Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    This made me laugh so hard that I choked on my lemonade!

    1) You cannot see "God," or any supernatural being for that matter. There is no test which could be done to confirm or falsify the existence of anything supernatural. Therefore we must assume that the idea is false because all un-testable ideas are invalid.
    Sorry, but logical positivism has been dead since the 20th Century through the work of mathematicians like Godel or the work of many philosophers like Quine, Popper or Wittgenstein. You're just begging the question against the theist that scientific testing or empirical evidence is the right norm for determining whether things are true or not.

    Furthermore, the idea of science not having an opinion on God might be true, but that doesn't mean things like history, philosophy or theology won't be able to weight in on the matter (which, they have).

    (3) also fails for this reason. It might constitute as weak evidence, but not for the reasons you state.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    I don't think there is any convincing scientific evidence for God's existence, otherwise it would be all over the news.
    Wouldn't scientific evidence aka physical, tangible, visible, audible proof of God's existence

    defeat the purpose of belief?

    Also there "is" something called the "god particle."
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I'm gonna ignore your question and answer my own one which arised from the title.

    Societies that are religious can effectively ensure everyone in the society is following rules, and reproduces. Religion and fear in God polices people to behave in ways beneficial to the society, and this is what 99% of the Bible points towards. For example, the 7 deadly sins are coincidentally the 7 things that ruin relationships / business partnerships / families. Societies that use religion come out as more stable, they tend to grow in numbers, and are therefore stronger.

    So belief in God is a consequence of the evolution of society. Religious societies tended to survive more than atheistic ones, and hence conquer most of the Earth.

    Another theory is that there is a "God Gene" in people, which is a consequence of evolution of genetics. The idea is, a belief in God forces a person to a) generally act more responsibly in a group and thus ensure it's survival and b) believe his life has a meaning, and therefore not kill himself out of existentialism.

    But should you believe in God's actual existence? Only if you're retarded. Once you see that it is (a very respectable) trick to change people behaviour, you open a pandora's box you cannot close and undo your enlightenment. No wonder atheists were killed before they could spread their heresy and make society collapse.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    Lol I'm arguing testimony is a form of evidence

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    If we start from the premise that our human senses are fallible; our eyes often fail us, we hear things incorrectly, should we not then exercise the greatest caution in regards to human testimony?

    I am always reminded in these conversations of Thomas Hobbes who once asked what is the difference between saying "I dreamt God spoke to me" and "God spoke to me in a dream."
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    Thank you for the update!

    1) And I do not believe in you. Therefor, any words to your effect that you exist must be discounted.

    2) Okay - Show me your DNA evidence. Otherwise, I can simply say "God does, too." and you would be forced to accept it and welcome your newfound faith

    3) You're the one that stated legal documents were proof of your existence. American Currency is legal tender. Since you were stating that legal documents were proof, I obviously had to go by your claims and find legal documents with God on it. If you're claiming they're not proof, then you've now eliminated legal documents and first person testimonies.

    4) See point 3.

    There! Care to try another tack to prove you exist?
    clearly every single point you made is ridiculous, so i am not going to try and prove you wrong because you'll just say "what is evidence/??? be clear buddy =) "

    so, please give me another example of what you would class as evidence and we'll go from there
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
    Cool story, bro/a.
    Just out of curiosity, is the o/a distinction there supposed to encode that you call girls 'bra'?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    As God created the laws of science and logic, his being is free from the restraints of science and cannot be proved using science and logic
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by m.al-hussain)
    As God created the laws of science and logic, his being is free from the restraints of science and cannot be proved using science and logic
    that's convenient
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LibertyMan)
    I'm gonna ignore your question and answer my own one which arised from the title.

    Societies that are religious can effectively ensure everyone in the society is following rules, and reproduces. Religion and fear in God polices people to behave in ways beneficial to the society, and this is what 99% of the Bible points towards. For example, the 7 deadly sins are coincidentally the 7 things that ruin relationships / business partnerships / families. Societies that use religion come out as more stable, they tend to grow in numbers, and are therefore stronger.

    So belief in God is a consequence of the evolution of society. Religious societies tended to survive more than atheistic ones, and hence conquer most of the Earth.

    Another theory is that there is a "God Gene" in people, which is a consequence of evolution of genetics. The idea is, a belief in God forces a person to a) generally act more responsibly in a group and thus ensure it's survival and b) believe his life has a meaning, and therefore not kill himself out of existentialism.

