Ajax777's Thread for published papers

[pgp_protector]

Just a thread marker & place holder.
In the CB Me & Ajax had a discussion about wither or not Science Proves that God doesn't exist.

"PGP, I don't ordinarily keep such things as studies of people making foolish claims as these men make. I said I'd find you one. Is there some problem with that? I know they're out there, I've seen and heard them before."

So now we've got 2 week to find a published paper dealing with proving God doesn't exist.

 

[pgp_protector]

Received a PM pointing to a book to be taken as a Published paper.

1) yes it's published, but not a published paper (I.E. Peer reviewed)
2) The book "The God Delusion" Offers no proof for the non existence of God.

Going to see if I can find the book at the Library, but a few reviews I found.
http://www.evolutionary-philosophy.net/review_god_delusion.html
http://www.bede.org.uk/goddelusion.htm

 

[Watchman4hm]

Just a thread marker & place holder.
In the CB Me & Ajax had a discussion about wither or not Science Proves that God doesn't exist.

"PGP, I don't ordinarily keep such things as studies of people making foolish claims as these men make. I said I'd find you one. Is there some problem with that? I know they're out there, I've seen and heard them before."

So now we've got 2 week to find a published paper dealing with proving God doesn't exist.

Seems your hung up on the word published..When anyone says something in public its taken as "verbatim"..Ya know like you have in the CB....You need not search very far for claims that scientists try to prove God doesn't exist. So your making the rules now that it has to be "published" as well as "looked over by peers"..sounds nit picky to me..

 

[Ajax 777]

And, I'd like to say for the record, that no claim was made as to anyone definitively
PROVING God doesn't exist, because I already know that no one, despite many efforts,
has been able to.

Nor will they.

What I said was that there are many scientists who try to disprove the existence of God, and there are.

You see, PGP, when an Atheist tries to publicly back up his foolish claims of there being no God,
using scientific findings as his evidence, I feel the need to call them on it. That's just how I am;
I feel that God should be honored and have a hard time honoring those who don't.
But that is because Jesus Christ is the love of my life,
and having people treat His blood as common and unholy makes my own blood boil.

I would think that as someone who is both Christian and a science aficionado,
you would more apt to defend the faith to an Atheist who is lost than shoot down
my attempt to do so because of personal preferences.

But, again, I guess that's just how I am.

 

[uberd00b]

Seems your hung up on the word published..When anyone says something in public its taken as "verbatim"..Ya know like you have in the CB....You need not search very far for claims that scientists try to prove God doesn't exist. So your making the rules now that it has to be "published" as well as "looked over by peers"..sounds nit picky to me..

Nope, published* was part of the deal, I was there.

We're looking for scientists who publish papers attempting to prove that God isn't real. Which is pretty ridiculous because no scientists really tries to do that. Unless you, you know, have some published papers where they do?

*This is of course published papers, which is what is meant by published in this sense. If a scientists attempts to back up a theory it is in peer reviewed literature, not in a popular science book.

 

[uberd00b]

And, I'd like to say for the record, that no claim was made as to anyone definitively
PROVING God doesn't exist, because I already know that no one, despite many efforts,
has been able to.

Nor will they.

That's right, we're just looking for a scientists attempting to prove that God isn't real. This is going to be hard to find because by definition science can neither prove nor disprove God, and scientists know that.

What I said was that there are many scientists who try to disprove the existence of God, and there are.

Great, hopefully you can furnish us with some examples then. As I've already said, scientists know that they cannot do that. I think you'll have your work cut out finding one, let alone "many".

I would think that as someone who is both Christian and a science aficionado,
you would more apt to defend the faith to an Atheist who is lost than shoot down
my attempt to do so because of personal preferences.

I can't speak for pgp's reasons for "shooting down" whatever it was you said. But it is an important point that for some people truth and honesty and facts are very important, and if someone says something which is incorrect they feel obliged to at least attempt to show the person where they are going wrong. I know I certainly feel that way, and many people I know also. Though I have noticed that to some believers faith is more important than what can be shown to be true.

I'm interested in seeing what you view as "proving God isn't real" because I think you may be misunderstanding (I could be wrong!).

 

[Ajax 777]

Well, we didn't agree beforehand to your aforementioned criteria for "peer reviewed published papers."
I don't hold to such prerequisites for credibility; the Truth which comes from above is eternal and not subject to change,
like the precepts of men have proven to be all throughout history. This is where I cease to see a need for further talk.

To summate:
John 14:6

End of discussion for me, gentlemen.

Since you took it upon yourself to open this thread in my name,
I respectfully ask that you now duly close it.

 

[uberd00b]

It seems a little early to declare defeat don't you think? Let's see whether pgp managed to loan a copy of The God Delusion, perhaps he'll admit you were right!

 

[Ajax 777]

...

 

[pgp_protector]

Waiting for the Book to come in, they had 1 copy at the library, but it's out.
But they did have "The Dawkins Delusion"

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

The God Delusion isn't a scientific book though, anyone could have written it without any scientific research.

 

[eri]

You guys got me interested. And I will agree that when I saw the word 'published', I immediately took that to mean 'peer-reviewed journal publication' - that's what scientists mean by published.
http://tinyurl.com/3o6ogv
199 abstracts. Of course, many of them actually say Gott and not God. But there are a few somewhat-peer-reviewed articles - promoting god, from the Christian point of view. I saw 'somewhat' as they are conference proceedings, which, while reviewed by an editor, are not subjected the rigor of journal peer-review.

So all I found were scientists trying to prove that god DOES exist.