Yes, we can prove that god does not exist.

They just love big numbers don't they! And I guess to their minds the bigger the number, the more impressed the audience is. And they're right, too!

 

The issue here is different than that.

Anything that is supernatural is going to be seen by humans as "one more thing we don't understand". We have a giant bucket of things we don't understand.

And, we have no way of detecting whether any of these things we don't understand is something that is supernatural or whether it is something of our natural world that we just haven't figured out yet.


Take the "big bang". We have no way of looking at the "big bang" and saying "not only do we not understand it, but we know it is supernatural, because ...".

And, there is nothing we can EVER do about that, because we're humans living in our natural world.

No advancement in our tools will allow us to detect the supernatural, because ALL our tools are of the natural world. We are not supernatural and we can not create anything that IS supernatural. So, our ability to detect the supernatural is ... zip.

 

That is an irrelevant point with regards to the statement that he made.
Also, I am a human, and there are a few things about the supernatural (God) that I do understand.

Again... irrelevant to his statement and not a problem of mine. I am not the one making claims of " It IS about discovering the answers to questions that NOBODY has answered!"

I don't believe anyone has asked you or the others to say that the Big Bang was the result of some supernatural influence. That is what free will or free choice is all about... say what you believe or what you desire to say.

When I was a young lad, my older brother used to chide me whenever I said "I can't do that".... his response was always the same "Can't never could do anything." He drummed into my head to keep quiet about the things that I know I cannot do.

As far as you know. However the greatest tool that was given to man was his intelligence and a mind to afford him with the ability to reason through all of that material and immaterial stuff. Why then do you suppose some people can say that they have communion with spiritual entities and still others will scoff at such claims. Perhaps those that do have that ability to commune on a spiritual level have learned how to use that most precious tool in a way that others have not, and those that have not learned how to use that tool, because they cannot understand it, are left with nothing more than the ability to scoff at those that do.

BTW: "All" is an absolute which would include anything (the mind included) that can be construed as a 'tool' in the scenario you spoke about.

 

The thing is do we want to know all this crap? I mean we'll never be able to live on Mars so what's the bloody point of obsessing about it?

 

I agree. So the Hubbell or some other celestial observing device spots the next huge asteroid that is going to strike the Earth and it is determined to be the one that destroys our civilization .... Then we recognize that there is no device on Earth that will prevent the catastrophic event.... all will perish.... What good did all that technology serve?

 

We have the ability to change the trajectory of small objects such as asteroids within our solar system.

 

Now don't you think that would be dependent upon the size, speed, and composition of the asteroid? I would also like to see documentation on any experiment wherein an asteroid has been actually deflected in such a way as to cause it to avoid collision with the Earth. I am not speaking of theoretical propositions as documentation.

 

Quite possible as an armchair physicist I rely upon the often conflicting information I read online, in book, and see in documentaries on TV.

Indeed but notice how you use terms that leave the door open to new data refining or redefining our current beliefs? This is my point, we base our current conclusions on theory that may or may not stand the test of time. So to argue universal facts to me is to come to a conclusion based upon incomplete data. I do admit that we can make some good measurements when I align my view of the universe with yours as this imposes limits but it still does not prove nor disprove God.

So based upon the above, how can an objective mind be closed to the possibility that some intelligent power greater than ourselves created it all and sparked life? My argument is one of ignorance and I am asking those who believe there is no God upon what basis they have come to that conclusion?

 

We have landed on an asteroid. That alone changes its trajectory.

 

??? I have stated over and over again that science ALWAYS has the door open. In fact, I have pointed out that science is designed such that there is no way to close the door on any theory, with theory (scientific definition) being the strongest form of explanation that science has to offer.

Please. Let's at least remember what science is.

 

Cannot prove a negative.

 

Secondly, my position has always been that science has no way of determining whether or not there is a God - or anything else related to a sentient supernatural being.

