God is disproven by science? Really?

[Zwing]

@Zwing - Just to make sure my words were not misunderstood, I'll rephrase -- I do not believe the account in the Bible about Moses is a myth. I believe it's true. Hope that helps to clarify. Thanks.

Yes, I understood that.

 

[Audie]

Many people mostly atheists believe that God has been disproven or has being shown to be non-existent. But if you knew the definition and explanation of intelligence, or its variants, or synonyms, you will never claim such illogical claim. Thus, intelligence protects the existence of God from those non-intelligent persons.

I hope that before those who claim that God does not exist, let them define "intelligence" first in the usage of God = Intelligent Creator or Intelligent

Many people of whom you have no examples.

But if there are some so stupid, isnt it
uhsporting to snipe at idiots?

There is though a great abundance of those WHO
claim to know there is a God, and variously offer proof.

The Kalam cosmology folks say.

Perhaps you have your own proof, you " know"?

If so it's just the flip side of " disproving".

 

[shunyadragon]

Many people mostly atheists believe that God has been disproven or has being shown to be non-existent. But if you knew the definition and explanation of intelligence, or its variants, or synonyms, you will never claim such illogical claim. Thus, intelligence protects the existence of God from those non-intelligent persons.

I hope that before those who claim that God does not exist, let them define "intelligence" first in the usage of God = Intelligent Creator or Intelligent Designer.

The existence of God(s) cannot be proved by science, because of the lack of objective verifiable evidence. Though the God(s) described in ancient scriptures and believed by ancient tribal religions is irrational and illogical and most likely do not exist.

IF God exists as the omnipotent all-powerful Creator of our physical existence God would be a Universal God that Created an existence in harmony with how science describes our Natural physical existence.

 

[blü 2]

This is the claim of the theist, and since that claim is the original proposition, the burden of proof supporting that claim falls upon the theist. It appears, to myself, to be a burden which has never been met. It is incumbent upon nobody to prove that “god does not exist”,

The first problem here ─ one that I'd say precedes your question ─ is the question, "What real thing do we mean to denote when we say 'God'?" Prove WHAT, exactly, doesn't have objective existence?

I'm not aware of any definition of a god with objective existence, a definition which would allow us to tell whether any real candidate or suspect was God (or a god) or not. Instead, God is largely defined by imaginary qualities ─ omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, eternal, infinite et cetera (or rather, blah blah).

Nor am I aware of any definition of "godness", the quality a real god would have and a real superscientist who could create universes &c would lack.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The first problem here ─ one that I'd say precedes your question ─ is the question, "What real thing do we mean to denote when we say 'God'?" Prove WHAT, exactly, doesn't have objective existence?

I'm not aware of any definition of a god with objective existence, a definition which would allow us to tell whether any real candidate or suspect was God (or a god) or not. Instead, God is largely defined by imaginary qualities ─ omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, eternal, infinite et cetera (or rather, blah blah).

Nor am I aware of any definition of "godness", the quality a real god would have and a real superscientist who could create universes &c would lack.

Well, I have one. The universe/God is real, orderly and knowable. Those 3 properties as assumptions are ontological idealism and thus in effect God.
Now I can't prove them, but you are also a believer in a God, because you believe the external world is real. But real is ontological idealism.

 

[blü 2]

Well, I have one. The universe/God is real, orderly and knowable.

So, you say, 'God' is a synonym for 'universe'? Then the word is not only redundant but VERY widely misunderstood ─ it seems to be generally taken to mean 'imaginary boss superbeing'.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So, you say, 'God' is a synonym for 'universe'? Then the word is not only redundant but VERY widely misunderstood ─ it seems to be generally taken to mean 'imaginary boss superbeing'.

I didn't say that. I said that the assumptions that the external world is real, orderly and knowable are in effect ontological idealism and thus a God.
I didn't claim anything theological or the like.

