And defining God is a pretty simple matter... or rather, it's a simple matter if the theist is cooperative.
Why do you assume it's a simple matter? Who have you talked to that says that?
You're asking to define the ineffable. And since that can't be done, then no atheist should be able to say that "science disproves God". Can science disprove that some things are beyond description or defining? Isn't the question really here, is God even a question for science?
If someone believes that God exists, then they have a concept - which they call God - that they can describe.
I have different concepts of God depending up which set of eyes I'm trying to see with the mind through. But I don't mistake concepts as actual definitions of God. They are matters of convenience, not matters of fact. A literalist might mistake them as facts, but then disproving those are facts, isn't really disproving God is it? Rather, it's showing that they shouldn't think about them literally so much, as they are bound to fall apart. There is a difference between God, and ideas of God.
So if that statement were rephrased as something like "the odds of God existing are 0%, +/-X% at a 95% confidence interval," you wouldn't have a problem with it?
Yes I would, if it were a scientist claiming that's a scientific statement. I start by asking him what he considers God, and then ask him if he honestly thinks a statement like that is a scientific statement, and not a religious one.
I think a fairer way to put it is "based on what we currently know, we can find no way that gods could even be possible, and every conceivable measurement is entirely consistent with the premise that no gods exist, within the precision of those measurements."
I would consider such a statement absurd. Such assurety about something that they have no clear definition to begin with. Sounds to me like they have a pretty solid idea of what God is in their own minds, which happens to look a like like what you find in a fundamentalist Sunday school lesson. A careful scientist would ask if ideas of God are limited to that or not.
It's not, but if it makes you feel better to think that it is the same, you go right ahead.
If it makes you feel better that it's different, then you go right ahead. But it isn't different. It's the same thing. God said it, is chronically replaced by "Science says it" by those who are shaking off the garbs of religion once they see that metaphors aren't actually facts. It's fairly commonplace, and understandable.
I may have shared this before, but quick story about my friend from Bible college days. After he and I had both left the faith and saw ourselves as atheists, he said to me over lunch. "I'm so glad I have the truth now." I chuckled and said, "I remember you and I saying that when were were true believers back in school". He paused, and replied, "Yeah, but the difference is now I really DO have the truth". You see? You may take the boy out of the country, but it takes a long time to take the country out of the boy.
It seems obvious that you don't accept any and every conceivable "source of all that is" as your God. Your reaction to the FSM - a source of all that is that looks like spaghetti and meatballs - demonstrated that.
My saying that FSM is a plate of spaghetti, is to say it can't be the Source, as it's a thing. It's noodles and sauce with meatballs. Those are all very clearly definable. But "The Tao that can be named, is not the eternal Tao", says the Tao De Ching. So apply that to the absurdity of saying that science can disprove God.
If you can name it, it isn't God. They have only proven that what they thought was God, is not God.
You can be specific about your own beliefs.
They're all relative. They are all conditional. But we were talking about how no one can talk about the Absolute and it be considered non-contradictory. That's why "defining God" is impossible. Me being specific with my beliefs about the absolute, is really not possible. They are impressions, images, glimpses, and can be expressed in metaphors but not detailed maps.
You say that you believe in God; well, if you actually hold a belief in something, you should be able to tell us about whatever it is you believe in. It's a concept residing entirely in your head and you seem perfectly capable of expressing your thoughts, so if you can't describe the God you say you believe in in detail, I may not accept that your concept is fleshed out enough to qualify as an actual belief.
Fair enough. What I perceive of and experience of God, is beyond beliefs. Yes. God is beyond beliefs. To try to capture God into a belief and say that is God, is the naming of the Tao. And as we have heard, "The Tao that can be named, is not the eternal Tao".
But my thoughts I do have are plenty to be sure. I just don't mistake the nature of thoughts and ideas, with actualities. When someone only has beliefs, then their beliefs are for all intents and purposes the reality of God to them. Hence why when science contradicts ones of their ideas, they imagine it can destroy God for them, and does for many who become atheists once they realize Noah's Ark couldn't possibly have actually happened, therefore God is not real anymore to them. The mistook their beliefs about God, as God.
Do you think that there has to be a specific, published peer-reviewed study about something for someone with a scientific worldview to treat it as not real?
A scientific worldview? What does that mean? I know what science is, but I've never heard it as a "worldview" before. You mean a rational worldview? A lot of theists are rationalists and scientists too, if you are unaware.
What I was asking for a peer reviewed article, is to back up the statement that "science disproves God". That means, it followed science and it's methods to make that determination. Where is the work? Has anyone reviewed their data and findings? Of course I know no such study has ever been done, and if it were, it would be considered
pseudoscience.
