NationStates Jolt Archive

Why? Well let me enlighten you.

If someone wanted to believe in God they would, its as simple as that. Most people that dont believe in God list lack of proof as reason why. Now, it is of my opinion that nothing short of the almighty himself coming down out of heaven and greeting the fictional person in question would do as proof. And I also believe that if this happened, they would try to dismiss it as natural phenomena, halucination, or would deny it all together as their entire existance up to this point revolved around the fact that there is no God. Now for the believers (such as myself) they accept faith as proof enough, wheter you be Pagan, Jewish, Muslim whatever. And it is also my opinion that God as a supernatural being is illogical. In fact, all religion is illogical. I say this becuase there is a thread circulating at the moment where the author is trying to find constradictions in the Bible. Now, if you have half a brain in your head you are aware of the fact that the Bible is full of contradictions, missing sections, etc. And it goes without saying that some passages in the Bible are hard to understand, some verses even seem apochrypal. Now you may ask, "why would God purposefully insert these cryptic verses into the Bible". Well, to tell the truth, im not entirely sure and im sure many others share the same sentiment. But I do believe that if God meant for us to understand the passages in question he would have made it clear as day as to what they mean. But back to the original thread of this post, just as an Atheist would denounce God if undeniable proof was presented to them, I am sure that a believer would keep their faith if someone presented clear proof that God does not exist. There are many here that will say this has been proven time and time again. But the analogy I used for Atheists also applies here. Supposed proof has been made as to the non-existance of God, but yet religion is still growing steadily around the world with no signs of stopping. Therefore, people will believe or not believe in God whether they want to or not regardless of "proof".

Yes, but it's also pointless to point out the pointlessness of trying to prove God.

I mean seriously, people are not going to stop arguing about it. Ever.

those who deny the gods are destined to be smited by them. except for jesus, because he is a sissy girly man, who liked being flogged by hairy italian guys in leather(okay so that's not so bad but...)

those who deny the gods are destined to be smited by them. except for jesus, because he is a sissy girly man, who liked being flogged by hairy italian guys in leather(okay so that's not so bad but...)


Actually, the romans weren't hairy. It was quite a social stigma in those days.

But yeah, the leather flogging thing was quite possible.

Carry on.

Yes yes yes!

The beauty of science is in its simplistic premise. You can't PROVE anything with science, you can only claim something and then wait for an exception to your claim. And you can only use repeatedly observable material to do so. Material that you can experience with the senses.

God is intangible. If you believe in god, then god can be a cause to explain things, like; why we are here; why your new snotling is so beautiful; why that object narrowly missed your head. If you don't believe in god, there are equally acceptable explanations for such things; random interaction of physics, chemistry and thermodynamics; a genetic bias to appreciate your own kind; you ducked just at the right time.

As a theist and a scientist, I'm evidence that you can enjoy both god and science. In the inquiring mind, one does not preclude the other, because science is restricted to the tangible, god is restricted to the intangible. Attributing tangible events to god is the epitome of a weak scientist, and trying to explain matters of faith is the epitome of a person who cannot grasp the fundamentals of science.

Science can seem like an unstoppable juggernaut, and a threat to those who cling to god as an explanation for everything. I think people fear that accepting the rationality of science will be a threat to their faith. I would propose that allowing scientific inquiry would refine faith. We could cultivate faith that was purely devoted to what god is, rather than sullying the notion of faith with false attributes. Throughout history, one can observe instances where science has explained something that was previously attributed to faith, like disease and weather. Scientific inquiry should only be hindered by what we can't observe yet, unless it breaches Kant's Categorical Imperative (1).

To let faith be bandied around as an alternative explanation to everything is the mark of intellectual laziness, and it devalues faith. To let science presume to explain god is, is the mark of intellectual ignorance, and it attributes capabilities to science which science does not posess. Both of these are tempting when not fully understood, and dangerous when wielded by authority.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

Actually, the romans weren't hairy. It was quite a social stigma in those days.

But yeah, the leather flogging thing was quite possible.

Carry on.

oh yeah that's right they plucked their body hair didn't they(i knew reading semipornographic historical romances would have so positive benefit down the line)

Yes yes yes!

The beauty of science is in its simplistic premise. You can't PROVE anything with science, you can only claim something and then wait for an exception to your claim. And you can only use repeatedly observable material to do so. Material that you can experience with the senses.

God is intangible. If you believe in god, then god can be a cause to explain things, like; why we are here; why your new snotling is so beautiful; why that object narrowly missed your head. If you don't believe in god, there are equally acceptable explanations for such things; random interaction of physics, chemistry and thermodynamics; a genetic bias to appreciate your own kind; you ducked just at the right time.

As a theist and a scientist, I'm evidence that you can enjoy both god and science. In the inquiring mind, one does not preclude the other, because science is restricted to the tangible, god is restricted to the intangible. Attributing tangible events to god is the epitome of a weak scientist, and trying to explain matters of faith is the epitome of a person who cannot grasp the fundamentals of science.

