Scientific Hypothesis of God was banned

[Brickjectivity]

Why? Before the developing scientific proof of God, one must ask the question: "Is there God?"
And this question must sound in a peer-review scientific journal.

Hypothesis should arise from observation, but God is invisible. Also in my opinion it is idolatry to try to prove God exists. Why idolatry? Because you are making a name for yourself as the intermediary between others and God.

The way forward must be to live as you believe God wants you to, and let that be the proof unscientific.

 

[blü 2]

Yes, the Christianity is the main religion, but due to separation of Church and state, the believers are outlaws. Sadly, the Christianity is not yet legalized.

Goodness, theocracies are a truly ghastly idea and you sound as though you want to live in a Christian one!

What kind of Christian theocracy do you have in mind? RCC? Southern Baptist? Mormon? Rastafarian? Other?

Yourself as Highest Authority, I take it? If not you, who?

 

[QuestioningMind]

The Intelligent Design, look the video in Scientific Christianity strikes again
was aimed not to prove God, but to introduce Hypothesis of God's existence into Scientific Community.

Why? Before the developing scientific proof of God, one must ask the question: "Is there God?"
And this question must sound in a peer-review scientific journal.

But, sadly, the Christianity is not yet legalized. Unlike bisexual activity.

An untestable hypothesis is absolutely useless. Find a way to test your god hypothesis and the scientific community will be more than happy to investigate.

 

[leroy]

Secondly, how should we test for God? ID trying to cast doubt on evolution doesn't do anything in regards to demonstrating God. Even if they somehow managed to prove evolution wrong, they still have to demonstrate that one exist, that is completely independent of whether or not evolution is true or false.

Until these things are done, there is simply no scientific foundation for "studying" the idea of a God.


s?

To me it sounds like “I wont accept arguments for the existance of God, untill you prove that there is a God” (can´t you note the circularity of that reasoning?)

 

[leroy]

An untestable hypothesis is absolutely useless. Find a way to test your god hypothesis and the scientific community will be more than happy to investigate.

That is easy, most of the arguments for the existence of God are based on premises that are testable

For example in the Kalam Cosmological Argument

P1 whatever begins to exist has a cause

P2 the universe begun to exist

Therefore the universe has a cause.

Both of the premises are testable and falsifiable.

Not to mention that Evolution* (common ancestry) is not testable nor falsifiable and still scientists consider it a serous and usefull hypothesis

 

[Clara Tea]

The Intelligent Design, look the video in Scientific Christianity strikes again
was aimed not to prove God, but to introduce Hypothesis of God's existence into Scientific Community.

Why? Before the developing scientific proof of God, one must ask the question: "Is there God?"
And this question must sound in a peer-review scientific journal.

But, sadly, the Christianity is not yet legalized. Unlike bisexual activity.

It's going to be tough for all of us to convert to bisexualism. But, Reverend Jerry Falwell used to say that it is just a matter of choice. Falwell claimed that the transition was easy (thinking that everyone would choose to be straight, rather than Gay). But, if it was easy for Gays to choose to be straight, I would imagine that it would be easy for straights to choose to be Gay.

It is a fact that some priests raped small boys. Centuries ago, the Catholic church required that priests can't marry. Since God said "go forth and multiply" this requirement not to marry is against the orders and intentions of God. Could it be that sexual frustration causes some priests to rape young boys? Shouldn't the Catholic church punish child-raping priests, rather than transfer them to other parishes where they rape more little boys? Shouldn't the Catholic church worship God more than mammon? Why, then, should the Catholic church declare bankruptcy to prevent their innocent young victims from getting compensated for the crimes against them?

Given the statistical probability that priests are more apt to rape little boys, should we worry about all priests? Perhaps the fact that the Catholic church has allowed boy-raping priests adds to the worry that some have that all priests might be child-rapists?

Those who enter the Catholic priesthood do so with the understanding that they cannot marry or carry on with sexual affairs. If so, they know that their life of celibacy might lend them to homosexual acts with unwilling little boys. So, it seems that those who choose the profession of the priesthood might be prone to raping little boys before they even begin as priests.

It seems like the pot calling the kettle black for a priest to go after Gays.

Currently, the Religious Right is ruling much of the US. They voted in vast numbers and campaigned. The result was the election of Reagan, Bush, W. Bush and Trump. That resulted in the lifetime appointment of Supreme Court justices. Their decisions are about prayer in schools, abortion, freedom of religion, and the various freedoms that allow freedom of religion (right to assemble, speak, and write in the press).

