NationStates Jolt Archive

Recently, I read Richard Dawkins' book "The God Delusion." It has thoroughly changed my views on religion and science. I now see how belief in a higher power who supposedly created us all is incompatible with belief in modern science. All my previous efforts to unite science and Judaism, while admirable, were in vain.

I am therefore renouncing Judaism. UB, you were right.

Except about Israel. You're still wrong about that.

... April Fools!?

To be honest, I stopped believing in the plausibility of all three Abrahamic faiths when I found out that the Jews were originally polytheistic and that they borrowed the concept of monotheism from the Pharaoh Akhenaten and his sun god Aten.

Oh yea, this is def. April Fools.

You guys know me too well.

Recently, I read Richard Dawkins' book "The God Delusion." It has thoroughly changed my views on religion and science. I now see how belief in a higher power who supposedly created us all is incompatible with belief in modern science. All my previous efforts to unite science and Judaism, while admirable, were in vain.

I am therefore renouncing Judaism. UB, you were right.

Except about Israel. You're still wrong about that.

I read quite a bit of "The God Delusion" my biggest problem is that he tried to tear down religions credibility in ways that I enver felt were scientifically backed: 'Yeah Einstein, he didn't believe in a personal God, ergo one can't exist!' or 'Thomas Aquinas' medieval reasoning does not still hold, therefore the opposite of what he said is the only possible truth.'

I felt "The God Delusion" was so much gibberish. The man is a biologist, not a psychologist (to understand so well the human mind) nor is he a theologian. Writing a book in those two fields... well out of his expertise is, well, dumb.

I'm not saying he is dumb (before the flamers get to me), merely that he is out of his field, and it shows, I did not read an argument in that book that was in any way convincing, and I've heard some before.

also, the fact that one cannot convert to atheism, one simply becomes atheist. unless of course you have a secret, hidden agenda :p

I was going to say "get a blog", and then remembered april's fools day.

I read quite a bit of "The God Delusion" my biggest problem is that he tried to tear down religions credibility in ways that I enver felt were scientifically backed: 'Yeah Einstein, he didn't believe in a personal God, ergo one can't exist!' or 'Thomas Aquinas' medieval reasoning does not still hold, therefore the opposite of what he said is the only possible truth.'


That's funny... see, I read the same book, and never read the words "God cannot exist". What I did read, however, was that Dawkin's findings in his own fields as well as his research into theology and psychology have shown him that god's existience is extremely unlikely.

That's funny... see, I read the same book, and never read the words "God cannot exist". What I did read, however, was that Dawkin's findings in his own fields as well as his research into theology and psychology have shown him that god's existience is extremely unlikely.

That's funny, I thought it was logically impossible to come to such conclusions. You know, for God being everything, ever and always? I should read that book, I guess.

That's funny, I thought it was logically impossible to come to such conclusions. You know, for God being everything, ever and always? I should read that book, I guess.

To conclude for certain that he does or doesn't exist is in fact impossible.
To look at the world and figure out the probability of god isn't, really. It's fairly easy, actually.

To conclude for certain that he does or doesn't exist is in fact impossible.
To look at the world and figure out the probability of god isn't, really. It's fairly easy, actually.

I fairly disagree.

If God is in another dimension, there's no "calculating" it's probability, for we don't have access to all the necessary data. Like compiling stats on trains when all you have is a single wagon of a single train.

To conclude for certain that he does or doesn't exist is in fact impossible.
To look at the world and figure out the probability of god isn't, really. It's fairly easy, actually.

Fairly easy as far as everyhting we know now.

In theory God's existence could be proven, as could mine. To say otherwise is childish.

I fairly disagree.

If God is in another dimension, there's no "calculating" it's probability, for we don't have access to all the necessary data. Like compiling stats on trains when all you have is a single wagon of a single train.

Any possible divinity or higher power would not be observable in this world, clearly. That much is fairly probable. Seeing as how it's not observable, it is not relevant to our immediate interests.

Fairly easy as far as everyhting we know now.

In theory God's existence could be proven, as could mine. To say otherwise is childish.

No, God's existence cannot be proven in theory. Not yet.