Science can seem like an unstoppable juggernaut, and a threat to those who cling to god as an explanation for everything. I think people fear that accepting the rationality of science will be a threat to their faith. I would propose that allowing scientific inquiry would refine faith. We could cultivate faith that was purely devoted to what god is, rather than sullying the notion of faith with false attributes. Throughout history, one can observe instances where science has explained something that was previously attributed to faith, like disease and weather. Scientific inquiry should only be hindered by what we can't observe yet, unless it breaches Kant's Categorical Imperative (1).

To let faith be bandied around as an alternative explanation to everything is the mark of intellectual laziness, and it devalues faith. To let science presume to explain god is, is the mark of intellectual ignorance, and it attributes capabilities to science which science does not posess. Both of these are tempting when not fully understood, and dangerous when wielded by authority.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

So then, I must ask you, in your opinion, what is it that given others the ability to believe in what they cannot sense, and not others?

Yes yes yes!

The beauty of science is in its simplistic premise. You can't PROVE anything with science, you can only claim something and then wait for an exception to your claim. And you can only use repeatedly observable material to do so. Material that you can experience with the senses.

God is intangible. If you believe in god, then god can be a cause to explain things, like; why we are here; why your new snotling is so beautiful; why that object narrowly missed your head. If you don't believe in god, there are equally acceptable explanations for such things; random interaction of physics, chemistry and thermodynamics; a genetic bias to appreciate your own kind; you ducked just at the right time.

As a theist and a scientist, I'm evidence that you can enjoy both god and science. In the inquiring mind, one does not preclude the other, because science is restricted to the tangible, god is restricted to the intangible. Attributing tangible events to god is the epitome of a weak scientist, and trying to explain matters of faith is the epitome of a person who cannot grasp the fundamentals of science.

Science can seem like an unstoppable juggernaut, and a threat to those who cling to god as an explanation for everything. I think people fear that accepting the rationality of science will be a threat to their faith. I would propose that allowing scientific inquiry would refine faith. We could cultivate faith that was purely devoted to what god is, rather than sullying the notion of faith with false attributes. Throughout history, one can observe instances where science has explained something that was previously attributed to faith, like disease and weather. Scientific inquiry should only be hindered by what we can't observe yet, unless it breaches Kant's Categorical Imperative (1).

To let faith be bandied around as an alternative explanation to everything is the mark of intellectual laziness, and it devalues faith. To let science presume to explain god is, is the mark of intellectual ignorance, and it attributes capabilities to science which science does not posess. Both of these are tempting when not fully understood, and dangerous when wielded by authority.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative


Eh? No there is no evidence for god. That's all.

So then, I must ask you, in your opinion, what is it that given others the ability to believe in what they cannot sense, and not others?
Bloody good question. We could start by imagining that faith is on a continuum, with belief in god at one end, and belief in no god at the other. For this arguments sake, faith can be defined as belief in god. Belief isn't the same thing as god. Atheists aren't devoid of intensity in belief, or a capacity to believe, and I think we have to be careful how we define faith and belief, and subsequently how we classify the atheist. Belief is a function, separate from its object. I'm going to put the atheists at the "belief in no god" end, and theists at the other end.

In my experience, people have an innate tendency toward belief. Children are happy to believe in Santa and ghosts. St Francis Xavier said "Give me the children until they are seven, and anyone may take them afterwards." Belief is innate, but rationalisation is a function of the intellect that must be learned. We have to learn to distinguish between what we ought to belief and what we shouldn't, otherwise our belief will be weakened by every alternative viewpoint that comes our way. As far as faith is concerned, we define these rationalisations based on a framework which may include scripture, personal intuition and experience, and dogma. The atheist will define the rationlisation that there is no god based on a different framework, which may include personal intuition and experience, rejecting the validity of a scripture, and recognising the fallibility of humans. The framework is individual and variable, the process of rationalisation is also individual and variable. The end belief is as unique as the person who holds the belief. Even if we both believe in god, our beliefs will no doubt be different.

What is it that has given some the ability to believe the intangible and not others? I don't think belief in anything is something that is given. I think it is belief is an unknown potential within each of us, as individual and innate as personality and thought process. If we are all indoctrinated in the same way, religiously or socially, there will always be an exception for which the indictrination doesn't work. Tendency to believe is in everyone. They just learn to believe to different things.

Of course, I could go all glib on your arse and say 'god knows...' :D

I've been trying to say this for a while. I mean, hypothetically, say there is a God. Who's to say he woulf follow the existing laws of human logic and reason anyway. It's like trying to explain differential equations using one-syllabel words. :D

Ein Deutscher']People believing in god are mentally retarded. Simple as that. :rolleyes:
Have you come to that conclusion via belief? Or by a systemic, scientific investigation?
A quick 'google' of the parameters 'faith' and 'scientists'* produces the following evidence:
Einstein, Planck, Kelvin, Mendel, Faraday, Boyle, Newton, Descartes, Galilei, Kepler, Copernicus. All believed in god. All capable of writing lab reports/scientific papers.

I would propose the alternative hypothesis, that forum flamers are mentally retarded, if we define mentally retarded by the following variables: incapable of comprehending both sides of the argument; quick to disparage oppostion instead of offering insight; happy to denigrate themselves with their hasty trolling. I hope that helps your belief and/or scientific inquiry.

*I'm using scientist as a simplisitic definition of someone who isn't mentally retarded, because in my experience, witing lab reports would be impossible if one was mentally retarded. Plus, I think it ties in nicely with my previous argument that the two states are not mutually exclusive.

