Can science prove the existence of God? (Synopsis)

If god has any effect on this reality, it can be found by scientific inquiry, and therefore it can be used to prove god exists *if he does*. Nothing can prove it if god doesn't exist.

And only if it is impossible for life to arise (and you have to prove that claim) can you use the existence of life as proof for god, so "fine tuning" isn't it. Only if life turns up where it physically cannot can "magic" be the reason for life being there.

Let's say I've got a hamster. I give him a nice cage. Quite expansive. Lots of toys. Good water and food system. Just looking at the cage, you might easily concclude, "hey, eric really likes that hamster!" Then I seal the whole thing up and drop it in a vat of nitric acid. Not just a little vat, mind you, but vat of acid that forms a cubic mile around that hamster cage. Then I take loads of radioactive waste and distribute it around the vat, so that if any hamster were to somehow exit the cage, and survive the acid, they'd get lethally irradiated.

Now, does that sound like a system designed for the hamster's benefit? Because it sure sounds like a prison to me. It sounds like I'm afraid the hamster might escape his cage and I want to stop that from happening at all costs. But of course, our solar system (and in fact every solar system) is equally inimical to our form of life. Sure, some of the planets might be nice. Good toys. Food and water. Its just the light-years of lethal-in-multiple-ways stuff in between that leaves me skeptical that the whole thing was designed for the hamster's benefit.

However, such a generally deadly universe is what you would expect if it were not designed at all.

@Ethan wrote

From the first, self-replicating organic molecule to something as specialized and differentiated as a human being, we know we need billions of years of (roughly) constant temperatures, the right evolutionary steps, and a whole lot of luck.

There is also a school of thought that there cannot be a complete lack of mass extinction events if complex life is to come into being. If the climate is too constantly benign, all you get is a planet of slime. Catastrophe can end the stranglehold of a dominant life form, and it is the race to refill that newly devoid niche that is the true engine of evolution. The increased evolutionary advancements seen in the fossil records following each of the mass extinction events gives credence to the theory.

The religious uniqueness argument requires proving a negative, which generally is not feasible.
Ethan's calculations do not take into account the many-worlds notion, which would radically increase the odds of intelligent life. For a start, the religious uniqueness argument would have to prove that the many-worlds notion is wrong. Good luck.

Looks like a good article, I don't have time now to read it its quite long. I was interested in question 3, for me like Ethan, the answer is it doesn't prove anything. A corollary is would we want to know there was a proof? Someone once said (I think it was a recent pope), that if there was proof, then you couldn't have such a thing as faith, because faith means believing in something you can't prove.

I like to toy with eric hamster prison thought experiment. What if the creator had good reason to believe that in a universe of hamster ages that aren't adequately isolated, one species of hamster would acquire the means to conquer the universe and either enslave or exterminate all the other hamsters. And the creator had the wisdom to make that outcome impossible. Space is like that, spaceflight is very difficult, especially interstellar spaceflight. Then there are extra barriers at higher granularity: can a galaxy infested by an evil conquering race, infest other galaxies? Could an infested galaxy cluster infest other clusters? As a last resort the accelerating expansion of the universe, means no possible infestation can reach more than a tiny fraction of the universe. So we can at least entertain the notion that our universe was designed to limit the damage that any particular species could cause.

Ethan’s calculations do not take into account the many-worlds notion

Yes and no. Remember, these calculations were done to answer the Fermi paradox. Sentient life existing in a parallel universe does not bear on the question of "why aren't they here?"
Its much like the question of whether there is life in the non-observable parts of the universe. Sure, considering all that extra space increases the likelihood the answer is yes. But it doesn't bear on the question of "why aren't they here."

I personally look at the evidence and find that there is no need to invoke the idea of design in the universe at all. The idea of designed is not needed to explain any facet of the universe. Why invoke an unnecessary idea?

However, if I were to grant for the sake of argument that the universe is designed, then why should I believe that it was designed for humans? Certainly, as eric points out, the vast majority of the universe is completely and utterly lethal to human (and other) life. Isn't it far more likely that, if designed at all, it was designed as a factory for the production of hydrogen and helium? That seems to be what the universe is best at. Perhaps humans are just the "pollution" produced by this hydrogen/helium factory.

according to one of Terry Pratchett's characters, the point of the whole thing is to BE the whole thing. Even if you were to regard as valid the idea of some creator, why would it be created for life at all?

But there's nothing that needs a creator of any type, and all ones proposed so far have been interventionist and therefore have been, by one way or the other, wrong.

Isn’t it far more likely that, if designed at all, it was designed as a factory for the production of hydrogen and helium?

Yup. Or if life, then some form of life that likes hard vacuum, heavy radiation, temperatures at a balmy 3 K, and eats hydrogen.

The same sort of criticism works the other way too, against arguments of rarity-implies-design instead of fit-implies-design. If someone defends the notion of design by pointing out just how limited and rare the conditions needed for humans are, point out that smallpox needs all the same conditions plus it needed humans to evolve. Conditions even more rare than what we need! So if rarity -> design (rather than fit -> design), humans still aren't the leading candidate for the purpose of the universe. :)

But if it was designed to produce hydrogen and helium, it would not have been designed with almost entirely hydrogen in it for a start and there would have been no expansion or cooling, since production of helium was going a lot better before it all cooled (long before the universe became opaque and waaay longer before the first stars formed).

So even then, if it was designed to do that, it was 99% crap design.

Heck, even us humans have managed a damn sight better than that in our controlled fusion experiments. And we don't even know how to create universes.

"Can science prove the existence of God?" I think we may get an answer in the near future. I had written a blog entry on this last month:
http://fb36blog.blogspot.com/2016/12/answering-biggest-question.html

Already answered, Frank.

No, because it doesn't exist.

I bet you weren't as brief as that, though.

"I bet you weren’t as brief as that, though."

Not as brief - with nothing of substance to be seen. Don't bother going there - it's time I'll never get back.

I figured if he couldn't be arsed to give us what he said there before clicking on his site, it couldn't be worth reading, else it would have enticed people to go look for more of his wisdom.

Science cannot prove existence of god for one simple reason- god do not exist. Period. Religions assign to god absolutely incompatible properties. Creator of the whole universe let dirty solders to crucify himself? Absurdity of it is something beyond imagination. But it seems to me, that one half of a brain of a believer do not work properly at all. Common sense sleeps well. This is why many scientists are believers- they never use scientific approach to their believes. Point by point- we'll never be sure, that live doesn't exist outside the Earth. Sooner or later, we'll be able to create artificial live ourselves. Incorporating a superpower in the universe is not a scientific approach. Why sky is blue? it is god's will. No additional comments.

Ethan,

Interesting article. I like your line of thought. I've never liked the fine-tuning argument. I mean, I admire the raw fact of the really impressive set of conditions, but when we say they're "unlikely", I have to ask, compared to what? And here we are, however unlikely.

But like you (if I'm reading you correctly), I don't think that necessarily invalidates a faith perspective as a logical option (though I know you don't go there yourself). It doesn't seem to me logical to suppose that this universe is *necessarily* equal to all reality - even if it's all the reality we can access, being spacetime-stuff ourselves. I'm not expressing myself well.

About God, if we start from the Jewish/Catholic viewpoint that God is not of the universe, there would be literally no way for us to connect with him from here, on our own: the characters in a Shakespeare play could never know the poet; the figures in a Rembrandt painting could never know the artist or understand his mode of life. Unless he paints himself into the picture or writes himself into the play, that is. Like, say, in a Resurrection scene.

(BTW, Andrew #16, this comment was interesting to me:
"Creator of the whole universe let dirty solders to crucify himself? Absurdity of it is something beyond imagination.")

I find I learn a lot about people by sounding out whether they would consider the Resurrection to be data. More specifically, what kind of data would they accept, in the hypothetical event of a true miracle?

Just some thoughts - I could be wrong in my reasoning.

Anyway, Ethan, I really admire your evident love of evidence and going where it leads, and your explanations of complex topics are a boon to the world. Please don't stop doing what you do!

1) Any entity that fulfills the conventional definition of a deity could confound any experiment performed to ascertain its existence. Therefore no such experiment can be valid.

To my mind that fairly conclusively demonstrates that empirical support or disproof for the existence of a deity is not possible. All else is inference: statements of the form "God exists because X," and "God does not exist because Y," that are each subject to refutation through counterexamples or different reasoning. ("We are unique in the universe, therefore God exists," vs. "We are one of many, therefore God exists.")

2) The value of the Anthropic Principle is in enabling us to set constraints on starting conditions. We exist, therefore the starting conditions of the universe must be within a range of values that enables us to exist. This enables us to run computer simulations where the values are adjusted slightly, to arrive at conclusions about the possible starting conditions of the universe. But fine-tuning does not provide "evidence" for the existence of a deity; one can infer and reason in either direction, and neither course is demonstrably exclusively correct.

With those things in mind, I'll take the plunge into mythic speculation (the disclaimer "this is not science" is hardly needed in this forum):

3) If "consistency" is the ultimate rule and ironclad law, that not even an omniscient and omnipotent deity can thwart, then:

a) A hypothetical deity can only create persistent universes within some range of values for critical variables. (Universes created outside of that range do not fully form or do not persist long enough to evolve intelligent life.) A subset of the allowed range of values produces a universe that eventually produces us.

b) It is likely that the cosmic structure of vast stretches of cold lethal darkness punctuated by star systems, is the only structure or "architecture" that could eventually produce any sort of intelligent life.

c) Contrarily: I once had a dream in which all of space was breathable air at room temperature, and was full of built structures with ornate and fanciful architectures, such as a vaguely Victorian tower that spiraled like a corkscrew into the sky and out toward the Moon.

On waking I contemplated this cozy picture for a few minutes and one of the first thoughts that came to mind was: If this was the actual structure of the universe, it would be easy for lethal microbes and large predatory animals to migrate hither & yon, without restraint. That would ultimately act as a downward-leveling factor against the evolution and persistence of intelligent life.

4) The actual structure we observe is one example of a class of the better ones for enabling the evolution of conscious intelligent organisms. In the universe as it is, the only biological "stuff" that migrates between planets and star systems, are the chemical precursors of life, and technologically-capable intelligent organisms.

Here I'm assuming that "transpermia" is limited by the rigors of the origins and destinations of the journey: As a thought-experiment, assume hardy Martian microbes within rock blasted loose by an asteroid. Upon entry into Earth's atmosphere, the heat of entry would almost certainly kill them, and the only thing that would persist upon impact on Earth, would be some biologically-useful chemicals, that in turn might (if anything) contribute in some way to the existing evolutionary course of life on Earth.

5) Conscious intelligent life that is technologically capable, will eventually develop science and in particular astronomy, and will recognize that its home star will eventually expand or explode to destroy its home planet. This will provide the strong incentive (collective survival) to work toward the capacity for interstellar migration.

6) Natural selection on the cosmic scale favors interstellar migration as the means of continuing the existence of the biological lineage of successful life-bearing planets. Eventually each intelligent-life-bearing galaxy becomes populated by the heirs of such lineages.

7) The propensity to believe or disbelieve in a deity is the result of an interaction between the structure & function of each individual brain, and the culture in which each person is raised. Some people are "wired" to be naturally theistic, some are "wired" to be naturally atheistic. The vast majority in the middle often find themselves "struggling" to fit into their predominant culture, e.g. the natural atheist in a deeply theistic society who "struggles" to find faith, e.g. the natural theist in a deeply atheistic society (e.g. the Soviet Union) who "struggles" to rid themselves of faith.

That is ultimately the basis for freedom of religion or freedom of belief: recognition and respect for the natural variation in humans, just as there is natural variation in numerous other aspects of humans that are deeply important to individual existence and identity.

"1) Any entity that fulfills the conventional definition of a deity could confound any experiment performed to ascertain its existence. Therefore no such experiment can be valid."

Incorrect. Any event that god could do that changed this world could prove god.

Parting of the red sea? Stopping the sun for hours? Thousands of zombies coming alive and walking around? Worldwide flood of all land everywhere?

All 100% verifiable by science and therefore proof of god.

A god that refuses to act could avoid science proving it, but

a) Why?
b) If it does so, then it's not the god that anyone has defined as existing yet

The only god with the powers normally described for it that could avoid being proved by science is one that doesn't exist

"7) The propensity to believe or disbelieve in a deity is the result of an interaction between the structure & function of each individual brain"

Wrong.

A survival technique is creating intention. Moving of the long grass is seen and can either
a) be the wind, just something that happened
b) be the movement of a predator being given away

the second one is intention, there's something doing it. And getting that one wrong means you're gonna be dead. Getting the first one wrong means bugger all.

So placing intention behind everything you see or feel is a survival technique. Believing it's god when you find that there was no intention behind it is just a misapplication of the same desire to implement intent.

Then when you#ve decided "something inivsible" made the grass move, another survival technique is to placate that invisible thing so it won't become a predator of you.

And so gods are born. Which start off being local gods or spirits, then become big pantheons of gods, then become single overarching god doing everything.

And then some decide to try science instead of intention.

And that works a whole load better. Instead of praying for god not to strike your place of worship with lightning, you put up a lightning conductor and that works.

I would consider the existence of what one might call lessor gods is pretty likely. When I had dogs, I was a lessor god to them. A sufficiently advanced alien whether biological or cyber would probably qualify for current humans. It certainly would have qualified if it had come here a few thousand years ago. Now GOD (all caps) as a creator/ruler of the universe, thats something else entirely. But, humans notions of a big god evolved from our previous lessor gods beliefs.

No, they're only "more likely than a big singular god", but only because they're less incredible.

Spiderman isn't more likely to be real than Superman just because Peter Parker isn't as powerful as Clark Kent.

And, no, "sufficiently advanced aliens" isn't god or even lesser gods. They're aliens.

We aren't aliens because we can make doors open without touching them. We use IR sensors and motors. Not god powers.

And nobody thinks that science can't prove aliens exist.

I believe that the energy necessary to animate Life is one of the basic forces in the universe. I do not believe that it was specifically created for life on this earth but rather exists throughout this universe and allows for Life to exist on many different types of planets. When the physical conditions are present, Life will develop.

"Had this entire universe been once created by some deity, god, super mind whatever you call it? This question is outside of the science."

No it isn't. It's a question about reality and what is there. And that's precisely what science CAN look into. If science isn't about reality, what the hell do you think it is about?

"There is another interesting question. Existence of immortal soul, which can be separated from body. It makes me laugh, how many believers do not see the difference."

Care to show where there is evidence there's no perceptio of the difference? After all,if we're talking about god and not the existence of souls, the fact that we don't talk about the existence of souls in that conversation isn't proof that people don't know what the difference is, it rather proves they DO know what the difference is. If they didn't think there WAS a difference, then they'd be talking about the existence of souls in a conversation about god's existence.

Hmmm. That's what YOU are doing. And I note that you don't say what the difference IS, either.

"About God, if we start from the Jewish/Catholic viewpoint that God is not of the universe, there would be literally no way for us to connect with him from here"

Wrong. That god appears and proves themselves ALL THE FUCKING TIME to people here in this reality.

Hell, they specifically have that god WILL appear because wherever there are believers in him, there he is among them, and he will do whatever they ask if they ask together for it.

So to connect between the two places, all you need are two or more christians to get together and ask that jesus appears.

Jesus appears.

Job done.

The only reason why not is that the god is a liar or doesn't exist to lie in the first place.

But the reason IS NOT that there's no way to connect to god. They have done many many times before (not once breaking the ability of faith to exist) and have even explicitly given carte blanche for being asked to appear again at any time.

So, no, John, utterly wrong.

"I find I learn a lot about people by sounding out whether they would consider the Resurrection to be data"

What data is there?

Eyewitness testimony to the specific event? None. All accounts are second hand and 30 years after the event at earliest.
Retelling of the method of execution? Incorrect.
Actions taken during the execution? Not ones that were ever done.
Burial method? No such custom existed then.
External events recounted (thousands of zombies getting up and walking around) corroborated by any other acoounts? Nope, not a one.

So what data is there for the resurrection?

None.

What data would we want for any miracle? SOME would be a good start, we can look at that and find out if it's just another David Copperfield illusionist trick or genuine magic.

"I believe that the energy necessary to animate Life is one of the basic forces in the universe"

We already know what that energy is, Pat.

Electrical potential energy. It's the same stuff as you find on your batteries. And it IS universal and it IS essential for ALL life, even if not carbon-based.

What it isn't is some "other" type of energy. It's just plain old electric potentials.

I found reading this article quite interesting. To me, the interesting part was rather sociological than the content itself, though: In the region of the world where I live (Europe), there does not seem to be much of an evolution vs creationist debate -- in fact even most religious people seem to accept and even defend the concept of biological evolution here.

That said, I also think that the content of the article does not correspond to the headline because mathematics/science can prove the existence of a god. The argument goes like this:

1) On the most fundamental level, all science works by taking a set of assumptions believed to be true in the sense that they allow to explain a subset of all phenomena of the physical world.
2) Math/science takes these assumptions to create "compound" statements about the physical world using logic. If these compound statements contradict observations, the fundamental assumptions of point (1) are either incorrect or at least inaccurate. Also, if some observations exist that cannot be explained by compound statements, the set of assumptions is said to be incomplete.
3) Let us assume for a moment that a set of statements which can used to make statements about _every_ observable phenomenon of the physical world and none else exists. (The current state of scientific affairs is far from this point, but this does not matter to the argument here.) Such a set of assumptions is called an "complete and consistent axiom system" and an infinite number of them can exist, but given that they all explain exactly the same things, they are all equivalent.
4) Question: What makes these complete and consistent axiom systems true? This question cannot be answered by science, because an answer would just be a more fundamental statement and the axiom system would not be an axiom system.
5) Some say the answer to (4) is "god". In my opinion that is totally valid.

One should quickly add that this argument does not prove any properties of such a "god". In fact, I consider it unlikely that this entity has an interest in life, the earth, or the universe or that it even has a consciousness.

"4) Question: What makes these complete and consistent axiom systems true?"

Tell us what these axioms are. It is not possible to answer any question about things you have not defined.

"5) Some say the answer to (4) is “god”. In my opinion that is totally valid."

Bare assertion. Reply "No it isn't", Hitchens' Razor deployed. No further need to respond, your claim is completely refuted.

"One should quickly add that this argument does not prove any properties of such a “god”."

Then it is not an answer.Might as well use the word "Cabbage", just don't define how it is an answer and suddenly you think it valid. Who needs to know why!

"In fact, I consider it unlikely that this entity has an interest in life, the earth, or the universe or that it even has a consciousness."

Then why is it god and not nothing? If it's nonexistent, then it can take no interest in life, the earth or the universe and nonexistence means it doesn't have a consciousness by definition.

So why not use "nothing"? It's far more accurate and properly defined than "god" is.

> Tell us what these axioms are

you're fun, I've written about this, but here it is again: they are a set of statements that can consistently explain all conceivable observations of the physical world (and I should add: they also do not explain anything which contradicts such observations).

If you wonder what they are: nobody knows as of yet and science is the process of finding better approximations...

> No further need to respond, your claim is completely refuted.

did I ever mention that I consider you to be funny? I can't see anything you wrote which contradicts it (except, maybe, your own ideology ;)).

