Do you believe in God?

[Villain]

Not entirely; the 2+2=4 thing really only had to do with logic. I was simply making the point that even intuitively obvious truth - also yet more conveniently confined to the realm of seemingly clean logic - is actually quite complex and pretty hard won.

Also, I preferred Niky's Minitrue gag in the short soundbite stakes.

Matt Kemp is a member of the Los Angeles Dodgers.

That's true.

========

I'm done with that now. Anyways, I get the argument that you can't disprove the existence of God or unequivocally say "It's impossible for a God to exist" etc.

But that's not the point. The point isn't to disprove existence. The simple 2 + 2 = 4 fact is that there is no testable proof that God or any other supernatural creator has ever existed.

 

[Ealirendur]

But that's not the point. The point isn't to disprove existence. The simple 2 + 2 = 4 fact is that there is no testable proof that God or any other supernatural creator has ever existed.

The Babel fish

Anyway, what if there was an experiment (or complex series thereof) to determine that we were living in a created universe? It would rather depend on the nature and quality of the simulation/creation, but it may be possible (multiple time-separated quantum state encryption tricks to detect branching points if the simulation quality is low, or our caretaker(s) aren't actually omniscient, for example). It certainly can't be said to be actually impossible, but the point is taken that it may well be, or is even highly likely to be.

Also, I never said a single word about a supernatural creator. How would you distinguish a "supernatural" entity from one that evolved in this or another (possibly previous) universe? Ask it? What if they just wanted to mess with you to see how you'd react?

See Clarke's Three Laws.

EDIT: PS, I guess being outside this universe would qualify, being super- natural, or outside nature.

 

[niky]

The Babel Fish or Bananas. Though I prefer the packaging of Oranges, which are built to be shared between multiple people, with indiividually wrapped slices of food inside the shockproof travel container, which is also biodegradeable.

 

[Villain]

Also, I never said a single word about a supernatural creator.

Is that........ true?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

The simple 2 + 2 = 4 fact is that there is no testable proof that God or any other supernatural creator has ever existed.

Not so.

However, the testable proof can only be aquired indivdually, or personally maybe a better term.

Thats because the testable proof of God, is only offered by relational invitation, not some scientific experiment.

Others, as well as myself, have testified to this throughout this thread.

 

[Azuremen]

However, the testable proof can only be aquired indivdually, or personally maybe a better term.

Then it isn't testable if it is unique to a specific person. That is the point being made, you can easily add 2 and 2 to get 4, you can not do that with faith.

 

[CodeName]

Famine :http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_57.html
Embryology is the branch of science that studies the development of the embryo in the mother's womb. Until very recently, embryologists assumed that the bones and muscles in an embryo developed at the same time. Yet, advanced microscopic research conducted by virtue of new technological developments has revealed that the revelation of the Qur'an is word for word correct. These observations at the microscopic level showed that the development inside the mother's womb takes place in just the way it is described in these verses. First, the cartilage tissue of the embryo ossifies. Then, muscular cells that are selected from amongst the tissue around the bones come together and wrap around the bones. This event is described in a scientific publication titled Developing Human in the following words:

See the link to continue

Now I want you to see this because it is too long to describe : http://kaheel7.com/eng/index.php/earth-science/472-the-trembling-of-the-earth

And I don't think that an alien would lands behind me because they don't exist and it has never happenend.

 

[DK]

Thats because the testable proof of God, is only offered by relational invitation, not some scientific experiment.

Others, as well as myself, have testified to this throughout this thread.

How do you know that it's not Odin having a laugh? How do you know that it is the God of Abraham and not any other of the nearly 2,900 gods that have been catalogued by historians?

 

[Luminis]

Famine :http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_57.html

Totally doesn't sound like the name of a website that could be a little biased, doesn't it? Anyways, good luck trying to beat Famine in a scientific debate. You'll need it

How do you know that it's not Odin having a laugh? How do you know that it is the God of Abraham and not any other of the nearly 2,900 gods that have been catalogued by historians?

A lot of which are based on each other, to boot. Anyways:

Don't take this seriously guys, okay?

 

[Famine]

testable

proof

Famine :http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_57.html

Couple of points. Firstly, you're using an already discredited, heavily biased source.
Secondly, it's wrong.
Thirdly, I actually am a molecular biologist.

And I don't think that an alien would lands behind me because they don't exist and it has never happenend.

Which doesn't answer the question. Would you refuse to accept their existence with empirical proof of their existence because your holy book says they don't exist?

 

[Bye Ya]

Would you refuse to accept their existence with empirical proof of their existence because your holy book says they don't exist?