Those scientists "believed" in god because it was fashionable or the social norm at their times. Nowadays most scientists, I think, do not believe in god anymore. Believing in something that has never been proven, that has been created by mankind to explain natural powers in the past, something that is supposedly outside of our universe and can never be seen or examined, is mentally retarded in my opinion. It's simple peer-pressure, a social norm in some countries to this date. But "belief" in god is a choice one makes willingly, thus I am saying that faith in something that cannot be seen or examined is irrational and without basis, thus mentally retarded.

Ein Deutscher']Those scientists "believed" in god because it was fashionable or the social norm at their times. Nowadays most scientists, I think, do not believe in god anymore. Believing in something that has never been proven, that has been created by mankind to explain natural powers in the past, something that is supposedly outside of our universe and can never be seen or examined, is mentally retarded in my opinion. It's simple peer-pressure, a social norm in some countries to this date. But "belief" in god is a choice one makes willingly, thus I am saying that faith in something that cannot be seen or examined is irrational and without basis, thus mentally retarded.I see "I Thinks" and "My Opinions" in there... any PROOF? or are you basing your "Opinions" on something that cannot be proven, examined, and thus in your views, Irrational and without basis.

wonder what that makes you?

I know alot of people in the Scientific feild.. (Medical Research) who go to Church. So you are wrong on that point.

Naturally I can't prove that something doesn't exist. Instead you should prove that god does exist. Can you prove it? I think not. :rolleyes:

Ein Deutscher']Naturally I can't prove that something doesn't exist. Instead you should prove that god does exist. Can you prove it? I think not. :rolleyes:but you claim that all who believe in God are Mentally Retarded... that is the Proof I'm asking for. If you cannot prove it, then by your own statements, you are also Mentally Retarded.

you claim that... "Believing in something that has never been proven, that has been created by mankind to explain natural powers in the past, something that is supposedly outside of our universe and can never be seen or examined, is mentally retarded..." thus I ask you to Prove that those people are mentally retarded. You make such Definitive statesments like "People believing in god are mentally retarded. Simple as that." and so, lets see the proof that to back your statement.

and while I cannot Prove to you that God Exsist. He has proven it to me time and again and that is enough.

Well of course I can't prove it, duh. It was a statement made from my opinion, not based on medical facts. If people who believe in god actually used their brains, maybe they'd see the fairytale that god is for what it is - a story to calm down the obedient masses in the ancient past. Belief in god has brought forward institutions such as the catholic church with their crusades and the inquisition. Belief in god has brought about a lot of suffering for no reason, not just in christianity but in islam aswell. The only religions that I consider acceptable, because they are not openly aggressive, are Hinduism and Buddhism. Although even those are based on the belief into an invisible something or multiple invisible somethings.

Ein Deutscher']Well of course I can't prove it, duh. It was a statement made from my opinion, not based on medical facts. If people who believe in god actually used their brains, maybe they'd see the fairytale that god is for what it is - a story to calm down the obedient masses in the ancient past. Belief in god has brought forward institutions such as the catholic church with their crusades and the inquisition. Belief in god has brought about a lot of suffering for no reason, not just in christianity but in islam aswell. The only religions that I consider acceptable, because they are not openly aggressive, are Hinduism and Buddhism. Although even those are based on the belief into an invisible something or multiple invisible somethings.
What if someone gives a "solid" proof of God's existence? Will you accept the proof and re-construct all your ideas, or you will you simply give in to your pride, without accepting the valid proof?

First, define what do you understand by "God"?

What if someone gives a "solid" proof of God's existence? Will you accept the proof and re-construct all your ideas, or you will you simply give in to your pride, without accepting the valid proof?

First, define what do you understand by "God"?
People have tried to solidly prove god's existence for centuries. If it happened now, the religions would maybe be able to stop the constant drain on their membership because more and more people actually see what religions are ;)

Since god(s) doesn't exist, I'm confident that nobody will ever be able to prove it's existence. If it still happens - as unlikely as it may be - I will change my opinion.

Ein Deutscher']Well of course I can't prove it, duh. It was a statement made from my opinion, not based on medical facts. If people who believe in god actually used their brains, maybe they'd see the fairytale that god is for what it is - a story to calm down the obedient masses in the ancient past. Belief in god has brought forward institutions such as the catholic church with their crusades and the inquisition. Belief in god has brought about a lot of suffering for no reason, not just in christianity but in islam aswell. The only religions that I consider acceptable, because they are not openly aggressive, are Hinduism and Buddhism. Although even those are based on the belief into an invisible something or multiple invisible somethings.then I suggest you refrain from insulting remarks and trying to justify them,

and BTW... the Crusades and Inquisitions were policitally motivated events. also every religion had there cases for suffereing. as well as those of NON-RELIGIOUS background. The Droping of the A-BOMBS on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the Holocaust, the Uni-Bomber, Vietnam, infact most wars in the 20th Century were not Religiously Motivated. Coloumbine and other school shootings, the Okalhoma bombings...

so stop trying to say Religion is behind all of the evils of the world. everyone is guilty of that.

meanwhile, Missionary activities in 3rd world contries are backed by Religious groups. I guess you're against that. Soup Kitchens, and other areas to help people have religious support.

so instead of concentrating on the Negative, try looking at the positive for a change.

