Scientific proof that God exists?

[the joint]

Using your own argument, that would mean that 'god the father' could not exist since he would first need to make the universe and then his son (to be a father). Regardless, I can equally assert that spaghetti exists only because the FSM created it in his own image, the same way christians insist they are created in god's image. No more contradiction. Bottom line is, that when it comes to god, there's no (scientific) way to (prove or) disprove it's existance, regardless of which god(s) your are talking about, which is the whole premise behind Russell's teapot. (Just for sake of argument, you cannot view the entire solar system through the Hubble telescope at once, nevermind a teapot god that may wish to remain undiscovered.)

With all due respect, this discussion only digressed somewhat to semantics since you were implying these terms mean something they do not. I am not arbitrarily saying anything and have already linked sources to the validity my assertions. If you insist you can arbitrarily give words their meanings, then I suppose I have nothing left say.

I'm hardly arbitrarily giving words meaning when I quote the definition of 'god' from a dictionary reference and then apply that definition in context.  But, then again, I'm not attempting to prove the existence of God, I'm simply arguing that the FSM is a bad analogy.  It's a bad analogy specifically because analogies only work if the characteristics of the things being compared are similar.

Am I missing the point of the analogy? I thought these things were always brought up in the same abstract vein; that is, you can't prove god exists any more than you can disprove there is a teapot/FSM/whatever-else. The analogy isn't about which mythical creature exists or what properties and powers it may or may not have, it's about the existence of mythical creatures period. From this view, I think the analogy is fine.

It's not fine because god is not a 'creature.'  Again, the problem with the analogy is that it tries to back a theist into a corner that doesn't exist by assuming that empiricism is the only means by which you can prove the existence of God when what we're really exploring is a totally abstract concept.  It simply doesn't work.  Imagine if I likened, for example, the abstract laws of mathematics to a "mythical creature" or the FSM or a space teapot.  Would you let me get away with such an analogy?

FSM or the 'Teapot' aren't creatures either. They're gods. Analogy seems find to me.

So you're telling me the FSM is not made of spaghetti, can't fly, and is not a monster, all of which would invoke conditionality and therefore render it impossible of being a monotheistic god?  And when Richard Dawkins asks us to imagine the assertion of a teapot existing in some unknown extra-planetary orbit that he's talking about an abstract teapot around some abstract orbit?

The ways in which we are asked to consider the FSM and teapot are irrelevant to the debate about the existence of God.  They aren't asserted to be some conditional form, like Jesus, that an omnipotent God would be able to assume if it chose.  The FSM and teapot would make better analogies for Jesus than God.

So yes, it's a bad analogy.  It's a dead argument before it even gets off the ground.  You're better off just arguing against the assertion of what God actually is according to whoever it is you're arguing against.

[1714171158]

1714171158

[1714171158]

1714171158

[1714171158]

1714171158

[Vod]

Sodomy

 

Hey, that is not what this thread is about. 

This entire thread is nonsense.  Who are you to say what nonsense is allowed?   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8ZF_R_j0OY

[bl4kjaguar]

Sodomy

 

Hey, that is not what this thread is about.  

This entire thread is nonsense.  Who are you to say what nonsense is allowed?  

You are the only one who wants to talk about sodomy in this thread.

Do you know what you are doing?

Herbert Spencer's book First Principles is far from nonsense; rather, it is a famous agnostic treatise and I suggest you get familiar with it before placing it in the same category as sodomy.

[Vod]

I am generally ignorant.

Herbert Spencer's book First Principles is far from nonsense; rather, it is a famous agnostic treatise and I suggest you get familiar with it before placing it in the same category as sodomy.

I posted the link because it's funny and relevant to this thread.  Each christian has to pick and choose the parts of the bible they believe in and the parts they ignore.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8ZF_R_j0OY

[bl4kjaguar]

I am generally ignorant.

Herbert Spencer's book First Principles is far from nonsense; rather, it is a famous agnostic treatise and I suggest you get familiar with it before placing it in the same category as sodomy.

I posted the link because it's funny and relevant to this thread.  Each christian has to pick and choose the parts of the bible they believe in and the parts they ignore.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8ZF_R_j0OY

Factually,
You are the only one who wants to talk about sodomy in this thread.

