You say that there is a god...

[TLK Valentine]

Not literally anything. Create AND Destroy AND Inspire. All three. So most/all inanimate objects are out. Maybe? I don't know for sure.

But yeah, it's a wide open definition. That's why I said:


View attachment 78975

Defining "a god" is not a problem at all. You can scratch that one off the list of objections.

Well, then, going back to the OP:

You say that there is a god, but irrespective of whether or not there actually is, why should I be convinced that you know or are even capable of knowing such a thing?

With so many potential "god" candidates, how is anyone not capable of knowing such a thing?

 

[dybmh]

Well, then, going back to the OP:

With so many potential "god" candidates, how is anyone not capable of knowing such a thing?

Bingo!

Only a very specific type of person. They would be shallow, self-centered, uninspired, and oblivious. Not that people who don't believe in God/god/gods automatically have these qualities. But just about every human being is capable for knowing that a god exists.

The corresponding question / challenge is equally important. How can a person be capable of knowing there are no gods?

 

[nPeace]

But for the purposes of this discussion, what's a definition we can use?

While there are those that are called gods, and in fact there are many gods, there is only one God, because that one created all things. Hence, almighty God. Others migh have the title Mighty God, due to the role they play. Isaiah 9:6
This won't make a difference to the OP though, since I thank it isn't limited to one particular belief in God, or gods.

 

[lukethethird]

Bingo!

Only a very specific type of person. They would be shallow, self-centered, uninspired, and oblivious. Not that people who don't believe in God/god/gods automatically have these qualities. But just about every human being is capable for knowing that a god exists.

The corresponding question / challenge is equally important. How can a person be capable of knowing there are no gods?

What is the science behind the claim that God exists? I ask that question when considering any and all claims of existence, so what is it?

 

[lukethethird]

While there are those that are called gods, and in fact there are many gods, there is only one God, because that one created all things. Hence, almighty God. Others migh have the title Mighty God, due to the role they play. Isaiah 9:6
This won't make a difference to the OP though, since I thank it isn't limited to one particular belief in God, or gods.

What is the science behind the claim that God exists?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Bingo!

Only a very specific type of person. They would be shallow, self-centered, uninspired, and oblivious. Not that people who don't believe in God/god/gods automatically have these qualities. But just about every human being is capable for knowing that a god exists.

The corresponding question / challenge is equally important. How can a person be capable of knowing there are no gods?

What do you mean by knowing?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Bingo!

Only a very specific type of person. They would be shallow, self-centered, uninspired, and oblivious. Not that people who don't believe in God/god/gods automatically have these qualities. But just about every human being is capable for knowing that a god exists.

The corresponding question / challenge is equally important. How can a person be capable of knowing there are no gods?

But for the purposes of this question, are we not referring specifically to a theistic god?

 

[TLK Valentine]

While there are those that are called gods, and in fact there are many gods, there is only one God, because that one created all things. Hence, almighty God. Others migh have the title Mighty God, due to the role they play. Isaiah 9:6

Isaiah 9:6 was used by the Gospel writers to explain Jesus, who, according to Christian theology, is "Almighty God" in human form.
While it's true that the ancient Hebrews were originally henotheistic. by the time Isaiah was written, they had clearly outgrown that phase.

This won't make a difference to the OP though, since I thank it isn't limited to one particular belief in God, or gods.

The theistic god; I know.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But for the purposes of this question, are we not referring specifically to a theistic god?

Yes, but God shifts for what God is at least in one version of philosophy, when you include metaphysics/ontology.

 

[dybmh]

But for the purposes of this question, are we not referring specifically to a theistic god?

Yes. Rain is "a theistic god". A very potent god. It's not my god. But I understand that "rain" is a popular god among pagans. I could be wrong about its popularity, but it's a god none the less. Just because these natural gods have different names and are depicted as human forms in art and myth, those names and forms are just symbols for what the natural forces actually do and how they can actually inspire.

 

[nPeace]

What is the science behind the claim that God exists?

Methodological naturalism
Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses. To avoid these traps, scientists assume that all causes are empirical and naturalistic, which means they can be measured, quantified and studied methodically.

 

[nPeace]

Isaiah 9:6 was used by the Gospel writers to explain Jesus, who, according to Christian theology, is "Almighty God" in human form.
While it's true that the ancient Hebrews were originally henotheistic. by the time Isaiah was written, they had clearly outgrown that phase.

Almighty is not the same as Mighty. Therefore Jesus was not considered Almighty God, by either the Hebrew, nor first century Christians.
That was a later doctrine.

The theistic god; I know.

I though it included all gods.

 

[lukethethird]

Methodological naturalism
Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses. To avoid these traps, scientists assume that all causes are empirical and naturalistic, which means they can be measured, quantified and studied methodically.

No science behind claims of God's existence therefore claims of God's existence is pure fantasy.

