God can not be disproven by science

[AppieB]

You are my friend seriously messed up. You don't have any intent in studying a subject or doing proper research prior to making this kind of statement. I do not wish to discuss anything with such epistemic dishonesty.

Ciao.

So you have no proper reply and no interest to discuss in honesty. Ok.
Cheers

 

[SkepticThinker]

Peace to all,

God, can't be disproven by science, some believe.
To me God can be proven by logic.
To me God existed as The Body of God and as the Eternal Authority in spirit and life existed before creation was ever created was even created from the Person of The Word as God through the Person of Jesus, The Christ, for the Father. The infallible intelligence that manifests eternity forever through His Will is delivered through the Flesh of The person of Jesus, as God from the Holy Spirit Person, as God as The Christ, for all souls of the beings in the Body of God, all mankind to become the again in the image of the Father, God as united.

Peace always,
Stephen Andrew

I think you forgot to include the logic part.

 

[muhammad_isa]

So you have no proper reply and no interest to discuss in honesty. Ok.

I think he realizes that there is no point in discussing something, on the level of:-
"the spaghetti monster and God" are equivalent when it comes to evidence.

This effectively means that people must have no logical reason for their religious belief .. which
I know for a fact, is not true.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think he realizes that there is no point in discussing something, on the level of:-
"the spaghetti monster and God" are equivalent when it comes to evidence.

This effectively means that people must have no logical reason for their religious belief .. which
I know for a fact, is not true.

Can you explain how and why they're not on the same level?

 

[anotherneil]

That's true. But this is whataboutism.

Prove it - show how it is whataboutism.

 

[paarsurrey]

God can not be disproven by science

Sorry if this was already brought up, but the flying spaghetti monster can't be disproven by science, either.

Isn't it another rhetoric of the Atheism (et al) people, please, right??

Regards

 

[firedragon]

Prove it - show how it is whataboutism.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

 

[AppieB]

I think he realizes that there is no point in discussing something, on the level of:-
"the spaghetti monster and God" are equivalent when it comes to evidence.

That was not the point being made. And I didn't even make it. I just pointed out that this is not Whataboutism.
The point being made was the fact that something that can't be disproven is not evidence of itself for the existence of it. When making an analogy like this some people get emotional and don't see the point (or don't want to see the point) and focus on the comparison of God with x and feel insulted.

This effectively means that people must have no logical reason for their religious belief .. which
I know for a fact, is not true.

This doesn't follow from the argument that was made.

 

[AppieB]

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

Copy-pasting a link of a definition is not showing that it is Whataboutism. You actually have to do some work and make an argument or demonstrate the fallacy. Like I did.
For someone that is 'advising' others to read up on philosophy and accusing people of dishonesty you are displaying quite the intellectual laziness.

 

[blü 2]

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

Unless we have a clear and unambiguous definition of a real God such that if we find a real suspect we can determine whether [he]'s God or not, that statement is meaningless.

If God exists only as a concept, notion, thing imagined, in an individual brain, then there's nothing real to prove or disprove. And at this time, that's the only way God is known to exist.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Unless we have a clear and unambiguous definition of a real God such that if we find a real suspect we can determine whether [he]'s God or not, that statement is meaningless.

If God exists only as a concept, notion, thing imagined, in an individual brain, then there's nothing real to prove or disprove. And at this time, that's the only way God is known to exist.

Well, real only exists as a concept, notion, property imagined, in an individual brain. How do I know that? You can't observe it just like God.
The same is the case with existence and to know.

 

[QuestioningMind]

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

Magical Pixies can not be disproven by science. Why?

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

 

[blü 2]

Well, real only exists as a concept, notion, property imagined, in an individual brain. How do I know that? You can't observe it just like God.
The same is the case with existence and to know.

The justification for scientific method is not that it's infallible or can produce absolute statements, but that it works far better than any other system of enquiry into objective reality, the world external to the self.

I thought you knew that.

 

[blü 2]

Magical Pixies can not be disproven by science. Why?

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

But as a footnote, the concept of pixies is much more specific, much clearer, so that if after all we happened on a real pixie candidate, we'd have somewhere to start when we set out to establish whether we'd found a real pixie or not,

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The justification for scientific method is not that it's infallible or can produce absolute statements, but that it works far better than any other system of enquiry into objective reality, the world external to the self.

I thought you knew that.

There is no evidence of the bold one. That can't be observed as real for objective reality and is thus meaningless. In fact, since I can't observe that you have human worth or rights, you are meaningless as that you matter as a human is not real.
Learn when you do subjective evolutions in the mind of your self.

 

[AppieB]

There is no evidence of the bold one.

That obviously isn't true. Science (or the scientific method) is by far the best way to acquire knowldegde about the observable reality we experience. What other way works better?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That obviously isn't true. Science (or the scientific method) is by far the best way to acquire knowldegde about the observable reality we experience. What other way works better?

What is your observable evidence for it being best? How do you observe best?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Can you explain how and why they're not on the same level?

Of course I can .. but it's not worth further discussion .. it's not "rocket science"

 

[muhammad_isa]

When making an analogy like this some people get emotional and don't see the point (or don't want to see the point)..

It's childish .. a person with a degree in theology can explain why.

 

[AppieB]

What is your observable evidence for it being best? How do you observe best?

All of our knowledge about the natural world is acquired by science or the scientific method. We communicating with the help of computers, satellites and electrictity is one example of that. Show me another method of inquiry that is as reliable as science?