questfortruth
Well-Known Member
keep in mind, that a thesis in Scientific Community is not premise and not assumption.
-
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!
Scientific Proof of God
- Thread starter questfortruth
- Start date
-
- Tags
- proof of god
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
If God is killed, then how your Beauty of the Face came? It is result of bang? Very massy Big Bang?!
Last edited:
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
It is not true! I have no circular argument! Prove the accusation of me in scientific stupidity once and for all or stop trolling!
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
Why does Atheism allow itself criticism of God without having a clue about Him? Because Atheism is a pseudo-religion.
Typical dialogue with the atheist:
- What or who is God?
- That which is not. Not existing.
- How stupid. I do not have in my pocket a Kalashnikov automat. Kalashnikov automat - God?
- It turns out that so: Atheism - Absolute Idolatry. For example, if I don't have a BMW in my garage, then BMW is God. Because God is omnipresent, and since he is somewhere "not", then he is "not" everywhere. And what is "not", that is God. All that does "not" fit in my pocket is my desired God! Bank of England - my god! America's Gold Reserve - My God! For the godless physicist, the idols are unproven to all 100% theories: The Big Bang Theory, Theory of the Evolution of Species, String Theory, Quantum Gravity, Computer Simulation of Reality. In general, to consider as God what is not in your pocket - Absolute Solipsism. Which is now planted in the open:
Lauren Tousignant, The universe shouldn’t exist, according to science, New York Post (October 25, 2017).
Food fight in the cafeteria
It is best that you ask atheists what they believe and why without making outrageous accusations to justify your religious agenda.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
Insulting sound bites!?!?! Not meaningful. Michael Jackson is the worst possible reference to anything,
A coherent response would be appreciated. Your acrid hostility toward toward atheists is more than apparent, an lacks objectivity to acknowledge what people believe themselves. Insults do not encourage dialogue, and reflect your own insecurities.
There is no evidence presented in the premise to support the argument. Where is the evidence? Do you understand the meaning of the word 'fact.'
evidence definition - Google Search
ev·i·dence - the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
What Is Circular Reasoning?
In informal logic, circular reasoning is an argument that commits the logical fallacy of assuming what it is attempting to prove. Fallacies closely related to circular reasoning include begging the question and petitio principii.
You are assuming God exists for 'God to know,' therefore a circular argument by definition. This argument is only meaningful for those that accept God exists as a premise.
"The fallacy of the petitio principii," says Madsen Pirie, "lies in its dependence on the unestablished conclusion. Its conclusion is used, albeit often in a disguised form, in the premises which support it" (How to Win Every Argument: The Use and Abuse of Logic, 2015).
- "the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"
synonyms: proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, authentication, attestation, documentation
Simply this is circular to the extreme. It assumes God exists as a premise, for God to know that God exists.
Last edited:
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
There are lies, because people say lies. You are one of people.
Freedoms are defined as actions within God's Law. Underwise it is not freedoms, but crimina outlaw.
Not coherent nor grammatically comprehendable. Accusation of lying needs objective confirmation of the lie. There is a very strong emotional bias in your arguments that conclude what you believe must be true based on your belief,
Last edited:
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
Faith is not enemy of Science nor of Scientific Knowledge, because word "Faith" (in Wikipedia references to peer-review sources) is defined as faithfulness to Knowledge. A faithful human is always true to Absolute Truth. The Popper's Scientific Criterion will be rewritten in Better World to include Absolute True Knowledge by "a theory is scientific, if it is confirmable (synonym: verifiable)."
(I am not sure of what you mean by "criticism of God", but I will assume that you mean atheism itself.)
Because there is no evidence whatsoever of God that is not deeply personal in nature, and it turns out that we do not have that.
In a very real sense, it is our duty - our sacred duty, even - to be atheists.
How do you define a religion? And how do you define a pseudo-religion?
Nothing can stop you from defining either however arbitrarily you like, but it takes some mightly creative impulses to truly perceive atheism as even a pseudo-religion.
There are pseudo-religions of all flavors and shapes, and there are legitimate atheistic religions. But atheism proper is just way too simple to be confused for either.
How typical can that be? I am not even sure of which lines belong to your hypothetical atheist and which do not.
It does not sound like any real dialogue.
Sorry, but this just does not make any sense. I will not try to force feed any into this.
Atheists don't believe in any gods, and therefore don't criticize them just as we don't criticize Santa Claus. He could lose a few pounds according to popular depictions of him (Him?), but I won't criticize him for it, because he doesn't exist.
You are implying that our rights and freedoms come from some unseen god. Freedoms are not dependent on gods, who were never involved in their enumeration or enforcement. If God has always been around, why did it take so many centuries to obtain these rights? Where were they in the Middle Ages? Why weren't they in the Bible? Why do so many people still not have these rights? Why did they have to be enumerated by men, fought for by men, defended by men, enforced by men, interpreted by men, and amended by men? What part did a god play in any of that?
None. But Christians want to take credit for this achievement as well.
Just as Christianity has no claim to the rise of science as is often claimed, it gets no credit for the modern, liberal, secular, democratic state or its enumerated and guaranteed personal rights and freedoms.. Those are Enlightenment values that had to wait for the end of theocracy to manifest.
Check your Bible if you disagree. What you'll find there are commandments to submit - man to God, man to divinely appointed tyrant, wife to husbands, and slave to master. Want to avoid hell? Submit.
No, faith is nothing more than unjustified belief, which is the enemy of reason. Faith is neither a virtue nor a path to truth. It's the willingness to believe that something is correct that you merely hope is correct.
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
That is a very ignostic way of looking at it.
Believe as you wish, but please, do not conflate Popper's scientific criteria to include Absolute True Knowledge.
I believe in God, the Absolute True Knowledge is with God alone, and not with fallible humans. If God does not exist Absolute True Knowledge is the ultimate Laws of Nature, and not with fallible humans.
What is confirmable or verifiable based on the scientific methods of Methodological Naturalism Popper proposed.
Last edited:
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
Not confirmable, but falsifiable. Look wording of Popper's Criterion.
OK, falsification and confirmation are two different approaches to scientific hypothesis. Popper prefers falsification, but they most definitely absolutely have nothing to Absolute True Knowledge.
Last edited:
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Randomness is very unpredictable, that is why it is random.
There are a whole variety of mathematical formulaś regarding the likeliness for the existence of the universe, the likliness of a planet to support life in the universe, and the likliness that abiogenesis would take place on that planet.
Many are formulated by atheists.
Look them up, very interesting.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Your belief shouldn´t. Cosmology is a real interest of mine. I don´t discount it, but neither do I put a lot of stock in just plain ideaś with no evidence. interesting, but mean little
Something creating itself depends upon your definition of what creating is.
The steady staters said the BB was something creating itself. They went crazy over the first cause, believing the universe had just simply existed eternally.