Why Science Does Not Disprove God

[the joint]

Actually it is equally dishonest for anybody to be basing their argument on empty nonsense such as truth', let alone doing an on-the-fly conversion of it to equal 'God'.

You might as well say "Absolutely fluuuum exists" for all the use your argument is. Much in the same way as you are unable to define 'God', you are also unable to define the truth that you are attempting to smoke'n'mirror us with.

But I'm guessing that you're simply from the tired old school of claiming there must be a 'God' because, otherwise, how would you explain the beauty of a flower, or lurve, or morality. You know, subjective-made-up-shit(tm) that sounds all deep and meaningful but is only ever an exercise in intellectual dishonesty.

What? Okay, so then now I know to ignore everything you say because, even if true, it's all 'empty nonsense'.

It not an 'on-the-fly' conversion.  I'm not proving God then setting it equal to truth, I'm proving truth and setting it equal to god.  If you don't get this, then you should call all Mexicans dishonest for calling truth 'la verdad'.

[cryptodevil]

Again with the failure to honestly represent the argument.

Ok, let's try it piece-by-piece then.

What is truth?

[cryptodevil]

The question science should be asking is 'why have human beings spontaneously and ubiquitously evolved religious forms of behaviour?'

Seriously!?!

We used made-up-shit(tm) to explain why things were the way they were. Thunder was someone's God kicking off, lightning, equally so.

Understand?

The ONLY way we have established factual knowledge in order to properly represent a correct understanding of our Universe is by way of the scientific method.

Everything else is either straight-up made-up-shit(tm) or deep-and-meaningful-navel-gazing-nonsense, which is just philosophical made-up-shit(tm) by another name.

[the joint]

Ill tell you what -- rebut points #1 and #2 and I'll concede #3.

I just did.

I am allowed to have a self-esteem and take pride in my accomplishments, thanks.

Good for you. Just don't wheel out your accomplishments and paint them as a retort in future. That is appealing to your own authority, which is fallacious.

1) Where?  Please quote your rebuttals to points 1 and 2 respectively.

2) I was appealing to authority because, if you don't concede to the sound reasoning I have provided you with, then you might believe my assertion that I'm knowledgable on the subject by interjecting a fallacy of my own.  How delightful that you recognize it as such as it gives me hope you might actually understand why points 1 and 2 are correct.

[the joint]

Again with the failure to honestly represent the argument.

Ok, let's try it piece-by-piece then.

What is truth?

Truth is 'that which is' and can be represented abstractly through modeling.

[the joint]

The question science should be asking is 'why have human beings spontaneously and ubiquitously evolved religious forms of behaviour?'

Seriously!?!

We used made-up-shit(tm) to explain why things were the way they were. Thunder was someone's God kicking off, lightning, equally so.

Understand?

The ONLY way we have established factual knowledge in order to properly represent a correct understanding of our Universe is by way of the scientific method.

Everything else is either straight-up made-up-shit(tm) or deep-and-meaningful-navel-gazing-nonsense, which is just philosophical made-up-shit(tm) by another name.

The 'only' way?  Really? 

Please derive the quadratic equation with the scientific method, or any other mathematical or logical proof.

[dancupid]

The question science should be asking is 'why have human beings spontaneously and ubiquitously evolved religious forms of behaviour?'

Seriously!?!

We used made-up-shit(tm) to explain why things were the way they were. Thunder was someone's God kicking off, lightning, equally so.

Understand?

The ONLY way we have established factual knowledge in order to properly represent a correct understanding of our Universe is by way of the scientific method.

Everything else is either straight-up made-up-shit(tm) or deep-and-meaningful-navel-gazing-nonsense, which is just philosophical made-up-shit(tm) by another name.

Human (ie one type of animal) behaviour is part of the universe.
If you believe in Darwinism then you have to accept that our behaviour (whatever it is) is only being tested by survival.
If religious behaviour increases the chance of survival then it too will survive - it doesn't matter if it's nonsense. Evolution doesn't test for nonsense.

[cryptodevil]

1) Where?  Please quote your rebuttals to points 1 and 2 respectively.

If you look back and see where I point out how void-of-substance your assertions actually are because you cannot objectively define them beyond tossing a load of word-salad around.

Don't believe me? Try this:

Truth is 'that which is'

Oh I am *so* looking forward to your answer to this question then, are you ready?

What is 'absolute' truth?

(spoiler: we're not done yet matey)

2) I was appealing to authority because, if you don't concede to the sound reasoning I have provided you with, then you might believe my assertion that I'm knowledgable on the subject

Appeal to your own authority by way of superior argument, not by spouting off about how fucking awesome you are, then.

