The need to concur on how to prove God exists or not.

[DigDog]

There is endless debate over God existing or not.

nope.

 

[JD50]

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.

Serious question, do you not remember the last 10 times this was explained to you?

Good point though since Dracula is clearly not real. Do you find it odd that you're on the side that not only argues for Dracula's existence, but that we should live the way Dracula wants us to live? I like this analogy, lets run with it.

 

[Tormac]

To the OP, this is a problem if you want to test a supernatural claim. Even within the major religions the definition of what “God” is and what he wants us to do is different enough that people are willing to kill each other over it.

There is no point in sending time trying to prove evidence for the existence of something before you decide what that something is.

Empirical science can really only measure things, and if you can’t define the thing, measuring it is very problematic.

Do you have a concise definition of “God” that can be empirically measured?

 

[Bart*Simpson]

"Supernatural" is a matter of perspective.

To someone from the 1600's an electric light bulb would be 'supernatural'.

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."

 

[MongGrel]

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.

 

[WelshBloke]

"Supernatural" is a matter of perspective.

Not really. Supernatural is something unexplainable to science.

To someone from the 1600's an electric light bulb would be 'supernatural'.

No. It would be subject to the same explanation as now.

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."

But you're not able to prove the existence for god...

 

[Bart*Simpson]

@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.

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/

 

[WelshBloke]

@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.

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.
Let's face it people have had plenty of time to prove the existence and they haven't even agreed on what it is they are trying to prove exists yet.

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/

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.
I'm not particularly clever but I could explain how a light bulb works and build a crappy battery and wire contraption to show the principles even if I was stuck in the 15th century.

 

[Bart*Simpson]

Jesus, you're dense.

Try actually READING what I wrote instead of projecting your biases on to it and then responding to what you IMAGINE I wrote.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

"Supernatural" is a matter of perspective.

No it isn't.

To someone from the 1600's an electric light bulb would be 'supernatural'.

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.

And if we were able to prove the existence of God then we'd no longer consider God to be supernatural.

Nonsensical. You have your proximate causes inverted.

We'd all be like, "Uh-huh, yeah. God. Yep, talk to Him all the time. Cool guy. Great taste in wine, too."

I think we'd all much rather you start thinking rationally, but we're not going to hold our collective breath for that one.

 

[Bart*Simpson]

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. In fact it never was.

Why is this so hard for you two?

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.

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.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

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.

Science cannot "catch up" to the supernatural. If something becomes empirically accessible, it was always natural, just inaccessible for practical reasons.

Why is this so hard for you two?

I'm going with "we are educated."

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.

What is "god"?

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.

"If" covers for all manners of silly ideas, doesn't it?

 

[Bart*Simpson]

You're so educated that you can't manage a rhetorical discussion? And you're also so 'enlightened' that you have no imagination whatsoever to even contemplate an 'if'?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You're so educated that you can't manage a rhetorical discussion?

No, I'm so educated I don't feel compelled to entertain ideas I already know to be false.

And you're also so 'enlightened' that you have no imagination whatsoever to even contemplate an 'if'?

If you fucked goats, you'd be a goat fucker. Hooray, looked all that deep and meaningful knowledge I just discovered.

Are you done wasting everyone's time, yet?

 

[sandorski]

Something is Super Natural or it is not. What Science knows about it makes no difference. If god(s) exist, they exist, what Science knows about them makes no difference.

However, so far every Claim of the Super Natural that has become Known to Science has turned out to be completely Natural.

 

[swamplizard]

Science can not define "super natural."

 

[WelshBloke]

Jesus, you're dense.

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.

Try actually READING what I wrote instead of projecting your biases on to it and then responding to what you IMAGINE I wrote.

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.

Look at it this way. If god suddenly becomes scientifically explainable then god is then subject to the same physical laws that everything else is in the universe is and that anything that is ascribed to god can now be achieved by anyone else.

 

[Caveman]

"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.

 

[SMOGZINN]

"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.

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.

This is like someone asking you directions to the airport and you responding that you don't know of a route to the airport and that person assuming that means that there is no way to get to the airport.

 

[Retro Rob]

"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.

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.

 

[sandorski]

"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.

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.

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.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

"God" is not a provable concept in the physical world. Science cannot prove God exists or doesn't exist.

Nothing in the physical world is provable, period. "Proof" is for mathematics and beverage alcohol. Science works inductively from testable hypotheses.

Neither can a study of the metaphysical prove or disprove God exists. That would violate the fundamental definition of God.

There is no "fundamental definition of God." There are rather many, many definitions of god -- many of which are falsifiable via reductio ad absurdum.

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.

You clearly don't know many atheists, your inevitably ensuing assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

[Caveman]

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.

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"?

 

[Caveman]

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.

How about: "Conclusions about God are not made inductively from a testable hypothesis". Does this help?

Sorry, I assumed we were using the dictionary definition of God as our "fundamental definition"... I didn't mean to be so obtuse.

I find it interesting that you're able to conclude clearly identifiable things about me and who I know and associate with without ever meeting me. You may want to revisit your methodology for drawing conclusions.

FWIW, I'm no more biased to a fundamentalist Christian than I am to an atheist. Richard Dawkins has as much credibility in my mind as the religious zealots he lambasts. Read: none.

This is not to say I think that all of them don't have a great potential yet to be discovered...

 

[sandorski]

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"?

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?