[.eXe]

(Original post by Alpharius)
So you're claiming the supernatural?

Say's it all really.

"We can't prove God exists through evidence!" "Really? Right, new plan, claim the supernatural."

What is wrong with claiming the supernatural?

What do you define God to be?

God is supernatural, I don't think there is any debate on that point. So I fail to see why claiming the supernatural argument is in any way wrong.

[King-Panther]

(Original post by ilovelabradors)
So I have read some of the answers here and I all I have to say is... It's always the same damn thing! People want to talk about facts, but only use emotive arguments! Why? If you believe in a God that no one has ever seen but you know that he exists, fair enough. But don't tell us that we are not LOGIC because we don't believe in it. It's appalling how people having that kind of argument claim to be the logical....

Directed at me? How have I used an emotive argument?

[Alpharius]

(Original post by .eXe)
What is wrong with claiming the supernatural?

What do you define God to be?

God is supernatural, I don't think there is any debate on that point. So I fail to see why claiming the supernatural argument is in any way wrong.

Because it proves nothing.

In a scientific debate (which is what the OP is asking for), no evidence, no debate.

Evidently did not watch the last part of the video.

[justanotherposter]

I personally don't believe in God but people who claim that there is no way God exists because there is no evidence annoy me, I guess based on that logic gravity didn't exist a few hundred years ago?
There is no proof of God existing or not existing so any intelligent scientist has the sense to not touch the subject unless they are specifically searching for concrete evidence, (some even get annoyed when the media tries to bring religion into scientific discoveries, like the Higgs Boson. 'God particle' is a phrase coined by the media that almost all scientists would never use.)

[M^2012]

I don't think that science could explain God. However, if a God was so powerful as to have set off the Big Bang and designed all the complex workings of the universe, I'm sure he could hide all evidence of himself from us. If we could prove God, then there would be a contradiction, as "without faith, God is nothing", and if there was evidence, there would be no faith, so no God, so therefore no evidence (Cue joke extract from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy).

[chickenonsteroids]

(Original post by Good bloke)
Eh? Not only do you have no evidence to support the existence of gods, but you have no evidence to support the hypothesis that said unlikely things are supernatural. And you claim it would be silly to deny it! That is truly bizarre logic and a complete lack of commonsense and analytical thinking.

You're missing my point completely.

God is supernatural by definition. He's outside the universe and matter... how does that make him natural? Or you could at least say that he is non-natural if you want to make that distinction. It would be silly to deny that. I'm not saying that unlikely things are supernatural. I am saying that god is supernatural.

[.eXe]

(Original post by Alpharius)
Because it proves nothing.

In a scientific debate (which is what the OP is asking for), no evidence, no debate.

Evidently did not watch the last part of the video.

Depends what kind of proof you are looking for.

Just because there isn't "scientific" proof for God does not automatically point towards non-existence.

[ilovelabradors]

(Original post by justanotherposter)
I personally don't believe in God but people who claim that there is no way God exists because there is no evidence annoy me, I guess based on that logic gravity didn't exist a few hundred years ago?
There is no proof of God existing or not existing so any intelligent scientist has the sense to not touch the subject unless they are specifically searching for concrete evidence, (some even get annoyed when the media tries to bring religion into scientific discoveries, like the Higgs Boson. 'God particle' is a phrase coined by the media that almost all scientists would never use.)

I see your point, but we can't really compare God with gravity. You're going off topic.

The rule really is: no evidence, no debate.

[ilovelabradors]

(Original post by M^2012)
I don't think that science could explain God. However, if a God was so powerful as to have set off the Big Bang and designed all the complex workings of the universe, I'm sure he could hide all evidence of himself from us. If we could prove God, then there would be a contradiction, as "without faith, God is nothing", and if there was evidence, there would be no faith, so no God, so therefore no evidence (Cue joke extract from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy).

And if that was the case he could show up on telly and tell killers not to kill, rapists not rape, hopeless people not to commit suicide, etc etc. If there is a God he is doing a terrible job.

Now, scientifically speaking, yes, if there is no evidence, there is no fact.

[Good bloke]

(Original post by chickenonsteroids)
God is supernatural by definition.

I see. I'm sorry I misunderstood you.

However, the existence of supernatural phenomena of all types has been investigated countless times and in pretty well all cases it has been proved that they can be reproduced very convincingly by trickery. Surely this must cast doubt in even the most credulous of minds?

