Science fails to exclude God

reply to post by Crayfish


Ok. with the limits to what we can perceive. How can science tell some that God does not exist?
What facts is that being based on?
I am trying to stay on topic.

Non of you are actually basing any facts that there is no creator. And you cant because no one knows what took place before the so called Big Bang.

I base my own theory on that there must have been a compression of energy that caused the so called Big Bang.
I base it on a compression theory because our present universe "energy mass" is expanding.

reply to post by spy66


You wrote:

["How can science tell some that God does not exist?"]

Try to get a grip on gnostic and agnostic positions.

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by Conclusion1

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by randyvs

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by randyvs

 

Even if there was 100% irrefutable evidence Jesus existed...it still doesn't prove the "miracles" are true, or that god exists.

Well then congrdulations X. You're more impossible than God.

It's one thing to claim agnostic 'immunity' outside mundane life, because the methods of science/logic don't function there, but on mundane ground extra-ordinary claims must be proved.

I, Bogomil can actually fly; all on my own, no technology, prove I'm wrong.

Prove that we feel love?

Will you please relate to what I said. Not to what I didn't say.

I know you know the point I was trying to make. There are things that we know is real and there are no tests to measure them. Now according to some people that makes them void of consideration.

reply to post by spy66

Ok. with the limits to what we can perceive. How can science tell some that God does not exist?
What facts is that being based on?

Archeological and recorded history.

Other than human invention, there is no clear indication that the universe, existence, reality was created by some benevolent entity for the sole benefit of one tiny species in a vast universe.

reply to post by Conclusion1


The position I have is not a common one, and in the often black/white world of theist/atheism, many make wrong assumptions on my position.

I do not consider the intellect, objectivity, logic/science etc. as the only way of relating to or 'understanding' existence. I only insist on the proper tool for the context.

I'm a metaphysicist/'mystic', philosophical scepticist and a great trust in science/logic inside cosmos.

reply to post by spy66

Ok. with the limits to what we can perceive. How can science tell some that God does not exist?
What facts is that being based on?
I am trying to stay on topic.

Non of you are actually basing any facts that there is no creator. And you cant because no one knows what took place before the so called Big Bang.

Atheists shouldn't be expected to provide evidence; they never made the extrordinary claim despite lack of extraordinary evidence.

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by spy66

 

Ok. with the limits to what we can perceive. How can science tell some that God does not exist?
What facts is that being based on?

Archeological and recorded history.

Other than human invention, there is no clear indication that the universe, existence, reality was created by some benevolent entity for the sole benefit of one tiny species in a vast universe.

I disagree Sirnex. With the complexity of the given universe from the smallest to the lowest we see an intricate design. A complexity so great and beyond us that we gasp as we try to ponder it. We try to harness nature and humble it. (That was for you bogimil) But in the end it always humbles us. I see creation in everything.

reply to post by bogomil


No one cares what you are, or what you consider yourself to be.
This only objectifies yourself.
Are you an object?

reply to post by Itisnowagain


You should care for the purpose of debate and exchange of ideas, Bogomil offered an incite into his position to give a broader context to his responses.

I couldn't agree more with Bogomil; Naturally, we should all be curious of the unknown, but there are rational and irrational ways to probe it, or hypothesise it.

The position I have is not a common one, and in the often black/white world of theist/atheism, many make wrong assumptions on my position.

My knowledge of the philosophy of science is little; And Bogomil has wealth of knowledge in that area, which i appreciate, although, i do disagree with his (just recent) implication that atheism is a polar opposite; I don't think atheism is black or white, and it's certainly not ALWAYS grey either.

Perhaps i have misunderstood his statement, as Bogomil and myself have both agreed that there's nothing to stop an atheist from being a metaphysicist or a "mystic" (i.e. a positive enthusiasm in the investigation into the unknown, and perhaps, the unprovable)

To many of the God's, they are quite falsifiable, there is room for some Gnostic Atheism:-

I'm gnostic Atheist to this anthropomorphised version of a God:-

..a God who could make good children as easily a bad, yet preferred to make bad ones; who could have made every one of them happy, yet never made a single happy one; who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short; who gave his angels eternal happiness unearned, yet required his other children to earn it; who gave is angels painless lives, yet cursed his other children with biting miseries and maladies of mind and body; who mouths justice, and invented hell--mouths mercy, and invented hell--mouths Golden Rules and foregiveness multiplied by seventy times seven, and invented hell; who mouths morals to other people, and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man's acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself; and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites his poor abused slave to worship him!

