04 Apr 08
It is often stated by theists that for some reason God does not want us to be able to prove his existence using a science experiment.
It is also stated that there is observable evidence for God.
I find these two claims contradictory.
If you claim that you have observed in some way evidence for God then either that evidence is scientific in nature or you are admitting one of:
1. The evidence was not collected in a scientific manner, in which case you should realistically consider the evidence to be unreliable and should ignore it.
2. God is not the simplest / best explanation for the evidence.
When I confront people with this argument they often come up with vague claims along the lines of "it is a personal experience" or "there are ways to learn about the truth other than scientific methods."
I would like to challenge these claims - I think that anything that is not subject to some form of scientific method can and should be challenged and that anyone who clings to 'evidence' that is not subject to investigation should realize that they are not acting logically but are instead projecting their desires and effectively creating the evidence themselves.
In other words they do not actually have evidence.
04 Apr 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt is a contradiction to say that God doesn't want us to know He exists by scientific experiment while claiming that what exist is evidence for the existence for God.
It is often stated by theists that for some reason God does not want us to be able to prove his existence using a science experiment.
It is also stated that there is observable evidence for God.
I find these two claims contradictory.
If you claim that you have observed in some way evidence for God then either that evidence is scientific in nature or yo ...[text shortened]... vely creating the evidence themselves.
In other words they do not actually have evidence.
That's assuming that scientific experiment has within it's sphere the capacity to conduct such an experiment.
By claiming that what exists is evidence for the existence of God assumes one will determine that God exists by means other than scientific method.
What is that means? I think it's precisely because scientific experiment cannot "prove" the existence of God nor can it explain the origin of the universe, that leaves one with no other better explanation for the existence of life than to attribute it to a creator.
Does that make sense?
04 Apr 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadHow do you define "evidence"? How do you go about proving that ultimate truth can only be found via scientific investigation?
It is often stated by theists that for some reason God does not want us to be able to prove his existence using a science experiment.
It is also stated that there is observable evidence for God.
I find these two claims contradictory.
If you claim that you have observed in some way evidence for God then either that evidence is scientific in nature or yo ...[text shortened]... vely creating the evidence themselves.
In other words they do not actually have evidence.
I cannot prove scientifically that love is stronger than hate but I know it's true. I cannot prove scientifically that torturing babies is wrong but I know it is.
Of course there are other routes to truth other than scientific methods. They are open to investigation , but do not conform to rigid , scientific methodolgy. However , they are open to personal investigation. Since the whole point of faith in God is not neccessarily to "prove" him scientifically to the world community but for the individual to find God convincing , no scientific evidence is neccessary.
So to finish this post , here's a connundrum for you . Take the following statement X...
x= " Ultimate truth in human life and the universe , meaning etc can only be found and accessed via rigid scientific methodology "
Ok , if you believe X can you prove X scientifically?
I'm guessing you can't prove X.
Ok , so if you have no conclusive evidence for X or no proof then you are just subscribing to X as an article of faith are you not? How do YOU know that X is true? You can't. Therefore , you are basically doing what we all have to do , and that's pay our money and take our pick.
Your faith says that x is true and will lead you to the truth . My faith says that X is limited and over zealous in it's predictions.
This is the essence of Goedel's incompleteness theory .
If one says the statement y = " the only things that should be believed are things that can be proved scientifically" then how does one believe Y in the first place without contradicting Y ? You would need to prove Y before stating Y. It's a bit like saying "there is no certainty in life" ---!!! ( are you certain about that?)
So why don't you just be honest with yourself and accept that you believe X (or Y or some variant of them) but you cannot prove X , instead of pretending to yourself that your position is devoid of faith or belief and our position is an emotional stab in the dark.
04 Apr 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterAnd that is the type of argument I am challenging. Either you should be able to prove them in a scientific manner or you should discard them as false. The problem is that you actually contradict yourself without realizing it.
I cannot prove scientifically that love is stronger than hate but I know it's true. I cannot prove scientifically that torturing babies is wrong but I know it is.
