Scientific evidence against religion? · Religion Forum

lil bitchiness -

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I didn't say disprove. I said [b]Contradicts.
There are many logical and scientific contradictions against the existance of the popular notion of God.
I made too many threads about this already Lil B, so I refuse to go into detail now, and keep arguing in circles.
The modern concepts are God are BASED on these religious books, religious stories, traditions, etc.
Doesn't matter. If that is the case, then they lack basis for thier beleifs, and only beleive our of personal reasoning. [/B]

I still do not see how it contradicts anything. The basis of any religious person's view is that there is a God, and that he created everything visible and invisible.

That is the base of the religion, not the detail or the stories. Quite a lot of Jews that I know are in this position. They most certainly believe in G-d, and that he has created everything invisible and visible, yet the OT to them is not relevant - but a mare set of outdated rules set by...rulers.

So the stances are different. Science did not prove Jesus was not a son of God or a God (forigve my ignorance, as I am not sure which one he is believed to have been). That is the essence of Christian faith.

And a lot of Scientists who have brought about the VERY sicence you are saying contradicted Judeo Christian god, still managed to believe in God and come out with some amazing discoveries.

lil bitchiness -

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I don't think you got my point exactly. As Ush has been saying, science does not need to disprove god for the atheist/agnostic standpoint to be the scientifically correct one. The premise of science is that one must prove the effect as significant. Not the converse.
From a science standpoint those who believe in god have to prove god if they assert it as true. The burden of providing proof positive is on the one who asserts the claim of an effect.
Asking for scientific evidence to necessitate a disbelief (as this thread does) is flawed.

I never said Science needed to prove God. It does not look to prove or disprove god. Science is not a discipline set out to disprove or prove God.

But in its discoveries it has not, of course, pointed to anything which indicates God, nor anything which determans that God is not there.
However, looking at the Big Bang theory for example, it is not a coherant enough to NOT leave room for the other possibilities.

It is not ''scientific'' but most certainly possible. And science does not deny this. People use science to deny this.

Regret One Among Many

Re: Re: Scientific evidence against religion?

Originally posted by Jim Reaper
What's the church's stance on evolution right now? Genesis: all species were created at the same time, or that god guides evolution to a preestablished end. They need to make up their mind... Reason dictates that if someting is contradictory, it should be deemed fabrication, god for example.

I am not referring to any particular view of God or religion, I am referring to the general concept. I am not referring to general Christianity, but I am of the opinion that the Mormon, a form of Christianity, view of God is in line with science.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The impetus for science is observation. Objective science is based on not having preconceptions of what underlies the observation.
The null hypothesis is accepted as correct to a certain degree of confidence when one cannot exhibit an effect. The burden of providing proof positive is on one who proposes an effect.

The null hypothesis is only accepted if adequate testing has occurred. Given this, the null hypothesis of atheism is an untestable concept, and not to be accepted until such a time that proper testing may occur.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You ask, basically, why you find your theistic stance under continual scientific attack. Well, this is why. Scientifically speaking, theism is wrong, and the process I describe is why that is. Science does indeed support atheism and attack theism. There is no proof for theism within science. Therefore the conclusion of science today is one of atheism. The burden of proof is on theism. Theism loses.

As to proof for God, I believe the existence of the concept is proof. It is a hypothetical and unsupported stance that man is capable of creating the concept. There is no method for testing the hypothesis given a world where the concept exists, there is no means of verifying the idea that the concept would/could occur in a naive human. Children do not concoct elaborate explanations for concepts they do not understand without prior superstitions being taught by the parents, they merely accept the facts. Would a naive adult behave differently? Why should an assumption that they would be accepted?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Incidentally, about your comment on the Mind, well, that's simply wrong on two points. First of all, every one of us has direct evidence that the mind exists. Secondly, I don't know where you got the idea that science cannot cope with such a concept. It is early days but there has been plenty of work and presented evidence and theories in that area.