This part has baffled me in recent years, why every religion needs a handbook?

 

[Villain]

Not so.

However, the testable proof can only be aquired indivdually, or personally maybe a better term.

Thats because the testable proof of God, is only offered by relational invitation, not some scientific experiment.

Others, as well as myself, have testified to this throughout this thread.

I don't think you know what testable proof is.

 

[CodeName]

You didn't refute anything, this is not an answear for me.

 

[Villain]

You didn't refute anything, this is not an answear for me.

You posted a link from a very biased source. I don't think that there's anything to refute.

 

[CodeName]

You posted a link from a very biased source. I don't think that there's anything to refute.

Every sources don't lie, and the name sometimes doesn't say everything.

 

[Scaff]

You didn't refute anything, this is not an answear for me.

Here you go...

http://skeptic-mind.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/embryology-miracle-in-quran-destroyed.html

 

[DK]

This part has baffled me in recent years, why every religion needs a handbook?

Controlling the masses?

 

[arora]

Controlling the masses?

These days it's voluntary and much less controlling them some other things in society.

 

[Bye Ya]

I don't know, it just seems strange that with every religion that claims a powerful creator/etc., that you can't have a relationship with that which made you, without a book to tell you how? What kind of relationship is that?

My beliefs on the existence of 'other stuff' are that I think things can possibly exist that we can't measure, but I just think it's clear that religious practice is a human device.

 

[arora]

who said you needed a book?

 

[Hun200kmh]

Of course religious practise is human. The way religion is passed on throughout human history started to be oral, then we humans, precisely because we are humans, invented writing. Then scrolls, then books, etc etc.

 

[doctorrg]

• Of course, without him nothing would exist!
• Maybe.
• No way!

Well, based on these options, it would have to be "Maybe". I tend to classify myself as a sexed-up Atheist, but really, how can I say whether something does or doesn't exist if I don't even know what it is?

 

[Famine]

"No" doesn't mean you believe a God doesn't exist. It means you don't believe it does.

 

[Dotini]

Of course religious practise is human. The way religion is passed on throughout human history started to be oral, then we humans, precisely because we are humans, invented writing. Then scrolls, then books, etc etc.

That pretty well describes your ossified or static religions like Christianity. There are some newer religions like Mormon or Scientology or whatnot that have their prophets yet living among us. I recall Jim Jones, the Peoples Temple and Guyana Jonestown kool-aid massacre. Religion is constantly trying to reinvent itself in a variety of increasingly bizarre manifestations.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[doctorrg]

"No" doesn't mean you believe a God doesn't exist. It means you don't believe it does.

All depends on how you interpret the question. If you're saying I cannot believe it does exist, if I don't even know what it is, then yes, you're right, I can't attribute anything with existence I know nothing about. As such, if I don't know it, I necessarily don't believe in it.

Yet, was that the question?

 

[Dotini]

Yet, was that the question?

I do not believe this forum has ever settled on the precise definition of God. I could of course be wrong, it's such a huge thread.

It ranges from huge guy with a beard to an ill-defined intelligence guiding the organization of the universe.

Respectfully,
Steve

 

[arora]

Correct, even though most of the argument against one is an attack on a bearded guy in the sky

 

[doctorrg]

I do not believe this forum has ever settled on the precise definition of God. I could of course be wrong, it's such a huge thread.

It ranges from huge guy with a beard to an ill-defined intelligence guiding the organization of the universe.

Well, if you've got something to go by, you may be able to get to a more definite answer. If, for example, it was asked whether I believe in a God that is a person and has a beard, then I could go straight for the "No way!", if it's an "intelligence" guiding the organization of the universe, well, from where I'm standing, people could just be talking about what we consider "physical laws". Unless we limit "intelligence" to something that can only be attributed to a living entity in the sense that we are living, then I could straight away go with "No way!". Yet, I myself have come across so many different understandings of "God", that I just can't easily say anymore that I don't believe in it.

 

[Famine]

All depends on how you interpret the question. If you're saying I cannot believe it does exist, if I don't even know what it is, then yes, you're right, I can't attribute anything with existence I know nothing about. As such, if I don't know it, I necessarily don't believe in it.

Yet, was that the question?

The question was "Do you believe in God?".

Yes means you believe in God (terribly Abrahamic, I know).
No means you do not believe in God.
There is no option for "I believe there is no God".

 

[Dotini]

in the sense that we are living

We are biological entities in a universe that is 99.999% free of biology.
Mayhaps an inorganic intelligence makes more sense. Otherwise, we are merely anthropomorphizing, a strictly human behavior.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve