Your God is not real.

[The Silver Thong]

Apparently quantum mechanics/physics is showing some interesting things, I've heard.

I'm not sure if quantum mechanics or even string theory will prove god, interesting though. I was more or less under the impression that these maths may prove that other dimensions exsist. I'm not sure though lol

[Raptor]

You can't. It's not within the bounds of science. Science is the study of the natural world, and most people would define god as, at the very least, supernatural.

Only if you buy in to the human construct, which I'd advise against unless you want to study God (with a capital G) as a social/cultural phenomenon.

I think if anything that would qualify as a 'god' really does exist, then no living human, and certainly no religion, currently has any knowledge of it. It's merely an entity in the universe waiting to be discovered through the study of natural phenomena. Perhaps it will prove to the outside the bounds of science, because even if it does exist it may be impossible for us to observe it in any meaningful way, but I don't think that should be assumed just because people said so thousands of years ago in a book that just so happened to have a similar theme; as far as I'm concerned there's no connection between any Gods presumed thousands of years ago in what can be described as little other than a fairy tale, and any actual god-like entities that may in fact exist.

Edited July 21, 2009 by Raptor

[WoIverine]

Try not to get sucked in by the new age nonsense you often hear related to quantum physics; in a thousand years children in their history lessons will be laughing at you.

Or we may learn that an etherical / spiritual realm is possibly related to our own. I've heard of quantum physicists (That's one word I know I can't spell lol) breaking things down to the etherical, or aether via quantum physics. Something like that. I haven't yet looked into it, but it sounds interesting. From a scientific stand point though, I'm sure you're probably correct. However, the idea of trying to prove that the unknown is true, or real (if possible) is very exciting as well as tempting.

Edited July 21, 2009 by SpIdErCyDe

[MeteoricErod]

Hmmm... Hendrix, Guinness, Hot Girls, Football....

:scratches chin:

OUR GOD IS A GREAT AND MAGNIFICENT GOD! BEHOLD HIS BOUNTIES!

Wait, I thought Clapton was God?

I thought it was Stevie Ray Vaughn?? Ha!!

[+Sherapy]

You can't. It's not within the bounds of science. Science is the study of the natural world, and most people would define god as, at the very least, supernatural.

God isn't a question that can be asked by science. That's why I'm opposed to Atheism. Atheists who use science to justify their position are operating on many logical fallacies.

And i think no matter how far science was to advance, there would never be any room to even ask the god question. Ever.

However, the closest i can think of, in terms of what might broaden our understanding to such an extent that we may be able to think about these things more coherently, would be if we fully understood Bell's Theorem, Quantum Entanglement, etc. When we figure out how the hell that stuff works, then we might be in the ballpark.

I don't think we will be able to ask for evidence of god, but we might have a better understanding of why we can't ask.

kein quotes:,

"God isn't a question that can be asked by science. That's why I'm opposed to Atheism. Atheists who use science to justify their position are operating on many logical fallacies."

Can you articulate the 'many fallacies' that the atheists are using to justify concluding that the evidence doesn't suggest a g-d character? If you would be so gracious...

[WoIverine]

I'm not sure if quantum mechanics or even string theory will prove god, interesting though. I was more or less under the impression that these maths may prove that other dimensions exsist. I'm not sure though lol

Yeah, I think it was something about the "Spiritual Realm" that they were shooting for, if "God" per sea is even part of that is a whole nother factor. I was hoping they would find the realm from the "Duke Nukem: Land of the Babes" game. LOL

[Doug1029]

You can't. It's not within the bounds of science. Science is the study of the natural world, and most people would define god as, at the very least, supernatural.

If a supernatural God produces an effect in the physical universe, as most believers contend, then that effect should be observable and measureable. BUT: it will only be observable and measureable if God exists (God is consistent with a force of nature.). To date, such an effect has not been discovered.

That's evidence, but not much evidence. But it's all we have.

