Science cannnot disprove the existence of God.

Originally posted by Ytse
What I meant was in a theistic worldview there are certain presuppositions the believer makes about reality and one of those things is the truth of scripture. Scientific evaluation is entirely ineffectual in determining if scripture really is divine revelation.

How would you know that a minute or an hour or five years from now that the words of the Gospels will not change from "Jesus rose from the dead in 3 days" to "Jesus died from bobbitization in a 3 way orgy" or something else? Surely an omnipotent being like the Christian god has the power to change all biblical text if he wanted to using his freaky supernatural way. "Jesus rose from the dead in 3 days" may be whats written in the Bible for over 2000 years but its not guaranteed that it will remain the same in the future.

The "truthfulness" and accuracy of your Holy Scriptures is also subject to the problem of induction.

Induction is so basic within our thought process that that we will be plunged in some sort of metaphysical chaos, if we simply dismiss all knowledge stemming it. None of us would all be able to form coherent thoughts let alone survive (Food is not guaranteed to offer nourishment! Breathing is not guaranteed!).

All things being equal concerning the problem of induction, the scientific method explains more facts with fewer assumptions, makes more confirmed predictions, and is more open to testing compared to the "truths" in your "Holy" Scriptures.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
1. What argument?

2. In what way am I contradicting myself?

3. You have not read anything I've written. It all depends on the definition of "god". If you are talking about the bible god, then yes: this myth will one day be disproved, but if you are talking about the mystic law, then no. No human can ever understand the mystic law.

Myth?

What is your basis for calling the "Bible" God a myth? Surlely you must have one.

😄

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Myth?

What is your basis for calling the "Bible" God a myth? Surlely you must have one.

😄

Originally posted by Starhawk
I see.

But do you agree if your asking people to believe in something they have the right to ask for proof.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
1. What argument?

You told me I don't know what I'm talking about and left it at that.

2. In what way am I contradicting myself?

You first said "how can science prove or disprove a fictional character?" and then you said "determining what is fiction and what is real is part of science"

If you are talking about the bible god, then yes: this myth will one day be disproved

How?

Originally posted by Templares
How would you know that a minute or an hour or five years from now that the words of the Gospels will not change from "Jesus rose from the dead in 3 days" to "Jesus died from bobbitization in a 3 way orgy" or something else? Surely an omnipotent being like the Christian god has the power to change all biblical text if he wanted to using his freaky supernatural way. "Jesus rose from the dead in 3 days" may be whats written in the Bible for over 2000 years but its not guaranteed that it will remain the same in the future.

The truth of scripture is presupposed by the Christian theistic worldview. If you'd read the bible you'd see that god doesn't reveal his character to be fickle in such a way you describe. So, while you're correct that it is within god's ability to do such a thing, if the scriptures are true then he will not since he's said he is consistent in this sort of thing.

The "truthfulness" and accuracy of your Holy Scriptures is also subject to the problem of induction.

How?

Induction is so basic within our thought process that that we will be plunged in some sort of metaphysical chaos, if we simply dismiss all knowledge stemming it. None of us would all be able to form coherent thoughts let alone survive (Food is not guaranteed to offer nourishment! Breathing is not guaranteed!).

Yes, I've said this all before. Even still we cannot justify the principle by reason or experience.

All things being equal concerning the problem of induction, the scientific method explains more facts with fewer assumptions, makes more confirmed predictions, and is more open to testing compared to the "truths" in your "Holy" Scriptures.

And in the Christian worldview god provides the necessary preconditions for using the scientific method where in a physicalist or materialist worldview you have to resort to what you said in your previous paragraph. That essentally you just choose an arbitrary point where you must discard "philosophical skepticism" for induction to make any sense. You must accept the inevitability of induction without being able to explain it. This is not science.

That logic doesn't prove God any more then it prooves the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Myth?

What is your basis for calling the "Bible" God a myth? Surlely you must have one.

😄

That’s right, you believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old. 🙄

Originally posted by Ytse
You told me I don't know what I'm talking about and left it at that.

It was simply an observation.

Originally posted by Ytse
You first said "how can science prove or disprove a fictional character?" and then you said "determining what is fiction and what is real is part of science"

The two are not the same. There is a fundamental difference between proving a false belief and determining what is and not a false belief.

Originally posted by Ytse
How?

If you prove the bible to be fiction, then you prove that the god of the bible is fictional. It is doable.

Originally posted by King Kandy
That logic doesn't prove God any more then it prooves the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I didn't claim it was a proof.