[cryptodevil]

If you believe in Darwinism then you have to accept that our behaviour (whatever it is) is only being tested by survival.
If religious behaviour increases the chance of survival then it too will survive - it doesn't matter if it's nonsense. Evolution doesn't test for nonsense.

Firstly, I don't have to 'believe in' Evolution, it is a theory supported by a vast array of observation and testing from multiple independent objective fronts.

Secondly, you state "If religious behaviour increases the chance of survival" then go on to make an assertion based on the hypothesis that something called 'religious behaviour' does, indeed, increase the chance of survival. How about you actually define what 'religious behaviour' equates to and why you think it would have any bearing on the survival rate of our species.

I'd wager that the growing prevalence for education, instead of indoctrination, is going to rightly see religion consigned to the history books.

[dancupid]

I'd wager that the growing prevalence for education, instead of indoctrination, is going to rightly see religion consigned to the history books.

Maybe so - I hope you are right. (I'm an atheist BTW)
But religious groups provide a social and psychological crutch that many people still need.
Spending 8 hours a day helping some company sell their irrelevant products for no reason is also nonsensical - but that's what most of us do with our lives (even if we are atheists).
Science may provide answers, but it doesn't tell me why I should get up in the morning - in fact it tells me clearly that I am a trivial infinitesimal speck in a meaningless, arbitrary universe.

[the joint]

1) Where?  Please quote your rebuttals to points 1 and 2 respectively.

If you look back and see where I point out how void-of-substance your assertions actually are because you cannot objectively define them beyond tossing a load of word-salad around.

Don't believe me? Try this:

Truth is 'that which is'

Oh I am *so* looking forward to your answer to this question then, are you ready?

What is 'absolute' truth?

(spoiler: we're not done yet matey)

2) I was appealing to authority because, if you don't concede to the sound reasoning I have provided you with, then you might believe my assertion that I'm knowledgable on the subject

Appeal to your own authority by way of superior argument, not by spouting off about how fucking awesome you are, then.

I did look back and didn't see a solid rebuttal which is why I asked you to quote it/them for me.

'Absolute' truth is 'that which is'.  Were you expecting a different answer?

I think you should read what you quoted so you don't repeat me without realizing it.  I gave you a superior argument grounded in sound reasoning, but you didn't like that.  So, I switched to a tactic you can relate to, I.e. interjecting a logical fallacy.

[cryptodevil]

But religious groups provide a social and psychological crutch that many people still need.

Is not an argument justifying the continued existence of such. You are merely describing a psychological dependency, not a functional organisation.

"Oh but X did such good works, in the name of their God" - Simply explains that X, if they would not have done 'such good works' without their belief in their 'God', is an asshole who needs the threat of punishment/carrot of heavenly reward, in order to do good deeds. That is not an argument *for* religion.

it tells me clearly that I am a trivial infinitesimal speck in a meaningless, arbitrary universe.

You are and, until objective data suggests otherwise, it is.

[cryptodevil]

the consensus is that religiosity was a survival aid to primitive societies

Consensus is meaningless if there is no way to demonstrate whether primitive societies might have faired a whole lot better discovering critical thinking *before* made-up-shit(tm).

BTW, pro-tip, you can't prove anything by general consensus. Just because a bunch of people believe something to be true, it does not in any way, make it true.

[Nemo1024]

The question science should be asking is 'why have human beings spontaneously and ubiquitously evolved religious forms of behaviour?'

Seriously!?!

We used made-up-shit(tm) to explain why things were the way they were. Thunder was someone's God kicking off, lightning, equally so.

Understand?

The ONLY way we have established factual knowledge in order to properly represent a correct understanding of our Universe is by way of the scientific method.

Everything else is either straight-up made-up-shit(tm) or deep-and-meaningful-navel-gazing-nonsense, which is just philosophical made-up-shit(tm) by another name.

The way I interpret dancupid's statement, it's actually rather sensible. There are scientific disciplines that concern themselves with just such questions: psychology and social anthropology are two such examples. For example religious hierarchies that humans construct (polytheism, monotheism) correspond to the predominant social hierarchy of human tribes adopting those religions at the time.

[Nemo1024]

the consensus is that religiosity was a survival aid to primitive societies

Consensus is meaningless if there is no way to demonstrate whether primitive societies might have faired a whole lot better discovering critical thinking *before* made-up-shit(tm).

BTW, pro-tip, you can't prove anything by general consensus. Just because a bunch of people believe something to be true, it does not in any way, make it true.