The only approach consistent with that little bit of evidence is the doctrine that there is no God (It nicely explains why we can't observe God.). But a doctrine is an assumption, not a fact. Doctrines serve a useful purpose: they allow reasoning to proceed in an orderly fashion pending their ultimate acceptance or rejection. Of course, if they are ultimately rejected, then everything built on them dies, too. But seeing as we both agree that that is never likely to be resolved by science, there seems little chance of that doctrine ever being rejected.

I suspect that if some scientist ever did discover God, the research would be written up in some obscure journal in the form of equations and probabilities that even most scientists wouldn't recognize as having anything to do with God.

Doug

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

kein quotes:,

"God isn't a question that can be asked by science. That's why I'm opposed to Atheism. Atheists who use science to justify their position are operating on many logical fallacies."

Can you articulate the 'many fallacies' that the atheists are using to justify concluding that the evidence doesn't suggest a g-d character? If you would be so gracious...

It's right there no? there is no evidence either way. To claim to have evidence either way would be a fallacy right?

[The Silver Thong]

It's right there no? there is no evidence either way. To claim to have evidence either way would be a fallacy right?

Would not evidience of mans involvement in the writtings of god constitute proof of god being just a concept of mans imagination?

Of course nobody can say for certin but to me the evidience or lack there of, points me in my direction of belief.

[Doug1029]

kein quotes:,

"God isn't a question that can be asked by science. That's why I'm opposed to Atheism. Atheists who use science to justify their position are operating on many logical fallacies."

Can you articulate the 'many fallacies' that the atheists are using to justify concluding that the evidence doesn't suggest a g-d character? If you would be so gracious...

One can no more assume a lack of God on logical grounds than one can assume the existence of one. Both require an assumption (The "doctrine" in my previous post.) that may not be true.

I observe that "logical" arguments about the existence of God tend to be circular, arriving back at their starting point. The believer starts from the assumption that god exists and arrives back at that same assumption; the atheist starts from the assumption that god doesn't exist and arrives back at his starting point. And, yes, us agnostics do the same thing.

All this discussion of the existence of god is only taking us around in circles. It's a word game, based on the meaning of langauge, rather than on an objective reality. The believer says that the only way to find God is by faith. I'd say that's true. God isn't in the physical universe, so we assume one. And perhaps that is the best evidence of all: if God doesn't exist, then we will find it necessary to create one. And then God WILL exist.

Doug

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

Would not evidience of mans involvement in the writtings of god constitute proof of god being just a concept of mans imagination?

Of course nobody can say for certin but to me the evidience or lack there of, points me in my direction of belief.

Yeah, but then that's gonna result in the divinely inspired argument etc... It's a no win man. Neither side can convince the other. There's no point in it.

[phreakstep]

kein quotes:,

"God isn't a question that can be asked by science. That's why I'm opposed to Atheism. Atheists who use science to justify their position are operating on many logical fallacies."

Can you articulate the 'many fallacies' that the atheists are using to justify concluding that the evidence doesn't suggest a g-d character? If you would be so gracious...

Science deals whit thing called REALITY and you know not FANTASY.

If you say science can't explain god how can you make an assertion then?

Well god exist in another realm.

If you can't prove it don't make an assumptions.

Gods not existence can be proven within logic and reason but If all you can do is making silly illogical arguments like he trascends logic and our understanding yet you claim to know the concept of god.

So let me ask you Spidercyde what kind of credentials you have as physicist?

Quantum mechanics prove god?

Nope

There exist only three possible God numbers,

1) ZERO. Empirical triviality.

2) ONE. Singularity.

3) INFINITY. Mechanism for God creation must be symmetric.

Infinity is indistiguishable from zero. Go ahead, make a list of

names.

As no Terran religion has ever settled for one God, as a single laywer

will starve in a small town, pick your fundament over something else.

String theory also does not prove god It talks about how our universe was created and that our universe came from another universe (our universe being a bubble in the ocean of other universes)

But here is a catch String theory is not a Theory it is MATHEMATICAL framework for building model which is opossed to physical theory.

