MY favorite arguments for the existence of the Christian God:

[Kenny'sID]

I accept current theories on how the world began.

I think we can both agree that was pretty much a non answer, what theory? And you accept a theory as fact, or you you figure that's the best you can do, or something else?

 

[Kenny'sID]

I'm not positive, but pretty sure it was bhsmte who evaded that question from yesterday (I'm sure he'll shed some light on if it was or not) and I'm wondering why you both seem to shy away from it?

 

[bhsmte]

I'm not positive, but pretty sure it was bhsmte who evaded that question from yesterday (I'm sure he'll shed some light on if it was or not) and I'm wondering why you both seem to shy away from it?

Evaded what exactly? Give me a post number or retract.

 

[HitchSlap]

I'm not positive, but pretty sure it was bhsmte who evaded that question from yesterday (I'm sure he'll shed some light on if it was or not) and I'm wondering why you both seem to shy away from it?

Evaded what exactly? Give me a post number or retract.

He’s referring to me.

 

[DogmaHunter]

1. Consensus of opinion.

• Every single believer ... past, present, and future ... believes IN THE BEGINNING, GOD. If consensus of opinion carries so much academic weight, then they should give this point a lot more consideration than they do.

Every single believer believes. Uhu. Talk about a useless tautology....

2. Cause-and-Effect.

• Edifices, literature, holidays, songs, artwork, history and martyrs all attest to God's existence. If cause-and-effect carries so much academic weight, then they should give this point a lot more consideration than they do.

Nevermind that most of those things don't actually "attest" to the god that YOU happen to believe in.


In the end, the only thing you are saying here is that "beliefs are accurate, because people hold them".

Well, sorry, but no.

 

[DogmaHunter]

God is a revealer and a communicator, you just have to look with the same interest that you have with the scientific method.

The scientific method doesn't require people to "just look".
In fact, the scientific method was carefully crafted to not having to relying on a "just anything".

The scientific method requires carefully outlined hypothesis withing a carefully crafted scope, which makes predictions that can be independently tested, verified and scrutinized.

Religion, is the exact opposite of that.

The important thing is to request His guidance and not just depend on yourself.

That would require believing god(s) exist(s), before actually investigating the proposition. It's, quite literally, settling on the answer before even asking the question.

He will not turn His back on the most ignorant or disbelieving person who seeks Him, and He will begin communicating in goo-goo baby talk if He has to. But, you have to truly want to look for Him.

On the other hand, you don't have to "truly want to find" gravity, in order to be provided with sufficient reason to believe that it is real.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Then what is "consensus of opinion"?

Certainly not the same as "scientific consensus" - which is not based on opinions.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I put my finger into the fire, my finger gets burned, science has "proven" fires burn fingers.

No. That's just a factual observation. It is not a model of explanation, like a hypothesis or theory.

WHY does fire burn your fingers? The answer to that question, is rather different.
The answer to that question, results in a model of reality. A model that explains how fire works and why it burns fingerse. This model can further detail potential exceptions, as in "in what circumstances would fire NOT burn fingers, if such circumstances exist?".

You need to understand the difference between factual observations on the one hand, and models of explanation on the other.

Hypothesis and theories, are models of explanations. Observations, measurements, data, facts,... are the things that these model attempt to explain.

The earth exists, that is an observable fact.
HOW does the earth exist? HOW did it originate? HOW does it work?
==> that requires an explanatory model with evidential support.

So, though one may try to complicate the simple into "That's not not a proven scientific fact" it won't change the fact, Science does "prove", and stating it does not, is just a cop out.

When people say that science doesn't deal in proof, generally they are talking about explanatory models of reality: hypothesis and theories.

These models are never considered "proven".

 

[DogmaHunter]

What's really funny, when folks here make comments such as science proves evolution/no God, or the beginning of time... not a single solitary atheist stands up to say "No it doesn't!"

I actually haven't seen anyone here say any such thing.
You are welcome to quote, with links to the original post, of anyone here saying such things.

And I'm especially interested in your statement that people here have stated that science "proves no god".

Where are you all then? As long as it works, let it ride, if it doesn't...don't.

Nope. Can't speak for others, but I have always said that theories are never considered proven and that science doesn't have anything (pro or con) to say about anything supernatural, because there is nothing there to investigate.

