Does science prove the existence of god?

[Ceridwen018]

As you can tell with my "unorthodox" stand on evolution et al, I do not like assumptions. Those are the most dangerous thing we can encounter. Almost every catastrophe that has occurred are the direct result of an erroneos assumption... even the latest shuttle accident.

NetDoc, your entire belief system is based on assumption.

 

[Scuba Pete]

NetDoc, your entire belief system is based on assumption.

Which is why you don't believe it.

For me it is based on real and tangible evidence.

One person's faith is another's assumption.

One person's evidence is another's dellusion.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

NetDoc--I think we need to clarify our positions here:

Does Science Prove the Existence of God?

The existence of galaxies is a proven scientific fact; the existence of god(s) is a belief. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that everyone here--including the theists--agrees that science does not prove the existence of God.

 

[croak]

Science does not need to prove a god or gods existed. I may look at this a little different than most because I like to think I'm coming from a more positive path. I've read almost all the bible and from this indebt read the prove god does not exist is all there for one to see, BUT ONLY IF ONE LOOKS. Using just one example, I and many of my fellow atheists see quite clearly how many religious folk can not see what is obvious.

Example: God created man in his own image.

This simple quote from the said book may not be exact, but we have found most religions except the above.

Now let’s rip it apart: God created man...it is also said he created everything else too. I can't quite believe how many folk think there must have been a god to start off the beginning. BUT where in the world did this god come from? Don't tell me he just appeared because that's a cop out.

Anyway, my point (or our point) has a very strong base to start by looking a little deeper into this so called god and his creation. If we are of his image then he (god) must have genitals too. HE MUST HAVE! But what does he need them for? He must be just as human as we. And be capable of sexual relations. And if that’s the case then where’s Mrs. God? (There is evidence that in the Jewish faith there was a Mrs. God then come along some rabbi’s (males) and wrote her out of the faith).

Let me go on: This god had a (how can I say this) “bum too”. Oh dear, if that’s the case then he must have needed to eat and if that’s the case too! He could fart as well.

And did you know? He could not have been a perfect god/human because he told folk to cut off their foreskin. WHY? Did he error in his creation? Because if he was the almighty and created us in his image, why did he create us with a foreskin?

From one, little quote. Amazing

Let me answer each one.

Example: God created man in his own image.

This simple quote from the said book may not be exact, but we have found most religions except the above.

Well, Muslims believe that means that we are created with certain things: sight, hearing, capacity for knowledge, etc. However, they are not comparable to Allah, meaning: Allah can see everything, hear everything, has knowledge of everything, etc. unlike us. Physical things may also be attributed to Allah; however, do not think that he has a stomach, for example, because He does not eat.

Now let’s rip it apart: God created man...it is also said he created everything else too. I can't quite believe how many folk think there must have been a god to start off the beginning. BUT where in the world did this god come from? Don't tell me he just appeared because that's a cop out.

I once struggled with that thought too. And I have an answer. He has always existed. You think that's impossible? Well, He created time. Time says that we were created, we died, etc. He is beyond the boundaries of time. Therefore, He cannot have just appeared because that would be a phase in time. Time did not exist before He created it. And to Him, everything is in the present: there is no past or future. That is quite confusing for people to understand, but it is a scientific fact time was created. I have a link if you like.

Anyway, my point (or our point) has a very strong base to start by looking a little deeper into this so called god and his creation. If we are of his image then he (god) must have genitals too. HE MUST HAVE! But what does he need them for? He must be just as human as we. And be capable of sexual relations. And if that’s the case then where’s Mrs. God? (There is evidence that in the Jewish faith there was a Mrs. God then come along some rabbi’s (males) and wrote her out of the faith).

We are not exactly like Him. He created us with them, for without them we would not be able to procreate (hope I spelled it right). He does not need them, for He does not need to have children. However, unless we do not want more human beings, we need them. Also, if there was a so-called "Mrs. God," it would have been something added to the Jewish faith but later removed.

Let me go on: This god had a (how can I say this) “bum too”. Oh dear, if that’s the case then he must have needed to eat and if that’s the case too! He could fart as well.

He does not need to eat. We need it because our bodies need it. He does not have a physical body as we might put it, so food is not needed. "Breaking wind" has to do with digestion, and as He doesn't eat, He doesn't need to digest, and so He does not "break wind."

And did you know? He could not have been a perfect god/human because he told folk to cut off their foreskin. WHY? Did he error in his creation? Because if he was the almighty and created us in his image, why did he create us with a foreskin?

I don't think people before knew that there was any big difference between circumcising and not circumcising. Allah, however, told people to circumcise. Why? It proves that we thought we were born with no problems, however, circumcising is much better than not as it reduces infection, etc. There was not reason for men to "invent" it. However, it is seen that it is better. And if you circumcise, you are following His Orders.
I read something like that somewhere. Sorry if it isn't written well, I can't remember where the page is.

Well, there are the answers.

 

[croak]

The existence of galaxies is a proven scientific fact; the existence of god(s) is a belief. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that everyone here--including the theists--agrees that science does not prove the existence of God.

If nature and animals are considered scientific facts, then are messages written in nature and on animals naturally considered scientific facts? Or just something unproven by scientific facts?

I don't think I wrote it that clearly. My point: Look at my webpage. There are some messages that have been seen in nature. How come these messages mention Allah and Muhammed (saas)? Sure, you might see, by chance, leaves on the ground forming your name. But these are too many coincedences. I can explain the pictures if you want.