[Alpharius]

(Original post by .eXe)
Depends what kind of proof you are looking for.

Just because there isn't "scientific" proof for God does not automatically point towards non-existence.

Well, in science's eyes it does, and that is the debate here.

Like our last discussion, I think it best we just avoid a cyclic argument and agree to disagree here.

[MancStudent098]

If a god is entirely beyond the workings of the natural universe then its existence is both entirely unimportant and entirely unprovable. If its not then it has to be theoretically possible that we could prove or disprove its existence, but so far I've not heard any such conception of god that's even internally logically consistent, let alone plausible based on our understanding of the natural world.

[chickenonsteroids]

(Original post by Good bloke)
I see. I'm sorry I misunderstood you.

However, the existence of supernatural phenomena of all types has been investigated countless times and in pretty well all cases it has been proved that they can be reproduced very convincingly by trickery. Surely this must cast doubt in even the most credulous of minds?

I'm not saying there's no room for doubt. I invite it all the time actually. I just don't think that science can 'disprove' God simply because that's not in it's area of reach. It can't do that since science is the investigation of the natural world.

I admit that a lot of supernatural claims can quite easily be dismissed because they can be replaced with better and more sound explanations (like hearing voices etc). I think that the existence of God is based on philosophical argument rather than through science. Though, some form of empirical evidence would only aid the theist point of view. Like if noah's flood actually happened, they'd have a better case.

[.eXe]

(Original post by Alpharius)
Well, in science's eyes it does, and that is the debate here.

Like our last discussion, I think it best we just avoid a cyclic argument and agree to disagree here.

There is no agree to disagree here. At no point have theists claimed any scientific proof for God.

However, atheists continue to say that God does not exist...ONLY because there is no scientific proof.

You see, the issue lies with the atheists not with theists. So why should I agree to disagree, I haven't done anything wrong nor have I said anything ignorant based on the lack of ONE specific type of evidence.

It is you who is doing that.

[chickenonsteroids]

(Original post by .eXe)
There is no agree to disagree here. At no point have theists claimed any scientific proof for God.

However, atheists continue to say that God does not exist...ONLY because there is no scientific proof.

You see, the issue lies with the atheists not with theists. So why should I agree to disagree, I haven't done anything wrong nor have I said anything ignorant based on the lack of ONE specific type of evidence.

It is you who is doing that.

Actually, you'd be surprised at how many theists make those claims. So no, the fault isn't only on some atheists. It lies with some theists too. You seem to do this a lot.

I have heard multiple times that the fact that praying makes people feel better is classed as scientific proof for the existence of God. Also, the inclusion of creationism in some American classes... the 'scientific' antithesis to evolution.

[Id and Ego seek]

No: science deals with natural, falsifiable phenomena, not abstract ideas fabricated by humans.

[.eXe]

(Original post by chickenonsteroids)
Actually, you'd be surprised at how many theists make those claims. So no, the fault isn't only on some atheists. It lies with some theists too. You seem to do this a lot.

I have heard multiple times that the fact that praying makes people feel better is classed as scientific proof for the existence of God. Also, the inclusion of creationism in some American classes... the 'scientific' antithesis to evolution.

I claim scientific evidence for God

I've never done that. It'd be quite foolish of me to try and reduce God to some scientifically explainable phenomena.

[nicatre]

This is boring.

[chickenonsteroids]

(Original post by .eXe)
I claim scientific evidence for God

I've never done that. It'd be quite foolish of me to try and reduce God to some scientifically explainable phenomena.

No. You seem to make theists sound like flawless individuals that never make mistakes when reasoning. Then make atheists sound like the one's that are always at fault.

[.eXe]

(Original post by chickenonsteroids)
No. You seem to make theists sound like flawless individuals that never make mistakes when reasoning. Then make atheists sound like the one's that are always at fault.

No lol, I really think people need to start reading with some shred of logic in their minds.

If I say something like: theists are insane!

Does that automatically mean that I believe every single theist in the world past, present and future is insane? Or does that mean that in a general sense, I find them to be insane?

For you to think that I believe all theists are flawless is quite juvenile to be honest. No one speaks in such absolutes and if they do, certainly do not mean it.

I thought maybe you were talking about my harsh rhetoric, but I certainly didn't expect that allegation.