Edited July 21, 2009 by phreakstep

[W Kein]

kein quotes:,

"God isn't a question that can be asked by science. That's why I'm opposed to Atheism. Atheists who use science to justify their position are operating on many logical fallacies."

Can you articulate the 'many fallacies' that the atheists are using to justify concluding that the evidence doesn't suggest a g-d character? If you would be so gracious...

1) That science can even ask the question. It can't.

2) That anyone would even recognize the evidence. Where would you even start looking, and what would you be looking for.

3) That absence of evidence is evidence of absence. And still, no one can even ask what evidence.

I already stated all of these things in my previous posts.

[W Kein]

It's right there no? there is no evidence either way. To claim to have evidence either way would be a fallacy right?

Exactly. Even the question was a fallacy. What evidence?

[WoIverine]

Science deals whit thing called REALITY and you know not FANTASY.

If you say science can't explain god how can you make an assertion then?

Well god exist in another realm.

If you can't prove it don't make an assumptions.

Gods not existence can be proven within logic and reason but If all you can do is making silly illogical arguments like he trascends logic and our understanding yet you claim to know the concept of god.

So let me ask you Spidercyde what kind of credentials you have as physicist?

Quantum mechanics prove god?

Nope

There exist only three possible God numbers,

1) ZERO. Empirical triviality.

2) ONE. Singularity.

3) INFINITY. Mechanism for God creation must be symmetric.

Infinity is indistiguishable from zero. Go ahead, make a list of

names.

As no Terran religion has ever settled for one God, as a single laywer

will starve in a small town, pick your fundament over something else.

String theory also does not prove god It talks about how our universe was created and that our universe came from another universe (our universe being a bubble in the ocean of other universes)

But here is a catch String theory is not a Theory it is MATHEMATICAL framework for building model which is opossed to physical theory.

It doesn't take a physicist to know that anything is possible, it's common sense. Until we are capable of examining every square inch of our universe, alternate realities, dimensions, whatever, if by then we still do not find "God", then I will admit that you are correct. Until then, no one will ever know for sure if there is, or isn't, until it's proven beyond the shadow of doubt.

[+Sherapy]

It's right there no? there is no evidence either way. To claim to have evidence either way would be a fallacy right?

'''''Doc''' glad to see ya back missed ya..(((HUGS)))

to claim to have evidence of a g-d character would be a fallacy, to claim that you believe on faith there is a g-d character would be a logical conclusion (deductive) ( because a deductive argument is valid if the truth of the conclusion actually does follow the premise...) to claim that there is no objective evidence to suggest a g-d character is also a logical conclusion......

if we are using logical conclusion as one that is related without contradiction......

basically we use available evidence or lack there of to arrive at a truth value....

[+Sherapy]

One can no more assume a lack of God on logical grounds than one can assume the existence of one. Both require an assumption (The "doctrine" in my previous post.) that may not be true.

I observe that "logical" arguments about the existence of God tend to be circular, arriving back at their starting point. The believer starts from the assumption that god exists and arrives back at that same assumption; the atheist starts from the assumption that god doesn't exist and arrives back at his starting point. And, yes, us agnostics do the same thing.

All this discussion of the existence of god is only taking us around in circles. It's a word game, based on the meaning of langauge, rather than on an objective reality. The believer says that the only way to find God is by faith. I'd say that's true. God isn't in the physical universe, so we assume one. And perhaps that is the best evidence of all: if God doesn't exist, then we will find it necessary to create one. And then God WILL exist.

Doug

indeed it is circular lol....

[W Kein]

to claim to have evidence of a g-d character would be a fallacy,

It's a good thing that no one does that, then.

to claim that you believe on faith there is a g-d character would be a logical conclusion (deductive) ( because a deductive argument is valid if the truth of the conclusion actually does follow the premise...)

No it wouldn't because faith means believing with no proof.

to claim that there is no objective evidence to suggest a g-d character is also a logical conclusion......

if we are using logical conclusion as one that is related without contradiction......

basically we use available evidence or lack there of to arrive at a truth value....

