Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8951 total)
715 online now:
Hyroglyphx, Percy (Admin), Tangle (3 members, 712 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,822 Year: 21,858/19,786 Month: 421/1,834 Week: 421/315 Day: 17/82 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can science refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 256 of 310 (487742)
11-04-2008 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Stile
11-04-2008 9:49 AM


Re: No support. No work. No God.
-God never leaves any objectively detectable trace of Himself for anyone to find, ever

Then this God is as impotent as...

How does that follow?

Of course, if you'd like to alter the 'god hypothesis' to mean:

I assume you meant altering it to any one of the following and not all of the following together. If you meant all of them together then nevermind.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Stile, posted 11-04-2008 9:49 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Stile, posted 11-04-2008 10:18 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3863
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 257 of 310 (487746)
11-04-2008 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by New Cat's Eye
11-04-2008 10:02 AM


I wasn't very clear
Catholic Scientist writes:

Stile writes:

-God never leaves any objectively detectable trace of Himself for anyone to find, ever
Then this God is as impotent as...

How does that follow?

You're right, that one alone doesn't really follow. But, as you guessed, that's not quite what I meant. I don't think I put that list together very well, though.

Stile writes:

Of course, if you'd like to alter the 'god hypothesis' to mean:
-God only exists in our imaginations
-God does not influence our reality in any way that cannot be easily duplicated by mundane methods anyway
-God never leaves any objectively detectable trace of Himself for anyone to find, ever

I suppose I was meaning a kind of "either 1 or 2, and add 3 on if you'd like..." sort of way.

In hindsight, I probably should have left that last one off the list and had an "either/or" of the first two options.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-04-2008 10:02 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 258 of 310 (487804)
11-05-2008 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by Bailey
11-03-2008 7:34 PM


Re: science is not in the business of refuting imagination
I believe I am pleased we agree Straggler.
I concede no product of any individual's imagination is any more evidenced or true than any other.
Unless the imagagination has an evidential basis within a shared framework.
Perhaps, to imagine a house and base the completion of this potential reality from the concepts imagined.

It remains, the God cannot be evidenced apart from faith.
I would be extremely surprised if it was any other way ...

So imagination is not evidence. But faith is?

Is it possible to have faith in an imaginary and non-existant being?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Bailey, posted 11-03-2008 7:34 PM Bailey has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by onifre, posted 11-05-2008 10:17 AM Straggler has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1287 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 259 of 310 (487817)
11-05-2008 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by Straggler
11-05-2008 8:43 AM


Re: science is not in the business of refuting imagination
Is it possible to have faith in an imaginary and non-existant being?

Is this not the foundation for all of religions?

Not for spirituality but for religion. Lets be honest, no person in any religion has 'seen' anything, they just have faith in the concept of God that their particular religion has told them about. Wouldn't that make the relgious God imaginary and non-existant? They seem to place faith not on the existance of God but on the God version of their religion, which brings with it scriptures detailing Earths history, which can be challenged and disproven.

I know you may agree with me on this Straggler but what is Baileys take on it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Straggler, posted 11-05-2008 8:43 AM Straggler has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Bailey, posted 11-06-2008 11:37 AM onifre has not yet responded

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 2706 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 260 of 310 (487879)
11-06-2008 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by onifre
11-05-2008 10:17 AM


Imagination Constipation
Thank you for the exchange Straggler.
Hope all is well in your camp onifre ...

Straggler writes:

Bailey writes:

I believe I am pleased we agree Straggler.
I concede no product of any individual's imagination is any more evidenced or true than any other.
Unless the imagagination has an evidential basis within a shared framework.
Perhaps, to imagine a house and base the completion of this potential reality from the concepts imagined.
It remains, the God cannot be evidenced apart from faith.
I would be extremely surprised if it was any other way ...

So imagination is not evidence. But faith is?


It seems some personal and most spiritual realities await in the wings of one's imagination.
That being said, they are both highly subjective as far as I can reason ...

