The reason for the distinction, however, is not to satisfy theists; it is to render a cogent and valid argument.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
God is disproven by science? Really?
- Thread starter MrIntelligentDesign
- Start date
It would not be meaningless to a theist, though, and this is the point. The entire reason for making arguments against theism is to implant grains of possible doubt in the theists mind; why would I waste my time otherwise? The hope is, that when the vagaries of life in this world put a theist on his back, I may remind him of my arguments, and ask him “so, where’s your god now, bro?”
I think you missed my point.
If we ask a theist questions like "what do you mean by 'God'?" and "why do you think God is real?", we'll inevitably end up finding attributes that imply that an undetectable God isn't actually the God they believe in.
There's a semantic bait-and-switch going on, and for any God that anyone actually believes in, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Saying that we can't falsify God-the-vague-thing-whose-only-attribute-is-being-undetectable has zero bearing on the falsifiability of God-the-being-who-I-worship-on-Sundays-because-I-think-he-told-us-to-in-one-of-his-many-interactions-with-humanity.
Sure, but the argument is not only that we cannot falsify the existence of God, but also that, and why, we should not believe in such a thing despite the concept being unfalsifiable. In fact, the unfalsifiability of the concept of God isn’t even a necessary accompaniment to that argument; it is more for the benefit of the atheist as an argument against antitheism.
The unfalsifiability of God through science is a given regardless of belief and lack of belief .
My argument for the what I believe is the only viable possibility is for a universal God beyond identity described as God from the perspective any one religion or belief. The problem is Theists arguing from an ancient tribal perspective as they do gives atheists an argument against the God of ancient cultures without science. There is no evidence of the 'hands on God(s)' described in their scriptures that is not apparent today. In this argument the God of the ancient cultures is a human view of a Universal God from culture of the time. Actually over time the God of the ancients evolves to possibly a Universal God in harmony with science, and the nature of the fallible human world.
I have empathy for the atheists and agnostics and to a degree, and they have valid arguments against the God(s) of ancient tribal cultures.
Nonetheless they do argue against the necessary existence of the Universal God
Last edited:
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
I get that, but I fear that most of the time it's an exercise in futility.
To explain why, I think a Dr House quote illustrates it best:
You can't reason someone out of a position that he didn't reason himself into in the first place.
In other words, you assume that reason and reasonable arguments will make a theist reconsider his beliefs. In my experience, that rarely ever happens - if at all.
Reasonable argumentation isn't what underpins their beliefs. So why would reasonable argumentation make them reconsider their beliefs?
I off course agree though that we should always make the reasonable argument, even when we know in advance it will likely fall on deaf ears - just in case.
But mostly, I think one will have more succes by pointing out how the beliefs themselves aren't reasonable by making them realize that what they belief has no rational justification.
The problem though, again, is that rational justification generally isn't considered that important by them, if at all.
And the more radical the believer, the more true that is.
Love that.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
It dates back way earlier than the esteemed Dr House.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Those are interesting questions.
No not really.
It explains how both animate and inanimate objects continue in their existence, but rarely does it explain with any certainty, how they began their existence.
Scientific publications, even those peer-reviewed, are replete with suggestive language, full of “might be”, “possibly”, could have been”, etc., when discussing origins (of anything.)
The explanations of how planet Earth formed … and naturally began its stable orbit around the Sun … and how it received its abundant water; that always cracked me up.
Oh, and how the first living cell originated, the first animal cell with its protective and complex lipid/protein membrane & the first cellulose cell wall in plants, is another.
Oh, and how….
I’ll stop.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Please don't complain just because you do not understand scientific language. That does not help your case. It only makes look ignorant.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
See @Hockeycowboy , that is how you argue against the OP.
1 John 5:19, NLT
(New Living Translation)
We know that we are children of God and that the world around us is under the control of the evil one.
At John 12:31, Jesus said there is a “ruler of this world”, that’s not God:
Now judgment is upon this world. Now the ruler of this world will be cast out.
2 Corinthians 4:4 also makes it clear that there’s a powerful one working against God:
(English Revised Version)
in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them.
Luke 4:5,6 reveals who this is:
5Then the devil took him up and revealed to him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. 6“I will give you the glory of these kingdoms and authority over them,” the devil said, “because they are mine to give to anyone I please. 7I will give it all to you if you will worship me.”
Instead of trying to implant doubts (because obviously it won’t work with me), maybe you should try to learn why the Bible says these things?
It explains why conditions are so bad, and confusion abounds.
Everyday, the world news, and how I see events developing globally, validates my pov, and is completely in harmony with my Biblical understanding, being taught as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Many of us do understand why it says those things. You make the error of assuming that they have any grounds in reality.
And no, confirmation bias is worthless. You are afraid to test your ideas properly.
Audie
Veteran Member
Seriously. What a garbage topic.
Audie
Veteran Member
Oh no, you are just doing confirmation bias
Last edited:
Audie
Veteran Member
" No doubt" as in infallible knowledge.
Nothing explains why there is something rather than nothing. The best we can do is describe how reality manifests. If reality contains a god, we have no answers for why or how.
That's how it should be. Scientists understand the limits of their knowledge and express ideas tentatively, that is, their degree of believability is commensurate with the quality and quantity of available relevant evidence and is amenable to revision with new discoveries. That's a feature of science, not a bug. The bug is the inflexibility of unjustified religious certitude in unfalsifiable claims.
Really? You know that story? It's fascinating. Do you know about the enrichment of the nebula that became our solar system by at least two supernova explosions? Do you know about the moon-forming impact with Theia and how that enlarged the earth and its core enough that it's still hot and generating a life-protecting magnetic field? Do you know about Jupiter and Saturn's migration through the young solar system and how that led to the late heavy bombardment of the rocky planets including earth with asteroids and comets delivering volatiles including oceans of water? Imagine those late Hadean days, with the earth too hot for liquid water and it all being in the atmosphere as vapor. Eventually, the earth cools to where steam can condense into water droplets, and the first rain appears on earth.
And then, life on earth appears ...
And then, life on earth appears - also a much more interesting story now that we know more about Mars and the very real possibility of panspermia on earth via impacts of Mars. The argument for that is that life appeared on Earth almost as soon as it cooled enough to support it. Mars, being smaller and further from the sun, cooled sooner, and had evolved into an ocean world with an atmosphere to hold the oceans down and a magnetic field to protect the atmosphere from the solar wind while earth was still steaming. It might well have been the first place abiogenesis occurred in our solar system and the source of the first life on Earth.
But the story isn't over. Earth eventually becomes a free oxygen world leading to multicellular life including animal life, and eventually, an ozone layer and terrestrial life (plants beginning with mosses, flying and crawling insects, and eventually, walking tetrapod vertebrates including man).