There is also no evidence that God doesn't exist. It's like the way a physics teacher I had explained it when some students didn't believe him when he said science had its limits. He said to decide to prove whether or not aliens were real. You could go to a planet, find no evidence of aliens, and the only scientific thing you could say is "on that particular planet, there is no evidence." It certainly doesn't prove there are no aliens at all because all you have to do is find one planet that does have one to confirm it. I know people will talk about burden of proof and etc, but just like believers cannot prove God exists, non-believers cannot prove God does not exist.
Originally posted by Devil King
and what is it?
As simply as the forces that manages everything to perfection in the universe, and the apparition of organic life. Let's just say life don't pop out of nowwhere. That is one of the world's greatest scientifi mystery, one that I know we are not close to settling.
Originally posted by willofthewisp
There is also no evidence that God doesn't exist. It's like the way a physics teacher I had explained it when some students didn't believe him when he said science had its limits. He said to decide to prove whether or not aliens were real. You could go to a planet, find no evidence of aliens, and the only scientific thing you could say is "on that particular planet, there is no evidence." It certainly doesn't prove there are no aliens at all because all you have to do is find one planet that does have one to confirm it. I know people will talk about burden of proof and etc, but just like believers cannot prove God exists, non-believers cannot prove God does not exist.
Yes, but until you can show me in one form or another that God does exist, then there is more evidence that God doesn't exist. It's the same with aliens, because there is no determined evidence that they exist, right now the idea that they exist cannot be proven.
But it is just as unscientific to assume something doesn't exist just because you don't see it as it is to assume something is real based on a belief. If you were to go back in time and tell people about viruses, they wouldn't believe you because they couldn't see it and there was no technology for a long time that allowed them to research. Quite a few things that we take to be fact might be altogether disproven in the future.
Originally posted by Mandos
As simply as the forces that manages everything to perfection in the universe, and the apparition of organic life. Let's just say life don't pop out of nowwhere. That is one of the world's greatest scientifi mystery, one that I know we are not close to settling.
Well how then, did God pop out of nowhere? It works both ways. If you refuse to believe that life did not pop out of nowhere, then how did God pull it off?
Originally posted by willofthewisp
There is also no evidence that God doesn't exist. It's like the way a physics teacher I had explained it when some students didn't believe him when he said science had its limits. He said to decide to prove whether or not aliens were real. You could go to a planet, find no evidence of aliens, and the only scientific thing you could say is "on that particular planet, there is no evidence." It certainly doesn't prove there are no aliens at all because all you have to do is find one planet that does have one to confirm it. I know people will talk about burden of proof and etc, but just like believers cannot prove God exists, non-believers cannot prove God does not exist.
this isn't quite accurate
if one prescribes to a particular religious faith, God can be said to have various characteristics based on the tenets of the faith. This god will probably be different to each person, and what characteristics God would be expected to have of course would be individual.
However, based on this, one can extrapolate what might happen were those characteristics true.
No, this isn't definitive, but does allow for things like the rampant existence of poverty, war, suffering, EVEN among believers, to act as proof against a God which is both benevolent or cares about the lives of his followers. One would have to explain how these things are congruent, else one must conclude that a benevolent and caring god doesn't exist.
No, this SINGLE thesis doesn't prove anything, however, I fail to see any direct evidence for, lets be specific, a Christian God. None of what would be expected of a chosen people are displayed by Christians, there are no benefits that are attributable specifically to Christian belief, there is no advantage to being a Christian than there is to not, nor are there ANY behavioural differences between Christians and non-Christians that cannot be attributed to personal or social factors/
The only hypothesis of God that can not be tested in this way is the idea that God has no involvement in the natural world, in which case, he might as well not exist.
Originally posted by willofthewisp
But it is just as unscientific to assume something doesn't exist just because you don't see it as it is to assume something is real based on a belief. If you were to go back in time and tell people about viruses, they wouldn't believe you because they couldn't see it and there was no technology for a long time that allowed them to research. Quite a few things that we take to be fact might be altogether disproven in the future.
ah, but the one thing about science is that it IS demonstrable
if you had a captive enough audience, you could theoretically explain and demonstrate the evidence for viruses we have in terms they understand.
whereas god, you NEVER have that evidence
Originally posted by willofthewispI also rely on "There is no proof God doesn't exist" for my own personal philosophy. But this cornerstone does not put it on equal footing with empirical evidence. It's wiggle room which allows freedom to speculate and (IMO) confers practical advantages over a purely empirical map. However, one must logically concede that the purely empirical map is compelling, if not necessarily convincing.
There is also no evidence that God doesn't exist. ... I know people will talk about burden of proof and etc, but just like believers cannot prove God exists, non-believers cannot prove God does not exist.
Originally posted by inimalist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
...
Originally posted by Mandos
Until you've proved that there is or is not, no certain conclusions can be made. That's science. Cruel science...
I made no conclusions. I always say "IF" even if personally I don't think God exists.
To me God is little more than a comic book character, only his writer/s claim God to be real. How do you disprove God's existence to somebody if even though there are no signs of God's existence, you believe it based on said writer/s. It's impossible.
Originally posted by Mandos
...
yes, good, now read the article and explain how you have evidence that Satan is not just a rationalization that effectively blocks cognitive dissonance in Christian followers..
giving the meme of Christianity a powerful way to spread in the face of Christians not doing any better than non-christians
or, I don't know, explain how secular values, wherever they were developed, lead that region of the world to dominate geo-politically? You'd think Gods work would be better than that of man...
Originally posted by willofthewisp
But it is just as unscientific to assume something doesn't exist just because you don't see it as it is to assume something is real based on a belief. If you were to go back in time and tell people about viruses, they wouldn't believe you because they couldn't see it and there was no technology for a long time that allowed them to research. Quite a few things that we take to be fact might be altogether disproven in the future.
To me it is not the same as telling someone about a virus and them not believing you. Virus was just a name for an ailment we already knew existed for thousands of years. Not the same thing. Nobody knew of God's existence beforehand and then put a name to it.
Originally posted by inimalist
yes, good, now read the article and explain how you have evidence that Satan is not just a rationalization that effectively blocks cognitive dissonance in Christian followers..giving the meme of Christianity a powerful way to spread in the face of Christians not doing any better than non-christians
or, I don't know, explain how secular values, wherever they were developed, lead that region of the world to dominate geo-politically? You'd think Gods work would be better than that of man...
I don't have any evidence that he is, and you have no arguments to state he isn't... that's what we've been concluding for two pages now...
Originally posted by inimalist
yes, good, now read the article and explain how you have evidence that Satan is not just a rationalization that effectively blocks cognitive dissonance in Christian followers..
Because Satan appears in the same text . . .
It's not as though he was invented recently to solve the problem of cognitive dissonance. That might have been part of the original formation of Satan as a concept but it doesn't apply to modern fundamentalists because they believe in the literal existance of both God and Satan based on a single text.