As a result of the Religious Right's power, Gay marriage is thought to somehow (I don't know how) damage marriage vows of non-Gays. Gays can't inherit through community property laws. They would lose custody of children if one Gay partner dies. They would not be eligible for the Social Security of their partner. Etc.

All of these issues are a result of a few words in the bible suggesting that God doesn't want Gays.

Instead of cherry-picking Gay issues out of the bible, should we be concerned with other aspects of the bible? "Cherry-picking" means concentrating on one issue while ignoring the other issues.

"Thou shalt not kill" (war in Iraq)
"Do unto others" (torture, war)
Etc.

Don't you think that the murder of 1,000,000 Iraqi lives, who were not involved in terrorism, is more important than going after Gays with a vengeance?

God said that vengeance was his. So, it was not up to us to judge or exact vengeance regarding Gays.

You could always propose that the study of God should be scientific. However, there doesn't appear to be much to support that speculation.

You don't see Gays trying to take away rights from Christians or heterosexuals.

 

[Clara Tea]

That is easy, most of the arguments for the existence of God are based on premises that are testable

For example in the Kalam Cosmological Argument

P1 whatever begins to exist has a cause

P2 the universe begun to exist

Therefore the universe has a cause.

Both of the premises are testable and falsifiable.

Not to mention that Evolution* (common ancestry) is not testable nor falsifiable and still scientists consider it a serous and usefull hypothesis

Evolution is tested with DNA. DNA is valid in court.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

With my very limited understanding, the only position that makes sense to me is "infinity". IOW, something(s) always had to exist but likely to be everchanging. Can I prove this? No.

Have you ever thought about the following in relation to that view...

"On May 20, 1964, American radio astronomers Robert Wilson and Arno Penzias discovered the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), the ancient light that began saturating the universe 380,000 years after its creation."Cosmic Anniversary: 'Big Bang Echo' Discovered 50 Years Ago Today

Two Cosmic Microwave Background anomalies hinted at by the Planck observatory's predecessor, NASA's WMAP, are confirmed in new high-precision data revealed on March 21, 2013. In this image, the two anomalous regions have been enhanced with red and blue shading to make them more clearly visible. (Image credit: ESA and the Planck Collaboration)

"The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model explaining the existence of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution.[1][2][3] The model describes how the universe expanded from an initial state of high density and temperature,[4] and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, and large-scale structure." Big Bang - Wikipedia​

1. Would not the above categorically dispute the idea of infinte universe?
2. Surely if something is expanding, it has to have a center...a point of origin.
3. Does this not mean that it must therefore have a beginning?

Now i know that one could make the claim that questions 1 and 3 contradict each other, however, i think that is exactly the point. Without God, it would seem to me that we are left with an inexplicable contradiction!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The Intelligent Design, look the video in Scientific Christianity strikes again
was aimed not to prove God, but to introduce Hypothesis of God's existence into Scientific Community.

That's not how science is done. Falsifiable hypotheses enter science when an unexplained or unexpected phenomenon is observed. They are used to design experiments that can decide if they are correct or not. Presently, we are aware of no observation that can only be explained or even be better explained by an intelligent, supernatural designer. And no observation, or scientific law or theory, benefits from inserting a deity into it. There is no additional explanatory or predictive power achieved doing that, making it a violation of Occam's Razor and parsimony.

And unfalsifiable hypotheses have no value at all to science.

Why? Before the developing scientific proof of God, one must ask the question: "Is there God?"

Nope. If there is a god to be discovered, it will be discovered unexpectedly, like the evidence for dark matter. There was no need to ask the question, "Is there dark matter" before astronomers began to realize that there was not enough visible matter in a galaxy to account for some unexpected observations of galaxies' dynamics.

Never even a bit serious or respectful of faith.

Science has no respect for faith, nor should it. Science is antithetical to reason and empiricism.

I think the real issue is not whether science can prove God but rather it cannot explain the reason for our existence.

Nothing can at this time. Religions guess, but those are not useful answers. I could give you a guess like religions do as well, but it would also have no value. I'd have to give you a list of logical possibilities to generate anything of use there, and I wouldn't be able to winnow it down any. My guess is that we are here because there is an eternally existing multiverse with no beginning or end, from which our universe was derived. I could argue why it should be at the top of any list of candidate hypotheses, but it still wouldn't answer the question of why we exist.

To me it sounds like “I wont accept arguments for the existence of God, until you prove that there is a God” (can´t you note the circularity of that reasoning?)