I do not believe the "mind" exists. I believe that thinking is merely the experience of neural activity, not evidence of some "mind." This is a scientific stance on the subject, study behavior analysis. Everything other than behavior analysis that studies the subject creates this concept as a hold over from the religious "spirit" that was then modified for skeptics to be referred to as the "mind". No studies/work in science have ever studied the "mind", they studied the behaviors presented and inferred the "mind", such a concept is unnecessary, all that is necessary is physiology and behavior. The areas of psychology that cling to "dualist" or "mental" claims are not basing this belief in science, they are basing it in preexisting belief. No behavior analyst would ever agree that there is scientific evidence of a "mind", and we are, next to the physiological psychologists the only hard science based school of psychology.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
E.g. advances in fMRI allowing studies into the neural correlates of higher thought processes such as complex emotions.
e.g. http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/22/7/2730

These studies only support the absence of "mind", and the presence of physiology that is active when a specific task/dilemma is presented. They are studying behaviors, neural behavior and external observable behavior, and then inferring a mentalist explanation.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I don't think you got my point exactly. As Ush has been saying, science does not need to disprove god for the atheist/agnostic standpoint to be the scientifically correct one. The premise of science is that one must prove the effect as significant. Not the converse.
From a science standpoint those who believe in god have to prove god if they assert it as true. The burden of providing proof positive is on the one who asserts the claim of an effect.
Asking for scientific evidence to necessitate a disbelief (as this thread does) is flawed.

As I have said before, science is silent on the subject of theism. The assumption that it supports atheism is based in the absence of testing to verify a null hypothesis. The hypothesis of God's existence cannot be tested, it is not scientifically testable, thus a stance on the subject's validity is absent in science. The common atheist stance is stating that absence of evidence suggests the atheist stance is correct. This only correct if one is capable of testing the null hypothesis. If the subject is untestable then the stance must be that a conclusion cannot be drawn, not that the null is correct. I do not claim that scientific absence supports theism, I claim that scientific absence does not support a conclusion on the subject. Science is silent on the subject, although many scientists are not. Scientific opinion is opinion, not fact, regardless of the probability of its accuracy. Also, statistics are not proof, statistics are statements to level of probability, not level of fact. Statistics strengthen a stance, by supporting the possibility of fact, but in themselves statistics have no bearing on whether or not something is fact.

Regret One Among Many

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
E.g. advances in fMRI allowing studies into the neural correlates of higher thought processes such as complex emotions.
e.g. http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/22/7/2730

Also, correlating to a fantasy construct that has no scientific backing is impossible. Higher thought processes are not scientifically existent, they exist as inferences from external/overt behavior that is interpreted by one holding a mentalist perspective. The "mind" may exist, but it is not a scientifically supported, it is an unnecessary fabrication used to explain behavioral evidence. It is nice, and comfortable, and does not inhibit the functionality of the evidence and the treatment, but it is only an unnecessary fabrication used to explain the facts. The experiment you cite is showing a correlate between a task/dilemma and neural activity, not a correlate between higher thought processes and anything.

xmarksthespot CEO, BS Comics

"Mind" is just a word we use to refer to an assemblage of human traits. Their existence is evident, and they have neural correlates. Neuroanatomy -physiology and -pharmacology are all involved in studying the underlying bases of cognition, behaviour etc "mind".

The burden of proof is on those who propose the alternative hypothesis. That is the nature of science. Prove an effect. To ask one to prove the absence of an effect is fallacious.

Lord Urizen Perfection

Regret, if the mind does not exist, then neither does Free Will, neither does Sin.

If the mind does not exist, then you can forget any possibility that the Soul exists, because the "soul" is an even MORE far-fetched and less likely existance.

What do you we think with then? If you truly believe that there is no mind, then how can we be held accountable for what you deem "sin", how can we possess what you deem "free will". To you, we are just bodies that do things.

Lord Urizen Perfection

Re: Re: Re: Scientific evidence against religion?