Ein Deutscher']People have tried to solidly prove god's existence for centuries. If it happened now, the religions would maybe be able to stop the constant drain on their membership because more and more people actually see what religions are ;)

Since god(s) doesn't exist, I'm confident that nobody will ever be able to prove it's existence. If it still happens - as unlikely as it may be - I will change my opinion.
Very few really tried to prove existence of God, without interference of their beliefs. The proof I have, has no root from religions, nor does prove religions are "God made", and even is not compatible with most religions. If you have a definiton for "God", I'll share the proof.

Very few really tried to prove existence of God, without interference of their beliefs. The proof I have, has no root from religions, nor does prove religions are "God made", and even is not compatible with most religions. If you have a definiton for "God", I'll share the proof.
What is the definition of the christian god? Isn't it an old man somewhere floating in the sky with his angels who created Earth and mankind in 7 days?

Ein Deutscher']People have tried to solidly prove god's existence for centuries. If it happened now, the religions would maybe be able to stop the constant drain on their membership because more and more people actually see what religions are ;)

Since god(s) doesn't exist, I'm confident that nobody will ever be able to prove it's existence. If it still happens - as unlikely as it may be - I will change my opinion.God exsists... however since the proof that you require are ones you won't believe since they are personal experiences. events that should have killed me several times over by witnesses accounts yet I sit at my computer answering you.

you may call it chance or luck (neither of which are 'scientific') but I call it God saving my life.

Ein Deutscher']What is the definition of the christian god? Isn't it an old man somewhere floating in the sky with his angels who created Earth and mankind in 7 days?
If thet's your definiton of god, then God does not exist.
The God in my proof...
...is nothing like a human.
...has no gender.
...created universe.
...controls everything in the universe.
...let's people to control some things, unless denied by God's will.

Also this proof does not prove angels, devil or any other beliefs. It's just a proof of god.

If my definition seems acceptable for you, please notify me. If not, then my proof does not cover your definition.

I call it the great blue handkerchief saving your life. Or as you correctly assumed, luck and chance. It is not god who helped you, but you were lucky to be in circumstances that did not cause your death.

Ein Deutscher']I call it the great blue handkerchief saving your life. Or as you correctly assumed, luck and chance. It is not god who helped you, but you were lucky to be in circumstances that did not cause your death.But the Scientific community does not believe in 'Luck' or 'Chance' because it's the same as believing in a force that cannot be proven or disproven.

Or can you Scientifically prove or disprove Luck and Chance but not God?

If thet's your definiton of god, then God does not exist.
The God in my proof...
...is nothing like a human.
...has no gender.
...created universe.
...controls everything in the universe.
...let's people to control some things, unless denied by God's will.

Also this proof does not prove angels, devil or any other beliefs. It's just a proof of god.

If my definition seems acceptable for you, please notify me. If not, then my proof does not cover your definition.
The god you mean has no physical form and no relation to our universe, since it would have to be outside of it or it would have to be subject to the universal laws of nature.

Control in the universe happens based on the universal laws of nature (http://www.novan.com/space.htm).


Space itself, without considering matter & energy is far from nothingness - It is absolutely packed with the phenomena and requirements that mankind has recently been discovering and describing as theories and mathematical relationships which we call nature's physical laws. I call it “Space Soup”.
This “space soup” contains all the physical laws of nature, in the universe. They are an inseparable, invariant group - all intertwined and working in perfect harmony. Each law has its specific duties. They create and guide the matter and energy of the universe. Every cubic inch of the universe contains this “space soup” of nature’s physical laws.
Nature's physical laws work in perfect harmony, - Inertia, gravity, the chemistry periodical table, the laws of optics, the laws of biogenetics, etc. Everything is intermeshed and harmonious They create the universe and give it its underlying personality.
Energy and matter are created by these laws and must obey these laws - Although the laws are invariant and cannot be broken, mankind can use them to its advantage but cannot break any law of nature. These "laws" create space and therefore the universe. They give our universe its familiar characteristics. If there are other universes they may have an entirely different set of laws but that is beyond our reach.
There are probably many phenomena (laws) yet to be discovered and described and there are some that are described wrong - I wonder what the scientific world's view of the universe will be 100 years from now

100 years ago, the church still claimed that Earth is flat and at the center of the universe. As science discovers more and more truths about the universe, religion will lose it's grasp on the weakminded of mankind.

But the Scientific community does not believe in 'Luck' or 'Chance' because it's the same as believing in a force that cannot be proven or disproven.

Or can you Scientifically prove or disprove Luck and Chance but not God?
You can try to mathematically predict statistical outcomes of experiments. Luck and chance however are dependent on so many and oftentimes chaotic circumstances, that science cannot rely on them for their experiments. They still exist for the ordinary human being, who does not grasp the entire reality of what happens - the fact that each event is preceeded and followed by another event which influence and cause each other. We simply do not consider all events that lead to a "lucky moment", we just call it luck and leave it at that.

Also this proof does not prove angels, devil or any other beliefs. It's just a proof of god.

Are you saying my God Satan/Lucifer doesn't exist?