> Then it is not an answer.

yeah, if you want to see it like this. an alternative name of this "god" is "meta physics", or "the thingy that implies physics". My point is that this is just a matter of definition.

> Then why is it god and not nothing?

an equivalent to your question is: why are "we" not nothing? I assume that you think of yourself as *something*?

> If it’s nonexistent, then it can take no interest in life, the earth or the universe and nonexistence means it doesn’t have a consciousness by definition.

assuming "we" exist, "it" must exist too. The point is that, considering "its" definition, it is extremely unwise to attribute any properties to "it".

> then it can take no interest in life

that's one of the properties: "it" can also take an interest in life. (I personally consider this to be unlikely.)

> So why not use “nothing”? It’s far more accurate and properly defined than “god” is.

if you prefer to use that term, then that is fine with me. This implies that everything is "nothing", though...

(or to say it another way: from "nothing", nothing follows.)

"> Tell us what these axioms are

they are a set of statements that can consistently explain all conceivable observations of the physical world"

You didn't tell us what they are.

"If you wonder what they are: nobody knows as of yet and science is the process of finding better approximations…"

OK, so we cant answer your question #4.

"I can’t see anything you wrote which contradicts it"

But you gave nothing to say that you were right, or that I am wrong, therefore I refer you back to "Hitchen's Razor". Look it up.

"assuming “we” exist,"

We aren't god, so this is irrelevant.

"“it” must exist too. "

No it doesn't Hitchen's Razor again. 100% refutation.

"The point is that, considering “its” definition, it is extremely unwise to attribute any properties to “it”."

Yes we can: it doesn't exist. Which means that no properties exist, making attributing any to it unwise, as required.

"that’s one of the properties: “it” can also take an interest in life."

No it can't. It doesn't exist.

"if you prefer to use that term, then that is fine with me. "

Fine.

"This implies that everything is “nothing”, though…"

No it doesn't, they're absolutely not the same thing. God not existing does not mean everything is nothing.

"yeah, if you want to see it like this. an alternative name of this “god” is “meta physics”, or “the thingy that implies physics”"

My point is that this is meaningless.

If there is a uber-Designer, then the system could've been set in a such a way as to disable any probing of the outside from the inside. A sort of a Tron scenario.. we being programs.. you don't get to access "user land". So science might be useless if so desired by the super one.

But apart from special pleading here, there's nothing about stopping outside coming in. We therefore still can see that external we're begging to be real when it appears with effect in this universe.

And if they deliberately try not to do that, we're not only insisting with special pleading that being set up has absolutely no way for science to find out it being different, the lack of interaction coming in is only a contingent avoidance.

The fact that I'm not eating ice cream doesn't mean I CANNOT eat ice cream, does it.

So deliberately not trying to avoid being detected doesn't mean it can't be detected at all.

p.s.
What I love is that Ethan used Michelangelo's Creation of Adam. It was only in an episode of Westworld couple of weeks ago that I came upon one view of the painting that blew me, and I was un-aware off all these years. Mostly I blame my art teachers.. should have said/know about it.... Anyways... it's that the backdrop.. where the God is positioned.. that reddish cape behind him... is actually a human brain... well.. a silouette of it... And the more I look at it.. the more the shape looks like it's painted just like that on purpose. With a message so clear... it is us.. our intellect and our self, that is the god, that is the force that animates our material body. Not some "above" thing.

though if it was a picture of the meeting, god made eve a very disappointed girl.

(oh, and it's not a human brain: it's meatballs. May you be touched by his noodly appendage)

I do not want to waste too much time responding to #31 since you clearly did not read the original comment (#28) and my answer to #29 ;). I'll just just reply to this:

>>> Tell us what these axioms are
>>
>> they are a set of statements that can consistently explain all
>> conceivable observations of the physical world”
>
> You didn’t tell us what they are.

First, it does not matter for the argument are what they are in concrete terms, and second let me quote myself:

"""
If you wonder what they are: nobody knows as of yet and science is the process of finding better approximations…
"""

If you're interested in the currently best approximations, you can have a look at this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model
and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity

A good but slightly outdated introduction to these can be found here:

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/

Omega @6 (sorry, I missed your reference earlier, ignoring you wasn't intentional):

I like to toy with eric hamster prison thought experiment. What if the creator had good reason to believe that in a universe of hamster ages that aren’t adequately isolated, one species of hamster would acquire the means to conquer the universe and either enslave or exterminate all the other hamsters

That's a viable defense...IF you're willing to give up omnipotence in your deity. Because with omnipotence, It could do both (infinite nice living space for each hamster species, and multiple hamster species).

John K @17:

I don’t think that necessarily invalidates a faith perspective as a logical option

Well, science is empirical and inductive. So it can always be wrong, and a god is always philosophically possible. What science does is give us ever-higher inductively-derived confidence that a god-concept isn't likely, because it is inconsistent with the empirical evidence we have (so far) collected.

I mention this point because it's often a 'last line of retreat' for theologians - pointing out that science can't prove God doesn't exist. Well yeah, that's true. But (a) that's not what science ever intended to do, and (b) that ain't much of an argument to inspire confidence in ones' theology.

About God, if we start from the Jewish/Catholic viewpoint that God is not of the universe, there would be literally no way for us to connect with him from here

This is enormously inconsistent with the Bible, which has God connecting empirically to humans all the time. Lots of direct 'face to face' communication, God reaching down and doing miracles, Jesus, etc. A deistic deity that never touches reality is, as you point out, immune to scientific examination. However, IMO you have to jettison quite a lot of Christian theology to get to such a deity.

"First, it does not matter for the argument are what they are in concrete terms, and second let me quote myself:"

Then you can't make point 4 onwards and your entire thesis is null and void.

Where in your links are god?

Obviously Andreas you didn't read 32.

Wow...Men of science have been trying to animate matter and create a Living Being using electricity for quite a while. So far, they have failed. When they succeed, I will admit I am wrong.

There is much more involved in the creation of life than a simple spark, or lightening bolt. The James Leininger case proves that.

Accept my thoughts or not, neither of us has any physical proof...at least not yet.

Re. Wow @ 20:

Sure, a deity could do some kind of divine intervention that would leave no doubt of its existence. But that is not an experiment in any conventional sense of controlled means of making observations to test a hypothesis.

An ET spacecraft could land somewhere and be examined by metallurgists, leaving no doubt about that subject either. Until that happens, all we have are puzzling objects in the sky that are non-repeatable observations.

A deist deity could create universes until finding one that could support life, and allow that one to continue without much further physical intervention. Such a deity could enable organisms to have souls, and occasionally communicate with the souls of such organisms. A deity of that kind would be invisible to experimental testing and measurement.

Imparting "intention" to events in nature presupposes something that has an intention, which is to say a human or other animal, or if no such is visible, a supernatural (above or outside of nature) entity. Such entities are felt to be persons. The characteristic here is "attribution of personhood to objects other than self." Some humans attribute personhood to other animals, and some such humans refuse to eat other animals as a result. Some humans don't even attribute personhood to other humans, and treat other humans as objects to be manipulated. The vast majority are somewhere in-between.

It is mundanely true that humans do vary as to degree of belief/disbelief in deities, and it's testable as to the statistical form that applies, for example a normal curve or a power-law curve or something else. I attribute that variation to a combination of brain structure & function, and upbringing, with historic and current cultural data as support.

Omega Centauri @ 21: "Lesser gods" that are physical beings, is stretching the definition. "Gods" as normally defined, refers to supernatural (above or outside of nature) entities.

Pat McCormick @23: That's basically animism or panpsychism, the idea that mind as observed is at least in part the product of a different state of existence than matter and energy as conventionally understood. As far as I know that's also untestable, since the only ways we know of for inferring the presence of consciousness entail observing certain types of behaviors such as communication, that at present we only know how to observe for animals.

Well there are two levels of cosmogenesis, that of the universe and that of life. Life is easily handled by Udo Seifert's stochasitc thermodynamics and the mentioned charge transfer energy gradients in clay rich alkaline hydrothermal vents. You can check out the mathematical proofs by lookig for recent works by James Crutchfield on the subject. Quantum cosmogensis is less than straightforward but doesn't appear to be intractable.

For a brief summary with references -

http://lifeform.net/archimedes/Cosmic_Evolution.pdf

re: #42

I guess that in Pat's library, the only "science" book is Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.

@Wow: you're right and I am wrong. The world is exactly as you say it is. (Are you "it"?)

Sorry to have bothered you with my unworthy thoughts.

"Wow…Men of science have been trying to animate matter and create a Living Being"

My dad managed to do that several times, Pat.

" So far, they have failed. "

No they haven't. Ask your dad where you came from. He won't say the Stork or you were magically poofed into existence. If he does, I would suggest a home for him.

"When they succeed, I will admit I am wrong."

Lets see, hmm? Ask your dad where you came from.

"There is much more involved in the creation of life than a simple spark"

No, we use chemical energy, the electrical potential between atoms and molecules. That's what we use food for. There's no magical mystical "energy" that is essential for life. It's the electrical energy that is in our food.

(PS cardio electric shocks bring people back to life from a heart attack very frequently)

"Sure, a deity could do some kind of divine intervention that would leave no doubt of its existence. But that is not an experiment"

It is when we look into that miracle, G. That's an experiment right there. The only case where science COULD NOT prove it would be if it could not ever happen, otherwise it's just a "not yet" like seeing the surface of extrasolar planets. We can't YET see them, but there's no way to claim we can never see them.

"Until that happens, all we have are puzzling objects in the sky that are non-repeatable observations."

Repeatability isn't necessary. Paleontology isn't repeatable, yet it uses science to make deductions. History is not repeatable, yet scientific.

Seeing the ammeter move to a value is a single observation and that single observation is not repeated, except under a similar set of circumstances that we consider to be similar enough to conclude as being equivalent to a repeat of the observation (one of those axioms that Andreas bleated on about without knowing it even existed, because Andreas doesn't know what they're on about).

SN1987a was an non-repeatable observation. We can still do science on it.

"A deist deity could create universes until finding one that could support life"

A deist deity would not bother even to look. That's not what a deist deity does. And in "looking" they interact with this universe, showing that there is a connection between the two realms (if you posit a completely separate uberverse where deities "live"). That's what observing means: communication.

" Such a deity could enable organisms to have souls"

But they'd have to exist tied strictly to our physical bodies, else we would not change under severe trauma to the brain. And they'd STILL have to obey the natural laws of this universe and be 100% open to scientific inquiry.

And the act of creating those souls would be yet more intervention, something deist deities do not do.

And those souls going to the afterlife? More communication between the two "realms". And still more intervention deities don't do.

Plus you need to show there ARE souls. Kinda missing the even one unrepeatable event there.

"The characteristic here is “attribution of personhood to objects other than self.”"

No that's not it. That's anthropomorphisation. Intention is the requirement. If there's nothing there, there's nothing there, so we invent a god or spirit and then give it the power to make their intent real in this universe. We can thereafter make them persons, but the intent is there first. Without the ability to make manifest via their intention, there's no thing there to have personhood.

"Some humans attribute personhood to other animals, and some such humans refuse to eat other animals as a result."

Ducks et al attribute "Mother" to the first thing they see when they hatch. Are they attributing "duckhood" to your wellies?

Ever seen a dog eat another dead dog? Substitute other pack animal if needed.

Attributing personhood to others of the same type is part of what makes a pack animal a survival tecnhnique. Hyenas kill and clean up FAR more animals than lions do, because they have a stronger and larger pack structure. They are the biggest killers in Africa. They survive better because they work together cohesively. Lions do better than Tigers for the same reason.

"@Wow: you’re right and I am wrong."

Passive aggressive bullshit. You ARE wrong. I'm not better than you, just far less deluded. But you don't want to read 32, don't want to explain what the hell you're babbling on about, so you go all sneering snide BS and flounce off.

Just letting you know I know what you're doing and it doesn't matter to me. Your arguments matter, your feelings matter fuck all.

"I guess that in Pat’s library, the only “science” book is Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein."

I wonder if Pat ever did chemistry in school. Or went to school. Because they'd know what we use food for if they had. They'd know what chemical energy is, if they had.

But I suspect Pat here is thinking there must be some woomancer "energy" that they can't define, but must be there because they're not religious, but they know they have a soul, because they just know it, man. And that requires energy, which isn't chemical energy, because we already know about that, and this is something "scientists" don't know, because Pat is smarter than them, he KNOWS that this exists, and scientists don't, therefore they can't know what this "energy" is.

Leylines and crystals are probably involved.

"Professors at Princeton have been studying Global Consciousness for several years"

Yeah, and? That isn't energy and isn't essential to life either. Segue doesn't make a counterargument, Pat.

"Just because most of the scientific community views “Life” as an accidental infection on the skin of Planet Earth,"

Uh, you think that. Scientists don't. You just caricature what you WANT them to think so you can kick down that strawman.

"Their egos have kept them from accepting many other relevant phenomena when they first appeared"

No, refusing to accept your unsubstantiated woomancer bollocks isn't their ego, it's yours unable to accept you need more than wish and hope to support a claim.

(oh, look here: http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/07/reincarnation_a.html)

"It seems the more our scientists learn, the stranger this universe gets"

This doesn't mean if you think up something even weirder it MUST be right.

"Open your mind to new possibilities."

It is. Is yours open to the idea you're absolutely wrong here? Just because my brain hasn't fallen out doesn't mean my mind isn't open.

" Don’t spend your life as a troll."

No, this isn't trolling. Look up the definition, moron.

@Wow: ah, a d.u.s. man. I get it ;)

Uh. Ok?

"Professors at Princeton have been studying Global Consciousness for several years. They have some positive results."

No, no they don't. That "research" follows a trajectory similar to that of "alternative medicine" - experiments that are badly designed, monitored, and controlled, resulting in nothing but chance outcomes which are "significant" only because of the sheer number of blind tests done - in other words, a few random false positives.
It is science? No. Is it statistically valid? Certainly not. Is it a waste of time and money, appealing only to the gullible? Well, you bought into it, didn't you?

> Uh. Ok?

I guess so: http://abstrusegoose.com/558

hint: It's time for us to shut up.

Speak for yourself. You didn't have to type.

Absurdity of Atheism
If abiogenesis (spontaneous creation without specific design) can be admitted under such conditions of regularity, then purposeful generation and definitely balanced creation can be the result of error ad perplexity, since these two are opposed to abiogenesis.

Such a statement is highly absurd that order and rectitude should come about without a Creator, and disorder and impropriety of design and fate should suppose a Creator. He is an ignoramus who says this, because anything produced without design will never be exact and proportioned, while disorder and contrariness cannot co-exist with orderly design. Allah (swt) is far above what the heretics say.

http://www.al-shia.org/html/eng/page.php?id=1640&page=6

Yeah, sorry, that's not absurdity of atheism, it's the absurdity of faithiest claims.

And even if science were wrong about abiogenesis, that's not proving god, only proving the current science wrong.

Hence it's an absurd post.

...highly absurd that order and rectitude should come about without a Creator,

Here's order that came about without a Creator.

disorder and contrariness cannot co-exist with orderly design

Well, every human zygote will accumulate about 70-130 mutational errors in its genome as it develops, so I'd say we're pretty disorderly.

There is something which we all know, and it was born after the existence of the earth, namely: life. Our scientists state that earth was too hot (and some of them say it was too cold) for any kind of life to exist on it. It took the earth millions of years to become a suitable place for life. Life, therefore, is, undoubtedly, a newborn.

Science, however, tells us that life does not originate from non-living being. Pasteur's experiment, which took place in the 19th century, is still standing. Through his sterilized soup, he proved beyond any doubt that life does not originate from inanimate material. The scientists of today are still unable to disprove his conclusion.

The earth, along with its atmosphere, at the time of its formation was sterile and unproductive. Transforming the inanimate materials, such as carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and iron into a living being could not, therefore, be done through a natural process. It must have been done miraculously.

This means that the existence of life on this planet is a shining evidence on the existence of an Intelligent, Supernatural Designer.

http://www.najaf.org/english/book/9/5.html

"There is something which we all know, and it was born after the existence of the earth, namely: life."

1) Define life. If you think we all know what it is, define it.
2) We don't know it was born after the existence of earth, there are billions of planets in the galaxy and billions of galaxies, have you checked to see that none of them and none of the ones that have ever existed have no life and never had it?
3) Doesn't prove god anyway.

"Science, however, tells us that life does not originate from non-living being. "

Nope, it doesn't.

"Through his sterilized soup, he proved beyond any doubt that life does not originate from inanimate material"

1) Nope,he didn't.
2) Miller-Urey
3) See above: define life

"Transforming the inanimate materials, such as carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and iron into a living being could not, therefore, be done through a natural process"

1) Yes it can.
2) See all of the above.

"It must have been done miraculously."

1) Nope. See above.
2) Doesn't prove god.
3) Especially not yours.

"This means that the existence of life on this planet is a shining evidence on the existence of an Intelligent, Supernatural Designer."

1) Who says it was designed?
2) Nope, it doesn't. See all of the above.

Here's one proof you can give me: Show me where you pray to this designer and they create out of nothing an entire new adult human being.

However far this infinite chain is prolonged, it will still have the attributes of neediness, dependency, and origination in time. A chain from the very nature of which autonomy and freedom from need do not arise can never put on the garment of being until it connects with one who is in his essence absolutely free of need— with a being who possesses the attributes of divinity and who is only a cause and not an effect.

Without the existence of such an unconditional being, the source of all causes and the foundation of all existence, the order of creation cannot be explained.

http://www.al-islam.org/god-and-his-attributes-sayyid-mujtaba-musawi-la…

Well , more meaningless bollocks from a deaf and dumb godbothering buffoon.

He's wrong BTW, peeps.

@o--<
//////////////
Just drew mohammed lying down dead.

Well , more meaningless bollocks from a deaf and dumb godbothering buffoon.

He's wrong BTW, peeps.

@o--<
//////////////
Just drew mohammed lying down dead.
So dead now.Good job idiot can't read, eh?

The waverers failed to grasp the mysteries and causes underlying the genesis of the creatures, and their intellects remain unaware of the faultless ingenuity subsisting underneath the creation of the varied species of the sea and the land, the level and the rough.

They became disbelievers, and because of a deficiency of their knowledge and puerility of intellect, began quibbling inimically with Truth, so much so that they denied creativeness and claimed that all this universe was meaningless and vain, without any ingenious design on the part of a Designer or Creator - a purposeless non-entity without balance or poise.

Allah (swt) is far above what they attribute to Him. May they perish! flow misguided they are! In their misguided blindness and bewilderment they are like the blind people groping right and left in a well-furnished, well-built house with fine carpets, luscious articles of food and drink, various kinds of clothing and other necessities of essential use, all adequately supplied in proper quantity and placed with perfect decorum and ingenious design.

In their blindness they fail to see the building and its furnishing. They move about from one room to ,another, advancing and retreating. If by chance, any one of them finds anything in its place to supply a need, and not knowing the purpose for which it is set there and unaware of the underlying ingenuity, he might begin to reprimand the architect of the building in his offensive rage, whereas, as a matter of fact, the fault lies with his own inability to see.

