Hold on, you make the assertion that “No objective review of available evidence can possibly lead one to the conclusion that God exists.” without providing any argument and want me to make an argument for why it is possible?
Of course it is possible. You will of course not think it is valid or logical to infer from the available evidence anything beyond what you can perceive or sense. Just don’t say it is impossible. Just because you think it is invalid or illogical make the incorrect assertion and say it is impossible. I am sorry, but you make no argument for why it is impossible and then all of a sudden want to tell me I need to say why it is possible. Come on man, at least make an argument to qualify your assertion.
There are several arguments, of course, I suspect none of them will be convincing for you. But that just IS how you get from evidence (reality) to the existence of God… via philosophical arguments. For you to say it is impossible, you at least need to provide some sort of argument.
Who said evidence/reality will lead anybody to see God? I am not a pantheist lol.
Seriously, read up on the arguments. There are many. Some are better than others, and I am sure none will change your opinion. It will be an utter waste of my time though to go over them just for you.
At best you can say:
For me (BoogieMonster) no objective review of available evidence can possibly lead me to the conclusion that God exists.
Don’t worry, you will get a lot more of those when conversing with many materialists and naturalists. Lucky for you they are rare specimens. And yes, that was a cheap shot just to return the favour :-*.
No cheap shot, just the honest truth regarding my very real reaction upon reading that. This entire thread is you arguing for some flavour of Gould’s NOMA, where the concept of god is assumed to be outside the reach of the methods of science and that skeptics who then dismiss the god-concept from arguments of science alone are labeled crackpots. It is a silly, outdated premise that has been thoroughly and completely demolished, and seeing you attempt to carry it over so many pages and posts resulted in a genuine dumbpiphany.
Erm, do you think the concept of God is within the reach of the methods of science then? Please do explain yourself if you do think it is because this will really be fascinating. Can we get at least some scientific theory or hypothesis to test the existence of God?? And no, ID arguments from ignorance are not going to cut it, try harder.
But that just IS how you get from evidence (reality) to the existence of God... via philosophical arguments. For you to say it is impossible, you at least need to provide some sort of argument.
Erm, do you think the concept of God is within the reach of the methods of science then?
That’s my point really. Proving god cannot be done by evidence. You make my point then try to argue… it’s really confusing. I’ll say it again, evidence does not lead to god. “philosophical arguments” can, sure, but that’s not evidence, that’s pure speculation. You see what I’m trying to say here? On a level, we’re agreeing with eachother.
Which concept exactly?
a) An active interventionist god like that of the Christian bible? A statistically relevant result from a study of something like faith healing should suffice. Every passing minute with the absence of such results fails to falsify the null hypothesis of methodological naturalism, and strengthens case for the skeptics’ dismissal of the existence of such a god.
b) A creator god who passively watches his clockwork universe wind down?
c) A god whose every act of intervention follows the laws of his universe or includes the constant modification of our perception to make them seem to, like the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
d) Other variations on the theme of b and c?
b,c and d are rightly outside the realm of science as the claim that I can turn into a pink unicorn when I’m not being observed, and equally worthy of contemptuous dismissal by skeptics without being labeled ‘crackpots’.
Classical theism: the belief that there is at least one supernatural deity. Whatever that deity is, it will have to fall into one of the categories above, so the argument is relevant.
Then give me an example of where belief advanced scientific progress. (And stay on the topic - you know what belief we are talking about)
I did not say ALL atheists - THAT would be a generalization. I stated specific atheists - ones I know.
The argument there is simple. Provide me with an argument for the existence of God that has not been torn apart.
I think these are all very good points: (Although you disagree)
1 - Belief in the supernatural hinders progress.
2 - No objectivity with theists (look up the word and you will see why)
3 - No valid proof for the existence of God
There is a whole topic now for you to be clear ;).
Yeah so? Is that suppose to mean anything?
Let’s see if you find this argument convincing (take note that it has nothing to do with God, this is purely there to see if you are capable of understanding it).
My argument is:
Given that a full rotation is 100 degrees and three lines on an Euclidean plane form an enclosed figure, the interior angles of this enclosed figure will ALWAYS add up to 50 degrees.
On the scale below, what do you think is the probability that the interior angles of the above figure will ALWAYS add up to 50 degrees?
1 100 per cent probability.
2 Very high probability but short of 100 per cent.
3 Higher than 50 per cent but not very high.
4 Exactly 50 per cent.
5 Lower than 50 per cent but not very low.
6 Very low probability, but short of zero.
7 0 percent probability.
Never seen a real Euclidean plane, so far they’ve all been approximations. Does this lead me to infer that there must be a perfect Euclidean plane somewhere out there? No! But it is still quite easy to model an Euclidean plane on a computer, or even in my head.