Is it possible to have faith in an imaginary and non-existant being?

I suppose if you had an imaginary friend that you hadn't seen in a while, you could have faith you would see it soon.

Though if the character is not produced in your imagination at some point in the future, such faith cannot be considered evidence ...

Not even by the imaginee.

onifire writes:

Straggler writes:

Is it possible to have faith in an imaginary and non-existant being?

Is this not the foundation for all of religions?


I concede.
In the Torah, all Adam maintains as physical objective evidence is a pair of leather pants.
Yet, as long as they exist, he cannot prove to anyone that they are a gift from the God.

The God eliminates access to the Garden, as well as the two Trees.

And so, we find Adam left wondering whether he ever actually heard the God and whether he even really ate from the Tree of Knowledge.

Or was it all in his imagination?

lol - yet, if so, where the hell did the leather pants come from?
They would be the bit that caused him to question his reality.

Not for spirituality but for religion.

I, for one, appreciate this disclaimer, though my spirituality is steeped in hypothetical theory based on subjective emotions.
For instance, I have faith in Love, which is, for all intents & purposes, a figment of everyone's imagination.

Lets be honest, no person in any religion has 'seen' anything, they just have faith in the concept of God that their particular religion has told them about.

Fortunately I missed the lil' yellow religious bus.
Though, my imagination is not stifled by heresy ...

Honestly, to the God's credit, I have not "seen" anything physically tangible in order that He may be evidenced by even me alone.

It is extremely hard for me to believe that the God will physically reveal Himself to any one person.
I would be much less surprised if He is evidenced in a way that no one can realistically deny.

I employ as "evidence" of the God, though hardly, the potential reality of love being unfolded and exposed as a universal Law that cannot be defied.
Reality seems to support this in the sense that humanity, and potentially the universe, typically prospers when the concepts of love are employed.
It may or may not stand, that no amount of intelligence can successfully or permanently defy the governing Laws of the universe.

I suggest that, though the forces of love can be countered for a season, all things are ultimately accountable to its Law.
Respectively, though gravity's forces can be countered for a season, everything must rejoin the sphere or it will expire.
It remains, the forces of gravity are more clearly evidenced then the forces of love.

So I digress ...
The hypothetical theory of The Law of Love cannot be truly evidenced yet, apart from faith and reason.
And so it is, emotional theories are as subjective as the God of religions.

Apologies for the drivel ...

Wouldn't that make the relgious God imaginary and non-existant?

lol - certainly appears that way.

I often say ...
The God allowed His purpose to be written down by men, so that people employing knowledge could more clearly evidence religious misconceptions regarding Him.

They seem to place faith not on the existance of God but on the God version of their religion ...

Indeed onifre ...
Is this not a display of ego and pride on religion's behalf?
They seem to want the God to be, but they want the God to be what they say first.
It seems the purpose of religion to claim the God as their own first, and then dish out His rations proportionally to the masses.
If the God is, He must not be second ... everything else will join, not lead.

I would surmise the God is not the least bit religious.

Though I digress ...
I conceptualize the God as the Spirit of Love, and then place that concept of Him on an equal basis with His existence.

That is, if the God is not Love, the God does not exist.

lol - what a hypocrite it seems I am.

... which brings with it scriptures detailing Earths history, which can be challenged and disproven.

Zealots are seemingly foolish to employ details of scripture in an attempt to objectively prove the existence of a being which, by their own admission, clearly does not want to be objectively evidenced.

I accrue faith in the God simply by employing the reality of their inability to do so ...

Edited by Bailey, : greeting

Edited by Bailey, : grammar


Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary
The Apostle of the Skeptics writes:

"...picture me alone in that room...night after night, feeling...the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. That which I greatly feared had at last come upon me."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by onifre, posted 11-05-2008 10:17 AM onifre has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Straggler, posted 11-07-2008 1:25 PM Bailey has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 261 of 310 (488046)
11-07-2008 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Bailey
11-06-2008 11:37 AM


Re: Imagination Constipation
I suppose if you had an imaginary friend that you hadn't seen in a while, you could have faith you would see it soon.
Though if the character is not produced in your imagination at some point in the future, such faith cannot be considered evidence ...