This analogy holds good in the case of the sect who deny the creative factor and the argument in favour of Divine Design. Failing to appreciate the merit of their provision, the perfection of creation and the beauty of design, they start wandering in the wide world, bewildered by their inability to grasp with their brains the underlying causes and principles.

It so happens sometimes that someone among them is aware of a thing but in his ignorance of its reality, purpose and need, begins at once to find fault with it saying, "it is untenably wrong."

http://www.al-shia.org/html/eng/page.php?id=1640&page=4

The only thing waving is your sanity goodbye, retard.

Now piss off or go to the thread that offtopic shitposts go:

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/09/23/weekend-diversion-yo…

Allah told me to tell you.

PS:

@ o --<
////////////////////////

I've now beheaded Mohammed.

Your very existence is a great evidence on the existence of Adam and Eve, or let us say the first two human beings. You did not see Adam and Eve, but you believe that they existed.

To make it more clear: You came through your parents. Your parents came through their parents, and your grandparents came through their parents, and so on. You may continue going back until you reach Adam and Eve. If you deny the existence of the first two human beings, you would be eliminating the first generation of their children. By eliminating the first generation, you eliminate the second and what is beyond it. Finally, you have to eliminate your own parents. Then you have to eliminate yourself. But you say to yourself: I cannot do that because I am here. Then you have to say: Adam and Eve were there.

http://www.najaf.org/english/book/9/5.html

Still don't get it? I will make it childish for you to grasp! Now you may say " But evolution says there was no Adam and Eve etc..."

Granted for the sake of an argument!

Even then if you deny the existence of YOUR first "evolution" beings, you would be eliminating the whole evolution!

To make it more clear to you AGAIN!

You may bring YOUR darwinian monkey tricks of evolution and say: But there was no Adam and Eve, we come from ....blah blah blah!

Granted!

Even then if you deny the existence of the first evolution beings, you would be eliminating the whole evolution!

Simple common sense!

Ethan, you deal with the fuckwit, I won't.

"Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God, but if we use our beliefs as an excuse to draw conclusions that scientifically, we’re not ready for, we run the grave risk of depriving ourselves of what we might have come to truly learn."

Thanks. That - all of that - needs to be said and stressed more often

Science can prove or disprove the existence of any claimed god, though, unless one specifically forced to avoid any appearance.

Making your god dance to your tune so that you can avoid being wrong seems hideously arrogant, though.

The other thing to consider is that if there were ever a science experiment that proved god, is there a single believer in that god who would not accept it?

NOMA is cried by those who know that they're wrong, If they thought otherwise, they'd hedge their bets at least.

Some people seem to have a difficult time with the essential indeterminant properties of reality. As the topic of non-material otherness has been the subject of thoughtful argument throughout history, and has produced no definitive answer – either for or against the proposition, I find it much more likely that there will be no definitive answer than the notion a blog commenter has figured it out once and for all.

While we are each entitled to our belief systems (some expressed rather more passionately than others), it does, at times, become tiresome picking one’s way through the intellectual detritus that serves only to satisfy this or that individual’s POV.

Ethan has presented more than once in this blog examples of the limits to what Science can authentically know. Relax and enjoy the ride Science provides; it’s a good show all on its own.

Yeah, but there's nowt there that stops science looking at gods fiddling with reality, is there.

And it's not like there's any other proposition, for example religious theology, that has any area that is more capable in answering. And, no, "Science deals with 'how' and religion deals with 'why'" isn't it. There's nothing that indicates either that science can't deal with why, nor that religion or theology deals with "why" questions any better than science does. It just claims it does.

So, would it be fair to contrast the "religious theology" proposition with, say, a "non-religious theology" proposition? Which of the two would be more capable in answering, and why?

Go ahdad and define them both.

Until you've defined them and given a concrete example to talk about you've got nothing to discuss.

So, still not seeing any examples there, John.

If you've got nothing, we've got nothing to discuss. I'd wish you good luck, but I don't think you're even trying.

YOU were the one coming up with the demand for a non-religious theology, John, and you wanted to discuss if it could be better at answering, and why?

If you can't think of a non-religious theology, why did you ask to talk about it?

Some people regard matter as independent and imagine that it has itself gained this freedom and elaborated the laws that rule over it. But how can they **believe** that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?

What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.

All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.

http://www.al-islam.org/god-and-his-attributes-sayyid-mujtaba-musawi-la…

A religious theology does not imply or insist on non-religious theology, John.

And for non (religious theology), it was already therein the post you complained about: science.

Quite why you're so butthurt about being unable to comprehend anything more complex than simple binary propositions isn't my fault.

If you want to ask for a conversation about how something explains things better or worse, then say what that something is, don't whinge that you don't know. Apologetics are the limp liberals of theology: too timid to man up and be idiotic in public.

PS Hassan, Allah told me to tell you to shut the fuck up or he'll make your nuts drop off from that fungus

"As pointed out in post #77, presenting “religious theology” as an “other proposition”, which the author of Post #74 did, "

But what I said in there was about science, and not insisting that there must be some non-religious theology. It doesn't even insist that the term non-religious theology exists.

Do look up the words.

"As I have not complained about any post, that is incorrect."

Ah, so I don't need to bother with what you say, sine there's no complaints. Cur out the comments that are complaints about posts made since they don't exist.

So are you complaining about posts NOW? Seems to be several. You know, including 74...

Would bullshitting "I ain't complaining" avoidance also help, John? How about less of the absolute forbidding on what science can or can't do until you've worked it out? Probly help, right?

"That is another mistake."

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Well, you can at least recite lines from old movies.

How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?

Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving*, is his creator and that of all beings?

@94
You might as well believe in the coming of the 'invisible' planetoid NIBIRU for all that is worth; same result.
:)

After years of careful planning and exhausting labor, biochemists have succeeded in discovering certain experimental organisms on a very simple and primitive level from which all trace of life is absent. This scientific triumph was regarded as very valuable and received with great enthusiasm in scientific circles, and nobody claimed that this highly deficient and primitive laboratory creation had come into being as the result of chance, without direction, planning and precision.

This being the case, those who ascribe all the beings in the vast system of the universe, together with their complex and mysterious properties to the blind and unconscious forces of matter, are, in reality, doing violence and injustice to logic and human intelligence and waging open war on the truth.

http://www.al-islam.org/god-and-his-attributes-sayyid-mujtaba-musawi-la…

See how even this religious whackjob thinks that science CAN prove god.

THAT answers your question!

@96
If you have not been able to work it out, proof for the existence of your god must be beyond a shadow of a doubt. It cannot be considered to be a belief only. Your faith does not rely on any truth other than that which you believe, or, are too scared not to believe. Give some scientific proof of your god. That is what this site is about - science.
:)

Now let me know whether the nature which functions in such a well-planned and well-ordered fashion possesses knowledge and power or is it devoid of also of intelligence and reason, without power and without knowledge?

If you admit that it possesses knowledge and power, then what obstructs you from a belief in the Creator?

What we say 's that all things are created by One Who is Master of Knowledge and Power.

You say that there is no Creator and yet admit that nature had done this with ingenuity and plan. As such nature is the cause of their creation, while you deny the Creator.

If you say that nature produces such things without knowledge and power - not knowing what it is doing nor the power to do it - in connection with the type and having design and ingenuity that subsists in all phenomena, it is inconceivable that something may be performed without the corresponding power to do it and without a knowledge thereof.

As such it is obvious that the action emanates from an Omniscient Creator, Who has laid down as only a method among His creation through his Omniscience, which you people call nature.

In other words, Almighty God has ordained a method to produce everything according to its definite cause and principle.

Aaaw. No chapter of some loon's fairytales book this time?

Sad.

He's copying and pasting from stuff he wrote at least 2 years ago, or from some source older than that. Here is the same material quoted on Patheos 2 years ago.

So blindly repeating an old and ridiculous text.

Seems appropriate.

Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow fortuitously emerged out of mindless matter?

Have his discoveries and insights merely brought him to a stage of thought which sees only blind concomitance and chance conjunctures in the exactly interacting phenomena?

Where is the logic in claiming that belief in God is confined to persons unaware of the processes of creation?

http://www.al-islam.org/god-and-his-attributes-sayyid-mujtaba-musawi-la…

Hey Hasnain,
if your deity is all-encompassing, in other words, is the universe, how long would it take for a thought to travel from one side of the universal (brain) to the other, given that C (speed of light) is the limiting factor? Oh yes, our seeable universe is 48 billion LY across.
:)

Although science does not explicitly and definitively reject every unknown thing simply because it can have no access to it by means of its tools and instruments, patiently awaiting instead the day when it should be discovered, materialists do not even approach the question of the existence of God with doubt and hesitation; on the basis of their erroneous and hasty prejudices, they pronounce their judgment that the Creator does not exist.
Such persons establish certain criteria and standards for themselves and are not prepared to apply a different criterion established for a definite purpose in a given area. For example, they would never use the criteria applicable to a surface to measure a body, but when it comes to measuring the supra-sensory world, they try to measure God, the spirit, and inspiration, with the same tools they use to measure the material world. When they find themselves unable to gain any knowledge

of the entities in question, they proceed to deny their existence.
Now, if a person imprisoned in empirical logic desires to accept the reality of the universe only to the extent permitted him by sensory experience and to deny whatever lies beyond that, he must recognize that this is a path he has chosen for himself; it is not the result of scientific investigation and experiment. This kind of pseudo-intellectualism arises from intellectual rebellion and an abandonment of one's original nature. The god that the natural scientist wishes vainly to "prove" with his tools and instruments is, in any event, no god at all in the view of those who worship God.

Belief in the Reality of the Unseen Involves More than God

If man, through the application of scientific instruments and criteria, cannot perceive the existence of a thing, he cannot deny its existence simply because it is incompatible with material criteria, unless he disposes of some proof that the thing in question is impossible.
We discover the existence of an objective law from within the totality of phenomena that it is capable of interpreting. If, then, the establishment of scientific truth is possible only by means of direct sensation, the majority of scientific truths will have to be discarded, since many scientific facts cannot be perceived by means of sensory experience or testing.

PJ, I don;t think that's a real person. I think it is just programmed to repeat the same posting information.

The lack of intelligent design in the universe is proven by posts like theirs.

You did not answer the question.
:(

How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the acceptance of contradiction, whereas belief in the uncaused nature of an effect such as matter is not contradictory?

http://www.al-islam.org/god-and-his-attributes-sayyid-mujtaba-musawi-la…

@106 John
Thanks, i know, but God says
Or lest ye should say: If the Scripture had been revealed unto us, we surely had been better guided than are they. Now hath there come unto you a clear proof from your Lord, a guidance and mercy; and who doeth greater wrong than he who denieth the revelations of Allah, and turneth away from them? We award unto those who turn away from Our revelations an evil doom because of their aversion. The Quran: [6:157]

John: It is unlikely you will have a useful conversation with the other commenters to this blog.

He's not trying to have a conversation, useful or otherwise. He's just spamming the board with cut and paste material; talking at us rather than with us. Proselytizing. Unlike wow I don't think he's a bot, but he's acting like one.

Answer the questions!
The Depths of Man's Being Impel Him to Seek God
How is it possible that accident should lie at the origin of such orderly relationships?
If the origin of the Universe were based on accident, why are the theories even of the materialists based on the supposition of a plan, an ordering, an absence of chance?
If the whole Universe is the result of chance and accident, what is it that did not emerge on the basis of chance?
If an existent thing came into being not by virtue of chance, what are its distinguishing features and characteristics and can they be applied to the numerous and variegated phenomena of the universe?

"You did not answer the question."

Because he's an AI.

John appears to be one too.

"John: It is unlikely you will have a useful conversation with the other commenters to this blog.

He’s not trying to have a conversation, useful or otherwise. He’s just spamming the board with cut and paste material"

John is not trying to have a conversation, they were trying to defend godbothering and run the tone argument schtick. What anyone else is doing is, to them, irrelevant, only whether we're doing it the way he likes it.

@ Husnain

I kindly ask, if you wish to continue to post things like you did, to do so here: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/09/23/weekend-diversion-yo…

Because what you've been doing so far violates the comment policy of this blog: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/comments-policy/

specifically this part: "... from here on out, you are no longer free to promote your own, personal, anti-scientific screed here. Not on this blog, not on any old posts, not on any new posts. It’s wrong, it’s distracting, it’s deleterious to the community and it’s damaging to the good people who come here for the same purposes I do: to share the story of what we know about the Universe and how we know it with one another."

thank you

Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!
Is science too heavy for you to comprehend?

Is it not true that all the things we accept and believe to exist have an existence belonging to the same category as our own or as things that are visible to us? Can we see or feel everything in this material world? Is it only God we cannot see with our senses? What proof exists to substantiate the claim that being is equivalent to matter and that the whole world of being consists of material entities?

What scientist rejecting metaphysics has ever been able to found his denial on logic or proof, or to furnish evidence that beyond absolute non-being, nothing exists outside the seen realm?

All deluded atheists are aware that many of the things known to us consist of matters and realities that we cannot sense and with which we are not customarily familiar. There are many invisible beings in the universe. The progress of science and knowledge in the present age have uncovered numerous truths of this kind, and one of the richest chapters in scientific research is the transformation of matter into energy.

When the beings and bodies that are visible in this world wish to produce energy, they are compelled to change their original aspect and transform it into energy. Now is this energy—the axis on which turn many of the motions and changes of the universe— visible or tangible?

Getting back to the topic of this thread, I do not see the possibility of science proving the existence of a god. The idea of a godhead was devised to control the folk of the day by using fear of the unknown as the tool for that end.

This topic was always going to bring the religious pundits to the fore.

"I do not see the possibility of science proving the existence of a god. "

Well, yeah, NOTHING can prove the existence of a thing that doesn't exist.

But if it DID exist, science could prove it. Unless it either deliberately crafted everything to look as though it didn't do anything ever (so none of the ones we know about) and refrained from EVER doing anything supernatural for all eternity, OR is forced to do the above restrictions to its actions. Neither of those two fit any god except a powerless one or a malicious one.

I do not see the possibility of science proving the existence of a god.

Science alone, no.

But the way you test a deity claim is to ask the deity to design a surefire deity test for you. If they can't do it, they're not omnipotent, thus not a diety. If they can, you run it (which may involve science) and they fail, not a deity. If they can, you run it, and they pass, well they might have fooled you but they've pretty much met the best possible test we can think of, almost by definition, because they came up with a test nobody could find a hole in.

Of course if they just fail to show up and engage in telling you anything, the reasonable conclusion is: not a deity.

@ john
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

"invite (all) to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth, best who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance." The Quran 16:125

Is your denial of God, then is, because, you have not felt Him with the senses given to us for knowing objects?

Have you ever ascended or visited this sky, which you behold with your eyes, or been in the depths of the earth?
Have you traversed the world, dived in every sea, and moved through the Universe?

To *presumptuously* deny the existence of an Omniscient, Omnipotent Creator, you must have been to all these places.

Well, How can you say that He is not in those places where neither you *nor* your *senses* have ever been?

Perhaps He may be living there. Perhaps a person of extraordinary intelligence may reside in one of those places. May be you have admitted the *probability* of a creator, you will, I hope, be convinced to admit the certainty. From *flat denial* you may have come to *doubt*, from that perhaps to *faith.*Imagining is a sign of impotence when confronted with what you cannot be certain of. Now tell me, have you ever been everywhere?

How strange it is that you have not been everywhere to know what lies everywhere, but nonetheless you deny what exists there. Would any wise man deny the reality of what he is ignorant of? And you deny the existence of the Creator because you cannot see him with your eyes.

So, in fact, you have doubts concerning the existence of God; you think He may exist and He may not exist? So how do you know what is there?

Have you seen that the universe always existed and will always exist?How come you have taken one side over the other. It is wiser for you to say 'I don't know,' and I will subject myself to further scrutiny, than to take a stand and say there's 'No God' because you have taken that stand and you have no evidence.

Is it **logical** to say that belief in God is peculiar to those who know nothing about man's composition and creation, and that, by contrast, a scientist who is aware of the natural laws and factors responsible for man's growth and development, who knows that law and precise calculation preside over all stages of man's existence, is bound to believe that matter, lacking all perception and consciousness, is the source of the wondrous laws of nature?

@ Ethan

re: Hosnain

i would like to raise an alert or flag re: this poster.

And a permanent one too, he's wallowed around like this before, eric remembers it.

John
Is it at all feasible to regard all the precise geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?

When so much planning, thought and precision are needed for man to perform such a task, are not the subtlety, exactitude and orderliness observable in the world a proof of origination deriving from the intelligence, creative planning and far-reaching wisdom of the creator?

As I mentioned in #123, para 2 .....

@ Husnain

here is something to ponder. Make a homopolar motor and admire the building blocks of creation. Indeed.. such beautiful precise functioning from matter (and energy) in it's ignorance. The only "creator" is your mind and hands. No need to fear it or bow to it. They've been (the building blocks) here long before a bunch of humans started thinking about super beings... and they will be here long after not a sniff of humans or gods are left. So it's up to you..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbCN3EnYfWU

"They’ve been (the building blocks) here long before a"
Where did they come?

Did they come from your...........?

"Did they come from your………..?"

if so then your Allah must have come from the same place.

No, it's still residing there, SL.

Smells like Hasinsanes true nature is starting to leak out ...

@ Husnain

thank you for such a clear and quite logical disproval of any supernatural creators.

As you correctly stated, there can't be a god before universe, since it gets you into a neverending loop. There can't be a god in it since then he obeys the same laws as rest of things. And not that we haven't been looking up for a while now and haven't seen anyone there.

Thus yes... you are here, universe is here.. and that's it. If you care to call Universe a God... oki.. no problem from my standpoint. It did make everything "in it" and was here from the start. But then by your own conclusions.. you should thrust physics, cause it sort proves everyday that it sure understands the Universe. You using a computer being one simple example.

So there we go. Maybe YOU HAVE TO say "God is there". But humans in general sure don't have to. And Universe doesn't have to, since (like you pointed) doesn't need one before it and doesn't have one in it.

Well, he's not even right there, SL,

He claims it inspired the Quran, AND talked directly to some religious heretic and terrorist (remember, he was the underdog to begin with. At the same time as he was preaching to be nice to everyone. Then the Quran goes all "burn the infidel" at, oddly enough, the same time as the same author was top dog and troubled with heretics and terrorists...).

So he's asking for a god that's inside this universe (because of the talking stuff). Where we've looked all over for it. And all we've proved is that there's no god there.

"obeys the same laws as"
How can you delude yourself and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?

You should know this better then me... and I shouldn't have to spell it out for you...

"O you who believe! do not enter houses other than your own until you have asked permission and greeted the inmates . . . and if it is said to you, 'Go back', then go back." (24:27-28)

so what are you doing here? Clearly this isn't your house, and clearly we don't want you here.. so please go back to your own house and do whatever you wish there.

"Where we’ve looked all over for it. And all we’ve proved is that there’s no god there."
Things are compound elements atoms etc, made of parts. Every compound elements etc possesses shape and colour that attracts the senses. Therefore, that which is felt or known by the senses, having shape and colour, cannot be God.

Your argument for disbelief is *foolish*, because God cannot be like any of the things perceived by the senses, nor can He be said to bear any resemblance to anything which has to undergo an ordeal of change and decay.

