We can't prove if God exists or not, but what we can prove...

[Rainbow]

"Given that the vast amounts of rationally explained scientific knowledge we now possess were all once unexplainable phenomena which we attributed to the workings of gods, the best bet is that those things we still don't know also have rational, scientific explanations that do not include gods. We just don't know what they are yet." -- Daniel's Wager

Syllogism.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: sdbest 1. It's impossible to "prove" within the rigors of formal logic the existence or non-existence of God or gods. However, what can be proved, I submit, is whether or not God (or gods) intervene in human affairs, as those who pray must believe. 2. The intervention of God would be detectable if events and phenomena deviated from chance. A deviation from chance is what would be expected if a self-aware, supernatural being was intervening in human affairs, particularly in response to prayer. 3. Do we have evidence of events deviating from chance such that the intervention of supernatural intelligence might be the explanation? For the evidence to be significant, of course, it would have to be unambiguous. 4. For example, a new leg growing on an amputee as consequence of prayer would be startling. The gravitational constant changing in order to prevent a plane crash would call for some explanation. For a God who created a Universe such interventions would be trivial.

#1, #2, #3
Wrong assumptions.

#4
An atom possesses Neither the ability of self-creation Nor changing its attributes.

What do you take a supernatural entity for ?

[loser]

I choose not to believe and I am concerned that those who do, want to change our Constitution to fit something that cannot be proved.

Very few who do (believe in God) want to change our Constitution. In fact, they are fighting hard to resist change to the Constitution.

Bring back the Separation of Church and State and we may get back to business.

What does that mean? In just about every other religion in the world, no separation exists; instead, religion dictates their every move. Only in Christian nations is there a separation of church and state.

My next door neighbor years ago lost his 17 year old son to Liver Cancer.

I often wonder how many people actually die from a disease (like cancer) or from the ineffectual or improper treatment by the medical profession.

This whole load of crap about the damned going to hell and burn for their sins is only a problem for a painter or writer trying to display or describe the wrath of hell.

Actually, it is a problem for those who believe that painter or writer's depiction of hell. The biblical hell is nothing like the one portrayed (or envisioned) by the common man. The one you envision IS a load of crap!

I see, so faith is your placebo.

Indeed! The (documented) healing effects of placebos have been attributed to the power of suggestion. Scripture words this "as you believe so shall it be". Jesus often said, "Your faith has made you well". The power of positive thinking (and, inversely, the destructive power of negative thinking) has been well established for millennia.

Based on the fact of an accellerating expansion of the Universe...

It's not a fact, it's an ASSUMPTION.

That's really interesting, Loser.. but a new leg growing on an amputee would be VERY startling, whether due to prayer or medical practice. Which explains why we haven't seen it.... yet.

Well, you know how this goes but I did see a program on television where a man refused to have his leg amputated after a serious injury (I believe it was in a fire). All of the tendons and muscles were destroyed and gangrene had set in into a putrid mess. Although it took some time, his body eventually restored his leg intact and he was able to walk again. I remember how it was impressed upon me the amazing regenerative ability of the human body. I have seen this same ability (to a lesser degree) work on my very own body...a severe burn healed completely with no medicinal help (allowed to heal on its own) and absolutely no scar whatsoever.

Still, an amputee would have a better chance of regrowing his leg if he didn't let the butchers cut it off in the first place.

If god does get involved and answers prayers, that involvement would appear to be somewhat arbitrary. If he answers some prayers why does he ignore others and by refusing to help those who ask for his help, is he blameless?

According to scripture, it's not really arbitrary. It depends on conditional factors; i.e., motive, faith, spiritual condition, etc.

Sonart posted:

Long-Awaited Medical Study Questions the Power of Prayer - Mar. 31, 2006

Simonius replied:

Oh well scratch that then!

