God is disproven by science? Really?

[Subduction Zone]

You cannot use the word intelligence or its variants if you do not know its definition and explanation derived from experiments. Thus, you are wasting your time.

No, you have it backwards.

You cannot use the word intelligence if you cannot define it. I am not the one making a claim about intelligence, you are. The need to define one's term is yours. And the burden of proof for your claims is also yours.

Too bad that you have already admitted that you do not have any evidence for your beliefs.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

But the general idea of God has not been refuted. I will even say that the Christian God has not been refuted, only the God of the Flat Earth and others that believe refuted stories of the Bible as part of their God have been shown to be wrong.

In my viewpoint, it is impossible to prove the existence of the Christian God in a factual and verifiable way because doing so would necessitate someone having infinite knowledge and power in order to be present everywhere at once, which is not possible because humans are not omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. Furthermore, any claims such as "God saved me and changed my life," "I know God is real because I called out to him and he answered," or "I know God is real because I feel his presence in my life" are all anecdotal evidence and should be taken with a grain of salt. I don't believe anecdotal evidence is reliable enough to prove or disprove the Christian God's existence. This is the reason why, when it comes to the existence of this God, I am now an agnostic rather than an atheist. In my opinion, I cannot provide empirical and verifiable evidence that the God of the Bible does not exist, just as when I was a Christian, I could not provide empirical and verifiable evidence that God exists. As a Wiccan, I believe in multiple gods and goddesses, but I cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that these deities exist. It's simply what I believe, and it's anecdotal evidence at best.

 

[Astrophile]

Science says that dinosaur bones are at least 6.8 billion years old.

Dinosaur bones are certainly not 6.8 billion years old. According to A brief history of dinosaurs , the first dinosaurs evolved between 230 and 240 million years ago, during the Triassic period. The Earth itself is only 4.54±0.02 billion years old, much less than 6.8 billion years.

 

[blü 2]

Are you familiar with ignosticism? Do you consider igtheism and ignosticism to be similar, identical, or different from each other?

My understanding is that igtheism and ignosticism are two different words for the one view of gods. That is, I could call myself either without any change to my position.

 

[blü 2]

You wouldn’t even get that without God, let alone the intelligent design of Creation and the laws He made that supports life here on Earth.

Which God is that? How do you know? How can we test whether the answer you give to those questions is factual or not?

 

[blü 2]

I had my other thread with link on how I discovered intelligence. I think that before you say that I am wrong or before you are trying to fight with me in science, you must first know intelligence better than me. Or at least, know your opponent.

Since all of you did not discover intelligence, then, I already knew your arguments. Either you will support me, or you will define intelligence as non-intelligence, and used that, for example in Biology, for Evolution.

The funny part in Evolution is that both Artificial Selection and Natural Selection has no dividing line, which is forcing us to swallow intelligence = non-intelligence.

You are still to tell me what you intend to denote when you say "intelligence".

I repeat, if you don't know, just say so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In my viewpoint, it is impossible to prove the existence of the Christian God in a factual and verifiable way because doing so would necessitate someone having infinite knowledge and power in order to be present everywhere at once, which is not possible because humans are not omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. Furthermore, any claims such as "God saved me and changed my life," "I know God is real because I called out to him and he answered," or "I know God is real because I feel his presence in my life" are all anecdotal evidence and should be taken with a grain of salt. I don't believe anecdotal evidence is reliable enough to prove or disprove the Christian God's existence. This is the reason why, when it comes to the existence of this God, I am now an agnostic rather than an atheist. In my opinion, I cannot provide empirical and verifiable evidence that the God of the Bible does not exist, just as when I was a Christian, I could not provide empirical and verifiable evidence that God exists. As a Wiccan, I believe in multiple gods and goddesses, but I cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that these deities exist. It's simply what I believe, and it's anecdotal evidence at best.

Of course. It is impossible to prove any God, but theists then make the mistake of trying to shift the burden of proof to atheists. Some specific Gods can be refuted logically. The problem of evil wipes out quite a few variations all on its own. But most atheists never claim that "There is no God". Just like Bigfoot we won't believe in Bigfoot until sufficient evidence is provided for his existence. The same applies to God. And for some reason that argument makes quite a few theists angry. They see us comparing their God to a made up story by man. But of course that is the whole point. Their God just looks like a made up story. Hmm, in parts of my state it is illegal to kill Bigfoot. Does that make Bigfoot more real than God?

 

[ElishaElijah]

Which God is that? How do you know? How can we test whether the answer you give to those questions is factual or not?

I have intelligence that God gave me and you would need that too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have intelligence that God gave me and you would need that too.

