The concept of God is impossible to prove either the existence or the nonexistence of: however, a method might exist for the evaluation of "gods" as they are described in the holy books that house the details of their character and actions, for only god in abstract is unprovable but by a sort of flavor learned us by their actions we might be able to dismiss different gods as petty, incompetent, impotent and short-sighted - this is part of the reason why the old ancient gods were so easy to dismiss - they were riddled with all sorts of imperfect qualities to the point where belief in them denoted blind lunacy. God has stepped out of the abstract, out of which nothing can be said, and into a verifiable realm where he is not invulnerable to betraying himself. The method seems to have been used throughout history without being formalized or inscribed for all to see...denial of another religions gods is a necessary condition of subscribing to one over the other (minus universalists) so a great many people have had experience with this across history. Can such a systematized god denying method exist to disprove all gods and not just the ones a particular group identifies with?
The God Denying Method
- Thread starter Sin
- Start date
This is exactly the method employed by Victor Stenger in his book, God: The Failed Hypothesis How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist. He only chooses to disprove the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god.
I disagree. Every concept of a god I've seen argued by a human being includes this god's involvement in our reality. If a god can affect the natural world, it can be observed if only through it's actions. Much the way the wind can be observed by the rotation of an anemometer.
The problem is, the universe looks and behaves exactly as one might expect if there were no god in it. Therefore, absence of evidence becomes evidence of absence.
so basically to understand the causality would be best understood by a scientific method?
BULL!
they cannot even get the math to fit the observed galaxies; hence they 'created' dark matter/energy and black holes.
meaning the predictions DO NOT meet the observations.
Heck, the scientific community cannot even define how phospholipid bilayer assemble; they call it hydrophilic and hydrophobic but have no idea what the causality is.
it said; to ground reality to nature (what we all can experience), then the created ideals of an 'isolated, omnipotent god' being the cause would become moot. (old extinct knowledge)
Nothing practiced by humans is consistently perfect. Humans are fallible yet they're extremely less fallible practicing science than religion. Religion is full of such mistakes. A few mistakes by scientists do nothing to validate gods or to refute that the universe is as it would be without them.
Bishadi,
Dark matter is a new postulation, driven by observation of the behavior of galaxies. More importantly, it is a kind of matter, not spirit or anything supernatural.
Dark matter is a new postulation, driven by observation of the behavior of galaxies. More importantly, it is a kind of matter, not spirit or anything supernatural.
That's NOT the problem. The problem 'lies' not with the behavior of the universe but rather the behavior of its inhabitants i.e. acting as if there were no God...suppressing God's testimony within them concerning their encounters without.
Absence of honesty ultimately becomes experience of absence.
Very well stated.
There is no testimony of God within me or within any non-believer. No confirmation of God is presented to many sincere seekers, it is claimed that one must accept it in the absence of evidence, and this is called a virtue.
This... testimony... is there a reason it isn't shared? Obviously this doesn't include biblical mythology. Nor would I expect someone of your intellect to utilize the circular argument that your god's testimony is contained in biblical mythology because biblical mythology stipulates itself to be the inerrant word of a god whom we must accept because it is stipulated in biblical mythology.
I've yet to see good reason to behave as if there were a god. And you sure haven't demonstrated that if a god exists that your version of this god is the correct one.
Nice try, however: fail.
Sin,
No. Because the method used is only a reaction to something.
If somebody got to the stage where they could ACTUALLY deny GOD, then
they must KNOW GOD.
There can be many reasons why we deny God, and to some extent we all do, even if only various times, these reasons have nothing to do with God, or even the concept of God. They are purely selfish.
jan.
No. Because the method used is only a reaction to something.
If somebody got to the stage where they could ACTUALLY deny GOD, then
they must KNOW GOD.
There can be many reasons why we deny God, and to some extent we all do, even if only various times, these reasons have nothing to do with God, or even the concept of God. They are purely selfish.
jan.
So simple yet so true.
Of course if your words were globally accepted then God would then magically be transformed into a being that's beyond scientific scrutiny if He isn't already. There was a time when God walked among us, talked with us, ate, drank, slept & planned with us in person...and now He is further relegated to the mysterious incomprehensible inter-dimensional zone. Harder to believe and disprove.
The more God is shown to be a figment the more ethereal He becomes. I don't know how that can't be eroding theistic foundations. Not only is God moving farther into the mysterious zone for atheists but for theists as well. Hopefully these are good signs.
That statement is simply an emotional reaction to a perfectly logical response on the part of those who take an atheist position. The Judeo/Islamic/Christian God has attributes that can be tested. Is a supernatural force of some kind required to explain the evolution of life? No. Does prayer work? No. Is this God even a moral one who's teachings we can admire and should emulate? No. Does faith in something without evidence (or even in spite of contradictory evidence) provide practical results? No. Does following religion generate moral behavior? No. Are apocalyptic myths beneficial to mankind? No.
I wish religious people would at least be honest in their criticism of religious criticism. Basically, you are calling us liars, saying that we are not expressing our full thoughts and feelings on the matter. I deny God because there is no compelling reason to believe in this concept, and many good reasons why such beliefs generate negative impacts on mankind.