And you won't reply to my arguments, nor to Spencer's, so who is acting ignorantly?

I will not watch that video because I know the Bible is full of holes. Still there is some truth in it (like the law against sodomy).

[BADecker]

I will not watch that video because I know the Bible is full of holes. Still there is some truth in it (like the law against sodomy).

Bible not full of holes. Readers full of holes in their reading of it. 

[protokol]

Using your own argument, that would mean that 'god the father' could not exist since he would first need to make the universe and then his son (to be a father). Regardless, I can equally assert that spaghetti exists only because the FSM created it in his own image, the same way christians insist they are created in god's image. No more contradiction. Bottom line is, that when it comes to god, there's no (scientific) way to (prove or) disprove it's existance, regardless of which god(s) your are talking about, which is the whole premise behind Russell's teapot. (Just for sake of argument, you cannot view the entire solar system through the Hubble telescope at once, nevermind a teapot god that may wish to remain undiscovered.)

With all due respect, this discussion only digressed somewhat to semantics since you were implying these terms mean something they do not. I am not arbitrarily saying anything and have already linked sources to the validity my assertions. If you insist you can arbitrarily give words their meanings, then I suppose I have nothing left say.

I'm hardly arbitrarily giving words meaning when I quote the definition of 'god' from a dictionary reference and then apply that definition in context.  But, then again, I'm not attempting to prove the existence of God, I'm simply arguing that the FSM is a bad analogy.  It's a bad analogy specifically because analogies only work if the characteristics of the things being compared are similar.

Am I missing the point of the analogy? I thought these things were always brought up in the same abstract vein; that is, you can't prove god exists any more than you can disprove there is a teapot/FSM/whatever-else. The analogy isn't about which mythical creature exists or what properties and powers it may or may not have, it's about the existence of mythical creatures period. From this view, I think the analogy is fine.

It's not fine because god is not a 'creature.'  Again, the problem with the analogy is that it tries to back a theist into a corner that doesn't exist by assuming that empiricism is the only means by which you can prove the existence of God when what we're really exploring is a totally abstract concept.  It simply doesn't work.  Imagine if I likened, for example, the abstract laws of mathematics to a "mythical creature" or the FSM or a space teapot.  Would you let me get away with such an analogy?

FSM or the 'Teapot' aren't creatures either. They're gods. Analogy seems find to me.

So you're telling me the FSM is not made of spaghetti, can't fly, and is not a monster, all of which would invoke conditionality and therefore render it impossible of being a monotheistic god?  And when Richard Dawkins asks us to imagine the assertion of a teapot existing in some unknown extra-planetary orbit that he's talking about an abstract teapot around some abstract orbit?

The ways in which we are asked to consider the FSM and teapot are irrelevant to the debate about the existence of God.  They aren't asserted to be some conditional form, like Jesus, that an omnipotent God would be able to assume if it chose.  The FSM and teapot would make better analogies for Jesus than God.

So yes, it's a bad analogy.  It's a dead argument before it even gets off the ground.  You're better off just arguing against the assertion of what God actually is according to whoever it is you're arguing against.

Just had to chime in here... While I understand your points about the abstraction of god, I think you're reading into the details too much. I think the FSM/teapot analogy is totally valid. The whole point of it is merely to show that it is illogical to assume that anything extraordinary exists without seeing evidence for it. By assuming an entity exists (for which there is no evidence, or even no possible way to even test for its existence), you logically have to also assume that any other such entities are just as likely to exist, and therefore just as valid. It doesn't prove or disprove the existence of god, as much as it shows that assuming such things is illogical and counter-productive.

This thread sure has given me a laugh, and taught me a thing or two. I'm not religious, but I do find it funny listening to religious people try and validate their views by alternately cherry-picking science and quoting the Bible. BADecker - you are probably the worst offender in this respect, one minute you're saying things like: "Machine Universe proves the existence of God", "Evolution is a scientific impossibility" etc, and the next you're quoting Bible passages to back up your claims! Most religious people accept that their beliefs are not provable, that's why they call it "faith" when you believe weird stuff with no evidence.

