Reasons to not believe in God? Discuss....

[LuisDantas]

That would be a bit disrespectful. I will grant that it is tempting...

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Do you have any sources? I don't think that is quite true.

I could probably find something, I was answering based on life experience of lab tests, lab reports, science degrees, science world etc.

What's your experience with science (just curious as it helps to understand where you are coming from)?

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Here you go:

Scientific Hypothesis, Theory, Law Definitions

Note it says a theory can be disproven and is only valid along as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore it is not conclusive in the sense it can't be disproven and the answer has been found for all eternity. For example, I find it hard to believe that 2+2 will ever not equal 4.

But what your saying is 2+2=4 is as true as evolution. While I accept both as facts, I doubt the first will ever change, where as evolution, there is room for manoeuvre.

 

[LuisDantas]

A theory can be disproven, and people are expected to attempt to.

It can never be proven, though. Even if it is the pure, literal and unquestionable truth.

Note it says a theory can be disproven and is only valid along as there is no evidence to dispute it.

That is quite right.

Therefore it is not conclusive in the sense it can't be disproven and the answer has been found for all eternity.

Indeed. Thief's certainty aside, science does not deal with those kinds of statements. The closest it has are theories.

For example, I find it hard to believe that 2+2 will ever not equal 4.

Mathematics, however, is a human construction. It does not say anything about how things are in reality, despite superficial appearances.

But what your saying is 2+2=4 is as true as evolution.

No, I am not. It is even truer, in fact, because it was built that way.

Scientific "truth" is by definition not quite as definitive as mathematical truth. But it is as good as it gets when describing the actual concrete world.

While I accept both as facts, I doubt the first will ever change, where as evolution, there is room for manoeuvre.

Some, indeed. The theory is still being refined, and will likely remain so for centuries if not millenia.

It is still very much an established fact nevertheless.

 

[Ouroboros]

God would have to be the exception.
Otherwise...God was a mortal.

Or God wasn't a person. Mortality only applies to physical beings. Beings as we know them are physical.

Beget of substance, He will be busy saving His own soul.

Only if God is a being per your definition. Think of God being something that we don't understand instead.

And you have no hope for your own.

Trying to scare me?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Therefore it is not conclusive in the sense it can't be disproven and the answer has been found for all eternity. For example, I find it hard to believe that 2+2 will ever not equal 4.

You might want to think more deeply into 2+2=4.

It simply means that we seem able to distinguish objects from one another.

We see one, two, three, four objects. The math part is just our symbolic, mental construct with which we try to discuss those objects.

Math is just a language, a man-made language. And "2+2=4" is a sentence in that language.

Your claim above just means, "I find it hard to believe that four objects will ever not be four objects."

So it seems to me anyway.

 

[Ouroboros]

You might want to think more deeply into 2+2=4.

It simply means that we seem able to distinguish objects from one another.

We see one, two, three, four objects. The math part is just our symbolic, mental construct with which we try to discuss those objects.

Yup.

Just consider, 2 bananas + 2 tires = 4 things, is not the same as 2 bananas + 2 bananas = 4 bananas.

And also in response to the thought that 2+2=4 is always true, isn't if 2 is large enough. (A reference to recent debates about science.)

 

[McBell]

It could graduate to 'proof'.

Theory is speculation....belief.

Proof renders the discussion dead.
There can be no further objection.

Scientific theory

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive — that is, they seek to supply strong evidence for but not absolute proof of the truth of the conclusion—and they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]​

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Here you go:

Scientific Hypothesis, Theory, Law Definitions

Note it says a theory can be disproven and is only valid along as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore it is not conclusive in the sense it can't be disproven and the answer has been found for all eternity. For example, I find it hard to believe that 2+2 will ever not equal 4.

But what your saying is 2+2=4 is as true as evolution. While I accept both as facts, I doubt the first will ever change, where as evolution, there is room for manoeuvre.