Not even by the imaginee.

So as long as you have faith that you will see your imaginary friend again AND the imaginary friend does indeed pop up from time to time, the imagination is evidence?

Evidence of what exactly?

Is this any different to the imaginary friend some people call God?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Bailey, posted 11-06-2008 11:37 AM Bailey has not yet responded

  
Ex-Believer
Junior Member (Idle past 3921 days)
Posts: 2
From: Oklahoma CIty, Oklahoma, USA
Joined: 12-11-2008


Message 262 of 310 (491138)
12-12-2008 12:33 AM


Is it possible for science to refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt
Just because science can not prove the existence or non-existence of God does not make an argument for or against God. I can tell you that I get revelations from God. There is no science that can prove or disprove it, but that doesn't make it any more true.

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Stile, posted 12-12-2008 7:39 AM Ex-Believer has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3863
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 263 of 310 (491154)
12-12-2008 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by Ex-Believer
12-12-2008 12:33 AM


Re: Is it possible for science to refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt
Ex-Believer writes:

Just because science can not prove the existence or non-existence of God does not make an argument for or against God.

This is incorrect.

If people say that God exists, and that God's followers' prayers will be answered... they are making a prediction.

If we test that prediction by monitoring the answering of prayers for God's followers and the answering of prayers for God's non-followers and the regular life of non-praying people, we can see if there is any correlation.

If this test comes up without any significant bias (eg. the prayers of God's followers aren't answered any more than the prayers of God's non-followers or even non-praying people) then this is evidence that a God who rewards praying does not exist.

If people claim God does all sorts of things, and we go looking for those things, and realize there is no God behind them... this is evidence for that God not existing.

This evidence is only valid for considering a God who is involved in the human population. This evidence cannot be used to say an uninvolved God doesn't exist. But it certainly is evidence for the non-existence of the God it tested for... the God generally discussed by Christians.

I can tell you that I get revelations from God. There is no science that can prove or disprove it, but that doesn't make it any more true.

If I can use science to show you that what you think are revelations from God are actually a delusion you've created in your own mind; then yes, this certainly does provide evidence that a God that gives you revelations does not exist. It does not provide evidence that any God that gives anyone else revelations doesn't exist... (although they can likely be tested in the same manner) but it most certainly does show you to be wrong.

As more and more 'tests for God' come up with no evidence in favour of God there are less and less places for 'a possible God' to actually exist. At some point, it becomes very plausible to simply assume that no God exists until we actually find some positive evidence. This is the same sort of reasoning that we use to not believe in fairies until we actually see some positive evidence for their existence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Ex-Believer, posted 12-12-2008 12:33 AM Ex-Believer has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by iano, posted 12-12-2008 9:34 AM Stile has responded
 Message 266 by Ex-Believer, posted 12-12-2008 4:30 PM Stile has responded
 Message 268 by Bailey, posted 12-12-2008 7:16 PM Stile has responded
 Message 269 by onifre, posted 12-13-2008 1:37 PM Stile has responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 277 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 264 of 310 (491161)
12-12-2008 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Stile
12-12-2008 7:39 AM


Re: Is it possible for science to refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt
Stile writes:

If people say that God exists, and that God's followers' prayers will be answered... they are making a prediction.

If we test that prediction by monitoring the answering of prayers for God's followers and the answering of prayers for God's non-followers and the regular life of non-praying people, we can see if there is any correlation.

Uncircumventable problems abound:

- there is no reason to suppose that because someone self-identifies as a believer they actually are a believer (as defined by God). Not for nothing "Lord, Lord, did we not cast out demons in your name!"
It's a no-true-Christian dilemma of course. But your dilemma all the same.

