What counts as evidence for God?

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

That seems like a stupid decision. Keep in mind that in the bible, quite a few people see god, get a direct vocal command from god, and then disobey it. Most notably Jonah and Satan. Simply because God is there doesn't mean people won't act on their own decisions. They simply will have more complete information on which to base those decisions. Meanwhile, him not being here but expecting us to act like he is anyways is just a colossally unfair kick in the teeth to any skeptical-minded people!

But it still strongly influences it.

Having specific information confirmed or verified does change how you would in turn act or do anything.

The question for exception is one to think about if the dubious nature is to be considered. You say it would be unfair to uninformed people if that kind of god is real.

Wouldn't him informing people directly in turn ruin this? Suddenly a lot of people might consider suicide to be ok since he is proven to be real so it might seem a lot more tempting to kill yourself to go to heaven.

You can call it a sin or not but in turn situations like that could pop up where directly informing make it a lot harder to perform any sort of "test" or "plan" I guess if people go that route.

Having complete information you say might help, in many ways I could see that screwing things over.

Which is more or less why I thought about the Futurama episode, doing a little to make sure something is there, but not doing so much people become reliant.

There are a lot of possibilities I've thought about with this, if all the deities in history were all wrong and it was something else entirely that never left a shred of evidence on purpose for us to just do whatever we wanted. Maybe what we think is just a layer for something else entirely.

You seem to think the lack of informing would be criminal and the worst thing possible.

My answer to this would be not informing could very well be intentional to not influence human/life forms etc.

If there were exceptions, which is what you are implying here, then I could more so side with the idea that it could be cruel maybe. Doesn't that in turn still influence how you act.

If you were being tested after you died but weren't informed you were already dead, ie Death Parade style, wouldn't that knowledge of being dead influence how you would act?

 

[FlusteredBat]

If the justifying principle is "anything which exists must have been created" then God must have been created by another God and so on. If we instead propose that it was a single eternal being responsible for all creation then Occam's razor compels us to cut it from the equation entirely.

Of course, religion logically implodes from the get-go since Gods are never congruent with the definition of existence.

Truth requires evidence, not faith.

 

[Dastardly Ridleylash]

Let's put it this way; the only way science will accept the idea of God as the truth is if God makes himself well and known in a form that cannot be interpreted in any other fashion. We've recorded numerous instances of the Big Bang and evolution in action, so a number of scientists have concluded that evolution is a scientific theory, not a hypothesis; this is considered indisputable because we've observed it so many times, both in the fossil record and through observation of modern fauna, that any other option now has the burden of proof on it, which includes a higher power.

Also, there's a lot of stuff that makes a lot of the Bible's contents look pretty off when taken at face value by scientists;

• Science has pretty much accepted that Earth was formed around 4.54 billion years ago by the Big Bang, with life itself forming 3.5 billion years ago; this is extremely far off from the Bible's estimates of 6,000 years. If the Bible's estimate were true, all life on Earth would still be single-celled organisms floating around in water sources.
  
• Non-avian dinosaurs (that is, dinosaurs outside of the crown group Aves) died out 66 million years ago. Humankind only evolved in the last million or so years. They never co-existed.
• Near-death experiences are a result of the brain, not of some higher power; this is pretty heavily studied and has little room for squeezing an unlikely deity in there.
• The very idea of the Ark is laughable for many reasons; the biggest being that two individuals do not make for a remotely successful breeding population; all the children would have to mate either their own siblings or their parents, and that's called a genetic bottleneck. For the effects of a genetic bottleneck, look at what happened to the cheetah; genetic defects, malformities and overall many pretty unwanted things befall a species in a genetic bottleneck. Same goes for Adam and Eve.
  
• People who claim to have seen God are usually religious themselves, and thus cannot provide an unbiased opinion on the experience. This tainted view is thusly disregarded because it is biased.
• The relations of all the animals in the bible is whacked out; birds and crocodiles should be in the same "kind" as dinosaurs, since all three form a clade called Archosauria. Excluding birds from this clade renders it paraphyletic, which is to say that it excludes certain members of a clade. Paraphyly is highly discouraged in science, and any paraphyletic clades are generally discarded in favor of their monophyletic counterparts.
  
