I agree Qcmbr, evidence is needed in order for such arguments to have any weight. Unfortunately there is a difference of opinion on what constitutes evidence, as has been discussed already. What counts as evidence is a function of one’s belief system for both atheist and theist alike.
I accept that science cannot prove the non-existence of God. But . . .
by nicolaou 185 Replies latest members adult
-
-
KateWild
Adam, that was sneaky, leave the debate when it gets too hard and then challenge another poster instead. You could have shown a little humility and conceded that my points were solid and rational.
Nevermind better luck next time.
Sam xx
-
Seraphim23
I should also add Qcmbr that pleasure and pain, good and evil seem inextricably linked, to the degree that it is arguable that if one is removed then so is the other. It may be that God had only two options for either both or neither to exist in a universe based on mathematics. They say `better to have loved and lost`, so perhaps pain and suffering are essential to any possibility of pleasure and fulfilment, or whatever the opposite word for suffering is. Who would say no to the world of life and love because pain and suffering was considered to outweigh these things? Hard choice for any parent!
-
Jeffro
tec:
I recall that you could not prove that my God, the God and Father of Christ, the Most Holy One of Israel... does not exist
As previously stated, the same issues that apply to the supposed existence of any supernatural deity inherently apply to the existence of your preferred deity. The notion of the existence of 'your God' is just as irrational as believing in Zeus.
I cannot prove that you are not a magical turnip that has assumed human form. But it's probably not the case. Well... maybe.
-
adamah
Jeffro said-
I cannot prove that you are not a magical turnip that has assumed human form. But it's probably not the case. Well... maybe.
Well, Jeffro, you have a point there, and since we cannot rule out that it didn't happen, I guess we have no choice but to accept that TEC is in fact a magical turnip that's been turned into a human via supernatural forces that are just so far beyond our capacity to understand that it must be accepted as a miracle!
After all, according to the commonly-accepted rules of folk logic, we cannot prove it didn't happen, so we all have to accept it as truth, and constantly reinforce that belief using faith, EVEN IF any evidence is presented to the contrary (such as TEC's birth certificate, parental accounts, etc). In fact, counter-evidence would give us a wonderful opportunity to BUILD our faith...
Are you seeing the problem now, TEC?
Sam said- Adam, that was sneaky, leave the debate when it gets too hard and then challenge another poster instead. You could have shown a little humility and conceded that my points were solid and rational.
Sam, you exceeded my threshold for nonsense and insults. I'm here to make points, and not just to quibble.
Adam
-
Jeffro
adamah:
evidence is presented to the contrary (such as TEC's birth certificate, parental accounts, etc)
Obviously tec was born in human form after her mother was 'overshadowed' by the great turnip. Duh.
-
KateWild
Sam, you exceeded my threshold for nonsense and insults. I'm here to make points, and not just to quibble.-Adam
I disagree, electron configurations are not nonsense or quibble. You love to quibble over non relevant issues instead of looking at the facts. I was not insulting you Adam, I was just making it clear you do not have the knowledge to challenge my point or the humility to accept this.
Science cannot prove God, exists. I have no evidence that he does. My point is there is clear evidence of structure, order and unity in the way atoms move in a solid, such as a rock. This movement is a symphony to me, and is unquestionably divine. This is not nonsense, but if anyone wants to try and show me why they think I am talking nonsense then come and enter a debate with me about phys chem, I am open minded to the facts.
Adam, has not provided any scientific facts to the contrary. Can you?
Sam xx
-
sammielee24
Science is ever evolving as humans evolve. At any point in time, science can only exist within the parameters that are set by human ability to deliver the outcome and for that reason, science although exact for people in specific frames, does not necessarily become absolute just because it has delivered information within that set of parameters.
People keep saying that science proves 'god' does not exist - tomorrow people evolve, new science contradicts old, professionals agree then disagree, politics becomes involved and power rules and for that reason - who knows the truth and when are they allowed to know it?
I never see the need to quibble about the issue of 'god'. The power of positive thinking or prayer works for some people in that it makes them feel better, work better or achieve more. For others it means nothing. For even others, drugs have the same effect.
Religion, a belief in God, belief in something 'other than you'..is not necessarily wrong. It can be a belief for good or a belief for negative things - but so can governments and human beings. A picture of a starving child and a point toward a God that allows suffering would perhaps go full circle back to humans that have been given the ability to help other humans without prejudice and so the tragedy of a starving child does not necessarily rest on the shoulders of God, but with the human population that does nothing to address the issue.
sammieswife
-
Seraphim23
A good comment sammielee24
-
KateWild
Bumped for someone who knows about phys chem
Sam xx