Originally posted by Regret
As to proof for God, I believe the existence of the concept is proof. It is a hypothetical and unsupported stance that man is capable of creating the concept. There is no method for testing the hypothesis given a world where the concept exists, there is no means of verifying the idea that the concept would/could occur in a naive human. Children do not concoct elaborate explanations for concepts they do not understand without prior superstitions being taught by the parents, they merely accept the facts. Would a naive adult behave differently? Why should an assumption that they would be accepted?

So you beleive we can create the concept of a mind, but not the concept of God ?

🤨 🤨 🤨 🤨 🤨 ????????

The concept of God began long ago in the beginnings of Human Civilization. Mythology and Deities were created as explanations of why things happen, of why we exist, of how the world came to be. All before science and philosophy came to assist on those questions.

How intentionally foolish...I am surprised at you Regret. You can display such incredible logic, and then at the same time show such utter stupidity. (kinda like me 😛 )

"The concept of God exists, therefore God must exist, because we can't invent something like that."

The same logic goes into the statement: "The concept of Santa Clause exists, therefore Santa Clause must exist, because we can't invent something like that"

Same goes for:

"The concept of Dragons exist, therefore Dragons must exist, because we can't invent something like that"

Same goes for:

"The concept of [INSERT CONCEPT HERE] exists, therefore [INSERT CONCEPT HERE] must exist, because we can't invent something like that.

Concepts are human constructs. We can invent any fkn concept we want.

xmarksthespot CEO, BS Comics

Essentially "Because we cannot investigate the existence of fairies, and no one has tried to investigate the existence of fairies, the null hypothesis that fairies do not exist cannot be accepted."

lil bitchiness -

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Regret, if the mind does not exist, then neither does Free Will, neither does Sin.
If the mind does not exist, then you can forget any possibility that the Soul exists, because the "soul" is an even MORE far-fetched and less likely existance.
What do you we think with then? If you truly believe that there is no mind, then how can we be held accountable for what you deem "sin", how can we possess what you deem "free will". To you, we are just bodies that do things.

What is the mind? It doesn't matter?
What is the matter? Never mind!

...as Homer would say.

Regret One Among Many

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
"Mind" is just a word we use to refer to an assemblage of human traits. Their existence is evident, and they have neural correlates. Neuroanatomy -physiology and -pharmacology are all involved in studying the underlying bases of cognition, behaviour etc "mind".
The burden of proof is on those who propose the alternative hypothesis. That is the nature of science. Prove an effect. To ask one to prove the absence of an effect is fallacious.

That is the point, scientifically speaking there is no underlying basis of cognition, there is no "mind." There is no reason to believe there is anything underlying the neural activity of the brain. Such a concept is the exact same as the belief in God, it is a God type concept that has no basis in science. But, given this, does science claim that there is no underlying "mind", or using your terms, underlying basis of cognition? It does not. I believe it is fools that claim the "mind" or any other term used to describe an underlying basis of cognition exist. They are comparable to religious zealots in that are unable to come to terms with the reality that "cognition" is merely the normal activity of neural functioning. The existence of some underlying basis for cognition is the alternative hypothesis. Prove that there is some underlying basis of cognition, prove that there is cognition with something other than behavioral evidence, behavior is only evidence of behavior, not of internal mental cognition. Regardless of the complexity of the behavior, language is a behavioral evidence, it is not evidence of internal processes.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Regret, if the mind does not exist, then neither does Free Will, neither does Sin.
If the mind does not exist, then you can forget any possibility that the Soul exists, because the "soul" is an even MORE far-fetched and less likely existance.
What do you we think with then? If you truly believe that there is no mind, then how can we be held accountable for what you deem "sin", how can we possess what you deem "free will". To you, we are just bodies that do things.

