Belief in God is scientific.

So your claim is that whatever has the majority consensus is true. If your logic is correct then these statistics support your conclusion about the existence of a god:

Atheists	2.3%
Agnostics	16%
Belief in a god	81.7%

But we also have these statistics:

Christians	33%
Non-Christians	67%

So by your same logic, although there is a god, it is not the Christian God.

Obviously your logic leads to some conclusions you would favor and others you would not favor. Do you still like your logic?

Of course, the logic you're applying is nonsense. The majority of humans alive at any given time have believed plenty of things that were wrong, for instance, that lightning and thunder were supernatural.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Typo.

divermike1974 writes: Once again Christianity comes up. Where did i mention any religion?

Well, now you're just being evasive, and I see you've posted a few other dismissive one-line messages. We can't have much of a discussion if your responses are just dismissals and evasions. Let's try again, shall we?

First, you claim that whatever has the majority consensus is true.

Second, these statistics show that the majority consensus is belief in a god:

Atheists	2.3%
Agnostics	16%
Belief in a god	81.7%

Third, we know you're a Christian.

Fourth, these statistics show that the majority consensus is belief in a non-Christian god:

Christians	33%
Non-Christians	67%

So your logic leads to the conclusion that the true god is a non-Christian god. Do you support that conclusion?

The obvious point here is that you've chosen a criteria (majority belief wins out) because it lends support to something you believe, namely that God god exists. But it also lends support to something you don't believe, namely that the true god is a non-Christian god. It also lends support to other things you probably don't accept, such as gay marriage.

And about this from your Message 38:

divermike1974 in Message 38 writes: I said 'to believe in God' is scientific because more people believe than don't.

A theory becomes scientifically accepted when a consensus of scientists becomes convinced by scientific evidence and reasoning. Most people believe in God for spiritual reasons of faith, not science.

--Percy

divermike1974 writes: I don't claim the majority consensus is true. I claim that if the brain is the most powerful natural computer in the known universe and the majority of those brains say there is a God then that overwhelming number of answers should be classed as scientific evidence for the existence of said God.

I'm just saying the same thing as you, only in briefer form. So let's go through this one more time. I'll try to use your preferred wording so you can't invent more reasons to avoid addressing the rebuttals.

You reason that because the human brain is so powerful, any majority consensus of human beings should be considered scientific evidence. That means that these statistics should be taken as evidence for the existence of god:

Atheists	2.3%
Agnostics	16%
Belief in a god	81.7%

But it also means that these other statistics should be taken as evidence that god is a non-Christian god:

Christians	33%
Non-Christians	67%

The obvious point here is that you've chosen a criteria (majority belief wins out) because it lends support to something you believe, namely that God god exists. But it also lends support to something you don't believe, namely that the true god is a non-Christian god. It also lends support to other things you probably don't accept, such as gay marriage.

It has nothing to do with who believes in what only in the fact that scientists ignore the very real answers being given by billions of people, people who also happen to be very very powerful natural computers.

This position that beliefs derive validity from being widely accepted has been rebutted at least several times in this thread, yet here you are again ignoring those rebuttals and just restating your position as if the rebuttals had never been made. The simplest form of the rebuttal is that the majority of people alive at any given time have been wrong time and again. At one time or another the majority of people have believed that thunder and lightning are supernatural, the Earth is flat, the sun and planets orbit the Earth, the planets are propelled along their paths by wisps of air from the wings of angels, and so on. Given that the majority have been so frequently wrong, especially about anything concerning the supernatural, shouldn't you be arguing that it is evidence against god?

Of course the reality is that it isn't scientific evidence at all.

--Percy

divermike1974 in Message 82 writes: You couldn't be more wrong.

divermike1974 in Message 86 writes: Yeah i do admit I am wrong...

Why oh why do I keep letting myself get sucked into discussions like this.

DiverMike, the worst part of this isn't your original position. The worst part is that you were never able to mount a defense, nor even recognize what one might look like.

--Percy

I thought he posed a couple intriguing questions that represented common misconceptions. Exploring them seemed worthwhile, but I didn't think he would just stonewall, evade, then collapse.

Although if history is any guide, he'll retract the concession or say we misunderstood, then continue just as before.

--Percy

Hi Ossat,

So let's consider as falsified (for the sake of discussion) the scientific explanations for the origin of life (that it was due to natural processes is about the only consensus right now) and for the diversity of species (evolution through a process of descent with modification and natural selection). How would this support the premise of this thread, that belief in God is scientific?

--Percy

Ossat writes: But Intelligent design and creation can be accepted as scientific if we open our minds enough...

Astrology can be accepted as scientific if we open our minds enough.

Demolition can be accepted as construction if we open our minds enough.

Loan sharking can be accepted as banking if we open our minds enough.

Gambling can be accepted as investing if we open our minds enough.

Perhaps creation science and its intelligent design offspring might consider attempting to satisfy the criteria of science instead of begging people to "open their minds."

...to recognize that the universe, the nature and life are far too complex to be an accident.

Can I assume there's a scientific footing for this conclusion? That' there's been research establishing a complexity threshold beyond which natural processes cannot be responsible? That we've measured the complexity of nature and life and discovered it lies beyond that threshold?

Ya know, in case you hadn't noticed, the word "scientific" lies right in the title of this thread, and that word *does* have a definition. A valid argument is not, "Let's just be open-minded about what constitutes science and call belief in God scientific. There, we're done."

It's for me evident that all of this must have been created, there is not other possibility.

So it's incumbent upon us to be open-minded, but you, not so much.

Do you have an argument that doesn't require changing the definition of science?

--Percy

Ossat writes: How does a Salt crystal "know" how to form a cube and get it just right? ...It's gotta be God!!

This is your only response so far to all the replies you attracted, and it's impossible to know if more will be forthcoming, so I'll respond to the latter portion of your last response to me that I didn't originally address:

Ossat in Message 138 writes: Let's say you are a forensic anthropologist examining with scientific rigor the place where somebody died. You have all the knowledge to be able to determine if the victim died of an accident or if someone killed him. Is the same with the universe, is clear for me that somebody did it.

Given the evidence you've presented, you're akin to a forensic anthropologist who concludes, "We have a body, therefore it was murder."

--Percy

divermike1974 writes: The human brain contrary to what some of you say IS the most complex thing in the known universe and the vast majority of those brains (people) believe in some form of God, so why isn't that overwhelming majority taken seriously from a scientific point of view as 'evidence' for God?

Me in Message 97:

Percy in Message 97 writes: Although if history is any guide, he'll retract the concession or say we misunderstood, then continue just as before.

I win.

DiverMike, you're restating your initial premise as if there hasn't already been 150 messages of discussion, which you're ignoring. You've already been told what's wrong with your proposal, so you should respond to those arguments instead of just repeating yourself.

Or you could go back to your Message 86 where you said, "I do admit I am wrong" and go over in your own mind the arguments people made to bring you to that concession. That would save us the trouble of having the same discussion all over again. The reasons you're wrong haven't changed.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.