- if the mechanism of a person coming to know that God exists is individualistically personal and God intends for it to remain that way, there is every reason to suppose he'll remain 'hidden' for the duration and from the instruments of your observation. If it is the case that "..and without faith it is impossible to be well-pleasing unto him; for he that cometh unto God must believe that he is" then evidence which would circumvent the need for faith is precluded.

-

I was given a dvd recently on which lots of people claim that God had given them golden teeth to replace ones they had lost. They even open their mouths up to the camera to prove it. Personally, I'd love to see an xray of divine dentistry to see what sets it apart from it's commoner garden relative

:)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Stile, posted 12-12-2008 7:39 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Stile, posted 12-12-2008 10:25 AM iano has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3863
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 265 of 310 (491165)
12-12-2008 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by iano
12-12-2008 9:34 AM


If there's no difference, then it doesn't matter
iano writes:

Uncircumventable problems abound

Not any I can see. Especially not anything meaningful:

there is no reason to suppose that because someone self-identifies as a believer they actually are a believer

This is correct. But if all tests for this sort of thing come up negative (which they do) by anyone and everyone who professes to be an actual believer (as seen so far) we end up with one of the following two conclusions:

1 - They are all non-believers, in which case God doesn't answer any prayers because there are no actual real believers to do the praying
2 - Some actually were believers, in which case the test is valid and God doesn't interfere with those prayers any differently than anyone elses wishes

In either case, it ends up with the same result. Sure, we can't tell the difference between which case it is, but it doesn't matter... same result.

- if the mechanism of a person coming to know that God exists is individualistically personal and God intends for it to remain that way, there is every reason to suppose he'll remain 'hidden' for the duration and from the instruments of your observation.

Very true. It's quite possible that God makes sure all tests come out inconclusive. Again, this isn't a problem. If there's no difference between someone who believes in God and someone who doesn't... we're left with the conclusion that it doesn't matter if you believe or not.

It's not quite "God doesn't exist". But, "God exists but doesn't make a difference" isn't really all that different. Certainly not meaningfully different.

iano writes:

I was given a dvd recently on which lots of people claim that God had given them golden teeth to replace ones they had lost. They even open their mouths up to the camera to prove it. Personally, I'd love to see an xray of divine dentistry to see what sets it apart from it's commoner garden relative.

Exactly. If there's no discernable difference, it doesn't really matter.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by iano, posted 12-12-2008 9:34 AM iano has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by ICANT, posted 12-12-2008 6:44 PM Stile has responded

  
Ex-Believer
Junior Member (Idle past 3921 days)
Posts: 2
From: Oklahoma CIty, Oklahoma, USA
Joined: 12-11-2008


Message 266 of 310 (491225)
12-12-2008 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Stile
12-12-2008 7:39 AM


Re: Is it possible for science to refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt
I think we are on the same page, but expressing it in different ways.
My point was to say that people can say they believe in anything but that doesn't make it true. The belief in God comes from primitive origins that man used to try to explain things they didn't understand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Stile, posted 12-12-2008 7:39 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Stile, posted 12-15-2008 10:52 AM Ex-Believer has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6269
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 267 of 310 (491247)
12-12-2008 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Stile
12-12-2008 10:25 AM


Re: If there's no difference, then it doesn't matter
Hi Stile,

Stile writes:

Very true. It's quite possible that God makes sure all tests come out inconclusive. Again, this isn't a problem. If there's no difference between someone who believes in God and someone who doesn't... we're left with the conclusion that it doesn't matter if you believe or not.

The statement you made in this paragraph is the best I have read in your many posts.

"If there's no difference between someone who believes in God and someone who doesn't...we're left with the conclusion that it doesn't matter if you believe or not."

You are refering to answered prayer I assume.

But if you apply it to the two individuals you hit the nail on the head.

If there is no difference between a person who says he is a beliver and a person who does not believe, then you are right to conclude that the person claiming to be a believer is not a born again believer.

Jesus tells us: "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:" John 10:27

A born again child of God follows Jesus, there is no room to do otherwise.