It's your reasoning, not the skeptic's. My position is that I will not believe anything without sufficient evidentiary support. Regarding deities, this would mean producing evidence that makes a supernatural intelligent designer necessary, something that could not occur naturalistically. No such thing is known to exist. Irreducible complexity strongly implies an intelligent designer, albeit not necessarily a supernatural one. And falsifying evolution would have the same effect.

 

[leroy]

Evolution is tested with DNA. DNA is valid in court.

That is the kind of nonsense that one random atheist made on some random forum, and people started to repeat it without even thinking about the nonsense of that argument.

DNA is only valid to show if someone is your father and with a lower degree of certainty of someone is your grandfather.

Beyond 2 generations DNA tests are not valid to determine relations.

Just o to be clear, I agree on that evolution (common ancestry) is probably true, just that it can’t be tested nor falsified. (the lack of testability is not a big of a deal)

 

[leroy]

[QUOTE="It Aint Necessarily So, post: 7525021, @It Aint Necessarily So aint

It's your reasoning, not the skeptic's. My position is that I will not believe anything without sufficient evidentiary support. Regarding deities, this would mean producing evidence that makes a supernatural intelligent designer necessary, something that could not occur naturalistically. No such thing is known to exist. Irreducible complexity strongly implies an intelligent designer, albeit not necessarily a supernatural one. And falsifying evolution would have the same effect.

[/QUOTE]

something that could not occur naturalistically.

That is an impossible task, you are asking theist to prove a negative,

Irreducible complexity strongly implies an intelligent designer, albeit not necessarily a supernatural one

Sure, but if ID is true “theism” becomes more likely to be true………….as an analogy transitional fossils don’t necessarily prove evolution by natural selection (Lamarckism could also be true).

In both cases we have evidence that makes Theism / evolution more likely to be true (but not necessarily true as you rightly claimed)

 

[Sand Dancer]

Sure about that? Atheists doesn't seem to do very well when it comes to trust, at least not in the US. Also looking at how some religious minorities are treated around the world (including atheists), it seems to be a good idea to keep it separated.

That's from 2014. I would hope it's changed for the better since then.

 

[Sheldon]

The way forward must be to live as you believe God wants you to, and let that be the proof unscientific.

That can be great, and it can be a very dangerous idea, since deities seem to endorse some fairly barbaric, and pernicious behaviour.

How about we all accept that the best way for us all to live together, is by granting all human beings equal rights as a bare minimum, and accepting that any deity anyone believes exists, can punish whomever gets this wrong after we all die?

I'm ok with this. It seems like a fair compromise.

 

[Sheldon]

To me it sounds like “I wont accept arguments for the existance of God, untill you prove that there is a God” (can´t you note the circularity of that reasoning?)

I agree, that is what it sounds like to you.

It's almost as if each of us can decide for ourselves. Now if a deity wants to punish me when I die, for using the only limited intellect I have, then I'm ok with that. Though I must say, I'm pretty dubious that this involves any real risk.

 

[Sheldon]

That is easy, most of the arguments for the existence of God are based on premises that are testable

For example in the Kalam Cosmological Argument

P1 whatever begins to exist has a cause

P2 the universe begun to exist

Therefore the universe has a cause.

1. How many things outside of time and space did you test, before you determined that anything outside of the temporal universe needed a cause?
2. How did you test anything outside of time and space?
3. Since time itself is dependant on the physical universe, how could it have a "beginning"?

Not to mention that Evolution* (common ancestry) is not testable nor falsifiable and still scientists consider it a serous and usefull hypothesis

Evolution is a scientific fact that explains the origin of species, and makes no claims about the origins of life or the organs of the universe.

Evolution is both testable an falsifiable, it has been tested in over 162 years of global scientific scrutiny, from multiple scientific fields, and it has not been falsified. However the claim "goddidit using inexplicable magic" is certainly not falsifiable. Also it is an accepted scientific theory, and an accepted scientific fact. Even were it not, creationism would remain an entirely unevidenced and unfalsifiable archaic myth. It is not a choice between the two.

 

[Sheldon]

DNA is only valid to show if someone is your father and with a lower degree of certainty of someone is your grandfather.

Nonsense, that is a risible and facile claim.

Beyond 2 generations DNA tests are not valid to determine relations.