I would go as far to claim that this God DOES NOT exist, as i would state Santa Claus, or Unicorns, or Leprachauns don't exist.

In regards to a creator "deity"/GOD; I would have to be agnostic, due to lack of evidence. Causality or an "ignitition" always leads to a infinite regress, i find. That to me implies reality IS infinity; every outcome; but i'd still have to admit i was an Agnostic Atheist towards a Deity; as infinity is neither provable, nor considered a logical assumption.

I guess, though, with infinity in mind; i'd have to contradict myself and accept that Unicorns exist, have existed, or will exist in some other universe (realm) or somewhere within our universe.

What certainly seems remarkable about the human condition is that we are infinitely imaginative.

Originally posted by Conclusion1

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by spy66

 

Ok. with the limits to what we can perceive. How can science tell some that God does not exist?
What facts is that being based on?

Archeological and recorded history.

Other than human invention, there is no clear indication that the universe, existence, reality was created by some benevolent entity for the sole benefit of one tiny species in a vast universe.

I disagree Sirnex. With the complexity of the given universe from the smallest to the lowest we see an intricate design. A complexity so great and beyond us that we gasp as we try to ponder it. We try to harness nature and humble it. (That was for you bogimil)

But in the end it always humbles us. I see creation in everything.

What you 'see in everything' is your subjective impression, which no-one will deny you. But in an objective context it's irrelevant.

The standard problem, when theists start to talk 'intelligent design', is that these subjective interpretations are believed to be valid in the objective context. They aren't.

As said earlier on this thread, it's even impossible to regress any argument beyond event horizon, as (known)causality breaks down at event horizon.

What's beyond can only be guessed at. E.g. if the consciousness model is correct for the beyond, there's an option of total chaos, meaning that ANY 'reality' is 'real'.

reply to post by awake_and_aware



You wrote:

["I don't think atheism is black or white, and it's certainly not ALWAYS grey either"]

My bad. I tried to say the black/white-ness often existing between theism and atheism, but a typing error messed it up.

Quote: [" To many of the God's, they are quite falsifiable, there is room for some Gnostic Atheism:- "]

I'll go with that. I find it completely impossible to associate genesis 1 to a creator of the universe. Genesis 1 is so inaccurate, that it's a wonder, it's still in the bible.

But that's not my main point now. My point is, that all the admonishions on gnostic and agnostic positions have been wasted. You merrily carry gnostic theism back with you into the area of the mundane world, and expect this to be taken as an argument, when you critisize SOME scientists of doing the same the opposite

reply to post by bogomil


Ouch ! Damn Bogomil I wasn't taking it anywhere. I just wanted some opinions of the intelligence, that site I linked to, claims could be involved in scripture. I certainly wasn't expecting to use it in any arguement.
Why did everyone else seem to understand that? No big deal just maybe to much caffiene ? IDK.

Originally posted by spy66
Ok. with the limits to what we can perceive. How can science tell some that God does not exist?

Science observes that there is no evidence that god exists. Everything that used to be explained by god is now understood or has much more compelling alternative explanations. Such a lack of evidence for god is in itself evidence for the position that god does not exist. This is reinforced by the total lack of any hypothesis for how a sentient deity would come into being.

Now "science" is not represented by the views of any one individual. There may be scientists that can rationalise the existence of a sentient deity somehow (simulated universe theory for example). Those arguments are all disputed and not compelling enough to be accepted by the majority. Therefore the scientific consensus is that all the evidence suggests that god does not exist.

There is even more evidence against the idea of a Christian god, because the bible has made assertions that have subsequently proved to be invalid. According to the Bible, the earth is flat and immovable, the moon emits its own light, the sky is solid and the stars can be shaken from the sky by earthquakes. The Bible claims that rabbits chew the cud, that the pattern of goats' coats can be changed by what their parents look at while copulating, that only dead seeds can germinate and that ostriches are careless parents.

If a source is shown to be untrustworthy then it should not be trusted without question.

Originally posted by spy66
Non of you are actually basing any facts that there is no creator. And you cant because no one knows what took place before the so called Big Bang.

You still seem to be misunderstanding the fact that there was no "before" the big bang. The first time that can be described as "before" anything was one planck time period after the singularity. That singularity was just an edge of the universe along the dimension of time, just like it has a singularity at the edges of the spatial dimensions.

reply to post by bogomil

My bad. I tried to say the black/white-ness often existing between theism and atheism, but a typing error messed it up.

