God can never be science

Post Reply New Topic

People demand scientific evidence God exists but to supply this evidence means God is no longer God. God becomes science. Just providing evidence of God's existence makes him no longer God.

What in God's nature demotes him from being a god if he supplies verifiable proof of his own existence? I didn't follow your train of thought very well, I'm afraid.

But for the record, I'd accept the appearance of either God or Satan as corollary proof of the other's existence. (And in case Satan is an Aspie: "That was a hint for you. to show yourself. Do it because you're a troublemaker, and that would cause a LOT of trouble.") That's the best I can do.

Now we wait.

He cant be science because he cant be real!

If there is a God, and He created everything in the universe, then because it came from Him, isn't it also Him? Therefore He would have created science, so because it came from Him, He is science.


I have no dog in this fight, that just sounded logically right to me.

If the owner of this website proves that he is Alex, then he is still Alex.
If I prove that I am Fnord, then I am still Fnord.
If God provides evidence that He is God, then He is still God.

The OP's claims make no sense.

The owner of this website isn't God, doesn't have God's nature. You have to take context into account,, it's not just a logic problem. God implies faith and faith is not science. Therefore God can never be science. You have to decide what you believe. God or science. Don''t expect God to ever be science if you choose to believe in Him. It becomes nonsense then.

Do not demand proof of God. Proof is for trials and science!

Please explain the source for your conclusions. What information do you have about the nature of divine beings that the rest of us don't have? What special knowledge do you possess that allowed you to reach your conclusions about this particular cause and effect? Is this some form of hitherto unknown magical property that you have kept from the rest of us? Does speaking his name also remove his divinity?

Is this just a really round-about way of saying "there is no such thing as god"?



There is no logical path between assertion and conclusion here - and that's before we get to the absurdity of "god is not science". Here's the thing, faith is not divine. Faith is nothing more than a man-made concept, another way of saying 'lie'. Belief in god or gods implies the existence of god or gods. Existence implies form, substance. Existence implies being subject to the manifold laws of nature and reality - including those laws of reality which we can't measure due to dimensional limitations (assuming they exist). Claims of knowledge of existence imply evidence leading to knowledge of existence.

If anyone wishes to claim that their specific deity exists, it is upon them to provide the evidence to support such a claim. If such evidence is not forthcoming, there is no good reason to believe their extraordinary claims.



If belief is a matter of choice, why are specific versions of god more prevalent than others in every single country in the world? Which god is the right god?



Do not claim knowledge of god without proof. Claims without proof are devoid of merit.

Science is strictly about the natural order of things. God or what ever god you like is not part of the natural order therefore is not a subject of scientific inquiry.

ruveyhn

The course of human history has already put God on trial. The Bible functions as documentation of the testimony of witnesses. You either believe the evidence or you don't. Based on Biblical evidence alone God has already done what you claim God cannot do. So by that token, you're saying God cannot exist.

Nice try, but I'm not buying it.

You're assuming Ana believes in the biblical god; or has she mentioned this elsewhere?

Neither, at least not that I'm aware.

What I'm saying is that Yahweh as described in the Bible contradicts what Ana believes about the relationship between God and proof of His existence. Whether Ana actually believes in the same God I believe in is irrelevant.

So only your god can exist and all other gods are made up?

I think AngelRho is right to express his difference of opinion about the nature of God. It's no less legitimate than an atheist disagreeing with Ana because they don't think God exists.

Is this in response to something someone posted here or just a general statement on the subject of expression?



Quite the contrary. There are thousands of variations of who or what god is within the sphere of Christianity alone. As an atheist, my stance remains consistent - I do not accept there is sufficient (or indeed any) evidence for any of them, or for any of the non-Christian varieties. A theistic viewpoint must, by necessity, reject the existence of all the versions of god that exist except for their own. What you call 'legitimate' I call 'nonsensical'.

It is as clear as possible that god doesn't exist. The only reason this nonsensical idea still exists is because of the influence of our cultural heritage.

1- Creator
2- Omniscient
3- All Loving
4- Omnipotent


4 is self contraditory. For example, god could not do the following: become, in all aspects, a regular human being, and then return to being god.

So a god would have to have just the characteristics 1, 2 and 3. However, if he does have them, why didn't he create us profoundly, completely and continuously happy? Why is there an insane, obscene, vile and unmeasurable amount of suffering and misery in this world? Surely god can't have 1, 2 and 3.

So all we can say is that there is a "god" which has either 1 and 2, or 1 and 3. In the case it is 1 and 2, we can deduce that god is the most evil creature in the universe, by the previous reasoning. So he isn't worth worshiping.

If it's the case of 1 and 3, he would have to be so dumb _ because he doesn't figure out that he could create all the things we want and give them to us, for our happiness _ that he isn't worth worshiping.

So we are left with a "god" just with characteristic 1. I might as well worship the big bang, then.

The biggest problem with proving the existence of God is that no one can agree on what's being looked for and so many organized creeds don't seem to have a particularly good grasp on what's at the core of their own holy books. It's a challenge enough to try and prove the existence of something that by definition contains all things by such a tiny, tiny slice as what we'd call 'material reality' but even what threads could be grabbed onto there get lost once most allowed-players in the conversation realize that they can't even agree on a hypothesis to uphold or nullify.

Just my opinion - it might be worth looking to the mystics, Hermetics, and Cabalists of history on this as well as so much of what gets banned as pseudoscience these days to see how to broach such a question just by researching what people claim to experience and seeing how the logic seems to resolve itself from the mental and intuitive planes. The problem with that of course - people have horses in the race the other way, hence allowance/denial of evidence is an incredibly emotional topic.