that we all can agree upon is important. If not, we cannot even begin to scientifically prove the existance of god. But, as I already stated, my opinion is that the existance of god, any god, is not possible. Religion and science cannot ever mix.
Would I be happy if there really is a method to prove god? Yes, I would! That would extend science into new areas, and that makes me very happy!
14 Apr 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasMy Gota enemy,
Does the Hindu gods fit in in Websters definition? Do all various gods of various religions fit in in this definition? I don't think so. It's christianocentric, or at least abrahamistocentric definition.
Mr Webster: Not good. Redo!
And a correct definition that we all can agree upon is important. If not, we cannot even begin to scientifically prove t ...[text shortened]... ove god? Yes, I would! That would extend science into new areas, and that makes me very happy!
the Hindu gods are just different manifestations of the same supernatural existence😵
14 Apr 09
Originally posted by black beetleI don't know much about the Hindu religion... Aren't there many different gods? Is the supernatural existance the sum of all others? No individual gods?
My Gota enemy,
the Hindu gods are just different manifestations of the same supernatural existence😵
But the other polyteistic religions, does really Websters definition fit in? Like the ancient greek gods? Or the nordic gods from the Viking era?
Bottom line, isn't the definition of Websters perfectly made to fit in the abrahamic god, leaving the rest of the religions aside?
14 Apr 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasThe specific definition covers specific areas and is related to "god" and not to "gods". The "gods" invented and worshipped by your ancestors and my ancestors were quite different than the "god" that was invented and worshipped by the believers of the Abrahamic religions.
I don't know much about the Hindu religion... Aren't there many different gods? Is the supernatural existance the sum of all others? No individual gods?
But the other polyteistic religions, does really Websters definition fit in? Like the ancient greek gods? Or the nordic gods from the Viking era?
Bottom line, isn't the definition of Websters perfectly made to fit in the abrahamic god, leaving the rest of the religions aside?
The definition provided by Webster is in my opinion correct, because even the "gods" of the ancient Greeks and of your ancestors were obliged to follow and to honor the supreme leader of their lot, who was the leader and the ruler of the Universe too in analogy with the "god" of the three Abrahamic religions.
14 Apr 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasYou clearly don't understand the most basic rules of logic. A definition does not need to be based on anything. There is absolutely nothing wrong with someone basing their definition of God on nothing but opinions. However once defined one can then investigate whether there is evidence that an entity as defined exists. One must be careful however not to assume that if some properties have evidence for them then the other properties follow. For example if I define my God as a pink unicorn, and then show that animals with hooves and manes exist, I have not yet proven the existence of my God.
No, I'm not telling Christians how to define their God, I'm asking for a definition of a god, any god. Christians can answer, or anyone else. The answer might be that the christian god is included in this definition, or perhaps excluded. I haven't seen such a definition that is based on more than opinions.
If we don't define god, then how can we prove his existance? It cannot be done. Therefore I say that religion cannot be proven scientifically.
You now appear to be claiming that we cannot define God. Where did that come from?
God cannot be part of natural laws, therefore he cannot be studied scientifically, or even be scientifically experimented upon.
Sounds like you do have a definition for God. How on earth would you know that he cannot be part of natural laws?
14 Apr 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadThen we have an arbitrarily defined phenomena that we call god. If we don't have a definition that covers all aspects of what god is to various people in/of various religion, that's not a good definition.
You clearly don't understand the most basic rules of logic. A definition does not need to be based on anything. There is absolutely nothing wrong with someone basing their definition of God on nothing but opinions. However once defined one can then investigate whether there is evidence that an entity as defined exists. One must be careful however not to a ...[text shortened]... have a definition for God. How on earth would you know that he cannot be part of natural laws?
If you want to define your god as a pink unicorn, that's fine with me, but you are rather alone with this definition. My question is: "Is there a universal difeinition of 'god'?" Your answer cannot be 'yes'. Does this mean that there is no proper definition of god?
Fabian:
If we don't define god, then how can we prove his existance? It cannot be done. Therefore I say that religion cannot be proven scientifically.
twhitehead:
You now appear to be claiming that we cannot define God. Where did that come from?
That comes from me. Unless we cannot define god in a way that all of us agrees upon, we cannot use 'god' in any proof.
Fabian:
God cannot be part of natural laws, therefore he cannot be studied scientifically, or even be scientifically experimented upon.
twhitehead:
Sounds like you do have a definition for God. How on earth would you know that he cannot be part of natural laws?
No, that's not a definition. That's a property. As god is supernatural (he is claimed to be in existance before the universe) he cannot be a part of natural laws. As he created the natural laws, he stands above them.
God (any god) is not part of science, he cannot be proven. That's my opinion.
When somone have a valid proof, then I change my opinion. I can easily bet my soul on this, because I feel rather confident that I am right. (That was a joke. Don't go deep onthat one.)
14 Apr 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasThe fact that there are differ religions means not that there is not a universal definition of "god". In general, we all know that "god" is considered the supernatural creator and overseer of the universe; the theists attribute to this supernatural existence the virtues of omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence and omnibenevolence, they claim that s/he is eternal and all that jazz.
Then we have an arbitrarily defined phenomena that we call god. If we don't have a definition that covers all aspects of what god is to various people in/of various religion, that's not a good definition.
If you want to define your god as a pink unicorn, that's fine with me, but you are rather alone with this definition. My question is: "Is there a uni ...[text shortened]... l rather confident that I am right. (That was a joke. Don't go deep onthat one.)
I have no problem at all to accept this definition amongst else, for starters😵
14 Apr 09
Originally posted by black beetleAre there no gods that hasn't created the universe? Does all of them created it?
The fact that there are differ religions means not that there is not a universal definition of "god". In general, we all know that "god" is considered the supernatural creator and overseer of the universe; the theists attribute to this supernatural existence the virtues of omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence and omnibenevolence, they claim that s/he ...[text shortened]... hat jazz.
I have no problem at all to accept this definition amongst else, for starters😵
Does a god need to be omnipotent? Isn't there a single god that lacks this quality?
Must a god be eternal? Cannot a god die? Or be born?