Your Religion or Spirituality

That is not true. Where is the study that shows there is no god?

For something to be a fact there needs to be a study. There needs to be proof.

There is no Santa. Well there is some good proof that there is a good chance Santa does not exist. We have been to the North Pole. No one has actually seen a fat man flying into the sky.

For something to be a FACT then there has to be proof. There is NO proof there is NO god. None.

Thing is, I can have the same arguement with someone who believes the world is flat with you right now and just put my arguements in there.

Gravity wasn't a fact until Newton observed it and proved it to be so.

The world is flat wasn't proven wrong until it was scienfically proven wrong.

 

No you are putting words in my mouth. In my way of thinking, it isn't proven until the guy jumps off the building.

In your way of thinking the guy can jump fall up and that is a fact until he does.

 

now that I think about it more it is more scientific to say that whether or not there is a god is not scientific. Saying yes to either side is not scientific as you cannot go through the scientific method that you plainly said to prove either way.

 

The part I've bolded is exactly what I'm saying.

There is no observational evidence for God. Just as there is no observational evidence that there is no observational evidence that there are fairies that exist that can't be seen by any optical device on the planet. So, one of those is a fact the other isn't? Again, if there is no evidence, then it doesn't exist.

The earth was proven to be round because there was evidence to suggest it was. The real thing here is, that people said it was flat, because that is all they could perceive. Much like, saying there is a God, because we can't perceive of anything else.

The lack of proof in science, is proof that it didn't happen or exist. The lack of proof doesn't mean it could happen.

 

I don't see how. You claimed in science things are first a theory. That isn't true.

So every time a guy jumps off a building, you think there's a chance he won't fall?

I think the whole "your way of thinking" part is where this discussion is having its problems. You're applying your way of thinking to science, when that's not how science works.

 

I'm sorry bro, but that's just not true. You can have a hypothesis. Then you can observe that there is no evidence of God. Because there isn't. And the only logical conclusion to come to, is there is no God. Your way, it is impossible to prove or disprove anything. Just as i can have a hypothesis that plants tell jokes to one another. I can set up an experiment, go through due diligence of observation and come away with no evidence that they do. Science says, at that point, I can say it is a fact plants don't tell jokes to one another.

 

No, you are saying there is no god because that is all you can perceive.

Lack of proof in science is not proof that it didn't happen or exist. The lack of proof does mean anything can happen as it has a few times. Take Neptune, lack of proof does not mean that Neptune cannot have the highest winds in the solar system. It wasn't observed and 20 years ago if a person said, "Fact Neptune does not have the highest winds in the solar system." With your logic that would be true. Since there is no way to observe the winds of Neptune at the time and the current thinking in Science was the fact that the fact was true.

It does not happen that all of a sudden facts change because now we are able to observe Neptune and see that it does in fact have the highest winds in all of the Solar System really baffling our current scientists as to why that is true.

Saying that there is no evidence so it does not exist, is not science. That is faith. Blind faith. You could say the same thing about germs in the 1800s. Does not mean germs did not exist until then

 

No, I am applying what I learned about science from school and well tv shows and documentaries and books I have read about science. That is not how science works. Science does not work by saying, "If there is NO proof then it is a FACT that it does not exist."

That has not, nor will ever be science.

Everytime a guy jumps off a building there is plenty of evidence that he will fall. However there it is a scientific fact that there is a very small chance that the guy will fall up or float. The chances are so small that it probably would never happen. Still there is a chance that it would happen.

You are saying that if no one ever went on top of a building and jumped, and there was no evidence of anything falling from the building that it is a fact that he will fall up. THAT is what YOU are saying. You are saying that without proof, then it does exist. YOU are saying the world is flat. YOU are saying germs do not exist. YOU are saying that Black Holes doe not exist or Hot Jupiters. Things that at one time had no evidence of existing. Things that had ZERO evidence until proven that they do. Hot Jupiters being something that they did not even think of until they found.

 

Science says that at point you can say, "the likelyhood that plants tell jokes is small" or the "Probability that plants tell jokes is very small". Science would say that the probability is so low that you might as well call it a fact that plants do not tell jokes together.

Your way of science the same person could do the same thing with a petrie dish in the 1800s and stare at it. Say that he did not see a germ so germs do not exist.