Any possible divinity or higher power would not be observable in this world, clearly. That much is fairly probable. Seeing as how it's not observable, it is not relevant to our immediate interests.

And that's why I say we can't draw conclusions...

also, the fact that one cannot convert to atheism, one simply becomes atheist. unless of course you have a secret, hidden agenda :p

All Atheist have a secret hidden agenda, it's in the brochure. :p

And that's why I say we can't draw conclusions...

Which is entirely correct. Doesn't disprove or prove god either way, but it does make it funny to laugh at people who think they can.

Which is entirely correct. Doesn't disprove or prove god either way, but it does make it funny to laugh at people who think they can.

The number of Christians I've met who seem to think they cna logically prove God is decreasing. Thankfully I think a lot of people are applying logic a little more handily. I'm a Christian... and I know I can't prove God in the least, I have my 'logical' arguments in His favour, and I've heard 'logical' arguments against His existence (wihtout making the claim that He therefore cannot exist).

The man is a biologist, not a psychologist (to understand so well the human mind) nor is he a theologian. Writing a book in those two fields... well out of his expertise is, well, dumb.

So only a theologian can talk about religion? What a crock. Science can be used to argue that there is no God. You do not need to be a theolgian to do that. In fact, considering a theologian is devoted to religious study they would be the exact opposite of what one would want to debate the existence of God. Science is (intended to be) impartial and objective and can be used to prove/disprove many different things including God.

As is often the case with anti-religion campaigners, Dawkins' reasoning works on the assumption that 'religion' means monotheistic (usually Abramic) faith. The monotheists are of course quite capable of defending their own position. But it's also worth mentioning that some religious beliefs don't follow the same lines at all, but are still by implication included in any attack on 'religion'.

To a polytheist, the gods could well be symbolic, to some extent: personifications of natural forces and phenomena, and of aspects of human nature. Such deities might not be expected to do anything other than, well, what they do. Each rules His or Her dominion, and ensures that everything works as it should. And when it's pointed out that, actually, physical laws do that, the polytheist simply agrees. That's what the gods are. So, asks the challenger, why treat them as gods, then, rather than just as mechanisms? Well, I guess that's simply where the faith aspect comes in, and that's the place where those opposed to religion are free to disagree with me. I'd have no argument to make, nor any I'd want to make, to try to change their minds: it's not my business whether anyone else believes what I believe.

And that's without considering religions that don't have 'gods' as such at all.

But the point is that the arguments often made are usually tailored specifically to opposing Abramic monotheism and, most commonly, Christianity. There is a great deal about religion that they fail to take into account.

You can't prove or disprove the existence of God or the supernatural. It isn't childish to say so because by their very nature it's impossible. At the same time, though, it's impossible to prove or disprove the existence of leprechauns. Fact is, to say that God does exist is a positive statement, therefore disagreeing with it doesn't require any proof to be the rational answer. It isn't necessary to disprove God.

eg.
bob: "I am omnipotent." <positive position.
ted: "No you're not." <negative position.
bob: "Prove it."
ted: "..."
See what I mean?

Ergo, atheist don't need to prove anything. If you can't prove or at least give evidence for the existence of God, or gods, or the supernatural in general (which is, unfortunately, impossible) then the assertion becomes redundant.

Which is entirely correct. Doesn't disprove or prove god either way, but it does make it funny to laugh at people who think they can.

I agree, but it seems highly unlikely that the christian god (or any god which has ever been described for that instance) exists. Since it can't be proven god could be anything, it seems stupid to follow one religion since they all could be wrong. There is as much evidence for god as there is for Russell's teapot, why isn't religion then considered equal to teapotism? (except for the the social aspects then, but this is about the existence of god, not the whole organization constructed round that assumption)

I'm a Christian... and I know I can't prove God in the least, I have my 'logical' arguments in His favour

What exactly are your 'logical' arguments?

Science is (intended to be) impartial and objective and can be used to prove/disprove many different things including God.

Only with sufficient amount of data, which no one has. You can't "prove/disprove" things you can't even perceive by any human means (for that's in the definition of God). All you can do is talk about it and hope you're right.

As is often the case with anti-religion campaigners, Dawkins' reasoning works on the assumption that 'religion' means monotheistic (usually Abramic) faith.

