Can We Stop Arguing the Existence Of God?

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

How can he prove that what he does believe exists?

Well he could start by what caused him to believe and take step's to show what evidence has commited him to believe, then if the evidence is acceptable it is proof.........

But if you don't believe something exist's how do you actualy set about proving it doesn't exist scientificaly I don't see how

 

[Balerion]

Well, I guess we're just going to have to disagree on that. The way I see it, everything within the universe occurs naturally, so to make the jump to the supernatural as a cause...I'm sorry, it just doesn't hold water. If you want to go that route, then make room for the possibility that we're really just cells within a huge alien's toenail. I mean, what justification is there to narrow it down to a God? Why not a super-evolved race of aliens?

I guess the point I'm making is that assuming the supernatural is a jump you can't take. There's nothing supernatural about the universe, why would the cause of it be?

 

[John99]

The day we will find ourselves shall mark the day we find God. The day when we shall know all about ourselves shall be the day we know of God.

it is weird that so many people are in a hurry to find God or no God. "hey worship me, i created everything now worship me, worship me, worrrrrship me. oh no no no, just kidding dont worship me, come on dont...what are you doing?:bugeye:"

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

it is weird that so many people are in a hurry to find God or no God.

10-4. In the interest of humanity it's too bad it wasn't the other way around.

 

[Leo Volont]

But, wait, what about in the face of every positive Religious Assertion, of Saint, of Miracle, of Vision, that the Atheist insist that it all must be taken to a Controlled Laboratory and all repeated in a controlled experiment. You see, the Atheist must insist that EMPIRICAL evidence is no longer enough, that in the Modern World nothing can possibly be known until the Government pays for a Study Grant.

Seriously...how many more threads can we have by an atheist trying to use science to disprove God? At what point are we going to realize that it is a useless, baseless argument that has no standing in any science whatsoever?

I'm not a believer, but it shames me to see atheists actually trying to play this game. There is no way to disprove God. You can't do it! It's no different that trying to disprove ghosts! Or demons! Or bigfoot!

I would rather see intelligent conversations regarding the real issues, like where religion belongs in society, what role it plays and/or should play in politics, what role atheism should play in both, ect., ect.. We shouldn't be lowering ourselves to trying to disprove God, when we all know it can't be done. No matter what science you throw at a theist, they can always push God back further in the timeline. Evolution? Oh, OK, well, he programmed us for it. Big Bang? Oh, well, he did that. Quantum physics? Oh, well, that's just the framework that he built.

See? There's no amount of logic that works, because the furthest back science can go doesn't explain away any god.

So let's talk about the real stuff. C'mon, guys, we're better than this.

 

[Balerion]

But, wait, what about in the face of every positive Religious Assertion, of Saint, of Miracle, of Vision, that the Atheist insist that it all must be taken to a Controlled Laboratory and all repeated in a controlled experiment. You see, the Atheist must insist that EMPIRICAL evidence is no longer enough, that in the Modern World nothing can possibly be known until the Government pays for a Study Grant.

Every miracle? Do you have proof of any miracle? No, you don't.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

I think I believe in god now more than I ever have, Im not religious though.


peace.

 

[ronan]

everybody believe in god, but some do not know that they do

 

[Medicine*Woman]

everybody believe in god, but some do not know that they do

*************
M*W: I think I understand what you're trying to say, but can you please explain why you think this is so?

 

[ronan]

*************
M*W: I think I understand what you're trying to say, but can you please explain why you think this is so?

I was happy with the sentence, asking me to develop will maybe loose its strength

but let express my thought, (mis-t-highs, if you are here, please give argument or leave )

there are many reasons, one is because of my view of god: god is consciousness
it follows that because we believe consciousness exist, we believe god exists

the other reason: we all believe in something bigger than us, or at least that a reality exist beyond our perception, all these could be god.

what would be your reason (you said that you understand) ?

 

[mis-t-highs]

but let express my thought, (mis-t-highs, if you are here, please give argument or leave

Argument to what! you've not put forward an argument worthy of debate.
Put something logical, intelligible, and sensible, on the board and I will.

 

[audible]

Seriously...how many more threads can we have by an atheist trying to use science to disprove God?

Atheist dont use science to disprove god, thats a given. Atheist use science, to try to make it understandable to the religious.

At what point are we going to realize that it is a useless, baseless argument that has no standing in any science whatsoever?

We (being the atheists) do understand that, it's making the religious understand, that's the problem.

I'm not a believer, but it shames me to see atheists actually trying to play this game. There is no way to disprove God. You can't do it! It's no different that trying to disprove ghosts! Or demons! Or bigfoot!

I believe that all athiest believe that is so, I've not seen any try to disprove god, as we all know, it is infantile to do so. Yet we still get asked by the religious to. Go figure.

I would rather see intelligent conversations regarding the real issues, like where religion belongs in society, what role it plays and/or should play in politics, what role atheism should play in both, ect., ect..

You are asking the impossible there, when one sides argument is based in subjective reality.
That like trying to have a sensible debate with a chimp.
You've only to look at some of the statements and threads put up by the likes of leo volont, woody, lightgigantic, ronan, to name but a few.
however some theist do put up some very well thought out threads, but sadly this is a rarity.