• The idea of all animals being herbivores would actually be detrimental to the environment of Eden, even if it were real; if there's no predators to balance out the herbivore population, they'll eat all of the plants and eventually starve themselves to death because there's nothing to control their populations.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Wouldn't him informing people directly in turn ruin this? Suddenly a lot of people might consider suicide to be ok since he is proven to be real so it might seem a lot more tempting to kill yourself to go to heaven.

As opposed to people thinking suicide is okay because they don't see any eternal reason for them existing due to the lack of information?

Or you know, God could've been smart and scrapped the idea of an afterlife for the sake of this-life to completely avoid any problems while shredding apart any of the issues that the concept existed to deter in the process.

You can call it a sin or not but in turn situations like that could pop up where directly informing make it a lot harder to perform any sort of "test" or "plan" I guess if people go that route.

What kind of plan would be useful to an OP God? What kind of test is good for mankind, that would be even better than God being unreservedly benevolent from the get-go?

If the answer is, "It isn't supposed to make sense from a human understanding". Then by definition it is not a plan for humans at all, and that then means this God is by definition not benevolent.

Having complete information you say might help, in many ways I could see that screwing things over.

"Things"? Would do you mean by "things"? What's being screwed over in that scenario?

You seem to think the lack of informing would be criminal and the worst thing possible.

My answer to this would be not informing could very well be intentional to not influence human/life forms etc.

A father, who could do whatever he wants for his children, who instead chooses to hide existence and do nothing in order for some sort of unknown test, would be unanimously decided by our culture to be a selfish, irresponsible, awful parent. Our concept of the divine father, that is supposed to be our superior in every way, doesn't even meet our typical human standards.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

As opposed to people thinking suicide is okay because they don't see any eternal reason for them existing due to the lack of information?

Or you know, God could've been smart and scrapped the idea of an afterlife for the sake of this-life to completely avoid any problems while shredding apart any of the issues that the concept existed to deter in the process.



What kind of plan would be useful to an OP God? What kind of test is good for mankind, that would be even better than God being unreservedly benevolent from the get-go?

If the answer is, "It isn't supposed to make sense from a human understanding". Then by definition it is not a plan for humans at all, and that then means this God is by definition not benevolent.



"Things"? Would do you mean by "things"? What's being screwed over in that scenario?



A father, who could do whatever he wants for his children, who instead chooses to hide existence and do nothing in order for some sort of unknown test, would be unanimously decided by our culture to be a selfish, irresponsible, awful parent. Our concept of the divine father, that is supposed to be our superior in every way, doesn't even meet our typical human standards.

This is assuming of course that would be the optimal way to do it. With this, there would be no development on our own nor reason to act on our own.

I'm not sure where the idea of not knowing means suicide is more likely, which your statement "As opposed to people thinking suicide is okay because they don't see any eternal reason for them existing due to the lack of information?" seems to imply very directly. Xenophobia is a real thing, death is not a full known and having more assurance could lead people to thinking of using it as a means to not really live. Christianity strongly suggests life is an important gift, not something to waste. If we assume a Christian god in this situation of course.

The plan has to involve humans or living creatures of some variety for a plan to make sense. Part of this paragraph, suggests also that a god in this situation gets something out of it. What if is plan actually is for use in some shape or form. If the plan involved development that would at least have some sense since why develop anything in a perfect paradise.

By things I mean potential and possible idea of what could be raised here, I'm purposely leaving an open door on this point. I'm considering possibilities and situations.

Your last paragraph is applying human standards to a situation like this, and I'm not sure why since parenthood has a lot of key difference to this sort of situation. Even more so if we ignore potential set standard and rules followed by which a potential god would set-up.

• Science has pretty much accepted that Earth was formed around 4.54 billion years ago by the Big Bang, with life itself forming 3.5 billion years ago; this is extremely far off from the Bible's estimates of 6,000 years. If the Bible's estimate were true, all life on Earth would still be single-celled organisms floating around in water sources.
• Near-death experiences are a result of the brain, not of some higher power; this is pretty heavily studied and has little room for squeezing an unlikely deity in there.
• People who claim to have seen God are usually religious themselves, and thus cannot provide an unbiased opinion on the experience. This tainted view is thusly disregarded because it is biased.