This probably is because Abrahamic faith is most relevant to people from Europe and north-America.

So only a theologian can talk about religion? What a crock. Science can be used to argue that there is no God. You do not need to be a theolgian to do that. In fact, considering a theologian is devoted to religious study they would be the exact opposite of what one would want to debate the existence of God. Science is (intended to be) impartial and objective and can be used to prove/disprove many different things including God.

But his writing was a professional theological work, from someone who has no professional theological credentials.

Also, since when does believing in something that is improbable mean you are delusional?

He is certianly free to talk about theology, note that I never said otherwise. However, when he writes a book well outside his profession and expects to be recognised as professional he sets himself up for complete failure.

He is certianly free to talk about theology, note that I never said otherwise. However, when he writes a book well outside his profession and expects to be recognised as professional he sets himself up for complete failure.

Yes, because selling millions of copies, being invited to debates around the planet, making a ton of money, has had more success than you and I combined will ever have and is considered to be an authority on the subject makes him a complete failure.

Oh if only I could have that kind of failure...

I fairly disagree.

If God is in another dimension, there's no "calculating" it's probability, for we don't have access to all the necessary data. Like compiling stats on trains when all you have is a single wagon of a single train.

Well, we do know quite a bit now about other dimensions. Rather enough to be able to say that god's not hiding there, either.

Fairly easy as far as everyhting we know now.

In theory God's existence could be proven, as could mine. To say otherwise is childish.

Sure it could. In theory. It's somewhat more unlikely in reality.

Yes, because selling millions of copies, being invited to debates around the planet, making a ton of money, has had more success than you and I combined will ever have and is considered to be an authority on the subject makes him a complete failure.

Oh if only I could have that kind of failure...

Economically, he has been succesful. Whether or not he was successful at arguing theology is another thing entirely. And I have not seen any indication that he was successful in the latter.

Well, we do know quite a bit now about other dimensions. Rather enough to be able to say that god's not hiding there, either.

And what data exists to suggest that god is not in these dimension, or even in this one?

Occam's razor has been criticized, but I like it. It also helps me to decide if I believe in any god(s).

So far I have found no reason for a god to exist. Not the beauty of nature, not magic, not anything.

I might find out after death. I'm confident though that I will not find out anything, because I will not exist anymore. Not in this world or beyond.

Any discussion with (in my case mostly) christians always ends with "you just have to believe, and then you will see". It's the same with ghosts. If you believe in them you see them in all the shadows. God is a ghost.

And what data exists to suggest that god is not in these dimension, or even in this one?

You cannot prove absence, only presence. Russell's teapot, anyone? ;)

Regarding proof of presence, none is forthcoming neither here nor in any other dimension so far.

You cannot prove absence, only presence. Russell's teapot, anyone? ;)

Regarding proof of presence, none is forthcoming neither here nor in any other dimension so far.

I wasn't asking for a proof. I was asking for data.

And apparently, there is no data to suggest that god is not in this dimension or any other.

I wasn't asking for a proof. I was asking for data.

And apparently, there is no data to suggest that god is not in this dimension or any other.

Nor is there data to show that a teapot is not orbiting the sun somewhere between Mars and Jupiter...

Nor is there data to show that a teapot is not orbiting the sun somewhere between Mars and Jupiter...

As soon as I make some sort of positive claim about the existence of god, you can bring up Russell's Teapot.

Otherwise, it doesn't really support your assertion that 'we do know quite a bit now about other dimensions. Rather enough to be able to say that god's not hiding there, either'.

You made an assertion about the nature of god (i.e. god is not in these other dimensions) that does not really qualify as a theory. It doesn't qualify because it can't be tested or falsified, nor is there any data to suggest it even as a hypothesis. So, if it's not a theory or a hypothesis, what is it? Since it deals with the spiritual in nature, and is asserted despite a lack of evidence, we can safely say that it is faith-based. In other words, it's a belief.

Since it is a belief, it lies outside the realm of science and can not be disproven, so I will not attempt to. But I see no more reason to hold this belief than to hold the belief of some random celestial beverage container.

As soon as I make some sort of positive claim about the existence of god, you can bring up Russell's Teapot.

Otherwise, it doesn't really support your assertion that 'we do know quite a bit now about other dimensions. Rather enough to be able to say that god's not hiding there, either'.

You made an assertion about the nature of god (i.e. god is not in these other dimensions) that does not really qualify as a theory. It doesn't qualify because it can't be tested or falsified, nor is there any data to suggest it even as a hypothesis. So, if it's not a theory or a hypothesis, what is it? Since it deals with the spiritual in nature, and is asserted despite a lack of evidence, we can safely say that it is faith-based. In other words, it's a belief.

Since it is a belief, it lies outside the realm of science and can not be disproven, so I will not attempt to. But I see no more reason to hold this belief than to hold the belief of some random celestial beverage container.

Then why do you refuse to believe in the almighty teapot between Jupiter and Mars?

On a semantic note, is it really possible to "convert" to atheism? Surely there is a better word.

I agree, but it seems highly unlikely that the christian god (or any god which has ever been described for that instance) exists. Since it can't be proven god could be anything, it seems stupid to follow one religion since they all could be wrong. There is as much evidence for god as there is for Russell's teapot, why isn't religion then considered equal to teapotism? (except for the the social aspects then, but this is about the existence of god, not the whole organization constructed round that assumption)

Oh, I just don't intend to argue with people who believe they can prove the existence of god. I just point and laugh at them.

People who try to convince me that I should believe in their god(s) just makes me want to try to convince them that they should believe in that invisible pink unicorn as well as the easter bunny.

People who just state that they believe in something is to be shrugged off though. There's nothing worth antagonizing anyone over. There is in the other two cases I presented.

On a semantic note, is it really possible to "convert" to athiesm? Surely there is a better word.

I think all the better words were coined by religious groups prior to the 20th and 21st century and therefore hold a lot of negative connotations.

But yeah, converting isn't exactly the right word to use.

Then why do you refuse to believe in the almighty teapot between Jupiter and Mars?

I don't see how this is a reply to my post.

I don't see how this is a reply to my post.

nevermind, seems like I probably misread.

You believe in a deity that has a presence which cannot be proven.

So why do you not believe in the teapot which also has a presence that cannot be proven?

I may have misunderstood something at some point though, but you'll have to point it out to me in that case.

edit: nevermind, upon closer reading, it would seem that you would in fact argue that the teapot doesn't exist anymore than any given deity. Right?

I read quite a bit of "The God Delusion" my biggest problem is that he tried to tear down religions credibility in ways that I enver felt were scientifically backed: 'Yeah Einstein, he didn't believe in a personal God, ergo one can't exist!'

Citation? I can't find anything like that in my copy. Dawkins refers to Einstein to illustrate the concept of Pantheist religion and to refute the numerous apologists who claim that he was a believer, but never as an argument from authority.

Fairly easy as far as everyhting we know now.

In theory God's existence could be proven, as could mine. To say otherwise is childish.

If God existed as portrayed in the Bible then it would be child's play to prove his existence; the fact that no such proof exists is strong evidence against such a being existing.

There's a reason why Theologians have wasted so much time on 'The Problem of Divine Hiddenness'.

On a semantic note, is it really possible to "convert" to atheism? Surely there is a better word.

Deconvert? Atheify? Degodinate?

Actually I quite like the sound of that last one. :p

I fairly disagree.

If God is in another dimension, there's no "calculating" it's probability, for we don't have access to all the necessary data. Like compiling stats on trains when all you have is a single wagon of a single train.

That works for the vague Deist conception of God, but not for the Theist God, which is supposed to be intimately involved in the running of the Universe.

On a semantic note, is it really possible to "convert" to atheism? Surely there is a better word.

"Coming to your senses" ?

Although that describes agnosticism much better.

"Coming to your senses" ?

Although that describes agnosticism much better.

;):D

This probably is because Abrahamic faith is most relevant to people from Europe and north-America.

I'm from Europe, and it's not particularly relevant to me. 'Religion', however, is relevant to me because I'm religious. So when Dawkins - or anyone else - criticises me because I'm religious, and then tells me that it's stupid to believe in the Christian God, isn't it fair that I question his reasoning?

