Why all the tortured proofs, why can’t god just float down and say"Howdy"? Wouldn’t change anything, just you know, the relatives should visit once in a while. I still would not be inclined to worship it. Fine say it somehow proves it created the world and life and little pink bugs. Who gives a shit? What has it done for me lately? I don’t know if god exists but more importantly I don’t give a shit.
I’d actually buy that before I’d buy the “experiment” in the OP.
How would you scientifically prove god? It’s not like you’re going to furiously scribble equations on a chalkboard only to end up with “= God” at the end. Science is a little more rigorous than that. Science would have to come up with what exactly is God, what is he made of (is he a he? does he have a gender? genitalia? human DNA?), is he made of baryonic matter, does he exist in the universe, does he obey the laws of physics, if not, what kind of physical laws does he follow, etc etc. In short, adding “God” to the equation just raises more questions than it answers.
Even if the discovery was just vague enough to say that the universe could not possibly have come to existence via the mere laws of physics as we know them, all that would show is that we need to know more about physics. The supernatural is only supernatural until it becomes natural. If you want God to become part of science, you have to explain it in the language of science, which no religion has attempted to do.
[li]Evidence of an extraordinary new particle that coincidentally bangs out a the Qu’ran in binary.[/li][li]A manifestation of some advanced extra-terrestrial technology that enables the manipulation of reality at a subatomic level? And they’re yanking our chain?[/li][li]Further proof that the universe is nothing more than an elaborate construct of my own subconscious?[/li][li]Any combination of the above.[/li][/ol]
D’oh! Half of these have been covered above
Because building a simulator that can contain simulated people is impressive, but it’s not creating a universe, nor does it fit what the Judeo-Christian God is supposed to be like. Unless in, say, 200 years when we can hypothetically do the same thing, we suddenly qualify as that god, or as gods at all.
As for why I find the idea of the message proving the God of Islam so ridiculous; look at it this way. Suppose that this message contained claims for the truth of a less popular religion. Suppose it claimed that Zeus was real, or Ra, or Ishtar, or Scientology, or the Flying Spaghetti monster. Would you people who think I’m being too stubborn take a claim like that seriously ? If the Higgs Boson experiment claimed that the Flying Spaghetti Monster was real, and all associated “dogma”, would you take it seriously ? Well, understand that I find the Flying Spaghetti Monster to be no more or less plausible than God, right down to both claims being obvious nonsense.
The reason we unbelievers use silly analogies like Flying Spaghetti Monsters and Invisible Pink Unicorns in comparison to the religions that have actual believers isn’t just to mock you; it’s because your beliefs really are that silly. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is AT LEAST as plausible as the God of Abraham.
Well Richard Dawkins has given Him several opportunities to prove his existence when he runs his Weasel Program at random (i.e. without any selection or inheritance involved). On several occasions he has signed a notarized affidavit to the affect that he will donate everything he owns to religious charities if it generates the phrase “METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL” without any selection or inheritance to help it.
Isn’t it a fairly simple matter to make a radio antenna transmit such a signal? A radio broadcast of any signal, religious or not, certainly isn’t proof of the divine. How would a subatomic antenna be any different?
(Also, I don’t think it’s technically possible to write the Qu’ran with Latin letters.)
Edgar Cayce once said, “To the skeptic, no proof is sufficient. To the believer, none is required.” There may be a middle ground in there somewhere, but I think the concept of “God” is inherently subjective and not “provable” by science.
I know there is no point arguing with you, but:
Spaghetti was made by men (specifically the Italians).
It’s a derived foodstuff.
The God of Abraham, however, is a sentient being, who appears several times as forms of energy.
Seems to me that the God of Abraham makes far more sense then an Italian food.
Even if both are unlikely, they are not equally unlikely.
I don’t think you can have scientific evidence for a god. I think the limits of science in this kind of area are in providing alternate explanations - for example, if someone says “Ah, the sky is blue because my god painted it like that, there’s no other possible explanation”, science can provide that alternative explanation. So I would say really science is only really a huge amount of help in cases of gods which are expressed to be the only option - that a quality or trait of theirs is the single possible explanation for something. Indeed i’d say the gradual changes in religion over the centuries are mainly down to finding alternate explanations like these, gradually shifting the focus of religion from gods positively and actively taking part in everyday matters to more nebulous concerns; certainty to possibility. Not that science is the only thing that affected that.
You’re right. If that’s the best you can do, there really is no point in you arguing religion with DT.
This is silly. the God of Abraham was invented by men. Spaghetti was invented by men. The FSM was invented by men.
