Yes, we can prove that god does not exist.

To me, what you have expressed seems like a personal problem. It would appear that the realm of science has provided you with the proverbial short end of the stick.

 

So would I - and so would anyone with an enquiring mind. And I don't mean a link from the cosmologists' friend, Science magazine! I honestly don't understand this readiness by otherwise highly intelligent individuals to believe every pronouncement by 'cosmologists' irrespective of how bizarre it is.

 

Well, I am really pleased to learn that I am not the only one on this forum that has an inquiring mind. Thank you for that supportive comment.

 

I suspect there might be a few others but they dare not challenge what's known as 'received wisdom' for fear of being labelled flat-earthers.

 

Be that as it may, labels are usually a means of projecting ones own blemishes on to another in a hope of obtaining an emotional response. It would on the other hand be good to see some of those others, that you suspect may be present, to actually jump into the fray and post their views.

 

But they're frightened of being branded science-haters, or nutters (tell me about it! ). I think this is a case of 'The Emperor's New Clothes' syndrome?

 

Time will reveal the truth.

 

Exactement! And they ain't half gonna feel stupid. Not you and me though?

 

Well, the Bible itself is a Human creation, subject to interpretation and error. Also, I lost track of exactly how many versions there are. Ultimately, religion is a faith, and if God appeared and said, "I exist", it would change everything, and negate what religion, and life itself, is all about.

 

Science doesn't bother with hearsay "evidence" for very good reasons. To put it simply, it's not at all reliable.

 

Well, that is just the view of a group of people who serve a different agenda and who according to you don't have a means of testing such empirical data.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence
"Empirical evidence, data, or knowledge, also known as sense experience, is a collective term for the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation."

What observation and experimentation do you have to present, then? See, if you've got something reproducible, then you might have something that science can work with. Otherwise you're being subjective and, for all anyone else knows, either mistaken or dishonest.

There are people in Romania who would argue the same way you're doing here in favor of dead people coming to life and haunting them as undead. They'll swear up and down that they've experienced it.

 

Evidence: Millions of people offering testimony of their individual experiences. If the experience was for example a healing, then no it would not be reproducible as it was an individual experience and once the individual is healed then the person cannot experience the same healing again... else it could then be said the the person was not actually healed in the first instance. If the experience was a group revelation as to some particular message from the Lord, then it might or might not be experienced a second time. I have never seen a group revelation so I don't really know much about such events.
At any rate, some of those events have been documented (in the case of healing) by doctors in hospitals. Mysterious disappearance of tumors and such which defy scientific explanation. https://www.google.com/search?sclie...2.3&ei=TRolVs7lIMWZgwSZqqOYBA&emsg=NCSR&noj=1


As for your assertion about the people in Romania... I have no clue what you are talking about. I have never been to that country and know absolutely nothing about their religious undertakings in that country. Please provide some information that I can study with regard to your assertions.

 

Healing is one thing that is highly subjective, because there is no verifying one way or another what led to the healing. It can't be ruled out that it happened naturally. Further, faith healing and prayer have been tested with no positive result. We're left with claims that might as well be claims about the undead rising and haunting the living, like I brought up earlier. If you have no clue about it, I suggest you do some research. Look into cargo cults, too. Look around at the world of people talking total BS due to superstition and religion.

Here is a story about what I had in mind: http://rense.com/general62/vamp.htm

"To Many Romanians, Vampires Are A Terrifying Reality"
...

I've seen it on video in a documentary: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1513697/
I don't think this one is available freely. I got it on DVD.

 

After skimming through the article about Romania, I would conclude that the country is overrun with psychopaths who have succumbed to the hand-me-down culture of their society. One could also find similar reports of small groups of people here in the US who claim to be members of a vampire group. I think that in the case of the US scenario, it is more of a fad relating to an identity problem within each of those persons. As for your introduction of a film from Hollywood.... I am surprised that you place any credence on such a piece of information.