The point is that if you're going to attack religion then take all forms of religion into account and come up with arguments that address the entire concept. If your arguments are based on the fact that you don't believe what the Bible says then limit your claims to the religion based on the Bible.

Recently, I read Richard Dawkins' book "The God Delusion." It has thoroughly changed my views on religion and science. I now see how belief in a higher power who supposedly created us all is incompatible with belief in modern science. All my previous efforts to unite science and Judaism, while admirable, were in vain.

I am therefore renouncing Judaism. UB, you were right.

Except about Israel. You're still wrong about that.

First intelligent thing you've done...

Yes, I know it's an April Fool's thread, just playing along...

Deconvert? Atheify? Degodinate?

Actually I quite like the sound of that last one. :p

I usually apostatise, the verb form of apostasy, which is the word for renouncing one's religion.

I'm from Europe, and it's not particularly relevant to me. 'Religion', however, is relevant to me because I'm religious. So when Dawkins - or anyone else - criticises me because I'm religious, and then tells me that it's stupid to believe in the Christian God, isn't it fair that I question his reasoning?

Have you actually read the God Delusion? I only ask because you seem to be getting hung up on something which Dawkins clarified in the very first chapter.

My title does not refer to the God of Einstein and the other enlightened scientists of the previous section... In the rest of this book I am only talking about supernatural gods, of which the most familiar to the majority of my readers will be Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament.

I usually apostatise, the verb form of apostasy, which is the word for renouncing one's religion.

Nice, but I can't help thinking of punctuation when I say it out loud.

Deconvert? Atheify? Degodinate?

Actually I quite like the sound of that last one. :p

Coming to a theatre near you:

The Degodinator
Starring Mirkana

Why abandon religion when there is a perfectly scientific explanation for an actual god?

Pastafarianism, (http://www.venganza.org/) ladies and gentlemen. The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

As they explain on their website, the research into String Theory is actually research into Noodle Theory, and a scientific explanation of the Pastafarian god, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I know 'tis April Fool's, but the FSM still wants you.

You can convert to atheism now?

...

Well anyways I find this topic rather funny and amusing.

If God existed as portrayed in the Bible then it would be child's play to prove his existence; the fact that no such proof exists is strong evidence against such a being existing.

There's a reason why Theologians have wasted so much time on 'The Problem of Divine Hiddenness'.

And how exactly would you "prove" his existence, as He is described in the Bible (I'm just curious here)?

Edit: I mean, do you actually have any tests that would confirm that such a God exists?

@KingArthur:
R'amen!:)

I'd like to make a simultaneous announcement that I have become a born-again Christian creationist conservative.

All Hail O'Reilly.

@KingArthur:
R'amen!:)

RAmen!

Recently, I read Richard Dawkins' book "The God Delusion." It has thoroughly changed my views on religion and science. I now see how belief in a higher power who supposedly created us all is incompatible with belief in modern science. All my previous efforts to unite science and Judaism, while admirable, were in vain.

I am therefore renouncing Judaism. UB, you were right.

Except about Israel. You're still wrong about that.

Well, I've never read Dawkins' book, but if you're not AF'ing us, then congratulations.

To conclude for certain that he does or doesn't exist is in fact impossible.
To look at the world and figure out the probability of god isn't, really. It's fairly easy, actually.

Possible? Maybe, although I am skeptical. Useful? Not at all. Suppose there is a 2% chance that God exists. All right, now what? Do we ignore Him because we are 98% sure He's not here, or do we take the chance and assume He does? That's what people already do, without numbers to help them.

Coming to a theatre near you:

The Degodinator

I was gonna say that...:(

UB, you were right.

You almost had me convinced until that.

*slinks back into obscurity*

As soon as I make some sort of positive claim about the existence of god, you can bring up Russell's Teapot.

Otherwise, it doesn't really support your assertion that 'we do know quite a bit now about other dimensions. Rather enough to be able to say that god's not hiding there, either'.

You made an assertion about the nature of god (i.e. god is not in these other dimensions) that does not really qualify as a theory. It doesn't qualify because it can't be tested or falsified, nor is there any data to suggest it even as a hypothesis. So, if it's not a theory or a hypothesis, what is it? Since it deals with the spiritual in nature, and is asserted despite a lack of evidence, we can safely say that it is faith-based. In other words, it's a belief.