For, everything is under the one and the same law-the law of transformation and decline. God, our creator cannot be perceivable by the five senses for, He is not a thing-which is compound elements etc or created. If He was visible to the eye, and perceivable to the senses, He would have resembled the things that are visible and perceivable to the senses on account of their being compound and created and in that case He would no longer have remained a creator.

http://www.al-islam.org/tradition-myrobalan-fruit-hadith-al-halila-imam…

God, our creator cannot be perceivable by the five senses...

Hmmm...doesn't God appear to people multiple times in the Tawrat? Since it's basically (parts of?) the first few books of the OT, there are lots of incidents in it where God either talks to people (= perceived by hearing) or appears to them in some form.

Hasnain,

Okay, let me get this straight. God cannot be part of the universe. God cannot be perceived by the senses. Basically, you're telling me there's no way God can be detected. Why should anyone believe God exists? Where is the evidence for God's existence? Please don't quote me text written in a cave in Arabia in the 7th Century; that's not evidence. That's just the writings of an Arab guy. We have no way of verifying that these writings are divine.

Please don't point to anything in the universe and tell me it's obviously designed by someone. Even if that's true, that doesn't get you to God. It's logically possible that some alien race living somewhere we cannot perceive has created it. Plus it's quite hard to believe that design is in fact true. The evidence points rather to a lack of such design.

"Okay, let me get this straight. God cannot be part of the universe. God cannot be perceived by the senses. Basically, you’re telling me there’s no way God can be detected."

And why can the Quran be the word of god if there was no way for the five senses to have seen him to make this the word of god?

Patently he's saying he's proven that his god doesn't exist.

(PS: he needs to show us something complex and alive coming into existence by god's magic, otherwise we have no evidence for god making things at all)

Mr Deity's timing to release this youtube clip is a little laggardly, but it still works:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgrVY1LMuZE

(watch?v=HgrVY1LMuZE)

That was entertaining; didn't really add to what most of us already realize.

The Request of Moses to See God
Eyes can not bear the vision of God. He tells us in the Quran:

“Vision cannot grasp Him, but His Grasp is over all vision.” (Quran 6:103)

Moses, to whom God spoke and gave great miracles, was chosen by God to be His Prophet. It is said that he thought that, since God used to speak to him, he might be able to actually see God. The story is in the Quran, where God tells us what happened:

“And when Moses arrived at Our appointed time and his Lord spoke to him, he said, ‘My Lord, show me (Yourself) that I may look at You.’ (God) said, ‘You will not see Me, but look at the mountain; if it should remain in place, then you will see Me.’ But when his Lord appeared to the mountain, He rendered it level, and Moses fell unconscious. And when he awoke, he said, ‘Exalted are You! I have repented to You, and I am the first of the believers.’” (Quran 7:143)

God made it clear that no-one, including the great prophet Moses, can bear the sight of the divine, for God is too great to be grasped by human eyes in this life. According to the Quran, Moses realized his request was in error; therefore, he sought forgiveness from God for having asked.

Human faculties of conception, perception and learning, and attributes of volition, intuition and apprehension cannot catch sight of His Person or fathom the extent of His Might and Glory. Reason and sagacity cannot visualise Him. His Attributes cannot be fixed, limited or defined.

There is no difference between His Person and His Attributes, and His Attributes should not be differentiated or distinguished from His Person. Whoever accepts His Attributes to be other than His Person then actually forsakes the idea of Unity of God and believes in duality ( He and His Attributes).

Such a person in fact believes Him to exist in Parts. One who holds such a faith cannot form a true concept of God, he is *IGNORANT* and will always try to believe in some *creation* of his *imagination* as his god. Intelligence, understanding and attainment cannot attain the depth of knowledge to study or scrutinise the Godhead. None can fully understand or explain His Being however hard he my try. There do not exist words in any language to specify or define His qualities, peculiarities, characteristics and singularities. He has not permitted human mind to grasp the Essence of His Being **YET** He has not prevented them from realising His Presence.

In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. 1 Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;
2 Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
3 He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
4 And there is none **like** unto Him.
The Quran Chapter 112

GENDER.
The deficiency lies in all the languages of the world, None of them have a word to define the gender for God. The word He, She, Thou, Thy, It....etc are all merely substitutes, they do not represent the gender of the One who does not have a gender.

Ergo, no need to capitalize the letters when referring to it.

" Please don’t quote me text written in a cave in Arabia in the 7th Century; that’s not evidence. That’s just the writings of an Arab guy."
Ever heard truth has no time factor?
Islam demands from its followers to believe in God, the Creator of the Universe, but it does not advise them to base such a belief on the statement of any religious book or any authoritative words, not even the word of the Holy Qur'an or of the holy Prophet.

Our belief in a holy book, such as the Qur'an, or in a holy prophet, such as Mohammad, must be preceded by our belief in God. A religious book is holy because it is introduced by a man whom we consider a prophet. Prophethood is conceivable only if there is God, because a prophet is a messenger of God. Our belief in God, therefore, must come before our belief in a religious book or a prophet, not vice versa.

No religious book is believed by all people, and no prophet is universally recognized. Therefore, it would be futile to rely on an authoritative statement of a prophet or a holy book when dealing with an atheist who disclaims all heavenly revelations and denies the whole concept of God.

http://www.najaf.org/english/book/9/5.html

@ Husnain

"A religious book is holy because it is introduced by a man whom we consider a prophet....... No religious book is believed by all people, and no prophet is universally recognized. Therefore, it would be futile to rely on an authoritative statement of a prophet or a holy book.."

Wonderful! And yet I hope we can agree that mostly all people believe and KNOW that if you i.e. jumped from the top of the twenty story building, you would fall and die, due to this thing called gravity! Well, that's what we care about. Since gravity doesn't care about your considerations or beliefs.. that's what science studies. You can go study what types of virgin fairy ghosts await you for all the good you've done in the name of allah... and it still won't affect gravity. So who's deluded here? Us caring about present things that affect us, or you blindly (against instructions from your own suposedly sacred book) yelling "teaching" islam to a group who doesn't want you to do that and has repeatedly said so. Consider what you are doing.

Another way to look at it is this... even if all of this has been made by god.. or is god.. or however shape or form you put it.. the universe is here. It is then actually the scientists who are exploring and studying this god. Without any prejudice. What you and your side is doing can at best be described as being historians. So what exactly is your problem? That we don't believe in your version of history? Scientists are the ones that are killing you now or in the past. It's you yourselves. So give us a beak...

upps..

last sentece should be: Scientists AREN'T the ones...

damn that no edit :/

So we are not free in your view to believe in what we wish? Is that what you are saying? You can believe in your fancy and we can't in our?

"One of the most destructive and misleading factors ..."

for whom? If for me.. then again.. is mine to make and as long as I'm not IN YOUR HOUSE, and doing harm to anyone, who the f*** are you to say what I can or can't believe?

Am I (or anyone else from this blog) interefering and being destructive about your beliefs on your sites? You are the one being destructive in other persons house you dumb zealot.

"And yet I hope we can agree that mostly all people believe and KNOW that if you i.e. jumped from the top of the twenty story building, you would fall and die, due to this thing called gravity!"

I wonder, do Mosques have lightning rods to protect them from lightning strikes? Because surely if they were besties with the one who made everything and saw to lightning, there'd be no need for them.

And when it comes to priests and even mohammed, what point is there for them, since god can just as easily appear similarly to ALL of us. So mohammed proves that there's no god, otherwise god would have already told all of us like he told him.

"A religious book is holy because it is introduced by a man whom we consider a prophet……. "

And what' to say that A Brief History of Time is not likewise introduced by a man who was inspired by god with reality's truth?

That book disproves the Quran and the Old Testament, proving them 100% wrong.

And, as far as hassan here knows, inspired by god himself.

"That was entertaining; didn’t really add to what most of us already realize."

There's a lot there. One a little older you may want to check out, EVERYONE, including the religious, is the one about God and the All-knowing.

It is a pastiche of what it REALLY means to have an onmipotent and omniescent and timeless superbeing god, and how NOBODY, not even supernatural entities, can have any form of relationship with such a being. It's a couple of months old, I think.

But even if you still believe there's a god, it's an eye opener, because it restructures what it means to "know god".

The childish lies of the parents "If you are bad, god will punish you, but if you are good, santa will bring gifts". Piffle.

Eric, et al.

Ethan posted in another post a quote by Werner Heisenberg which supports my opinion that Science cannot prove the existence of God; “What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.”

If what humans can know of reality is limited to how humans inquire about it, and if the tools used to inquire are limited to those in Science, then only a selected representation of reality can be known.

"Science cannot prove the existence of God,"
We can raise precisely the same objection against the materialists and ask them, "If we follow the chain of causality back, we will ultimately reach the primary cause. Let us say that cause is not God, but matter. Tell us who created primary matter. You who believe in the law of causality, answer us Ws: if matter is the ultimate cause of all things, what is the cause of matter? You say that the source of all phenomena is matter-energy; what is the cause and origin of matter-energy?"

Since the chain of causality cannot recede into infinity, they can answer only that matter is an eternal and timeless entity for which no beginning can be posited: matter is non-created, has no beginning or end, and its being arises from within its own nature.

This means that the materialists accept the principle of eternity and non-origination; they believe that all things arose out of eternal matter and that being arises from within the very nature of matter, without any need for a creator.

Russell openly states this belief in the lecture quoted above. He says: "There is no proof that the world ever had a beginning. The idea that things must once have had a beginning results from the poverty of our imagination."4

In just the same way that Russell regards matter as eternal, believers in God attribute eternity to God. Belief in an eternal being is then common to materialist and religious philosophers: both groups agree that there is a primary cause, but believers in God regard the primary cause as wise, all-knowing, and possessing the power of decision and will, whereas in the view of the materialists, the primary cause has neither consciousness, intelligence, perception, nor the power of decision. Thus, the removal of God in no way solves the problem posed by eternal being.

Moreover, matter is the locus for motion and change, and its motion is dynamic and situated within its own essence. Now, essential motion is incompatible with eternity, and matter and essential stability are two mutually exclusive categories that cannot be fused in a single locus. Whatever is stable and immutable in its essence cannot accept movement and change within that essence.

How do Marxists, who believe that matter is accompanied by its antithesis, justify the eternity of matter?

http://www.al-islam.org/god-and-his-attributes-sayyid-mujtaba-musawi-la…

" Scientists are the ones that are killing you now or in the past. It’s you yourselves. So give us a beak…"
As a matter of fact, the scientists for several decades have tried ceaselessly to unseal the secret of life and to explain its commencement on this planet. But their intensified efforts so far did not produce any substantial knowledge in this field.

The presence of life on this planet is, no doubt, a great wonder that could not happen without a supernatural cause. Man has unsealed many secrets in the universe, advanced in his scientific and technical knowledge, and even landed on the moon; but in spite of all this, he is still unable to produce a leaf of a plant or a seed of an apple from **nothing**.

“Okay, let me get this straight. God cannot be part of the universe. God cannot be perceived by the senses. Basically, you’re telling me there’s no way God can be detected.”
From our previous discussions, it became clear that the Creator of the universe must be Absolute and Unlimited. He encompasses the whole universe. He is Omnipresent and never absent from anywhere. With His Omnipresence, His visibility is not going to make us believe in Him or know Him. His visibility would be very destructive to us. Before we know Him with His Omnipresence, we would perish. His visibility would be blinding to every human being.

Suppose that the air (which exists only in a very limited space) is visible. It would have a color, and we would not be able to see anything but the air because it fills the atmosphere. Should this be the case, we would not be able to acquire our food or water, nor would we be able to find roads or shelters. If the visibility of the air which exists only in the atmosphere of our little planet would be so blinding and destructive, what would be the case of the visibility of the Creator who encompasses the universe?

When we think of this, we realize how fortunate we are not to be able to see God, our Creator.

"text written in a cave in Arabia in the 7th Century; that’s not evidence. That’s just the writings of an Arab guy.”
If we continue the chain of cause and effect indefinitely, the existence of each link in the chain will be conditional on that of the preceding link, which, in turn, will be conditional on the existence of the link preceding it. It is as if each link in the chain of causality were to proclaim loudly from the depths of its being: "I shall not don the garment of existence until that other one has set foot on the plain of being."

Each link depends on a condition that has not been fulfilled, and each one is, therefore, *barred* from enjoying the blessing of existence.

Since we see the whole of the universe to be surging with different forms of being, there *must* exist in the world a cause that is *not* an effect, a condition that is not subject to a condition; *otherwise* the surface of the world would *not* be this thickly covered with phenomena.

"You can believe in your fancy and we can’t in our?
You mean your Pseudo-Scientific Demagoguery?
The materialists claim that the establishment of their school of thought in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was directly connected to the progress of science and that the dialectical method was a fruit plucked from the fertile tree of science.

They depict every philosophy apart from materialism as a form of idealism, opposed to the scientific method of thought, and insist that their position is a scientific and progressive one. According to them, realism consists in turning away from metaphysical truths; everyone ought to base his worldview on sensory and empirical logic and opt for materialism. But this claim is nothing more than a fanatical illusion based on unproven theories.

Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.

Belief in an object of worship is without doubt one of the principal sources of human culture and knowledge. The propounding of belief in God as basis for a correct worldview has brought about profound changes in the foundations of society and thought throughout human history. Now, too, in the age of science and technology, when man has found his way into space, a considerable number of scientists have a religious outlook as part of the intellectual system; they have come to believe in the existence of a creator, a source for all beings, not only by means of the heart and the conscience, but also through deduction and logic.

If the materialists' justification for their worldview were true, instead of being based on inadequate knowledge of the history of materialist thought, there ought to be a particular connection between science and an inclination to materialism; only materialist views would be represented in the realm of science.
Has every philosopher and scholar, in every age, held an atheistic worldview and belonged to the materialist camp?

A scholarly examination of the lives and works of great thinkers will suffice to show that not only is the religious camp by no means empty of true scientists, but also that many great scientific thinkers and personalities, including the founders of muchof contemporary science, have believed in monotheism.
In addition, materialistic and atheistic beliefs have by no means been confined to the period of the evolution and advancement of science; since ancient times and, indeed, throughout history, materialists have stood in opposition to a united front of believers.

Today it is primarily in a vulgarized form of Marxism that the wares of science have been turned into a tool of deception. Those who supposedly should be mapping out their path in the clear light of knowledge and weighing all matters with profound, logical perception and investigation, in complete freedom from all fanaticism and hasty prejudice—precisely these people have fallen prey to stagnation and blind imitation. They have arrogantly denied all values higher than intellect and reason, and even boast of their ignorant denial.

Their claim that the coming of science has put out the notion of God is purely rhetorical and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.

Materialism is a metaphysical belief, and must, therefore, be proven or disproven according to philosophical method. Precisely for this reason, an acceptance of materialism cannot be made a basis for the denial of metaphysics. To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be **treason to science. **

"The childish lies of the parents “
Can we say that William James, the monotheist or rather the mystic of his time, Bergson, Alexis Carrell and other such thinkers were ignorant of the scientific ideas of their time and their thinking was in tune with the ideas of a thousand years ago, while a certain ⏰ PJ* who does not possess a tenth of their knowledge and does not believe in God is familiar with the scientific ideas of his age?!

At times one sees two mathematicians, one of whom believes in God and religion while the other is a materialist, or for that matter two physicists, two biologists, or two astronomers, one with a materialist and the other with a theistic bent of mind. Therefore, it is not that simple to say that the advent of science has made metaphysical issues obsolete.

How is that for Your **childish** observation?

“this thing called gravity!"
So? Pseudo-Scientific Demagoguery?
When Newton, for example, put forth the law of general gravity in light of experimentation, he had *not* perceived this gravity force by any of his five senses.

Instead, he discovered it by way of another perceptible phenomenon for which he found no explanation except by supposing the gravity force. He noticed that the planets do not move in a straight line. Rather, they have a circular motion.

According to Newton, this phenomenon could not occur had there not been a gravity force. The reason is that the principle of essential deficiency requires chat a body move in a straight direction unless another manner [of movement] is imposed on it from an external force.

From this, Newton obtained the law of gravity that asserts that the planets are subject to a central force, which is gravity. If these experimentalists who advocate and glorify experimentation intend the same method by means of which the forces and secrets of the universe are discovered scientifically - namely, the study of a fixed perceptible phenomenon by experimentation and the rational inference of another thing from that phenomenon as the only explanation of the existence of that phenomenon - then this is *exactly* the method of demonstrating the *theological* position.

"If what humans can know of reality is limited to how humans inquire about it,"

And if that's wrong?

We can definitely investigate what we see,and the bible has a plethora of things that are easily open to investigation.

World wide flood.

Bats being a bird.

All testable, all are actions of god. If they aren't true, there's no god.

Just a reminder to the True Believers on both sides: this is a discussion about if science can prove the existence of God, not if God does or does not exist.

There aren't True Believers on both sides, John, yours is just a false balance rhetoric to make you feel like you're the moderate, just because you see two people either side of you and you don't agree with either.

The only god that could not be proven by science is one that is indistinguishable from there being no god.

And if there's no difference, what does it mean to say there exists a god?

Nothing.

So any god that could be in any way, shape, or form claimed actually to exist *can* be proven by science.

"That is another mistake. The existence of God does not depend upon reports, descriptions, or measurements of material events."

Yes it does.

The god of the bible: disproved by science.

Got another god handy? Go get one and lets see if it exists or not, or if it cannot be proven to exist despite existing.

Feel free to give us one, because the one of the Jews, Muslims and Christians has been proven not to exist by science. Geology is a science. As is Biology. Both prove that that god of theirs does not exist.

If you don;t define what it is you're talking about, the lack of ability to prove it exists is because you have no "it" not that it can't be proven by science.

"You believe without proof that God does not exist. "

Nope.

"Each of you asserts that what you consider to be evidence “proves” your position. "

Nope again.

"What utter nonsense! That is the same as saying that only Science can articulate true statements"

Nope again. You even quoted what it said. And STILL got it wrong.

The problem here is that you believe, as a matter of faith, that god can't be proven to exist by science.

Indeed it now looks like you believe that god can't be proved NOT to exist by science. Because I've just proven god doesn't exist: the one of the jews, christians and muslims. Proven not to exist.

Yet you, despite this proof otherwise, insist as a matter of unshakeable belief, that this cannot be done.

And to support this, pretend that reality is other than it is and lie about what I've said or thought.

"ROFL! Well, my fine fellow, prove that God does not exist"

Already proven that the one of the jews, muslims and christians don't. So I've proven that god doesn't exist, and that science did it.

Got any other god?

" chuckling … I was wondering when you were going to start backpedaling and limiting the definition of God to one you felt you could “disprove”?"

Wondering when you're going to give me another one.

You may have missed it, but Ethan’s topic is “Can science prove the existence of God?”, not (as you have obdurately, repeatedly, and wrongly asserted) “Can science disprove the existence of God?”

Yet you didn't set with the topic of conversation either, because it doesn't suit you:

"prove that God does not exist."

That's not asking if god can be proved to exist.

"I shall accept that as a grudging, ungraceful acknowledgement that Science cannot, in fact prove the existence of God."