The fact that some of you seem to be looking to science to rationalise your religious views strikes me as refreshing in a way, as it suggests that you're questioning your views and retaining at least a little open-mindedness. Try and lose the confirmation bias, and you might get somewhere!

[Vod]

I'm an idiot.

Factually,
You are the only person that keeps mentioning sodomy.
No one in this thread replies to arguments.  This thread is a joke.
If you don't watch the video, how do you know you won't enjoy it?  IT'S FUNNY.

[bl4kjaguar]

I will not watch that video because I know the Bible is full of holes. Still there is some truth in it (like the law against sodomy).

Bible not full of holes. Readers full of holes in their reading of it. 

Those volumes are far from perfection.

But how would you ever know that without seeking out God's word? Don't be complacent.

[Decio]

...and not 1 shred of evidence.

[Vod]

Brainwashed crap.

See?  You didn't reply to my factual statements.   Ignorant fool.  

[bl4kjaguar]

I'm an idiot.

Factually,
You are the only person that keeps mentioning sodomy.

I want to stop mentioning it, and wish that you had never brought it up.

No one in this thread replies to arguments.  This thread is a joke.

You have held that judgment ever since you came here. And you never made it better.

If you don't watch the video, how do you know you won't enjoy it?  IT'S FUNNY.

I don't enjoy sodomy and prefer not to think about it.

[bl4kjaguar]

Why should we prove God scientifically when the beliefs which Science has forced upon Religion have been intrinsically more religious than those which they supplanted?? 

[Vod]

I don't enjoy sodomy and prefer not to think about it.

But how would you ever know that without trying it? Don't be complacent.

[bl4kjaguar]

I don't enjoy sodomy and prefer not to think about it.

But how would you ever know that without trying it? Don't be complacent.

Don't be presumptive.

Science has but very incompletely fulfilled its office.

In each phase of its progress, Science has thus stopped short with superficial solutions — has unscientifically neglected to ask what were the natures of the agents it familiarly invoked. Though in each succeeding phase it has gone a little deeper, and merged its supposed agents in more general and abstract ones, it has still, as before, rested content with these as if they were ascertained realities. And this, which has all along been an unscientific characteristic of Science, has all along been a part-cause of its conflict with Religion.

[Vod]

Don't be presumptive.

Isn't that a bit hypocritical for someone that posts like their god actually exists?  

Science has but very incompletely fulfilled its office.

Isn't that a bit hypocritical for someone using the internet to post?   

[bl4kjaguar]

Don't be presumptive.

Isn't that a bit hypocritical for someone that posts like their god actually exists?  

Science has but very incompletely fulfilled its office.

Isn't that a bit hypocritical for someone using the internet to post?   

Is that post supposed to be a joke? Would you message me in private with such questions?

Science is hopelessly incomplete, every step in advance has been a step towards both the natural and the supernatural. The progress has been as much towards the establishment of a positively unknown as towards the establishment of a positively known. All accountable or natural facts are proved to be in their ultimate genesis unaccountable and supernatural.

And so there arise two antithetical states of mind, answering to the opposite sides of that existence about which we think.

A permanent peace will be reached when Science becomes fully convinced that its explanations are proximate and relative, while Religion becomes fully convinced that the mystery it contemplates is ultimate and absolute.

[X7]

Don't be presumptive.

Isn't that a bit hypocritical for someone that posts like their god actually exists?  

Science has but very incompletely fulfilled its office.

Isn't that a bit hypocritical for someone using the internet to post?   

http://www.reddit.com/r/CreatorOfTheUniverse/comments/2l0lga/the_great_experiment/

[Vod]

Is that post supposed to be a joke? Would you message me in private with such questions?

It's not a joke at all.  I find you very hypocritical.  You ask that others try your god, but you won't even try sodomy.  You ask that others read your bible, but have you read the FSM scripture?

[Vod]

Don't be presumptive.

Isn't that a bit hypocritical for someone that posts like their god actually exists?  

Science has but very incompletely fulfilled its office.

Isn't that a bit hypocritical for someone using the internet to post?   

http://www.reddit.com/r/CreatorOfTheUniverse/comments/2l0lga/the_great_experiment/

http://www.venganza.org/