-
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!
Who's really right?
- Thread starter NotWhatYouReadOrWrite
- Start date
Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
Why should we think God is observable by methods available to science?
Zephyr
Moved on
So it's not? Then how the hell could it be observed?
Beaudreaux
Well-Known Member
Exsqueeze me?!?! AFAIK, there is not one piece of empirical data that points to the existence of God. Have you found something I have missed?
Please do not point to "the wonder of creation" as such an argument is circular and in many other ways flawed. I will give you some examples of empirical data that clearly point to a conclusion.
- Empirical Data: Every time penicillin is introduced to certain bacteria, the bacteria die.
Conclusion: Penicillin is an antibiotic - Empirical Data: Every time I release an object from my hand 4' above a surface, the object falls.
Conclusion: Unsuspended objects fall . - Empirical Data: When Howard Stern moved his show to Sirius satellite radio, the company added 6 million new subscribers in the next 4 months (doubling their base).
Conclusion: Many people subscribed to Sirius because they like Howard Stern's show.
Beaudreaux
Well-Known Member
Because science deals exclusively with observable phenomena. Evidence is observable. What's the problem?
Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
"In hell". That's funny.
As John Calvin and St. Thomas suggested, it's through the sensus divinitatus, a sort of naturally inherent faculty for perceiving the divine (and probably moral truths). On a Christian understanding, this faculty is aided and abetted by God himself through the self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit impressing the truths on the heart of the believer.
Beaudreaux
Well-Known Member
"In hell". That's funny.
Wow....not exactly as simple as peering into a petrie dish, is it? So, I think you'd have to agree that God is not observable through the 5 senses the rest of the world uses to observe thiings, correct? I mean, since observing him requires special non-physical abilities with latin names....
Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
Possibly. I contend that the existence of the universe itself sits much better in a theological universe than an atheological one (wonders aside for the moment, although, unlike you, I find those wonders probative and persuasive). There is also the resurrection of Jesus. I don't say that such observations are coercive. One might acknowledge the resurrection of Jesus and still deny the existence of God without succumbing to irrationality (wow, what a weird world we happen to live in). But they are signposts giving showing us the direction in the midst of a fog as it were.
However, and most importantly, I think that beliefs in and about God can be properly basic (that is, no evidence is required for those beliefs to be warranted).
Beaudreaux
Well-Known Member
It has been explained quite clearly. God is observable as long as you use something other than human senses. Boy do I feel stupid for saying there was no empirical evidence for God.
Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
Okay, how's "divine sense" for non-latin.
Besides, physical perception is nowhere NEAR simple.
And yes, I'd agree God is not "observable" (using that term analogically here) through the five senses. But I'd simply point out that we have more than five senses, and at least one of those others involves the perception of God (and probably moral truths). Humans with properly functioning cognitive faculties will form true beliefs about God under the right circumstances.
Beaudreaux
Well-Known Member
Well, the problem is that Jesus' resurrection is not empirically observable. Sure people wrote down that it happened, but people also wrote down that the entire earth was covered in deep water for 40 days and that a man named Lao Tze had a mother who was pregnant for 70 years and gave birth to him as a fully grown man. Don't get me started on the other things the ancients claimed to have happened. Do you know of anything we can observe directly (not something that was written about in early history) that clearly points to the existence of an omnimax God?
Beaudreaux
Well-Known Member
Eximius!Okay, how's "divine sense" for non-latin.
What evidence to you have that there are more than 5 senses?
OmarKhayyam
Well-Known Member
"In hell". That's funny.
And why should all this hocus pocus be necessary? The universe this god thing allegedly created is comprehensible and even predictable using nothing but reason and a few tools.
The thing that did all this and made all this understandable - THAT thing is not currently available for observation.
WHY is that?
NotWhatYouReadOrWrite
New Member
Well, that's the end of the thread, you guys. I'm just a kid, so give me a bit of a break. Promise my next thread will be a lot better.
NotWhatYouReadOrWrite
New Member
Thanks 4 your opinions.
You mean like what you're doing right now?
How can you possibly know that?
Uh, lots of animals have senses that we don't have, and our senses SUCK!!!
That's funny.
The universe is nothing but a giant surprise party and full of things that CAN'T be predicted.
WHY is that?
Or maybe it is, but not recognized.
Beaudreaux
Well-Known Member
There is not an animal on the planet that can begin to compete with the machines we have built to augment our senses. SONAR, Telescopes, Microscopes, olefactory machines that check for explosives, seismographs, etc., etc. And do you know what NONE of these machines has EVER found?......