Only one of these things can actually be seen and touched by men, however.
For me proof of god is strictly a philosophical issue. The question, to me, is, “What counts as evidence of an all-powerful being?” But it may not be clear from that more concise expression what I’m aiming at. So while it is not as simple, it is clearer: “What distinguishes evidence of a finitely, non-godlike being who is more powerful than I can imagine from evidence of a god?” This assumes things like “god is all-powerful,” which itself may not be true, either, but this only highlights the evidence problem, it doesn’t dismiss it.
For the sake of argument, you can call this the “Stargate Problem,” since pithy descriptions with capital letters make things easier to digest.
Meh, there are plenty of people for whom God Almighty could walk right up to, look them square in the eye and say “I am I AM” and they wouldn’t even flinch as they said “Bullshit”.
No metaphysical miracle will persuade them.
No scientific evidence, accepted globally, published in hundreds of peer reviewed journals, independantly replicated and confirmed on dozens of seperate occations while never, not even once, producing results to the contrary can ever change their minds.
Not that such evidence exists or is likely to ever exist, mind you.
But these people exist.
And their religious counterparts exist.
Does not one example of blind and fervent devotion equate with another?
Is absolute faith not absolute faith no matter what direction it points?
A fundie is a fundie no matter what side of the fence they are on.
As I said before, meh.
Probably I am one of those people, for reasons I just explained.
No, unless you’ve not given any thought to the matter of interpreting evidence.
A God made of spaghetti could use it’s omnipotent powers to time travel before pasta’s invention and create the universe.
Sentient energy is if anything more unlikely than sentient spaghetti. With sufficiently advanced bio/nanotechnology you could probably actually pull the latter off; energy on the other hand just dissipates, regardless of the “energy beings” you see in sci-fi.
No. There’s a difference between proof being impossible ( like proof of God; there’s always a more likely explanation ), or a thing being logically impossible ( like God, as typically portrayed ) and between making up “facts” as you go along ( which is what the religious do ).
And if deny the validity of logic, as believers often do, then you might as well say nothing, because you CAN say nothing of meaning. “Blind devotion” to logic and rationality is necessary, because there’s no alternative but error and incoherence.
God could do something to show the whole world that he exists. He has had thousands of years to do so. He has not. That tells me ,no god. It would not even be hard. Does he like hiding so he can punish people? That is cruel.
There could be a billion reasons God would hide. Maybe earth is a training ground for something. Humans might be a stage of sorts. Maybe there’s an equally powerful demiurge. Maybe it’s for our own protection. Humans are idiots. They’ll burn themselves alive if they think God wants it. Pretty dumb. Imagine the chaos and wars undeniable proof would cause.
Your God of hiding-to-punish-people assumes a good/evil dichotomy. I’m not sure a creator God would make such a distinction. Look at the natural world. A wolf will lovingly lick, and nurture a helpless pup, maybe share some excess food with an injured pack mate. However those same jaws will swiftly murder a deer in cold blood. Yet if wolves didn’t do that the deer would over populate and starve. wolf predation is good for deer overall, even though it’s murder by most functional definitions.
The point being our system of morality breaks down in the natural world, it’s a tool our species uses because it works for us, but looking at the natural world I don’t think whatever created it, if sentient, is bound by the same rules.
If I was presented with irrefutable proof of the existence of a transendental God, then I’d believe in God.
Pretty simple, really. Hasn’t happened so far.
There can be no evidence for God directly. Even if “God Almighty” walked right up to me and said “See? Here I am! Now worship me!”, there would be no reason to believe him. If he magically transported me through time to watch the creation of the universe, it would prove nothing except he has some pretty awesome powers (or pretty awesome drugs). There is no evidence for a god that wouldn’t simply boil down to evidence for an entity more powerful than me.
Now, there could be evidence for the stories of the Bible, Koran, Bhagavad Gita, etc. This evidence could lend credibility to Christianity, Islam or Hinduism and cause me to, if not have utter faith in that religion, at least end up believing it conditionally. But as far as I know, NONE of the stories in those scriptures that have anything to do with religion or gods (i.e., not historical battles or whatnot) has any evidence to back it up at all. After all these centuries, religion has come up short. And THAT is why I don’t follow any religion.
In short, no evidence will convince me of a ‘God’ in the sense of “Singular being responsible for everything and worth worshiping”. There is potential evidence out there that could convince me that one religion has something to it. I may not worship their God, but I might buy whatever else they’re selling. However, in all the centuries of religions existence, none of that evidence has come to light. So I’m not holding my breath.