Can science disprove the existence of God?

[gnostic]

You're taking this to the extreme. Every human being takes a leap of faith.

This is why I find it very to believe in anything that any Muslim say or write. Always trying to rewrite definition of any term to fit his or her religion.

I find it to hard to have conversation because they like to twist words around. And this in turn make me distrust Islam as a religion.

If Muslims lack integrity, then there is no integrity in Islam, in the Qur'an, in the prophet.

Then again I don't trust Muhammad, because I already find dishonest with his claims of meeting Gabriel. So that's really not a big surprise.

What I find is that some Muslims share his dishonest and hypocritical traits, but that no big surprise too, because he is Muslims' hero or role model.

Faith, especially religious faith has to with belief without regards to evidences, and in defiant of reality.

The fact that they believe in angels and jinns without evidences to support their existence, speaks volume of their belief in superstitions and in the supernatural.

The Qur'an also speak of Solomon not only talk to and controlling jinns, but could speak to and understand the languages of birds and ants. The Qur'an also say that the King command jinns and birds in his army. And even controlling winds.

All this belief in Solomon's supernatural abilities, come from blind faith, not evidences.

In the bible, or 1 Kings 1 to 11, the story of Solomon, only have him praying for wisdom, which he supposedly gained. Unlike the Qur'an, Solomon couldn't control winds, jinns or animals, to do his bidding, and no where here, does Solomon have this supernatural abilities, including the ability to understand the languages of birds and ants.

I am certain that Muhammad heard this fable of Solomon's power from Jewish storyteller, because predating the Qur'an is the oral tradition of some Jewish fairytale, that are found in the Midrash, but told more fully in the Aggadah. In it is folklore of being able to fly on magic carpet, control winds and rain, talk to birds and ants, and control demons (which Muhammad referred to as jinns).

The Aggadah was folk tale meant to entertain children, and not to be taken literally or to be taken as true. Apparently Muhammad borrowed some of these events about the Solomon and included this silly childish story; a grown man who can't distinguish reality from fiction/myth.

The similarities between the Jewish version and Qur'an indicated that Muhammad was aware of Jewish oral tradition of Solomon, in which Muhammad don't require to read about to it, because storytellers often recite stories from memory before listening audience.

Of course, Muhammad's memory isn't perfect, because in the Qur'an's version it is the hoopoe (bird) that rebuked Solomon for arrogance, but in the Aggadah it was ant who rebuked him. But there is enough similarities between the two, to know where Muhammad got his source for this fairytale or fable, because the hoopoe informed the king about the Queen of Sheba in both versions.

And you Muslims swallowed this absurd story of Solomon without question. That's superstition and blind faith, OurCreed.

If you believe that's all possible, then you might as well as believe in Harry Potter, magic and sorcery; and Harry supposedly could talk to snakes. The Qur'an has more in common with the fictional world of Harry Potter.

 

[Demonslayer]

Harry Potter, magic and sorcery; and Harry supposedly could talk to snakes.

Talking snakes are real, I read it in the Bible.

 

[OurCreed]

So what you are saying is that scientists who hold the Big Bang to be the most likely explanation for the beginning of the universe have faith in the Big Bang theory and that they must have made a leap of faith to hold this theory to be the most likely explanation?

You just said it yourself, "most likely." That by definition is taking a leap of faith! It's just that the leap of faith is small as we have a lot of evidence.

 

[OurCreed]

This is why I find it very to believe in anything that any Muslim say or write. Always trying to rewrite definition of any term to fit his or her religion.

I find it to hard to have conversation because they like to twist words around. And this in turn make me distrust Islam as a religion.

If Muslims lack integrity, then there is no integrity in Islam, in the Qur'an, in the prophet.

Then again I don't trust Muhammad, because I already find dishonest with his claims of meeting Gabriel. So that's really not a big surprise.

What I find is that some Muslims share his dishonest and hypocritical traits, but that no big surprise too, because he is Muslims' hero or role model.

Faith, especially religious faith has to with belief without regards to evidences, and in defiant of reality.

The fact that they believe in angels and jinns without evidences to support their existence, speaks volume of their belief in superstitions and in the supernatural.

The Qur'an also speak of Solomon not only talk to and controlling jinns, but could speak to and understand the languages of birds and ants. The Qur'an also say that the King command jinns and birds in his army. And even controlling winds.