It isn't.

It's asking that you tell me what it is I'm supposed to prove exists.

Tell me and I'll tell you if science can prove it exists.

As I’ve posted here before, and have provided supporting evidence to warrant, my response to Ethan’s question is: “No, Science cannot prove God exists”.</blockquote

Proof plz tks.

"Welcome aboard the Indeterminate Express."

I'll take that as grudging admission that you don't know that science can't prove god exists.

"As I have not given you one, I cannot give you another, can I?"

Uh, christian, muslim, jewish god.

One down.

Wondering when you're going to give me another one.

"You seem to have mistaken Contradiction for Argument."

You seem to have taken monty python as argument. The words are there and nope, they don't mean what they say, and you don't know what I think, so when I say "Nope" to a claim you've made about what I think, there's no proof needed. I know what I think.

And I note that youre avoiding giving me another god to see if he exists.

So far, I've had one, and science has proven it doesn't exist. And it's not science that can't prove a god that doesn't exist exists it's a definitional axiom of something not existing that it can't be proven to exist. So not science failing to prove that god exists, just failure to prove that that god, which doesn't exist, exists.

And I'm still waiting for you to give me another god to see if science can prove it exists.

But if that god is proven not to exist, then it's not science's failure that it can't be proven to exist, is it.

"I need tell you nothing at all. The topic is “Can science prove the existence of God?”."

Yes, it can.

"Let us start with the proof of the theorem of the inability of Mathematics
...
This means that there are true mathematical statements that cannot be proved. "

Prove that god is one of those statements.

Tks.

"Ah! Moving the goalposts now?"

Ah, nope again!

You made a claim of certainty and insist that there is uncertainty.

These are contradictory and mutually exclusive claims. One or the other can be true, but not both.

"Can science prove the existence of God?”, not “Does John know or does John not know that science can’t prove god exist”

Then why do you keep asking me to prove you wrong?

Can science prove Russel's teapot exists? Does the fact that we haven't looked prove science can't? No. Does the fact that we can't detect such a teapot prove science can't? No.

Therefore, if Russel's Teapot exists, science can prove it does. Even though we cannot yet do that test.

As with the genesis of Russel's Teapot, substitute god with Russel's Teapot and the proof holds still.

"I need not do so. "

Then you haven't prove that science can't prove god exists. Sorry.

So, again:

As I’ve posted here before, and have provided supporting evidence to warrant, my response to Ethan’s question is: “No, Science cannot prove God exists”.

Proof plz tks.

"Then provide a demonstration. You have not yet done so. Provide the proof."

I don't have to.

I can buy a Ferarri. They are on sale. I don't have to buy one to prove they can be bought.

The question is "Can science prove the existence of God".

Now I tell you for the fourth time “As I have not given you one, I cannot give you another, can I?”

Yes you can. If you thought it would work for your baseless and entirely belief led insistence that science can't prove the existence of god.

I'm STILL waiting. Either give me the same god, or give me another god and I'll see if science can prove it.

I've proven one god doesn't exist.

I'm waiting for you to give me another.

If you want to give me the same god (therefore it isn't another god), then we've already proven it doesn't exist. So a failure to prove it exist is not because science can't prove it, it's because it doesn't exist.

"An acknowledgement that Science cannot [yet] prove God exists. OK. I’ll accept that."

An acknowledgement that science [can] prove god exists. OK, I'll accept that.

What I ask you to do is warrant your claim that Science can prove that God exists.

You have so far failed to do so.

Any act god does on this reality can be proven by science to have happened, and this would prove god exists.

That's what the "Russel's Teapot" example shows, but you're too blinkered by your unreasoning believe that science cannot prove god exists, despite having failed whatsoever to do so.

I'll stop asking you to give me another god since you clearly cannot give me anything.

"“… Proof plz tks”

Yes, please provide proof for your claim that Science can prove God exists. Thank you."

see (currently) 234.

You now.

"The Standard Model incorporates the indeterminate nature of reality throughout"

So what?

“… I don’t have to [prove god exists].”
You need to do so if you want anyone to believe your claim that Science can prove that God exists.

No I don't. All I have to prove is that science CAN prove God exists, not prove god does.

See post (now, currently) #235.

"An acknowledgement that Science cannot yet prove the existence of God is not an acknowledgement that it will"

An acknowledgement that science cannot yet prove it is not acknowledgement it can't. And I haven't even acknowledged THAT.

But acknowledging that we haven't yet proved god is accepting that it could.

I'll take that.

"I have not given you any God."

So it doesn't exist?

Fair enough.

Glad you've now said there is no god.

I guess that's why you really can't believe that science can't prove god: because there is no such thing.

I'll accept that.

You have asserted as true the claim that Science can prove that God exists.

OK. Prove it.

Any act god does on this reality can be proven by science to have happened, and this would prove god exists.

You have asserted as true the claim that Science can prove that God exists.

OK. Prove it.

Any act god does on this reality can be proven by science to have happened, and this would prove god exists.

"I have not claimed that Science can prove God exists"

Prove you have to.

"The existence or non existence of God does not depend on my giving."

No, you said there that there was no god.

"I have not given you any God"

That is saying that there is no god.

But if there was god, any act god did on this reality would be possible to prove with science and that would mean science had proven god's existence in that case.

Alas, I’m not in a position to claim as true there is or there is no God.

But you just did.

The reason I think Science cannot prove te existence of God is due to the limits of human understanding.

But that is just belief, you haven't proven it.

If there was god, any act god did on this reality would be possible to prove with science and that would mean science had proven god’s existence in that case.

"Any act god does on this reality can be proven by science to have happened, and this would prove god exists.”

That would be true if and only if Science can know it.

But it can. Any act god does on this reality can be proven by science to have happened, and this would prove god exists.

"As I am not the one making the claim that Science can prove the existence of God,"

Prove you have to.

Meanwhile I proved that god can be proven to exist by science, because any act god does on this reality can be proven by science to have happened, and this would prove god exists

Ethan, please check if this "John" isn't in fact Ragtag Media.

Thanks.

You are mistaken.

So give me another god and I'll see if science can prove it.

“But if there was god, any act god did on this reality would be possible to prove with science and that would mean science had proven god’s existence in that case.”
“Would” does not mean “can”.

Yes it does. If science would prove god's existence then it can prove god's existence. If it couldn't, then it wouldn't.

You are mistaken.

So give me another god and I'll see if science can prove it.

“But if there was god, any act god did on this reality would be possible to prove with science and that would mean science had proven god’s existence in that case.”
“Would” does not mean “can”.

Yes it does. If science would prove god's existence then it can prove god's existence. If it couldn't, then it wouldn't.

“Any act god does on this reality can be proven by science to have happened, and this would prove god exists.”
That is true only for what Science can record.

No. Science doesn't record gravity, but it CAN prove that gravity exists.

Do you mean "investigates"?

Are you suggesting that nothing happens that cannot be [investigated] by Science?</blockquote?

Yes.

“Any act god does on this reality can be proven by science to have happened, and this would prove god exists.”
That is true only for what Science can record.

No. Science doesn't record gravity, but it CAN prove that gravity exists.

Do you mean "investigates"?

Are you suggesting that nothing happens that cannot be [investigated] by Science?

Yes.

"I do not have to."

Yes you do.

"As I have not give you one"

I haven't said you gave me one. I'm saying you haven't. So give me a god and I'll see whether science can prove god exists.

"Both phrases are conditional."

Yes.

"Gravity is currently best understood as the curvature of space-time, and that has been recoded."

Correct.

"“If science would prove god’s existence ” is conditional. Note the “If”. “it can prove god’s existence” is unconditional."

Wrong. it's conditional. Notice the "If".

"That’s not what I wrote."

Correct.

Well, at least now we know why teabaggie is always so ANGRY.. He believe that he's going to hell because he has no god.

Sad.

“So give me a god and I’ll see whether science can prove god exists”
You have claimed that Science can prove God exists. OK. Do so.

Yup. Doesn't exist. Thanks for that. Care to give me another one?

There is no “If” in “it can prove god’s existence”

I know. But that's not where the "if" is.

"I’m glad you agree with me."

I'm glad too, teabaggie, that you agree with me too.

Let's think about invisible beings (such as spirit, demons or divine beings). To prove scientifically, we have to create an hypothesis which should be able to replicate by scientists and experiments must result the same thing. When scientists find a new kind of animal they have the death body. So other scientist can see the same thing(death body). There is an evidence.

According to the mythical facts invisible beings have a different kind of material (I call those as fine materials) which we can't see. When an invisible being born their body suddenly arise(with a Karmic power) and when they die their body vanish without any evidence. So, there is no scientifically testable thing even in fine materials. So, it is almost impossible to prove them scientifically. But we can make some hypothesis with use psychic powers gain from higher meditation as a tool.

Here is my proposal of scientifically proving existence of higher beings.
Steps;
1)Group of scientists do Samata meditation and get Eight Attainments(Ashta-Samapatti) and Five Supernormal Powers(Pancha-Abhigna) Levels of Meditation.
2)Then this scientists group go to a heavenly world with their psychic powers(and remember their goal without attracting to goddess). They can't just tell that there are heavenly worlds and divine beings. Since they don't have any evidence.
3)With psychic powers extort a diving being.
4)Safely come back to the human world.
5)Make a psychic jail(which other scientist can't see) and put him.
6)Force him to show appearance.
7)Then other scientist have to investigate with all of electromagnetic wave cameras. Have to prove he is not a human magician.

Here is my prediction of what will happen then;
Final conclusion about the experiment.
Some higher meditators claim they can bring a divine being from a heavenly world. But when scientist check those with all possible ways he it just a human magician but having some unusual huge radiations. Next day after the experiment. News from the television. “Huge earthquake happen and lot of humans died. Government ask help from other countries.”

So, you can understand that there is no way to prove it scientifically. Scientific method can't prove every aspect of nature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_photography

That is another unwarranted truth claim.

No it isn't, it's a factual one. You gave me no god, therefore by definition a thing that doesn't exist does not exist.

An entirely warranted truth claim. you didn't give me a god, therefore that god does not exist, just like the other one didn't exist either. This, however, was a lot easier, since the nonexistence of that god was right there in the nonexistence of it in your post.

I do not share your Faith.

How can we share something that doesn't exist??? Maybe you believe it does.

That’s why it is unconditional

No, the if was in the sentence. That is why it is conditional.

ll you need to do is substantiate your truth claim that Science can prove the existence of God,

I did.

Give me another one, and this time actually include a god for me to test if science can prove it exists.

and you’ll not need to insult anyone.

I didn't, teabaggie.

And that is why “Would”, which is conditional does not mean the same as “can” which is unconditional.

Not if it's in a sentence with "if" in in which case it's conditional.

So, teabaggie, we've had your claimed god proved wrong (and I guess you were pissed off to find out that it was the same god as the jews and muslims, eh?), you've said you have no god, you've sockpuppeted - AGAIN - you've not proven any of your claims, you have now changed them to absolute claims to "you think", which is not a truth claim therefore not a proof science can't, just an assertion you think it can't, and we have science can because any act of god that affects this earth can be investigated and prove that god exists.

Probably not what you'd hoped to achieve this evening after a few too many cheap beers.

"That makes your truth claim conditional"

Yes. When you claimed it was unconditional.

Glad you're finally agreeing with me. Well done, teabaggie.

Give me another one, and this time actually include a god for me to test if science can prove it exists.

As I have not given you one

Glad you agree with me that god doesn't exist.

Now, care to give me another one? We'll see whether we agree whether that god exists.

Quick recap for you, teabaggie.

The god of the jews, christians and muslims has been proven not to exist by testing their existence with science investigating the claims of their acts.

We have ALSO proven you haven't given me another god to test, and a thing that doesn't exist, does not exist, just like I said when you gave me nothing when I asked for a god to test.

Since we have proven one god doesn't exist via science, there is evidence that god CAN be DISPROVED by science.

And if a claim can be disproved by science, it can also be proved by science. This is how science works.

Just in case you're confused about the meaning of common English words, teabaggie:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_%28truth%29

A proof is sufficient evidence or a sufficient argument for the truth of a proposition

We have already seen your incomprehension at the meaning of the word "Another"

adjective
1.
being one more or more of the same; further; additional:

“… Glad you’re finally agreeing with me”
If that means you no longer claim that Science can prove God exists

If that means you no longer claim science cannot prove the existence of god, I agree.

As I have not given you one

So you agree that god didn't exist. Brilliant. So, another one?

“…and we have science can because any act of god that affects this earth can be investigated and prove that god exists.”
OK. Go ahead and prove it then.

I did.

By definition:

affect1
əˈfɛkt/
verb
verb: affect; 3rd person present: affects; past tense: affected; past participle: affected; gerund or present participle: affecting

have an effect on; make a difference to.

If something made a difference, that difference must be measurable.

Since you seem confused about what you did, lets leave out your attempt to test if science can prove the existence of god. Recap:

The god of the jews, christians and muslims has been proven not to exist by testing their existence with science investigating the claims of their acts.

Since we have proven one god doesn’t exist via science, there is evidence that god CAN be DISPROVED by science.

And if a claim can be disproved by science, it can also be proved by science. This is how science works.

I hope this is easier for you to read, teabagger.

"and God claimed to be supernatural

And that is a mistake.

Since god was claimed to have caused a worldwide flood, and no worldwide flood happened, it proves that god does not exist.

" "As I have not given you one"
So you agree that god didn’t exist. ..."
Not giving you one does not mean there is not one to give.

" “…and we have science can because any act of god that affects this earth can be investigated and prove that god exists.”
OK. Go ahead and prove it then."

"I did"
Alas, no. Not yet..

“… there is evidence that god CAN be DISPROVED by science.”
OK. Prove that God does not exist.

I did. That god was said to have said that bats were birds, but bats aren't birds, therefore proving that god does not exist.

" Since god was claimed to have caused a worldwide flood, and no worldwide flood happened, it proves that god does not exist."
You are mistaken.
That shows the claim was false, not that God does not exist.

Not giving you one does not mean there is not one to give.

But it does mean that you didn't give one. And therefore saying that god did not exist is a valid truth claim, even oyu agree that god was nonexistent

Since god was claimed to have caused a worldwide flood, and no worldwide flood happened, it proves that god does not exist.

You are mistaken.

No I am not.

That shows the claim was false, not that God does not exist.

No, it shows that god does not exist since there was no flood.

"The god of the jews, christians and muslims has been proven not to exist by testing their existence with science investigating the claims of their acts."
You are mistaken.
Falsifying the claims made about God does not prove God does not exist.

"Since we have proven one god doesn’t exist via science ...'
You have not yet done so.

".., there is evidence that god CAN be DISPROVED by science."
OK, then prove that Science can do so. I doubt you'll have any more success at that effort than your failed attempts to prove that Science can prove the existence of God.

"And if a claim can be disproved by science, it can also be proved by science. This is how science works."
Yes, and as you have failed to do either, neither has so far been proven.

It must be that teabagger thinks that science is only allowed to disprove god's existence.

"No, it shows that god does not exist since there was no flood."
You are mistaken.
A false claim about God is not proof that God does not exist.

“And if a claim can be disproved by science, it can also be proved by science. This is how science works.

Yes, and as you have failed to do either,

No, I have proved that the god of the jews and muslims and christians doesn't exist.

Yes, and as you have failed to do either

Prove it.

"I have proved that the god of the jews and muslims and christians doesn’t exist."
Not yet you haven't.

A false claim about God is not proof that God does not exist

It is if that claim is what god did.

I have proved that the god of the jews and muslims and christians doesn’t exist.

Not yet you haven’t.

Prove it.

"Prove it."

As I have not made the claims I need prove nothing. You made the claims. You provide the proofs.

As I have not made the claims I need prove nothing.

So you I have proved that the god of the jews and muslims and christians doesn't exist.

"It is if that claim is what god did"
You are mistaken.
If I claim that God is the cause of "X", and my claim is falsified, that does not prove that God does not exist.

“Prove it.”

As I have not made the claims I need prove nothing. You made the claims. You provide the proofs.

If you made no claims then I have nothing left to prove.

If I claim that God is the cause of “X”, and my claim is falsified, that does not prove that God does not exist.

Yes it does.

If you want to claim a different god exists, then provide one.

"So you I have proved that the god of the jews and muslims and christians doesn’t exist."

That is nonsense. That is not even a meaningful sentence.

That is not even a meaningful sentence.

So you claim. Prove it.

" "If I claim that God is the cause of “X”, and my claim is falsified, that does not prove that God does not exist."

Yes it does"
You are mistaken. The purported actor's existence is not falsified by a false claim made about the actor.

You're resorting to contradiction again.

"You are mistaken. "

So you claim. Prove it.

"If you made no claims then I have nothing left to prove."
As you have failed to substantiate or warrant your claim that Science can prove the existence of God, I agree you have nothing else to prove.

The purported actor’s existence is not falsified by a false claim made about the actor.

Yes it is.

"So you claim. Prove it."
You'll need to identify what you are referring to.

As you have failed to substantiate or warrant your claim that Science can prove the existence of God,

I have proven it, though.

The god of the jews, christians and muslims claimed to have caused a worldwide flood. There is no worldwide flood, this therefore proves that god doesn't exist.

"You’ll need to identify what you are referring to."

Why? You didn't.

Indeed you refuse point blank to identify what you're referring to.

" "The purported actor’s existence is not falsified by a false claim made about the actor.

Yes it is."

More contradiction in lieu of argument, eh?

More contradiction in lieu of argument, eh?

Yeah, I wonder when you'll start making an argument, teabaggie and stop going "I haven't made a claim" then making one and then going "I haven't made a claim" and going round and round.

Try making an argument instead of contradicting yourself every other post.

" “You’ll need to identify what you are referring to.”

Why? ..."
Because without a subject there is no argument. Is that what you are attempting to achieve?

"Because without a subject there is no argument."

So identify your subject, teabaggie.

"... stop going “I haven’t made a claim” then making one and then going “I haven’t made a claim” and going round and round."
Unlike some other commenters, I am cautious about what I claim is true. I let them suffer the embarrassment of being unable to warrant their claims.

Unlike some other commenters, I am cautious about what I claim is true.

Without a subject there, you have no argument. IIs that what you are attempting to achieve, teabaggie?

“Because without a subject there is no argument.”

So identify your subject"
You asserted as True that Science can prove the existence of God. I have noted that you have failed to substantiate your claim.

Unlike teabagger here, operating under the sockpuppet account of "John" because he's here illicitly after his homophobic and spittle-flecked rant, I know what words mean.

Teabagger here knows how to avoid being specific enough to be caught in his lies.

But not the meaning of words.

You are no longer trying to warrant your claim that Science can prove the existence of God.

Why?

You asserted as True that Science can prove the existence of God

Yup. And proven it.

Why?

I'm not.

" "You asserted as True that Science can prove the existence of God'

Yup. And proven it."
Which comment contained the proof?

Why have you stopped your unsubstantiated claim that science can't prove the existence of god, teabaggie?

Why?

"I’m not."
That fails to move the discussion forward.

That fails to move the discussion forward.

That was meaningless complaining. Run out of arguments?

