Can science disprove the existence of God?

[Robert.Evans]

In order to claim that a room is empty you have to state what it is empty of. Otherwise the claim does not make sense.

Empty of fruitbaskets, empty of lint, empty of air, empty of sweet, delicious candies.

You are trying to be too clever. Pick whichever you wish. Just take the basic argument from a point of view of making a point.

 

[Noa]

You are trying to be too clever. Pick whichever you wish. Just take the basic argument from a point of view of making a point.

I am not being clever. I never do that.

Your question of whether or not you can prove a room is empty depends upon what you are claiming it does not contain. Some things can be reliably demonstrated to not be in the room. Others cannot.

 

[Demonslayer]

You can prove the room is empty. How can you say "Of course not". Stick with reality will you.
God is the room.

Huh? You said you can prove the room is empty, and then you said God is in the room.

Which is it? Is the room empty, or is God there?

 

[Noa]

Huh? You said you can prove the room is empty, and then you said God is in the room.

Which is it? Is the room empty, or is God there?

Room empty. God is room. God is empty?

Oh dear.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I am not being clever. I never do that.

Your question of whether or not you can prove a room is empty depends upon what you are claiming it does not contain. Some things can be reliably demonstrated to not be in the room. Others cannot.

I will make it real easy for you then (even though i think you are being silly).
You can prove there is no elephants in a room. okay?

 

[Noa]

I will make it real easy for you then (even though i think you are being silly).
You can prove there is no elephants in a room. okay?

Sure.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Huh? You said you can prove the room is empty, and then you said God is in the room.

Which is it? Is the room empty, or is God there?

I said ''is the room'', as he is everything. You look at it from the wrong angle to start with, every time. It suits your own world view no doubt, but a blind faith nevertheless

 

[paarsurrey]

A house is a closed system. The cosmos and existence/reality is certainly not. Unless you can specify where God would be found, necessarily (like your house example), your question is illogical.
Can you prove that unicorns don't exist? What is your evidence?

Do you believe in unicorns? Please
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

How about leprechauns, minators, fairies, and aliens. How can you prove they don't exist anywhere in all of existence?

One should come out of the petty routine arguments. Does one believe in the existence of leprechauns, minators, fairies and aliens?
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Please provide a list of "high caliber scientists" that have put forth scientific hypotheses and performed scientific studies on the non-existence of a supernatural being. It would help to provide links to where the published papers are so others can see them. That way you can show that you aren't lying about this. How's that?

A good point.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Didn't Jesus get tortured and crucified for other's sins? Seems that is dying for someone else to me.

Jesus was not put on the Cross for other's sins. Those who did it were sinful persons.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

There has to be an "original".

Why? Please
Regards

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is not just glib, it is a straw man fallacy that reveals a huge intellectual dishonesty from the atheist side. This fallacy was authored by Christopher Hitchens and used in a debate against his brother Peter. It goes to show that Christopher Hitchens cannot be taken seriously when it comes to Christianity. He deliberately uses these fallacies and never addresses the real tenets of Christianity. Regarding your passage about the potter, this passage says that some people are going to end up in hell and God knew it from the start, before he even created them. Now you are telling me that God is responsible for these vessels' sins (you call them failures). However, you forget that the passage also says that these vessels that were destined for hell serve a purpose: to show God's power and justice. God will punish these vessels, His enemies, thereby showing that He is powerful and just. He punishes the wicked. So, these vessels' "failure" is actually God's success.

I notice two implications of what you're saying:

- God intended sinners to sin when he created them.
- sinners will go to Hell. IOW, Christ's sacrifice was in vain.

 

[Noa]

For anyone that is curious, the concept of 'original sin' as we think of it today did not exist until Augustine.

 

[Demonslayer]

You can prove there is no elephants in a room. okay?

These are invisible elephants. Prove they are not in the room. You can't.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, it is not the implication of what I said.

But it is.

If God has a measurable effect on the world, then we could use this fact to draw scientific conclusions:
- "X will be one way if God exists and another way if God doesn't exist."
- we go and observe X.
- X was found to be ____, therefore God (does/doesn't) exist.

Any observable or measurable effect that God has - or is predicted to have - can be used to point to something that we can drop into the place of X. If God can't be demonstrated or refuted scientifically, then God has no observable or measurable effects.

 

[Noa]

But it is.

If God has a measurable effect on the world, then we could use this fact to draw scientific conclusions:
- "X will be one way if God exists and another way if God doesn't exist."
- we go and observe X.
- X was found to be ____, therefore God (does/doesn't) exist.

Any observable or measurable effect that God has - or is predicted to have - can be used to point to something that we can drop into the place of X. If God can't be demonstrated or refuted scientifically, then God has no observable or measurable effects.

You are assuming that the effect can be definitively linked to the cause. It is entirely possible that a deity has an observable effect on the universe but we are unaware that it is the deity causing that effect.

 

[Milton Platt]

For anyone that is curious, the concept of 'original sin' as we think of it today did not exist until Augustine.

Interesting. Then why did Jesus supposedly take a dive for humanity?

 

[Milton Platt]

Jesus was not put on the Cross for other's sins. Those who did it were sinful persons.
Regards

So why is he regarded as a sacrifice, and f not, then why does he even matter?

 

[Noa]

Interesting. Then why did Jesus supposedly take a dive for humanity?

The notion that all are sinners was already there -- but the common conception of the fall as these weird, evil flowing from generation to generation because Eve screwed up was an Augustinian conception.