Some religions must be false.

[Dawkinsrocks]

Because you find nature complex does not mean god exists.

There is not a shred of credible cause and effect evidence.

Men just made that answer up cos the question is hard.

 

[PLC1]

Because you find nature complex does not mean god exists.

There is not a shred of credible cause and effect evidence.

Men just made that answer up cos the question is hard.

Yes, that's what I said. There is no proof, one way or the other.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

There is observation, hypothesis, test and re-test used in science.

There is make-believe in relgion.

Science thrives on the strength of evidence.

The notion of god does not have one single shred of compelling evidence.

The logical conclusion of your point is to believe in anything as you cannot prove a negative and if hiding behind that inane point is the best you have got (which it is) you are pitiable.

 

[Dr.Who]

Because you find nature complex does not mean god exists.

Well it might. If nature is so complex that it could not have come to be by the naturalistic means proposed by some then the only alternative is that it came about with at least some help outside of itself. There have been calculations that the amount of time for certain events to have occurred by the naturalistic methods proposed is greater than the amount of time that the universe seems to have been existence. I did not post a link because you would just refute it anyway. But it demonstrates that there is a hypothetical way to demonstrate that naturalistic explanations are not enough.

There is not a shred of credible cause and effect evidence.

Well that is just because you get to decide what is credible or not and you have decided that any evidence that points to God is incredible. Many many Christians around the world claim that the reason they believe is because they have had an experience with God. Many of them are very reasonable people and yet their testimony is discounted because it does not follow the rules that were designed to be limited to naturalistic events in the first place. I find it to be no surprise that when you make rules designed to find only naturalistic explanations that one finds only naturalistic explanations.

 

[Dr.Who]

There is observation, hypothesis, test and re-test used in science.

Yes there is. There is also observation, hypothesis, test and re-test in religion. It is not required but it is certainly a tool available to any thinker religious or not.

There is make-believe in relgion.

Well I would agree that there are religions in the world that include make-believe. But I think you mean that all religions include make believe. Can you prove that? Even if we just allow you to test one religion alone, say Christianity, can you prove that it contains even one make believe element in it's writings?

Would you be surprised to learn that science has at it's very foundation make-believe? It does.

Science thrives on the strength of evidence.

Yes it does. How is it decided which evidence is most strong? Would you be surprised to learn that there is a degree of subjectivity involved? Both systematically and in individual instances.

The notion of god does not have one single shred of compelling evidence.

Well the evidence does not compel you anyway.

The logical conclusion of your point is to believe in anything as you cannot prove a negative and if hiding behind that inane point is the best you have got (which it is) you are pitiable.

And the basis of science is that you can only disprove a negative (look up the null hypothesis). So likewise it never proves a positive. All positive statements in science are just hypothesis that have not yet been disproven.

 

[9sublime]

The validity of a certain religion cannot be tested. X religion is trying to prove the existence of God Y. At no point can the existence of this God be conclusivley proved to be utterly true.

 

[Dr.Who]

The validity of a certain religion cannot be tested. X religion is trying to prove the existence of God Y. At no point can the existence of this God be conclusivley proved to be utterly true.

Sure it can. If God appears to us all and proclaims himself it will have been proved. If He makes Himself known to just 10,000 people it will have been proved to just the 10,000. And if he makes himself known to just one it will have been proved to just the one.

The fact is that many many people have claimed that God made himself known to them as a group and they wrote it in the bible. And many to this day claim that God makes Himself known to them.

There is a system of thought created by men called the empirical method that helps us to determine when the claims of various people are subjective or objective and so far the existence of God does not meet the criteria to be called empirically substantiated to the same level as say gravity. But then again gravity is not certain to behave the same as we observe it here in this tiny part of the universe and for all time under all conditions. It just could be that what we think we know objectively about gravity is just a distortion of the real truth. Suppose objects do not accelerate at 9.8 meters per second squared but they really accelerate at 9.8x meters per second squared. Suppose they don't accelerate at all on the far left side of the universe. Suppose they accelerated at a slower rate 2 billion years ago and will accelerate at a faster rate in another 2 billion years. Perhaps it is not a constant but a variable.

So perhaps the empirical method is not as helpful as some would like us to believe - at least in extreme situations. Perhaps when we are talking about things at the extreme edges of reality the empirical method is useless. It might not tell us much at all about things like the supernatural or God. It is after all just a paradigm created by men and is only as good as the observations of those who created it.

 

[9sublime]

Sure it can. If God appears to us all and proclaims himself it will have been proved. If He makes Himself known to just 10,000 people it will have been proved to just the 10,000. And if he makes himself known to just one it will have been proved to just the one.

When God makes himself known to us all, thats proof. However, as he hasn't yet, the problem remains that there is no proof of his existence. If he makes himself known to one person, subjectivley and within their mind alone, that is not proof. If I believe in my mind gravity doesn't exist, it still does.

The fact is that many many people have claimed that God made himself known to them as a group and they wrote it in the bible. And many to this day claim that God makes Himself known to them.

Yes, without any proof for their claims.

