God can not be disproven by science

[The Hammer]

OK .. a number of problems here

1) God is by definition, non-empiracal " No - as there are many definitions of God - which one of the most important questions in such discussions .. How are we defining God or what definition is being used.

2) NO - this not the definition of any of the Gods in the Bible That there is just one an assumed premise fallacy and simply false but this matters not because none of the Gods in the Bible are described as non-empiracle .. certainly not in the OT .. where all the Gods discussed are anthropomorphic

- when we get into the God of the NT we get into a grey zone but, this is resolved as soon as you state the name of the God that Jesus is referring to as "The Father" - the one to pray to "Hallowed Be Thy Name". For example YHWH, which is the wrong answer but resolves the greyzone problem as YHWH is described as anthropomorphic - not only "Like US" in image and form .. but complete with the most nasty and petty of human character flows .. making mistakes .. losing temper .. What on earth does the God Jealousy have to be Jealous of ? ... leave that question the ancient sages on the table for pondering purpose.

If God is "All Knowing" -- able to see the future and the past -- they why did God go through with the plan to create humans (1) knowing the plan was going to fail (2) ?

But given 1 and 2 --- knowing the plan was going to fail -- why on earth would God regret this failure (3) ?? which makes no sense .. even if sense can be made of 1 and 2.

An Omniscient - All knowing God -- who has gone crazy is about the only salvation for our cause at this point ... the giggle test having failed long ago. This God named himself Jealousy -- turned into a Flip Flopping god and genocidal maniac .. with the most petty and nasty of human weaknesses is the definiton of YHWH .. to a (T) ... one day commanding that innocent children and babies and fetus's be put to death for the sin of the Father .. the next day - in one of her Jeckyl and Hide moments ... Children and babies are not to be punished for sin of the Father -- each to for his own sin - a Rule of Law Principle so good on God for that one -- but, which command should we follow in order to be on the right side of The Supreme One .. and why is this Trickster Loki-like God doing this.

Like when Adam and Eve are put into the ring against the Great deceiver God (in the ring against YHWH essentially if we are to compare attribute - but let us call this other God Satan for the moment (another incorrect assumption as was the assumption of only one God in the Bible .. but we will go with it) A God of the Bible .. Son of God as well .. who does not operate outside the parameters of God's will .. is ruler of the Earth .. and has great Godly powers.

That God .. in the Ring against humans who are so innocent they know naught of Good nor Evil .. Yet .. when these two humans .. who God knew had Zero Chance of Success .. gets really pissed .. and punishes this creation who he goes on to call worthless .. and a big mistake that he regrets.

Really ? --- an all knowing God that is this stupid .. petty .. and idiotic ? how does that work into one's definition of God .. ?

and the Question of Science .. in addition to completely failing at saying anything about something we have defined as undefinable .. Science can not prove that you exist .. never mind disprove God's existence .. Row Row Row the boat .. and prove to me that life is not but a dream .. with Science

That's like.... Your opinion man.

 

[Sargonski]

That's like.... Your opinion man.

NO .. NOoooooo ... say it ain't Sooooo Which part of the Opinion did you fancy the most ?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Which concepts do you think are invokved that don't just end up coming down to evidence?

I refer you to my post #212

 

[The Hammer]

NO .. NOoooooo ... say it ain't Sooooo Which part of the Opinion did you fancy the most ?

Pretty much none of it. As a Polytheist and non-abrahamic it doesn't interest me, nor does it conform with my experience of the world.

 

[sun rise]

OK, but does this rebut the assertion that referring to a god or anything else as existing outside of time is incoherent? I think it simply restates the suggestion that something can exist absent time.

True but my response was directly because of this statement "the idea of existing outside of time is self-contradictory (incoherent). " If time is emergent than what does or does not exist outside of time is not addressed let alone proven. From a theoretical perspective it's not "self-contradictory" but rather a set of unproven possibilities.

 

[Sargonski]

Pretty much none of it. As a Polytheist and non-abrahamic it doesn't interest me, nor does it conform with my experience of the world.

What is the point of your comment then ? what does not conform to your experience of the world .. what is this "IT" that you are talking about?