Sorry, that isn't science. That never was science and hopefully never will be science.

Until there is an experiment that comes close to proving the existance or non existance of god, to use Science as proof is irresponsible.

 

How can that be good proof that Santa Clause probably does not exist but yet when applied to God it doesn't work? How convenient.

 

True. But the same isn't true in reverse: You don't have to prove non-existence in order to come to the scientific conclusion that something doesn't exist. If someone tells you that there's a tiny, invisible kobold sitting on his shoulder who tells him to sing 99 Bottles of Beer on the Wall, then you don't have to prove him that there isn't a kobold telling him to sing 99 Bottles of Beer on the Wall sitting on his shoulder. He has to prove that there is. So long as he can't do that, it's scientifically safe to assume that there isn't a kobold at all and the guy's just delusional (albeit in a creative way).

It's the same thing in any line of science. You have to prove existence. Not the other way round.

 

but lack of proof does not automatically equal proof of the contrary.

 

It doesn't have to. Lack of proof is, scientifically speaking, completely irrelevant. It doesn't in itself contistute evidence for anything and is therefore arbitrary. I could literally make millions of statements and assumptions that nobody could scientifically disprove - but that doesn't mean anything. Likewise doesn't the fact that there's no scientific evidence for the non-existence of God amount to anything. It's completely and utterly arbitrary.

 

Of course it does. It means there is no evidence. That is all. It does not mean there is no God just as lack of evidence does not prove there is a God. In other words I can not say there is a God because science can not disprove his existence, just as I can not say there is not a God because science can not prove his existence.

 

So you can't say that there isn't a kobold on the guy's shoulder either? Just making sure that you know that this argument leads to a slippery slope

 

As does yours IMO.

 

How is there a slippery slope in pointing out that the argument that you can't disprove the existence of something is scientifically irrelevant? It's actually how all sciences go about their methods. You start of with a thesis and prove said thesis. If you manage to do it you have a fact. Scientists don't argue that the lack of evidence proves the non-existence. The argument is that the lack of evidence constitutes irrelevance to science. I'm not arguing that God doesn't exist because you can't prove him. That would be silly and unscientific. I argue that the very fact that you can't prove him makes that question scientifically arbitrary. Why would a science bother with something it can't prove or disprove? That's unscientific by definition.

It's also, by the way, the reason why I don't think arguing scientifically for or against God is helpful at all. It always undermines the position of the proponent or opponent because science got nothing to do with it unless it comes up with a method to reliably tackle that issue.

 

I mis understood what you were trying to get at I guess. That is in a sense what I was trying to state was if you can not prove in either direction then there is proof of neither idea being valid that is it................ You threw me off with the example you gave I think haha.

 

You said it right, it is safe to "assume".

You have to prove existence and non existence. If you want to call it a fact.

 

I agree with that 100%. It is another way of trying to say what I was trying to say. Maybe it was a little more elegant way of putting it.

 

No you don't because it's impossible to prove non-existence. If you had to prove non-existence, there wouldn't be any facts at all and science was just "anything goes".

 

You do have to prove at least there is a variable of probability there there is non-existence. You cannot say, "You can't see it so it doesn't exist". There has to be something scientific about it.

I do know that it is impossible to prove non-existence. You have to have something to prove that the probability of the thing is not likely for someone to say that scientifically it is not likely.

 

I agree - that wouldn't be very scientific at all. But it's also not scientific to tackle the whole issue in the first place. Science proves. It doesn't disprove other than when dealing with a scientific thesis that isn't valid. So in order for science to get involved in the first place, you would have to have a scientific argument that God does in fact exist. As long as that's impossible, I wouldn't even bother starting to prove the non-existence because there's literally nothing to prove or disprove. As soon as I start tackling the problem on a scientific level, it becomes unscientific by definition.

That's why I think the whole "you can't disprove the existence of God" is utterly irrelevant. Why would I even want to? As long as there's no scientific method to tell, it bears absolutely no relevance whatsoever to me or my life. And it doesn't bear much for science either, except for some wisecracks from both sides trying to interfere with each other.

 

I do not disagree with that. My entire arguement was that it wasn't science to say that there is no god because there is no proof.