I might have said that the "undetectable and the non-existant look very much alike", but that's not quite the same.

 

[bhsmte]

I actually haven't seen anyone here say any such thing.
You are welcome to quote, with links to the original post, of anyone here saying such things.

And I'm especially interested in your statement that people here have stated that science "proves no god".




Nope. Can't speak for others, but I have always said that theories are never considered proven and that science doesn't have anything (pro or con) to say about anything supernatural, because there is nothing there to investigate.

I might have said that the "undetectable and the non-existant look very much alike", but that's not quite the same.

Good luck getting a straight forward response.

 

[AV1611VET]

Every single believer believes. Uhu. Talk about a useless tautology....

Then please explain to me why ... all of a sudden ... consensus of opinion in academia can take a hike when it comes to God?

Nevermind that most of those things don't actually "attest" to the god that YOU happen to believe in.

YOU happens to have started a thread giving HIS favorite arguments for the existence of God.

As for what others believe, they can start their own thread.

In the end, the only thing you are saying here is that "beliefs are accurate, because people hold them".

It's a little more than that, chief.

Well, sorry, but no.

If you want to disrespect my reasoning to the point where you don't understand, that's your prerogative.

 

[AV1611VET]

Certainly not the same as "scientific consensus" - which is not based on opinions.

Scientific consensus took a hike with Pluto, didn't it?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Evaded what exactly? Give me a post number or retract.

Is this you saying I did not ask you that? See, we can simply clear it up or you can try to make more of it as you have already, if you feel you need to for whatever reason.

You hardly have to read between the lines to see that I asked you if that was a fact or not, now is it? And nothing to retract, my post was to find out....read it carefully.

 

[Kenny'sID]

He’s referring to me.

Thank you.

 

[Kenny'sID]

No. That's just a factual observation. It is not a model of explanation, like a hypothesis or theory.

WHY does fire burn your fingers? The answer to that question, is rather different.
The answer to that question, results in a model of reality. A model that explains how fire works and why it burns fingerse. This model can further detail potential exceptions, as in "in what circumstances would fire NOT burn fingers, if such circumstances exist?".

You need to understand the difference between factual observations on the one hand, and models of explanation on the other.

Hypothesis and theories, are models of explanations. Observations, measurements, data, facts,... are the things that these model attempt to explain.

The earth exists, that is an observable fact.
HOW does the earth exist? HOW did it originate? HOW does it work?
==> that requires an explanatory model with evidential support.



When people say that science doesn't deal in proof, generally they are talking about explanatory models of reality: hypothesis and theories.

These models are never considered "proven".

Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

Was what I did not that?

sci·ence
ˈsīəns/
noun
noun: science

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

And that?

Of course it was. And you can't make what the dictionary defines it as, untrue, try as you will...or maybe you would like to get with them and help them make corrections...let me know how that goes.

See folks, once it is proven beyond a doubt science DOES prove, then they need to redefine science and pretend I was never dealing with it to begin with. Anyone in their right mind can see the burnt finger was basic science. But watch carefully, now it's time to back peddle just in case this explanation of science doesn't do away with mine, which it has not, as in:

When people say that science doesn't deal in proof, generally they are talking about explanatory models of reality: hypothesis and theories.

These models are never considered "proven".

Now can he prove that what people mean, of course not....it's an empty claim.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I actually haven't seen anyone here say any such thing.

And why would you think you should? Pay close attention to my comment.

And I'm especially interested in your statement that people here have stated that science "proves no god".

If you don't believe anyone has ever said science proves there is no God, then go ahead and tell yourself you really showed me the error of my ways...otherwise...please.

Nope. Can't speak for others, but I have always said that theories are never considered proven and that science doesn't have anything (pro or con) to say about anything supernatural, because there is nothing there to investigate.

I might have said that the "undetectable and the non-existant look very much alike", but that's not quite the same.

"Nope" what? Are you even reading the comments you are replying to?, you are talking what you believe is true and I'm accusing people of not generally stepping up.

Unless you are saying you generally step up and make the corrections I claimed doesn't happen (and I mean "as a general rule" before someone takes a one in a million and runs with it. lol), you aren't addressing my point at all...and the "nope" suggesting I'm wrong about something means absolutely nothing. Read the post you replied to again, you'll see what I mean.