Just o to be clear, I agree on that evolution (common ancestry) is probably true, just that it can’t be tested nor falsified. (the lack of testability is not a big of a deal)

I'm sure the scientific world is resting a little easier, after that unsolicited endorsement.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

It is really unfortunate when blind statements are made in rejection of Christianity by those who simply do not have a deep understanding of it (although even some former Christians claim otherwise, from their writings it's abundantly clear they never did have a deep understanding).

One could argue the same can be said of Christians who do not deeply understand Science, however, I think the human tendency to dream debunks that claim. Its obvious to me that we make an observation, experience an "I wonder moment", then seek to find a mechanism to solve (science, math, etc), and in doing so find our answer. I have to wonder how many answers have been found via the agnostic approach? It seems to me that this would be contrary to the world view of agnosticism....leads me personally to the view that fundamentally, although oblivious to it, agnostics do not really seek knowledge at all. I think there is a flaw in the agnostic claim, the mere fact that we look over at "the Jones's next door" in an effort to check out our position in the street (status) throws mud in that face of such a view.

I think that one must deeply understand the bible and its principles before engaging in scientific study. In terms of the validity of the bible, I have to honestly say that if one truly understands how intimately and intricately linked the various writings of the bible are, how consistently and logically they fit within its theme...a book that has clearly remained unchanged for more than 1800 years (dead sea scrolls prove this as fact), then if its a "con", its one of the best ever as it was concocted by a large number of unrelated individuals over thousands of years....individuals who had no access to modern travel, research knowledge, computing processing power, or the internet!

just over a year ago, a group of parents at a school my kids attended grumbled about scripture in school. They wanted it thrown out stating "we don't want our kids corrupted by religion". What I find really interesting about parents doing this is the ignoring of the question...isn't the goal of education such that we provide this knowledge to our kids so they can also make choices for themselves?

If an atheist demands that religion must be stamped out, how are our children to make balanced decisions exactly? I would have thought that a parent who is honest with themselves would have no problem with their children learning about religion...they should have nothing to fear. However, it seems that atheists do not fear that their children will learn about religion, they fear that through knowledge of religion their children will become religious!

If religion is false, what is there to fear among a group of well-educated individuals?

On the other side of the coin was the dark ages. The church realized that if people became educated they would quickly disassemble the institution. One has to ask why? Well, that answer is now obvious, it was realized that the institution was telling huge porkies in order to maintain power and wealth and relevance!

So if the dark ages analogy has any credibility, and to me historically i think it does...then atheism has nothing to fear by obtaining a deep knowledge of Christianity. Also, Christianity has nothing to fear in obtaining a deep knowledge of Science.

 

[blü 2]

if ID is true “theism” becomes more likely to be true

"Intelligent Design" was tested in court in the Dover case 2005. (To their lasting disgrace, Dembski, Campbell and Myer ran for the hills when they found out that if they filed a deposition, they could be cross-examined on it.) Michael Behe had the courage of his convictions, gave evidence and was indeed cross-examined. His "evidence", three cases of "irreducible complexity" ( (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system) were all found to be explained by exaptation, leaving zero examples of "irreducible complexity" on the table. (Exaptation occurs when a body part or procedure evolved for purpose A then further evolves for purpose B. Certain fine bones in the human ear evolved from what were previously parts of the jaw, for example.)

So we have no reason to think that ID is true.

Even if it could be shown to be true, it wouldn't be evidence of God, of course, since a real God is not a coherent concept ─ never appears, says or does, and has no definition appropriate to an entity with objective existence. It might be evidence of extraterrestrial visitors, or the fact that things which we judge to be enormously improbable do indeed happen, or a research error. We may find out more if we ever find a real case of ID.

 

[QuestioningMind]

That is easy, most of the arguments for the existence of God are based on premises that are testable

For example in the Kalam Cosmological Argument

P1 whatever begins to exist has a cause

P2 the universe begun to exist

Therefore the universe has a cause.

Both of the premises are testable and falsifiable.

Not to mention that Evolution* (common ancestry) is not testable nor falsifiable and still scientists consider it a serous and usefull hypothesis

Really? What method have you devised to test either claim? And even if you could determine that whatever begins to exist has a cause and that the universe began to exist, you're still a long way from providing any evidence that it was some god being involved.

 

[Sheldon]

It is really unfortunate when blind statements are made in rejection of Christianity by those who simply do not have a deep understanding of it

Atheism is not a rejection of anything, it is simply the lack of belief that any deity or deities exist. I attach no more importance to my lack of belief in the one deity you accept as extant, than you do in the thousands of deities humans have imagined. but that you disbelieve are real.