Hello science, I am an amateur scientist, most science forums cringe at the very thought of me on their forum, I am the anti-science to cut a long story. I show your science is flawed in so many ways, however that is a different debate. This thread does not require any comments from religion or in defence of religion am talking to the scientists, who by right should not believe in a said God(s). So the topic is not proving a God or about defending a God, so religion defence on a belief is not welcome, so please refrain from posting comments in defence as mutual respect. So science , how do we prove there is no God? what do we need to look at? My first thought is that a ''God'' can not destroy space making space a higher power than a ''God''?
In changing style for a religious argument over on a religious forum I have opened my argument with this post - A man lacks knowledge, he never asked the question, if there is no question, there is nothing to be answered, the man was so wise to ask nothing. The new Atheism movement is wise, we use logic of the utmost highest axioms, we do not ask question, we observe the answers. We observe space is an higher power than ''all God's'', ''God's'' can not destroy space, space is immortal, if a ''God'' destroyed space, the ''God'' would be destroying it's own immortality. A ''God'' energy form or body form, needs space to exist in. Our ''God'' of space owns your ''Gods'' Our God is everywhere all around you, inside you and watching you, fear our God as it see's all, you go to our ''God'' when you die, you energy soul joining one big sole of the one ''god'' You not speak like I, you not repeat my truths, my god as spoken, my god does not lie, you not of thy truths, you not worship one god, you all lie around the camp fires, I not lie I tell truth, you see truth that cannot be proved, you prove my space is not thy god,and repeat these words like me.
The first thing we need to do is agree on terms. We need to know what God is in order to figure out what we would regard as a positive result. So, we need a definition. What then is the definition of God? Well, we don't know. There are so many different interpretations of God that even if we were able to make accurate measurements about the world, most theists would say "yeah, you've proven that doesn't exist, but that's not God, so it does not disprove God". Without a definition, science cannot address God. This is sometimes taken as a victory for the theist side, but science isn't only a school subject and guys in lab coats, it's the general idea of obtaining reliable information, which in turn shines a negative light on anything that fails to go through it.
We can't prove there is no god in general. I could be possible to prove some specifically defined gods don't exist (as far as it's possible to prove anything). My question would be why would we want or need to actively disprove the general existence of gods?
Thank you for the reply, in discoursing religious material and considering comparatives, I think the word God is a previous word used for space. To add to this here is another post I posted on religious forum, ignore the style it is a challenge to a Holy book challenge which I am sure you aware of. ''You fear my God, you not repeat these words, you not prove wrong, you observe our God, you see our God clearly, you see through him, you move through him, he touches you and you touch him back, I not Lie, you can see for yourself, God is wise and everywhere and hides between us.'' Consider what early Psuedo science was considering when they were considering ''God'', they were thinking about space. - - - Updated - - - Consider yesterday.
Consider the Syntactic ambiguity in my religious forum posts. It is science. ''In the loving hands of God he shall hold you close as his favourite, he shall keep you warm and provide for you, God does not command you, God does himself.' ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... can we prove''An aeroplanes propeller, a man shouts hey, while a man smoke weed. ''
Just the thought of YOU trying to "prove there is no god" tells me you are not a "scientist". Real scientists don't waste their valuable time trying to prove or disprove the existence of something that will NOT change the minds of those who do believe in it's existence! The reason those that do believe call it FAITH. By the way...........I'M AN ATHEIST. Why don't you do something more fruitful with your time like helping Mom clean your room, pick up the dog poop, wash your own clothes, make your bed, earn your allowance.......maybe wash your dishes every once in a while. By the way.......those who do not believe in god usually do not capitalize the G in god. That is a sign of respect and atheist (like myself) refuse to capitalize a name that is not a name........ OP fail in the worse degree!
An Atheist would not post such drivel in a science section in a ''political forum''so none related to the subject. We understand that ''God trolls'' are everywhere. You can not read below the lines and do not understand.
Science doesnt prove negatives. If you claim God exists, the science is on you to prove your claim not to others to disprove it. That's like saying prove with science that a one eyed one horned flying purple people eater never existed.
Well, early pseudoscience is not the only game in town when it comes to gods. That being said, there are many ideas of a god concept that can be proven or disproven, which leads to additional confusion when people just use the words without a clear idea of their meaning.
And the absurdity of your WHOLE POST tells me your NO ATHEISTS......You're just a troll trolling for attention and when you receive it, you boo hoo and try to deflect. 1st) Miss "scientist"......why are you ONCE again capitalizing the G in god? Troll baiting? B) Scientists call the Higgs boson particle also call it the "God particle" <capitalized because now it's a name>? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson#Nickname 3) If you really, once again, want to do something valuable with your time....." helping Mom clean your room, pick up the dog poop, wash your own clothes, make your bed, earn your allowance.......maybe wash your dishes every once in a while" Oh.....did I really (*)(*)(*)(*) you off. I'm sorry. Only wanted to point out that your OP is really FLAMEBAITING and thus should be relegated to the trash bin. Along with your "scientist" claims! Ps......been an ATHEIST for longer than your Mommy/Daddy has been alive <some 50+ years>. Also, FYI.....religious people would NEVER, EVER deny their belief in their god! What a foolish girl!