Posted by the Satanic Priest, Lord Medivh

Ein Deutscher']The god you mean has no physical form and no relation to our universe, since it would have to be outside of it or it would have to be subject to the universal laws of nature.

It's not a valid assumption. Why does God need "a physical form"? Physical form is not a requirement of existence (i.e. love, hate? Emotions in general... Ideas... Or more scientific phenomena: gravity, electrical attraction, magnetism). God (in my proof) has no physical form, yet it is not unrelated to the universe, infact it's strongly related. You are coming close...

Ein Deutscher']
Control in the universe happens based on the universal laws of nature (http://www.novan.com/space.htm).

Exactly!

[NS]Ein Deutscher what is your definition of Faith and Belief?

Are you saying my God Satan/Lucifer doesn't exist?

Posted by the Satanic Priest, Lord Medivh

Satan does not fit into being God. Either you can say, there is God, with another name Satan, or you can say, God exists, Satan exists, and I worship Satan. Latter of which needs to be proven by yourself, not me.

Satan does not fit into being God. Either you can say, there is God, with another name Satan, or you can say, God exists, Satan exists, and I worship Satan. Latter of which needs to be proven by yourself, not me.

Alright, I just wanted to check to see if you were trying to disprove the God I choose to believe in.

Posted by the Satanic Priest, Lord Medivh

Edit:By the way we don't believe in God exists/Satan exists. People who believe that are known as devil worshipers since they only know of the Christian God and Devil which is not Satanism. In Satanism, you don't have to believe in a higher being at all. It's a choice since there is no right or wrong answer in believing in Satan as a being and/or God. If you do believe in Satan or any other name as a being/God, Satan and the other 42 Dark Gods are the only true Gods in our religion.

As long as we never discover the Babel Fish there is still a viable chance for God to truly exist.

;)

As long as we never discover the Babel Fish there is still a viable chance for God to truly exist.

;)

As long as we never discover the Babel Fish there is still a room for Atheists to make incorrect assumptions, such as Gos is male, God is female, God is human-like figure, God resides in heaven, God has a physical form, etc.
;)

As long as we never discover the Babel Fish there is still a room for Atheists to make incorrect assumptions, such as Gos is male, God is female, God is human-like figure, God resides in heaven, God has a physical form, etc.
;)
Why are they incorrect? Can you prove that they are incorrect? The assumptions that god is anything are just that - assumptions without proof. And nobody has ever proven that god is male, female, has a physical form or does not have a physical form. Since god doesn't exist, this cannot be proven either.

Ein Deutscher']Why are they incorrect? Can you prove that they are incorrect? The assumptions that god is anything are just that - assumptions without proof. And nobody has ever proven that god is male, female, has a physical form or does not have a physical form. Since god doesn't exist, this cannot be proven either.
Here is the reason why they are incorrect:
Fact1: God is a concept.

Fact2: We didn't prove the existence of this concept.

Fact3: Those assumptions are included in definition.

Fact4: Definitions can only be made after concept is proven.

Conclusion: Definitions (of god) are all wrong.

The only thing related directly to the concept is creation/ruling of the universe(s).

Let me give an example to clarify fact 4:
If you define horses to have 3 legs, you cannot prove their existence.
If you prove the existence of horses, you can define them to have 4 legs.

If someone wanted to believe in God they would, its as simple as that.

And I disagree straight away. I'd love to have faith and believe in a God. I've tried before. But I simply cannot get my mind to comprehend all the characteristics that God is supposed to have. I cannot believe in an all-powerful, omnibenevolent, spiritual being who is beyond time and gender and created the universe and everything in it. It's beyond the limits of what I can imagine. It just sounds utterly ridiculous to me. If something like this was written in a book without previously hearing of an idea like that, you would immediatly assume it was a story. I would anyway. I see no reason for me to believe that it is true when all my common sense and basic knowledge of the world and physical laws seems to go against that. I cannot get my head around something like that. I cannot have the faith to believe in a God.

Physical proof of a God is pointless because by definition he doesn't follow physical laws; he's a spiritual being. Yet I can't see me believing in him without physical proof even though I know I can't have that. However much I'd love to believe in God, my mind and the way I think won't let me take that leap of faith.

An interesting article on God's existance

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/thumbs.html

Ein Deutscher']Naturally I can't prove that something doesn't exist. Instead you should prove that god does exist. Can you prove it? I think not. :rolleyes:
You've missed the point entirely.

Science is the process of investigating and understanding X based on "empirical observations," "hypotheses" about those observations, and testing and evaluation of these hypotheses using "valid and reliable" methods. Furthermore, these hypotheses must be falsifiable if the integrity of science as a method of understanding is to be retained.

Questions of faith are not subject to the laws of science. You cannot use science to prove or disprove god, because a) science isn't about proving or disproving things. It's about making and testing an assumption and then waiting for someone to come up with a different assumption or a better explanation of your assumption. b) Matters of faith are not tangible. You can't see or taste or hear or smell them. You just 'believe' in them or you 'believe' in something else. So you can't devise any scientific paradigm where 'god' can be tested, because you can't measure your experience of god quantitatively. Science is a method of inquiry based on being able to physically manipulate things, and god and no-god is not subject to physical manipulation.

And I disagree straight away. I'd love to have faith and believe in a God. I've tried before. But I simply cannot get my mind to comprehend all the characteristics that God is supposed to have. I cannot believe in an all-powerful, omnibenevolent, spiritual being who is beyond time and gender and created the universe and everything in it. It's beyond the limits of what I can imagine. It just sounds utterly ridiculous to me. If something like this was written in a book without previously hearing of an idea like that, you would immediatly assume it was a story. I would anyway. I see no reason for me to believe that it is true when all my common sense and basic knowledge of the world and physical laws seems to go against that. I cannot get my head around something like that. I cannot have the faith to believe in a God.

Physical proof of a God is pointless because by definition he doesn't follow physical laws; he's a spiritual being. Yet I can't see me believing in him without physical proof even though I know I can't have that. However much I'd love to believe in God, my mind and the way I think won't let me take that leap of faith.

I can name you one thing that is

an all-powerful, omnibenevolent, spiritual being who is beyond time and gender and created the universe and everything in itand which does not havebasic knowledge of the world and physical laws seems to go againstproperty.

Once again, a "believer" taking words out of context to create his own meaning which backs god... this is how religiously faithful debate when it comes to prove their god exists - they twist and turn every word to make you wonder what you actually said without answering the actual question.

Questions of faith are not subject to the laws of science. You cannot use science to prove or disprove god, because a) science isn't about proving or disproving things. It's about making and testing an assumption and then waiting for someone to come up with a different assumption or a better explanation of your assumption. b) Matters of faith are not tangible. You can't see or taste or hear or smell them. You just 'believe' in them or you 'believe' in something else. So you can't devise any scientific paradigm where 'god' can be tested, because you can't measure your experience of god quantitatively. Science is a method of inquiry based on being able to physically manipulate things, and god and no-god is not subject to physical manipulation.

Well in that case, you can have an assumption and test if thats correct. God's existence is a bit abstract, just like mathematics. Unless you are saying mathematics isn't science, I'm going to say everything (every theory) can be (dis)proven by science, which includes God's existence.

Whether we can prove it "now" is another problem. If you consider, No one were able to come up with the formulation of gravitation before Newton, that didn't mean gravitation could not be proven. If you like I can come up with mathematical examples...

Huh?

"...which does not have basic knowledge of the world and physical laws seems to go against property."

That makes no sense. Could you explain more clearly what you mean?

Or just name what you're talking about?

Ein Deutscher']Once again, a "believer" taking words out of context to create his own meaning which backs god... this is how religiously faithful debate when it comes to prove their god exists - they twist and turn every word to make you wonder what you actually said without answering the actual question.

Only correct questions have correct answers. I.e. "Why does(n't) god exists?" is an incorrect question. Ask your questions clearly, and I'll answer them, or point out the incorrectness of your question. I'm here for a scientific discussion.

I've been trying to say this for a while. I mean, hypothetically, say there is a God. Who's to say he woulf follow the existing laws of human logic and reason anyway. It's like trying to explain differential equations using one-syllabel words. :D

That's very good logic there. even though i'm atheist i agree with what your saying.

Have you come to that conclusion via belief? Or by a systemic, scientific investigation?
A quick 'google' of the parameters 'faith' and 'scientists'* produces the following evidence:
Einstein, Planck, Kelvin, Mendel, Faraday, Boyle, Newton, Descartes, Galilei, Kepler, Copernicus. All believed in god. All capable of writing lab reports/scientific papers.

I would propose the alternative hypothesis, that forum flamers are mentally retarded, if we define mentally retarded by the following variables: incapable of comprehending both sides of the argument; quick to disparage oppostion instead of offering insight; happy to denigrate themselves with their hasty trolling. I hope that helps your belief and/or scientific inquiry.

*I'm using scientist as a simplisitic definition of someone who isn't mentally retarded, because in my experience, witing lab reports would be impossible if one was mentally retarded. Plus, I think it ties in nicely with my previous argument that the two states are not mutually exclusive.

actually, most of the well-known scientists did have mental disorders, such as how einstien had that one where you don't like talking to people. i can't remember the name exactly, but i think it was social-anxiousness or something. they aren't the kind of mental dissorders that really affect scientific work though. i don't think it's mental dissorders that cause someone to believe in god though, just people who don't understand things well enough.

Huh?

"...which does not have basic knowledge of the world and physical laws seems to go against property."

That makes no sense. Could you explain more clearly what you mean?

Or just name what you're talking about?

Sorry, to be able to quote, I had to violate a few grammar rules. This is what I mean:

The "thing" I'm going to name is not against observations and it's not against physical laws.

And there is the name: Physics, or quantum physics if you like. This fits tightly to the stated properties.

Sorry, to be able to quote, I had to violate a few grammar rules. This is what I mean:

The "thing" I'm going to name is not against observations and it's not against physical laws.

And there is the name: Physics, or quantum physics if you like. This fits tightly to the stated properties.

How is that a spiritual being? How is that all-powerful in the sense that it chooses what to do? How is that omnibenevolent?

And the fact that it isn't against observations or physical laws plays a slight part in how it differs from God aswell. All you're really saying is that even if they were totally comparable, I believe one because it has proof and don't believe the other because it doesn't have proof.

How is that a spiritual being? How is that all-powerful in the sense that it chooses what to do? How is that omnibenevolent?

