Alix Nenuphar

Yguy:

Do you have a functional definition of God? Or a set of characteristics you associate with God?

yguy

How do you know they have this superior grasp on reality?

So what? People on LSD have reported hearing colors and seeing sounds? Does that mean EM radiation can induce vibration of the tympanic membrane?

That isn't the question. What is at issue is the verifiability of the evidence.

Actually, I think that's your problem.

You're a riot, dude.

Science is that which is known. If God can't exist outside science, it means He can't exist without man knowing about it. Therefore, since EM radiation was only discovered a century or two, it follows that it did not exist before then, being beyond the ken of science.

Now I get it! Ben Franklin really DID invent electricity!

yguy

He's the source of all good things.

Big help, huh?

Hawkingfan

If you had a grasp on reality, you'd know.
Strawman. I don't think the druggies are saying that what they are seeing is not an illusion. Are you suggesting that what a druggie says he sees on a trip really exists outside of his hallucinations? If you "hear" a color, you are hearing a sound. If you are seeing a sound, you are seeing something. But what you are seeing is easily explained by what the drug is doing to your brain. It is nothing of the supernatural sort. It is easily explained by science.
Scientific evidence is verified by observation, mathematics, experiments, and the senses. These are accepted ways of verifying evidence.

Hawkingfan

I know you are, but what am I?

Mageth

He's the source of all good things.

Where do bad things come from?

Alix Nenuphar

As you imply: a totally useless definition. Is this really all you have to go on? A small child could make the same statement about a parent. One of my ex-boyfriends used to feel the same way about vending machines.

I fail to see how this discussion can have any meaning unless we have some clear terminology. Let's try leading questions...

Do you consider God to be:
omniscient?
omnipotent?
omnibenevolent?
omnipresent?
etc.

Do you feel that attempting to define our understanding of God in this fashion is meaningful?

At the moment, you don't appear to be making any sort of point, argument, or comment - you seem to be here for the purpose of annoying Hawkingfan.

Although if you are trying to make the point that all empirical evidence is questionable, then surely your belief in the existence of God is equally questionable?

PandaJoe

Why are we still arguing with this guy? He's not saying anything of substance, just trying to be contrdictory to anything anyone else says.

Hawkingfan

I guess you haven't heard of the uncertainty principle, or know what a definition of a theory is. But anyway, here is what science is:
From the Latin "scientia'' meaning "knowledge.'' Science is a search for knowledge of the universe.

Scientists observe, draw conclusions from their observations, design experiments to examine those conclusions, and end up stating a theory which should express a new fact or idea. But if new or better evidence comes along, they must either discard that theory or amend it to accommodate the new evidence.

In effect, science is a process of arriving, but it never quite arrives. A theory can perhaps be disproved, but it can never really be "proved.'' Only the probability of a theory being correct, can ever be properly stated. Fortunately, most of science consists of theories that are correct to a very high degree of probability; scientists can only establish a fact to the point that it would be obstinate and foolish to deny it. Since new data is constantly being presented, a theory or observation may have to be refined, repudiated, modified or added to, in order to agree with the new data.

True science recognizes its own defects. That willingness to admit limitations, errors and the tentative quality of any conclusion arrived at, is one of the strengths of science. It is a procedure not available to those who profess to do science but do not: the abundant and prolific pseudoscientists and crackpots.

That's exactly right. He cannot have anything to do with our reality unless he is inside science. If he exists, he has nothing to do with our universe and our universe suffers no consequences of his existence.
This is comparing apples to oranges. By God's very own definition (not having any of the qualities of science by definition), and using Occam's razor, it is unreasonable to believe in his existence. EM radiation is inside of science by its definition (even during the time it was not discovered). Any scientist from a long time ago would probably not have ruled out its existence. It just would not have been on the top of their believability list as far as Occam's razor is concerned. Either way, god is at the bottom of the reasonability list.

yguy

With that in mind, you demand proof of God's existence on what basis?

The probability of a theory being correct?? What a preposterous idea, likely dreamed up by egotistical members of the scientific priestcraft to justify their grant money. Yet more evidence of the subjectivist insanity pervading the empiricist paradigm.

May I infer from this that you are not a scientist?

And how exactly is this different from saying, "If we don't know God's doing it, He isn't doing it"?

Well, now, pilgrim, that all depends on who the scientist was, don't it? Wasn't there a scientist or two who thought Copernicus was crazy?