---

Quote: from Moridin at 10:09 am on July 10, 2009

---

Quote: from Forever Angel at 4:51 pm on July 10, 2009

---

Can you explain how science could be used to verify or disprove the existence of God?

---

 

 Theists make empirical claims about gods all the time. As a Christian, you believe that human parthenogenesis is possible, that water can be turned into wine, that the sun has stopped in its orbit across the sky, that someone who has been clinically dead for three days can come back to life, that believes can drink poison and not get harmed and so on.  

 All of these are (false) empirical claims.

---

Religion and God are two separate entities. You can  
debunk a religion. But that would in no way disprove or prove the existence of God. That said, everything you stated above are merely claims made by the Bible and obviously preposterous. But that makes it easy for you to refute religion. Not God. Because God is an immutable and separate entity within the realms of reality as we percieve.

---

What is "god" without a defining religion or set of characteristics? If that is the case, then the concept of "god" is cognitively meaningless and cannot refer to anything that exist. You loose either way.

-------
"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the
shoreline of wonder" (Ralph W. Sockman)

---

Quote: from Moridin at 12:09 pm on July 10, 2009

---

Quote: from Forever Angel at 4:51 pm on July 10, 2009

---

Can you explain how science could be used to verify or disprove the existence of God?

---

 

 Theists make empirical claims about gods all the time. As a Christian, you believe that human parthenogenesis is possible, that water can be turned into wine, that the sun has stopped in its orbit across the sky, that someone who has been clinically dead for three days can come back to life, that believes can drink poison and not get harmed and so on.  

 All of these are (false) empirical claims.

---

What has that to do with proving or disproving the existence of God?

---

What do you mean by "god"?

1. If god exists, then these statements are valid.
2. Those statements are not valid.
3. Therefore, it is not the case that such a god exists.

-------
"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the
shoreline of wonder" (Ralph W. Sockman)

---

Quote: from Forever Angel at 8:46 pm on July 10, 2009

---

Quote: from Moridin at 12:09 pm on July 10, 2009

---

Quote: from Forever Angel at 4:51 pm on July 10, 2009

---

Can you explain how science could be used to verify or disprove the existence of God?

---

  Theists make empirical claims about gods all the time. As a Christian, you believe that human parthenogenesis is possible, that water can be turned into wine, that the sun has stopped in its orbit across the sky, that someone who has been clinically dead for three days can come back to life, that believes can drink poison and not get harmed and so on.

  All of these are (false) empirical claims.

---

What has that to do with proving or disproving the existence of God?

---

What do you mean by "god"?

1. If god exists, then these statements are valid.
2. Those statements are not valid.
3. Therefore, it is not the case that such a god exists.

---

When you say "god" what do you mean?

-------
"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the
shoreline of wonder" (Ralph W. Sockman)

---

If you don't define god by his characteristics or influences in reality, then clearly the god-concept is vacuous from a definitional perspective and claiming to believe in the existence of god is like claiming you believe in the existence of jaxyplonkerfe.

When you say "god" what do you mean?

---

---

Quote: from Moridin at 2:21 pm on July 10, 2009

---

If you don't define god by his characteristics or influences in reality, then clearly the god-concept is vacuous from a definitional perspective and claiming to believe in the existence of god is like claiming you believe in the existence of jaxyplonkerfe.  

 When you say "god" what do you mean?

---

An entity with the power to create a universe and everything in it. If you don't understand my God by now you never will. When science is ready to get into the proving or disproving of God, let me know and we can talk about it.

---

But defining "god" as a creator only gives the god-concept relational attributes, not primary attributes, so it is still a vacuous concept.

Come on, you can do better than that.

-------
"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the
shoreline of wonder" (Ralph W. Sockman)

---

Quote: from Forever Angel at 1:10 am on July 11, 2009

---

Quote: from Moridin at 2:21 pm on July 10, 2009

---

If you don't define god by his characteristics or influences in reality, then clearly the god-concept is vacuous from a definitional perspective and claiming to believe in the existence of god is like claiming you believe in the existence of jaxyplonkerfe.

  When you say "god" what do you mean?

---

An entity with the power to create a universe and everything in it. If you don't understand my God by now you never will. When science is ready to get into the proving or disproving of God, let me know and we can talk about it.

---

But defining "god" as a creator only gives the god-concept relational attributes, not primary attributes, so it is still a vacuous concept.

Come on, you can do better than that.

---

Let's take an example. I use the term "X" in an argument. You question the meaningfulness of the concept "X" and asks me to define it properly. If I then say that X is defined as something that can be eaten, does this allow you to differentiate between X as a cucumber or X as a piece of toast? No.

So stating relational attributes is not enough for a proper definition.

-------
"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the
shoreline of wonder" (Ralph W. Sockman)

---

You clearly do not understand the profound difference between relational attributes and primary attributes when it comes to the philosophy of language.

Let's take an example. I use the term "X" in an argument. You question the meaningfulness of the concept "X" and asks me to define it properly. If I then say that X is defined as something that can be eaten, does this allow you to differentiate between X as a cucumber or X as a piece of toast? No.

So stating relational attributes is not enough for a proper definition.

---