God is disproven by science? Really?

[Zwing]

Any claim that there was a flood is ignorant or
a lie.

I agree, but my point is, that this does not disprove the existence of deity. Anyone who thinks that he has disproof of the existence of deity is just as deluded as is the theist; it is best for a person to avoid all delusion by simply accepting that he should not believe in deity because he has no adequate verification of the supernatural “pro deo” proposition, while accepting that he has no disproof of deity, and simply move on…

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Etymologically, “religion”, from Latin religio (religio < re- “again”/“repeatedly” + lego “to care for/about” + -io ‘suffix forming nouns from verbs’) indicates that which a person repeatedly, or ritually, displays a profound concern about.

OK. Are you arguing that that establishes the word's meaning? Probably not. If not, why include it here? Words mean what people say they mean, and this evolve over time. I reserve the word religion for supernatural worldviews containing gods. I also tell you that so that you know what I mean when I use the word. Linguistic prescriptivists object, but that doesn't matter.

The religious reject my definition of faith, too, but that also doesn't matter. I generally reject theirs. But as long as I know what they mean when they use the word a virtue that pleases God - they're communicating effectively when they use it. And if they pay attention to me when I tell them that it means the means of holding unjustified beliefs, then they understand me when I use the word even if we define it differently.

And many object to my definition of atheist, but once again, so what? And my definitions of truth and knowledge. Same answer.

Point is, [religion] need not involve the supernatural.

Agreed, as we see with your usage of the word, but it does when I use the word, because that's the most useful way for me to define it.

 

[Zwing]

I also tell you that so that you know what I mean when I use the word.

I don’t say that your definition is wrong, I merely indicate that it is not comprehensive. If you limit the practice of religion to the acceptance of the supernatural, then you rob a whole host of people who do not accept or observe the supernatural of their own “religious observance”. What utility to yourself carries sufficient gravitas for you to be willing to do as much? It is helpful if we can commonly agree upon certain basic definitions as premises to discussing such topics as we do here. After all, if I were to insist upon calling a tree “a house”, and a house”a bird”, then we could not discuss subjective reality with any efficacy. In like manner, it becomes hard for us to discuss the various topics of religion if we lack a commonly held definition of what can be considered religion or religious. The narrowing of the definition that you have adopted seems to impede useful dialogue.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

A contradiction you create for yourself, as you seem to like being confused more than having understanding.

As far as I'm concerned, you're part of objective reality, and (I trust) as far you're concerned I'm part of objective reality. That's always been the case. Pay attention, class!

Well, a part of one definition of objective is independent of individual thought and for subjective dependent on individual thought, so if I relevant for being a part of the objective reality am both independent of individual thought and dependent on individual thought then that is a contradiction.

The 2 definitions:
-of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers
-influenced by or based on personal beliefs or feelings, rather than based on facts
as per this example given: I think my husband is the most handsome man in the world, but I realize my judgment is rather subjective.

The problem is this for this debate.
The objective reality to you is objective as it is independent of you and your thoughts. Thus I am objective in the objective reality as it is independent to you and thus I can't be subjective since I am in the objective reality.

The answer is to read all of the definition of objective:

-of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers

The objective reality is all that is independent of all cases of individual thought.
I had this debate with @MikeF too and no, brains for all their processes are not objective just because they are physical and natural.
Objective and subjective denote relationship relative to brains.
If there were no humans or rather general life with complex enough brains there would be no objective or subjective, but that is not the same as physical and natural.

So F1fan, I have learned from you at least once. Now it is your turn.

 

[Audie]

I agree, but my point is, that this does not disprove the existence of deity. Anyone who thinks that he has disproof of the existence of deity is just as deluded as is the theist; it is best for a person to avoid all delusion by simply accepting that he should not believe in deity because he has no adequate verification of the supernatural “pro deo” proposition, while accepting that he has no disproof of deity, and simply move on…

The flood deoty deity does ot exist. Neither does the one who , oh, boils the ocean once a week.
Simple.

 

[Zwing]

The flood deoty deity does ot exist. Neither does the one who , oh, boils the ocean once a week.
Simple.

Okay, prove it. Show that your assertion is deserving of the label verum…that it has a truth value of “true”. Bet ‘ya can’t. You see, you and I can conjecture that the God does not exist, but we cannot demonstrate it.

 

[blü 2]

Well, a part of one definition of objective is independent of individual thought and for subjective dependent on individual thought, so if I relevant for being a part of the objective reality am both independent of individual thought and dependent on individual thought then that is a contradiction.