You basically shifted the subject and then essentially said "Nope" you are wrong. You're pretending I'm wrong when I was not. Seen this before, so it needed addressing.

 

[HitchSlap]

And why would you think you should? Pay close attention to my comment.



If you don't believe anyone has ever said science proves there is no God, then go ahead and tell yourself you really showed me the error of my ways...otherwise...please.




"Nope" what? Are you even reading the comments you are replying to?, you are talking what you believe is true and I'm accusing people of not generally stepping up.

Unless you are saying you generally step up and make the corrections I claimed doesn't happen (and I mean "as a general rule" before someone takes a one in a million and runs with it. lol), you aren't addressing my point at all...and the "nope" suggesting I'm wrong about something means absolutely nothing. Read the post you replied to again, you'll see what I mean.

You basically shifted the subject and then essentially said "Nope" you are wrong. You're pretending I'm wrong when I was not. Seen this before, so it needed addressing.

I don't believe god/s exist.

Is this "stepping up" enough for you?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Then please explain to me why ... all of a sudden ... consensus of opinion in academia can take a hike when it comes to God?

God questions, or supernatural things, are not a subject matter for scientific academia.

YOU happens to have started a thread giving HIS favorite arguments for the existence of God.

And the problem with "his" favorite arguments, is that they don't actually support HIS version of god, but ALL versions of god. When you have an argument that can be used to "support" mutually exclusive claims, then you have a pretty bad argument.

I'll happily accept that these are "his" favorite arguments. But in the end, if these are "his" favorite arguments, then indeed, his case is extremely weak. Non-existant, in fact.

As for what others believe, they can start their own thread.

I'm still talking in context of your thread.

It's a little more than that, chief.

Then maybe you should include it in your post, because that's really the only thing you said in you OP.

If you want to disrespect my reasoning to the point where you don't understand, that's your prerogative.

To show how arguments are flawed / invalid, is not to show "disrespect" to them. It's just exposing how weak they are.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Scientific consensus took a hike with Pluto, didn't it?

Pluto got re-categorized as we learned more about the solar system.

It's called progress.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

Was what I did not that?

No, and I explained it quite clearly as well.
You noted an observation: fire burns fingers.

You did not "organize this knowledge" in the "form of testable explanations that makes predictions".

You just made your observation and you stopped.

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

And that?

Nope. You didn't conduct any experiments, neither did you attempt to structure your data.
You just made an observation and stopped.

There wasn't even an attempt at explaining anything.

Of course it was. And you can't make what the dictionary defines it as, untrue, try as you will...

Don't need to. I'm fine with the dictionary defintion.

I'm just not fine with you pretending that a mere observation is the same as a testable explanatory model of a certain phenomena.

or maybe you would like to get with them and help them make corrections...let me know how that goes.

It's just you that needs to be corrected. But it seems like it is not sinking in.

See folks, once it is proven beyond a doubt science DOES prove, then they need to redefine science and pretend I was never dealing with it to begin with.

I don't have to pretend. I explained it clearely.

You did not offer a testable explanatory model to explain specific phenomena / data / observations within a well-defined scope.

All you did was observe that fire burns stuff.
That's just a factual observation that does not require any proof.
What is requires is an explanation. And THAT explanation is what requires evidence and verifiability.

It's also that explanation wich science will not even consider proven. Only supported.
Sometimes supported to such ridiculous detail, that it would be intellectually perverse to doubt its accuracy. But still, it would not be considered proven.

Anyone in their right mind can see the burnt finger was basic science.

No. It's just an observation. An empirical observation. A scientific observation even.
But not a scientific explanation. It's an observation in need of an explanation.

For the bazillionth time: when people say that science doesn't deal in proof, they are talking about proving explanatory models (hypothesis and theories), not about mere data.

But watch carefully, now it's time to back peddle just in case this explanation of science doesn't do away with mine, which it has not, as in:

No need for backpeddling. The only need here is to teach you how science works.

Now can he prove that what people mean, of course not....it's an empty claim.

No. It is what it is. It's how science works.

You can continue to stick you head in the sand to these facts. But realise that it will not be leading anywhere. All you will accomplish is that you will continue to be wrong about this.