That has as of yet to be demonstrated. You may have intelligence, but you have no evidence that it came from God.

 

[blü 2]

I have intelligence that God gave me and you would need that too.

You appear to have God's moral sense instead of your own, too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You appear to have God's moral sense instead of your own, too.

I don't think that he will understand that that was not a compliment.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Yes. All you have is BS. You only made unevidenced claims. You did not provide any working definitions you did no even tell us what your testable hypothesis is and what test could possibly refute it .

In other words you just admitted that you have nothing. And that no rational person should believe you.

You have nothing to offer in science about the topic of intelligence. You cannot even define intelligence or its variants and use in Biology.

I have the best explanations in science since I can both falsify Evolution, replace Evolution, define intelligence and explain intelligence..
At the very least, you do not even know the topic of intelligence and how you could use that in science.

You have nothing to offer nor to counter-offer...

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

In my viewpoint, it is impossible to prove the existence of the Christian God in a factual and verifiable way because doing so would necessitate someone having infinite knowledge and power in order to be present everywhere at once, which is not possible because humans are not omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. Furthermore, any claims such as "God saved me and changed my life," "I know God is real because I called out to him and he answered," or "I know God is real because I feel his presence in my life" are all anecdotal evidence and should be taken with a grain of salt. I don't believe anecdotal evidence is reliable enough to prove or disprove the Christian God's existence. This is the reason why, when it comes to the existence of this God, I am now an agnostic rather than an atheist. In my opinion, I cannot provide empirical and verifiable evidence that the God of the Bible does not exist, just as when I was a Christian, I could not provide empirical and verifiable evidence that God exists. As a Wiccan, I believe in multiple gods and goddesses, but I cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that these deities exist. It's simply what I believe, and it's anecdotal evidence at best.

The reason why you cannot prove or disprove, or show or not show, with evidences, any topic in science because you are following Evolution.

If you cannot falsify Evolution, then, you cannot falsify the existence of God.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

You are still to tell me what you intend to denote when you say "intelligence".

I repeat, if you don't know, just say so.

I had already given you links in all my OPs...I cannot spoon-fed you.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Of course. It is impossible to prove any God, but theists then make the mistake of trying to shift the burden of proof to atheists. Some specific Gods can be refuted logically. The problem of evil wipes out quite a few variations all on its own. But most atheists never claim that "There is no God". Just like Bigfoot we won't believe in Bigfoot until sufficient evidence is provided for his existence. The same applies to God. And for some reason that argument makes quite a few theists angry. They see us comparing their God to a made up story by man. But of course that is the whole point. Their God just looks like a made up story. Hmm, in parts of my state it is illegal to kill Bigfoot. Does that make Bigfoot more real than God?

You do not even know how to define intelligence, and still you are boasting that you can falsify the existence of God? Oh my goodness..,,that is BS in science and in real life!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You have nothing to offer in science about the topic of intelligence. You cannot even define intelligence or its variants and use in Biology.

I have the best explanations in science since I can both falsify Evolution, replace Evolution, define intelligence and explain intelligence..
At the very least, you do not even know the topic of intelligence and how you could use that in science.

You have nothing to offer nor to counter-offer...

So nothing but claims then. You do realize that naked claims are neither science nor argument? They're just stuff you believe.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You do not even know how to define intelligence, and still you are boasting that you can falsify the existence of God? Oh my goodness..,,that is BS in science and in real life!

I have noticed that you spend more time running other posters views down and very little time, if any, explaining your claims or demonstrating you have done anything.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

As it stands, intelligent design is not science and has practically no hope of becoming science.

The theory of evolution remains unfalsified no matter how many times someone claims it has been. Mere claims are not falsification.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have nothing to offer in science about the topic of intelligence. You cannot even define intelligence or its variants and use in Biology.

I have the best explanations in science since I can both falsify Evolution, replace Evolution, define intelligence and explain intelligence..
At the very least, you do not even know the topic of intelligence and how you could use that in science.

You have nothing to offer nor to counter-offer...

LOL!! It is your claim. How can you not understand this? The burden of proof is upon you not me. You need to come up with a working definition of intelligence. Not me.

You just refuted yourself again,


By the way, you cannot disprove something that you do not understand. I am very sure that you do not understand even the basics of evolution. Or the sciences for that matter.

In fact you already pretty much proved that you do not understand even the basics of science. When you dodge reasonable questions you prove your lack of education.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You do not even know how to define intelligence, and still you are boasting that you can falsify the existence of God? Oh my goodness..,,that is BS in science and in real life!

I never claimed to be able to falsify God. And you keep forgetting. The failure to define "Intelligence" is yours. Not mine. But here is some comforting news for you. You regularly refute your own version of God.