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Stile, posted 12-12-2008 10:25 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Stile, posted 12-15-2008 7:53 AM ICANT has responded

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 2706 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 268 of 310 (491250)
12-12-2008 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Stile
12-12-2008 7:39 AM


religious rumors
Thank you for the exchange Stile.

Stile writes:

Ex-Believer writes:

Just because science can not prove the existence or non-existence of God does not make an argument for or against God.


This is incorrect.

If people say that God exists, and that God's followers' prayers will be answered... they are making a prediction.

Is this not like stating ...

If people say that Dave exists, and that Dave's friends' packages are sent on time ... they are making a prediction.
Yet, easily recognized outer stimuli associated with such an assertion exists which may result certain variables.

Granted, the initial 'prediction' is formed within subjectively collective, and personally objective, ideologies.
Even still, unless we study Word, we have little way of accounting for any variables that may skew such results.

Yet, if little Billy 'prays' for a baseball glove, and then finds or is given one, is his prayer not answered?
And, even if processes employed by the God to distribute the gift of Love can be otherwise 'clearly evidenced'?

Even if some of Billy's mates also receive a glove and did not pray to the God; but another?

Who shall count to the God's credit, 1000 baseball gloves donated to Billy's school?

What may we say when 100 gloves are given to the little league?
But if 10 are recieved by his cubscout troop?

If One near the Two Trees?

If we test that prediction by monitoring the answering of prayers for God's followers and the answering of prayers for God's non-followers and the regular life of non-praying people, we can see if there is any correlation.

We may clearly evidence certain misconceptions about the God as well.
Could He not be double minded as some continuously make Him out to be?

Any potential perceptions, and contrived evidence, of such correlations remain captive to the alloted duration of time given within said framework.

What was true in the past may no longer be necessarily true at present and may not apply in the future.
This implies evidence may, or may not, appear to be in the same local continuously.
'Evidence' may remain simply reliable as the 'force of determination' seeking it.

A 'convicting' exhibit of evidence may be differently evidenced than 'natural selection'.

The investigator looked in the dumpster six times ...
Each time wondering, may he have missed the Truth?
Arrogance believes it won't be there the seventh ...

lol - not the investigator.

For this reason, science will testify what is 'true' today, may be 'false' tomorrow.
Respectively, what is 'false' yesterday, may be 'true' in the future.

The exception being if one may stray from the Truth.
Even still, the exception remains only in their mind.

If this test comes up without any significant bias (eg. the prayers of God's followers aren't answered any more than the prayers of God's non-followers or even non-praying people) then this is evidence that a God who rewards praying does not exist.

The present opinion finds the above hypothysis circumventing reason.
The suggestion appears to provide evidence towards self evident Truth ...

In what way may such assertion evidence the existence, or otherwise, of a prayer rewarding god?
If this test produces results that lack significant bias, this is evidence arbitrary claims of people are refutable.

Not much more.

If people claim God does all sorts of things, and we go looking for those things, and realize there is no God behind them...this is evidence for that God not existing.

This evidence appears to simply support arbitrary claims of people are refutable.

Perhaps one is told I walk by the Tim Horton's up the street from Valero everyday on my way home from ...
If another sits at Tim Horton to witness me walk by on my way, yet does not witness me, do I not exist?

Even if they arrive there and wait everyday for a year?

The watcher has likely been misinformed.

This evidence is only valid for considering a God who is involved in the human population.

Do not follow.

This evidence appears valid for considering people who are involved in assigning rumors and expectations.

We must test the God's Words, not rumors, to validate evidence associated to Him.
His Word is available ... no need to overlay subjectivity.

This evidence cannot be used to say an uninvolved God doesn't exist.

Correct.

The evidence clearly supports that arbitrary claims of people are refutable.

Regarding the God or otherwise, respectively.

But it certainly is evidence for the non-existence of the God it tested for...

lol - it certainly is evidence for the non existence of human infallibility.

the God generally discussed by Christians.

lol - the God can take on many faces when religion is the mediator.

