Belief in existence of God scientific. Denial - unscientific

[theStudent]

The length of the thread, in the link below, is largely due to repeated questions.on the contained information. The following is open for debate.
Belief in the existence of God is scientific. Denial - unscientific.

For those who disagree with the above, please state why, and/or provide evidence for the following:

• God does not exist.
• God exists only in the mind of the believer.
• Miracles do not happen.
• The Bible is a book of myths.

[H.sapiens]

Tow major problems with the OP:

1. Belief is never scientific.
2. A "god" can not be scientific since the very thing that makes it a "god" and differentiates from a "mortal" is supernaturality, and that is not scientific.

End of story. Next topic.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 39 by RonE]

The fact that you asked these questions, tells me you just jumped through the thread, without really reading it, probably you felt it was just "garbage".
Am I correct?

I checked the link to make sure it's the correct one - verified.
Everything you asked is in that thread.
So I suggest you go through it carefully, until you find the answers.

It takes energy to type, and I'm not doing it just to give my fingers exercise.
Then to have it called garbage, and thrown away, as though it means nothing at all.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 41 by Kenisaw]

Your total erroneous display of logic here is stunning. I'm starting to wonder why I continue to engage you in conversation when you can't seem to grasp any of the fundamentals of the topics you keep trying to debate with everyone.

Did you really not realize that your "failed" argument above represents your argument, not mine????

These are your words Kenisaw, not mine. (bold font mine)

If you cannot prove something does exist, the only rational conclusion to reach is that it does not.

I simply used your... not logic, your reasoning, which is saying:
If you cannot prove something does exist, then it does not exist.
FLAWED - not logical.

If you made a mistake, I can accept that.
I make mistakes, and I am not ashamed to admit it. I am not perfect.
But one thing I would not do, is try to twist things to make myself appear right, and the other person seem wrong.

As I said, they are some individuals that just have negative comments to throw at my posts, which always carry the negative message, "theStudent does not know what he is talking about. He simply doesn't understand. He is ignorant." So basically, theStudent is stupid.
I really don't think that is skillful debating.

If I thought that you said something really stupid, I'm not going to say to you, "Well Kenisaw, that's really, stupid", and give some other dry comment.
I'm going to show you that it is not logical, through debating, as I usually would.

Isn't that what the site is for, or is it to show who is better able to insult, and demean another?

No, it's not the truth, and you have no idea why. That much is obvious...

Are you saying that what this GP said is not truthful?

some things are not scientifically explainable.

Would you care to tell me why, since I

have no idea why

?

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 44 by Kenisaw]

If you can't prove it, there is no reason to think it is real

Do you think a thought just popped into people's minds, "Oh, God."?
Do you think that's what's going on here?
If so, no. That isn't the case.

Where really, did the knowledge of God/gods come from?



If you are thinking that's how it started, you would be mistaken.

if you cannot show that something exists, there is no reason to think it does.

You mean that scientists on the hunt for ET, are wasting their money, and God knows what else?

Absolutely. Because all god beings (not just your particular favorite) have interacted with the universe (like becoming human for instance), that means they have to leave evidence behind (laws of the universe). Which means that there should be gatherable data and information about them. Is there any empirical data for any of the god claims ever made in the entirety of human history? None has been presented. So the rational conclusion to reach is that gods don't exist.

How do you know this?

all god beings (not just your particular favorite) have interacted with the universe
All gods would have to leave physical traces of their interactions of the universe behind.

You are not a god, are you? Or omniscient?

If you claim that your particular god being is omnipotent, then that is a logical fallacy with automatically means that it can't possibly exist. It has been explained to you in previous threads my "omni" god claims are logical nonsense and any being that supposedly has such abilities cannot possible exist...

Each of the three questions start with if.
You tried to answer the first two. How come this one gets treated as though it doesn't start with if? Therefore, it is not answered.

Not only are the questions NOT impossible, there MUST be evidence of all god beings and supernatural claims because the universe has conservation laws which are known to be true, and all the gods have supposedly interacted with this universe.

So scientists have evidence, and knowledge of everything?

So, since you are the one claiming it exists, when do we get your evidence showing that it does???

Again??? What do I have to do? Write it on paper; send a fax; come by your home... What???

[Divine Insight]

We all have to be able to know for ourselves, what is true, or not true.
Some people believe it when the so-called experts tell them that everything came into existence, and arranged itself, by blind chance. "We have the evidence." they say.
Well I, and millions of others don't see the evidence, and we don't believe.

No scientists claim that anything arranged itself by blind chance.

Instead they explain precisely why things have arranged themselves using proven scientific principles and the laws of physics. For you to claim that you don't see the evidence only means that you haven't understood the evidence. That's all.

There is no need for any baby-sitting God to control the universe. In fact, if there were a need for that then the scientific explanations wouldn't work. But they do work. So clearly nothing additional is required.

Contrary to your claims, science is understandable, and it works.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 47 by Divine Insight]

Define what you mean by God.

I say God, as in the God I believe in, but the question can be equally "a creator being".