Don't be so easily convinced. There is little reason to accept this 'study' as being objective or valid. There is no doubt that another study would come to the exact opposite conclusion. Better to do your own study.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: sdbest It's impossible to "prove" within the rigors of formal logic the existence or non-existence of God or gods.

Of course we can. Stop trying to give the god hypothesis a free pass. Neither it nor any other hypothesis gets one.

When someone says "God exists" what they're actually saying is "All this stuff that's proven by science is wrong. Conservation of energy? Wrong. Everything we know about intelligence? Wrong. Everything we know about physics? Wrong. Since I have no evidence for any of these wild claims, I should be excused from the responsibility of showing evidence."

GTFO with that. I'm sick of it and you should be, too.

[dontconfuseme]

It's impossible to "prove" within the rigors of formal logic the existence or non-existence of God or gods.

This, I agree, is completely unacceptable. For me, however, this is for a completely different reason. I believe it is possible to prove (no quotation marks) the existence of God using logic from the standpoint of the impossibility to the contrary (transcendental argument). I will argue that only theism offers the preconditions of intelligibility for reality.

This is not to say atheists are not intelligent or committed to intelligence and rationality. Quite the contrary. It is only to say that though atheists can count, they cannot "account for their counting." There is nothing in the atheist worldview that can account for using certain philosophical tools (laws of logic, absolute abstracts, etc.). I propose that in so doing, they are borrowing from the theist worldview, which is able to account for the absolutes everyone uses.

Two asides before the onslaught begins. I'll be defending Christian theism because 1) I find other theistic religions to be philosophically indefensible and 2) since I am, by the grace of God, a Christian, I cannot ethically argue for a position with which I disagree.

I apologize for everyone with loads of scientific evidence. I wasn't blessed with that tendency (and, yes, I have empirically observed that). I also apologize to any Christians reading this who can argue better than I. Poorly argued truth is a sad thing to see.

Send out the lions.

[Redemption]

If what your saying is that God can only be proveble through supernatural events then I will stand as witness to miracle healings. I'v seen healing at the Florida revival with Todd Bently, and at my church!

[Jack]

I propose that in so doing, they are borrowing from the theist worldview, which is able to account for the absolutes everyone uses.

Theists don't use logic to support their contentions. They fall back on a dependence on faith to explain the unexplainable portions of their philosophy. As has been said by theists here before, "you have to believe to believe".

There is nothing in the atheist worldview that can account for using certain philosophical tools

As far as I know, the atheist's view is that theism cannot support their contentions that gods exist. How does that imply that atheism cannot use philosophical "tools" to debunk theology.

Poorly argued truth is a sad thing to see.

Since I don't consider it "truth" I won't hold that against anyone.

If what your saying is that God can only be proveble through supernatural events

Not I. I would contend that what some, in a desire to believe, perceive as "miraculous" can always be explained as the result of a natural process. The idea that gods exist has not been proven in over 10,000 years. I fail to see why I should expect it would happen in the 21st century. The more we come to understand the workings of nature, the less the need to suppose the gods. The voids in our knowledge they once filled are disappearing. We are learning just how capable nature is. The gods are no longer necessary.

[Redemption]

Quote by: Jack Not I. I would contend that what some, in a desire to believe, perceive as "miraculous" can always be explained as the result of a natural process.

People have been healed from blindness and deafness to tumours, cancers and in some cases ressurection of the dead. Suddenly after these times of sufferings people are being healed suddenly! This is supernatural! But of course "there is a natural way for explaining this."

Quote by: Jack The idea that gods exist has not been proven in over 10,000 years. I fail to see why I should expect it would happen in the 21st century. The more we come to understand the workings of nature, the less the need to suppose the gods. The voids in our knowledge they once filled are disappearing. We are learning just how capable nature is. The gods are no longer necessary.

I'm thinking your an evolutionist (correct me there if I'm wrong). Evolution has not been proved. It is not even a theory, it's an in depth hypothises that seems to makes sense. God and creationism is no worse than evolution.