All in all, IMHO, you have presented nothing more than people of various parts of the world holding various belief systems. Nothing to prove or disprove is available through your presentation.

 

Yes. As I've pointed out, this is the same reason there is no way for humans to detect whether a supernatural even exists.

Omnipotence is an idea about the supernal. We have no tools for detecting evidence of the supernatural - including evidence of whether there is or is not a supernatural.

This is clearly not pride. It is a statement of what can not be done by using all the tools humans have at their disposal. In fact, I'm astonished that Christians (who believe there is a supernatural, and that it is all about themselves) would bring up pride.

 

Of course, saying "I exist" would not be enough.

Skipping that issue, we would still have no way of telling whether that was an embodiment of god, the devil, or some other supernatural being that has or has not been included in any earthly religion.

 

I am astonished that you and people who think like you would rule out the use of the human mind as a 'tool'. You do have a mind at your disposal and it is a tool to use to your advantage, is it not?

 

I don't rule out the use of the human mind as a tool - I specified the human mind as a tool in a post below. In fact, it is our primary tool.

However, our minds are of this world. Our minds do not have supernatural power.

 

It's a documentary film, not "Hollywood". It consists of many interviews with Romanians, and is reminiscent of what the brothers Grimm did when they went around collecting German folktales. Naturally one can question it, but it "seems legit" to me. The only way to be sure would be to go to Romania and check it out personally, of course.

And I'm not presenting something "to prove or disprove" here, but rather evidence that there are plenty of people in this world who hold unrealistic and unlikely beliefs, yet who are as certain of those beliefs as you are of your belief in a god, something that I find equally unrealistic and unlikely, and of course unproven by any measure.

 

Radios are of this world also, and we, the operators of those radios have the capability of tuning in or out stations that we either desire to hear or those that we desire not to hear. Putting that in relation to the human mind is like this: I firmly believe that all people have intuitive thoughts and we as receivers or individual listeners of the intuitive scanning process, can select which intuitive thought we will consider. Even Einstein believed in the intuition as being a formidable source of knowledge. See here: http://www.p-i-a.com/Magazine/Issue19/Physics_19.htm

At the highlighted text above: That is a positive assertion of a negative condition. Do you have proof to substantiate the assertion?

 

Your Einstein thing is so far out of context as to be hilarious. Einstein was hugely focused on science and using scientific method. There is no evidence that his use of the word "intuition" had anything at all to do with the supernatural - an idea idea that comes from you and you can not support with evidence.

 

You see, that is the whole problem with your argument. You 'find' something to be "equally unrealistic and unlikely".... what you fail or seemingly refuse to accept is that those other people have some motivating reason to believe what they have been given to be true or real. To those other people, the whole matter is a matter of 'fact'. 'Fact' being defined: something believed to be true or real. Whether or not you 'believe' their encounters or experiences to be 'true or real', to them is irrelevant. So, any demeaning remark that you should make or like I made about those people or other groups of people, are likewise irrelevant. Neither of us can prove that their 'experience' is wrong, illogical, irrational, stupid, based on myth, or any other connotation that can be described.

"proven" would imply that 'proof' has been offered. Again, proof = evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true. It would seem, that IF those people truly believe that their experience is 'true', then in their mind it is true, irrespective of what you or I or anyone else would think about it.

 

Read the page again: "[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.""
[/FONT]
"sa·cred
adj.1. Dedicated to or set apart for the worship of a deity.
2. Worthy of religious veneration: the sacred teachings of the Buddha.
3. Made or declared holy: sacred bread and wine.
4. Dedicated or devoted exclusively to a single use, purpose, or person: sacred to the memory of her sister; a private office sacred to the President.
5. Worthy of respect; venerable.
6. Of or relating to religious objects, rites, or practices."

Over all, I would suspect that his use of the term 'sacred' had more to do with a 'deity' than just a simple casual remark pertaining to respect. Of course that is just a guess.

 

None of that suggests our minds are supernatural in any way.

Plus, it is an opinion, not evidence.