All this belief in Solomon's supernatural abilities, come from blind faith, not evidences.

In the bible, or 1 Kings 1 to 11, the story of Solomon, only have him praying for wisdom, which he supposedly gained. Unlike the Qur'an, Solomon couldn't control winds, jinns or animals, to do his bidding, and no where here, does Solomon have this supernatural abilities, including the ability to understand the languages of birds and ants.

I am certain that Muhammad heard this fable of Solomon's power from Jewish storyteller, because predating the Qur'an is the oral tradition of some Jewish fairytale, that are found in the Midrash, but told more fully in the Aggadah. In it is folklore of being able to fly on magic carpet, control winds and rain, talk to birds and ants, and control demons (which Muhammad referred to as jinns).

The Aggadah was folk tale meant to entertain children, and not to be taken literally or to be taken as true. Apparently Muhammad borrowed some of these events about the Solomon and included this silly childish story; a grown man who can't distinguish reality from fiction/myth.

The similarities between the Jewish version and Qur'an indicated that Muhammad was aware of Jewish oral tradition of Solomon, in which Muhammad don't require to read about to it, because storytellers often recite stories from memory before listening audience.

Of course, Muhammad's memory isn't perfect, because in the Qur'an's version it is the hoopoe (bird) that rebuked Solomon for arrogance, but in the Aggadah it was ant who rebuked him. But there is enough similarities between the two, to know where Muhammad got his source for this fairytale or fable, because the hoopoe informed the king about the Queen of Sheba in both versions.

And you Muslims swallowed this absurd story of Solomon without question. That's superstition and blind faith, OurCreed.

If you believe that's all possible, then you might as well as believe in Harry Potter, magic and sorcery; and Harry supposedly could talk to snakes. The Qur'an has more in common with the fictional world of Harry Potter.

There is no re-defining words. Your understanding of these elementary terms are simply...elementary!

And I don't have time to read the rest of your rambles. I care about facts, not opinions.

 

[Crypto2015]

This is why I find it very to believe in anything that any Muslim say or write. Always trying to rewrite definition of any term to fit his or her religion.

I find it to hard to have conversation because they like to twist words around. And this in turn make me distrust Islam as a religion.

If Muslims lack integrity, then there is no integrity in Islam, in the Qur'an, in the prophet.

Then again I don't trust Muhammad, because I already find dishonest with his claims of meeting Gabriel. So that's really not a big surprise.

What I find is that some Muslims share his dishonest and hypocritical traits, but that no big surprise too, because he is Muslims' hero or role model.

Faith, especially religious faith has to with belief without regards to evidences, and in defiant of reality.

The fact that they believe in angels and jinns without evidences to support their existence, speaks volume of their belief in superstitions and in the supernatural.

The Qur'an also speak of Solomon not only talk to and controlling jinns, but could speak to and understand the languages of birds and ants. The Qur'an also say that the King command jinns and birds in his army. And even controlling winds.

All this belief in Solomon's supernatural abilities, come from blind faith, not evidences.

In the bible, or 1 Kings 1 to 11, the story of Solomon, only have him praying for wisdom, which he supposedly gained. Unlike the Qur'an, Solomon couldn't control winds, jinns or animals, to do his bidding, and no where here, does Solomon have this supernatural abilities, including the ability to understand the languages of birds and ants.

I am certain that Muhammad heard this fable of Solomon's power from Jewish storyteller, because predating the Qur'an is the oral tradition of some Jewish fairytale, that are found in the Midrash, but told more fully in the Aggadah. In it is folklore of being able to fly on magic carpet, control winds and rain, talk to birds and ants, and control demons (which Muhammad referred to as jinns).

The Aggadah was folk tale meant to entertain children, and not to be taken literally or to be taken as true. Apparently Muhammad borrowed some of these events about the Solomon and included this silly childish story; a grown man who can't distinguish reality from fiction/myth.

The similarities between the Jewish version and Qur'an indicated that Muhammad was aware of Jewish oral tradition of Solomon, in which Muhammad don't require to read about to it, because storytellers often recite stories from memory before listening audience.

Of course, Muhammad's memory isn't perfect, because in the Qur'an's version it is the hoopoe (bird) that rebuked Solomon for arrogance, but in the Aggadah it was ant who rebuked him. But there is enough similarities between the two, to know where Muhammad got his source for this fairytale or fable, because the hoopoe informed the king about the Queen of Sheba in both versions.

