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.
Whatever it is that science doesn't want to support anyway.
But why not? Surely you could set a control group of people with zero interest in religion, and people actively searching for God, and test the odds of finding God. Or set a control group, and people praying to test the power of prayer.
And in some cases, this isn't even true. I am currently reading a book named The Force is With Us: The Higher Consciousness that Science Refuses to Accept. Science doesn't believe in PK. However, there have been numerous tests with influencing dice. As in, literally thousands of hours of what should be chance being massively deviated from, using numerous test cases. Large scale experiments involving magnetized water (don't ask) influencing the growth of plants (really, don't ask! It's a weird experiment).
(It's actually easier to find evidence for God than miracles, because as Quora puts it, a miracle is by definition a non-repeatable event. Which, btw, the Big Bang and several scientific events fall under this category because they defy the normal framework)
Dude, quit saying that.
Do you believe in your heart of hearts in God? Maybe not. And it's honestly okay. There is a perfectly valid reason for disbelief.
I don't believe in mandatory conversion. But for the love of... whatever, maybe stop using patently false statements. You have the evidence around. What you want to do with it, is entirely up to you. You can argue these proofs suck. And maybe they do. But this is not the same as "no proof" at all.
Are these proofs sufficient? Do they qualify as "verifiable" or "scientific" proofs? Debate!
Whatever it is that science doesn't want to support anyway.
But why not? Surely you could set a control group of people with zero interest in religion, and people actively searching for God, and test the odds of finding God. Or set a control group, and people praying to test the power of prayer.
And in some cases, this isn't even true. I am currently reading a book named The Force is With Us: The Higher Consciousness that Science Refuses to Accept. Science doesn't believe in PK. However, there have been numerous tests with influencing dice. As in, literally thousands of hours of what should be chance being massively deviated from, using numerous test cases. Large scale experiments involving magnetized water (don't ask) influencing the growth of plants (really, don't ask! It's a weird experiment).
(It's actually easier to find evidence for God than miracles, because as Quora puts it, a miracle is by definition a non-repeatable event. Which, btw, the Big Bang and several scientific events fall under this category because they defy the normal framework)
Dude, quit saying that.
Do you believe in your heart of hearts in God? Maybe not. And it's honestly okay. There is a perfectly valid reason for disbelief.
I don't believe in mandatory conversion. But for the love of... whatever, maybe stop using patently false statements. You have the evidence around. What you want to do with it, is entirely up to you. You can argue these proofs suck. And maybe they do. But this is not the same as "no proof" at all.
Are these proofs sufficient? Do they qualify as "verifiable" or "scientific" proofs? Debate!
Also, what to you, would be acceptable evidence?
Went throug the first three because i dont have the time to run through your entire gish gallop.
1) No one is saying that science has disproven the concept of god. That is not evidence for god however. What we do have evidence against are some of the more fantastical claims attributed to specific gods.
2)Aside from being a biased source, it is just rehashing flawed arguments from complexity/fine tuning. The arguments are built on exploiting logical fallacies and are not logically sound.
3) Claims to be scientific but gives few details and makes statements that are untrue such as science proving the universe came from nothing. This is a lie from someone who should know better and does not reflect well on the reliability of the source.
Thats all i have time for now. If the rest of the "evidence" is of similar quality, then it is not very impressive at all. As far as acceptable evidence, you could start by finding someone who controls against confirmation bias rather than building their case on top of it.
Surely you could set a control group of people with zero interest in religion, and people actively searching for God, and test the odds of finding God. Or set a control group, and people praying to test the power of prayer.
No there is no objective (scientific) evidence for existence of God or gods. And although the objective evidence can rule out a number of claims about God or gods, there is ultimately no objective (scientific) evidence that God or gods do not exist.
Most ideas of God make His existence an unfalsifiable claim and thus not an acceptable scientific hypothesis. Certainly that is the case with only sort of God I think is worth believing in, otherwise I am likely to call it an alien rather than God.
