Can science disprove the existence of God?

[leibowde84]

I don't know what we were referring to, but, God is, for me, an evolving consciousness. So everything follows thoughts that have gone before in higher realms of consciousness. What we see here, the universe, is that same thought process replicated in physical terms (with errors). Nothing new happens here even though it is completely free. We, everything, just follows its own Self.

Can you flesh this out a bit. I have no idea what this means.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Can you flesh this out a bit. I have no idea what this means.

All there is is God.
God, in simplistic form, is pure Conscious energy.
Everything that exists is that same thought.
Nothing else exists. Just Consciousness.
One thought leads to another, like hunger to food, your reaction to my post, the sun coming up again; it is all thought processes; that's all there is; consciousness expressed in living pictorial images which we consider to be real (and real enough to us) but are in fact not. That is born out through the atom which has nothing within it that constitutes physical or solidity.... it is all energy.

 

[leibowde84]

All there is is God.
God, in simplistic form, is pure Conscious energy.
Everything that exists is that same thought.
Nothing else exists. Just Consciousness.
One thought leads to another, like hunger to food, your reaction to my post, the sun coming up again; it is all thought processes; that's all there is; consciousness expressed in living pictorial images which we consider to be real (and real enough to us) but are in fact not. That is born out through the atom which has nothing within it that constitutes physical or solidity.... it is all energy.

Can you support this belief objectively? Why do you believe this?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Can you support this belief objectively? Why do you believe this?

Nothing at that level will be seen in the physical world. It is intuitive. That is grace. Why would God have to show you something physically when he can place it in your heart and watch it grow in your mind. It is simplicity itself. What atheist can argue that- what thief can take advantage of it?
But there is plenty that will reveal itself when you understand the fundamentals.

 

[Timothy Bryce]

The burden of proof is not inherently on the theist because we are not talking about a spaghetti monster here, but about an entity, God, that has been of crucial cultural importance for virtually all cultures at all times. Atheists are a cultural and an intellectual rarity. So, it seems to me that atheists, as the cultural minority they are, should provide some very tangible evidence for the non-existence of a being that has been believed in by most of humanity throughout the history of our species.

No - you have the whole thing completely backwards. A total 180.

I'm not disputing that god has held cultural importance for a fraction of the human experience but to claim that god has been of "crucial cultural importance for virtually all cultures at all times [and that] atheists are a cultural and an intellectual rarity" is misleading at best.

Virtually all cultures? I suggest you examine some of the indigenous cultural spiritual beliefs that were wiped out by Christians and Muslims and those beliefs that still exist in the developing world in addition to a huge majority of the popular, ancient and still-continued religions and belief systems in the eastern world which don't employ a deity.

Atheists are a cultural and intellectual rarity? God has always been an intellectual instrument invented by man to serve a vast variety of ends; it could be claimed that, until a person first conceived of a god-like concept, atheism has been a fundamental and intrinsic part of the universe until the concept was created. It's also a mistake to claim that you can account for the private beliefs of every human being who has ever walked the earth.

 

[Noa]

Atheists are a cultural and intellectual rarity? God has always been an intellectual instrument invented by man to serve a vast variety of ends; it could be claimed that, until a person first conceived of a god-like concept, atheism has been a fundamental and intrinsic part of the universe until the concept was created. It's also a mistake to claim that you can account for the private beliefs of every human being who has ever walked the earth.

You do you realize the last sentence of your paragraph applies to the rest of your paragraph, right?

 

[Timothy Bryce]

You do you realize the last sentence of your paragraph applies to the rest of your paragraph, right?

Not if you believe that god was an intellectual concept created by humans at some point in development as opposed to an intrinsic part of ourselves. I do believe this therefore, logically, atheism was a present state of affairs prior to that development; the only difference is that it was not defined because there was nothing for it to be defined against.

 

[Noa]

Not if you believe that god was an intellectual concept created by humans at some point in development as opposed to an intrinsic part of ourselves. I do believe this therefore, logically, atheism was a present state of affairs prior to that development; the only difference is that it was not defined because there was nothing for it to be defined against.

I meant that your belief that it is an artificial concept rather than somehow intrinsic is assuming an awful lot about our ancestors.

 

[Timothy Bryce]

I meant that your belief that it is an artificial concept rather than somehow intrinsic is assuming an awful lot about our ancestors.

Fair enough, but I find it difficult to believe that any plant, animal or rock troubles themselves with concerns about the existence/nonexistence of god. Since I believe evolution is irrefutable, the only conclusion I can draw it that theistic concerns/discussion was something that was learned over the course of our development replacing what had otherwise been unconsidered.

 

[Noa]

Fair enough, but I find it difficult to believe that any plant, animal or rock troubles themselves with concerns about the existence/nonexistence of god. Since I believe evolution is irrefutable, the only conclusion I can draw it that theistic concerns/discussion was something that was learned over the course of our development replacing what had otherwise been unconsidered.

There can be all sorts of different ideas as to how concepts developed. I was merely pointing out an assumption. Not much more than that.

 

[paarsurrey]

No - you have the whole thing completely backwards. A total 180.
I'm not disputing that god has held cultural importance for a fraction of the human experience but to claim that god has been of "crucial cultural importance for virtually all cultures at all times [and that] atheists are a cultural and an intellectual rarity" is misleading at best.
Virtually all cultures? I suggest you examine some of the indigenous cultural spiritual beliefs that were wiped out by Christians and Muslims and those beliefs that still exist in the developing world in addition to a huge majority of the popular, ancient and still-continued religions and belief systems in the eastern world which don't employ a deity.
Atheists are a cultural and intellectual rarity? God has always been an intellectual instrument invented by man to serve a vast variety of ends; it could be claimed that, until a person first conceived of a god-like concept, atheism has been a fundamental and intrinsic part of the universe until the concept was created. It's also a mistake to claim that you can account for the private beliefs of every human being who has ever walked the earth.