And you Muslims swallowed this absurd story of Solomon without question. That's superstition and blind faith, OurCreed.

If you believe that's all possible, then you might as well as believe in Harry Potter, magic and sorcery; and Harry supposedly could talk to snakes. The Qur'an has more in common with the fictional world of Harry Potter.

OurCreed is right when he says that faith must be based on reason and evidence. This is certainly the case when it comes to the Christian faith. There are many prophecies in the Bible that prove that God can predict and control the future. This is undoubtedly a very good evidence to buttress our faith. There are many other argument that justify our faith in God. It is not that we just woke up some day and decided to believe in something, no matter how improbable or outlandish that something was.

Also, your faith in the non-existence of God requires much more faith than believing in Christ. In practice, you are waging the future of your soul on the world view that denies the existence of a creator. Since you have zero evidence to deny the existence of the creator, you must base your choice on faith, and a very unreasonable faith it is.

 

[ArtieE]

OurCreed is right when he says that faith must be based on reason and evidence.

Except that the Bible itself says in Hebrews 11:1 New International Version: "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." Obviously if we could see it faith would not be required and no reason or evidence is mentioned.

 

[Crypto2015]

Except that the Bible itself says in Hebrews 11:1 New International Version: "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." Obviously if we could see it faith would not be required and no reason or evidence is mentioned.

What it means is that we cannot see God and his eternal kingdom. However, the apostles had evidence. What do you think the resurrection was? Before the resurrection the apostles were utterly destroyed. Then Jesus' resurrection, that extraordinarily strong piece of evidence, turned them into fervent believers.

 

[viole]

The difference between seeing the resurrected Jesus and having a vision of Jesus is that the former is an experience shared by all that are present, whereas the latter is something that happens only inside the mind of the person that is having the vision. An example of a vision is what Stephen experienced before being stoned to death (Acts 7:56). On the other hand, when Jesus appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus (Acts 9) those who were with him also witnessed the supernatural appearance of our Lord, although their experience was not as detailed as that of Paul (then Saul). Hence, Paul didn't have a vision of Jesus. He actually saw the resurrected Christ. This is what Paul himself tells us (1 Corinthians 15:8).

I think that having visions of ex-dead people and claiming to be in contact with aliens starships, or claiming to be abducted by ufos, is not all that different. No matter if they claim other people had the same experiences. According to your logic we should take aliens abductions and visions of Elvis alive seriously.

i don't know you, but if anyone claiming any of this sits beside me on a bus, I would change sit.

Regarding dying for something, it is possible to die for an ideology that is actually a false ideology. For example, dying for Communism does not prove communism right. What the apostles did, however, is different. They died not for an ideology, but to bear witness to a supernatural event that they themselves had experienced (along with hundreds of other people). They wouldn't have died to bear witness to Jesus' resurrection if they had known that the resurrection didn't happen. Also, bear in mind that they weren't crazy because the risen Lord was seen by hundreds of people and any psychologist would tell you that such a phenomenon cannot be attributed to massive hysteria or to a collective hallucination. That's why even non-Christian historians recognize that the apostles must have seen something out of the ordinary. Otherwise, it is impossible to explain why they died to bear witness to the resurrection.

Hundereds of people? These are just nice stories on a book, you know....it's like saying that Excalibur has magic powers because many people, including Lancelot, witnessed that in England a few centuries ago.

Ciao

- viole

 

[ArtieE]

You just said it yourself, "most likely." That by definition is taking a leap of faith!

It is? A meteorologist who says it'll "most likely" rain tomorrow has faith that it will rain tomorrow?

 

[Crypto2015]

I think that having visions of ex-dead people and claiming to be in contact with aliens starships, or claiming to be abducted by ufos, is not all that different. No matter if they claim other people had the same experiences. According to your logic we should take aliens abductions and visions of Elvis alive seriously.

i don't know you, but if anyone claiming any of this sits beside me on a bus, I would change sit.



Hundereds of people? These are just nice stories on a book, you know....it's like saying that Excalibur has magic powers because many people, including Lancelot, witnessed that in England a few centuries ago.

Ciao

- viole

There is a huge difference between your examples and what the early church experienced. It think that deep inside you know this because you seem to be a smart person. For instance, King Arthur and Lancelot are characters in a novel. Their existence is not independently attested by more than one individual, whereas the resurrection is independently attested by several individuals.