I do not think that we are at a point in science that can prove that god exists or does not exist. There maybe a time when it becomes scienctific. Just now I know it isn't.

 

I don't think we'll ever be. And I don't think that it really matters. I'm always baffled by believers who try to rationalize their believes because there's nothing rational about it - it's called faith for a reason. I'm likewise baffled by non-believers who try to rationalize why they don't believe - that's a form of faith as well. I believe (haha) we'd be better off if both sides agreed that there's no rational side to it and that there's non necessary either. Believe away. Or don't believe. It doesn't make any more difference than the color of skin or whom you chose to sleep with when the light's turned off.

 

Exactly...................................................

 

Here Here brother. People of all religions are cool...except for those who practice Jashinism... God Damn Jashinists!

 

The part that you're forgetting about is, WHAT we are trying to prove. We are not trying to prove any old random thing. We are trying to prove the existence of something. This something has absolutely zero evidence it exists.

Let's say we were trying to prove, scientifically, if mermaids ever existed. After all the tests and observations were said and done, and we came up with zero evidence, we'd be allowed, scientifically, to say there is are no mermaids. If we came up with some evidence, non-consequential or circumstantial, even if it was minute, then we'd say there was a low probability of there being a God. An absolute lack of evidence, in science, is proof of something existing or not. Science cannot say there is no Bigfoot as fact because there is a small amount of evidence, that says something to the contrary. So science says, that there is a low probability or its not likely, that Bigfoot exists.

The other things you mentioned weren't thought to be investigated, so until they are they are neither facts or non-facts for science. Once tests have been run and observations been made can something be called a fact or not.

 

exactly, which is why Science cannot be used to disprove god.

 

First of all, it absolutely matters. Religion and religious beliefs affect each and everyone of us everyday on damn near every level. It touches as many parts of our lives as a collective as does money, and often there is overlap between the two.

Secondly, being a non-believer is not a faith. Its like the terms hot and cold. There is no such thing as cold, only the absence of heat. The same is true for non-believers. We have an absence of faith. Since "faith" is not rational, then it stands to reason that non-believers are rational. As is their arguments (when pertaining to the existence of God). The real problem with this whole issue is that non-believers are using ration to argue an irrational topic, like faith. But it does make a difference. Until people aren't judged by what they believe or don't believe and its being done with ideas based on belief, then it definitely matters.

 

Are you so sure there has been no tests, experiments, or observations?

 

show one.

 

So, you're saying something doesn't exist because there's no evidence saying it does...hmmmmmmmm.

 

Well I do know that there is potential for evidence since all one needs to show is an internet link or a paper.

Where as God, there is no potential. There is no internet link that shows god or paper that does as well.

 

No, it doesn't. It's completely arbitrary. Of course, I'm aware that for some people it does indeed matter to a point where they blow themselves up and take other people along for the ride, but that doesn't make it meaningful. It's like saying that skin color is of any grave importance because some people discriminate against others. It's not of any importance. The sooner people realize this, the better.

If two plus two equals five - yes. Since there is no scientific evidence for either the existence or non-existence of God, it stands to reason that one simply ignores the issue until such evidence can be acquired. If you chose to believe that there isn't a God nevertheless, you are a believer. You believe in the non-existence. You can't prove your position, ergo it's not a scientifically valid one.

 

Orthodox Christian, and member of the Sts. Peter & Paul Orthodox Church near downtown Miami. Our church is a member of the Orthodox Church in America ( http://www.oca.org/ )

 

Just a little video clip that pretty much sums up how I feel about religion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eomQnfTRe_M

The song is off the hook, and Nicole can sing it. (she wrote it too)

 

i've been reading through all of this riding my little emotional roller coaster. following those thoughts that are aligned with mine and raging with those that clash . until i read this.

Yes.

my answer is yes. in my heart i believe that there is no absolute knowing until we pass from this existence. though the idea of passing before i believe i am ready is discomforting, i pass knowing i lived my life to the best of my ability.

in return, i ask of you this; are willing to pass with your knowing 100% you are correct with the possibility that you could be wrong?

to me, closing yourself off so completely to any other possibilities is just unthinkable. as well as why there is so much conflict in our world. too many absolutes.