We shouldn't be lowering ourselves to trying to disprove God, when we all know it can't be done. No matter what science you throw at a theist, they can always push God back further in the timeline. Evolution? Oh, OK, well, he programmed us for it. Big Bang? Oh, well, he did that. Quantum physics? Oh, well, that's just the framework that he built.

Don't they just.

See? There's no amount of logic that works, because the furthest back science can go doesn't explain away any god.

Science doesn't try to explain away god, it has no reason to concider god as a viable concept.

 

[spidergoat]

Atheist dont use science to disprove god, thats a given.

No it isn't, and they do.

Atheist use science, to try to make it understandable to the religious.We (being the atheists) do understand that, it's making the religious understand, that's the problem.I believe that all athiest believe that is so, I've not seen any try to disprove god, as we all know, it is infantile to do so.

If God has any effect at all on the physical world, then it can be examined by science. It is not infantile to do so. There have been scientific tests, for instance, on prayer.

Science doesn't try to explain away god, it has no reason to concider god as a viable concept.

That doesn't matter. You can treat the question as a scientific problem. Does prayer work? Did Jesus exist and was he resurrected? Do priests and religious people enjoy greater prosperity or freedom from crime? Do miracles happen? Science has yet found no support for the existence of the supernatural, but that doesn't mean the supernatural isn't a valid subject.

 

[spidergoat]

As spidergoat mentioned in a different thread, when it comes to God it's not about proving or disproving, but rather probability. However, I find both the theories of Intelligent Design and natural occurences equally plausable with equal weight.

That's true. I suggest the non-existence of God can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but not absolutely, since almost nothing is subject to that degree of certainty in science.

 

[spidergoat]

But, wait, what about in the face of every positive Religious Assertion, of Saint, of Miracle, of Vision, that the Atheist insist that it all must be taken to a Controlled Laboratory and all repeated in a controlled experiment. You see, the Atheist must insist that EMPIRICAL evidence is no longer enough, that in the Modern World nothing can possibly be known until the Government pays for a Study Grant.

Remember, it was the religious that started alchemy and pre-scientific investigations of the natural world. They naturally assumed all results would support the Bible. Now that the results seem to contradict the Bible and organized religion, see how they back away from the practice? It is not enough that one person observe something. Even the religious must admit there is such a thing as mental illness and hallucinations. How does one determine that they are not caused by the devil?

 

[audible]

No it isn't, and they do.

Ok, can you show one instants of it happening, thank you.

If God has any effect at all on the physical world, then it can be examined by science. It is not infantile to do so. There have been scientific tests, for instance, on prayer.

Ok, lets rephrase what I said, as it seems you think I'm invoking an absolute, heres what I said "I believe that all athiest believe that is so, I've not seen any try to disprove god,*scientists had tried in the past, and found no evidence** it is infantile to do so *now. Yet we still get asked by the religious to. Go figure."

* added
** removed

That doesn't matter. You can treat the question as a scientific problem. Does prayer work? Did Jesus exist and was he resurrected? Do priests and religious people enjoy greater prosperity or freedom from crime? Do miracles happen? Science has yet found no support for the existence of the supernatural, but that doesn't mean the supernatural isn't a valid subject.

As long as it's discussed as a subjective, pseudoscientific, immaterial, intangible, metaphysical, incorporeal, insubstantial, unapparent, vague, unknowable, unreal, concept, it is a valid subject, but outside of those parameter's it is most definitely infantile for the scientist, to discuss.

 

[spidergoat]

Ok, can you show one instants of it happening, thank you.

God: The Failed Hypothesis
How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist

As long as it's discussed as a subjective, pseudoscientific, immaterial, intangible, metaphysical, incorporeal, insubstantial, unapparent, vague, unknowable, unreal, concept, it is a valid subject, but outside of those parameter's it is most definitely infantile for the scientist, to discuss.

That is simply false. When investigating such phenomenon, it would be inappropriate to come to a conclusion before the experiment were conducted. If ghosts are seen, then they produce or reflect visible light, that is a physical phenomenon that can be tested. Presently, the supernatural has no evidence to support it, but if there were evidence, scientists would be extremely interested in learning about it. There have been perfectly valid scientific experiments conducted on ESP, for instance.

 

[ggazoo]

All I know is that there sure are a lot of atheists spending a lot of time talking about something that supposedly doesn't exist. :shrug:

 

[mis-t-highs]

That is simply false. When investigating such phenomenon, it would be inappropriate to come to a conclusion before the experiment were conducted.

But isn't that the very nature of a sceptic, and then to go about falsifying it after, to prove their point.

If ghosts are seen, then they produce or reflect visible light, that is a physical phenomenon that can be tested. Presently, the supernatural has no evidence to support it, but if there were evidence, scientists would be extremely interested in learning about it.

As would anybody, but without some kind of incentive/goal, to do a little research, most would leave it for someone else to do, or to gather dust.

 

[audible]

God: The Failed Hypothesis
How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist

thanks will read those.

That is simply false. When investigating such phenomenon, it would be inappropriate to come to a conclusion before the experiment were conducted. If ghosts are seen, then they produce or reflect visible light, that is a physical phenomenon that can be tested. Presently, the supernatural has no evidence to support it, but if there were evidence, scientists would be extremely interested in learning about it. There have been perfectly valid scientific experiments conducted on ESP, for instance.

yes I know experiments are carried out, on these things, but nobody claims them as true scientific studies.