"Why have you stopped your unsubstantiated claim that science can’t prove the existence of god ..."
As my opinion that Science cannot prove the existence of God passed without comment, I need not restate it.

As my opinion that Science cannot prove the existence of God passed without comment

It didn't, though.

So why?

"That was meaningless complaining...."
You are mistaken.
That was an observation, not a complaint.

"Run out of arguments?"
I've already provided lines of discussion should you with to pursue them, although you have not yet done so.

As my opinion that Science cannot prove the existence of God passed without comment

It didn’t, though.

Why have you abandoned your mistaken assertion that your claim passed without comment?

" "As my opinion that Science cannot prove the existence of God passed without comment"

It didn’t, though."
It has so far. Are you interested in discussing the limits to what Science can meaningfully discuss?

As my opinion that Science cannot prove the existence of God passed without comment”

It didn’t, though.

It has so far.

It did nearly as soon as you made it, teabaggie. Why are you continuing with your unsupported and erroneous claim?

"...Why are you continuing with your unsupported and erroneous claim?"
I shall take that as your decision to not discuss the limits on what Science can comment meaningfully.

Is there anything else you are able to discuss now?

So why are you running away from your erroneous and unsupported claims, teabaggie?

Is it because you don't want to accept you've been lying on the subject of the contents of this thread? If you were sure of your claims, you would be willing and able, even happy, to support them.

Why are you unable to support your claims you make?

"So why are you running away from your erroneous and unsupported claims ..."
I'm not. Although it is neither erroneous nor unsupported, are you interested in discussing the limits to what Science can meaningfully discuss?

If you are unable to bring your reason to bear on a subject whose evidence exists here on this thread, what else is your reason incapable of achieving?

If your reason is incapable of being applied here, what other claims you make can be assumed to arise from reason?

"If you are unable to bring your reason to bear on a subject whose evidence exists here on this thread, what else is your reason incapable of achieving?

If your reason is incapable of being applied here, what other claims you make can be assumed to arise from reason?"

I shall take that as your decision to not discuss the limits on what Science can comment meaningfully.

Is there anything else you are able to discuss now?

So why are you running away from your erroneous and unsupported claims …
I’m not.

You are, though. Your claim that your "opinion that Science cannot prove the existence of God passed without comment” is supported by no evidence but blank assertion. Is this intended to be proof?

So why are you running away from your erroneous and unsupported claims …

I’m not.

You are, though. Your claim that your "opinion that Science cannot prove the existence of God passed without comment” is supported by no evidence but blank assertion. Is this intended to be proof?

The limits to what Science can meaningfully discuss is related to the question "Can Science prove the existence of God" so I thought you'd be interested.

Perhaps you'd prefer to discuss this some other time?

If your reason is incapable of being applied here, what other claims you make can be assumed to arise from reason?”

I shall take that as

However, that is not what I asked. If you cannot keep to what was asked but insist instead on making up whatever words you wish to nd whatever interpretation you feel like applying, in what way can you be arguing or reasoning at all?

Since you make blank assertion "proof" of your claims, are incapable or unwilling to apply reason and evidence, and will make up intent to fit your purpose, then your desire to argue is meaningless since you refuse to retain reason and factual reality if it becomes inconvenient for you.

"Is this intended to be proof?"

No. My comment was more of an observation that no one picked up on it, even though the limits to what Science can meaningfully discuss is related to the question “Can Science prove the existence of God”

The limits to what Science can meaningfully discuss is related to the question “Can Science prove the existence of God"

But you make blank assertion as "proof", refuse to apply reason, and make up intent as you see fit, so no meaningful discussion is possible until you sop running from your baseless and unsupported assertion that your "opinion that Science cannot prove the existence of God passed without comment”.

You need to start proving your claims when they are so simple and the evidence contained in this thread alone before any further discussion can be entertained.

"... Since you make blank assertion “proof” of your claims, are incapable or unwilling to apply reason and evidence, and will make up intent to fit your purpose, then your desire to argue is meaningless since you refuse to retain reason and factual reality if it becomes inconvenient for you."

I shall take that as your decision to not discuss the limits on what Science can comment meaningfully.

You appear to be now limiting your comments to off-topic subjects. Is there anything related to Ethan's topic you are able to discuss now?

“Is this intended to be proof?”

No. My comment was more of an observation that no one picked up on it,

But your claim to observing this is itself unsupported, when evidence should be ample. If you merely back up to a different blank assertion in lieu of proof, then the problem of unsupported truth clams remain, and no meaningful argument can continue.

It's not any big deal of course, but if you prefer to focus on off-topic subjects for the moment, I'll let you do that alone.

Since you make blank assertion “proof” of your claims, are incapable or unwilling to apply reason and evidence, and will make up intent to fit your purpose, then your desire to argue is meaningless since you refuse to retain reason and factual reality if it becomes inconvenient for you.

I shall take that as

But yet again you manufacture an intent that is not there out of whim and fancy? If this is supposed to be meaningful discourse and argument in your circles, you are mistaken and this failure on your part must be addressed and corrected.

And this in addition to your continuing use of blank assertion in place of proof.

It’s not any big deal of course

That is most definitely not the case. If you think that inserting blank assertion in place of proof or evidence or even reason is "not any big deal", then you will remain incapable of meaningful discussion on any topic until this is cleared up.

Running away from your failures will not make them go away.

It seems you prefer to focus on off-topic issues at the moment. You'll probably have a better time doing that alone.

When you decide to return to the topic Ethan selected I'll resume discussing it with you.

It seems you prefer to focus on off-topic issues

Wrong again. Whether blank assertion can substitute for proof is a basic requirement for any discussion on ANY topic, and refusing to deal with this renders any attempt to argue or discuss this topic moot until this is rectified.

Should your current method of "arguing" be accepted as "no big deal" and instead we should insist it is "off topic" and pass it by, no claim can be required to have proof instead of blank assertion.

And no argument can continue on that basis.

Why are you so insistent on not addressing your problem with proof and evidence claims?

When you decide to return to the topic

I will willingly do so as soon as we clear up what is aceptable when making a claim. Currently you seem whim and fancy are acceptable, and blank assertion is acceptable proof.

But this does not seem to be a rational course of action to take, teabaggie.

And without rationality, rational argument becomes moot with the irrational actor, yourself.

This MUST be addressed, not danced around as you have done for the past score-and-more posts, and the sooner we do, the sooner we can start again on the topic.

Or is that what you wish to avoid?

"Why are you so insistent on not addressing your problem with proof and evidence claims?"

... chuckling ... The topic is "Can science prove the existence of God?"

Let me know when you're ready to discuss this. A comment to that effect here will do.

Teabaggie, why do you refuse to accept that rational discourse requires that claims have to be supported by evidence and proof?

Chuckling to yourself merely cements the idea that you are unstable and irrational when added to your dance around the problem you have with truth, reality, and evidence.

Until your issues with the requirements of a rational discourse are dealt with here and now, chuckling by typing it in on the web form is not going to substitute for methods of rationality.

Let me know when you’re ready to discuss this

Let me know when you're ready to discuss your problem with the difference between evidence and blank assertion.

I'll be here when you wish to start the discussion of your problem.

So, are there others who would like to argue Ethan's question, "Can science prove the existence of God?"

I argue that it is unable to do so, due principally to the limitations on the domain of Science: the natural world.

And I argue it can. See above for why.

See above for teabaggie here running away from the questions about his misrepresentations, lack of reality and unsupported claims that he has been running away from addressing.

The only one who could, but won't get on topic, is Hasain, because he doesn't care about rationality either, and runs away from accepting it.

One example of the limitations of Science that it focuses on and deals with nature. Supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. For many, such questions are matters of personal faith and spirituality. This indicates that those who believe – either pro or con – espouse Faith Claims.

Another example of the limits of Science is that it doesn't provide guidance how to use scientific knowledge Although scientists often care deeply about how their discoveries are used (ref here the engagement in public forums by scientists on the topic of AGW), Science itself doesn't indicate what should be done with scientific knowledge. Science, molecular biology in particular, can tell you how to recombine DNA in new ways, but it doesn't direct whether you should use that knowledge to correct a genetic disease, develop a bruise-resistant apple, or construct a new bacterium. For all important scientific advances I'm familiar with, one can imagine both positive and negative ways that knowledge could be used. Science provides information about, and assists in describing reality, we then step outside of Science when deciding how to use that knowledge.

Another example of the limits of Science – this time at the individual level – is that Science doesn't make aesthetic judgments. Science can reveal the frequency of a G-flat sound and how our eyes relay information about color to our brains, but Science cannot tell us whether a Beethoven symphony, a Kabuki performance, or a Marc Chagall painting is beautiful, boring, or ugly. Individuals make those decisions for themselves based on their own aesthetic criteria.

These are observations in re the limitations on what Science can usefully speak. I present them to show that Science does not answer all questions.

What then might Science say about the existence of God? Can it, accepting that its domain is the natural, prove that God, a supernatural entity by many accounts, exists?

All that I see there, teabaggie, is yet more screaming and shouting to hide the fact that you've abandoned your unsupported claims and trying to hide that fact.

Why?

And why try spamming to hide that fact?

All that I see there, teabaggie, is yet more screaming and shouting from you to hide the fact that you've abandoned your unsupported claims and trying to hide that fact.

Why?

And why try spamming to hide that fact?

How then to reply to Ethan’s topic? Can Science usefully say much about the existence of God?

The existence of God is a subject of debate in philosophy, the philosophy of religion, popular culture such as this forum. Moral judgments, aesthetic judgments, decisions are important and even vital to humanity, but those, and those about applications of science, and conclusions about the supernatural are outside the realm of science.

Knowledge of ethics, aesthetics, and religion fundamentally influence human societies and how those societies interact with Science. Neither are such domains unscholarly; topics like aesthetics, morality, and theology are actively studied by philosophers, historians, and other scholars. However, questions that arise within these domains generally cannot be resolved by science.

In philosophical terms, the notion of the existence of God involves the disciplines of epistemology (the nature and scope of knowledge) and ontology (study of the nature of being, existence, or reality). While interesting in their own right, epistemology and ontology are not usually considered to be scientific topics.

Science has generated the knowledge that allows us to call a friend halfway around the world with a cell phone, vaccinate a baby against polio, build a skyscraper, and drive a car. Science helps us answer questions like which areas might be hit by a tsunami after an earthquake, how the hole in the ozone layer formed and how it might be closed, how crops can be protected from pests, and who were our evolutionary ancestors?

With such marvelous, astonishing breadth, the reach of science might seem to be endless, but it is not. Science has definite limits.

But, teabaggie, you've already displayed a complete disrecard for the need of your claims to be based on fact, or have any evidence for them. You even assert reality is different than it is in several ways, and a ridiculous disregard for the meaning of common English words.

No claim you make can be taken as valid since there's no way to tell if you've arrived at it via valid logical inference.

It is just as apparently valid to answer the question with "Yes", and say that god acting on this reality would create a difference that science could investigate and thereby prove god.

The fact that science HAS proven the existence of so many things and the complete lack of anything it's failed to prove exist despite existing is yet more evidence that you do not see. Not accept. You do not even see it.

And your refusal to deal with your unsupported and baseless claims that can be supported easily by the information on tis blog thread alone indicates that this is the only method by which you have arrived at your assertion that the question must be answered "No".

But it ALSO indicates that your blank assertion, as well as being entirely unreliable, is pointless to argue against since you have no ability or desire to engage in genuine discussion of the claims you make.

Substituting argument with such discourtesy

Begging the question fallacy
Tone argument informal ad hom fallacy

Two logical fallacies engaged in one, teabaggie.

Your refusal to accept your baseless claims or even attempt to support their reality with evidence but instead relying on blank assertion proves that your claim is known to be fallacious and that you have no ground on which to argue on ANY rational discussion.

Science routinely adds to our knowledge of, and sometimes transforms our perceptions of the natural world and the process through which that knowledge is built. One such transformation of our perceptions of the natural world in described in Thomas Kuhn’s book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”. The process of “normal” Science relies on the testing of ideas with evidence gathered from the natural world. Science can investigate a vast range of questions:

By what chemical reactions do bacteria get energy from the nutrients they absorb?
Why is Jupiter's red spot persistent? What causes it?
Does smog affect women differently than it does men?

Very few questions are off-limits in Science — but the sorts of answers Science can provide are limited. Science can only answer in terms of natural phenomena and natural processes. When one asks questions like “What is the meaning of life?” and “Does the soul exist?”, we generally expect answers that are outside of the natural world — and hence, outside of Science.

I present them to show that Science does not answer all questions.

This is irrelevant, because the question is not "Can science answer all questions".

But this is mere proof that your arguments and claims, unsupported by anything other than blank assertion are known to be fallacious and the conclusion unproven, despite the insistence it is true.

Since you have refused to acknowledge your false and evidence free claims before, your continuing claim to truth is also rendered moot and unproven.

Up your game, teabaggie, and show that you know what rational argument is before you make a claim of proof.

I’ve never read Science precisely defined, but I think it can be broadly described by some common characteristics.

SCIENCE ASKS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE NATURAL WORLD: Science studies the natural world. This includes physical universe around us like atoms, plants, ecosystems, people, societies and galaxies, as well as the natural forces at work on those things. In contrast, Science cannot study supernatural forces and explanations. For example, the idea that a supernatural afterlife exists is not a part of Science since this afterlife operates outside the rules that govern the natural world.

SCIENCE TRIES TO EXPLAIN AND DESCRIBE: Science as a collective institution aims to produce a better and more accurate natural explanation of how the natural world works, what its components are, and how the world came to be the way it is now.

SCIENCE WORKS WITH TESTABLE IDEAS: Only testable ideas are within the purview of Science. For an idea to be testable, it must logically generate specific expectations — in other words, a set of observations that we could expect to make if the idea were true and a set of observations that would be inconsistent with the idea and lead you to believe that it is not true. A scientific idea may require a lot of reasoning to work out an appropriate test, may be difficult to test, may require the development of new technological tools to test, or may require one to make independently testable assumptions to test — but to be scientific, an idea must be testable, somehow, someway.
As Ethan has posted sometimes those tests are a long time coming: think Heisenberg’s Astrophysics Prediction (80 Years), and gravity waves (100 years or more).

SCIENCE RELIES ON EVIDENCE: When all is said and done, scientific ideas must not only be testable, but must actually be tested — preferably with many different lines of evidence by many different people. This characteristic is at the heart of all Science. Scientists actively seek evidence to test their ideas — even if the test is difficult. Performing tests is important to Science because in Science, the acceptance or rejection of a scientific idea depends upon the evidence relevant to it — not upon dogma, popular opinion, tradition, or internet trolls.

SCIENCE IS A GROUP EFFORT: Progress in Science depends on interactions within the scientific community (that is, the community of people and organizations that generate scientific ideas, test those ideas, publish scientific journals, organize conferences, train scientists, distribute research funds, etc.). The scientific community provides the cumulative knowledge base that allows Science to build on itself.

SCIENTIFIC IDEAS LEAD TO ONGOING RESEARCH: Science is an ongoing endeavor. It did not end with the most recent edition of your college physics textbook and will not end even once we know the answers to big questions, such as how our 20,000 genes interact to build a human being or what dark matter is. So long as there are unexplored and unexplained parts of the natural world, Science will continue to investigate them. Most typically in Science, answering one question inspires deeper and more detailed questions for further research in the natural world.

There are additional "checklist items" for what Science is, but I think these are generally accepted.

What is missing from that list is the supernatural. The supernatural lies outside the domain of Science.

Having provided several warrants for my stated position that the domain of Science is limited to the natural world, in the absence of any reasoned arguments to the contrary, that proposition will be taken as accepted.

MAKING CAPS DOES NOT MAKE IT VALID.

You have not yet understood what a rational argument is, therefore any attempt to parse your wild claims are a waste of time since they may be just as riddled of logical fallacies and blank assertion as the claim you continue to dance away from rather than face and clear up.

Science can prove god exists. Unsupported assertions that just because there are mathematical problems that cannot be proven does not mean that god is a mathematical problem that cannot be proven.

And just because there are unprovable mathematical problems does not mean science can't prove gods existence, since one is talking about maths, the other science.

"Having provided several [unsubstantiated and irrelevant claims]"

FTFY.

You have not proven your claim is correct. Nor can you since you have demonstrated you do not know what rational argument is.

Turning now to the other portion of Ethan’s question: God.

“In monotheism, God is conceived of as the Supreme Being and principal object of faith. The concept of God as described by most theologians includes the attributes of omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), divine simplicity, and as having an eternal and necessary existence. Many theologians also describe God as being omnibenevolent (perfectly good) and all loving …” (Wikipedia)

A few items of note here are that theologians, not scientists are identified as investigators. I note also that limitless quantities (infinite, unlimited, everywhere, etc.) are used.

Scientists, being limited by their discipline to exploring the natural world are unable to bring their tools to bear on the supernatural. Further, limitless quantities are the exception, not the rule, when practicing Science. Ref here how commonly the singularity inside a black hole’s event horizon is described as the point where infinities occur and physics breaks down

Taking these as generally accepted (though not, of course, by all) facts, it appears that the probability of Science being able to prove the existence of God.

... it appears that the probability of Science being able to prove the existence of God is very low indeed.

it appears that the probability of Science being able to prove the existence of God is very low indeed.

But your claim was it could not.

Why have you, after, what, 300 or more posts, now dropped your claim that science cannot prove the existence of god?

If we take your route, the massive probability is that there is no god, and therefore logic proves god does not exist, science does not have to be asked.

Scientists, being limited by their discipline to exploring the natural world are unable to bring their tools to bear on the supernatural

Please show that the supernatural exists.

And teabaggie now thinks that by ignoring the problems with his claims, and even ignoring that his claims are falling like dead flies, that he can continue on as if there were nothing untoward happening.

Proving that it's not just AGW teabaggie is in denial of, it's everything on this thread.

You have not yet understood what a rational argument is, therefore any attempt to parse your wild claims are a waste of time since they may be just as riddled of logical fallacies and blank assertion as the claim you continue to dance away from rather than face and clear up.

Science can prove god exists. Unsupported assertions that just because there are mathematical problems that cannot be proven does not mean that god is a mathematical problem that cannot be proven.

And just because there are unprovable mathematical problems does not mean science can’t prove gods existence, since one is talking about maths, the other science.

If you have made no claim, teabaggie, then my assertion stands with its evidence, there being no claim to counter it.

I have used generally accepted definitions of Science and God. I have also used generally accepted ideas about the limitations of Science to present a plausible, perhaps even persuasive, argument that the probability of Science being able to prove the existence of God is very low.

There will always be those who will not be persuaded by this or that argument in favor of or in opposition to any claim. I’m comfortable with that. I have no expectations that People of Faith will change their mind. Hasnain is a representative of those who believe there is a God in the absence of proof, and we all know another who believes there is no God in the absence of proof. I let them enjoy their Faith as they wish, insofar as doing so does no violence to others.

As I have commented before, I leave it to others to adopt and support absolute propositions. They are welcome to them.

Re 422, again teabaggie lies.

You've never said what defintion of god you've used. Despite many attempts to get anything about you.

You have also failed entirely to comprehend the meaning of words like "prove", "Another" and "evidence.

