Existence of a god or gos

The existence of God depends 100% on faith.....He can not be proven, nor can he be disproven using scientific means...

 

It also lies outside the realm of logic and observation, which puts it squarely in the realm of bull(*)(*)(*)(*) from what I can tell.

I don't understand why we should assume something exists that is A) Not observable, B) A logical impossibility, and C) Contradictory in nearly every incarnation.

Meanwhile, things like climate change, despite the wealth of observable evidence, is completely ignored as "baseless" by many of the same people who profess belief in God. It is dumbfounding.

 

The only limitation I place on existence is that it, you know, has to actually exist.

Something you clearly don't limit.

 

You can't prove that he doesn't exist. His existence is based completely on faith and so Science can neither be used to prove one way or the other. There are some people who believe that God exists outside of the known universe and that he controls and manipulates all natural phenomenon. So using that logic, science can be used to explain everything in the bible without disproving the existence of god.

 

This discussion that you are attempting to engage, has already been covered and it is already known that science cannot prove anything. So on that one, you are beating a dead horse. Per your statement regarding theory: try this one... the Atomic Theory.

 

what about it? The definition of a theory is an educated guess based on experimentation that can not be proven to be 100% true or 100% false.

 

Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

You can't prove that there aren't unicorns, can you? They're invisible, after all. So prove that invisible unicorns don't exist. You can't? Okay, so they exist.

That makes no sense whatsoever. Natural phenomena are completely self-contained. Kinetics and mechanics function without needing some God to explain it. There isn't some missing element that God explains.

Actually, the Bible makes numerous ridiculously inaccurate claims and statements.

 

That argument was not settled. Science can definitely disprove things. And as the number of impossibilities increase, the closer we are to the truth.

God fits into none of this.

 

The discussion was not about 'disproving things', the discussion was about how science 'cannot prove anything'. Keep your facts straight.

Then you need to jump in there and correct all those people who make demands of empirical evidence supporting the existence of God. In other words support what I have stated which was 'the logic used by science should be kept in the laboratory...' and out of the church. Of course, if you want to be like stroll and admit that science is a religion, then yes, science can be afforded all the same ridicule as other religions are by atheists and other non-theists.

 

PLease explain why science can not prove anything.

 

Gee, it seems that you answered your own question. As long as science is maintaining the label "theory" on a particular subject, then, like you said,,, "the definition of theory is an educated guess based on experimentation that cannot be proven to be 100% true or 100% false"... In other words... the subject of the theory has no proof,,,, just best guesses.

 

Yes...and when it's proven, such as gravity, motion, and other of Newton's theories, they are given the name LAW.

Newton's Three Laws of Motion
First law: The velocity of a body remains constant unless the body is acted upon by an external force.[3][4][5]

Second law: The acceleration a of a body is parallel and directly proportional to the net force F and inversely proportional to the mass m, i.e., F = ma.

Third law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear.

 

Gravity has been proven? What is Gravity? Objective empirical evidence of the existence and nature of gravity please.

And your point?

 

Where is your proof of claim.... you know objective empirical evidence to support your assertion that Gods existence is 100% dependent upon faith. Do you have some inside secret information about God that is being withheld?

Then why do you and others demand evidence of what you say cannot be either proven or dis-proven?

 

Those things have been proven by science to be true...therefore, your entire arguement is debunked.

 

I don't demand anything. I was simply pointing out that something that depends on a leap of faith can't be disproven just because it is scientifically impossible. That is the point of faith.

 

Nothing has been debunked.

Where is your proof of claim regarding Gravity and the nature of gravity? Put up or shut up.

 

Throw a ball into the air and, barring something like getting caught on a roof or something like that, it will ALWAYS fall to the ground. Therefore the law of gravity is true.

 

Well. I hate to disillusion you on that one. A while back, I took someone up on a similar experiment concerning 'gravity'. I climbed up on the roof, holding a heavy object in my hand, I released the object, it fell to the rooftop, bounced a couple of times and then just sat there.... it did not fall to the ground. The pitch on the roof was 5" in 12" creating enough slope for the object to continue its travel... but it didn't.

Aside from that, you still have not given me any information about the nature of gravity, nor have you explained what gravity is. Are you intentionally avoiding those questions?

 

The definition and explanations of scientific theory have been given repeatedly in several threads.

If someone plainly refuses to acknowledge it, there isn't much point in 'debate'.

 

It fell to the rooftop? Very good.

So since gravity evidently worked, I have to ask if you considered other things (Coulombs law of friction, for example) before concluding that gravity didn't work?

 

I agree with IC, there is much evidence to support God, an ID, or GID (God [the] Intelligent Designer). However, are you speaking about tangible, empirical, scientific evidence, the kind that science uses on a part time basis, or evidence as defined in Webster’s? The reason I ask is that science (the so called secular scientific establishment, lets call it SSE), uses certain evidences on an as needed basis is obvious to those of us interested in such things. Some science that is acceptable to the SSE has a tangible repeatable empirical criteria and some does not. For example (one of a few that come to mind), string theory was an accepted ‘science’ by SSE long before it could produce verifiable results i.e. make a verifiable prediction. I would like to clarify some items first so this discussion will not to be a repeat of past non productive debates.

Rev A

 

The comment replied to specifically excluded getting caught on the roof:
Throw a ball into the air and, barring something like getting caught on a roof or something like that, it will ALWAYS fall to the ground.

Citing exactly such incident was just more trollery, no science or reason involved there, FreeWare.

 

Sorry to disapoint some here, but the existance of a god can be disproved using scientific experiments.
If you accept the method of science, the existance of a specific god imply assumptions can be made and those can be tested to be true or false. Once one of those assumptions proves to be wrong, that god cannot exist.
This is how science works.
For example, lets take the god who gave the Bible to the world. You can use the Bible to find out how many years have passed since the world had been created. That is much less than 10,000 years. Now you find ton of other evidance the world and the universe has been around much more than that. Therefore the god who gave the Bibler does bot exist.
We can go on with any god you are willing to produce.
The existance of any god, however, cannot be disproved, at least with the current knowladge, just because the concept is too vage.
It is interesting to note, that this fact is important to the atheists here and not the believers cause the latter want to promote a specific god, not a generic one.

 

I don't know what you're trying to say here but it comes off as nonsensical. Science cannot deal with anything that can be solved by pointing a finger in the air and saying, "that up there did it".

It is true that specific claims pertaining to the natural world only (for example, the naked claim that the earth is 6,000 years old) can be verified or falsified but that has no effect on claims of divinity. One can roll science completely off that wagon by simply pointing the finger into the air and saying, "my god created the earth with age". There's no application for science in that statement.