Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I swear, you have as many notes as a vuvuzela.
-NoCapo
That's all that is needed.
When the competition is the "Concept of Nothing" (as respects "What exists that is *GOD*?"), AKA "Atheism"...which has been panned out to be a "nothing" concept (as respects it's ability to gain any merit or wield any real influence)...the "One Note" is mooooooore than enough.
That's all that is needed.
When the competition is the "Concept of Nothing" (as respects "What exists that is *GOD*?"), AKA "Atheism"...which has been panned out to be a "nothing" concept (as respects it's ability to gain any merit or wield any real influence)...the "One Note" is mooooooore than enough.
Would someone please show me through the scientific method how God does not exist, taking me through each of the steps?
If you are going to pretend to understand the methodology of science then the first thing you would want to do is learn about the concept of attempting to prove an unfalsifiable negative. Which can not be done. As such your question above does little whatsoever except communicate the simple fact that you do NOT understand the scientific method.
What we DO achieve with the scientific method however is a complete and abject failure to find even an iota of substantiation for the claim there is a god. All the while discovering that things operate just fine without that concept or presupposition. There simply is no reason out there to think there is a god and everything appears to operate just fine without one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
None? Or none that you would care to believe?
No: None that has ever been presented to us. Much less so by you. When we say there is no evidence what we mean is that no one has ever made us aware of any.
Quote:
Originally Posted by allenk893
Evolution has never been repeated, tested, or observed in nature.
All of which are lies, and all of which you have been corrected on in the past. But do not let facts get in the way of a good lie whatever you do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanTerra
Science doesn't "proove" anything.
Well, not in the vernacular meaning of the word "prove" anyway. In the terminology of science "prove" simply means "to test". Alas the average scientific illiterate joe on the street has not been made aware of the etymology, let alone the scientific etymology, of words like "prove" and "theory". A failure that seriously needs to be addressed in the curriculum of the worlds schooling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
The Scientific Method proves "G-O-D" DOES exist.
The single cherry picked definition you provided talks about a being. An actual entity. A person. Have you any evidence, scientific or otherwise, suggesting such an entity exists? You claim to in the above text I quoted. So by all means present it. We have been asking you to for years but so far the best you can do is wave dictionaries in the air and talk in feux 70s jive language to big up yourself.
You will forgive me if I expect the same thing to happen again, but no harm in trying huh.
Well, not in the vernacular meaning of the word "prove" anyway. In the terminology of science "prove" simply means "to test". Alas the average scientific illiterate joe on the street has not been made aware of the etymology, let alone the scientific etymology, of words like "prove" and "theory". A failure that seriously needs to be addressed in the curriculum of the worlds schooling.
The single cherry picked definition you provided talks about a being. An actual entity. A person. Have you any evidence, scientific or otherwise, suggesting such an entity exists? You claim to in the above text I quoted. So by all means present it. We have been asking you to for years but so far the best you can do is wave dictionaries in the air and talk in feux 70s jive language to big up yourself.
Citing Merriam-Webster for the definition of a word/term is "cherry picked"?
Kinda like a Fundie Christian Creationist saying that citing Darwin about evolution is "cherry picked"!
If you know of a more recognized expert that can be trusted for defining words/terms, that meritoriously can dispute the definition by Webster, then you will need to present it for your claim to have any credence.
AGAIN..."G-O-D" is not a name, it is a title...that can be assigned to anyone or anything that one considers such. Like "Hero", "Champion", "President", etc.
You are still hung-up on "G-O-D" as only a Religious Deity.
I get the main source of where this confusion comes from. The Abrahamic Deity "Jehovah" or "YHWH" is referred to almost exclusively by the title "God" in the main Christian holy book The Bible...to such an extent, that many mistake the title of the Deity to be the name of the Deity. Thus, much of the confusion with what/who "G-O-D" is when a reference is made to "G-O-D".
This confusion does not negate the fact that "G-O-D" is a title and not a name...and exists as anything or anyone that one perceives as deserving of the title.
Giving something or someone the title "God" is not necessarily assigning them the metaphorical designation of some Deity like Allah, Jehovah, Thor, Ra, etc.
As long as one confuses "G-O-D" as being the name of a being and not a title...and think that there is just one "literal" meaning for the term "G-O-D", and that any other uses of the word/term are not valid...they will continue to fail in their understanding of the definition of the word/term "G-O-D".
AGAIN: If "God" is defined only as some old dude with a long white beard, sitting on a big white throne in the sky, with cute little harp playing chubby winged children flying around him...while he sees, one at a time (out of a line of millions), people that have died to be judged by him for rewards or punishment...I can assure you...there is no such thing/person. Nor any other person-like or creature-like "Gods".
OTOH...if you are looking for generic "Creator God" (anything that is KNOWN to create, KNOWN to control that creation through laws and processes, KNOWN to maintain and sustain that which has been created...and does all this completely autonomously)...or the "Higher Power/Great Spirit" GOD that is the perception and concept of GOD that is/has been held by jillions. THAT "G-O-D" exists...and the Scientific Method could be used to verify that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