There is no mind, you are you, there is nothing separate, nothing acting to control your physiology. If you have a spirit, it is an inextricable part of you, not something separate. It is a part of the make up of the physical entity man, not some separate entity in any way shape or form. Soul is the description of a living physical form. Yes, we are bodies that do things, this does not limit choices, it merely entirely places responsibility on the individual instead of removing some responsibility by stating something along the lines of, "My body did it, my spirit didn't want to."

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
So you beleive we can create the concept of a mind, but not the concept of God ?

The concept of "mind" originated in with the concept of some internal construct controlling the physiology of man, a concept that began with the concept of spirit.

No, I do not believe that man would, given a naive state, create a "God" concept. I do not believe we have any evidence of such having a correlate concept existing. Name some concept, that is not similar enough to believe it may have been derived from the concept of God, that man entirely "made up" that is similar in scope to the concept of God. There is none, there is no reason to believe that a naive man would be capable of this.

Santa Clause is based in an individual that did exist, dragons and fairies are/were likely based in an existing creature (either dinosaurs or inaccurate and exaggerated re-tellings of experience with large lizards. Fairies butterflies, hummingbirds, etc.) God has no real world correlate from which it could be derived. Your other examples do.

Regardless, the assumption that man created the concept of God is still an assumption.

xmarksthespot CEO, BS Comics

Originally posted by Regret
There is no reason to believe there is anything underlying the neural activity of the brain.

From where did you derive that I did?

Edit: Oh and the concept of god is created from man. Pure human egotism - most cultures depict their gods in the image of humanity. From the ancient world to the modern world.

Jim Reaper Lurker

This debate is moot anyway... We were actually created by a magical space walrus named Frank. I have a book that proves it. Refute me wrong by science, I dare you. 😛

Shakyamunison Nam Myoho Renge Kyo

Originally posted by Jim Reaper
This debate is moot anyway... We were actually created by a magical space walrus named Frank. I have a book that proves it. Refute me wrong by science, I dare you. 😛

That reminds me of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

http://www.venganza.org/

FeceMan Restricted

His Noodly Appendage abhors war.

Nellinator Crazy Canuck

Originally posted by FeceMan
His Noodly Appendage abhors war.

😂
noodly... hehe

Lord Urizen Perfection

So Regret, I take it you do not beleive in a Soul either? So how does your Afterlife beleif work ?

lord xyz Restricted

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That reminds me of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
http://www.venganza.org/

My Gods are better. I have a book that says humans were created by penises and vaginas, I can get you a copy if you like. Oh, and prove me wrong.

Shakyamunison Nam Myoho Renge Kyo

Originally posted by lord xyz
My Gods are better. I have a book that says humans were created by penises and vaginas, I can get you a copy if you like. Oh, and prove me wrong.

Did it sound like I was trying to prove you wrong? It just reminds me of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Did you read the site? It is really funny and makes you think.

Mindship Snap out of it.

Originally posted by Regret
Regardless, the assumption that man created the concept of God is still an assumption.

'Tis true.
Is God an invention or a discovery? Hard enough it is to empirically prove the existence of a transempirical entity. Harder still to prove that God is solely of man's making, for one would first have to prove that God really, truly does Not exist (normally one does Not have to prove a negative, but in this instance, against the claim of "Man created God," the alternate explanation--God created Man--should be ruled out, or we could be dealing with variable contamination).

Regret One Among Many

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
So Regret, I take it you do not beleive in a Soul either? So how does your Afterlife beleif work ?

I believe in spirit, just not as traditionally spirit is thought of, at least not while we are living and in a physical form. A soul is the amalgam of the spirit and the body, it is not the spirit without the body or vice versa. While one is a soul, spirit and body are entirely inseparable, one does not exist in any way separate from the other. The spirit is not some separate driving force that behaves independent of the body. When one dies, the spirit and body are separated. Thus one exists only as spirit during this period. At the resurrection body and spirit are again united and the souls of men are given the capability they have shown themselves responsible enough to use properly.

My stance is that one cannot claim error is due to anything but ones own choice.