I'm only covering these because it's the only points I have interest in and see potential issues with.

The bible's 6000 year age is counting generations only listed in the book, this is where the idea came from but ultimately came from and how that measurement happened. The bible never does directly say 6000 years.

Near death experiences have not been proven to be fully a byproduct of the brain. Especially when in many cases people were functionally dead. We have theories at best to why this could happen in the brain but we do not have a clear objective method to show why this would happen in the brain, why people experience what they do. It has been studied but nothing is conclusive on this front to the cause outside of a guess from a scientific level. People only have theories on this front to why it occurs for some people, why others do not experience it. It is a very unknown area right now.

You are applying a fallacy here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

You are completely removing anything of an experience based solely on the fact they are religious. You should be looking at context and the situation rather than using a blanket statement that someone is religious so it immediately thrown out. Especially in the near death experiences situations you listed in which this is a core detail to actually examine and consider when you are discussing actual experiences during this state.

 

[FlusteredBat]

There are plenty of crazy people who claim a lot of nonsensical things without empirical evidence, we should treat collective delusions like religion with the same level of skepticism if we are to call ourselves rational.

I accept how my dreams tend to break the laws of physics, that does not mean I should project those subconscious experiences into the real world as if they actually happened in a way tangible to everybody else.

 

[Sucumbio]

I think what Red ryu's getting at (and correct me if Im wrong, red) is that even IF a so called near death experience IS 100% a byproduct of the brain, there's no reason to discount the possibility of the experience having spiritual meaning of some kind based solely on the scientific studies of the near death experience itself (brain scans, etc.). Without further testing one cannot assume that these experiences aren't some brief window into a dimension that we currently cannot experience normally (i. E. 3 dimensions and 5 senses).

 

[FlusteredBat]

A complete lack of empirical evidence is more than enough reason to disregard an idea, especially if that idea directly contradicts what we already understand about the universe.

The forward progress of science is a process of refinement, it will not lead us back to ghosts and demons. Established theory is not simply overturned to make way for some next big "we were completely wrong all along" revelation.

 

[Sucumbio]

Sure, but imagine showing a cross section of a cell to, say, Galileo. He'd have no idea what he's looking at, really no basis to even begin to comprehend what it's empirical value is. Does his dismissal of the image as at best a spooky piece of artwork negate the fact that it is actually a real thing?

 

[FlusteredBat]

Galileo's observations would be objectively verifiable by others, not imagined phantasms.

 

[Sucumbio]

Really... I don't think so. I think it's more likely anyone else who saw the same thing would equally dismiss it as someone's imagination at work. Besides which the point is, our scientific knowledge is still in its infancy compared to 500 years or 1000 years down the road. If someone 1000 years ago said there's no evidence of cells, they'd be right, amd yet wrong because cells do exist. Similarly there is no current evidence of the afterlife, but it's very possible it exists. Just because it's strange or defies logic need no immediately dismiss it as definitely false. Science could very well prove an afterlife or even God.

 

[FlusteredBat]

Really... I don't think so. I think it's more likely anyone else who saw the same thing would equally dismiss it as someone's imagination at work. Besides which the point is, our scientific knowledge is still in its infancy compared to 500 years or 1000 years down the road. If someone 1000 years ago said there's no evidence of cells, they'd be right, amd yet wrong because cells do exist. Similarly there is no current evidence of the afterlife, but it's very possible it exists. Just because it's strange or defies logic need no immediately dismiss it as definitely false. Science could very well prove an afterlife or even God.

I already addressed the point you're trying to make. That's not how science works.

 

[Sucumbio]

If we follow how you view how science works we'd have never gotten up the courage to prove the earth is round. There was no empirical evidence that it wasn't flat. Everyone agreed. But the idea waa not dismissed for all time. Because the true nature of science is to QUESTION EVERYTHING. Even whether or not near death experiences are some window into another world. Even religion is wrong to stop questions about our origins. This is by no means my attempt at supporting dogma. Quite the opposite. It's important for scientists to never stop questioning what they know lest they risk intellectual death.