Well, humans like stories. We are rather "pan narrans" than "homo sapience" (as Terry Pratchett so aptly put it).

"Don't go there because a terrible corcodile god will be upset and curse you and all your descendants" appeals much more to our charchteristic trait, imagination, than "don't go there or you'll be eaten by a crocodile".

Religions provide such stories and an easily conveyable form to retell them, thus setting reference points for the society to function in. The probles start to occur, when those reference points become so entrenched and are no longer updated to match the reality, as it happens now with Radical Islam and Orthodox Judaism.

[the joint]

But religious groups provide a social and psychological crutch that many people still need.

Is not an argument justifying the continued existence of such. You are merely describing a psychological dependency, not a functional organisation.

"Oh but X did such good works, in the name of their God" - Simply explains that X, if they would not have done 'such good works' without their belief in their 'God', is an asshole who needs the threat of punishment/carrot of heavenly reward, in order to do good deeds. That is not an argument *for* religion.

it tells me clearly that I am a trivial infinitesimal speck in a meaningless, arbitrary universe.

You are and, until objective data suggests otherwise, it is.

You are both a trivial, infinitesimally small speck and also a necessary, integral component to the state of the Universe as it is now.  This is partially implied by the sameness-in-difference principle which is a law of logic stating that differences can and *must* arise from the mosy fundamental of similarities.

Edit:  By the way, where there is a Universe, meaning is *absolutely necessary*.

[dancupid]

But religious groups provide a social and psychological crutch that many people still need.

Is not an argument justifying the continued existence of such.

Well, the implication is clearly that they would function worse as members of society if their illusions were shattered. It is an argument for religion, just not a very good one.

It's an evolutionary argument - a belief in fairies may ensure survival better than belief that your sense of self is just a genetically induced survival mechanism.
Time will tell.

[cryptodevil]

I did look back and didn't see a solid rebuttal which is why I asked you to quote it/them for me.

:head-desk:

Eesh, you're really gonna make me hold your hand and walk you through it then?

Fine, on we go:

'Absolute' truth is 'that which is'. 

So, you will concede at this point that your use of 'absolute truth', as opposed to simply employing the term 'truth', was superfluous hyperbole and entirely unwarranted, yes?

Now, in terms of your particular raison d'etre, philosophy or, as I prefer to call it, pretentious navel-gazing rhetoric - Let's look at your attempt to employ argument from abstraction, such as math, as equal to that which is observable and measurable via the scientific method.

Using abstract concepts as the basis for believing you are emplying objective reasoning *outside* of the realms by which the scientific method can be employed, namely, the observable, measurable and testable reality that is our Universe, unfortunately misses one rather important fact or, to use your word, truth.

Abstraction is derived from actual, tangible, measurable, observable, things. You know, those things what the scientific method gone done and got all clever on your ass about, to your chagrin.

Abstract concepts, such as math, generally represent things that actually exist or are a stated quantity of undefined 'things' for the purposes of mathematics and, when they do not represent things which actually exist, guess what they are?

That's right, they're arbitrary made-up-shit(tm) from our imagination and entirely devoid of any objective value whatsoever (other than entertainment). They may be pretty, like the flower is pretty but without the physical flower or a representation of such with which we can base the abstract notion of floral 'prettiness' on, you're fucked.

So your philosophical word-salad about 'truth' and 'God' is just as irrelevant as it is intellectual dishonest because, as much as you want your abstraction to stand up on it's own, it doesn't.

Abstraction that is not derived from substance is not reasoning, it is speculating.

[dancupid]

But religious groups provide a social and psychological crutch that many people still need.

Is not an argument justifying the continued existence of such. You are merely describing a psychological dependency, not a functional organisation.

"Oh but X did such good works, in the name of their God" - Simply explains that X, if they would not have done 'such good works' without their belief in their 'God', is an asshole who needs the threat of punishment/carrot of heavenly reward, in order to do good deeds. That is not an argument *for* religion.

it tells me clearly that I am a trivial infinitesimal speck in a meaningless, arbitrary universe.

You are and, until objective data suggests otherwise, it is.

All we have is psychological dependency - that's why we do everything we do.

Just out of interest, what do you do? Can you justify it scientifically?
Why are you wearing the clothes you are wearing now? What rational function do they serve? Are you trying to position yourself in the social group - does it fit the current social norms? Are you projecting a social image to fit into the social group you identify with?
Everything we do is religion.

[farlack]

I'll just leave this here, life without the need of life.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25471-spark-of-life-metabolism-appears-in-lab-without-cells.html#.U1_c3FfixHo