Heathen Dawn

Wrong. You forgot about experience.

pie~*

ah...but is the experience objective? Or, is it a subjective and normative interpretation of an event? if there is such thing as an experience dealing the the presentation of an objective diety, then that perfectly fits in with logic and science, as we are now presented with physical evidence that said diety exists.

However, if the so called 'experience' was just a subjective interpretation of an event, then it only makes room for a subjective interpretation, which it is, and not an objective proof. Also, without logic and science, how would you even make sense of the experience in order to determine which diety to worship and/or believe in? Methinks said experience needs to be elaborated more.

(*edit: couple of spelling errors)

TySixtus

This has always irked me. Why are deities (if they exist) super-natural? Wouldn't their very existance make them natural? Ergo, why can't science be used to detect/find them? Take for example pictures of ghosts and such, to include ecto-plasms and auras. If we have pictures of them (again, if they exist) why are they 'super natural'? They exist in nature. We can see them.

Ty

Heathen Dawn

Because They existed before the natural universe was created.

pie~*

Maybe because saying that dieties cannot be proven just conveniently bypasses the need to, and thus, hopefully, account for their existence?

a new form of circular argument, perhaps?

pie~*

Then how whould you know? Did you exist before the natural universe was created as well?

By the way, the fact that there are so many dufferent, conflicting dieties raises the question: Which one(s) actually exist?

If some did, then others must be false, and if some are false, what prevents the others from being false as well? Since you have asserted that we cannot make sense of dieties.

Perhaps Heathendawn needs to esplain the existence of dieties before the natural universe was created, or provide evidence of a supernatural unverse. It has to be objective though :P

Asha'man

I disagree. Science is perfectly suited to test supernatural claims about reality, especially when those claims would be expected to leave testable evidence. For example, science can't prove that god didn't flood the world using his supernatural powers, but it can conclusively prove that no evidence of such a flood exists.

When enough testable claims made by a religion have been thoroughly disproven, then it is perfectly justifiable to reject the untestable claims as extremely unlikely.

pie~*

On the contary, Science actually can disprove the flood, by presenting conflicting observations against what would otherwise have happened if the flood happened.

There is then, of course, the argument of divine intervention, which then proposes that we feeble humans cannot make sense of what God's intentions are.

Therefore, I shall foreward this argument: If we cannot make sense of it, how do we know that it had actually happened?...Or even better Why do we believe in God if we can't even make sense of what he is, and yet still can be so sure of his 'intentions'? (as seen from many theists -.- "this is the correct way" "God wants to save you" etc...)

Heathen Dawn

That would stump a Christian. For me, that’s easy as pie~* (pun intended): They all exist.

Asha'man: is science up to task of disproving Thor as the maker of thunder and lightning? We all know about the natural processes behind thunder and lightning, but do you think you’re justified in saying there is no personal hand behind them?

pie~*

I like your sense of humour, Heathen Dawn :P

Anyway, if they all exist, then their accompanying definitions exist alongside them, correct? thus, Allah is the ONE TURE God, and so is yahweh?

so, there are two ONE TRUE's? we sure cannot have that. Thus, dieties cannot all exist.

Furthermore, by asserting that all gods exist, perhaps more elaboration would be needed. Thank you