 

[gnostic]

There is no re-defining words. Your understanding of these elementary terms are simply...elementary!

And I don't have time to read the rest of your rambles. I care about facts, not opinions.

OurCreed is right when he says that faith must be based on reason and evidence. This is certainly the case when it comes to the Christian faith. There are many prophecies in the Bible that prove that God can predict and control the future. This is undoubtedly a very good evidence to buttress our faith. There are many other argument that justify our faith in God. It is not that we just woke up some day and decided to believe in something, no matter how improbable or outlandish that something was.

Sources, please, OurCreed and Crypoto.

I have seen no definition to the word FAITH that indicate it relating to or associate with EVIDENCE or FACT. Putting FAITH and EVIDENCE together is like oxymoron. They are complete opposite of each other.

Faith is not and has never been synonymous with FACT or with EVIDENCE. Look it up, and then provide me with literal evidences to support your dishonest and tenuous claims from the two of you.

Also, your faith in the non-existence of God requires much more faith than believing in Christ. In practice, you are waging the future of your soul on the world view that denies the existence of a creator. Since you have zero evidence to deny the existence of the creator, you must base your choice on faith, and a very unreasonable faith it is.

And clearly, you have no idea what EVIDENCE means, Crypto.

It's really laughable that you would use EVIDENCE, when you can't provide a single evidence to support the existence of the creator.

If you had EVIDENCE, then you should be able to provide me with evidence, that I can see for myself and TEST or VERIFY what you claim is true.

If I told you I have a live goat in my backyard, you could be skeptical, right?

Well, I could photograph myself with this goat, and send you some pictures of me with the goat, or I could post them on Facebook. These images would be my evidences that I do own a goat. These would be evidences.

But if you are still skeptical, then I could invite you over for the weekend, and you could see that I do own this goat. You could see, hear it bleating, touch it, smell it. Again, this would be evidence, that I do own one. And I could probably show you more evidence, like like a receipt that will demonstrate where and when I bought it, and for how I had paid much for this damn bleating goat that's ripping out my garden!

Now, these would be all evidences of ownership of goat.

I don't actually own a goat. It is just an example what evidence mean, that you could verify and test it if it is true OR not.

Do you understand what I mean, by evidence, now?

Now, you made a claim that I have no evidences for the creator?

Fine, then prove to me that you have these evidences for the creator's existence.

The person who make the claim something that supernatural or magical like a deity, should be the one who provide the evidences. Show me empirical and verifiable evidences, Crypto.

Can you show me physical evidences for God, whom you've called "Creator"?

And I am talking about physical evidences that I can verify as being true, or refute it as false, and not some quotes from your scriptures. Any one can write any sort of things, in Genesis and the gospels, but these are superstitious people who would believe all sorts of nonsense.

I can quote from Pyramid Text or the Book of the Dead, and showed you ancient artworks of Ra, Horus, Isis or Thoth, but would you be skeptical if I claim these are true gods? Of course, you would, because I would have no more evidences than you would have with YHWH or OurCreed with Allah.

Or will back down?

Personally, I don't think much of your integrity.

 

[Crypto2015]

Sources, please, OurCreed and Crypoto.

I have seen no definition to the word FAITH that indicate it relating to or associate with EVIDENCE or FACT. Putting FAITH and EVIDENCE together is like oxymoron. They are complete opposite of each other.

Faith is not and has never been synonymous with FACT or with EVIDENCE. Look it up, and then provide me with literal evidences to support your dishonest and tenuous claims from the two of you.



And clearly, you have no idea what EVIDENCE means, Crypto.

It's really laughable that you would use EVIDENCE, when you can't provide a single evidence to support the existence of the creator.

If you had EVIDENCE, then you should be able to provide me with evidence, that I can see for myself and TEST or VERIFY what you claim is true.

If I told you I have a live goat in my backyard, you could be skeptical, right?

Well, I could photograph myself with this goat, and send you some pictures of me with the goat, or I could post them on Facebook. These images would be my evidences that I do own a goat. These would be evidences.

But if you are still skeptical, then I could invite you over for the weekend, and you could see that I do own this goat. You could see, hear it bleating, touch it, smell it. Again, this would be evidence, that I do own one. And I could probably show you more evidence, like like a receipt that will demonstrate where and when I bought it, and for how I had paid much for this damn bleating goat that's ripping out my garden!

