Are there any good arguments for God?

[ArtieE]

And when you are talking about validating the Biblical account of the origins of the universe, versus validating the atheist preference for uncreated God-refuting models..

Which models refute God? Couldn't they all have been created by some god?

 

[ArtieE]

Those models were all specifically designed to try to make God redundant, that was their basis, certainly not evidence

Are you sure those models weren't all specifically designed to make Bumba redundant? Or Allah? Or Brahma? Or any of the other creator gods? The would all be redundant wouldn't they?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Are you sure those models weren't all specifically designed to make Bumba redundant? Or Allah? Or Brahma? Or any of the other creator gods?

They were designed to try to debunk God by any name. But it was they themselves that were debunked- which of course they did not accepted as a scrap of evidence to the contrary

Heads we win, tails... doesn't count- lets toss again!

 

[ArtieE]

They were designed to try to debunk God by any name.

Are all scientific theories designed to debunk gods? Is seismology "designed" to debunk Poseidon or meteorology "designed" to debunk Thor the Thundergod?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Are all scientific theories designed to debunk gods? Is seismology "designed" to debunk Poseidon or meteorology "designed" to debunk Thor the Thundergod?

No, the Primeval atom. aka Big Bang was arguably the greatest validated scientific theory of all time. It came from a priest.

What do you think brought this event about?

 

[ArtieE]

No, the Primeval atom. aka Big Bang was arguably the greatest validated scientific theory of all time. It came from a priest.

What do you think brought this event about?

I am actually beginning to see your point. First seismologists rule out the existence of Poseidon then they do their very best to come up with explanations without Poseidon in them to prove that Poseidon isn't responsible for earthquakes. Their big mistake is to rule out Poseidon in the first place. He should have been incorporated in their theories. Right?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I am actually beginning to see your point. First seismologists rule out the existence of Poseidon then they do their very best to come up with explanations without Poseidon in them to prove that Poseidon isn't responsible for earthquakes. Their big mistake is to rule out Poseidon in the first place. He should have been incorporated in their theories. Right?

Yes I think we may have some middle ground here!

Atheists used to point to earthquakes as proof of 'bad design' and hence lack of ID.. until we understood the vital role of plate tectonics in life on Earth, and that they very much support ID

i.e. favoring and prematurely concluding any theory that superficially appears to refute God, has not proven to be a productive method. The scientific one works much better.

'Nature is the executor of God's laws' Galileo.

 

[ArtieE]

i.e. favoring and prematurely concluding any theory that superficially appears to refute God, has not proven to be a productive method.

So if we use the Poseidon analogy, seismologists first assumed that Poseidon doesn't exist, then they came up with different theories without Poseidon in them in order to prove that Poseidon wasn't responsible for earthquakes, but now we know better, seismologists have been unable to disprove Poseidon and he's still in the running. Is that it?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So if we use the Poseidon analogy, seismologists first assumed that Poseidon doesn't exist, then they came up with different theories without Poseidon in them in order to prove that Poseidon wasn't responsible for earthquakes, but now we know better, seismologists have been unable to disprove Poseidon and he's still in the running. Is that it?

I prefer Neptune, the Greek gods were a little fruity

 

[ArtieE]

I prefer Neptune, the Greek gods were a little fruity

. So, are all scientific theories designed to refute gods? How do you propose scientists incorporate the different relevant gods into all their scientific theories? To be fair, we must make a list of all the known gods people have believed in and believe in. Then we must match them with the corresponding scientific disciplines. Then scientists must propose theories that take these gods into consideration otherwise you will accuse them of trying to disprove these gods. Am I on the right track?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

. So, are all scientific theories designed to refute gods? How do you propose scientists incorporate the different relevant gods into all their scientific theories? To be fair, we must make a list of all the known gods people have believed in and believe in. Then we must match them with the corresponding scientific disciplines. Then scientists must propose theories that take these gods into consideration otherwise you will accuse them of trying to disprove these gods. Am I on the right track?

No, again- the theories supported by atheists explicitly for their atheist implications are usually the failed ones- like static, eternal, steady state, classical physics, Big Crunch, Darwinism.

The great successful ones like primeval atom, quantum mechanics, were put forward by skeptics of atheism.

i.e. it's not belief in God that helps science so much as skepticism of atheism.

The scientific method should not seek to rule out anything without good cause, God included, or we get the wrong conclusions as we have seen time and again

 

[ArtieE]

The scientific method should not seek to rule out anything without good cause, God included, or we get the wrong conclusions as we have seen time and again

Good point. So I assume you haven't ruled out a single god as a possible explanation, as in for example Neptune being responsible for earthquakes because then you would make the same mistake as atheists.

 

[Acim]

... the fact that the big bang theory implies that causality CANNOT apply to the big bang itself.

How convenient.

 

[Shad]

1. A theist claims that gods exist.
2. A strong atheist claims that gods don't exist.
3. Some (weak) atheists reject both claims often because they think there's not enough evidence to justify any of them.

Strong is still a rejection than a claim. Most follow 3 not 2.

 

[Shad]

How convenient.

Not really, the math breaks down before the event itself.

 

[Shad]

The scientific method should not seek to rule out anything without good cause, God included, or we get the wrong conclusions as we have seen time and again

Again demonstrating you know nothing. Science follows methodological naturalism hence it does not address God claims. To have it address the question of God is to make God empirical, an object, thus subject to and restricted by principles applied to objects. Or to reject the method itself. This makes God mundane. It happens when theists are in a rush to "prove" God then by their own fumbling make God an object. Empirical God is boring, merely a powerful but limit being thus not God. It also shows how theists are unable to maintain a faith stance in the face of scrutiny

 

[Ouroboros]

Again demonstrating you know nothing. Science follows methodological naturalism hence it does not address God claims. To have it address the question of God is to make God empirical, an object, thus subject to and restricted by principles applied to objects. Or to reject the method itself. This makes God mundane. It happens when theists are in a rush to "prove" God then by their own fumbling make God an object. Empirical God is boring, merely a powerful but limit being thus not God. It also shows how theists are unable to maintain a faith stance in the face of scrutiny

So true.

When the theist attempts to prove God, they merely make God an object and less than God to fit the natural sciences. Using natural science to prove God always ends up proving something other than God.

 

[Shad]

So true.

When the theist attempts to prove God, they merely make God an object and less than God to fit the natural sciences. Using natural science to prove God always ends up proving something other than God.

More to the point it is theists using science in bad faith, irony. Although there are post-modern religious movements that realize this but this is after they drop orthodoxy in order to think about their religion, self and God rather than being told what to think, the right thoughts.

 

[Ouroboros]

More to the point it is theists using science in bad faith, irony. Although there are post-modern religious movements that realize this but this is after they drop orthodoxy in order to think about their religion, self and God rather than being told what to think, the right thoughts.

It's a matter of being honest to oneself. Know thyself means to contemplate ones own doubts and thoughts. Not every person will do this.

 

[Shad]

It's a matter of being honest to oneself. Know thyself means to contemplate ones own doubts and thoughts. Not every person will do this.

Well in some forms of orthodoxy doubt is a horrible thing. So some have doubt but due to orthodoxy do not evaluated their doubt instead they take/taught what is dictated