And despite your wild accusations and slowly disappearing claims, the answer is still standing: Yes, science can prove the existence of god.

For a generally accepted definition of God, Science, or the Limits to Science ref Wikipedia.

I refer teabagger here to my previous questions.

Why won't he answer them?

Because he knows he has no ground to stand on and "learned" his lesson when his fallacious claims were queried and, instead of admitting error or, at least, avoiding seeing the query, doubled down, then tripled down on the unsubstantiated and fallacious claims.

So teabagger is ensuring that there is no actual solid definition from him so he can hide in the uncertainty.

“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.”
―Thomas Jefferson

teabagger, please stop.
Ethan, the only way to get this moron to end is to close this thread and stop this moron shitting all over the blog.

Wikipedia is a reliable source for general reference. All the points made here are available there.

If there are any details that need to be fleshed out in re Science's inability to prove the existence of God, fell free to inquire.

Well, the problem with that is that I look at the definition and nowhere does it support your claims, teabagger.

And mine is still fine. Yes, science can prove the existence of god.

#412: So no, teabaggie can't prove it exists.

Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise.

And re: #417: again still incapable of showing that god is a mathematical problem impossible to solve. False attribution.

But as to the WP definition, if teabaggie here thinks otherwise, maybe he can show me what I missed in the definition.

But he'll probably demand I prove his claim first...

“Why have you stopped your unsubstantiated claim that science can’t prove the existence of god …”

As my opinion that Science cannot prove the existence of God passed without comment

Your response was a lie, teabaggie, remember. You need to do more than make blank assertion, you have to substantiate your claims, whatever they are.

Therefore you still haven't answered my question.

And I've been waiting for about 80 posts.

The generally accepted definitions of Science and God I took from (quoted in the instance of God, paraphrased in the case of Science) Wikipedia. I used generally accepted ideas about the limitations of Science to present a reasonable argument that the probability of Science being able to prove the existence of God is very low. For those who might be struggling with one or another, let me know where you need guidance, and I’ll try to help.
That said, I freely accept that there will be those who will not be persuaded by this or any argument they disagree with. I’m comfortable with that. I have no expectations that People of Faith will change their mind. Faith can be very limiting. So be it.

No John, godels work doesn't apply here. You don't even seem to understand what it says. Hint: it doesn't say there are true statements whose validity can't be determined. Which of his theorems are you trying to use?

Heck, I'm still trying to get teabaggie here to understand what evidence is. And "another".

But, teabaggie, looking through, I fail to see what you think I missed out, only yet more blank assertion without evidence. And a failure to understand what words means.

“… Yes, science can prove the existence of god.”
Sure, by all means then, feel free to try.

I succeeded. It's out there several times. Let me know what you don't understand. When it's actually specific, please. I'm not taking you back to 3rd grade because you skipped it.

" I used generally accepted ideas about the limitations of Science to present a reasonable argument that the probability of Science being able to prove the existence of God is very low"

Ah, another fallacy. Appeal to probability.

Is anyone still having problems with the generally accepted definitions of Science and God I took from (quoted in the instance of God, paraphrased in the case of Science) Wikipedia?

As I used generally accepted ideas about the limitations of Science to present a reasonable argument that the probability of Science being able to prove the existence of God is very low, I would have expected most, if not all, the readers of this thread to understand.

If anyone is struggling with one or another, let me know where you need guidance, and I’ll try to help.

Of course, I freely accept that there will be those who will not be persuaded by this or any argument they disagree with. I’m comfortable with that. I have no expectations that People of Faith will change their mind. That’s just the way they are.

I'm not having any problems. I'm fine with them. They don't support your claim. So my claim, that science can prove the existence of god, remains untarnished.

If you have problems with this, maybe you need to check that wikipedia definition again and tell me where you have gotten confused, teabaggie.

PS I note you haven't answered dean's question either. Still asking a grown up to get you an answer?

Can you provide the comment number where you proved that Science can prove the existence of God?

You claim to have succeeded several times in comment (current) #438.

John, you haven't done squat to argue about the probability of anything. You've simply said that not seeing how something could happen means the probability is small (I think: your exposition is terrible).

You’ve simply said that not seeing how something could happen means the probability is small

Dean, back in the 200s, teabaggie here was insisting that science CAN'T prove god. A claim he only recently recanted (like 40 posts ago), so no wonder you haven't seen it in all the shitposting he's done.

I had to clear him up on that score, but

a) Never a word of thanks
b) Never an acceptance that he changed his tune either

So I don't think we can accord any positive step in his early learning progress to this change.

And I notice that teabaggie is back to trying to get me to answer a different question while ignoring both yours and mine.

Like I said, we can't accord this change in claims any positive step in his early learning progress.

And apologies to any readers of SWAB. Until Ethan reins in this nutcase, there's no chance of getting anything useful from this site.

“I’m not having any problems. I’m fine with them. …”
That’s good to read. Now that you have acknowledged you are fine with what I have posted about the limits to science, return to Wikipedia, and search on “Empirical limits in science”. Just in case that presents difficulties to you, I’ll quote what’s there: “In philosophy of science, the empirical limits of science define problems with observation, and thus are limits of human ability to inquire and answer questions about phenomena. These include topics such as infinity, the future and god. In the 20th century several of these were well-documented or proposed in physics:”

Further, as you seem to have mastered some level of Wikipedia searching, I shall assume you were able to find the entry for “Science”. Perhaps that’s not so, but I’m an optimistic guy. If you scroll all the way down to Certainty and science, you can read what Karl Popper has to say, but I’ll quote it here anyway: “He wrote that scientific knowledge "consists in the search for truth," but it "is not the search for certainty ... All human knowledge is fallible and therefore uncertain.” ]”

Now that you and I – we – both know that the limits to science include attributes that you read in my other quote from Wikipedia (you remember – the one about God – comment [current] #407) as well as explicitly identifying god (see, I’m even doing it in lower case, now that we both agree), you are therefore on board (“I’m not having any problems. I’m fine with them. …” comment [current] #443) with the notion that Science cannot prove the existence of God.an

Hey, it was fun!

“I’m not having any problems. I’m fine with them. …”

That’s good to read. Now that you have acknowledged you are fine with

And you're back to the same making stuff up again, teabaggie. Please stick to reality, there's a good lad and try that again. From the top, please.

For those who may be interested in learning some more about the limitations of science, there is an interesting discussion thread at Quora (https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-of-the-limitations-of-science).

Those who have decided they do not want to learn more about the limitations of science need not follow the link.

More for those who may be interested in learning some more about the limitations of science (http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/scientific-experiments/scie…).

Those who have decided they do not need to learn more about the limitations of science need not follow the link.

“I’m not having any problems. I’m fine with them. …”

That’s what did you in.

?

Anyone wanting a laugh at people like teabaggie here can go here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKycHJqd4po

And enjoy Cool Hard Logic's wry look at the similarly anti-gifted to teabaggie.

Enjoy!

For those who are willing to discard the scientific method to shore up their position, there is always Paul Feyerabend. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science)

"For those who are willing to discard the scientific method to shore up their position..."

Teabaggie here is not one to talk to, since you have to attempt the scientific method before it can be discarded.

If you want to find out how to discard earlier false claims and pretend that this was never the case, he's your go-to guy...

Is anyone having problems with the generally accepted definitions of Science and God I took from (quoted in the instance of God, paraphrased in the case of Science) Wikipedia?

Not you wow, you’ve already commented that you’re fine with them (comment [current] #443).

As I used generally accepted ideas about the limitations of Science to present a reasonable argument that the probability of Science being able to prove the existence of God is very low, I would have expected most, if not all, the readers of this thread to understand.

For those having difficulties with one or another of the ideas presented here (and there), let me know where you need guidance, and I’ll try to help.

Inevitably, there will be those who will remain convinced they’re right, and not be persuaded by this or any argument they disagree with. I’m OK with that. I have no expectations that People of Faith will change their mind. I suspect it’s very difficult for them to do so.

John, again, you haven't given argument involving probability, all you've done is use the word - in regards to what isn't clear.

Why not let this guy write to himself, rather than give him the time of day.

So I was correct John, you don't know what you're doing.

Now that we know there is no intent on his part to be serious, PJ gives good advice.

“Can science prove the existence of God?”, not if this or that POV or frame of reference is better than another.
Please stay on-topic."
You want to see God in a laboratory?

When the experimental sciences demonstrate that the elements and natural factors cannot exert any independent influence and do not possess any creativity; when all of our experiences, our sensory feelings, and our rational deductions point to the conclusion that nothing occurs in nature without a reason and cause and that all phenomena are based on an established system and specific laws, when all of this is the case, it is surprising that some people turn their backs on scientific principles, primary deductions and propositions based on reflection, and deny the existence of the Creator.

Now, too, in the age of science and technology, when man has found his way into space, a considerable number of scientists have a religious outlook as part of the intellectual system; they have come to believe in the existence of a creator, a source for all beings, not only by means of the heart and the conscience, but also through deduction and logic.

http://www.al-islam.org/god-and-his-attributes-sayyid-mujtaba-musawi-la…

There is something which we all know, and it was born after the existence of the earth, namely: life. Our scientists state that earth was too hot (and some of them say it was too cold) for any kind of life to exist on it. It took the earth millions of years to become a suitable place for life. Life, therefore, is, undoubtedly, a newborn.

Science, however, tells us that life does not originate from non-living being. Pasteur's experiment, which took place in the 19th century, is still standing. Through his sterilized soup, he proved beyond any doubt that life does not originate from inanimate material. The scientists of today are still unable to disprove his conclusion.

The earth, along with its atmosphere, at the time of its formation was sterile and unproductive. Transforming the inanimate materials, such as carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and iron into a living being could not, therefore, be done through a natural process. It must have been done miraculously.

This means that the existence of life on this planet is a shining evidence on the existence of an Intelligent, Supernatural Designer.

http://www.al-islam.org/inquiries-about-islam-mohamad-jawad-chirri

PJ, why does ethan give teabaggie here the time of day?

dean, you'll find that teabaggie here doesn't do proofs or answer questions. If you dare to ask him one, he'll misundertand or demand you get answering or even that you are "off topic". Or just flat out denial.

I'm still waiting for him to address the massive fraudulence in his actions some 150-200 posts ago. Which request only caused him to shitpost intil there were enough posts of no content between now and then to stop anyone trying to find out what's going on with him.

Apparently he wants to be the only one to decide what faith is (and science is a faith to him), and that god really could exist (even if he can't say what it is) and that anyone not agreeing with him is just non science.

Teabaggie here is just a moron.

PJ, another way to look at this is giving the retard the opportunity to manufacture more rope to hang himself with.

While the scientific method is a powerful tool, it does have its limitations. These limitations are based on the fact that a scientific theory or hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable (ref Popper) and that experiments and observations be repeatable. This places certain topics beyond the reach of the scientific method, which operates in the natural world. Science cannot prove or refute the existence of God or any other supernatural entity.

Any god actions that change this universe can be investigated by science and therefore, yes, science can prove the existence of god.

That it hasn't is because there's no god to exist.

"That it hasn’t is because there’s no god to exist."
That is not necessarily true. While that which des not exist cannot be measured, the lack of a measurement does not require the non-existence of an entity. (ref Wikipaedia, "Empirical limits in science").Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

But absence causes the evidence to be absent, teabaggie.

Every single time we've looked where god was supposed to be, he wasn't there.

You apologetics crack me up. You go off and find some authority to tell you how your condescending attitude to both the religious (they must have their religion, it makes them happy) and reality (we can't say because we might be wrong, so we say we can't) can be argued, your diatribe and un-baked "ideas" are, as dean has shown, completely empty of comprehension.

Because you haven't looked at this, you've been told this.

Absence of evidence when there was supposed to be evidence is evidence of absence.

And we have that in spaces for god.

Any act god takes on this reality can be investigated by science and thereby prove that god's existence.

The fact that we haven't done this is because there's no god.

"inanimate materials,"
All beings were originally non-beings; they were non-existent, and then they became existent. Deluded atheists wish to say that the energy/matter/universe/natural forces/ etc are eternal, but this notion is incorrect for the following reasons:

First, if the material energy/matter/universe/natural forces/ etc are eternal, it follows that an eternal being should be subject to change and cessation, which is impossible.

"Second, if the elements comprising the energy/matter/universe/natural forces/ etc are eternal by virtue of their essence, how is it possible that they should enter the embrace of death and disappearance?

And if, conversely, they lack life in their essences, how can life surge forth from them?

"If you say that living beings emerge from living elements and **inanimate** beings from inanimate elements, we reply that an essence that lacks life in and of itself cannot be eternal and cannot be the source for life.

Belief in the eternity of the energy/matter/universe/natural forces/ etc is held by those who deny the existence of a ruler and planner of creation, reject the messengers of God, regard the books they bring as the fables of the ancients, and **concoct** beliefs pleasing to themselves.

Physicalism is the philosophical position that everything which exists is no more extensive than its physical properties, and that the only existing substance is physical.

If one defines Physicalism as the belief that the universe is only composed of everything known by physics, one can point out that physics cannot describe how the mind functions; if Physicalism is defined as anything which may be described by physics in the future, then one is really saying nothing.

"there’s no god to exist."
Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq (a.s.) and Abu Shakir
Ja’far as-Sadiq (a.s.) was one of the most patient and tolerant teachers of his time. He used to take his classes every day. After his lectures he would listen and reply to the objections of his critics. He had asked his critics, who attended his classes, not to interrupt him during his lectures. They were quite free to ask him any question or raise any objection after the classes were over.

Once Abu Shakir, one of his opponents, said to him: “Would you allow me to say something and ask some questions?”

“Yes, you can”, replied Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq.

Said Abu Shakir: “Is it not a myth that there is Allah? You want people to believe in a thing which does not exist. If there was Allah, we could have felt his existence through our senses. You may say that we can feel His presence by the help of our inner senses, but our inner senses also depend upon our five outer senses. We cannot conjure up an image of anything in which some of our senses were not involved. We cannot conjure up the picture of a person whom we have not met; recall to our memory his voice if we have not heard him and feel the touch of his hand by our inner senses if we have never taken his hand in our hand.”

“You may say that we can perceive the presence of Allah by our intelligence and not through our inner or outer senses. But our intelligence also needs the assistance of our five outer senses, without which it cannot function. We cannot make any reasoning or come to any conclusion without the help of our senses.

By your imagination you have created a being, which is of your own image. Since you see, talk, hear, work and rest, He also does exactly what you do.”

“You do not show Him to anyone. To maintain your hold on the people you say that He cannot be seen. You also say that He was not born from the womb of a woman. He does not procreate and that He would not die. I have heard that there is an idol in India, which is hidden behind a curtain and is not allowed to be seen by the Hindu devotees. The custodians of the idol say that it is out of mercy that their god does not appear before them, because whoever casts his eyes on it, would instantly die.”

“Your Allah is also like the veiled god of the Hindus. It is out of His mercy that He does not appear before us. If he does, we shall surely die. You say that the universe was created by Allah, who did not talk to anyone, except to the Prophet of Islam. As a matter of fact the universe came by itself. Does anyone create the grass, which grows in the field? Does it not grow and get green by itself? Does anyone create the ants and the mosquitoes? Do they not come out by themselves?”

“I must tell you, who claims to be a scholar and the successor of the Prophet, that among all the stories, which circulate among the people, none is more absurd and baseless than the story of Allah, who cannot be seen. There are many baseless stories, but they, at least, depict real life and present before us the people and personalities, who may themselves be fictitious, but their acts and deeds are like those of real human beings. We can see them.

They eat, they drink, they talk, they sleep and they love. When we read these fictitious stories, we enjoy them. We know that they are false, but we see in them the faces of men and women, who are like us. The people mentioned in the stories might not have existed, but our common sense accepts existence of such people in the world. However, when we cannot see, feel or touch your Allah, our logic and reasoning, which depend upon our senses, do not accept his existence.”

“l know that some people, who have been deceived by you, believe in your invisible Allah, but you cannot deceive me and make me believe in Him. I worship God, who is made of wood and stone. Although my God does not talk, but I can see him with my eyes and touch him with my hands.”

“You say that the God whom I have made from my own hands is not worthy of being worshipped, while you ask the people to worship Allah, you have created by your imagination. You deceive innocent people by saying that your imaginary Allah has created the universe, but I do not deceive anyone. No one created the universe. There was no need of any god to create it. It came by itself. God cannot create anything. He is himself our creation. I created him by my hand and you by your imagination.”

Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq (a.s.) did not say a word during the long tirade of Abu Shakir. Sometimes his students, who were present, wanted to intervene but he asked them to remain quiet. When Abu Shakir stopped his lengthy discourse, the Imam asked him, if he had anything more to say.

Retorted Abu Shakir: “By introducing your invisible Allah to the people, you want to acquire wealth and position and have a respectable, comfortable and luxurious life. These are my last words. I do not want to say anything more.”

Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq (a.s.) said: “l would like to start with the last part of your speech. Your accusations that I want money, position and a comfortable life would have been justified if I was living like a caliph. You have seen today that I have eaten a few morsels of bread only and nothing else. I invite you to my house to see for yourself what I will have for dinner and how I live.”

“Abu Shakir, if I wanted to acquire wealth and have a good life, as you say, I was not obliged to teach and preach to get rich. I would have earned money and got rich by my knowledge of chemistry. Another way to get rich was to do business. I have more knowledge' about foreign markets than any merchant in Medina. I know what goods are produced in different countries and where to sell them for profit. I also know how to bring them here to reduce the cost of transport. Our merchants import goods only from Syria, Iraq, Egypt and some other Arab countries. They do not know what goods are available in Isphahan, Rasht and Rome, otherwise they would have imported them and sold them with profit.”

“Abu Shakir, you have said that I ask the people to worship Allah to deceive them and to get rich. I must tell you that I have never taken anything from anyone, except some fruits as presents. One of my friends sends to me every year fresh dates from his garden and another some pomegranates from Taif. I accept these presents so that they may not get offended.”

“I have heard, O Abu Shakir, that your father was a pearl merchant. Perhaps you may have some knowledge about pearls. But I know all about pearls and precious stones. I can also appraise their market value. If I wanted to get rich I would have worked as a jeweller. Can you test and recognise a precious stone? Do you know how many kinds of rubies and emeralds there are in the world?”

“I know nothing about them”, replied Abu Shakir.

“Do you know how many kinds of diamonds there are and what colours they have?” asked Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq.

“I do not know”, replied Abu Shakir.

Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq said: “I am not a jeweler, but I know all about the pearls and precious stones. I also know where they come from. All jewelers must know about gems, what I know, but few of them know their sources.”

“Do you know what makes a diamond shine?”

“I never was a diamond merchant, nor was my father. How can I know why diamonds shine?; replied Abu Shakir.

Said the Imam: “Diamonds are obtained from the beds of rivers and streams. Rough diamonds are cut by experts. This is the cut of a diamond, which gives it its brilliance. Those who are experts in cutting diamonds are trained from the childhood in the profession of their fathers and forefathers. Cutting a diamond is a very delicate and difficult art. A diamond is cut only by a diamond.”

“Abu Shakir, I have said all this simply to show to you that if I wanted to accumulate wealth, I could have done so by making use of my knowledge about jewels. I have replied to your accusations and now I shall deal with your objections.”

