• In total there are 2 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 616 on Thu Jan 18, 2024 7:47 pm

God scientifically analyzed

Engage in conversations about worldwide religions, cults, philosophy, atheism, freethought, critical thinking, and skepticism in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
Doc Tiessen

God scientifically analyzed

Unread post

Many people at BookTalk do not believe in any kind of God. The atheist views seem to be the most frequent ones in this forum. I like BookTalk because it is a community that engages on intelligent discussions based on logic, arguments and facts. Besides myself, I know only of one member (Dissident) that does believe in God. However, Dissident believes in the Christian sense, because his views are based on the Bible -he does not separate between Religion and God. He says that God cannot be put out of the human social context, and in order to understand the meaning of God, one needs to submerge in the universe of feelings, emotions and religious experiences. He says that it is not possible to use logic and science to answer the question of God. In other words, what he is saying is that one needs to be willing to believe in God in order to find him. If one does not believe, then God will remain hidden. Have faith and God will exist. This statement is a K.O. criterium for any further discussion with an intelligent and rational person. It is a waste of time to continue arguing with a religious person that adopts this position. It is useless to try to find a consensus between different religious views. I think that some people waste their time trying to argue with Dissident. However, I believe in God independently of any religion. I view God from a scientific point of view. And contrary to the views of Dissident, I would be glad to discuss the question of God using logic, arguments and facts. I think that it is possible to analyse God from a scientific perspective. Let us leave all emotions and try it.I have read (from numerous members) the statement that God does not exist. However, until now nobody has explained me specifically why they believe this. I hear the statement but I miss the arguments and the facts. Do they simply believe that God does not exist, or is there any objective evidence that supports this view? How do they know that God does not exist?I would like to dedicate this thread to the discussion of God from the logical and scientific point of view. I am a very logical and rational person and at the moment I strongly believe in God. But I am also open to hear the evidence and the arguments that could convince me otherwise. Can you convince me of the non-existance of God using objective evidence, experimental results, facts and logical and rational argumentation? I ask the atheist members of this forum to present their strongest case in order to proof the non-existance of God. Do not save any piece of evidence, present everything you have to support your atheist statement. Please use rational or objective facts, without appealing to feelings or religious views. Let us play scientists on this thread. In order to start a useful discussion, please define first how you define God. Please define it in a scientific way but not from a religious or metafisical point of view. Then you can present the observations, the experiments and the results. Then explain your conclusions using logic and rational argumentation. Use all the logic you can in order to proof that God does not exist.Pay particular attention on how you define God, because this is a very critical point. Depending on your definition, you can fall into a tautology. For example: you define God as a ghost. Then you say ghosts do not exist. Then you conclude that God does not exist. This is a circular mistake because already in your definition you have excluded the possibility that God can exist from the scientific point of view, because ghosts do not exist. You have to define God in a way that it is possible to test it from a scientific point of view. For example, you can say God is a particular stone in the road. This is a very extravagant postulation, but it is scientifically useful because the stone does indeed exist in our physical reality. Then you can look at that stone and evaluate if it is God. You can talk to the stone and see if it answers or flyes away. You can make experiments with it. For example, you are allowed to take a hammer and break the stone into pieces. If the stone does not exist anymore, then you can say that God does not exist anymore. I will accept that argument. I will accept that you do not believe in God because the stone is gone. However, I will indeed say that your imagination is quite poor to define God as a simple stone.To give start, I will mention some of the things that God might do:God created the universe as we see it today. God decided that life would emerge on the planet earth. God decides who is born and when we die. God is acting on the daily events of our life. God decides who is rich and who is poor. God decides also the outcome of battles. God is one of the driving forces of biological evolution. God is creative and generates diversity. God inspires us.Ok, now is your turn. Please define your God and explain why it does not exist. Accept the intellectual challenge to present and defend your atheist view using a rational approach. Diversity is Good!
amd2003

Re: God scientifically analyzed

Unread post

Doc,My views are here:Is there a God? www.sulekha.com/expressio...cid=305893amd Edited by: amd2003 at: 11/1/04 8:31 pm
User avatar
Interbane

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: God scientifically analyzed

