After reading all the posts in this thread and weighing the evidence, I have concluded that there is no god. Thank you Zagadka, for finally and unambiguously settling this argument.
Vocab question: isn’t a scientific proof a contradiction? I thought that the essence of science was observation and experimentation, and that proofs and their like belonged soley to logic.
Robert, if you go to one of the first few posts you’ll see that Astro stated that:
So it’s really not the same meaning of the word proof.
Hypothetical abilities without tangible decription or definition? Are you saying that without providing the number of legs god has, I’m not describing him? I was offering a definition of god which provides for certain assumptions to be made for his existance. Not that he does exist, but that if he did, the circumstances by which he must exist. Based on those statements of abilities, you can determine exactly where god would have to be, how he proceeds, and how he functions. Not how he could possibly exist, but how he must if he does.
But there is more exidence that unicorns and leprecauns don’t exist. That’s why it was a bad example.
Non-observability is a pretty strong and well defined scientific term Diogenes. It’s highly specific.
There is no evidence that it doesn’t either. The default presumption is only the default because if you fall back on the existance of a deity no progress would be made. I don’t disagree with this.
What evidence is there that unicorns and leprecauns don’t exist? What if I told you I saw a leprecaun the other day in my yard?
That can be verified. Satillites circle the globe everyday taking pictures of the ground. You can, or could at one point, request images for a location at a certain date and place.
The Earth is inhabited pretty broadly today, and to date no photographs or video tape has ever surfaced for leprecauns or unicorns. If they’re occupying the surface of the Earth and no one has taped or taken pictures of them, and they aren’t ever seen from space, I’d say that’s a good amount of evidence that they aren’t there.
That’s without changing the properties that leprecauns and unicorns are supposed to have.
Leprechaun and unicorns are supernatural, non-physical creatures who have the magical ability to avoid detection and photography. It should not be expected that they would not be picked up on radar because radars do not work on magical entities. You have not proven that they don’t exist, only that you don’t understand magic.
Please note that you can substitute the word “magic” for any word like “supernatural,” “spiritual” or “non-physical” and there will be no scientific change in the meaning.
Um…no it isn’t. At least it’s not a property possessed by any thing that physically exists. Non-observability is a property of non-existence.
Can you name something which can be proven to exist which is not observable?
Well, the leprecaun in my back yard (known as Sean the Leprecaun) is impervious to all photo and video attempts of recording. I know it’s true because he told me this morning as I was backing out of my driveway. If you were to look in my back yard, you would be able to see him too, provided you are open to accepting Sean the Leoprecaun into your life.
Pash
How about vampires? They don’t show up in satellite photographs.
In that case Sean would be invisible, as the process for viewing reflected light does not differ from the process of photography. He would still leave a heat signiture, occupy specific space, be audible since he told you, and visible to satillites.
Also, his ancestors would have presumably left behind invisible bones. 
And if they did, how would they be differentiated from humans? But I’m assuming you mean because they are not visible in mirrors.
Mythological properties of a creature don’t mean anything unless they can be shown to be possible, in theory.
Note that I’ve never argued how god is according to the bible, but how god must be if he were to exist.
Ahem. Zagadka, I see two possibilities here.
-
You started an entire thread as a passive-aggressive way to get me to look at the thread again and realize I should’ve used the word ‘evidence’ instead of ‘proof’ (instead of just saying such), because it’s true that you don’t accept evidence contrary to your views so you’re now wasting a number of people’s time in TWO threads. What I meant was ‘you are immune to proofs, arguments and evidence in general and you are in fact making fun of the entire concept as it applies to god because you can’t prove your own case.’
-
You’ve never heard that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and are unaware that you’re making an extraordinary claim. I can’t prove that some undefined concept of god doesn’t exist any more than I can prove the SDMB’s infamous Invisible Pink Unicorn doesn’t exist. I also don’t need to; people claiming that god (or the IPU) is real have to provide some reason to think that they might be right.
In addition, Diogenes, as I’m sure you’re tired of rehashing arguments over and over, and so am I, I see no need for this thread to evolve into another debate between the two of us.
In hindsight, it seems doubly foolish for us simply to do this for our own benefit.
I’m far more inclined to discuss mythological creatures and wait for Marley and Zagadka to hash out the rest
I’ll pass, thanks. I’m curious to see if this thread was started because Zagadka is copping a 'tude toward atheists in general or if it’s just me, but that’s about it at this point…
To go one step further, Zagadka, while I should have said ‘evidence,’ I think what I originally meant was that even if evidence existed you wouldn’t accept it. As I said, you made it clear in the last thread that you’re not interested in the whole idea when you said “The god-force is beyond the physical world. You can’t prove it, you can only feel it.” So why did you bother starting a whole extra thread about it? That’s completely pointless. MEBuckner is correct in that I never said there was any proof to begin with, and he’s right that (metaphorically) atheists are from Missouri - you know, the “Show Me” State.
ShaolinRabbit, the point is that God violates the laws of physics also. That is the very meaning of the word supernatural. You were asked how a belief in God is different to a belief in other supernatural entities.
And Sean is audible to everyone, just those are open enough to accept that he exists. And just because he doesn’t leave a heat signature, that doesn’t mean he’s not there. I can feel his presence. AND I can provide photos of the beautiful garden he is responsible for. Sean has no ancestors. He is the original, and one true Leprechaun. How can you say he doesn’t exist?
First of all, the concept of god that has been presented to you may well violate the laws of physics, but my concept does not. Second, I never used the word supernatural, that actually is a pretty empty term for the purposes of a discussion like this.
God by definition, in order to comply with the laws of physics, is a creator, an originator to be more to the point. Existing before the singularity which created our universe, that originator is unobservable by science wthin our universe. It is assumed, that being all knowing, this originator would have created the universe to be as it is, and therefor does not cross the boundary between us. He wouldn’t have to. Like everything else outside of the known universe, if anything, it would be strickly non-falsifiable and nonobservable. It’s mental masturbation even to speculate.
That’s not assumed at all, since not everybody thinks that way. Anyway, in order to have existed before the universe (raising the questions of where did god exist and where did it come from?), god has to violate the laws of physics. I see on preview that SentientMeat has just mentioned this.