Science also cannot prove that the Universe is actually just an alien child's marble. That doesn't mean it is.
Simple. Use a definition of "God" that can be proven paradoxical. A paradox is something that can be proven false because it contradicts its original premise. Of course you will get the "God can supersede logic" argument; and you will get some who refuse to acknowledge your definition. But if you refuse to vary from your own assigned definition and stick with the "There is no way to explore the possibility of a speculation without logic" argument I think you can create a pretty airtight case. At least for yourself and other atheist.
When science can create life out of nothing in a laboratory then you will have proven God does not exist. That would be the only way.
And if you state that God does not exist it is up to you to prove it that. It works both ways you know.
I never said god doesnt exist. You never proved a flying spaghetti monstr doesnt exist either...does that mean it does? But yes you are correct if one states it doesnt exist i would ask how they know that?
Wrong. It just proves it doesn't require a god to create life. God cannot be disproven any more than a flying spaghetti monster, invisible, intangible dragons or a tea cup in orbit between Earth and Mars, but this why science doesn't deal with gods, just facts.
Science only deals with things that can be investigated in a meaningful way. It is a useless activity to talk about things that cannot be investigated, since we can never know whether they exist or not, and thus, it is safe to assume that they do not exist until proven otherwise. God falls into this category (as do fairies, ghosts, etc).
Deists present a confusing message. On one hand their doctrine asserts the primacy of faith-belief... Which is meaningful only in the context of uncertainty, Otoh many adherents will present elaborate proofs that their god is real,and even the necessary organizing principle of the universe and humanity. My dispute in all this comes as belivers make the transition from faith to necessity. As long as religion remains a matter of personsl faith, it is not my business even to comment upon, However when people becme enthralled with the universal necessity of their religion, Then they seem to want to tell me and others How we must live and think. This removes my option to have faith, since their religion has now become a universal obligation. I do do not hate the religion that you choose for yourself.... I am indignant about those who remove my choice in this matter
it is not surprising that deists present a confusing message, since religion never really cares much about logical consistency. The whole goal of religion is to make that which is logically inconsistent, seem consistent. ie God "loves" all humans but causes massive amounts of suffering and punishes people by torturing them. How can you reconcile this? Answer: god works in magical ways. How logically consistent! The problem with personal religion is it inevitably spreads into the public sphere. One day, you're going to church on your own, the next day, you're voting against my abortion rights. It's bound to happen. Good thing is though--religion usually requires self-sacrifice. And the one thing that's great about America---we're way too self-ish and self-absorbed to buy into anything that requires self-sacrifice. And that's why the American version of christianity, is christianity in name only, and isn't really christianity at all. Have you seen the way Americans celebrate Christmas? At this point, it's more of a pagan holiday than anything else.
Science is not concerning itself with god. And it does not have the tools anyways in concerning itself with god. For science is still in large part based upon philosophical materialism, that makes the assumption out of the gate, that matter is the fundamental. And so it negates anything other than the material universe and then moves from there. And if Tom Campbell is right, that the universe is a virtual reality, created by Consciousness, then reality, the universe is a subset, and the subset can never prove or disprove what lies outside of it, i.e. god. But that doesn't stop the human brain was trying, or negating. The best course forward is just to admit some answers are unknowable. Now the human ego finds that untenable, and no doubt these will continue to make claims of knowing what perhaps is unknowable. One could then say that belief in gods helps one to live a better, more psychological secure existence, and therein is its value. And no doubt, religious beliefs have value, or we would have discarded them long ago.
You are indulging in philosophical argument, not a scientific one. Science deals with the natural universe. By its very definition it does not deal with the supernatural universe. Science can neither observe, nor measure, nor venture into the realm of the supernatural. and strangely enough GOD(s) are ALL supposed to reside within their own supernatural universe with varying degrees of "cross over" into the natural universe. IOW, god cannot be proven or disproven by science.
But there is more to science than just physics, the science of language, syntactic ambiguity, discourse of information. ......................................................................................................................................................................................... An aeroplanes propeller, a man shouts hey, a man smokes weed
Linguistics is specific to the use of language (its form, meaning, context), the message is secondary to the application of the language. I maintain that science CANNOT by definition prove or disprove God. God by all definitions is a supernatural entity that exists out with of time and space. If science at some point is able to observe something heretofore considered a supernatural event, then that event is no longer supernatural.