Unread post

There is no way to have more than an opinion on the matter. For some people, his existance certainly does not make sense, for others, they can feel him, and for others like Dissident, there are people who have gone through the same experience yet hold the opposite stance. If there was an easy chain of logic or easy proof, or something that made good sense either way, the topic wouldn't be such a heated debate between millions of people. My perspective, there's no way to tell... the existance of God is about halfway on my spectrum of truth. Recently I've been debating with Dissident because he equivocates quite a bit... in those cases I took the stance of God not existing. Someone asked me a while back to show scientific proof that God existed, and I posted a theory for his existance. I believe it's somewhere around page 16 in the big thread. As I'm only human, I must have conclusions on this subject. Even though I view his existance as 'halfway' on my spectrum of truth, I do not believe he exists. Thinking outside the box, I see that people simply 'believe' things, though logic contradicts them. Why should the belief in God be any different? After fully immersing yourself in the way Dissident has, you are victim of 'filling the void' as I'll explain. Humans have evolved in such a way that we need 'finite conclusions about the infinite'. It is human nature to need an explanation for these things, as seen in myths, fairytales, old religions, the diversity of religions, new religions, karma, etc... we always have an explanation for things that are not explainable.Humans are a curious lot by nature. When your mental ponderings lead you to vast ideas[life, death, atoms, the universe,] you feel as though you stretched over a great chasm to get a view of what is down below. The virtiginous mental state of pondering these things leaves people with increased curiosity about them. The more you probe and prod into these great unknowns, the more you formulate conclusions about them. Due to the infinite nature of these vast ideas, the conclusions you form are merely 'mental bandaids' meant to stuff these ideas into a bottle in your head. That analogy may be a bit off... essentially, your conclusions are 'finite conclusions about the infinite'. So, as you examine vast ideas, you're cognitively curious about them and continue to prod and probe them. Naturally, you form conclusions about them. Those are 'finite conclusions about the infinite', so are not accurate in providing an understanding.The void is basically a mix of things in my mind. It would be the existance of the 'vast ideas', our ability to contemplate these ideas, and the illogic of coming to conclusions about these ideas(a finite conclusion about the infinite?... ) The magnetic attraction(it's not really magnetic, but I think you knew that) is the natural tendency to 'form' these conclusions when we contemplate the vast ideas.With religion already in our society, and an unbreakable belief system in God, I think that a conclusion already exists for people. All they have to do is accept it when pondering the vast ideas.
User avatar
Chris OConnor

1A - OWNER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 17002
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
21
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 3502 times
Been thanked: 1307 times
Gender:
Contact:
United States of America

Re: God scientifically analyzed

Unread post

DocI'll be posting more in this thread, but I'd like to start by recommending the best book I've ever read for explaining why God doesn't exist.Atheism: The Case Against GodGeorge Smith rips apart every conceivable argument for the existence of a supernatural deity, but he doesn't, however, address your, "God = randomness" concept.Chris "Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." - Nelson Mandella
Doc Tiessen

Interbane

Unread post

Interbane,I agree with some of your ideas. But I will not let you avoid the question of the scientific proof of God. Your previous email is nice but it was a woble woble of the same sort like Dissident. In this thread I would like to have facts, hard evidence and logic. Not blabla bla.... your post is an invitation to Dissident to post a blabla bla again. I am hoping that Dissident either refracts from posting, or he remains logical, rational and scientific (at least here in this thread).Do you believe or know that God does not exist? If you make a conclusion, I want to hear the supporting arguments and facts. If the non-existance of God is just a feeling in your mind, then we can quit the discussion. We can go on like the endless discussions with Dissident. I am also not interested in what other people believe. I am interested in your view and your supporting arguments.amd:I will try to have a look. I would have prefered that you make a short summary with your own words and post it here. This thread should be a bin where you collect all the evidence.Chris:I have never read that book, but it sounds interesting. However, I can imagine that the book is rather a proof on the ilogical nature of the religious Gods. In a way, most atheist justify that there is no God, because all the Gods they have heard about are illogical or impossible. You are showing that the others are incorrect. That is a negative approach. However, I want to hear a positive approach. Proof that you are correct. Proof that a God does not exist.If you want, proof that Randomness does not exist. Proof that randomness is not a cause and it does not create, destroy and determine the fate of the universe.I want to know how much is behind your statement that God does not exist. I take your statement seriously, but I want to know how serious is it for you. Post your evidence. Diversity is Good!
amd2003

Re: Interbane

Unread post

Doc,: I will try to have a look. I would have prefered that you make a short summary with your own words and post it here. This thread should be a bin where you collect all the evidence.The words in that link are my words. I was sick of making the same points over and over again -- that is why I wrote that column. I am actually quite sick of this whole topic. As far as I am concerned, this topic is a done deal, about as interesting to me as proving that the earth is round.As for positive proof, can you prove that an element with an atomic number of 100,000 that tastes like French Toast does NOT exist?amd
User avatar
Chris OConnor

1A - OWNER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 17002
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
21
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 3502 times
Been thanked: 1307 times
Gender:
Contact:
United States of America