Since it is a belief, it lies outside the realm of science and can not be disproven, so I will not attempt to. But I see no more reason to hold this belief than to hold the belief of some random celestial beverage container.

Not quite. Russell's teapot is not about disproving positive assertions, it's about the impossibility to prove a negative one, however unlikely it may be. Or can you actually prove to me that the teapot does not orbit the sun?

I made the same claim about god in different dimensions : we do not have any evidence to his existence there, and until such time as we have it's reasonable to assume non-existence.

Possible? Maybe, although I am skeptical. Useful? Not at all. Suppose there is a 2% chance that God exists. All right, now what? Do we ignore Him because we are 98% sure He's not here, or do we take the chance and assume He does? That's what people already do, without numbers to help them.

It's up to you what you want to assume/belief or not, people play the lottery with much smaller odds after all.

I don't believe that Darwin's book will sway any believers, as he doesn't ever claim that gods existence is impossible. He says it's improbable to the extreme, and has no effect on the observable world.

Recently, I read Richard Dawkins' book "The God Delusion." It has thoroughly changed my views on religion and science. I now see how belief in a higher power who supposedly created us all is incompatible with belief in modern science. All my previous efforts to unite science and Judaism, while admirable, were in vain.Judaism is not even unitable with history, how could it be unitable with science?

I am therefore renouncing Judaism. UB, you were right.:eek:

Except about Israel. You're still wrong about that.No. But you'll get there. If you renounce Judaism, you will also renounce any of the known justifications for the Jewish state.

No, God's existence cannot be proven in theory. Not yet.Not until he gives an interview on Larry King or so...

Not quite. Russell's teapot is not about disproving positive assertions, it's about the impossibility to prove a negative one, however unlikely it may be. Or can you actually prove to me that the teapot does not orbit the sun?

I made the same claim about god in different dimensions : we do not have any evidence to his existence there, and until such time as we have it's reasonable to assume non-existence.

Why do so many people believe you can't prove a negative? You (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/515075/proving_a_negative_is_it_really_impossible.html) can (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html).

Of course, it's impossible to prove your assertion, because it lies outside the realm of science. It has nothing to do with whether or not it is a negative. It would be equally impossible to prove the opposite: that god is in these other dimensions. This is due to the nature of god as a supernatural being, and the fact that science limits itself to a study of the natural.

Assuming the lack of god in other dimensions is a reasonable assumption. But it is an assumption. It's number three in this list:

http://web.utk.edu/~dhasting/Basic_Assumptions_of_Science.htm

Why do so many people believe you can't prove a negative? You (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/515075/proving_a_negative_is_it_really_impossible.html) can (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html).

Of course, it's impossible to prove your assertion, because it lies outside the realm of science. It has nothing to do with whether or not it is a negative. It would be equally impossible to prove the opposite: that god is in these other dimensions. This is due to the nature of god as a supernatural being, and the fact that science limits itself to a study of the natural.

Assuming the lack of god in other dimensions is a reasonable assumption. But it is an assumption. It's number three in this list:

http://web.utk.edu/~dhasting/Basic_Assumptions_of_Science.htm

So you can disprove a negative assumption by proving a positive one... that would basically mean that by proving that Krishna exists, the existence of the Abrahamic god is disproven. Again, that's not going to work when existence is claimed and non-existence is to be proven.
How do you prove the discworld doesn't exist somewhere? Or, for that matter, the invisible pink unicorn?
Lack of evidence for existence is commonly seen as reasonable grounds to assume non-existence.

And how would you know that god, if he existed, would be supernatural and that his existence, even if factual, could not be proven?

So you can disprove a negative assumption by proving a positive one... that would basically mean that by proving that Krishna exists, the existence of the Abrahamic god is disproven. Again, that's not going to work when existence is claimed and non-existence is to be proven.

How do you prove the discworld doesn't exist somewhere? Or, for that matter, the invisible pink unicorn?

Well, then it's a good thing I haven't claimed god's existence in other dimensions, isn't it?

