Science and hell

[TagliatelliMonster]

God is even inside your head. For He is Omnipresent. Thus, to prove Him is easy.

First of all, that is not at all a valid response to the sentence you quoted.
Secondly, I can only lol at you confusing making a bare claim with actually supporting - nay, PROVING - said claim.

Please explain why not.

I guess it's time for another round of Matt Dilahunty's gumball machine analogy...


So there's this gumball machine. It has a bunch of gumballs in it. It's impossible to reach inside and count them. The total number of gumballs is unknown. And that number is either even or odd.

Some random guy comes up and claims "it is an even number".
Do you believe this claim? Which means, you accept the claim as true.
If you're rational, you don't. You have no reason to. There's no evidence that the number is even. There's just the guy claiming it to be so.


Some other random guy comes up and claims "it is an odd number!!"
Now, do you believe that claim? Which means, you accept the claim as true.
If you're rational, you don't. You have no reason to. There's no evidence that the number is odd. There's just the guy claiming it to be so.


So there you go. You don't believe it is even. You also don't believe it is odd (or "not even").
To you, it is unknown and you have no sufficient evidence to commit to one or the other.

So there you go....

Not believing X, doesn't in any way imply that you do believe that X is false (or that "not X" is true).



Now, in context of god beliefs, where X represents an entity that either does or doesn't exist in reality, then the default position for practical reasons and purposes, is to assume non-existence.

It's the positive claim that has the burden of proof. And the positive claim is the claim of existence.

If I claim that there's an invisible pile of rocks blocking the road, you'll just look at me funny and drive on without slamming your breaks and not even bothering to change lanes. You will simply drive on as if no such pile of rocks blocks your way.

You do this, because you assume the non-existence of that pile of rocks. And you don't require any special justification for that... The mere absence of any evidence at all for the contrary is enough for you to justify your default position: there's no reason to think something's there, so I won't assume something's there. Which in practical terms means that you'll operate as if nothing's there.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools,”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭1:18-22‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
On the Day of Judgement everyone will get the opportunity to present their case to God and receive their reward. Maybe you can out think and debate God. If so I will admit I was wrong.

More preaching isn't going to change the point made, nore is it a proper reply.

 

[ElishaElijah]

More preaching isn't going to change the point made, nore is it a proper reply.

It is a proper response seen as you are saying“Your god”. So as his ambassador I was giving you what my God says about your comment.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thus, the atheist does not believe, that God exists. Thus, atheist thinks, that there is no God, because "there is no proof of God". However, it is not logical. The atheists would have a logical right to think, that there is no God if there would be made proof of the "non-existence" of God.

Have you ever taken a course in logic? I would recommend it. There is no logic in your statement above.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

OK Dan, I see you're here in this thread. So would you agree with the initial poster's statement that "Science is defined by its methods. The basic one is to assume the absence of God's influence on nature, including the ``absence'' of God in doing the Big Bang."
I was not trained as a scientist, but I think if I had a choice to choose a profession again, I might like to become a lab technician or even researcher. So, I'm not against science.

Read the thread.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is a proper response seen as you are saying“Your god”. So as his ambassador I was giving you what my God says about your comment.

Your response is just a repeat of your claims and not at all an actual response to the point made.

You seem to be trying to burry the point under a pile of bible quotes, hoping it will disappear.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Your response is just a repeat of your claims and not at all an actual response to the point made.

You seem to be trying to burry the point under a pile of bible quotes, hoping it will disappear.

What was your point?

 

[questfortruth]

I guess it's time for another round of Matt Dilahunty's gumball machine analogy.

Is there some college to teach people how to be good atheists? It seems, that somebody seriously teaches you, guys. Your way is not simple.

 

[McBell]

What was your point?

Um...
That chasing your tail does not a good ambassador make?

Does god really need an ambassador that merely sings to the choir?

 

[HonestJoe]

Science assumes not Atheism, but Deism because methodological naturalism assumes zero divine action on nature.

Science doesn't assume any answers in the same way that Walking doesn't assume any destination.

Scientific method could be used to support a hypothesis for the existence of God and their creation of the Universe if sufficient evidence was provided to support that hypothesis. As far as science is concerned, there is nothing special (for better or worse) about God as a hypothesis compared to literally any other hypothesis.

If there will be no science in heaven, then there will be no scientists in heaven?
They will go to hell?
Because have created A-Bomb?

The A-Bomb was created engineers, not scientists.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Um...
That chasing your tail does not a good ambassador make?

Does god really need an ambassador that merely sings to the choir?

Are you in the choir? And asking for clarification when the conversation looks like things aren’t being taken as intended isn’t chasing the tail

 

[McBell]

Are you in the choir? And asking for clarification when the conversation looks like things aren’t being taken as intended isn’t chasing the tail

No, I am not in the choir.
Nor are the majority in this thread.
But merely repeating the same over and over when it does not work the first ten or fifteen times is in fact chasing your tail...

 

[ElishaElijah]

No, I am not in the choir.
Nor are the majority in this thread.
But merely repeating the same over and over when it does not work the first ten or fifteen times is in fact chasing your tail...

Ok that’s it for that then

 

[McBell]

Ok that’s it for that then

Perhaps you should add more diversity to your approach?

 

[ElishaElijah]

Perhaps you should add more diversity to your approach?

Thanks for the advice, what’s your recommendation?

 

[questfortruth]

To be published in Is Our World an Intelligent Simulation?, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2104.0152

Science is defined by its methods. The basic one is to assume the absence of God's
influence on nature, including the ``absence'' of God in doing the Big Bang.
Absence of a miracle while the Miracle of Creation of the Virtual World,

Scientific method could be used to support a hypothesis for the existence of God and their creation of the Universe if sufficient evidence was provided to support that hypothesis. As far as science is concerned, there is nothing special (for better or worse) about God as a hypothesis compared to literally any other hypothesis.

 

[We Never Know]

Again, this makes no sense.
"nature" refers to the "natural state of affairs". So whatever "realm" or "dimension" or whatever-you-wish-to-call it, which brought forth the universe in a natural manner, is part of nature.

"Nature" in this context isn't just grass and trees, you know.



Which isn't a license to just make sh!t up.


Especially if one has to invent additional non-supportable, and even extra-ordinary and unfalsifiable, stuff in order to make it work. Like the supernatural.

There was no nature before the big bang. There was no pre anything. Does that confuse you?

 

[McBell]

There was no nature before the big bang. There was no pre anything. Does that confuse you?

Nature is the natural world; consisting of all things

So it is your claim there was nothing before the Big Bang?
just nothing or absolutely nothing?

 

[We Never Know]

​

So it is your claim there was nothing before the Big Bang?
just nothing or absolutely nothing?

There was no pre anything.

 

[McBell]

There was no pre anything.

so absolutely nothing, right?