 

[Ceridwen018]

If nature and animals are considered scientific facts, then are messages written in nature and on animals naturally considered scientific facts? Or just something unproven by scientific facts?

Like that pig who was born with the spot that looked like a map of the United States? Is that what you mean by "messages written on animals".

 

[Ceridwen018]

Which is why you don't believe it.

For me it is based on real and tangible evidence.

One person's faith is another's assumption.

One person's evidence is another's dellusion.

The tangible deals with the physical. The physical can be scientifically experimented with. God is not physical. Therefore, any 'evidence' you have of god cannot be tangible.

 

[painted wolf]

how about the image of Rasputin on the ear of a kitten? http://www.forteantimes.com/gallery/rasputin.shtml
a lion on mars? http://www.forteantimes.com/gallery/marslion.shtml
wierd and creepy snapdragon seeds? http://www.forteantimes.com/gallery/seedface.shtml

people are pattern seekers, we look for things we can reccognize. Thats why you can find faces and what not on just about any natural pattern.

wa:do

 

[Scuba Pete]

"Real & tangible": what really is?

Earlier in this discussion (go back a page or two) I made the statement that Science could never hope to explain the "supernatural". Make no bones about it, I have never stated that Science could prove God.

Later I made the statement that I base my faith on "real & tangible" evidence and now am being told that this is simply not possible.

So clue me in here. If a person claims to have a pain in their neck, is that real & tangible evidence that there is a problem?

Discounting the possibility of hypochondria, while we have no way of ascertaining whether or not that person has any pain, are there real grounds to believe them?

I will await for your answer before I make the next step.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Discounting the possibility of hypochondria, while we have no way of ascertaining whether or not that person has any pain, are there real grounds to believe them?

In the absence of evidence, why should one discount hypochondria? Conversely, is hypochondria ever an appropriate diagnosis?

No one can doubt, NetDoc, that you have an impenetrable position: you believe in a god unverifiable by the protocols of science, yet insist that, in evaluating your stance, such considerations as cognitive-disconnect, placebo effect, ignorance, delusion, superstition, etc. are disallowed for much the same reason as you almost instinctively disallow the diagnosis of hypochondria. That is fine, but you'll forgive me if I find your God(s) far too insubstantial to warrant consideration, much less belief.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I guess that means you won't answer the question.

 

[Ceridwen018]

"Real & tangible": what really is?

Earlier in this discussion (go back a page or two) I made the statement that Science could never hope to explain the "supernatural". Make no bones about it, I have never stated that Science could prove God.

Later I made the statement that I base my faith on "real & tangible" evidence and now am being told that this is simply not possible.

So clue me in here. If a person claims to have a pain in their neck, is that real & tangible evidence that there is a problem?

Discounting the possibility of hypochondria, while we have no way of ascertaining whether or not that person has any pain, are there real grounds to believe them?

I will await for your answer before I make the next step.

For someone to tell you that their neck hurts would NOT be grounds to belive them. The pain in their neck could only be considered real and tangible if some kind of injury, muscle soreness, etc., were detected.

 

[Scuba Pete]

How would one detect soreness?

 

[Ceridwen018]

I meant muscle tension, basically. For instance, a masseuse can detect sore muscles by judging how tense they are in relation to the other muscles, etc.

 

[Scuba Pete]

But in reality... there are "pains" (like a headache even) which have no other symptoms than the "senses" of the afflicted person.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I would suggest that these pains that are not experienced or verifiable to others are "real and tangible" to the person experiencing them.

Might you suspect the veracity of the pain? Without an obvious source, of course you would. But without being able to look inside that person's head, HOW could you discriminate between real pain and dellusion?

 

[Ceridwen018]

But in reality... there are "pains" (like a headache even) which have no other symptoms than the "senses" of the afflicted person.

Actually, you could see a headache by way of a CAT scan, or by examining the eyes. There is nothing in the body which can cause pain, undetected. Others may not be able to experience your pain, but it is always verifiable.

HOW could you discriminate between real pain and dellusion?

By way of common sense, and medical analysis.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I would suggest that these pains that are not experienced or verifiable to others are "real and tangible" to the person experiencing them.
... HOW could you discriminate between real pain and dellusion?

I can attest to the fact that I am experiencing a real and tangible pain by having to read what is being passed off as a sound argument to defend a position. I can also state unequivocally that someone on here is delusional, if they think that untestable evidence can be considered real and tangible.

Thanks,
TVOR

 

[Scuba Pete]

Actually, you could see a headache by way of a CAT scan, or by examining the eyes.

Ask a doctor about this. My wife has had episodes of a headache followed by intense dizzyness. After MUCH testing the doctors can find nothing... not a hint. The CAT scan (during an episode, no less) was annotated "Nothing remarkable" which is doctorese for "Nothing out of the normal".

Although I cannot feel her pain, I know that it is very, very real. Although the doctors can not find the root, they also feel this to be very very real.

However, I can tell when she is about to undergo an episode now... at least most of the time. I can tell by how she reacts and how she handles herself. IOW, by her outward appearance, I can tell that something is happening inside her. Does this even make sense?

 

[Scuba Pete]

If it cause you pain, by all means, don't read it. However, if you would like me to stop, I will do that as well.