[Hurt]

Quote by: Redemption People have been healed from blindness and deafness to tumours, cancers and in some cases ressurection of the dead. Suddenly after these times of sufferings people are being healed suddenly! This is supernatural! But of course "there is a natural way for explaining this." I'm thinking your an evolutionist (correct me there if I'm wrong). Evolution has not been proved. It is not even a theory, it's an in depth hypothises that seems to makes sense. God and creationism is no worse than evolution.

Please reproduce part 1 in a scientific and unbiased source.

Indeed, evolution has not been proved, and yes, I do see where you are getting that it is "a series of hypotheses that seems to make sense", however, even so, this simultaenously does not prove creationism and God. And while we are indeed on this subject, it is more than a series of hypotheses that seem to make sense if you read about it.

[Jack]

I'm thinking your an evolutionist (correct me there if I'm wrong). Evolution has not been proved. It is not even a theory, it's an in depth hypothises that seems to makes sense.

Since I'm not sure how you define an "evolutionist", let me say that I appreciate the way that the theory of evolution explains the evidence of changes within populations over time. I do not worship the theory nor do I consider it absolute and complete.

[dontconfuseme]

Theists don't use logic to support their contentions. They fall back on a dependence on faith to explain the unexplainable portions of their philosophy.

The fact that you automatically separate faith and logic is very telling about the arguments you've heard from Christians (or theists in general). Sorry about that. Our tendencies toward poor reasoning disgust even me sometimes. This theist, however, will at least attempt to use logic, even though we obviously aren't used to it, as you contend.

If you say that only logic can prove any statement, I'd say you would be on the horns of a real epistemological dilemma. How would you prove the statement itself? If you say "with logic," you engage in circular reasoning. If you answer with something else, you refute the statement itself.

This is not to discount the atheists' (or yours, if you aren't one) reliance, respect for, or dedication to the use of logic, but to denote that they, as well as theists, have at their foundations the nature of a presupposition or an unargued philosophical bias, instead of the neutrality that is pretended.

For the atheist, however, not the theist, this presupposition is inexplicable. With no universal empirical experience, for example, the attempt is made to assert the universality of empirical observation.

It's OK. Like you said, we fall back on faith, too.

[Tycoon]

If you say that only logic can prove any statement, I'd say you would be on the horns of a real epistemological dilemma. How would you prove the statement itself? If you say "with logic," you engage in circular reasoning. If you answer with something else, you refute the statement itself.

A very illogical statement. All statements involve either logic or the absence of it, and so to prove that statement I would have to use logic. This is true whether it is circular reasoning or not.

It's OK. Like you said, we fall back on faith, too.

Faith proves nothing as it is unique to the individual and supported by nothing. Logic is universal.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Zhavric Of course we can. Stop trying to give the god hypothesis a free pass. Neither it nor any other hypothesis gets one. When someone says "God exists" what they're actually saying is "All this stuff that's proven by science is wrong. Conservation of energy? Wrong. Everything we know about intelligence? Wrong. Everything we know about physics? Wrong. Since I have no evidence for any of these wild claims, I should be excused from the responsibility of showing evidence." GTFO with that. I'm sick of it and you should be, too.

And once again, your argument that you "know" God doesn't exist depends on your nonsensical view that God "has" to violate all of those rules - again, EVERY time you argue that God does not exist, you start by incorrectly "defining" God on your own, easily disprovable terms.

Laughable. Any more "win" in there?

Quote by: sdbest The intervention of God would be detectable if events and phenomena deviated from chance. A deviation from chance is what would be expected if a self-aware, supernatural being was intervening in human affairs, particularly in response to prayer. Do we have evidence of events deviating from chance such that the intervention of supernatural intelligence might be the explanation? For the evidence to be significant, of course, it would have to be unambiguous. For example, a new leg growing on an amputee as consequence of prayer would be startling. The gravitational constant changing in order to prevent a plane crash would call for some explanation. For a God who created a Universe such interventions would be trivial.