God me confused as all heck .. give you that much

The Bible should be of immense interest to the Polytheist ? So many Different Gods .. all raging Polytheists (the Hebrew folk) for near the entirety if their history .. and the story. What's not for a Polytheist to like ?

"Non Abrahamic" -- OK .. what that mean ? .. do you not believe in "The Supreme One" .. The Father - Creator - old and wise living in a tent on top of Mountain .. Known as "God of the Patriarchs" El Elyon .. God Most High .. later giving up the crown on earth to serve cheif in Heaven .. head of the "Divine Council" Control of earth ceded to .. well -- don't want to spoil the story .. one of The Supreme one's 70 sons.

What is not to like about Abe's God .. that even a Polytheist could not appreciate ?

and what about the world .. what does not conform with your experience of it .. ? you seem to be starring in your own movie here .. not one I have seen but do tell .. have you heard of the Annunaki in the Bible .. do they conform with your expienence in the world ? As Ancient Alien Theorists might suggest

 

[The Hammer]

What is the point of your comment then ? what does not conform to your experience of the world .. what is this "IT" that you are talking about?

God me confused as all heck .. give you that much

The Bible should be of immense interest to the Polytheist ? So many Different Gods .. all raging Polytheists (the Hebrew folk) for near the entirety if their history .. and the story. What's not for a Polytheist to like ?

"Non Abrahamic" -- OK .. what that mean ? .. do you not believe in "The Supreme One" .. The Father - Creator - old and wise living in a tent on top of Mountain .. Known as "God of the Patriarchs" El Elyon .. God Most High .. later giving up the crown on earth to serve cheif in Heaven .. head of the "Divine Council" Control of earth ceded to .. well -- don't want to spoil the story .. one of The Supreme one's 70 sons.

What is not to like about Abe's God .. that even a Polytheist could not appreciate ?

and what about the world .. what does not conform with your experience of it .. ? you seem to be starring in your own movie here .. not one I have seen but do tell .. have you heard of the Annunaki in the Bible .. do they conform with your expienence in the world ? As Ancient Alien Theorists might suggest

Have a good day. Prattle away.

I don't feel like responding to a wall of text everytime I speak to you. More words =\= more clarity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This begs a few questions - is this about controlling others, then?

By refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of others cultural/personal perspectives and ways of life, isn't that basically a form of social control? A form of intolerance? This is the sort of thinking subcultures have used to cast homosexual marriages as not "legitimate" or that fans of one game use to cast fans of another game as not "legitimate" or "true" fans of the genre. It's a purity test, constructed by those imposing the rules to control others - they define themselves to be in a privileged "legitimate" position while oppressing and denigrating others. Or did you mean something else entirely by "giving legitimacy" to something?

I think it's about acknowledging legitimacy - or at least potential legitimacy - of people's beliefs.

I think the approach you described can come across as pretty condescending and invalidating: "okay - as long as you're sure, your god can be a god for you." It's pretty dismissive, IMO.

OTOH, engaging with someone's god-belief as if it really is a declaration about the real world treats the belief as a serious proposition that warrants real investigation.

Even if I decide that a theistic belief is incorrect, I think there's more respect in engaging with it as an idea worth evaluating than there is in treating it as nothing more than an aesthetic preference.

 

[Sargonski]

Have a good day. Prattle away.

I don't feel like responding to a wall of text everytime I speak to you. More words =\= more clarity.

Don't think you actually managed a response .. to anything I have said .. More words perhaps needed by you for clarity.. still seem lost in the conversation .. never did figure out what was going on .. just all a bunch of prattle in your head .. something you misread

 

[Audie]

Don't think you actually managed a response .. to anything I have said .. More words perhaps needed by you for clarity.. still seem lost in the conversation .. never did figure out what was going on .. just all a bunch of prattle in your head .. something you misread

Huh?

 

[The Hammer]

Don't think you actually managed a response .. to anything I have said .. More words perhaps needed by you for clarity.. still seem lost in the conversation .. never did figure out what was going on .. just all a bunch of prattle in your head .. something you misread

My original statement stands fine on it's own. Your opinion of the Bible is just that, an opinion. I don't see it as valid for mysel, and never will as it's not my spiritual beliefs.