“Abu Shakir, you have said that I have fabricated stories and ask the people to worship Allah, who cannot be seen. You refuse to acknowledge existence of Allah, because He cannot be seen. Can you see inside your own body?”

Replied Abu Shakir: “No, I cannot.”

Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq said: “If you could have seen what is inside you, you would not have said that you do not believe in Allah, who cannot be seen.”

Abu Shakir asked: “What is the relationship between seeing within one's own body and the existence of your unseen Allah?”

Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq (a.s.) replied: “You have said just now that a thing, which cannot be seen, touched, tasted or heard, does not exist.”

Abu Shakir said: “Yes, I have said that and I believe it is true.”

Ja’far as-Sadiq asked: “Do you hear the sound of the movement of blood in your body?”

Said Abu Shakir: “No, I do not. But does blood move in the body?

Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq (a.s.) said: “Yes, it does. It makes a full circuit of your body. If the circulation of blood stops for a few minutes you will die.”

Abu Shakir said: “I cannot believe that blood circulates in the body.”

Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq said: “It is your ignorance, which does not let you believe that your blood circulates in your body, and the same ignorance does not let you believe in the existence of Allah, Who cannot be seen.”

Then the Imam asked Abu Shakir whether he has seen the tiny living beings, which Allah has created in his body.

Ja’far as-Sadiq continued: “It is because of these small creatures and their wonderful work that you are kept alive. They are so small that you cannot see them. Since you are a slave of your senses, you do not know about their existence. If you increase your knowledge and decrease your ignorance, you will come to know that these small beings in your body are as large in number as the particles of sand in the desert. These small creatures are born in your body, multiply in your body, work in your body and die in your body. But you never see them, touch them, taste them or hear them in your life time.”

“It is true that one who knows himself knows his Allah. If you had known yourself and had the knowledge of what is going on inside your body, you would not have said that you do not believe in Allah, without seeing Him.”

Pointing his finger to a huge stone he said: “Abu Shakir, do you see the stone, which is in the foot of that portico? To you it seems lifeless and motionless, because you do not see the brisk motion, which is inside the stone. Again it is lack of knowledge or your ignorance, which would not let you believe that there is motion inside the stone. The time will come when the learned people would see the motion which is in the stone.”

Continued the Imam: “Abu Shakir, you have said that everything in the universe came by itself and has no Creator. You think that the grass in the field grows and gets green by itself.

You must know that the grass cannot grow without seeds and seeds would not germinate without moisture in the soil and there would be no moisture if no rain falls. The rain does not fall by itself. First the water vapours rise and gather above in the atmosphere in the form of clouds. The winds bring the clouds. Then the water vapours condense and fall down as rain drops. The rain must also fall at the right time, otherwise no grass will grow and become green.

Take the seeds of ten kinds of herbs and put them in a closed jar, which has sufficient water, but no air. Would they germinate? No, in addition to water, seeds need air also. It is possible to grow grass, herbs and fruits in hot houses, when it is very cold, provided there is sufficient air. Without the presence of air no grass will grow in the fields and get green. If there is no air, all plants and animals, including human beings, would die.”

“Abu Shakir, do you see the air, on which your very existence depends. You only feel it when it moves. Can you refuse to believe in the existence of air? Can you deny that to grow and get green the grass needs many things like seeds, soil, water, air, a suitable climate and above all a strong managing power, which may co-ordinate the action of these different elements. That Managing and Coordinating Power is Allah.”

“You say that everything comes by itself because you are not a scientist. No scientist would ever say that. All scientists and all scholars believe in the existence of a creator, albeit, they may call Him by different names. Even those, who do not believe in Allah, believe in a Creative Force.”

“Abu Shakir, it is not because of one's knowledge, but it is due to his ignorance that he does not believe in Allah. When a wise man thinks of himself, he finds that his own body needs a controller so that all its organs and systems may function properly. He then realises that this vast universe also needs a controller or supervisor so that it may run smoothly.”

“You said just now that both of us create our own gods - you by your hands and I by my imagination. But there is a big difference between your god and my Allah. Your god did not exist before you made him out of wood or stone, but my Allah was there before I could think about Him. I do not create my Allah by my hands or by my brain. What I do is to know Him better and think of His Greatness. When you see a mountain you try to know more about it. It is not creating the mountain by imagination. That mountain was there before you saw it and it would be there when you are gone.”

'You cannot know much about the mountain because of your limited knowledge. The more your knowledge grows, the more you will learn about it. It is impossible for you to find out when and how that mountain came into being and when it would disappear. You cannot find out what minerals are there inside or underneath the mountain and what is their benefit to mankind.”

“Do you know that the stones, out of which you make your idols came into being thousands of years ago and shall exist for thousands of years more. These stones have come here from a distant place. They could travel that long journey because different parts of the earth are always moving, but this movement is so slow that you do not feel it. There is nothing in the universe, which is not in motion. Rest or motionlessness is meaningless. We are not at rest even when we are sleeping. We are in motion because the earth is in motion. Besides, we have a motion inside our own bodies.”

“Abu Shakir, if you had any knowledge about the piece of stone, out of which you carve an idol, you would not have denied the existence of Allah and said that I have created Him by my imagination. You do not know what a stone is and how it came into being. Today you can handle it as you like and cut it into any shape or form, but there was a time when it was in liquid state. Gradually it cooled down and Allah solidified it. In the beginning it was quite brittle and would have broken into pieces in your hand like a piece of glass.”

Asked Abu Shakir: “Was it in a liquid condition before?”

“Yes, it was”, replied Ja’far asSadiq (a.s.)

Abu Shakir burst into a peal of laughter. One of the students of Ja’far as-Sadiq got angry and was about to say something when he was stopped by his teacher.

Abu Shakir said: “I am laughing because you say that the stones are made of water.”

Ja’far as-Sadiq (a.s.) replied: “I did not say that the stones are made of water. What I had said was that in the beginning they were in a liquid state.”

Abu Shakir said: “What difference does it make. The liquid and water are the same things.”

Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq replied: “There are many liquids which are not water. Milk and vinegar are liquids, but they are not water, although they have a water content in them. In the beginning the stones were liquid like water and they flowed like water. Gradually they cooled down and became hard so that you could cut them and make them into idols. The same hard stones will turn into liquid, if they are heated.”

Said Abu Shakir: “When I go home I will check the truth of your statement. I will put the stone in the fireplace and see if it turns into liquid or not.”

Said the Imam: “You cannot liquefy stone in your fireplace. Can you liquefy a piece of iron at home? A very high temperature is required to turn solid stone into liquid.”

Cont...
“Do you realise how you could make the idols out of stones? It was Allah, who made the stones. It was He Who created you and gave you the hands with the unique fingers, which enabled you to handle tools and chisel out the idols from the stones. Again it was He who gave you power and intelligence, which you used in making the idols.”

“Abu Shakir, do you think that the mountains are only heaps of stones? The Great Allah has created them to serve some very useful purpose. They were not created so that you may take stones and turn them into idols. Wherever there is a mountain there is flowing water. Rain and snow which fall on the mountain tops produce streams of fresh water. These streams combine together to form big rivers, which irrigate farms and fields. The people who live in the valleys, through which the rivers flow, are assured of constant supply of water. People who can afford it, go to the mountains during the summer season to escape the heat of the plains.”

“The mountains work as a great bulwark and protect towns and villages, which are in their valleys from the devastation and destruction of hurricanes. Green mountains provide good grazing grounds for sheep. When scorching heat burns the pastures down in the plains and no fodder is left, the shepherds take their flocks of sheep to the mountains and stay there till the end of summer. Mountains are also habitats of birds and animals, some of which are a good source of food for those, who live there. Even the mountains, which are not green, are not without some use. If the people try, they may discover in them mines of metals and minerals which are useful for mankind.”

“Abu Shakir, I am too small and too weak to create Allah with my brain. It is He, who has created my brain, so that I may think of Him and know Him - my Creator. He was there before I came into being and He would be there when I am no more. I do not mean that I would be totally destroyed. Nothing in the universe is totally destroyed. Everything is subject to change. It is only Allah, Who does not change.”

“Abu Shakir, please tell me sincerely to whom will you turn for help when you are in trouble? Do you hope that the idol you carve out of stone can come to your succour? Can it cure you when you are sick; save you from mishaps and calamities; save you from starvation and help you pay your debts?”

Abu Shakir replied: “I have no such expectations from the stone, but, I think there is something inside the stone, which will help me. Moreover, I cannot help worshipping it.”

Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq enquired: “What is inside the stone? Is it also stone?”

“I do not know what it is. But it cannot help me if it is also stone,” replied Abu Shakir.

Said Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq: “Abu Shakir, what is inside the stone and is not stone and can help when you are in trouble is, Allah.”

Abu Shakir pondered over the subject for a while and then said: “Is Allah, who cannot be seen, inside the stone?”

The Imam replied: “He is everywhere.”

Abu Shakir said: “I cannot believe that a thing may be everywhere but remain unseen.”

The Imam said: “Do you know that the air is everywhere but cannot be seen?”

Said Abu Shakir: “Although I cannot see the air, I can, at least, feel it when it moves. But I can neither see your Allah nor feel his presence.”

Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq said: “You do not feel the presence of air when it is not moving. The air is only a creation of Allah. He is everywhere, but you cannot see Him or feel His presence by your senses. You have admitted just now that although you do not see it, but your instinct or your soul tells you that there is something inside the stone, and is not the stone, which can help you. That something is Allah. Your instinct also tells you that you cannot live without Allah and without worshipping Him.”

Abu Shakir said: “It is true. I cannot live without worshipping idols.”

Said Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq: “Do not say idols. Say Allah. It is He, Who is worthy of worship. just like you everyone is obliged to worship Him. One, who does not worship Allah has no guide and no guardian. He is just like one, who cannot see, cannot hear, cannot feel and cannot think. He does not know where to go and on whom to depend when in trouble. Worshipping Allah is a part of living. Every living being worships Him instinctively. Even the animals cannot live without worshipping Him. We cannot ask them and they cannot tell us that they worship Allah, but their well regulated and orderly life is sufficient proof that they worship Him.

“I do not say that the animals believe in Allah and worship Him just as we do. But there is no doubt that they obey the laws made by their Creator faithfully, which means they worship Him. If they were not obedient to their Creator, they could not have such an orderly and regulated life.”

“We see that just before the advent of spring the titmouse (a kind of small bird) always comes at the same time and sings, as if to give us the tiding of the new season. The itinerary of these migratory birds is so regulated and their schedule so fixed that even if the last days of winter are still cold, their arrival is not delayed for more than a few days. When Chilchila (a migratory bird) returns after covering a distance of thousands of miles, it builds its nest at the same place, where it had built it last spring. Was it possible for these small birds to have such a well organised life if they did not obey the laws of Allah and worship Him?”

“Abu Shakir, even the plants obey the laws made by Allah faithfully and worship Him. Out of 150 species of plants, which are further divided into hundreds of sub-species you will not find even one plant, which has a disorganised and disorderly life.”

“Abu Shakir, just like us the plants also do not see their Creator, but they worship Him by obeying His laws instinctively.”

“I know that you will not accept, or perhaps you do not understand, what I say. A man must have sufficient knowledge to understand complicated problems.”

“Abu Shakir, not only animals by their animal instinct and plants by their plant instinct obey Allah and worship Him, the lifeless and inanimate objects also, with whatever instinct they have, obey Allah and worship Him. If they did not worship Him, they would not have followed the laws made by Him. As a result, their atoms would have broken apart and they would have been destroyed.”

“The light which comes from the sun also worships Allah by obeying his laws, which are very stringent and exact. It comes into being by the combination of two opposite forces. These forces also obey the laws of Allah and worship Him, otherwise they cannot produce light.”

“Abu Shakir, if there was no Allah there would have been no universe and no you and me. The sentence, “There is no Allah', is meaningless. The existence of Allah is a must. If attention of Allah is diverted, even for a moment from the affairs of the universe to something else, it would break up. Everything in the universe obeys His laws, which are permanent and eternal. Because of His absolute wisdom and knowledge, He could make such wonderful laws, which will last for ever. Each and every law, made by Him serves some special and useful purpose.”

When the Imam concluded his discourse, Abu Shakir fell into a deep reverie as if he was greatly inspired.

Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq asked: “Do you now believe that Allah, who cannot be seen, does exist and what you worship is the unseen Allah?”

Cont...
Abu Shakir replied: “I am not yet convinced. I am in a quandary. I am full of doubts and misgivings about my faith and my convictions.”

Ja’far as-Sadiq remarked: “The doubt about idol worship is the beginning of the worship of Allah.”

Hey, teabaggie, are there unicorns in your sock drawer?

Serious question. Can you answer it?

And while you're checking your sock drawer, teabaggie, show that I'm wrong about science being able to prove the existence of god.

I guess, though, that the absence of evidence for teabaggies claims are not evidence the evidence doesn't exist

@ WOW,#466
my #461 is the only way. Ignore him and Hasninsane. Why Ethan allows this, I have no idea. Perhaps he ignores the tripe as well.
Catch up on another topic. As I stated earlier, this was always going to happen re the header.
Cheers, it's early afternoon for you, near past my bedtime. Old farts need our beauty sleep.

Cont..
http://www.al-islam.org/tradition-of-mufaddal-pearls-of-wisdom-from-ima…
http://www.al-islam.org/tradition-myrobalan-fruit-hadith-al-halila-imam…

Hang on, according to the philosophical underpinnings of why there should be freedom of speech is that the only valid counter to bad ideas is good ideas, not the suppression of ideas.

All I'm doing is living up to the only philosophical argument that makes it uncomfortable for Ethan to shut them up and stop supplying an uneding and free transport for their disparate Worlds of Batshit.

The idea of the shitpost pen was workable, but only with the concession of reasonable people (and,fuck me, denier and even ragbat medium,if he's not actually sockpuppeting as "john" here as he clearly WANTS to imply, would be included in "reasonable people", that's how low this bar is).

Fruitloops like hassan and john aren't even interested in anything other than using this free platform to shitpost this blog out of existence.

The worst thing I'm doing is not slowing down the shitposting.

The crashing of the scienceblog part of ethan's work is merely the result of his inaction against them and his action of giving them a free platform to talk complete bollocks.

Deltoid is now being shitposted by two denier trolls. The owner does nothing but produce the occasional open thread and otherwise avoids all contact or effort in the "work", and so only a few people were left to stem the tide of bullshit.

And due to lambert's aggressive lack of action and steadfast disdain of reality-crushing morons, I've had to leave Jeff alone with the deniers crowing about their win and now emboldened to give jeff an even worse time, now that their shitposting has made me give up as you are telling me to do now.

Jeff is not merely alone, he's now alone against invigorated toxic morons who now have a proof that their sewage works, all they need is to up the pressure and hose reality off Deltoid.

And only Jeff remains to be the sole target left for it.

The assumption that any event that happens in nature can be measured by Science presumes there is nothing else. This is the philosophy of Physicalism.

As explained previously, Physicalism fails to account for recognized phenomena in nature. As a result, the proposition that depends upon it lacks a valid warrant.

It's not a hard question, teabaggie. Are there unicorns in your sock drawer?

"This is the philosophy of Physicalism."

Uh, no
1) you jut say it is
2) it's reality.
3) to claim that there's more than reality requires you show it to be the case, else you're another fallacy in:assertion fallacy.

but, this is a REALLY simple question, teabaggie: are there unicorns in your sock drawer?

John @184:

If what humans can know of reality is limited to how humans inquire about it, and if the tools used to inquire are limited to those in Science, then only a selected representation of reality can be known.

Fair point. But you don't know the size of that selected representation compared to the whole (is it 1%? 100%?). Also regardless of how much of reality science can't discover, any proposed method for studying the remainder must be defensible on it's own merits - merely pointing out that science can't isn't a measure of any credibility. "Science can't discover all of reality, therefore theology has a place" makes as much logical sense as "x-rays can't discover organic explosives, therefore dowsing has a place." The response to both is: nooooo....if the "alternative" technique is to be thought credible, it must demonstrate its effectiveness at detecting the subject/problem independently, it can't just claim a place at the table by pointing out science hasn't been able to do it (yet).

And that '...yet...' also points out the fundamental flaw in your argument @484. True, we don't have a physical explanation for everything yet. Lack of one doesn't mean physicalism is wrong, however - it just means we don't know for certain if physicalism is right or wrong. And just as with my analogies above, if you are going to come up with an alternative theory to physicalism, that theory must stand on its own. "Physicalism can't explain X" isn't, on it's own, a warrant to believe in some theory other than physicalism. Any alternative theory 'contender' must demonstrate it's effectiveness independently of what physicalism can or can't do. As as far as I know, none, zero, nada, bubkis alternative ideas have any demonstrated capability to predict anything, explain anything, or help us manipulate the world in any way.

Hasnain,

Just catching up on this thread. You must have confused my blog with a place where it is appropriate to post your religious ramblings. It is not. Normally I'd issue a warning but you have been warned by many others here and no changes have ensued in your behavior. I'm sorry to have to ban you but you are banned effective immediately.

John,

I don't agree with most of what you're saying, philosophically, scientifically or logically. But I'll allow it.

You missed a bit, teabaggie!

but, this is a REALLY simple question, teabaggie: are there unicorns in your sock drawer

(ps nope, mind is a process, not a thing)

Uh, how can you make a claim about his logic when it's so near nonexistent that it's not even a string shirt of an idea, Ethan?

It basically goes
1) Maths has proven you can't prove some things
2) Maths is used in science
3) Therefore science can't prove god

There's a whole alphabet of connection between 2 and 3 missing, but the apologetics moron doesn't even connect 1 with 3.

He's blasted out the "absence of evidence" but so far has not said whether the lack of evidence of them means that the sock-drawer unicorn is real

because, just like his fallacious claims he has spent near 300 posts avoiding showing have anything more than just blank assertion with reckless disregard to any evidence for them (nor any care to make the claim of an "observations" claim to "support" it actually comport to reality), he knows enough to spot that he's stuck either admitting that lack of evidence can be proof of nonexistence or saying in public there could be unicorns in his sock drawer.

Hence he'll answer any questions (except with a "please trawl through the entire thread for your evidence which I have indicated every willingness to ignore" or a batshit loon disability to comprehend English) apart from those that don't go where he wants.

Yet will proclaim that refusing to respond is acceptance of his claim...

"As I did not specify either,"

Then your criticism had no basis or conclusion and my claim stands unopposed.

So, now, sock-drawer unicorns. Care to answer the question pending?

If you're interested in a more entertaining look at the destruction of woodisguising itself in a lab-coat kimono, watch CHL indicate the specific activities of the sciencey sounding idiot Spirit Science.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8b3XuPq0nY

And notice how the fallacies SS promotes are eerily like teabaggie here.

"Physicalism fails to describe the mind"

Uh, we can *describe* it quite well. As a brain surgeon.

My claim is still valid. Sorry.

So I guess you admit that just because you can't prove something doesn't exist, doesn't mean it does. You've never answered my query, and the only possible reason is that you know why you cannot afford to answer it.

"Physicalism fails to account for recognized phenomena in nature."

No it doesn't.