Godot

Kinda reminds you of the bit at the Restaurant at the End of the Universe when the prophet pops back with seconds to spare...

Tabula_rasa

Sorry, Godot. I'm not familiar with the reference. I'll take a shot - Douglas Adams?

Anyway, back to the matter at hand. By my reckoning, god has less than two hours to cough up some scientifically exciting documentation. tick tick tick

Tabula_rasa

Tabula_rasa

Hmmmm. I did quick Googles on abiogenesis and unified theory. I didn't see any press releases. Did I miss them?

Tabula_rasa

Violent Messiah

Kimpatsu:

Burn the strawman, maybe you're right - I'm not totally knowledgeable of the intricacies of naturalism, save for the fact that it is a belief in all things that can be explained by natural laws and the rejection of the supernatural. Am i right?

The tenet of naturalism I can't accept is that we die then nothing. All is for naught, ultimately.

On the contrary, I find science extremely exciting.

But believing in a deity isn't a lie. As you have said in your next statement, science may prove God in the future - so God can't be a lie.

Really? I'm not aware of this. Which laboratory was able to start life from inanimate matter?

Wow. This sounds good in theory - and it still is a theory. It offers no explanation to the origin of the quantum singularity.

What about Near-death experiences? Accounts of seeing ghosts?

Via extreme Occam's razor, I can say that we are nothing. We do not exist. Sort of a nihilistic approach.

I stated it already. Can someone recreate Life?

Violent Messiah

Godot....

U'r absolutely right.

TomboyMom

The type of evidence that I, as a rational thinker, would look for to prove the existence of god, is anything which, if it did not take place, would prove that god does not exist. This is the basic scientific concept of falsifiability. In order to prove something, scientifically, it must also be possible to disprove it. If you do not allow that any evidence could disprove the existence of god, then god's existence also cannot be proven.

For anything that you're trying to prove, you formulate a hypothesis of the form, "If x happens, then I conclude A. But if, on the other hand, x does not happen, then I conclude not A." So, in the case of God, if you will formulate a sentence such as, "If all the propheicies in the bible can be shown to have come true, then God exists, but if, on the other hand, some of the prophecies did not come true, then God does not exist." Or whatever you feel would work. Other examples could be that the remnant's of Noah's ark be found, that the shroud of Turin be authenticated, that Joseph Smith's tablets be found, that the Satanic verses be discovered, or whatever works for you. I will accept any reasonable standard you offer for the existence of God, if the absence of such evidence can be then be used to falsify the hypothesis of God.

Here's an easy one: If god exists, then tornadoes would pass over churches. If god does not exist, then tornadoes would strike churches like any other building. A tornado struck a church. Therefore god does not exist.

One piece of evidence that I find persuasive is the inefficacy of intercessory prayer. There have been some controlled, double-blind studies that in which chrisitans and others prayed for the recovery of other ill individuals, who did not recover at any greeater rate than other ill individuals who were not prayed for. I find this fairly strong evidence that god does not exist, or does not answer prayers.

Rene, still skeptical

Buddrow_Wilson

Can't you see that this argument is purely emotional? You're desire to have your existence be infinitely meaningful causes this conclusion. It has no base in logic. You reject atheist views because of the unpleasant conclusion that physical death is the end.

Theli

INTEL!!!!!!

It depends on how we wich to define "lifeform". A computer could very well simulate the behavour of simple known lifeforms, given the right program. If you clone an animal you do "start life", but if it's from inanimate matter is a matter of perspective.

How animate is an egg?

Shadowy Man

So? What's your point? Lots of things can't be fully explained or recreated by natural laws. That could just mean that our understanding of natural laws is incomplete.

xsquid

After two pages, it's obvious that pudgyfarmer just wandered in here, piddled on our forum and left; he hasn't posted a thing except to start this thread.
Unless he is heard from again, I suggest we treat him with the contempt he has apparently shown us.
More combative souls (you know who you are), just keep on going; I'll be back as soon as the popcorn is done.