• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Failure of science to find God; itself a proof that one true God does exist

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
No founder of any revealed religion ever told that science finds or will be able to find God through its tools or experiments in the lab; so if science has failed and is always bound to fail miserably in this respect, that is a sufficient proof that the one true God does exist.

Science does not claim that it will find the One-True-God; it is none of its business to do it, it is the wrong interpretation of science by some pseudo-scientists or some persons engaged in science who would have spoken off-the-cuff that might have claimed it; science never authorized any human being to speak on its behalf.

Those who differ with me should quote from Krishna, Buddha, Zoroaster, Moses and or Jesus etc.; they never indulged in secular matters; they were moderate persons; not extremists.
 

mycorrhiza

Well-Known Member
So your argument is "there is no scientific proof, therefore it is true"? Or is it "no religion spoke about it and it didn't happen, therefore it is proof of God"?
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
I agree. Science has never found god, therefore god exists. And science has never found unicorns, therefore unicorns exist. Whoopee!!!
 

Me Myself

Back to my username
call_de1019_2947435.jpg
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Seem to be a question mixing the new and the old Paarsurrey. Were there labs and tools and experiments performed in the same manner then as today? I wonder if any founder of a revealed religion if asked what science was, would be able to give an accurate description that matches our modern definition?

It's true that science is "aimless" as far as findings are concerned in which claims are guaranteed before any results are in, so of course it's understandable why science makes no claims in finding the one-true-god for the simple truth there is nothing to make such a claim.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
I think the existence of the babel fish is clear and concise proof that "God" does not exist.
"The Babel fish is small, yellow, leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the universe. It feeds on brain wave energy, absorbing all unconscious frequencies and then excreting telepathically a matrix formed from the conscious frequencies and nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain, the practical upshot of which is that if you stick one in your ear, you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language: the speech you hear decodes the brain wave matrix."

It is a universal translator which simultaneously translates from one spoken language to another. It takes the brainwaves of the other body and what they are thinking then transmits the thoughts to the speech centres of the host's brain, the speech heard by the ear decodes the brainwave matrix. When inserted into the ear, its nutrition processes convert unconscious sound waves into conscious brain waves, neatly crossing the language divide between any species.

The book points out that the Babel fish could not possibly have developed naturally, and therefore both proves and disproves the existence of God:

Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful could evolve purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this:
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing".
"But," says man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It proves you exist and so therefore you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white, and gets killed on the next zebra crossing.
Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys. But this did not stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme for his best selling book, Well That About Wraps It Up for God. Meanwhile the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different cultures and races, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation.[3]
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
No founder of any revealed religion ever told that science finds or will be able to find God through its tools or experiments in the lab; so if science has failed and is always bound to fail miserably in this respect, that is a sufficient proof that the one true God does exist.
Ah, so this must mean that all of these things that science has failed to find evidence for must also exist:

Bigfoot
The Loch Ness Monster
Unicorns
Fairies
Elves
Cthulu
The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Russel's tea pot
Darth Vader
A married bachelor
Slenderman
Jason Vorhees
Optimus Prime
Treebeard
Doctor Who

Suddenly, the Universe just got a whole lot more interesting.
 

cablescavenger

Well-Known Member
No founder of any revealed religion ever told that science finds or will be able to find God through its tools or experiments in the lab; so if science has failed and is always bound to fail miserably in this respect,

So, you are saying no one will ever be able to find God. Excellent piece of deduction.

that is a sufficient proof that the one true God does exist.
... or that one true God doesn't exist.


Science does not claim that it will find the One-True-God; it is none of its business to do it, it is the wrong interpretation of science by some pseudo-scientists or some persons engaged in science who would have spoken off-the-cuff that might have claimed it; science never authorized any human being to speak on its behalf.

Scientists don't go out to disprove any religions, that is a byproduct of their search for knowledge, but why would someone suggest no one has the right to investigate the claims of their religion unless they had something to hide and it was a censorship tactic?

You are mistaken if you think there are no people who speak on behalf of scientists there are a number of representative bodies who do just that amongst other things.

Those who differ with me should quote from Krishna, Buddha, Zoroaster, Moses and or Jesus etc.; they never indulged in secular matters; they were moderate persons; not extremists.

I should go and read something from people who preceded modern science?

That says it all really,
 

Gjallarhorn

N'yog-Sothep
Ah, so this must mean that all of these things that science has failed to find evidence for must also exist:

Bigfoot
The Loch Ness Monster
Unicorns
Fairies
Elves
Cthulu
The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Russel's tea pot
Darth Vader
A married bachelor
Slenderman
Jason Vorhees
Optimus Prime
Treebeard
Doctor Who

Suddenly, the Universe just got a whole lot more interesting.
Don't go into the forest...
 

freethinker44

Well-Known Member
No founder of any revealed religion ever told that science finds or will be able to find God through its tools or experiments in the lab; so if science has failed and is always bound to fail miserably in this respect, that is a sufficient proof that the one true God does exist.

Science does not claim that it will find the One-True-God; it is none of its business to do it, it is the wrong interpretation of science by some pseudo-scientists or some persons engaged in science who would have spoken off-the-cuff that might have claimed it; science never authorized any human being to speak on its behalf.

Those who differ with me should quote from Krishna, Buddha, Zoroaster, Moses and or Jesus etc.; they never indulged in secular matters; they were moderate persons; not extremists.

:facepalm:

Alright, that's it. You have GOT to be a poe. Even my 4 year old daughter has enough common sense to see through that completely ignorant argument. I know this, because I ran it by her. Albeit in a kid-friendly "Dora" format since she has zero knowledge of religion.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
sunstone said:
I agree. Science has never found god, therefore god exists. And science has never found unicorns, therefore unicorns exist. Whoopee!!!

I'd personally preferred to find an unicorn than find a god.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
paarsurrey said:
No founder of any revealed religion ever told that science finds or will be able to find God through its tools or experiments in the lab; so if science has failed and is always bound to fail miserably in this respect, that is a sufficient proof that the one true God does exist

Such wondrous logic.

No one has ever found Enki, Zeus, Thor, Odin, Siva, Kali. Nor has anyone seen fairies, leprechaun, pooka, goblins, gremlins.

Then by your skewed definition and flawed logic, they must ALL exist and all be real as this one god of yours.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
You are mistaken if you think there are no people who speak on behalf of scientists there are a number of representative bodies who do just that amongst other things.

I think I used the word "science" instead of the word "scientists".

Please rephrase your comments, if you may so like.
 
Top