There is a system of thought created by men called the empirical method that helps us to determine when the claims of various people are subjective or objective and so far the existence of God does not meet the criteria to be called empirically substantiated to the same level as say gravity. But then again gravity is not certain to behave the same as we observe it here in this tiny part of the universe and for all time under all conditions. It just could be that what we think we know objectively about gravity is just a distortion of the real truth. Suppose objects do not accelerate at 9.8 meters per second squared but they really accelerate at 9.8x meters per second squared. Suppose they don't accelerate at all on the far left side of the universe. Suppose they accelerated at a slower rate 2 billion years ago and will accelerate at a faster rate in another 2 billion years. Perhaps it is not a constant but a variable.

So perhaps the empirical method is not as helpful as some would like us to believe - at least in extreme situations. Perhaps when we are talking about things at the extreme edges of reality the empirical method is useless. It might not tell us much at all about things like the supernatural or God. It is after all just a paradigm created by men and is only as good as the observations of those who created it.

Maybe the empirical method is not as helpful as we think, but its a damn far sight better than saying God came to you in a dream and thats proof.

 

[Dr.Who]

When God makes himself known to us all, thats proof. However, as he hasn't yet, the problem remains that there is no proof of his existence. If he makes himself known to one person, subjectivley and within their mind alone, that is not proof. If I believe in my mind gravity doesn't exist, it still does.

You are right that he hasn't done this in recent times. And since we were not around in the past He might as well have not done it then either if we require absolute proof.

So, yes there is no absolute proof. But there is also no proof against the existence of God. The evidence does not point either way conclusively.

Except for those who have first hand experience with God. For them they have enough proof.

And if you decide to believe that He does not exist that will not change the fact of His existence any more than a believer deciding to think that he does exist will change the fact of His non-existence.

Some remain agnostic in the face of this. Others decide that since they do not require absolute proof for most things in life that in this too they will accept some level of proof less than absolute. People on both sides do this and as long as they are open and not dogmatic about it then that's fine. Only those who have had a personal experience can be dogmatic without being illogical. Of course some (but perhaps not all) of them are just delusional.

Yes, without any proof for their claims.

I suppose this is why the claims for Christianity are usually called a testimony rather than a proof.

Maybe the empirical method is not as helpful as we think, but its a damn far sight better than saying God came to you in a dream and thats proof.

Since niether the empirical method nor subjective testimony has provided us with what we need to show the world that God either does or does not exist then perhaps on this question it is not any better - nor worse.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Can you imagine if we applied the standards of proof in a court of law that god gets away with???

Lawyer ; Your honour, I can prove the defendent is guilty because I dreamt it

Judge ; In that case we should move to the formality of sentencing. I instruct the jury to return a verdict of guilty.

Defendant ; But your honour, there isn't any evidence to support a guilty verdict

Judge : Your guilt came to the prosecution in a dream and that is proof enough. Take him down.

 

[Dr.Who]

The validity of a certain religion cannot be tested. X religion is trying to prove the existence of God Y. At no point can the existence of this God be conclusivley proved to be utterly true.

The only reason that we all believe that the various objects we see in the world are real is that we all experience them.

If God were to reveal himself so that all of us could experience Him then that would the point at which the existence of God would be conclusively proved to be utterly true.

So if instead of all of us seeing God 99% of us saw God and you were the 1% who did not would you think that God did not exist or that you were mistaken?

What if 20% of the people saw God and 80% did not?

You see the empirical idea that the popularity of an experience makes it true or not is false. Experiences that are shared by many do help us to eliminate the alternative that the witness is crazy but they do nothing to prove that we ourselves have the correct experience.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

What is important is that results are verifiable.

Lots of people used to think the earth was flat.

The shape of the earth is verifiable.

The claims of experiencing god are not.

Largely because he doesn't exist

 

[Dr.Who]

Can you imagine if we applied the standards of proof in a court of law that god gets away with???

Lawyer ; Your honour, I can prove the defendent is guilty because I dreamt it

Judge ; In that case we should move to the formality of sentencing. I instruct the jury to return a verdict of guilty.

Defendant ; But your honour, there isn't any evidence to support a guilty verdict

Judge : Your guilt came to the prosecution in a dream and that is proof enough. Take him down.

Can you imagine if we required the level of proof that anti-theists demand.

Lawyer: Your Honour, I can prove that the defendant is guilty because none of us has utterly proven that he is innocent.

Judge: well I have stacked the evidence in your favor by ensuring that any evidence that supports innocence is disregarded so I agree he is guilty.

 

[Dr.Who]

What is important is that results are verifiable.

Lots of people used to think the earth was flat.

The shape of the earth is verifiable.

The claims of experiencing god are not.

Largely because he doesn't exist

Sure it is verifiable.

Lot's of people say that God has spoken to them and lot's of other people say that He has spoken to them too. So the experience of the first person has been verified by the experience of the second person.

Now I am not claiming that this proves anything. I am just making the point that it actually does not prove anything. The claims of science that are built on little more than multiple witnesses seeing the same thing appear to be more pragmatic but in reality are not qualitatively different than the claims of religionists.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

But I can verify the shape of the earth.

I can't verify the existence of god and nor can lots of people I know