2+2=4 has been proven based on the mathematical properties of the numbers "2" and "4" and the arithmetic operation of addition. Scientific conclusions that depend on observations (e.g. evolution or gravity) are still subject to the problem of hard solipsismEpistemological solipsism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - i.e. that the world outside our own minds cannot be proven to exist with absolute certainty, since there always remains the possibility - however slight - that all of our sensory perceptions are the product of some sort of elaborate fiction.

... but that problem affects all human knowledge except things based on human created defintions like certain parts of math.

 

[Thief]

Scientific theory

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive — that is, they seek to supply strong evidence for but not absolute proof of the truth of the conclusion—and they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]​

The source I found uses the word 'belief'.
Found that on the web ....just like you did.

I see the words.... explanation.....strong evidence...but not absolute.....

Sort of like believing in Moses.

Maybe you've noticed....yesterdays science will be overturned.

Now...did you want to reason about God?

 

[Thief]

Hmmm no its not, Im talking about scientific theory which is generally accepted as factual on the answer to a particular question based on strong evidence. However for whatever reason, cant be proven conclusively.

Like the existence of a singularity?

And it's Creator?

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Like the existence of a singularity?

And it's Creator?

No....

 

[Thief]

Please expand a little bit more....

 

[Thief]

Like how the mind comes from the brain? It has been made to "proof" thousands and thousands of times. Spirit comes from substance. That's what the proof shows.


No, the problem is that the "proof" shows otherwise, and many decides not to hear about it.


The proof is that spirit comes from mind which comes from brain that comes from substance. So what's your evidence? Your evidence is that there is no evidence?


Reason, God, Cause, Effect, Universe, is all ONE. I AM means All That Is, including you and me.


Sorry for having the proof for the opposite.

I don't see anything worth while here.

Spirit from the brain?.....ok.
But I've been saying that for decades.
We ARE here to learn all that we can before we die.

Then we go before heaven.
If your sayings are worthwhile....fine and good.

So....you don't think your separate from me?
Brother s are we?

 

[psychoslice]

Its not believing in God, but thinking you know what God is, we can never know what God is, the source that I call God is beyond the mind, so if we try to say what God is, we are really showing our ignorance, and this ignorance is what those who don't believe will take advantage of.

 

[Thief]

Its not believing in God, but thinking you know what God is, we can never know what God is, the source that I call God is beyond the mind, so if we try to say what God is, we are really showing our ignorance, and this ignorance is what those who don't believe will take advantage of.

Well I have no religion...so the dogmatic approach won't be here.

But believing in God and this person (myself) having a mind and heart.....
I suspect the same of the Creator.

We might have some difficulty wrapping our thoughts around a Being capable of creation.
We might have some emotional hesitation (a basic fear) of Something we cannot control.

But dealing with God ...face to face....yeah
I suspect it will happen.
I strongly suspect heaven has a personal interest whatever might stand up from the dust.

If you don't know God as you live in this life.....you will in the next.
I see no means to circumvent.

 

[McBell]

Well I have no religion...so the dogmatic approach won't be here.

:biglaugh:

Your dogma remains regardless of how much you deny it.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm afraid Mestemia nailed it.

 

[psychoslice]

Well I have no religion...so the dogmatic approach won't be here.

But believing in God and this person (myself) having a mind and heart.....
I suspect the same of the Creator.

We might have some difficulty wrapping our thoughts around a Being capable of creation.
We might have some emotional hesitation (a basic fear) of Something we cannot control.

But dealing with God ...face to face....yeah
I suspect it will happen.
I strongly suspect heaven has a personal interest whatever might stand up from the dust.

If you don't know God as you live in this life.....you will in the next.
I see no means to circumvent.

I don't like the word God myself, I have had my own experience of what I call the Source, but it certainly isn't a Source with a beard, or a body, its all there is.

 

[psychoslice]

:biglaugh:

Your dogma remains regardless of how much you deny it.

I don't think its dogma that he has, dogma is when you believe what you believe is right, and anything else is wrong, its your dogma that you believe in, some don't have a dogma, their experience is their own.