 

[blü 2]

I didn't say that. I said that the assumptions that the external world is real, orderly and knowable are in effect ontological idealism and thus a God.
I didn't claim anything theological or the like.

It has the same justification as science ─ it works.

Plus, I don't assume the external world is any more orderly than can be inductively generalized empirically, and I freely acknowledge that nothing protects our understandings for the time being from unknowns, both known and unknown.

No sign of an imaginary chief superbeing anywhere.

 

[Zwing]

The first problem here ─ one that I'd say precedes your question ─ is the question, "What real thing do we mean to denote when we say 'God'?"

Quite true, and there is another even further preceding question: can we truly ascribe existence to the immaterial such as are represented by the OmniGod? Indeed, a related question appears to be, “what does it mean to ‘exist’”? Is this describing only physical existence, or are there other types of existence? There are a lot of associated questions.

 

[Zwing]

I'm not aware of any definition of a god with objective existence, a definition which would allow us to tell whether any real candidate or suspect was God (or a god) or not.

Well, even though Christians claim an omnipresent God, meaning to them that God is immaterial (as opposed to “God is everything”, the pantheistic claim), they yet give indications of the concept of God as discrete. For instance, the notion that Jesus “sits at God’s right hand” (which may very well be metaphorical language, though most Christians don’t even think about it). Other indications yet obtain: the concept of “heaven” (along with “hell”) as a place, the concept of the “New Jerusalem” found in the book of Revelation where God will reside upon its “throne”, the idea of eternity “with God” for the redeemed, etc., etc. The thing about discrete, discontinuous objects, is that they must be physical in nature to be so; absolute continuity is only achievable by “spirit”. In fact, “a thing which is absolutely continuous” is probably a definition of “spirit”. So, Christians conceive of a God with absolute continuity which can at once be thought of as being discrete as doctrine demands. Jews do not display the same inconsistency; for them (despite occasional, historic physical manifestations), God is purely and utterly continuous and immaterial: pure spirit. I think the same for Muslims, which is the essence of the Muslim answer to Christian’s’ claim regarding the deity of Jesus.

 

[blü 2]

Quite true, and there is another even further preceding question: can we truly ascribe existence to the immaterial such as are represented by the OmniGod? Indeed, a related question appears to be, “what does it mean to ‘exist’”? Is this describing only physical existence, or are there other types of existence? There are a lot of associated questions.

The only manner in which the supernatural and its beings are known to exist is as concepts, ideas, things imagined, in individual brains. (To be fair, the same is true of the entities of mathematics, but those are part of a rigorous system whose origins were as generalizations about concepts of real things observed.)

Well, even though Christians claim an omnipresent God, meaning to them that God is immaterial (as opposed to “God is everything”, the pantheistic claim), they yet give indications of the concept of God as discrete. For instance, the notion that Jesus “sits at God’s right hand” (which may very well be metaphorical language, though most Christians don’t even think about it).

The notion of Jesus sitting at God's right hand is, as you say, hard to pin down, but one thing is clear ─ like the rest of the NT, but not like most of the modern Christian churches since the 4th century, when the Trinity doctrine was formalized, it clearly distinguishes Jesus from God.

 

[Zwing]

The only manner in which the supernatural and its beings are known to exist is as concepts, ideas, things imagined, in individual brains.

Yes, purely subjective, though Christians will exert themselves to assert objective existence to God. The question, then, is: is there any such thing as “subjective existence” which has logical validity? The subjective, by its very nature, would seem to be non-demonstrable, while demonstrability would seem to be a characteristic of existence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, purely subjective, though Christians will exert themselves to assert objective existence to God. The question, then, is: is there any such thing as “subjective existence” which has logical validity?

There are other posts of your relevant, but here is 2 common problems with existence.
The first one is that existence has no observable property. The problem is this, you and I are looking at a cat and I say: The cat exists. You then ask me this: How do you observe that the cat has a property of existence?
Existence is an abstract philosophical concept, which has no objective referent.
The second problem is related to truth. If I with truth can state that something doesn't exist, then in effect non-existence is true. But that is absurd, because non-existence is considered false in effect.