Atheists are a cultural and intellectual rarity?
Rather Atheism is cultural and intellectual weirdness, please don't mind it, because of its having no positive evidences with it. Right?
Regards

 

[leibowde84]

Nothing at that level will be seen in the physical world. It is intuitive. That is grace. Why would God have to show you something physically when he can place it in your heart and watch it grow in your mind. It is simplicity itself. What atheist can argue that- what thief can take advantage of it?
But there is plenty that will reveal itself when you understand the fundamentals.

I guess the obvious answer is that our intuition has been proven wrong time and time again. That is actually what makes the scientific method so successful. It does a good job of minimizing the risk of our intuition erroneously influencing our conclusions.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

All of the quotes that you posted actually strengthen my point: the existence of God is outside the province of science.

I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm disagreeing with the position that there exists a definite or even best demarcation between the sciences and other fields of inquiry. I disagree that falsifiability is a valid, sound, or even practical basis for such a would-be demarcation. But I agree that invoking a creator or miracles cannot ever be considered scientific.

 

[Crypto2015]

Jesus did not die on the Cross, so there is no question of his resurrection from the clinically dead.And Jesus was never a god.
Regards

Jesus resurrection is historically supported by (1) the accounts that describe the empty tomb, (2) the origin of the apostles' faith, and (3) the accounts of the post-resurrection appearances. All of these three points are supported by historical documents. Islam's assertion that Jesus never died on the Cross is not supported by anything, except by Muhammad's "revelations", which date from the 7th century, seven hundred years after Jesus' death and resurrection.

 

[Crypto2015]

I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm disagreeing with the position that there exists a definite or even best demarcation between the sciences and other fields of inquiry. I disagree that falsifiability is a valid, sound, or even practical basis for such a would-be demarcation. But I agree that invoking a creator or miracles cannot ever be considered scientific.

If you reject the criteria of falsifiability, what criteria do you propose?

 

[psychoslice]

I have no beliefs in any god, but I also know that science cannot prove that, no one can, science only proves what it knows, and this goes for the religious also, they cannot prove god either, so lets face it, why bring it up in the first place, it only shows your ignorance.

 

[Crypto2015]

Or your too dim to understand my point.



Yeah I know what it says. What I'm asking you to do is stop and think about what it says, and what those words mean. If all men sin, why would sin need to pass from Adam? If all men sin why not just say "all men have sinned?" Why bother with the "Adam passed it down" bit? If all men have already sinned, what does Adam have to do with anything? What sin is being "passed" if everyone already has their own sin to worry about.

Also, tell me again how a new born baby has sinned?



That fact that you can't articulate an explantion for what the Bible says, or hold a discussion that involves more than repeating a nonsensical quote over and over and then insulting my knowledge on the subject, proves you couldn't think your way out of a wet paper bag.

It is not a nonsensical quote. It is a quote that directly addresses the topic. That men are born separate from God is evident from the fact that we are not born in heaven or in paradise. In that sense, we have inherited the consequences of Adam's sin. However, the claim that we have also inherited the guilt for Adam's sin (i.e., that we are accountable for it) is debatable and in my personal opinion, which is based on the Bible, most probably false. I don't know what kind of wrong ideas do you have about Christianity, but Jesus didn't die specifically for the original sin. That's plain wrong.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

If you reject the criteria of falsifiability, what criteria do you propose?

I don't think a sharp (or, to use set theoretic terms, a "crisp" or binary-valued logic) definition exists that is sufficient. There exist scientific fields currently that some scientists regard as non-scientific, and non-scientific fields that some scientists regard as scientific.

 

[Crypto2015]

I notice two implications of what you're saying:

- God intended sinners to sin when he created them.
- sinners will go to Hell. IOW, Christ's sacrifice was in vain.

Christ's sacrifice would have been in vain if no one had accepted his expiatory sacrifice. However, we know that many people have accepted it. Hence, it is not in vain.

 

[Crypto2015]

No - you have the whole thing completely backwards. A total 180.

I'm not disputing that god has held cultural importance for a fraction of the human experience but to claim that god has been of "crucial cultural importance for virtually all cultures at all times [and that] atheists are a cultural and an intellectual rarity" is misleading at best.

Virtually all cultures? I suggest you examine some of the indigenous cultural spiritual beliefs that were wiped out by Christians and Muslims and those beliefs that still exist in the developing world in addition to a huge majority of the popular, ancient and still-continued religions and belief systems in the eastern world which don't employ a deity.

Atheists are a cultural and intellectual rarity? God has always been an intellectual instrument invented by man to serve a vast variety of ends; it could be claimed that, until a person first conceived of a god-like concept, atheism has been a fundamental and intrinsic part of the universe until the concept was created. It's also a mistake to claim that you can account for the private beliefs of every human being who has ever walked the earth.

I come from South America. The people that were native to the place in which I was born (near the Amazonian jungle) had a pre-Columbian theology that closely matched that of the ancient Hebrews: an omnipotent and kind creator that could not be represented by anything created and an evil spirit who rebelled (Satan) and had a host of rebels that followed him. Furthermore, they believed in a paradise that was thought to be located beyond the Atlantic. So, the idea of a creator God is virtually everywhere, even in the most isolated human populations.