When Love is the mediator, many seekers do not recognize the God.
These ones do not wish to serve Love, rather sadism and masochism.

A double minded man is unstable in his way.

One Love

Edited by Bailey, : spelling


Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary
The Apostle of the Skeptics writes:

"...picture me alone in that room ... night after night, feeling ... the steady, unrelenting approach of Him
whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. That which I greatly feared had at last come upon me."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Stile, posted 12-12-2008 7:39 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Stile, posted 12-15-2008 8:13 AM Bailey has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1287 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 269 of 310 (491282)
12-13-2008 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Stile
12-12-2008 7:39 AM


Re: Is it possible for science to refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt
Hi Stile,

If people say that God exists, and that God's followers' prayers will be answered... they are making a prediction.

If we test that prediction by monitoring the answering of prayers for God's followers and the answering of prayers for God's non-followers and the regular life of non-praying people, we can see if there is any correlation.

If this test comes up without any significant bias (eg. the prayers of God's followers aren't answered any more than the prayers of God's non-followers or even non-praying people) then this is evidence that a God who rewards praying does not exist.

I am an atheist as well but I'm having trouble with this prayer test. To play devils advocate, a person of faith could simply say that God would know it's a test and would not allow Himself to be subjected to it. If there is an all powerfull God He would not have to be subject to any human testing. He could create conditions that would allow for Him to never be seen.

As far as prayers not getting answered disproving God, I would say, and you seem to agree, maybe just the Abrahamic God, or maybe just the man made concepts of God. There could certainly be another God who makes no such scriptual claims. But, I don't think people of faith would lose faith in prayer. My mother is very religious, to her, God answering prayers does not strengthen her faith, to her, the fact that God doesn't have to answer prayers and yet still has mercy on humans to do it from time to time, strengthens her faith.(Those are her words exactly).

So, she doesn't focus on unanswered prayers, she focuses on Gods mercyful gesture when prayers do get answered, i.e. when things go well. So the test would prove nothing to her.

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.


"All great truths begin as blasphemies"

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Stile, posted 12-12-2008 7:39 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Stile, posted 12-15-2008 7:46 AM onifre has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3863
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 270 of 310 (491373)
12-15-2008 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by onifre
12-13-2008 1:37 PM


Reasonable Doubt, not absolute truth
onifre writes:

If there is an all powerfull God He would not have to be subject to any human testing. He could create conditions that would allow for Him to never be seen.

Yes, very true. There certainly could be an all powerful God that makes absolutely no discernable difference to any human life.

That is, those lives that claim to be followers of such a God are not significantly better (or worse) than those lives that do not make such a claim.

There certainly could be some all powerful God sitting in the background, making sure His people come out "even" with everyone else, and not allowing Himself to be discovered. But, really, who cares? If there's no way to tell any difference, then what exactly is the difference? At this point, it's starting to get rather ridiculous to keep talking about some awesome God who grants His followers... absolutely no advantage at all over anyone else :)

As far as prayers not getting answered disproving God, I would say, and you seem to agree, maybe just the Abrahamic God, or maybe just the man made concepts of God.

My point was to show that when people grant specific attributes to God (like prayer answering), those specific attributes can then be tested for validity. This doesn't disprove "God", but it certainly disproves a God who grants whatever specific attribute was talked about. And, as more and more attributes are brought forward, and are tested for, and come up negative... there are less and less places for this God to actually be having an impact on this reality. This should lead a rational thinker to lean in the direction that maybe all this grasping at straws is simply just that.

But, I don't think people of faith would lose faith in prayer.

I don't think rational reasoning would make any person of faith lose their faith. Faith is belief in things we do not have reasoning for. I am certainly not attempting to convert anyone. I am simply trying to show that there is a valid arguement that the "god hypothesis" is refuted beyond all reasonable doubt.

Faith certainly goes beyond "reasonable doubt".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by onifre, posted 12-13-2008 1:37 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by onifre, posted 12-15-2008 5:17 PM Stile has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019