You are the one who made a positive claim. You said that science had acquired enough knowledge about other dimensions to reasonably rule out the existence god in these other dimensions. I am merely pointing out that such a claim is impossible to assert.

Lack of evidence for existence is commonly seen as reasonable grounds to assume non-existence.

Right. But somewhat irrelevant, as far as I can see.

And how would you know that god, if he existed, would be supernatural and that his existence, even if factual, could not be proven?

If you are suggesting a natural god, then science could theoretically find evidence of its existence, or find data that would suggest its nonexistence. So, I would then ask you if you have any such data to suggest that such a god is absent from any dimension, or something to indicate that such an experiment has been run?

And how exactly would you "prove" his existence, as He is described in the Bible (I'm just curious here)?

Edit: I mean, do you actually have any tests that would confirm that such a God exists?

There are any number of ways to prove his existence beyond reasonable doubt. Mark 16:17-18 reads:

And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

If Christians could consistently manifest even one of these abilities (i.e. miracle healing and immunity to poison would be the easiest to test) in laboratory conditions then I'd convert. We could even combine the trials, so that the second test group of Christians could pray for the recovery of the Christians we poisoned in the first stage of testing. :p

On a more general note: if one of the numerous prayer studies came back and conluded that praying for the sick significantly affected their recovery (to the level of significance demanded by most physics journals: P<0.001) but that it only worked for Christian prayer then that would be another good way.

If Christians could consistently manifest even one of these abilities (i.e. miracle healing and immunity to poison would be the easiest to test) in laboratory conditions then I'd convert. We could even combine the trials, so that the second test group of Christians could pray for the recovery of the Christians we poisoned in the first stage of testing.I'd be glad to help you set up the testing environment. :D

Well, then it's a good thing I haven't claimed god's existence in other dimensions, isn't it?

You are the one who made a positive claim. You said that science had acquired enough knowledge about other dimensions to reasonably rule out the existence god in these other dimensions. I am merely pointing out that such a claim is impossible to assert.

Well, that's not the claim I made, anyway. I claimed that so far, science has not found any evidence of god in any other dimensions, either.


If you are suggesting a natural god, then science could theoretically find evidence of its existence, or find data that would suggest its nonexistence. So, I would then ask you if you have any such data to suggest that such a god is absent from any dimension, or something to indicate that such an experiment has been run?

Again... there cannot ever be evidence of absence. So no, there was no such experiment, as it would be pointless.

Again... there cannot ever be evidence of absence. So no, there was no such experiment, as it would be pointless.Well, before attempting to collect evidence of absence one should ask where the assumption of existence comes from in the first place. And pretty soon one will discover that the assumption is baseless.

On a more general note: if one of the numerous prayer studies came back and conluded that praying for the sick significantly affected their recovery (to the level of significance demanded by most physics journals: P<0.001) but that it only worked for Christian prayer then that would be another good way.

I recall a study on the effect of praying for people about to undergo surgery.

Funnily enough, those that were aware of the intercessory prayer for had a (slightly) higher rate of mortality and complications then the control group.

(I realise that it proves nothing really, but it is quite humourous in a weird way)

Possible? Maybe, although I am skeptical. Useful? Not at all. Suppose there is a 2% chance that God exists. All right, now what? Do we ignore Him because we are 98% sure He's not here, or do we take the chance and assume He does? That's what people already do, without numbers to help them.

That's Pascal's wager, essentially. One of the problems with it is that you are believing in a god simply because the potential benefits (eternity in some afterlife) outweigh the potential cost (eternal damnation or some other penalty). It has nothing to do with the god itself; rather, your faith relies on a simple cost/benefit analysis. In my experience, that's not what faith really is.

Well, that's not the claim I made, anyway. I claimed that so far, science has not found any evidence of god in any other dimensions, either.

Actually, you said that science knows enough to say that god is not there:

Well, we do know quite a bit now about other dimensions. Rather enough to be able to say that god's not hiding there, either.

Again... there cannot ever be evidence of absence. So no, there was no such experiment, as it would be pointless.

Actually, you can have evidence of absence. I can prove that my pants pocket is empty of crows by inserting my hand in there and empirically verifying the absence of crows.

I agree that there was no experiment, and that it would be pointless, but for completely different reasons.