04 Apr 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterI don't really understand most of your post, but it appears that you are saying that you admit that you do not have evidence for your beliefs. You 'take your pick' and randomly choose what to believe - or as I suggested in my initial post - you pick what you want to believe.
Therefore , you are basically doing what we all have to do , and that's pay our money and take our pick.
04 Apr 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterAgain you are projecting on me your own insecurities with regards to ultimate why questions. I am not talking about ultimate why questions at all.
x= " Ultimate truth in human life and the universe , meaning etc can only be found and accessed via rigid scientific methodology "
04 Apr 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadnot true. you have no proof and you cannot prove string theory yet. but you don't discard it as false either. you keep searching. some believe it is true and search for proof it exists. some believe it doesn't exist and either don't bother searching or they search for ways to prove it is wrong.
And that is the type of argument I am challenging. Either you should be able to prove them in a scientific manner or you should discard them as false. The problem is that you actually contradict yourself without realizing it.
this is true with the god issue too. you will have the proof on his existence or non-existence immediately after death.
04 Apr 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadpretty much what faith is.
I don't really understand most of your post, but it appears that you are saying that you admit that you do not have evidence for your beliefs. You 'take your pick' and randomly choose what to believe - or as I suggested in my initial post - you pick what you want to believe.
of course one has to be careful not to go too far ie applying the same random choosing in other areas other than religion.
04 Apr 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadOh boy , this is going to be so much fun!!
And that is the type of argument I am challenging. Either you should be able to prove them in a scientific manner or you should discard them as false. The problem is that you actually contradict yourself without realizing it.
Statement W (made by whitey) = "Either you should be able to prove them in a scientific manner or you should discard them as false."
Ok , now prove W!!!!
04 Apr 08
Originally posted by twhitehead"Again you are projecting on me your own insecurities with regards to ultimate why questions. I am not talking about ultimate why questions at all." - whitey--
Again you are projecting on me your own insecurities with regards to ultimate why questions. I am not talking about ultimate why questions at all.
What BS!! Have a look at your post. God is mentioned in the first sentence and then throughout. Your question addresses the issue of science, evidence , God , proof , and belief. If you don't think God is an "ultimate question" then what is????!!!!!!
🙄
04 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadDo you have evidence for your beliefs? Let's find out what they are shall we?
I don't really understand most of your post, but it appears that you are saying that you admit that you do not have evidence for your beliefs. You 'take your pick' and randomly choose what to believe - or as I suggested in my initial post - you pick what you want to believe.
How many of the below would you say yes to ...
1) If God cannot be proven scientifically then he must not exist and should not be believed in.
2) Scientific inquiry is the only way we can come to know ultimate truth.
3) If something is not proven scientifically it is irrational to believe it.
4) If there is no scientific evidence for something it cannot be true
5) Ultimate truth in human life and the universe , meaning etc can only be found and accessed via rigid scientific methodology
6) the only things that should be believed are things that can be proved scientifically
Feel free to add one yourself if I am missrepresenting you.
04 Apr 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhen I say "know" I mean "know" in the same sense as I mean that I "know" my wife or I "know" what chocolate tastes like. Experiential knowing and intuitive knowing is just another way of knowing stuff.
And that is the type of argument I am challenging. Either you should be able to prove them in a scientific manner or you should discard them as false. The problem is that you actually contradict yourself without realizing it.
I do not mean "know" for certain as in scientifically proven. But then this is not a problem really because I know them with the same conviction and certainty as I know the sun is in the sky.
04 Apr 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou 'take your pick' and randomly choose what to believe - or as I suggested in my initial post - you pick what you want to believe.----whitey------------
I don't really understand most of your post, but it appears that you are saying that you admit that you do not have evidence for your beliefs. You 'take your pick' and randomly choose what to believe - or as I suggested in my initial post - you pick what you want to believe.
You are obviously consciously misrepresenting what I said here. Pay your money and take your pick does have an analogy with random choice making but in many senses is used in situations where we are left to make choices based on our intuition and conviction. None of us knows the ultimate truth of what the right road is to truth or even if such a thing is do-able . All we can do is make our choices based on what we feel we need to be true to and be as honest about it as we can be.