 

[FlusteredBat]

If we follow how you view how science works we'd have never gotten up the courage to prove the earth is round. There was no empirical evidence that it wasn't flat. Everyone agreed. But the idea waa not dismissed for all time. Because the true nature of science is to QUESTION EVERYTHING. Even whether or not near death experiences are some window into another world. Even religion is wrong to stop questions about our origins. This is by no means my attempt at supporting dogma. Quite the opposite. It's important for scientists to never stop questioning what they know lest they risk intellectual death.

Wrong, there was enough empirical evidence for the Ancient Greeks to discover the shape of Earth (even its relative size) well before our capacity to observe the planet from orbit/circumnavigate.

You fundamentally misunderstand science if you believe it to be synonymous with radical skepticism.

 

[Sucumbio]

"...follow the evidence wherever it leads and question everything." -Neil deGrasse Tyson

Obviously my example is lost on you, so I'll use another. Electricity. Before William Gilbert in the 1600s electricity was nothing more than an intellectual curiosity; a parlor trick or a simple observed phenomenon. It was science that led to the discoveries we today take for granted. The Greeks knew of it but didn't know why it worked except for a misguided assumption that Zeus had bestowed fish guardians aka eels with his power. Isn't it obvious that if those assumptions had not been questioned we may still to this day think lighting is magic?

You wish to segregate certain categories of phenomenon as unscientific or bereft of scientific value, but the truth is, there's no such thing. Take alchemy. Obviously it's fraudulent science. It doesn't even work except by accident and due to reasons completely different than intended or proposed. Does this mean the things we have learned in our quest to change lead into gold have no merit? Of course not. The quest for knowledge may take us far from our originally intended goal but the ends justify the means for sure.

In other words you do yourself and science a disservice by picking and choosing which fields are "real" or "worthy". Yes most scientists think Ghosts are bs. Until ben Franklin comes along and proves they're real. Then what? Guess paranormal studies wasn't a waste afterall.

 

[FlusteredBat]

Mysticism is a waste of time.

 

[AfungusAmongus]

some brief window into a dimension that we currently cannot experience normally (i. E. 3 dimensions and 5 senses).

Actually, 4 dimensions and 10+ senses. Carry on.

 

[FlusteredBat]

Actually, 4 dimensions and 10+ senses. Carry on.

I'm not sure what that has to do with imaginary forces which cannot be observed or measured.

 

[AfungusAmongus]

If you're dragging me into this... I see where you're both coming from. I tend to agree with Bat on this one. Science is always open to new evidence etc. but hallucinations are roughly what you'd expect from someone whose brain is malfunctioning because of hypoxia.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I think what Red ryu's getting at (and correct me if Im wrong, red) is that even IF a so called near death experience IS 100% a byproduct of the brain, there's no reason to discount the possibility of the experience having spiritual meaning of some kind based solely on the scientific studies of the near death experience itself (brain scans, etc.). Without further testing one cannot assume that these experiences aren't some brief window into a dimension that we currently cannot experience normally (i. E. 3 dimensions and 5 senses).

Partially.

More so, we don't have 100% evidence it is the source of Near Death experiences. If it is, we don't have empirical proof, all we have are theories on how it works.

If someone in this thread claims they know exactly with 100% certainty what causes them in a brain or it is something else, they are lying.

A complete lack of empirical evidence is more than enough reason to disregard an idea, especially if that idea directly contradicts what we already understand about the universe.

The forward progress of science is a process of refinement, it will not lead us back to ghosts and demons. Established theory is not simply overturned to make way for some next big "we were completely wrong all along" revelation.

There is a difference between a theory and a fact. Even religion needs some basis for it otherwise no one would join it or it would be labeled as a cult.

The fact remains, we don't have that evidence for near death experience in full. Why people can be clinically dead and yet come back from them recalling what happened, why people experience it differently and why time is so scewed almost all of the time.

We have theories at best, there is no object answer to this at all.

That is what I am saying.