 

[nPeace]

No science behind claims of God's existence therefore claims of God's existence is pure fantasy.

No. If that were true, everyone is living a fantasy. What's the science behind your name? How about your morality? Your desires and goals? All fantasies.
Beware of Scientism. It's the atheists' blindfold.

Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.

 

[lukethethird]

No. If that were true, everyone is living a fantasy. What's the science behind your name? How about your morality? Your desires and goals? All fantasies.
Beware of Scientism. It's the atheists' blindfold.

Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.

Scientific inquiry covers claims of existence, all claims, no exceptions. Scientific method is not the only way but certainly the best way of acquiring knowledge, that is not an opinion but rather a fact of life. There is no science behind claims of God's or gods' existence because such claims are based on fantasy.

 

[nPeace]

Scientific inquiry covers claims of existence, all claims, no exceptions. Scientific method is not the only way but certainly the best way of acquiring knowledge, that is not an opinion but rather a fact of life.

Are you sure you wouldn't be interested in some educational lessons? You won't have to pay. They are free.

People have ideas about science based on personal experiences, previous education, popular media and peer culture. Many of these ideas are commonly held misconceptions or myths about the nature of science. Here are some of the more common myths that are problematic in science education.

Myth: The scientific method
Myth: Experiments are the main route to scientific knowledge
Myth: Science and its methods can answer all questions
Myth: Science proves ideas
Myth: Science ideas are absolute and unchanging
Myth: Science is a solitary pursuit
Myth: Science is procedural more than creative
Myth: Scientists are particularly objective
Myth: Scientific conclusions are reviewed by others for accuracy
Myth: Acceptance of new scientific knowledge is straightforward
Myth: Science models ‘are real’
Myth: A hypothesis is an educated guess
Myth: Hypotheses become theories that, in turn, become laws

There is no science behind claims of God's or gods' existence because such claims are based on fantasy.

Now that's just the equivalent of a spouting hose, isn't it.

You don't know that. It's easy to say though, and parrot for the rest of your life.

 

[lukethethird]

Are you sure you wouldn't be interested in some educational lessons? You won't have to pay. They are free.

People have ideas about science based on personal experiences, previous education, popular media and peer culture. Many of these ideas are commonly held misconceptions or myths about the nature of science. Here are some of the more common myths that are problematic in science education.

Myth: The scientific method
Myth: Experiments are the main route to scientific knowledge
Myth: Science and its methods can answer all questions
Myth: Science proves ideas
Myth: Science ideas are absolute and unchanging
Myth: Science is a solitary pursuit
Myth: Science is procedural more than creative
Myth: Scientists are particularly objective
Myth: Scientific conclusions are reviewed by others for accuracy
Myth: Acceptance of new scientific knowledge is straightforward
Myth: Science models ‘are real’
Myth: A hypothesis is an educated guess
Myth: Hypotheses become theories that, in turn, become laws


Now that's just the equivalent of a spouting hose, isn't it.

You don't know that. It's easy to say though, and parrot for the rest of your life.

Scientific method is a method of observation and discovery, nothing in your copy and paste disputes that.

Regardless of how you care to define science and all your red herrings, what is the science behind your claim that x exists? In this case x being God.

 

[nPeace]

Scientific method is a method of observation and discovery, nothing in your copy and paste disputes that.

Regardless of how you care to define science and all your red herrings, what is the science behind your claim that x exists? In this case x being God.

It's not surprising you have a problem following either.

Myth: Science and its methods can answer all questions​

Science has achieved many amazing things, but it is not a cure-all for all the problems in society. Although it can provide some insights that may inform debate, science cannot answer ethical, moral, aesthetic, social and metaphysical questions. For instance, science and the resulting technology may be able to clone mammals, but other knowledge is needed (cultural, sociological and philosophical) to decide whether such cloning is moral and ethical. Not all questions can be investigated in a scientific manner.

Do you need help understanding what you said, and why it is wrong? Or has Scientism completely taken over your mind.

 

[lukethethird]

It's not surprising you have a problem following either.

Myth: Science and its methods can answer all questions​

Science has achieved many amazing things, but it is not a cure-all for all the problems in society. Although it can provide some insights that may inform debate, science cannot answer ethical, moral, aesthetic, social and metaphysical questions. For instance, science and the resulting technology may be able to clone mammals, but other knowledge is needed (cultural, sociological and philosophical) to decide whether such cloning is moral and ethical. Not all questions can be investigated in a scientific manner.

Do you need help understanding what you said, and why it is wrong? Or has Scientism completely taken over your mind.

I am not asking you to answer ethical questions and the like so stop with the red herring. If there is no science behind your claim for the existence of x then simply admit it. Your no answers are telling.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yes, but God shifts for what God is at least in one version of philosophy, when you include metaphysics/ontology.

Which is nice, but for the purposes of this question, we are specifically referring to a theistic god.