    But should you believe in God's actual existence? Only if you're retarded. Once you see that it is (a very respectable) trick to change people behaviour, you open a pandora's box you cannot close and undo your enlightenment. No wonder atheists were killed before they could spread their heresy and make society collapse.
    you're implying religion teaches morality whilst boko-haram ( translated as Western education is sinful) slaughter nigerians
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mango peeler)
    Wouldn't scientific evidence aka physical, tangible, visible, audible proof of God's existence

    defeat the purpose of belief?

    Also there "is" something called the "god particle."
    But that's not the issue though. And why would it defeat the purpose? You can still believe in something while there's evidence for it.

    The God particle has nothing to do with proving God's existence...
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LibertyMan)
    I'm gonna ignore your question and answer my own one which arised from the title.

    Societies that are religious can effectively ensure everyone in the society is following rules, and reproduces. Religion and fear in God polices people to behave in ways beneficial to the society, and this is what 99% of the Bible points towards. For example, the 7 deadly sins are coincidentally the 7 things that ruin relationships / business partnerships / families. Societies that use religion come out as more stable, they tend to grow in numbers, and are therefore stronger.

    So belief in God is a consequence of the evolution of society. Religious societies tended to survive more than atheistic ones, and hence conquer most of the Earth.

    Another theory is that there is a "God Gene" in people, which is a consequence of evolution of genetics. The idea is, a belief in God forces a person to a) generally act more responsibly in a group and thus ensure it's survival and b) believe his life has a meaning, and therefore not kill himself out of existentialism.

    But should you believe in God's actual existence? Only if you're retarded. Once you see that it is (a very respectable) trick to change people behaviour, you open a pandora's box you cannot close and undo your enlightenment. No wonder atheists were killed before they could spread their heresy and make society collapse.
    I completely agree with your point about the evolution of society. Religion is actually a very good evidence for evolution (ironically). However that begs the question, do we need god now? Evolutionary traits are extremely malleable to the environment, and we all know that the environment 500-1000 years ago is much different to what we have now.

    Do you think religion is needed for order now? or do you think morals, values and order can still be achieved through atheism.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mangala)
    clearly every single point you made is ridiculous, so i am not going to try and prove you wrong because you'll just say "what is evidence/??? be clear buddy =) "

    so, please give me another example of what you would class as evidence and we'll go from there
    I would love to, but I'm afraid you still haven't answered my question as to what sort of evidence you would actually accept AND you still haven't proven your own existence using the methodology you're demanding for God, so I have no idea what you're expecting.

    If you could just prove to me that you exist using the same rules you're applying to the conversation about God, I would love to oblige you and do the same, but so far God has more evidence of his existence than you by your own rules, so I'm confused.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    But that's not the issue though. And why would it defeat the purpose? You can still believe in something while there's evidence for it.

    The God particle has nothing to do with proving God's existence...
    Belief is not having physical, tangible etc proof. But still having faith that it exists.

    Knowledge is having physical, tangible proof.
    Once you know there's no point to believe. Because you're not believing...you're...knowing...g et it?

    religion=belief
    science=knowledge.

    the two don't go together.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mango peeler)
    Belief is not having physical, tangible etc proof. But still having faith that it exists.

    Knowledge is having physical, tangible proof.
    Once you know there's no point to believe. Because you're not believing...you're...knowing...g et it?

    religion=belief
    science=knowledge.

    the two don't go together.
    You're confusing belief specifically with faith. Why is there no point in believing if you have evidence? Plenty of religious people say they have evidence for their God through holy texts or otherwise and they still believe. Why, according to you, is belief in something without evidence so important?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    You're confusing belief specifically with faith. Why is there no point in believing if you have evidence? Plenty of religious people say they have evidence for their God through holy texts or otherwise and they still believe. Why, according to you, is belief in something without evidence so important?
    When did I emphasise the importance of belief. I simply stated the difference between belief and knowledge.

    If someone asks you where something is and you said, "I believe so."
    That means it's not a fact you are confident in.

    If you say, "I know it's here." Unless you're pathologically arrogant, you know it's there because you had ocular proof. You saw it. You don't need ocular proof to know there is a God because you BELIEVE there is one is simply my point. I'm not confusing anything.

    What does your 3rd sentence even mean? Are you referring to the prophets who wrote it?
    And most religious people have never seen God nor do they claim to The ones who claim it are considered prophets...obviously...because they're special. Most "religious people" go on belief/never having seen or heard in physical form, but still have confidence it's there.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mango peeler)
    When did I emphasise the importance of belief. I simply stated the difference between belief and knowledge.