And the fact that it isn't against observations or physical laws plays a slight part in how it differs from God aswell. All you're really saying is that even if they were totally comparable, I believe one because it has proof and don't believe the other because it doesn't have proof.

Define spritual, and omnibenevolent. These two are properties given by men according to their view of god. It's all powerful, because no one can go against it's will, which effectively makes it to have choices on what will happen and what will not.

This is the most critical part: you will not accept physics as God, simply because you have a definition for a concept, before concept is totally known. See my previous example about horses.

Sorry, to be able to quote, I had to violate a few grammar rules. This is what I mean:

The "thing" I'm going to name is not against observations and it's not against physical laws.

And there is the name: Physics, or quantum physics if you like. This fits tightly to the stated properties.
Oh boy, you're one of those.
Calling quantum physics a god is like calling chemistry a god. It's an area of research in science.
You are using terms that don't fit.

You can't prove that you love anyone, or that they love you, either.

No one read this last time, so I will post it again

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/thumbs.html

You can't prove that you love anyone, or that they love you, either.
You can, since love is a feeling that comes with certain chemical reactions in your brain. There's just no way to prove it yet since we have no machines to do it, but technically you can :p

Define spritual, and omnibenevolent. These two are properties given by men according to their view of god. It's all powerful, because no one can go against it's will, which effectively makes it to have choices on what will happen and what will not.

The only way we can talk about God is by using our language and our properties. What else are we supposed to do when discussing him?

But I'm pretty sure physics doesn't make concious choices about how to control and affect people. It doesn't make decisions.

This is the most critical part: you will not accept physics as God, simply because you have a definition for a concept, before concept is totally known. See my previous example about horses.

physics
noun [U]
the scientific study of matter and energy and the effect that they have on each other

God
noun
the being which made the universe, the Earth and its people and is believed to have an effect on all things

I don't accept physics as God because they are not the same.

Your basis seems to be we cannot dismiss a concept we cannot define. But how can we accept a concept we cannot define?

And actually I don't dismiss it. I'm agnostic not an atheist. I simply know I don't have the faith and don't believe it is possible to have knowledge of a God anyway.

I don't understand your point. Are you arguing that physics is God? That I should believe in God because I believe in physics? That we cannot define God? That we have no real concept of God?

Actually, most of the well-known scientists did have mental disorders, such as how einstien had that one where you don't like talking to people. i can't remember the name exactly, but i think it was social-anxiousness or something. they aren't the kind of mental dissorders that really affect scientific work though. i don't think it's mental dissorders that cause someone to believe in god though, just people who don't understand things well enough.
Mental retardation (intellectual disability) is a completely different kettle of fish to psychological disorder, so to equate the two is not only simplicity bordering on ignorance, but insulting too. I hadn't heard that Einstein was socially phobic, however it IS well known that he experienced learning disabilities as a child, and some suspect aspergers syndrome, which is like a high-functioning autism, sans the profound intellectual disability.
To equate god belief with a person's lack of understanding is just the kind of puerile, ignorant flaming I was hoping to avoid with my attempts at straightforward, scientific discussion. You're just a bigot looking for a bandwagon, and that bandwagon happens to be atheistic. You might have well been a religious bigot if the Jesuits got to you before seven.*

*see previous post.

Einstein did have a socio phobia.

Ein Deutscher']You can, since love is a feeling that comes with certain chemical reactions in your brain. There's just no way to prove it yet since we have no machines to do it, but technically you can :p Let me referre you to your previous post about Belief without Proof... the bolding is mine.

Ein Deutscher']Those scientists "believed" in god because it was fashionable or the social norm at their times. Nowadays most scientists, I think, do not believe in god anymore. Believing in something that has never been proven, that has been created by mankind to explain natural powers in the past, something that is supposedly outside of our universe and can never be seen or examined, is mentally retarded in my opinion. It's simple peer-pressure, a social norm in some countries to this date. But "belief" in god is a choice one makes willingly, thus I am saying that faith in something that cannot be seen or examined is irrational and without basis, thus mentally retarded.

You say there is now way to 'Prove' Love because the machine to do so hasn't been invented YET, however "technically" you can? Quite a change in Stands there my friend. And you cannot accuse me of twisting your words... these are your Direct QUOTES.

Ein Deutscher']Once again, a "believer" taking words out of context to create his own meaning which backs god... this is how religiously faithful debate when it comes to prove their god exists - they twist and turn every word to make you wonder what you actually said without answering the actual question.

Well in that case, you can have an assumption and test if thats correct. God's existence is a bit abstract, just like mathematics. Unless you are saying mathematics isn't science, I'm going to say everything (every theory) can be (dis)proven by science, which includes God's existence.
Mathematics is a science. Not a physical science, but a theoretical science, in which the material (numbers and concepts about numbers) are manipulated. It being theoretical doesn't make it any less a science. The processes are valid, and while numbers are abstract, I think that if we all can count, we can all agree that numbers exist. I agree with you to that point.

If something is unfalsifiable, then it is not scientific. If I use scientific methodology to demonstrate that X means Y, and there is no loophole of falsification, then science is forever trapped in the thinking that X means Y. There is no room for progress beyond that way of thinking. I'm not sure how that applies to mathematics, as the problem-solving process always seemed very rigid to me,* but I think if we use alternative methods to refine or simplify a mathematical objective, then we are applying falsification principles to mathematic processes.