The God described in the Bible cannot possibly exist as defined. So the Biblical God is off the table in any case.

As defined by whom.
Remember, not everyone see the God of the Bible in the same light.
Even Jesus said that persons will kill his followers, and believe they were worshiping God, And many terrible things are done in the name of God, and claimed to be what is written.

The Biblical God is defined by the Bible. And the Bible defines God in extremely self-contradictory ways that cannot possibly be true.

"Believers", on the other hand, seem to think that they can invent their own non-Biblical version of God whilst still maintaining that their entirely made-up God has something to do with the Bible.

I believe the Bible is subject to misinterpretation and misunderstanding.

Miracles may or may not happen.

Thank you for being honest about that.
https://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/i ... 346AA9No5y

The Biblical God would already be untrustworthy, unrighteous, and according to the Bible he would also need to be an outright liar in order for the Bible to even be remotely true.

You were supposed to give me some examples of these, but you never did, or did you, and I forgot?
My memory can be a bit short at times, so forgive if I am mistaken.

There are clearly many stories in the Bible that are definitely myths. The story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden is definitely a myth. At best it could have been some sort of sick perverted metaphor.

The Great Flood and the story of Noah and the Ark has been scientifically proven to be a myth. There is no recovery from that. To think that the Bible could recover from this would be no different from thinking that Greek Mythology could recover from the fact that no Gods were found living on Mt. Olympus.

Many stories in the Christian New Testament Gospels are clearly myths as well. The claim that many saints rose from their graves and went into the Holy City to show themselves to the people there. The claim that God spoke from a cloud proclaiming Jesus to be his Son. The claim that Jesus rose from the dead and actually asked his disciples to stick their fingers in his wounds to prove that it was really him.

These stories are clearly myths based on extreme ignorance.

This religion simply isn't defensible, as written in the Bible.

All you do here is repeat the claim Divine Insight.
You haven't provided any proof.
How can claims stand up?
Wouldn't they be considered by others, myths, and story telling, even outright false statements?

[benchwarmer]

if you cannot show that something exists, there is no reason to think it does.

You mean that scientists on the hunt for ET, are wasting their money, and God knows what else?

I would like to point out that statements like this are what make us believe you do not understand scientists and/or science. Are you asserting that the scientists 'on the hunt for ET' believe that ET does in fact exist and this is why they are looking? This is typical of creationist thought. Start with a 'fact' and work backwards to try and find the 'evidence' for it. That is not how it works in science and this has been explained over and over.

One of the ways scientists (and even people at home if so motivated) are searching for 'ET' is by analyzing radio telescope data. Why are they doing this? Because ever since we invented the technology to send radio signals we have been broadcasting either unintentionally or even intentionally into space. Scientists assumed any intelligent 'ET' would also have developed the ability to transmit radio waves and thus we look for them. Does this mean we know they exist? Of course not. It's an experiment to see what, if anything, is out there.

You seem to be suggesting we shouldn't look for things we don't already know about. That, my friend, is not science.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 55 by Divine Insight]

No scientists claim that anything arranged itself by blind chance.

Instead they explain precisely why things have arranged themselves using proven scientific principles and the laws of physics. For you to claim that you don't see the evidence only means that you haven't understood the evidence. That's all.

I don't understand. (That should be my favorite chorus by now).
Okay, so let's say I don't understand.
What about the millions of other people - including professors, and university graduates, and biologist, etc.? Don't they understand?

There is no need for any baby-sitting God to control the universe. In fact, if there were a need for that then the scientific explanations wouldn't work. But they do work. So clearly nothing additional is required.

Many people say they don't need God.
Some don't mean it.
Some change their mind.
Some wish it were true, and try to make it true.

I believe that the energy that started it all, is holding it together. Otherwise, I don't think we would be here. I believe that that energy is necessary, in many important ways.

[Divine Insight]

I believe the Bible is subject to misinterpretation and misunderstanding.

That should seal it for you right there.

The religion claims to be about morality and people supposedly turning against God.

Well, if that's true, then what's up with all the claims that the Bible is subject to misinterpretation and misunderstanding? That's not consistent with a claim that it's supposed to be about morality, and accepting or rejecting a supposedly righteous and trustworthy God.

If I have a misunderstanding of the Bible, then in what way could this God be said to be trustworthy relative to me?

I would love nothing more than for the world to be a total utopia of absolute peace, love, and fairness for everyone. Well, that's the absolute epitome of "Goodness". So clearly I'm all for "Goodness" and thus if there were a God who was "Good" I would be 100% on his side.

So there would then be no excuse for this God to have created a religion that in my deep desire for "Goodness" I could not see any rational reason to support or believe in.

In fact, most of the reasons why I reject this ancient religion is precisely because it is extremely immoral and barbaric. It hardly represents anything "Good".

Sure, Jesus (not unlike me) eventually came along and also expressed a view of a world where everyone was at peace with each other and love and fairness was the norm. But so what? That hardly makes up for the hideous barbaric and immoral character of the God of the Old Testament.