No, it's not a contradiction. As I said, for me, you're part of nature, part of not-me, and for you, I trust, I'm part of nature, part of not-you.

The 2 definitions:
-of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.

I'd say, existing in the world external to the self, which we know about through our senses. And of course many things ─ microorganisms, large parts of the spectrum, distant stars, atomic particles, and more ─ are only detectable via our instruments. The Higgs boson wasn't real until 2012, for instance; but after that it was real retrospectively. And it will stay real unless and until our understanding of such things alters. Science doesn't make absolute statements.

-influenced by or based on personal beliefs or feelings, rather than based on facts

We simply do our best, and we try to use the imagination with care, testing our hypotheses and our conclusions with repeatable experiments.

 

[Audie]

Okay, prove it. Show that your assertion is deserving of the label verum…that it has a truth value of “true”. Bet ‘ya can’t. You see, you and I can conjecture that the God does not exist, but we cannot demonstrate it.

Since there was no flood the God that did the flood is fuction. If that doesn't suit you then it doesnt

 

[Zwing]

Since there was no flood the God that did the flood is fuction. If that doesn't suit you then it doesnt

There is no relationship of dependence between the God and the flood; the actuality of the God does not depend upon the flood having occurred. What if the God exists, but the flood story is no more than a myth in which the fictitious flood was attributed to that God?

 

[Audie]

There is no relationship of dependence between the God and the flood; the actuality of the God does not depend upon the flood having occurred. What if the God exists, but the flood story is no more than a myth in which the fictitious flood was attributed to that God?

What if no God exists?

I figure it's a given that flood -god is as mythical as any other.

Try this- if God inspired the Bible writers, but not
the flood story, is it not so that the God that the
flood writer described did not actally exist?

 

[Zwing]

What if no God exists?

Personally, I suppose that no gods/deities exist, but I also know that I cannot prove that any more than a theist can prove the existence of a god, and I am happy living with that. Do you see where I’m coming from?

 

[shunyadragon]

Disregarded. You probably know that the phrase "not even wrong" means neither the term wrong nor right apply. A claim has to be falsifiable to be shown to be correct or incorrect, neither of which is possible for the unfalsifiable.

I'm not sure why you've included this. I haven't been discussing ancient views, just modern god claims and how they should be viewed and evaluated according to the principles of reason applied to evidence seen in science and law, for example. I don't consider any god claims ancient or modern factual. As I said, if they're unfalsifiable, they are neither correct nor incorrect.

In an episode of Seinfeld, Jerry and George are arguing about whether Superman had a sense of humor, since although he smiled, he didn't laugh and wasn't witty:

Jerry: I think Superman probably has a very good sense of humor.
George: I never heard him say anything really funny.
Jerry: But it's common sense. He's got super strength, super speed. I'm sure he's got super humor.
George: You would think that, but either you're born with a sense of humor, or you're not. It's not going to change even if you go from the red sun of Krypton all the way to the yellow sun of the Earth.
Jerry: Why? Why would that one area of his mind not be affected by the yellow sun of Earth?
George: I don't know. But he ain't funny.

Which one is right and which is wrong? Neither is either, because they're making unfalsifiable ("not even wrong") claims.

Others have already said this, and I agree with them: The god of the Old Testament flooded the earth. If that never happened, that god doesn't exist. Perhaps other gods that never flooded the earth exist, but not that one. In the past, people have argued that we are misunderstanding what the Great Flood was, and they redefine it. But that doesn't rescue the god that allegedly drowned the earth. It presents a new mythology worthy of a new god or pantheon of gods that didn't drown the entire earth.

You're confusing biological evolution (the natural selection of genes) and cultural evolution (the artificial selection of memes).

What's ingrained in humanity is children engaging in magical thinking and viewing the father figure, whether the head of the family or tribe, as powerful, intelligent, judgmental, and to be obeyed. The priesthood exploited these tendencies and carved out a great niche for itself - no hard labor, work indoors, supported for life by people bringing them money every week to tell others how to live, and instant respect and social status. But notice the need to maintain these immature ideas through adulthood, which is especially difficult in a world trying to educate children to think critically. Religion is dying where education flourishes, which is your evidence that there is no god gene. Just stop telling susceptible people about gods, let them mature outside of religion, and they have no need for either.

Rejected not relevant nor a coherent response to my posts,

 

[shunyadragon]

Not at all.

TRUTH is not a topic in science. But you
post something to the contrary.

I nor the reference cited anything to the contrary. The reference only described what science does not deal with concerning claims of 'Truth/'
I detect a reading comprehension issue that ignored the substance of the reference.