Re: Interbane

Unread post

amdQuote:As for positive proof, can you prove that an element with an atomic number of 100,000 that tastes like French Toast does NOT exist?ROFLMAO! Hah! DocQuote:That is a negative approach. However, I want to hear a positive approach. Proof that you are correct. Proof that a God does not exist.Did you see what amd just wrote? I hope his true intention isn't eluding you. Humor was the vehicle, but the message was simple: The rules of science and logic indicate that there must be some sort of substantial basis for a claim or it must be denied. An assertion is never accepted as true without evidence. This is the default position and the very essence of critical thinking.What is critical thought? Quite simply, critical thinking is not believing things you are told without evidence to support the claim. If we abandon critical thought, we might as well abandon all of science and logic, which happen to be the most productive forms of thought our species has ever come up with. Turning your back on critical thinking would be a return to the Dark Ages.Let it be understood that the person that rejects an affirmative claim, such as "God exists," doesn't need to prove anything at all. The evidence has to be provided by the party making the assertion. The one rejecting the assertion needs to provide nothing at all.Of course, it can be helpful and expeditious if the person rejecting the claim is able to assist the person making the claim with an effective refutal, but this refutal is not a part of the rejection process. It is simply a courtesy in debate. The default position is simple. If the claim cannot be supported it is rejected. The claim is that God exists, and the default position is that the claim is not true, or that a God doesn't exist.No evidence has ever been presented that supports the claim that a God exists. So rational people, freethinkers, scientists, atheists/agnostics, all tend to conclude that God probably doesn't exist. At least, most of these groups of people refrain from belief until evidence demands that they do believe. Are they open to the possibility? Some are and some aren't. Most scientists seem to be of the agnostic atheist position, which can be defined as a lack of belief in a God or gods based on a lack of evidence. They do not profess to know that a God or gods doesn't exist, but they don't have an actual belief. They are open to the possibility. This is my position and the position of most BookTalk members that have expressed their opinions openly.Back to your God = randomnessThis is as nonsensical to me as God = chocolate pudding. What shall we discuss about randomness? Do I need to be a math major to understand this God concept? Well, I'm no math major and have a weak background in math. Chris "Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." - Nelson MandellaEdited by: Chris OConnor  at: 11/2/04 9:07 am
amd2003

Re: Interbane

Unread post

From my article:1. Is there a God? No. 2. Don't I have to define God or something? No. It is really the believers who have to define God. They never do. Most of the time they seem to be talking about a personal God -- one who runs the world by being omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, and kind, i.e., a God to whom one could pray, to get specific problems solved. If even one of these essential qualities (omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence, and kindness) is lacking, most people will have no use for such a God. 5. Aren't there other versions of God? Yes, there are. However, they are such that they are likely to have absolutely no effect on anything. For instance, some believers talk about a God that is felt solely as a private experience by each individual. (They even claim that they can specify a rigorous protocol for sensing such a God. Such a God perhaps is a lot like a toothache, another solely private experience. In any case, such a sensation can have no effect on the world, and we are back to a personal God.) Some also concede that they knowingly invent a personal God, to keep the masses in check. Perhaps this is along the following lines: Every wisdom Should consist of some nonsense Lest fools should fail to find it wise 6. Why do people believe in a God? For the same reason they believe in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy: when they are young (and less able to think for themselves), parents (and other people in authority) introduce the concept of a God, and this gets strengthened tremendously from then on (by others and also themselves, when they look for simple answers). Almost everybody grows out of believing in S. Claus and t. fairy fairly quickly, but most people never stop believing in God. 7. Is the above the only reason why people believe in a God? The above is the rule. The exception is people finding a God on their own. We are all used to other people (especially groups of them) performing rather spectacular things
User avatar
Chris OConnor

1A - OWNER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 17002
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
21
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 3502 times
Been thanked: 1307 times
Gender:
Contact:
United States of America

Re: Interbane

Unread post

DocPerhaps I should add a few comments. Some negative statements can indeed be proven. You'll hear some atheists, in debates, take the incorrect position that you cannot prove a negative assertion.We must first examine the nature of the affirmative claim, before we can determine if the negative position can be proven. The following are a few negative statements that can indeed be proven...The moon is not made of cheese.The Nile River is not in N. America.There are not 11 beers in a 6-pack.All of these qualify as negative statements, and all can be proven. So the nature of the affirmative claim makes a difference as to whether or not the negative can be supported or proven.The problem with the God exists claim is that God is rarely defined clearly and concisely. And this is on purpose too! When a theist defines his God, he opens this claim up to critical thinking and scrutiny, and we all know this is the last thing a theist wants to do. Their entire world typically revolves around their God-belief, so exposing the belief to critique is quite intimidating and something to be avoided at all costs. Dissidents vague definition of God, and his continual avoiding of elementary questions supports this theory about people and their God-beliefs.So can you prove that God does NOT exist? Not until this God is clearly defined. And God knows most theists would never corner themselves by defining their magical superhero.God is everywhere at all times. God can do everything and anything. God always existed and always will. God is good, and when he appears to not be good, this is because God is also mysterious.Utter bullshit and nonsense and an insult to human intelligence. Chris "Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." - Nelson Mandella
User avatar
Interbane

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Interbane

Unread post

Doc:"Interbane,I agree with some of your ideas. But I will not let you avoid the question of the scientific proof of God."Me:"There is no way to have more than an opinion on the matter. For some people, his existance certainly does not make sense, for others, they can feel him, and for others like Dissident, there are people who have gone through the same experience yet hold the opposite stance. If there was an easy chain of logic or easy proof, or something that made good sense either way, the topic wouldn't be such a heated debate between millions of people."There is no scientific proof either way. That said, why believe in him if he cannot be shown to exist? That is my personal reasoning on why he doesn't exist. It is as logical an answer as you'll get from me. You won't get scientific proof, only logic.On the flip side of the coin, like Chris said, why believe in him if you can't show he exists? If you have more evidence than the 'bla bla bla' of Dissident, we'll debate in circles.
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”