In fact, even Jesus expresses the idea that the unrighteous deserve to be damned. But that idea is already an idea of hatred and revenge. Why should righteous people be tortured in horrible suffering and pain? What is to be gained by that?

Even that ideal is an ideal of hatred and revenge.

So even Jesus doesn't represent the epitome of love, peace, and fairness. To the contrary, even Jesus supports hateful revenge.

Face it, this religion demands that its God (even in the form of Jesus) is far beneath my standards of love, peace and fairness.

~~~~~~

And so explain to me why it should be that I have an "misunderstanding" of love, peace, and fairness, when I'm all for it?

This religion demands that I must necessarily be damned to hell. There's no getting around it. Not only to I reject the idea that Jesus is the Son of God or a "Savior", but I even reject that God of the Old Testament as being an immoral barbaric buffoon.

How could that possibly be if the God actually existed and truly represented love, peace, wisdom, and all that is "Good".

Proclaiming that I simply "don't understand" the religion is absolute nonsense that makes no sense at all. It's hardly a defense for a failed religion.

Moreover, I would be FAR from alone. Not only would I be a decent loving person who doesn't understand this religion but so would the vast majority of Christians.

Christians don't agree with each other over what this religion supposedly stands for or has to say. Are 99% doom to be damned for having misunderstood this religion?

Also, if so many people misunderstand this religion including the vast majority of Christians, then who's fault could that possibly be anyway? It could only be the fault of the God who is supposedly behind this religion. He would be the inept guilty party here.

This problem is solved instantly by making a very simple observation: There clearly is no God behind this religion.

This solves EVERYTHING Student leaving nothing unsolved.

Sure, you could still make your arguments that "energy" had to have come from somewhere, but those kinds of argument DO NOT support Hebrew Mythology anymore than they support Greek Mythology or The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

You're so-called scientific arguments that "There Must be God!" wouldn't support the Abrahamic religions anyway, and especially not Christianity specifically. Not only that, but your so-called "scientific arguments" that there needs to be an intervening God aren't scientific at all. Science does not need any God to intervene in anything after the Big Bang.

So even if there were a "God" entity that started the Big Bang it could have easily designed everything to be on auto-pilot after that anyway. In fact, a God who would need to stick around and baby-sit his universe would actually be an inferior designer.

The Biblical God who had to actually create the universe piece by piece like a child playing in a sandbox is actually a very limited view of what a God should be like. Any decent God should be able to just say, "Let there be a Universe and there was a Universe". Period. Having to stick around and design every little piece of it would be silly.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 59 by Divine Insight]

The religion claims to be about morality and people supposedly turning against God.

Well, if that's true, then what's up with all the claims that the Bible is subject to misinterpretation and misunderstanding? That's not consistent with a claim that it's supposed to be about morality, and accepting or rejecting a supposedly righteous and trustworthy God.

I'm not getting the concept, or the point you are trying to make here.

If I have a misunderstanding of the Bible, then in what way could this God be said to be trustworthy relative to me?

Why would you claim the God is untrustworthy, because you misunderstand his words?
I wouldn't claim someone is untrustworthy, because I misunderstood them.

I would love nothing more than for the world to be a total utopia of absolute peace, love, and fairness for everyone.

As long as that includes justice, based on righteousness, I think you have millions of Christians on your side there.

Well, that's the absolute epitome of "Goodness". So clearly I'm all for "Goodness" and thus if there were a God who was "Good" I would be 100% on his side.

So are you saying, that because the world is a miserable place, that means God is not good?

So there would then be no excuse for this God to have created a religion that in my deep desire for "Goodness" I could not see any rational reason to support or believe in.

If the whole world was under the rule of a perfectly good God, there would be no need for religion.

In fact, most of the reasons why I reject this ancient religion is precisely because it is extremely immoral and barbaric. It hardly represents anything "Good".

Not only you.
If the only religions that existed were the ones that tortured poor souls, in the name of God, just because they did not follow church doctrine, I don't think I would belong to any religion.

Sure, Jesus (not unlike me) eventually came along and also expressed a view of a world where everyone was at peace with each other and love and fairness was the norm. But so what? That hardly makes up for the hideous barbaric and immoral character of the God of the Old Testament.

IMO, I don't think we are being fair in labeling God as barbaric.
I think it is fair to give everyone a fair chance to defend themselves against accusation.

In fact, even Jesus expresses the idea that the unrighteous deserve to be damned. But that idea is already an idea of hatred and revenge. Why should righteous people be tortured in horrible suffering and pain? What is to be gained by that?

I take it you mean unrighteous people.
But the idea of God torturing anyone for any crime, is not a Biblical truth, as far as I know. Those were practices carried out by persons who believed in deities that they needed to appease, in order to get blessing.
IMO, they were being driven by gods (not mythical ones).

So even Jesus doesn't represent the epitome of love, peace, and fairness. To the contrary, even Jesus supports hateful revenge.

Face it, this religion demands that its God (even in the form of Jesus) is far beneath my standards of love, peace and fairness.

So you are saying, the death penalty, for evil people is injustice?