But people, especially religious people have the tendency to see patterns, significance, and evidence in things that a skeptic or a scientist would call random or coincidental. And that is the nature of the evidence which the OP is referring to as well. An atheist can properly compare this to seeing bunny rabbits and sailing ships in the clouds. It doesn't mean it isn't valid or real but it does make it rather subjective and thus not an adequate basis for expecting other people to believe what you claim.
Gods got rules of obedience of love for God and the willingness to turn away from sin and repent, before God will see peoples sincerity and God will know if people are just testing Him for science or that they are in a broken state to seek God out with His rules of His authorship for salvation ...... See God is very intelligent and will not be fooled ........... See science is based of the physical state , where God is a essence of the spirit which goes beyond the knowledge of science of the physical , so science is incapable of even studying God and finding any tangible facts except the blame God for the unknown ideas in nature
That's a lot of stuff, Bulma, and a lot off it done long before.
Bottom line is, you either opt for Faith or for Fact (which means going with the best evidence assessed logically). That means, you either start with a science view or a Godfaith view.
It's this way - if you start with a godfaith view you are screwed logically from the start. Not only can you not argue from a logical point of view (even if you then apply the rules of logic correctly) but you don't want to. All the evidence has to be skewed to prop up the godfaith.
On the science side, you logically start with Nothing and then see what stands up evidentially. Of course none of us think like that in the real world, but that is the rational of skeptical humanism.
It necessarily means that all the non -science, cult, theist and supernatural claims have to produce their evidence before they are worthy of belief, and they cannot by definition do so, because the moment they do they become science, and part of Nature (1).
This of course is unacceptable to the theist mind..I mean ...excluding God before you even discuss it! One RC poster (who may still be around) years ago said 'he'd hate to think like that' (p.s actually 'Have a mind like that') It was sad to hear, because he was saying "I'd rather not think logically/rationally and in accordance with the best (scientific) evidence, because I would rather .."cling to the cross", as one poster put it recently.
Now I know you are a smart guy and I am smart enough to know that I can't convert people with an Explanation . The only one who can let go of faith is the person themselves. But what I think is reasonable to ask is that you realize that Godfaith and theism is based on Faith and Not on valid evidence, and that logic and evidence (even if just negative) supports the non-belief position.
If you can at least accept that we have a sound rationale for nonfaith, and that Faith in god is based on faith, then pretty much all the rows are gone, because they come out of trying to make Faith look rational in the only way they can - by discrediting those who hold to reason. That is why it gets pretty ugly at times.
(1) this of course is why alternative 'sciences' like I/D have to be invented, and they have to be shown up as not, in fact, valid science. but fiddled evidence to support godfaith.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-02-2016 at 05:15 AM..
Reason: tidy -up
Whatever it is that science doesn't want to support anyway.
But why not? Surely you could set a control group of people with zero interest in religion, and people actively searching for God, and test the odds of finding God. Or set a control group, and people praying to test the power of prayer.
And in some cases, this isn't even true. I am currently reading a book named The Force is With Us: The Higher Consciousness that Science Refuses to Accept. Science doesn't believe in PK. However, there have been numerous tests with influencing dice. As in, literally thousands of hours of what should be chance being massively deviated from, using numerous test cases. Large scale experiments involving magnetized water (don't ask) influencing the growth of plants (really, don't ask! It's a weird experiment).
But no. There is "no" scientific proof for God.
(Or just this)
[
Dude, quit saying that.
.
I don't believe in mandatory conversion. But for the love of... whatever, maybe stop using patently false statements. You have the evidence around. What you want to do with it, is entirely up to you. You can argue these proofs suck. And maybe they do. But this is not the same as "no proof" at all.
Are these proofs sufficient? Do they qualify as "verifiable" or "scientific" proofs? Debate!
Also, what to you, would be acceptable evidence?
don't confuse science with scientist. And, there isn't enough evidence to say the "giant brain", we call the universe is thinking. I mean it looks that way, but we don't know and its ok to say "we don't know" and its ok for people to disagree too.
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.
It's a weird experiment). 