Whether we can prove it "now" is another problem. If you consider, No one were able to come up with the formulation of gravitation before Newton, that didn't mean gravitation could not be proven. If you like I can come up with mathematical examples...
I agree. Labelling an event today doesn't preclude that event happening in the past. The only problem that this poses is one of observation and recording. You can record something if you remember that you observed it, but you cannot go backwards to observe something if you weren't there. All you can do is make theories based on the outcome/evidence you can observe.

I'm eagerly searching for Eduard Glas's paper Popper as a Philosopher of Mathematics, because I'd love to know if I'm on the same track here.

The only way we can talk about God is by using our language and our properties. What else are we supposed to do when discussing him?

Language is right, but definitions are often personal, especially when it comes to abstract topics.


But I'm pretty sure physics doesn't make concious choices about how to control and affect people. It doesn't make decisions.

That again depends on what is the definition of conscious.


physics
noun [U]
the scientific study of matter and energy and the effect that they have on each other

God
noun
the being which made the universe, the Earth and its people and is believed to have an effect on all things

I don't accept physics as God because they are not the same.

Your basis seems to be we cannot dismiss a concept we cannot define. But how can we accept a concept we cannot define?

And actually I don't dismiss it. I'm agnostic not an atheist. I simply know I don't have the faith and don't believe it is possible to have knowledge of a God anyway.

I'm just saying you (meaning people) cannot have a definition for something you do not truly know. If you make the definition before learning it, you fail. This is not about god. The problem is humans tend to think on examples. Once you have an example of a concept, you can have a definition. but if you have the definition first, you may never come up with an example to the concept, even if the concept really exists.

I don't understand your point. Are you arguing that physics is God? That I should believe in God because I believe in physics? That we cannot define God? That we have no real concept of God?
My point is, since there is a concept of god, who is the ruler and creator, and since there is at least one discovery (physics) that fits to these two critical properties, then god exist. This is not in anyway equivalent to "Physics is god". Also, no one needs to believe anything, this is not about belief, it's about facts. (I have the liberty not to believe gravity). "We cannot define god" seems to be true, but I would rather emphasize "definition is not the concept". Finally concept of god exists, as we are discussing it's existence.

Concept: A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences.
Definition: The act or process of stating a precise meaning or significance; formulation of a meaning.
(ref: dictionary.com)

If something is unfalsifiable, then it is not scientific. If I use scientific methodology to demonstrate that X means Y, and there is no loophole of falsification, then science is forever trapped in the thinking that X means Y. There is no room for progress beyond that way of thinking.


I don't think you are right on this. Science is discovery of the universe, and unverse has some solid facts (gravitational constant or 1=1). I believe, finding these facts out is scientific progress. As long as there are questions without answers, science has room to progress. And often, aswering a question means discovering more questions without answers.

Let me referre you to your previous post about Belief without Proof... the bolding is mine.



You say there is now way to 'Prove' Love because the machine to do so hasn't been invented YET, however "technically" you can? Quite a change in Stands there my friend. And you cannot accuse me of twisting your words... these are your Direct QUOTES.
Actually, I used the wrong words. Excuse me, since English is not my native language. I meant that we can use machines to detect the chemical reactions in a human brain, but it has not been done yet to the degree (at least as far as I know) to completely explain what love is on the chemical and electro-chemical basis. I dunno if someone has actually done an experiment and checked what happens if someone is in love, scanned the brain, checked the chemicals, etc. but if it has not happened yet, I guess it's bound to happen since it is so obvious what love is - in the brain. However "God" cannot be proven, I am sure people have tried, because it does not actually exist.

I don't think you are right on this. Science is discovery of the universe, and unverse has some solid facts (gravitational constant or 1=1). I believe, finding these facts out is scientific progress. As long as there are questions without answers, science has room to progress. And often, aswering a question means discovering more questions without answers.
I would say that's a very Baconian approach to scientific progress. Firstly let me separate physical gravity (lets call this Apple Gravity) from the concept of gravity that we manipulate for the purposes of scientific exploration (lets call this K Gravity). In respect to constants like k gravity, I believe that they are defined as constant solely because they haven't been refuted yet. For k gravity to hold any stringent scientific merit, we must be open to the POSSIBILITY that our concept of k gravity might be refuted, and a new variation on k gravity may be imposed. As far as apple gravity goes, we have evidence enough that it exists phenomenally, but the physicality of apple gravity doesn't lend itself well to the purposes of theory testing. We can't dig up the tree and cart it around with us, nor can we reattach the apple to the tree after it has fallen.
I know that sounds like a simplistic response, but the criterion of falsification vs verification is an extremely simple one. We need to be able to admit that our theory may be refuted by further research, otherwise science would stop dead in its tracks. Many discoveries have an element of "eureka" about them, but if they cannot be challenged, they cannot be tested and refined or discarded. Once we have ascertained that a theory is currently verifiable (keeping in mind that it may be falsified some time in the future), we may build on the inspiration of that theory. If we cannot allow our theories to be falsified, then we return to the dark ages, and demonise anyone who challenges the scientific status quo.