All our tools (including every brain cell) are of our natural world. Thus, when faced by something we do not understand, we can not tell whether we don't understand it because we haven't tried hard enough or we don't understand it because it is supernatural.
.

 

Proof of the existence of God would negate the purpose of religion. It will not be found.

 

And when did this event take place? Please provide a link to the news story.

 

What I don't understand is how anyone could possibly believe there is or believe there is not one or more supernatural beings.

We have absolutely no way of knowing, so how could anyone possibly think they have an answer?

Either direction is closed minded, by the way. Billy Graham is closed minded, for example.


The only rational option for humans is to be agnostic. And, since we can not possibly know, going crazy over this question makes no sense - in fact, it can be damaging to oneself and to others.

We must choose how we live our lives.

 

I said asteroid when I meant to say comet.

That happened this year.

We do have planned missions to asteroids, btw. And, it isn't necessary to touch one of these bodies to change its direction. Moving an asteroid out of the way of earth could be done by positioning a spacecraft hear the asteroid for a period of time, allowing gravity to do the moving for us.

 

Seeing is believing in regard to the asteroid. I also keep up with the news on such items. As for what you said and what you meant to say.... All I know is what you said... I have no idea as to the validity of your claim that you meant to say something different.

"could be done", is a far cry different than 'has been done'. No! I am not suggesting that you said it has been done... but rather I am pointing out that moving an asteroid out of the path of Earth (thereby preventing a collision) has not been done.... therefore your 'could be done' is mere speculation..... imaginative thinking.

 

I agree, but one does have to wonder. Christianity depends on the bible in a very serious way, yet that work has been found to be wrong on numerous points both of physical fact and of philosophy.

 

Yet you do not claim to be a Christian, so what positive knowledge do you have regarding the needs of Christianity?

 

Oh, good lord. Step back and think about what you are arguing.

The question was whether anything practical is coming from exploring the cosmos.

I pointed out something that very clearly has practical value, as our planet is exposed to the possibility of a catastrophic collision with an asteroid.

That includes both finding asteroids and determining their paths and doing something about it, such as visiting them.

 

Has any practical value been derived from such studies of those celestial bodies? No? Then my questions and criticisms are valid until such 'practical value' has been proven to be 'practical'.

 

I pointed out a case of proven value.

If we are ever to defend ourselves against an asteroid we would need to have what we are currently developing in order to have a chance to do the job necessary.

Your comment makes no more sense than eliminating defense spending until such time as we get attacked - and then deciding that maybe we need a DoD.

 

You are the one that first used the term "practical value". By definition something that is practical is something that has been put in practice .. "prac·ti·cal
adj.1. Of, relating to, governed by, or acquired through practice or action, rather than theory or speculation:"

I again ask you what practical value has been derived?

 

Do you understand what the word omnipotence means? It means the game is rigged against you. So no matter what evidence you think you may have to disprove the Bible, it will always win by default. Because omnipotent means all-powerful. Which means able to exist within paradoxes and beyond the comprehension of the feeble human brain. Humans like to think they're hot stuff because they are at the top of the biological food chain. But because of that status, they often forget what primitive and feeble creatures they truly are in the grand scheme of things.

Unless you are omnipotent, yourself, you can't win this game. No matter what you have. You've already lost before you've even presented your evidence.

If atheists were half as bright as they want to believe they are, you'd think they'd recognize this. And then either A) accept it and move on or B) reconsider their positions.

For the record, I'm not stating that the Bible actually is correct about everything. I'm just pointing out that it is literally impossible to win this debate on paper as an atheist because you are up against omnipotence.

- - - Updated - - -

And just to stir the pot a little more, you could actually argue that it is the sin of pride that causes the atheist to continuously need to fight this battle he can never win. Because pride is the essence of needing to be right.

 

Yeah, we've got a problem here if you think your alleged personal experience amounts to empirical data. It's rather the opposite, because I have no way to examine or test it.