No probs, that makes perfect sense now - My bad for being so anal!

I'll go with that. I find it completely impossible to associate genesis 1 to a creator of the universe. Genesis 1 is so inaccurate, that it's a wonder, it's still in the bible.

Can't agree more. Stephen Hawkins often gets demonised for criticising the "GOD" hypothesis, but i feel he is responding to a more specific God, that many people associate to the word God; like the "Father" figure in Genesis.

Originally posted by randyvs

But that's not my main point now. My point is, that all the admonishions on gnostic and agnostic positions have been wasted. You merrily carry gnostic theism back with you into the area of the mundane world, and expect this to be taken as an argument, when you critisize SOME scientists of doing the same the opposite

reply to post by bogomil

 

Ouch ! Damn Bogomil I wasn't taking it anywhere. I just wanted some opinions of the intelligence, that site I linked to, claims could be involved in scripture. I certainly wasn't expecting to use it in any arguement.
Why did everyone else seem to understand that? No big deal just maybe to much caffiene ? IDK.

Maybe because they, unlike me, didn't look forward to presenting a lecture on 'dualism' as the basis of pauline christianity. But well, you can't have it all.

I'll find another victim later.

Originally posted by Conclusion1

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by spy66

 

Ok. with the limits to what we can perceive. How can science tell some that God does not exist?
What facts is that being based on?

Archeological and recorded history.

Other than human invention, there is no clear indication that the universe, existence, reality was created by some benevolent entity for the sole benefit of one tiny species in a vast universe.

I disagree Sirnex. With the complexity of the given universe from the smallest to the lowest we see an intricate design. A complexity so great and beyond us that we gasp as we try to ponder it. We try to harness nature and humble it. (That was for you bogimil)

But in the end it always humbles us. I see creation in everything.

So then, is everything complex in nature caused by a benevolent creator, such as the water cycle on Earth?

Exactly where do you draw the line between natural complexity allowed by natural forces alone and complexity that requires a benevolent entity?

reply to post by Crayfish

There is even more evidence against the idea of a Christian god, because the bible has made assertions that have subsequently proved to be invalid. According to the Bible, the earth is flat and immovable, the moon emits its own light, the sky is solid and the stars can be shaken from the sky by earthquakes. The Bible claims that rabbits chew the cud, that the pattern of goats' coats can be changed by what their parents look at while copulating, that only dead seeds can germinate and that ostriches are careless parents

The Bible dosn't really say the Earth is flat.
And when has the earth ever become unfixed or moved from it's orbit? The earth is fixed and never moves from it's orbit.

As far as the moon giving off it 's own lite ? Seems like a far to obvious mistake to me when the Moon does reflect the light from the sun becoming a nightlite for the world.

Really this is all just sillyness. Even the words translated as "chewing A Cud" could simply mean holding in the
mouth and chewing.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


Your version of God is imagined as separate from you, a punishing god or a God that chooses sides.
My God is not separate from me, it is everything i see and the presence that i am.
My god is the knower of this now and everything that is seen and experienced.
This God is the ever present, all seeing, all knowing 'I'.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Basically, your God is just a word used to describe everything.

It's very easy to inferr in such a way:-

Instead of using the word "GOD",replace it with "THE FORCE" or "The ether" or "the one", even "the singularity" - It's very easy to allude to God is such a "singular" word that declares "GOD" as everything that encompasses reality.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Crayfish

 

There is even more evidence against the idea of a Christian god, because the bible has made assertions that have subsequently proved to be invalid. According to the Bible, the earth is flat and immovable, the moon emits its own light, the sky is solid and the stars can be shaken from the sky by earthquakes. The Bible claims that rabbits chew the cud, that the pattern of goats' coats can be changed by what their parents look at while copulating, that only dead seeds can germinate and that ostriches are careless parents

The Bible dosn't really say the Earth is flat.
And when has the earth ever become unfixed or moved from it's orbit? The earth is fixed and never moves from it's orbit.

As far as the moon giving off it 's own lite ? Seems like a far to obvious mistake to me when the Moon does reflect the light from the sun becoming a nightlite for the world.

Really this is all just sillyness. Even the words translated as "chewing A Cud" could simply mean holding in the
mouth and chewing.

edit on 8-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

If you feel like it, not least to prove your own words, take paper and pen and make an astronomical map according to genesis 1 (for a starter). Then please inform a world hungry for truth, what you arrive at.