-- Posted by RayOrama at 5:52 pm on July 9, 2009 This was posted on a different thread but I thought it deserved a new topic so that the intent of that other thread wasn't corrupted. Quote: from Moridin at 1:03 pm on July 9, 2009 Can you provide independently verifiable scientific evidence for your close encounter? If not, why should that which you think you say be taken seriously by anyone? What is the more likely: that you indeed saw a supernatural event that has eluded the grasp of brightest minds and sharpest tools of science for millenia, or that you simply for neurobiology reasons thought you saw something that you really didn't? I think the same exact standard should apply to God. -- Posted by MushroomSatsujin at 5:54 pm on July 9, 2009 Im not sure you got what he was saying. Unless this is an anti-god topic -- Posted by brittnutz at 5:54 pm on July 9, 2009 huh -- Posted by RayOrama at 5:59 pm on July 9, 2009 Quote: from MushroomSatsujin at 8:54 pm on July 9, 2009 Im not sure you got what he was saying. Unless this is an anti-god topic Questioning the existnce of God is neither for or against God. Unless you are 100% sure that God is real then you might see this as bashing. But if you are certain of God's existence, what evidence can you provide that a reasonable and intelligent person will accept? -- Posted by theyareAs at 6:36 pm on July 9, 2009 You pretty much explained what us agnostics believe. The point is it cant be done, no one can prove 100% that god is real or not real. Pointless to discuss -- Posted by RayOrama at 6:40 pm on July 9, 2009 Quote: from theyareAs at 9:36 pm on July 9, 2009 You pretty much explained what us agnostics believe. The point is it cant be done, no one can prove 100% that god is real or not real. Pointless to discuss My point was that many people constantly demand evidence from those who believe in paranormal activity or alien life. Yet many of these are people who believe in God who is the most famous ghost of all. -- Posted by Forever Angel at 6:51 am on July 10, 2009 Can you explain how science could be used to verify or disprove the existence of God? -- Posted by RayOrama at 7:20 am on July 10, 2009 Quote: from Forever Angel at 9:51 am on July 10, 2009 Can you explain how science could be used to verify or disprove the existence of God? I'm not a scientist but if something exists its existence can be proven. -- Posted by Forever Angel at 7:34 am on July 10, 2009 Quote: from RayOrama at 9:20 am on July 10, 2009 Quote: from Forever Angel at 9:51 am on July 10, 2009 Can you explain how science could be used to verify or disprove the existence of God? I'm not a scientist but if something exists its existence can be proven. I don't think that's exactly how science works. -- Posted by RayOrama at 7:51 am on July 10, 2009 Quote: from Forever Angel at 10:34 am on July 10, 2009 Quote: from RayOrama at 9:20 am on July 10, 2009 Quote: from Forever Angel at 9:51 am on July 10, 2009 Can you explain how science could be used to verify or disprove the existence of God? I'm not a scientist but if something exists its existence can be proven. I don't think that's exactly how science works. If science can't prove that God exists then nothing can. It's up to those who believe he exists to prove that he does. It can only be done through verifiable evidence. There isn't even any circumstancial evidence. -- Posted by Forever Angel at 8:18 am on July 10, 2009 Quote: from RayOrama at 9:51 am on July 10, 2009 Quote: from Forever Angel at 10:34 am on July 10, 2009 Quote: from RayOrama at 9:20 am on July 10, 2009 Quote: from Forever Angel at 9:51 am on July 10, 2009 Can you explain how science could be used to verify or disprove the existence of God? I'm not a scientist but if something exists its existence can be proven. I don't think that's exactly how science works. If science can't prove that God exists then nothing can. It's up to those who believe he exists to prove that he does. It can only be done through verifiable evidence. There isn't even any circumstancial evidence. What is the reason that believers need to prove that He does? -- Posted by RayOrama at 8:26 am on July 10, 2009 Quote: from Forever Angel at 11:18 am on July 10, 2009 Quote: from RayOrama at 9:51 am on July 10, 2009 Quote: from Forever Angel at 10:34 am on July 10, 2009 Quote: from RayOrama at 9:20 am on July 10, 2009 Quote: from Forever Angel at 9:51 am on July 10, 2009 Can you explain how science could be used to verify or disprove the existence of God? I'm not a scientist but if something exists its existence can be proven. I don't think that's exactly how science works. If science can't prove that God exists then nothing can. It's up to those who believe he exists to prove that he does. It can only be done through verifiable evidence. There isn't even any circumstancial evidence. What is the reason that believers need to prove that He does? I think many want to convince others that God exist because of the pack mentality. The more people believe in what you believe the more justified you feel in believing it, and the more justified they feel in trying to impose those beliefs on others. As for me, I don't need believers to prove anything to me but if they can't prove it then they should keep their beliefs all to themselves and keep them out of the laws that affect me. -- Posted by 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. -- Posted by Raza say at 10:17 am on July 10, 2009 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. -- Posted by Forever Angel at 10:46 am 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? -- Posted by Moridin at 12:05 pm on July 10, 2009 Quote: from Raza say at 8:17 pm on July 10, 2009 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. -- Posted by Moridin at 12:06 pm on July 10, 2009 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. -- Posted by Forever Angel at 12:15 pm on July 10, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 2:06 pm on July 10, 2009 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. Your logic fails. The existence of God isn't dependent on the statements being valid. -- Posted by Moridin at 12:21 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? -- Posted by Forever Angel at 3:10 pm on July 10, 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. -- Posted by Moridin at 5:31 pm on July 11, 2009 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. -- Posted by Forever Angel at 7:10 pm on July 11, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 7:31 pm on July 11, 2009 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. Never mind, dear. Using ignorance as an excuse for failure to respond is a poor tactic for someone who thinks he's more intelligent than I. Nice try though. -- Posted by Moridin at 4:34 am on July 12, 2009 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. -- Posted by Forever Angel at 8:33 am on July 12, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 6:34 am on July 12, 2009 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. So you are claiming that you have no concept of the term "God"? Did you not say that you were a Christian for 20+ years? What, then, do you mean when you say "god"? What is this entity that you 'lack belief' of?