That's your out of touch inept and inapt, not mine.

Yes your's

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You see, you and I can conjecture that the God does not exist, but we cannot demonstrate it.

Therefore? There are a plethora of fantastical things the non-existence of which cannot be demonstrated, but that hardly warrants a belief in white ravens.

 

[shunyadragon]

Okay, prove it. Show that your assertion is deserving of the label verum…that it has a truth value of “true”. Bet ‘ya can’t. You see, you and I can conjecture that the God does not exist, but we cannot demonstrate it.

I believe the 'hands on' God of the OT wrecking havoc and causing a world flood cleansing the world population can be demonstrated to unlikely ever existed, but of course, it cannot be proven.

Like all mythical Gods of ancient tribal religions they represent fallible human views of God, but does not prove nor demonstrate whether a Universal God exists or not.

 

[Audie]

I nor the reference cited anything to the contrary. The reference only described what science does not deal with concerning claims of 'Truth/'
I detect a reading comprehension issue that ignored the substance of the reference.

Yes your's

It's not a sign of poor reading skill to notice
that the reference to ' all sorts of Truth" is ambiguous.

Clarifying your chosen take on what it means would
be more responsive than saying I am incompetent.

The cant in the article is of course evident in
it's endorsement of Truth as a reality, and it's nonsensical
claim of precluding ID as a possibility.

So a nonsensical appraisal of the relationship of "Truth"
to science seems not an unreasonable way to see the
ambiguity.

" For those in doubt" as your article puts it,
the grasp of matters scientific on the part of
the author is well demonstrated by their
citing of all people , Dembsky on the nature
of science.

Why you would post it would be for you
to explain.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I don’t say that your definition is wrong, I merely indicate that it is not comprehensive.

I find no advantage in broadening the extension of the definition of the word religion to include both naturalistic and supernaturalisitic worldviews. I just use different language than you do. What you call a religion I call a worldview.

If you limit the practice of religion to the acceptance of the supernatural, then you rob a whole host of people who do not accept or observe the supernatural of their own “religious observance”.

I'm robbing people of something by my defining religion as a supernatural worldview? Do I rob myself in your opinion by saying that my atheistic humanistic worldview is not a religion?

It is helpful if we can commonly agree upon certain basic definitions as premises to discussing such topics as we do here.

The more our definitions overlap, the better we will understand one another without clarification. I am aware that many of my definitions need to be stated explicitly at some point, and I do this often. And I could communicate my ideas by calling Christianity a supernaturalistic religion and atheistic humanism a naturalistic religion, but it's unnatural to me.

The narrowing of the definition that you have adopted seems to impede useful dialogue.

Can you give me an example of that? Aren't we communicating well now?

Narrowing definitions improves communication. It makes the definition more specific. I'm a bridge player. During the bidding, we are trying to indicate the distribution of the four suits and the number of high cards in our hands to our partners. In the old days, a two spade (2S) response to a one spade (1S) opening bid from partner showed 3 or more spades and 6-9 points worth of high cards. Today, we have more granularity in our bidding. Today, we show 6-7 points and 3 exactly spades differently than 8-9 points and 4+ spades. We did this by narrowing definitions. A 2S response now shows 8-9 points and exactly 3-card spade support.

 

[Zwing]

Therefore? There are a plethora of fantastical things the non-existence of which cannot be demonstrated, but that hardly warrants a belief in white ravens.

Right, it warrants nothing save a certain philosophical position, which is the most important thing, and the point of all this.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Right, it warrants nothing save a certain philosophical position, which is the most important thing, and the point of all this.

Most important in what sense?

 

[shunyadragon]

It's not a sign of poor reading skill to notice
that the reference to ' all sorts of Truth" is ambiguous.

Clarifying your chosen take on what it means would
be more responsive than saying I am incompetent.

The cant in the article is of course evident in
it's endorsement of Truth as a reality, and it's nonsensical
claim of precluding ID as a possibility.

So a nonsensical appraisal of the relationship of "Truth"
to science seems not an unreasonable way to see the
ambiguity.

" For those in doubt" as your article puts it,
the grasp of matters scientific on the part of
the author is well demonstrated by their
citing of all people , Dembsky on the nature
of science.

Why you would post it would be for you
to explain.

No ambiguity at all in simple English language. Wordy response not meaningful.

I nor the reference cited anything to the contrary. The reference only described what science does not deal with concerning claims of 'Truth/'
I detect a reading comprehension issue that ignored the substance of the reference.