First you say that we have to show that there is a contradiction, then we have to examine all the rebuttals, then we have to rebuttal the rebuttals, then you say, “But what’s the point, right?” The point is to shed light on the subject, to advance knowledge, to further our progress by putting aside the roadblock of ignorance.
I think real science emerged out of engineering not philosophy. Engineers had to deal with empirical data and achieve practical results in order to do something like figure out how tall can you build a tower or how to you steer a ship across an ocean.
I’m religious, I believe in evolution. Not all Christians are Michele Bachmann clones.
I rest my case with respect to this particular poster.
Did you miss the “if” part of the clause you italicised?
I never said that overwhelming proof has ever been presented.
Sparky? What’s that supposed to mean?
In other words, you are going to ignore my point of how incredibly extreme a claim “God” actually is and pretend you’ve proven something.
Though as an engineer I’d love to agree with you, I can’t. If you read the early scientists they clearly come from the natural science/philosophy school. The crucial step that turned science into philosophy was testing a hypothesis. Engineers always did this (in the sense that your design had better not fall down) but stopped with enough knowledge to solve the problem, not understand the whys of of how an engineering technique solved the problem.
Our problems today are so difficult that you need the exploratory results of science to advance in engineering, so the distinction might be slightly fuzzy now.
if you doubt my view, think about early biology and medicine, which had no engineering component.
I agree that the crucial step in inventing the modern concept of science was the idea of testing hypotheses. But I feel that came from engineering not philosophy, for the reasons you gave. Engineers were results oriented and philosophers were theory oriented. Science arose when theories and results were combined into a single process. And I feel it was engineers who made this connection because they had to - if you want results you need some element of theory. But you can work completely in theory without worrying about results.
And I think there was the same gap in early medicine where there used to be a divide between physicians (the philosophers who developed medical theories) and surgeons (the engineers who developed medical procedures).
The sort of believers you are talking about could care less if you go to hell, they are not trying to convince you to believe in God, they are trying to convince themselves that they are better than you.
Belief in God, is more than incredibly extreme, it defies all reason and logic. And if presented with proof that despite all that we know and understand about the universe, if you were presented with proof of his existence, you would chalk it up to “an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato”
You would find some reason not to believe.
I get so damn tired of statements like this one-yet another pathetic variation of, “I could provide what you are asking for, but you would only(fill in the blank), so I’m not going to bother.” If you’ve got nothing of substance to bring forward, be honest enough to admit it.
You say that like it’s a good thing.
Do you have any examples of this connection. I have a book full of early scientific writing (up to 1800) and I saw precious few connections. One exception - a very nice paper about measuring the mass of a mountain, which could well be considered an engineering job.
It is interesting to note that Leonardo, who was a brilliant engineer, did not contribute much to science.
Engineers got into big trouble if their procedures did not work. Surgeons at the time - not so much.
I see this a lot. It’s as if some people actually believe that reason and logic are for lesser people, and that they have somehow moved beyond the need for them.
You know, relativity and quantum physics are much harder things to believe in than some guy in the sky who created the universe and loves us. God being infinite and doing miracles is much easier to fathom than not being able to tell both the position and velocity of a particle, or time running at different speeds for two travelers. You should ask yourself why we accept the latter and not the former. it has nothing to do with rejecting so-called proofs of his existence and everything to do with not accepting the beliefs of our forefathers just because they believed in them.
Are we defining faith in different ways? We might be… and this wasn’t an attempt at twisting or playing with words.
Are you using 2a (below) while I’m using 2b?
[QUOTE=Merriam Webster]
faith (noun)
2[ul]
[li]a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion[/li][li]b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust[/li][/ul]
[/QUOTE]
I would also argue that any statement that was both provable and part of the doctrine of a religion did not actually require faith.
“Our god makes the sun come up” could be doctrine, but the sun coming up itself (or the earth turning to give the same impression) requires no faith. However the sun coming up does nothing to prove the existence of Khepri or his possible role in pushing the sun around… that bit does require faith, and is unprovable.
Another name for that is “insane”. I’d rather be sane. Is that really your idea of an argument defending religion?
Because believing, as you have just pointed out, is insane. Raving lunacy. Talking to a man who isn’t there level craziness. And the proof you speak of is impossible to provide in the first place. As has been pointed out again and again, there’s nothing that could be provided for such a claim that could be distinguished from a hallucination, mind control, or intervention from any of an infinite number of powerful entities that aren’t God.
I disagree. Pigeons taste delicious, and are probably an evidence of intelligent design. Why would have evolved to be tasty? 
What would it take for me to believe that there was an all-powerful god that created the universe? Well, if someone claims they can levitate, I would have to see them levitate. If someone claims they can make water flow straight up, I would have to see that. If someone claims they can read minds, I’d want to see evidence of it. The claim here is for an all-powerful god that created the universe and can defy the laws of nature, so I don’t think it’s asking too much to see this being create another universe(or perhaps send us back in time to see him create this one) while juggling a cubed sphere.
It’s not a matter of “faith”. It just happens that believers make the assumption that “god” is a credible hypothesis and expect that other people naturally would do so (or else are just stuborn).
But in fact, we don’t perceive god as a credible hypothesis, anymore than you probably perceive the spirits of the forest as a credible hypothesis, even though some people still do believe in them. Why all those tree fell in the Tonguska? Even if you had no clue, “the forest spirits were really angry” is probably the last one you would consider, and you would need massive evidences to buy that explanation.
For us (or for me at least) God (I mean here the abrahamic one) is just another myth like, say, the Greek gods. To give an example similar to the OP, even if the theory of electricity was somehow disproven, it just wouldn’t be enough for me to envision that Zeus might have something to do with thunder. Again, that would be amongst the last explanations I would expect to be true.
So, yes, lacking any overwhelming evidence of the existence of this mythical being, I’m going to consider first all more natural explanations. It’s not because I have “a faith as strong as the pope’s”, it’s because I apply to god the same standards I use for other myths and legends. And most probably, you do the same. Except for your particular myth that again you expect to have a “special status” and to be taken as a serious hypothesis by everybody, resulting in you being surprised when a bunch of atheists don’t grant him this status and don’t consider him as a serious hypothesis.
Imagine you’re trying to convince us of the reality of Zeus, and you’ll probably have a better understanding of our mindset and reactions.
Well, that’s part of the issue: The fact that “faith” has more than one meaning, and a dictionary doesn’t always capture exactly how a word is used within a particular sub-culture. (For example, take a look at the 10,000-word article in the Catholic Encyclopedia on Faith.)
The starting point was when you said this: “religion I can only take on faith.”
You have now added this:
I agree.
I’m usually going to object (almost reflexively) to a claim that includes an absolute like “only” or “all” or “never” or “always”. I see now that we agree that there are non-faith-based elements to “religion”.
I think though that you are going to get into a bit of an epistemological mine field if you try to formulate explicitly which principles you use to determine what is “unprovable”, and then try to apply those principles consistently in all of your other conclusions about life. I’m not saying that is impossible to navigate through the mine field without getting blown up, but it is more difficult than some people think it is. So, start with a particular belief and determine the best explanation (however you want to define “best”), and, then defend that belief against alternative inferior explanations. Probably more fruitful than addressing the entire framework of how “provability” is determined. But perhaps that’s where the discussion will eventually end up, and it’s unlikely that two people who disagree about how truth is determined will ever agree on conflicting core beliefs. Again, that’s why I (half-jokingly) said “What’s the point, right?”, especially on this message board. 
Take care.
But it is happening all around us, and it obvious to medical researchers. Drug Resistant Microorganisms Getting Out Of Control Worldwide
Sounds like evolution to me.