DigDog
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2011
- 12,913
- 1,744
- 126
Serious question, do you not remember the last 10 times this was explained to you?The OP likely wanted to laugh at all the atheists who would inevitably froth at the mouth over something they don't believe exists.
From my viewpoint, its like watching them argue over the existence of Dracula.
Frothing at the mouth not found.The OP likely wanted to laugh at all the atheists who would inevitably froth at the mouth over something they don't believe exists.
From my viewpoint, its like watching them argue over the existence of Dracula.
Not really. Supernatural is something unexplainable to science."Supernatural" is a matter of perspective.
No. It would be subject to the same explanation as now.To someone from the 1600's an electric light bulb would be 'supernatural'.
But you're not able to prove the existence for god...And if we were able to prove the existence of God then we'd no longer consider God to be supernatural.
We'd all be like, "Uh-huh, yeah. God. Yep, talk to Him all the time. Cool guy. Great taste in wine, too."
Point is though that god hasn't been proven to exist by science, indeed there's nothing to prove. There's no physical evidence or effect.@welshbloke:
1 & 3. If the existence of God is proven by science then God would no longer be 'supernatural'. Anything else that is currently thought of as supernatural likewise is no longer supernatural after it's explained by science.
That bit about the Saudis helps my point. It doesn't matter if you don't believe the explanation. If something has a scientific explanation then you should be able to point at the bits that are wrong and say why they are wrong.2. The average person from the 1600's would listen to your explanation of how a light bulb works and then they'd still execute you for sorcery or witchcraft...just like how people in Saudi Arabia still get executed for sorcery or witchcraft even in the modern day.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/08/saudi-arabias-war-on-witchcraft/278701/
No it isn't."Supernatural" is a matter of perspective.
No it wouldn't. You are ignoring the distinction between things that are empirically inaccessible for practical reasons and things that are empirically inaccessible in principle.To someone from the 1600's an electric light bulb would be 'supernatural'.
Nonsensical. You have your proximate causes inverted.And if we were able to prove the existence of God then we'd no longer consider God to be supernatural.
I think we'd all much rather you start thinking rationally, but we're not going to hold our collective breath for that one.We'd all be like, "Uh-huh, yeah. God. Yep, talk to Him all the time. Cool guy. Great taste in wine, too."
Science cannot "catch up" to the supernatural. If something becomes empirically accessible, it was always natural, just inaccessible for practical reasons.If something is supernatural because it is beyond the ken of science and then science catches up and proves that it exists then it's no longer supernatural.
I'm going with "we are educated."Why is this so hard for you two?
What is "god"?And if you're in a topic discussing the potential of proving the existence of God while being utterly inable to contemplate that such a thing could ever occur then be honest about it.
"If" covers for all manners of silly ideas, doesn't it?Because if the existence of God were proven then 1) God would no longer be 'supernatural' and 2) you'd be irrational for denying the existence of God in spite of conclusive and indisputable scientific evidence to the contrary.
No, I'm so educated I don't feel compelled to entertain ideas I already know to be false.You're so educated that you can't manage a rhetorical discussion?
If you fucked goats, you'd be a goat fucker. Hooray, looked all that deep and meaningful knowledge I just discovered.And you're also so 'enlightened' that you have no imagination whatsoever to even contemplate an 'if'?
That's as maybe but in this instance I feel that I've got a decent handle on what's going on and that you're missing a few points.Jesus, you're dense.
I get what you're saying but I think that you're wrong. Explaining something explainable to someone who doesn't understand it is different to assuming that something unexplainable will suddenly become explainable.Try actually READING what I wrote instead of projecting your biases on to it and then responding to what you IMAGINE I wrote.
Few atheists claim to have any positive knowledge of the existence or lack thereof of any god. Most atheists simply start with the null hypothesis, the assumption that something does not exist unless given evidence that it does, and works from there. If you start with the null hypotheses then you see quickly that there is no evidence of a god and so no reason to believe in one. This is much different from saying that one knows that there is not a god."God" is not a provable concept in the physical world. Science cannot prove God exists or doesn't exist. Neither can a study of the metaphysical prove or disprove God exists. That would violate the fundamental definition of God.
If you step back from it all, it becomes clear that an atheist behaves much like a bible toting fundamentalist Christian. They are the flip side of the same coin. Both exhibit the typical human vanity of what they "know", and exhibit an irrational penchant to ignore simple truths that they don't want to see.
This, basically."God" is not a provable concept in the physical world. Science cannot prove God exists or doesn't exist. Neither can a study of the metaphysical prove or disprove God exists. That would violate the fundamental definition of God.
"God" is not a provable concept in the physical world. Science cannot prove God exists or doesn't exist. Neither can a study of the metaphysical prove or disprove God exists. That would violate the fundamental definition of God.
If you step back from it all, it becomes clear that an atheist behaves much like a bible toting fundamentalist Christian. They are the flip side of the same coin. Both exhibit the typical human vanity of what they "know", and exhibit an irrational penchant to ignore simple truths that they don't want to see.
False. The idea that "it's part of the definition of "god"" has not always been the case. The definition gradually included that as all the previously claimed Physical Evidences were proven to be solely Natural Causes. When all the Gaps god(s) existed in had disappeared, new gaps were imagined where they could live once more.This, basically.
Atheists don't like that answer, but its simply true. Yep, if I can prove/disprove God using science, then he clearly would not be God in the sense religion believes God exists.
That's the reason why folks look for indirect or circumstantial evidence (like, the physical universe etc).
Additionally, the only way a God could create the physical world is if he/it exists apart from it. This is really simple to understand. You cannot create something you depend on for your own existence.
Nothing in the physical world is provable, period. "Proof" is for mathematics and beverage alcohol. Science works inductively from testable hypotheses."God" is not a provable concept in the physical world. Science cannot prove God exists or doesn't exist.
There is no "fundamental definition of God." There are rather many, many definitions of god -- many of which are falsifiable via reductio ad absurdum.Neither can a study of the metaphysical prove or disprove God exists. That would violate the fundamental definition of God.
You clearly don't know many atheists, your inevitably ensuing assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.If you step back from it all, it becomes clear that an atheist behaves much like a bible toting fundamentalist Christian. They are the flip side of the same coin. Both exhibit the typical human vanity of what they "know", and exhibit an irrational penchant to ignore simple truths that they don't want to see.
False? I'm sure there have been many that have tried to "prove" God exists through a physical means. That doesn't mean that they understood the definition of God any more than a scientist proving the existence of gravity through a metaphysical means.False. The idea that "it's part of the definition of "god"" has not always been the case. The definition gradually included that as all the previously claimed Physical Evidences were proven to be solely Natural Causes. When all the Gaps god(s) existed in had disappeared, new gaps were imagined where they could live once more.
How about: "Conclusions about God are not made inductively from a testable hypothesis". Does this help?Nothing in the physical world is provable, period. "Proof" is for mathematics and beverage alcohol. Science works inductively from testable hypotheses.
There is no "fundamental definition of God." There are rather many, many definitions of god -- many of which are falsifiable via reductio ad absurdum.
You clearly don't know many atheists, your inevitably ensuing assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.
No true Scotsman(definition)? The gods lived atop Mount Olympus, Mount Sinai, or in the Holy of Holies. Are you suggesting all those People simply Defined gods wrongly?False? I'm sure there have been many that have tried to "prove" God exists through a physical means. That doesn't mean that they understood the definition of God any more than a scientist proving the existence of gravity through a metaphysical means.
Where did you get your ruminations of "gaps"?