There is more but that relates to objective reality in itself and how that fits in with someone being subjective.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The existence of God(s) cannot be proved by science, because of the lack of objective verifiable evidence.

I'm not sure about that.

It seems to me that establishing that a species is extinct and establishing that a given god does not exist are based on almost exactly the same rationale.

Do you think that we can scientifically establish that a species is extinct?

 

[Audie]

I'm not sure about that.

It seems to me that establishing that a species is extinct and establishing that a given god does not exist are based on almost exactly the same rationale.

Do you think that we can scientifically establish that a species is extinct?

Depends on the species.

T rex and pterodactyls, yes.

Tasmanian wolf not certain.

Depends in the God too. The one who did a world wide flood does not exist.

 

[blü 2]

Yes, purely subjective, though Christians will exert themselves to assert objective existence to God. The question, then, is: is there any such thing as “subjective existence” which has logical validity? The subjective, by its very nature, would seem to be non-demonstrable, while demonstrability would seem to be a characteristic of existence.

Well, perhaps this is where the question about mathematical objects ─ 1, 2, 3, e, i, π, not least ∞ &c ─ comes in. Or the difference between 'this chair' and 'a chair'. We conceptualize and generalize as part of learning to talk in earliest infancy, but quite a few of our nouns refer to specific things with objective existence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, perhaps this is where the question about mathematical objects ─ 1, 2, 3, e, i, π, not least ∞ &c ─ comes in. Or the difference between 'this chair' and 'a chair'. We conceptualize and generalize as part of learning to talk in earliest infancy, but quite a few of our nouns refer to specific things with objective existence.

Yes and the "we" you use is a case of strong objective physical existence independent of all thoughts in any sense of subjective processes in brains.
In fact all the words you use all have objective concrete physical referents.
In fact you are so objective that you don't even have an individual brain and you newer do anything subjective.

 

[Zwing]

It seems to me that establishing that a species is extinct and establishing that a given god does not exist are based on almost exactly the same rationale.

No, the difference being in means of verification; species are perceptible, while gods appear not to be.

 

[Zwing]

Or the difference between 'this chair' and 'a chair'.

Well, this one is, at least, subject to rationale. “The chair” refers to a concrete object, while “a chair” refers to an abstraction, a conception.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Indeed, a related question appears to be, “what does it mean to ‘exist’”? Is this describing only physical existence, or are there other types of existence? There are a lot of associated questions.

You might find this comment posted yesterday relevant to your question. I was a response to, "There of course is a good reason that people cannot detect God. God is spirit":

"When you describe something as (necessarily) undetectable, you are saying that it doesn't interact with reality, reality being the collection of objects and processes that interact with one another in space and time, all of which are detectable. If it did, you could detect that [interaction]. Necessarily undetectable, which describes every nonexistent thing and only nonexistent things, thus means nonexistent."

Then in response to a comment about the supernatural, I added this:

"There is no supernatural. Since the supernatural is in principle undetectable, that is, there is no aided or unaided sensory organ receiving or capable of receiving evidence of this putative realm, the concept is self-contradictory (incoherent) according to the same argument given above. There is only nature (reality). Whatever is part of it is detectable, and whatever is necessarily undetectable is not."

The only manner in which the supernatural and its beings are known to exist is as concepts, ideas, things imagined, in individual brains. (To be fair, the same is true of the entities of mathematics, but those are part of a rigorous system whose origins were as generalizations about concepts of real things observed.)

Agreed. Abstractions induced from experience correspond and refer to external referents, and if they can help us accurately determine outcomes in reality, they can be called knowledge and their referents real (existent). Imagination, which is capable of generating all manner of false and unfalsifiable ideas is radically different.