And the flying spaghetti monster is nothing more than an elaborate thought experiment (or a parody depending upon how seriously you take it) in reaction to ID being allowed in the classrooms by the Kansas State Board of Education. It's not meant to be espoused as a worldview.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It was simply an observation.

Not a very accurate one, I'm afraid.

The two are not the same. There is a fundamental difference between proving a false belief and determining what is and not a false belief.

How do you know what is a false belief and what isn't if you can't prove it either way?

If you prove the bible to be fiction, then you prove that the god of the bible is fictional. It is doable.

I'm asking how you do such a thing.

Originally posted by King Kandy
That logic doesn't prove God any more then it prooves the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I've already tried to explain it to them.

Originally posted by Ytse
Not a very accurate one, I'm afraid.

How do you know what is a false belief and what isn't if you can't prove it either way?

I'm asking how you do such a thing.

1. A man who cannot see his own faults, cannot correct them.

2. You use the scientific method.

3. I just told you how. 🙄

Originally posted by Ytse
I didn't claim it was a proof.

And the flying spaghetti monster is nothing more than an elaborate thought experiment (or a parody depending upon how seriously you take it) in reaction to ID being allowed in the classrooms by the Kansas State Board of Education. It's not meant to be espoused as a worldview.

ALL HAIL FSM!!!!

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
1. A man who cannot see his own faults, cannot correct them.

I could just say this to you as well. I have a feeling you don't really care about my faults. But if you actually do then I appreciate it but I'd rather keep the thread to things we can have a real discussion about.

2. You use the scientific method.

But science can only deal with falsifiable claims. The core Christian belefs are not falsifiable because they cannot be observed or tested. There is no way to apply science to the idea that a god exists who revealed himself to the world through scripture and who created and sustains all of reality.

Originally posted by Ytse
I could just say this to you as well. I have a feeling you don't really care about my faults. But if you actually do then I appreciate it but I'd rather keep the thread to things we can have a real discussion about.

But science can only deal with falsifiable claims. The core Christian belefs are not falsifiable because they cannot be observed or tested. There is no way to apply science to the idea that a god exists who revealed himself to the world through scripture and who created and sustains all of reality.

By disproving those scripture, you disprove the god behind them.

Please keep in mind that I am not an atheist.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
By disproving those scripture, you disprove the god behind them.

How can you disprove the claims scripture makes with the scientific method?

Originally posted by Ytse
How can you disprove the claims scripture makes with the scientific method?

For example: the bible says that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. We know for a fact that the Earth is far older because of the preponderance of the evidence.

BTW do not ask me for the evidence, that tactic will not work with me. I will simple ignore it.

If you prove enough of the stories in the bible to be false, then it will be safe to assume that the god of the bible is also false.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
For example: the bible says that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. We know for a fact that the Earth is far older because of the preponderance of the evidence.

Firstly, it's a matter of debate even between theologans as to what the specific meaning of the language used in Genesis is.

Secondly, assuming that a literal interpretation is correct, as far as it's own presuppositions are concerned there is nothing that would prevent god from creating the universe with the appearence of age. It even presents Adam and Eve as being fully grown even though they are mere moments old.

BTW do not ask me for the evidence, that tactic will not work with me. I will simple ignore it.

It wouldn't matter because the evidence would presuppose that we live in a naturalistic world rather than one created by god. And thus they would automatically rule out god without dealing directly with any of the claims in scripture.

Originally posted by Ytse
Firstly, it's a matter of debate even between theologans as to what the specific meaning of the language used in Genesis is.

Secondly, assuming that a literal interpretation is correct, as far as it's own presuppositions are concerned there is nothing that would prevent god from creating the universe with the appearence of age. It even presents Adam and Eve as being fully grown even though they are mere moments old.

It wouldn't matter because the evidence would presuppose that we live in a naturalistic world rather than one created by god. And thus they would automatically rule out god without dealing directly with any of the claims in scripture.

Even if we could prove that the bible and the god of the bible are fiction, people like you would rationalize it all away. You don’t care about the truth, you only care about what you believe. You should take a lesson from Kepler.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Even if we could prove that the bible and the god of the bible are fiction, people like you would rationalize it all away. You don’t care about the truth, you only care about what you believe. You should take a lesson from Kepler.

Silly me. I actually thought you could muster a counter-argument. Telling me what I would or would not do and what I do or do not care about does not suffice.

This is a very weak position to take. And if this is the best you can do to defend your position perhaps you should reconsider it.