Can science disprove the existence of God?

[psychoslice]

Christ's sacrifice would have been in vain if no one had accepted his expiatory sacrifice. However, we know that many people have accepted it. Hence, it is not in vain.

I myself don't believe that Jesus dying on a piece of wood ever saved anyone, its all in their head, nothing has changed except your belief that this is so.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Science is literally knowledge.
And we can't know that any God exists.
Not unless a God would like to come forth (fat chance).

Anyways... I'm surprised I didn't catch wind of this thread earlier on.
I've been slacking

 

[Timothy Bryce]

I come from South America. The people that were native to the place in which I was born (near the Amazonian jungle) had a pre-Columbian theology that closely matched that of the ancient Hebrews: an omnipotent and kind creator that could not be represented by anything created and an evil spirit who rebelled (Satan) and had a host of rebels that followed him. Furthermore, they believed in a paradise that was thought to be located beyond the Atlantic. So, the idea of a creator God is virtually everywhere, even in the most isolated human populations.

It's not unlikely that the genetic makeups of the human species would collectively share some similar inherent psychological attributes. Especially regarding issues that are impossible to settle.

Every submission you've made about this (unfounded) claim that this tribe had a theology that closely matched that of the ancient Hebrews relies on a subjective, uninformed, emotionally-based intention to find a link between the two and perpetually unverified reaches to find parallels between the two belief systems. It's egotistical desperation to validate what is apparently an extremely important (but completely unsubstantiated) issue for you. I understand, but you're dead wrong.

For your future reference: it's called being "hypervigilant" - if you look for something hard enough, you will find it, but this doesn't make your claims of correlation valid at all.

I see you've also decided to depart from the scientific method to consolidate your ideas. Not a necessarily embarrassing measure to take but I wouldn't be surprised if I were you when you state your beliefs and people roll their eyes and turn the other way.

 

[s13ep]

Science is literally knowledge.
And we can't know that any God exists.
Not unless a God would like to come forth (fat chance).

Anyways... I'm surprised I didn't catch wind of this thread earlier on.
I've been slacking

Correct, science is NOT wisdom.

 

[viole]

Please address the historicity of Christ's resurrection. It is the most interesting one. Ciao!

The historicity of Christ's resurrection?
It is just a nice story on a book, for what you know, written in a very supersticious era; when people believed marine monsters where a travel hazard.

Ciao

- viole

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We can measure it.
1. God is an evolving consciousness and therefore everything will have to develop over time. It does.

"Development over time" is expected if God doesn't exist.

... and it sounds like you're saying that the theists who claim that God is unchanging and perfect are wrong. Is that your intent?

2. There is no God and it is all luck. That is not possible as everything is too complex.

Sounds like you don't understand the difference between a measurement and a wild unsupported claim.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Christ's sacrifice would have been in vain if no one had accepted his expiatory sacrifice. However, we know that many people have accepted it. Hence, it is not in vain.

So now sinners are going to Heaven? You just said they weren't. Please make up your mind.

 

[s13ep]

"Development over time" is expected if God doesn't exist.

... and it sounds like you're saying that the theists who claim that God is unchanging and perfect are wrong. Is that your intent?


Sounds like you don't understand the difference between a measurement and a wild unsupported claim.

It's just as wild to call it "luck"; even though it may be supported (by whom; why does it matter?), it's still wild (salad), and in the same league as believing in the word God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

(by whom; why does it matter?)

Not by whom; by what: evidence.

 

[s13ep]

Not by whom; by what: evidence.

Evidence leads to the answer "it's luck"; what is "luck" if not lack of probability and reasoning potential? In other words you believe that academic evidence leads to the answer "I cannot answer this, but we'll call it 'luck'"?!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think I need to go back to something:

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.

Let me unpack this argument a bit:

- God wants a sinless world.
- God could have created a sinless world from the outset.
- God fails to create a sinless world... so that he can show everyone how good he is at fixing things.
- In the meantime, people suffer because of sin and many people get doomed to Hell.

... and you call this just?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Evidence leads to the answer "it's luck"; what is "luck" if not lack of probability and reasoning potential? In other words you believe that academic evidence leads to the answer "I cannot answer this, but we'll call it 'luck'"?!

I don't think you have the first clue of what I believe.

 

[s13ep]

I don't think you have the first clue of what I believe.

You missed the important question in that post.

To everyone else reading, it was concluded, "it's luck" is just as improbable and unreasonable as "it's God".

 

[Baladas]

Nope.
It's unfalsifiable.

 

[s13ep]

Nope.
It's unfalsifiable.

We're all on the wrong end of a magic ritual by the looks of things; where both exits lead to a selfish, improbable and unreasonable answer.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

EDIT # 4 ... Damn what a mussed up post, hopefully this last edit fixed it!

I'm not sure I agree or that it is true. Even if it was we could argue that genetics plays a roll in ethics.

Isn't morality is what society or individual says it is? However, moral standards are usually imported from a higher more pure powerful and hopefully more righteous source than my own gutter guilt tripped mind. Aren't all Christians guilt ridden? Isn't it the case most societies or individuals embrace what they consider a higher moral standard? (usually God or to an non-believer the state etc may represent that authority they accept as a absolute).
In my opinion which I am sure not all Christians agree with, we fear an non-god based morality, because we don't trust our own constructs of what could happen without a divine moral standard. We have seen state based morality in Nazi Germany's reign of horror. Maybe atheists fear Christians similar to those that contributed to the Inquisition(s) could set moral standards. (Even I fear an theocracy of any kind). So just as state based morals so do some can make murder legal, a theocracy can do the same. So what’s the answer? I don't know. A start would be to make moral police, and laws based on morality illegal. I don’t want the thought police on my land in my home especially in my bedroom. Sadly the fate of the USA seems to be that they will be in all the latter, and they are unwelcome home invaders. (to say the least)
MrMr

 

[Iti oj]

Damn what a missed post, hopefully this last edit fixed it!




Morality is what society or individual says it is. However, if the society or individual embraces what they consider is an absolute moral standard. (usually God or to an non-believer the state etc may represent that authority they accept as a absolute).

Christians fear a state like Nazi Germany might set moral standards and atheists may fear Christians similar to those that contributed to the Inquisition(s) may set moral standards. Just as some Christians this one included may feel their moral standards trump the law of the land so do some nonbelievers feel the state can make murder acceptable. I detest using Nazi Germany but forgive me its easy and fast, anyway the Nazis made what the majority of the world considered murder a legal and acceptable action. Hitler while ruling never broke a German law I am told (I didn't verify). That's because his morals become the states moral standard (kind of). lol but true....
MrMr

Can you call it murder when you consider the victims less then human?

There seem to be some standards most humans agree too and there's reason to believe at least on some level morals can have genetic impute. We are social creatures because of our genetics after all, and we have identified altruism gene(s).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You missed the important question in that post.

To everyone else reading, it was concluded, "it's luck" is just as improbable and unreasonable as "it's God".

Wow - not only do you think you can read my mind, but you think you can read the minds of "everyone else reading"?

 

[s13ep]

Wow - not only do you think you can read my mind, but you think you can read the minds of "everyone else reading"?

This isn't an answer to the question that you and I concluded; nor a sensible response, because it ignores very simple social logic, and the wise of men; and being it, a childish response, it just hindered the intellectual integrity of everyone who reads it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This isn't an answer to the question that you and I concluded; nor a sensible response, because it ignores very simple social logic, and the wise of men; and being it, a childish response, it just hindered the intellectual integrity of everyone who reads it.

^ drivel