Your responses have been incoherently rambling about the Bible.

Hence why I'm not really responding to what your writing about.

 

[Sargonski]

My original statement stands fine on it's own. Your opinion of the Bible is just that, an opinion. I don't see it as valid for mysel, and never will as it's not my spiritual beliefs.


Your responses have been incoherently rambling about the Bible.

Hence why I'm not really responding to what your writing about.

Look friend the pointlessness of your post is self evidence -- nothing but personal invective and strawman fallacy ... I never said anything about the Bible being your spiritual beliefs friend -- its all this made up story .. upon which you accuse me of "incoherently rambling" but won't tell us what it was you found incoherent ? followed by saying that you are not really responding to what I wrote ? .. Priceless Projection friend .. Full marks on the "Incoherent Rambling" example.

 

[The Hammer]

Look friend the pointlessness of your post is self evidence -- nothing but personal invective and strawman fallacy ... I never said anything about the Bible being your spiritual beliefs friend -- its all this made up story .. upon which you accuse me of "incoherently rambling" but won't tell us what it was you found incoherent ? followed by saying that you are not really responding to what I wrote ? .. Priceless Projection friend .. Full marks on the "Incoherent Rambling" example.

Incoherent rambling examples below:

"Non Abrahamic" -- OK .. what that mean ? .. do you not believe in "The Supreme One" .. The Father - Creator - old and wise living in a tent on top of Mountain .. Known as "God of the Patriarchs" El Elyon .. God Most High .. later giving up the crown on earth to serve cheif in Heaven .. head of the "Divine Council" Control of earth ceded to .. well -- don't want to spoil the story .. one of The Supreme one's 70 sons.

I don't recognize these epithets.

The Bible should be of immense interest to the Polytheist ? So many Different Gods .. all raging Polytheists (the Hebrew folk) for near the entirety if their history .. and the story. What's not for a Polytheist to like ?

You don't get to determine what someone finds of interest or value.

 

[Quintessence]

I think the approach you described can come across as pretty condescending and invalidating: "okay - as long as you're sure, your god can be a god for you." It's pretty dismissive, IMO.

I'm sorry, but you just are not making any sense here. If someone finds it "condescending" and "invalidating" to acknowledge that others have differences of opinions, values, practices, and beliefs (which one doesn't necessarily share oneself), I don't even...

 

[Squiggy]

God can not be disproven by science. Why?

Because God exist outside of time and space. God created space and time, but are itself beyond it

I think you're right, and nor can science alone prove god. I say that because, even if science could prove irrefutably that the material universe could not be its own reason for existing, we still couldn't deduce god because it would merely be an argument from ignorance. I guess god would have to reveal itself somehow convincingly, and even then many would still not believe, understandably.

 

[Firenze]

I think you're right, and nor can science alone prove god. I say that because, even if science could prove irrefutably that the material universe could not be its own reason for existing, we still couldn't deduce god because it would merely be an argument from ignorance. I guess god would have to reveal itself somehow convincingly, and even then many would still not believe, understandably.

And apparently, gods can’t be proven…. By anything so far.

 

[Squiggy]

And apparently, gods can’t be proven…. By anything so far.

Well, speaking as an agnostic, I agree. But as a part time theist I will offer this: That many have and do claim to have "proof" of god, having been the recipient of some divine intervention or miracle, allegedly. And if I'm going to remain objective I have to at least consider the possibility that they might be right. Just because I may not have sure knowledge of god doesn't mean others can't. Many NDE'ers claim to have met god. But of course, anecdotes aren't scientific proof.

 

[Audie]

I think you're right, and nor can science alone prove god. I say that because, even if science could prove irrefutably that the material universe could not be its own reason for existing, we still couldn't deduce god because it would merely be an argument from ignorance. I guess god would have to reveal itself somehow convincingly, and even then many would still not believe, understandably.

Its ignorant to say science proves anything

 

[Squiggy]

Its ignorant to say science proves anything

So, all the innumerable scientists, logicians, and mathematicians that use that term are ignorant?

 

[Audie]

So, all the innumerable scientists, logicians, and mathematicians that use that term are ignorant?

Just you