Now, these would be all evidences of ownership of goat.

I don't actually own a goat. It is just an example what evidence mean, that you could verify and test it if it is true OR not.

Do you understand what I mean, by evidence, now?

Now, you made a claim that I have no evidences for the creator?

Fine, then prove to me that you have these evidences for the creator's existence.

The person who make the claim something that supernatural or magical like a deity, should be the one who provide the evidences. Show me empirical and verifiable evidences, Crypto.

Can you show me physical evidences for God, whom you've called "Creator"?

And I am talking about physical evidences that I can verify as being true, or refute it as false, and not some quotes from your scriptures. Any one can write any sort of things, in Genesis and the gospels, but these are superstitious people who would believe all sorts of nonsense.

I can quote from Pyramid Text or the Book of the Dead, and showed you ancient artworks of Ra, Horus, Isis or Thoth, but would you be skeptical if I claim these are true gods? Of course, you would, because I would have no more evidences than you would have with YHWH or OurCreed with Allah.

Or will back down?

Personally, I don't think much of your integrity.

Do you want evidence for God? Open your eyes and look around. The fact that the universe exists is the evidence you are looking for. Why is there something instead of nothing?

 

[ArtieE]

Do you want evidence for God? Open your eyes and look around. The fact that the universe exists is the evidence you are looking for. Why is there something instead of nothing?

Open your eyes and look around. What you see is evidence for the universe existing. Do you see any god(s)? No. So no evidence for gods existing.

 

[Crypto2015]

Open your eyes and look around. What you see is evidence for the universe existing. Do you see any god(s)? No. So no evidence for gods existing.

You don't understand the argument. Google "Kalam cosmological argument".

 

[gnostic]

Do you want evidence for God? Open your eyes and look around. The fact that the universe exists is the evidence you are looking for. Why is there something instead of nothing?

Sorry, but SEE what???

I see nothing that give me any indication that God is real.

And I have been in the situation where I used to believe what I read in the bible when I was younger (15 to 20). I didn't touch the bible for 14 years (long story, the short of it I had quarreled with the pastor, whose church I would have join), but re-reading when I am older, had dispelled much of my belief and the idealism that I had when I was a teenager.

When I looked out there, I still see that nature is still beautiful when I was younger, and sometimes very mysterious, but I don't god in any of it.

And why?

I no longer see the world with religion as a baggage; superstition no longer play a part in my worldview. I understand the world natural world better than I was younger, through science, not religion, and certainly not with the superstitious belief in a deity or spirit.

I have never taken a single psychology subject, and yet...I understand us, human nature, better than when I was teenager.
It was young idealism and naivety...and my older sister...that influenced me with religion. It was solitude from religion that opened up my eyes that these belief are nothing more than superstition.

The problem is that you haven't left your primitive superstition behind. You have let the bible trap you in this delusion of some all-powerful, invisible being, which you have never personally seen, but willing to let it...whatever this "it" may be to have control of your life. That's my friend, is what I call "blind faith".

 

[gnostic]

You don't understand the argument. Google "Kalam cosmological argument".

You cannot post any link that is not pseudoscience BS, can you?

The whole argument is based on pure speculation, with no evidence for this CAUSE being god created the universe.

Like I said, more BS from loony pseudoscience bin.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Talking snakes are real, I read it in the Bible.

Here he is!

 

[Crypto2015]

You cannot post any link that is not pseudoscience BS, can you?

The whole argument is based on pure speculation, with no evidence for this CAUSE being god created the universe.

Like I said, more BS from loony pseudoscience bin.

Wrong. It is a sound philosophical argument. There is no refutation for it.

 

[Demonslayer]

Do you want evidence for God? Open your eyes and look around.

I just saw a billion starving African children, a 25% global miscarriage rate, and the existence of hydrocephalus babies.

I think I'll close my eyes again!

 

[SkepticThinker]

You don't understand the argument. Google "Kalam cosmological argument".

I find it unconvincing. And I have yet to find someone who started believing in god(s) because they heard the Kalam cosmological argument. As far as I can tell it's only convincing to those who are already believers.

Not to mention that it's been refuted every which way from Sunday by many different people throughout history. So to say there is no refutation for it would be in error.