    If someone asks you where something is and you said, "I believe so."
    That means it's not a fact you are confident in.

    If you say, "I know it's here." Unless you're pathologically arrogant, you know it's there because you had ocular proof. You saw it. You don't need ocular proof to know there is a God because you BELIEVE there is one is simply my point. I'm not confusing anything.

    What does your 3rd sentence even mean? Are you referring to the prophets who wrote it?
    And most religious people have never seen God nor do they claim to The ones who claim it are considered prophets...obviously...because they're special. Most "religious people" go on belief/never having seen or heard in physical form, but still have confidence it's there.
    Faith is clearly not the same as everyday "belief". The former is belief in something for which most would say it's impossible to even obtain evidence. Belief used in the mundane sense is mostly a case of talking about something which is likely and evidence COULD be found for it, if necessary, that's the point. If someone asks me if my friend is in the library and I say "I believe so", I could actually find out and physically prove or disprove this.

    And I would have thought that the last point was obvious. Many religious people do see their holy texts as "evidence" for God. They don't necessarily need to have seen God to believe this.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    If we start from the premise that our human senses are fallible; our eyes often fail us, we hear things incorrectly, should we not then exercise the greatest caution in regards to human testimony?

    I am always reminded in these conversations of Thomas Hobbes who once asked what is the difference between saying "I dreamt God spoke to me" and "God spoke to me in a dream."
    Absolutely: Man's fallible intellect and fallible instruments cannot come to infallible conclusions.

    However, the problem with these threads is the intellectual dishonesty inherent in them. One generally does not start a thread like this out of a desire to expand themselves and learn about something - They start threads like this to mock.(I point to the first few pages of this discussion itself as proof).

    Were someone honestly inclined to question that, I would point to the patrologia and particularly Tertullian; He wrote of the Apostles and it's from his writings that we know that Paul had a sense of humor and liked to go swimming in the morning.

    Based upon the Patrologia(Specifically Tertullian; Written as it were during the time period when Christianity was outlawed and Christians were still killed by Romans), we know the Apostles. We have other writings as well, but Tertullian is the most well known - We know the Apostles preached what they did, that at various times they all(Save John)died very messy deaths and that they were willing to die to share what they believed. Many were imprisoned for years as well.

    Very few con artists would be willing to die for their con. What this means is that they were either a very large group sharing a similar insanity(Very unlikely) or they were not. Then, were the person inclined to learn more, I would point them to C.S. Lewis' 'Surprised by Joy' book. C.S. Lewis was a die-hard Atheist who was determined to prove Christianity wrong and, in doing, became Christianity's greatest Apologist of the 20th century.

    That would be if the thread were created with intellectual integrity; As it is, I'm simply showing the absurdity of the original poster's question and the intellectual dishonesty of applying a singular set of rules to the proof of God that they do not apply to anything else.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Copperknickers)
    Just out of curiosity, is the o/a distinction there supposed to encode that you call girls 'bra'?
    No, but at the same time I didn't want to call you a bro if you weren't a bro. So I used the normal o/a Latin gender suffix syntax and made a joke out of it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Faith is clearly not the same as everyday "belief". The former is belief in something for which most would say it's impossible to even obtain evidence. Belief used in the mundane sense is mostly a case of talking about something which is likely and evidence COULD be found for it, if necessary, that's the point. If someone asks me if my friend is in the library and I say "I believe so", I could actually find out and physically prove or disprove this.

    And I would have thought that the last point was obvious. Many religious people do see their holy texts as "evidence" for God. They don't necessarily need to have seen God to believe this.
    Yes you can find out what you believe, how though?
    By walking towards it and lifting up a mattress or what have you and confirming its existence when you see it there.

    You cannot do that with God. No one has or will. That is the purpose of prophets and Jesus and the Messiah, to represent God who will not be seen ever. He's not your car keys you left under the couch that you have to believe is somewhere and then crawl around to discover the location to know that it is in fact there. That's all I'm saying, I never stressed my particular beliefs. Just pointing out the lack of logic in the OP title. There can be no scientific evidence of God. That's why the two worlds so timelessly clash.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by john2054)
    'metaphysics' is a higher level science.
    (Original post by john2054)
    time can move backwards and forwards in the quantum
    Are you sure you know what metaphysics and quantum mean?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 13, 2016
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.