 

[FlusteredBat]

There is a difference between a theory and a fact.

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world" - Wikipedia

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world" - Wikipedia

Every scientific theory is a theory, not every theory is a scientific one.

There needs to be something there for that theory to function scientific or not.

 

[FlusteredBat]

There needs to be something there for that theory to function scientific or not.

Exactly, theories without evidence are meaningless.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Exactly, theories without evidence are meaningless.

There is something there even for Religion.

Religion still needs something there in that area otherwise people would have not trusted it. If a new religion was founded, something would have to be there for it to be accepted as a theory or as truth, if proven to be true for a psychical world.

There has to be something there or it wouldn't be accepted at all.

 

[Sucumbio]

Hm..

In playing Devil's Advocate yes there is something to it. Indoctrination at an early age when one's world view is especially malleable and easily reinforced by authority figures and fear.

One fatal flaw in religious doctrine is its staple perpetrators eg parents. It's cyclical. If one entire generation went without religion would nearly as many turn to it once reaching adulthood? It's hard to say for sure, but I understand the argument supporting these premises.

As a married man, I've talked at length with my spouse over this issue. Should we have children some day, the concensus is to NOT baptise the child. If they decide later in life to follow a religion then so be it, but we've made a conscious decision not to follow the pathology of our ancestors in this regard.

 

[FlusteredBat]

There has to be something there or it wouldn't be accepted at all.

You're right in the sense that religions arise from a desired return to oneness experienced by infants with their mothers.

Do you think your dreams are real? Simply existing within the mind is not enough to grant a delusion validity. There are many competing and contradictory delusions. Subjectivism provides no standard for discerning truth.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Hm..

In playing Devil's Advocate yes there is something to it. Indoctrination at an early age when one's world view is especially malleable and easily reinforced by authority figures and fear.

One fatal flaw in religious doctrine is its staple perpetrators eg parents. It's cyclical. If one entire generation went without religion would nearly as many turn to it once reaching adulthood? It's hard to say for sure, but I understand the argument supporting these premises.

As a married man, I've talked at length with my spouse over this issue. Should we have children some day, the concensus is to NOT baptise the child. If they decide later in life to follow a religion then so be it, but we've made a conscious decision not to follow the pathology of our ancestors in this regard.

I get that and agree with your message here.

But it's a bit off from what I am saying though.

What I am saying is that for a religion to hold ground, there has to be a basis for people to have faith in it. (Parents teaching, maybe reading the bible, history etc.)

There has to be something there for people to have a reason for faith. That is what I meant with my theory part earlier.

There is a reason people believe to some level, a theory if you will. A scientificly solid one? Probably not, but then again the basis of this thread was to ask that question what would work to make it provable and valid.

They have reasons for it in the end is what I was getting at, one way or another.

You are right about Indoctrination, it could be seen as a problem regardless of ones theological views if the parents force those views on them. It's a part of raising kids I think would happen mostly from a point of view of seeking to do what they think is right. I get why on both sides, and makes this frustrating when you want them to make their own decisions, but even then I think from parents simply sharing what they think from raising them I do think that influences them on way or another.

I think this helps with this kind of idea and hopefully gives you a better idea of what I actually ment and also something on that front with what you offered.

You're right in the sense that religions arise from a desired return to oneness experienced by infants with their mothers.

Do you think your dreams are real? Simply existing within the mind is not enough to grant a delusion validity. There are many competing and contradictory delusions. Subjectivism provides no standard for discerning truth.

I have a large issue with the bolded.

Can you tell me what the best objective to paint a picture of a vase of flowers is? I don't think you could tell me an object way via science that is the truth to this answer.

How about I have a dog and a tiger cub and want to introduce so they can socialize, can you tell me objectively what they will do when they meet? I can find clues with behavior but after that? How do I know something won't happen?

There is no truth to these questions, only ways you can figure out works off pure subjectivity and just doing it.

In the case of dreams, that is a tricky question. We can see brain activity with places shut off, so you don't move while you are asleep.

Is it real? Did what you dream happen as a place? We only know what reality is here physical but in a mind can we determine if it happen.

Reminds me of an episode of Batman Beyond where a villian made kids steal for him so they could go into a dream world, it wasn't real but it was a created reality? Was it real in that sense? It's an area I'm not certain of, on of which I would agree with the outcome of the episide because it lead to an unhealthy life style and had consequences to make that fantasy happen.

Would we consider it real, this relates to NDE earlier and asks, was it real? the subjective mind matters in this case for finding the truth to this. That and the similarities many experience in this state. If you believe this is the result of the brain, it would be foolish to throw out those occurrences of you wanted to nail down evidence for the truth.

 

[FlusteredBat]

#HBC | Red Ryu You've been spending too much time in postmodern academia. If we don't even agree on basic metaphysics and epistemology then I see no point continuing this.

 

[Pikmin-ism42]

Really... I don't think so. I think it's more likely anyone else who saw the same thing would equally dismiss it as someone's imagination at work. Besides which the point is, our scientific knowledge is still in its infancy compared to 500 years or 1000 years down the road. If someone 1000 years ago said there's no evidence of cells, they'd be right, amd yet wrong because cells do exist. Similarly there is no current evidence of the afterlife, but it's very possible it exists. Just because it's strange or defies logic need no immediately dismiss it as definitely false. Science could very well prove an afterlife or even God.

Wait... regarding the bolded text, wasn't that the entire point of this here thread? "What counts as evidence for God?" and not "Science's potential view on Religion"?

 

[Sucumbio]

I see what you're getting at. The difficulty is in separating out where the indoctrination begins and the personal belief begins. In other words, Is it because of a deep personal experience that has no context, or is it because their parents taught them that those types of experiences are evidence of God so therefore believe. It's tricky. If you grow up being told that miracles exist and you begin to associate strange events and occurrences to miracles, would you still have said, God did that if you'd never been taught that waa the case? For religion to work, the framework has to be there first I think. That's really what I mean by cyclic. Religion begets religion. Unlike tangible phenomenon like, I dunno... Pain. Physical pain teaches us immediately don't do what it was that hurts like licking a 9 volt battery. We don't need stories and fables and an elaborate organization like achurch to understand correlative information like fire burns water drowns, etc etc.

So in short, the thing to religious beliefs that keep people drawn to believing it, is first and foremost taught. Not experienced. The experience is normally in hindsight after the fact. Oh god must have done that, what other explanation is there kinda thing.

And ironically this serves as the same reason why people LEAVE the church. God does someone wrong they take it as god is vengeful and in defiance, choose to unbelieve.

Wait... regarding the bolded text, wasn't that the entire point of this here thread? "What counts as evidence for God?" and not "Science's potential view on Religion"?

Well in going with that, the evidence that could count, science has yet to be able to, but that's not to say it never will.

 

[Pikmin-ism42]

Well in going with that, the evidence that could count, science has yet to be able to, but that's not to say it never will.

Pardon me for sounding like an a**, but I don't quite understand this.

 

[Sucumbio]

Pardon me for sounding like an a**, but I don't quite understand this.

Not at all.

First, we say that Science is a methodology for proving and parsing fact from fiction. Earlier examples I'd used were ideas like that the Earth is round not flat. Or that lightning is not magic. Or that living organisms are made of cells.

Each of these discoveries owe themselves to science. They have also always been true even if prior to their discovery mankind had other incorrect assumptions /reasons of understanding because the sciences of their time had yet to advance far enough to make the correct discovery.

The same should hold for God. Our -current- understanding which science can best explain, is that a near death experience is a hallucination. That the big bang is why we're here. Etc. But like every discovery we've ever made, science should eventually progress to the point that we can discover once and for all the truth of God, just like when we finally reached a technological ability to prove the earth was round, that electricity isn't magic, and that our bodies are made of cells.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

The same should hold for God. Our -current- understanding which science can best explain, is that a near death experience is a hallucination. That the big bang is why we're here. Etc. But like every discovery we've ever made, science should eventually progress to the point that we can discover once and for all the truth of God, just like when we finally reached a technological ability to prove the earth was round, that electricity isn't magic, and that our bodies are made of cells.

See, here's where I kind of have to step in. The problem with such supernatural phenomena is that they are often explicitly designed to avoid detection. The bible, for example, is pretty clear on this. There's no degree to which science could detect the truth of God. But even beyond that, science is fundamentally incapable of proving a negative. The problem of induction ensures that no matter how far we get and how long we explore, we cannot prove that something doesn't exist. No matter how far science gets, we'll never be able to prove that Leprechauns don't exist.

 

[Sucumbio]

The ultimate answer may very well be there is no God. The point is that it's still too early to tell for absolute certain. We may have through science to date been able to explain a lot thus debunking a lot, but there's still plenty to go. One day, though it'll all be explained, and science will be the reason.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

New The ultimate answer may very well be there is no God. The point is that it's still too early to tell for absolute certain. We may have through science to date been able to explain a lot thus debunking a lot, but there's still plenty to go. One day, though it'll all be explained, and science will be the reason.

I don't think you get it. Science is fundamentally incapable of proving that something does not exist. The fact that we haven't detected god by any currently known method and in any place we've looked doesn't in any way imply that God doesn't exist. And this will remain true regardless of how advanced our methods of detection become. The answer "there is no God" is fundamentally something which empiricism cannot demonstrate.

However, at a certain point, it does become reasonable to say, "Hang on, this has never been substantiated in any meaningful way and such claims have an absolutely miserable track record. We should reject them until further evidence is provided." Which is where we're at.

 

[Sucumbio]

Ah, but that's un assuming God's some irreducible and complex system which it isn't. Just take the Bible page by page and prove or disprove each assertion until you're out of pages. I suspect science will one day allow for us to do this. I'm imagining the method will be one of historical validation. We should eventually achieve the ability to travel backward in time and bear witness to the events portrayed in the Bible and basically verify with our own eyes these so called miracles that took place. We should be able to go back to the beginning even, to the big bang itself and witness it.

But in the meantime we can use what limited resources we have now to at least explore some of the current day miracles that the church claims. We can explore phenomenon that seem otherwise superstition or plain false. And in so doing we may actually debunk everything even now, though that's yet to happen.

A popular example is eucharistic miracles..

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Lanciano

 

[Whia]

The god of the bible and a sort of broad, general god-concept aren't synonymous. Disproving the former (which has already been done as far as I and many others are concerned) has no bearing on the latter. The nebulous ways "god" can be defined will forever allow it to stay undetected but still ostensibly possible.

 

[FlusteredBat]

The god of the bible and a sort of broad, general god-concept aren't synonymous. Disproving the former (which has already been done as far as I and many others are concerned) has no bearing on the latter. The nebulous ways "god" can be defined will forever allow it to stay undetected but still ostensibly possible.

What do we call things without definition? Meaningless concepts.

I challenge anyone to come up with a definition of god which doesn't immediately fall flat into contradiction given what we already understand about the universe.

 

[Whia]

What do we call things without definition? Meaningless concepts.

I challenge anyone to come up with a definition of god which doesn't immediately fall flat into contradiction given what we already understand about the universe.

Oh I agree completely, just touching on the fact that the reality or lack thereof of a particular god has no bearing on the general concept, meaningless as it may be.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

See, here's where I kind of have to step in. The problem with such supernatural phenomena is that they are often explicitly designed to avoid detection. The bible, for example, is pretty clear on this. There's no degree to which science could detect the truth of God. But even beyond that, science is fundamentally incapable of proving a negative. The problem of induction ensures that no matter how far we get and how long we explore, we cannot prove that something doesn't exist. No matter how far science gets, we'll never be able to prove that Leprechauns don't exist.

Science can prove a negative within guidelines.

The issue posed for this thread is how you can prove or disprove that given certain guideline and how to define what you are looking for.

Which is the issue, we can define a living creature like a leprechaun based on what we know of Biology and other factors. How do you define a ghost? How do you define a god?

Proving a negative is very possible if you can define exactly what you are looking for.

The issue with the proving or disproving a god of some sort is, what is defined by him? I agree with the a chunk of this but more so the issue is defining what that is which is the main problem with science disproving or proving it. There are no guidelines nor ways to tell, if there are any.