And that is a logical fallacy because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[The Silver Thong]

Yeah, but then that's gonna result in the divinely inspired argument etc... It's a no win man. Neither side can convince the other. There's no point in it.

The divinly inspired argument is fairly weak as god should be willing to talk to a lot more people He's so anti-social lol.

Ok quick question no science involved but simple logic. Does not logic sway to the no god side of things. For me it does

[+Sherapy]

1) That science can even ask the question. It can't.

2) That anyone would even recognize the evidence. Where would you even start looking, and what would you be looking for.

3) That absence of evidence is evidence of absence. And still, no one can even ask what evidence.

I already stated all of these things in my previous posts.

Kein, I don't disagree but, you very specifically said there are many fallacies that the atheist uses...

I am curious as to which fallacies in particular you are referring too?

[W Kein]

Kein, I don't disagree but, you very specifically said there are many fallacies that the atheist uses...

I am curious as to which fallacies in particular you are referring too?

The things that you just quoted in your post, among other things I already posted.

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

The divinly inspired argument is fairly weak as god should be willing to talk to a lot more people He's so anti-social lol.

Ok quick question no science involved but simple logic. Does not logic sway to the no god side of things. For me it does

Depends if non evidence is good enough for you. It's enough for me to not really care either way.

[+Sherapy]

It's a good thing that no one does that, then.

No it wouldn't because faith means believing with no proof.

And that is a logical fallacy because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

we are simply looking at the logical coherency of how the argument is framed:

QUOTE (S♥ ♥ ♥ @ Jul 21 2009, 12:20 PM) to claim that you believe on faith there is a g-d character would be a logical conclusion (deductive) ( because a deductive argument is valid if the truth of the conclusion actually does follow the premise...)

Kien quotes"

"No it wouldn't because faith means believing with no proof."

you have not shown where the logic is flawed in this argument though ...

if one "claims" ( makes an assertion that something is right) that they "believe'( taken/held to be true) on "faith" ( no evidence) there is a g-d character ( assumed being) would follow the rules of logic.....

bascailly they are saying I beleive this even though I am aware that its on faith ( no evidence)

its "true" ( consistent w/reality) ......

the argument is valid, the logic( deductive) is valid...

perhaps the very thing you dislike about the atheist you yourself are doing..

[Agent. Mulder]

God is real: Total lack of evidence, BUT:

Humankind has been searching for tangible evidence of God for around 30,000 years

(Neanderthals buried their dead with grave goods, indicating a belief in an afterlife.).

To date, that tangible evidence has not been discovered.

Obviously, if 30,000 years of searching can't produce unequivocable tangible evidence,

then this is not a very promising line of endeavor, either.

not quite doug. just because we found buried remains, does not mean it has anything to do with an after life or god. its just a hypothesis.

so 30, 000 years is way off, since it cannot be proven. they could have easily been doing it, because they know how scavengers act, and didnt want their clans getting scattered across the land. if they even cared that much about their dead. some people believe they didnt, as they have just left them where they die, as they move on.

[W Kein]

we are simply looking at the logical coherency of how the argument is framed:

QUOTE (S♥ ♥ ♥ @ Jul 21 2009, 12:20 PM) to claim that you believe on faith there is a g-d character would be a logical conclusion (deductive) ( because a deductive argument is valid if the truth of the conclusion actually does follow the premise...)

Kien quotes"

"No it wouldn't because faith means believing with no proof."

you have not shown where the logic is flawed in this argument though ...

Sure I have. You are assuming that believers think there is proof or logic to their faith. Since that isn't true, any conclusion you come to based on it is fallacious.

if one "claims" ( makes an assertion that something is right) that they "believe'( taken/held to be true) on "faith" ( no evidence) there is a g-d character ( assumed being) would follow the rules of logic.....

bascailly they are saying I beleive this even though I am aware that its on faith ( no evidence)

its "true" ( consistent w/reality) ......

the argument is valid, the logic( deductive) is valid...

What does the faith of a believer have to do with an Atheists scientific argument? Nothing.

perhaps the very thing you dislike about the atheist you yourself are doing..

How am I doing that?