And so would disguising such interventions so that his influence or interference would be undetectable. Sorry, try again.

[Jack]

And so would disguising such interventions so that his influence or interference would be undetectable.

Where's the benefit in that? Using the character of god as portrayed by the majority of Christians, what would it benefit him, what's the advantage in a god being devious? Why hide his presence now when not that long ago he is supposed to have been quite the frequent visitor.

[Tycoon]

And so would disguising such interventions so that his influence or interference would be undetectable. Sorry, try again.

Your God certainly is notorious for having absolutely no visible effect on anything, isn't he? Let's face it, he doesn't have any effect. When good things happen, like a baby being saved by a dog etc., it is always attributed to God's influence. Yet when bad things happen, theists look the other way.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Jack Theists don't use logic to support their contentions. They fall back on a dependence on faith to explain the unexplainable portions of their philosophy. As has been said by theists here before, "you have to believe to believe".

Am I to understand that Theists are intellectually impaired ? :-)))

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Tycoon Your God certainly is notorious for having absolutely no visible effect on anything, isn't he? Let's face it, he doesn't have any effect. When good things happen, like a baby being saved by a dog etc., it is always attributed to God's influence. Yet when bad things happen, theists look the other way.

That is a wrong approach in thinking that God is going to interact upon one's (sole) deisre, and only.

Overwhelming number of Atheists and Theists use the Biblical data incorrectly. Both sides follow their concepts wrongly. Yet, both sides try to present their (alleged) arguments. Both sides debate baloney.
Enjoy it, guys.

[dontconfuseme]

Quote by: Tycoon A very illogical statement. All statements involve either logic or the absence of it, and so to prove that statement I would have to use logic. This is true whether it is circular reasoning or not. Faith proves nothing as it is unique to the individual and supported by nothing. Logic is universal.

Man, those Smily things creep me out. I think I might have had a dream about them two weeks before I ever joined this site. Anyway.

My point was not to undermine your logic or the use thereof, but to show that it denotes the nature of a precommitment or a presuppostion. You haven't proven the use of logic by reason or empirical evidence. Rather, it's through that assumed logic that you proceed to prove everything else. Atheists like yourself aren't presuppositionally neutral in their approach to all factual questions or disputes.

The atheist tendency to beg crucial questions and their pretended neutrality is shown when it comes to the question of God's existence. The atheist demands evidence for the theists' claims of the existence of God. However, any theistic interpretation of evidence (creation from nothing, special revelation, virgin birth, etc.) is precluded in advance.

What is overlooked is that it's begging the question just as much on the atheists' part as the theists', who use this evidence. The atheist hasn't proven by empirical observation or logic his or her commitment to Naturalism. It's assumed in advance and used as a controlling, but unproved, starting point of any debate, something the atheist would expressly forbid in the theist.

[Jack]

The atheist demands evidence for the theists' claims of the existence of God. However, any theistic interpretation of evidence (creation from nothing, special revelation, virgin birth, etc.) is precluded in advance.

Using Biblical tales, themselves unsubstantiated, to attempt to substantiate theology is indeed unacceptable evidence of god"s existence. The evidence must first be substantiated, shown to be valid and testable, before it can be introduced as support for the claims of god's existence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If gods exist in reality and affect reality, there ought to be evidence that can be skeptically examined and remain valid.

The atheist hasn't proven by empirical observation or logic his or her commitment to Naturalism.

Nor do we need to except when proposing naturalism as an alternative to theism. Simply asking theists for evidence that supports their contentions does not obligate me to provide evidence that supports my skepticism. In other words, we're discussing what I don't see any reason to accept, not what I do have reason to accept.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: tivodan1116 And once again, your argument that you "know" God doesn't exist...

Straw man. My argument is based on facts and logic. If you ever grow the intellectual honest to, you know... address something I say, pm me.

Quote by: Tivodan Spam deleted.