Science will never prove God

User avatar
Infinite Stop
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:57 am

Science will never prove God

Post by Infinite Stop »

littleCJelkton;1390314 wrote: Wheat everything you said can be explained economics, beauty, education, and general happiness, your god can not that is why you and others like yourself never have the slightest idea on anything and thank you for clearing it up that religiously fanatical nut jobs are "dumb as a rock" it helps explain alot


I honestly have no idea what you are saying here, or how it relates to the post to which you are responding.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 41336
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Science will never prove God

Post by spot »

Infinite Stop;1389906 wrote: Let me be blunt. If you are so utterly convinced that God does not exist, then why are you even bothering to argue? Why not just shake your head in amazement at our stupidity in here, and walk away from it all?


Because it's part of the job description of Christians and Muslims to spread the good word and convert the unbelievers. Walking away from such iniquity would itself be iniquitous. It behoves good people to fight wickedness like that whenever they see it.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 41336
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Science will never prove God

Post by spot »

Infinite Stop;1390164 wrote: I don't have the slightest idea why God should want to reveal Itself to me. But It did.
What you have is a problem with language. The accurate phrasing is "I don't have the slightest idea why I believed that God revealed Itself to me. But I did.". What you're confusing is the causative agent. You're misplacing an internal interpretation into the external realm and you have absolutely no justification for doing so.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
User avatar
Infinite Stop
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:57 am

Science will never prove God

Post by Infinite Stop »

spot;1390344 wrote: Because it's part of the job description of Christians and Muslims to spread the good word and convert the unbelievers. Walking away from such iniquity would itself be iniquitous. It behoves good people to fight wickedness like that whenever they see it.


I have a whole new respect for you. Good luck in your fight against religious ignorance, hate, and bigotry.

Do you think I'm being religious when I speak of revelation as the only way to know God? Must revelation be religious?
User avatar
Infinite Stop
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:57 am

Science will never prove God

Post by Infinite Stop »

spot;1390345 wrote: What you have is a problem with language. The accurate phrasing is "I don't have the slightest idea why I believed that God revealed Itself to me. But I did.". What you're confusing is the causative agent. You're misplacing an internal interpretation into the external realm and you have absolutely no justification for doing so.


Now, who do you think is going to know better the cause of that experience of mine, you or me? No, trust me, my phrasing was just the way it needs to be; I wouldn't change a syllable. And everything we experience is "internally interpretated." I don't know why you think that a true experience of God should be any different.
User avatar
littleCJelkton
Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 5:57 pm

Science will never prove God

Post by littleCJelkton »

Infinite Stop;1390349 wrote: Now, who do you think is going to know better the cause of that experience of mine, you or me? No, trust me, my phrasing was just the way it needs to be; I wouldn't change a syllable. And everything we experience is "internally interpretated." I don't know why you think that a true experience of God should be any different.


It, they, them, us, you, she he, and we are all external of Me, Myself, and I thus "We" can not internally experience anything, but Me Myself and I can internally experience everything.

With that said, if someone were to claim to internally experience a revelation from god, and nothing can be external in an internal experience, you therefore you can conclude that the person claiming to have a revelation is also claiming to be GOD
User avatar
Infinite Stop
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:57 am

Science will never prove God

Post by Infinite Stop »

littleCJelkton;1390978 wrote: It, they, them, us, you, she he, and we are all external of Me, Myself, and I thus "We" can not internally experience anything, but Me Myself and I can internally experience everything.

With that said, if someone were to claim to internally experience a revelation from god, and nothing can be external in an internal experience, you therefore you can conclude that the person claiming to have a revelation is also claiming to be GOD


In some strange way what you have here almost makes sense, even though you somewhat contradict yourself. But I would heartily disagree that a claim of divine revelation is tantamount to a claim of divinity for the self. Just because one claims to acknowledge the existence of something or someone does not mean they are claiming to be that thing. I admit the existence of butterflies and Einstein, but in doing so I don't claim to be either. I can know the reality of another's existence by their mere presence; therefore, I axiomatically accept that the creator of the universe has the capacity to reveal its existence to you or me, if it desires. And as you probably know by now, I claim to have had such a revelation. It's an audacious claim, I know; but it's true. It's from that experience that I learned that the only means of ever attaining knowledge of God is via revelation. Science is a tool that functions only in the material realm, not the spiritual. The only thing left is revelation.

I propose that no place in this universe, no matter how knowledgable or clever one may be, can they ever know of God independent the gift of revelation. And that's what it is, a gift, whether one supplicates that gift or it is granted solely by the will of the divine.
User avatar
littleCJelkton
Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 5:57 pm

Science will never prove God

Post by littleCJelkton »

Infinite Stop;1391011 wrote: In some strange way what you have here almost makes sense, even though you somewhat contradict yourself. But I would heartily disagree that a claim of divine revelation is tantamount to a claim of divinity for the self. Just because one claims to acknowledge the existence of something or someone does not mean they are claiming to be that thing. I admit the existence of butterflies and Einstein, but in doing so I don't claim to be either. I can know the reality of another's existence by their mere presence; therefore, I axiomatically accept that the creator of the universe has the capacity to reveal its existence to you or me, if it desires. And as you probably know by now, I claim to have had such a revelation. It's an audacious claim, I know; but it's true. It's from that experience that I learned that the only means of ever attaining knowledge of God is via revelation. Science is a tool that functions only in the material realm, not the spiritual. The only thing left is revelation.

I propose that no place in this universe, no matter how knowledgable or clever one may be, can they ever know of God independent the gift of revelation. And that's what it is, a gift, whether one supplicates that gift or it is granted solely by the will of the divine.


Man you guys never stop this I said he said merry go round do you. You say i am some what contradicting that is only because I must work with what I am given.

You admit the existence of butterflies and Einstien but are not them. That is because butterflies and Einstien are external and can be proven to be so. God on the other hand can not thus it is internal and everything internal is a result of Me, Myself, and I. God does not equal Einstien and butterflies.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 16113
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Science will never prove God

Post by Bryn Mawr »

littleCJelkton;1391039 wrote: Man you guys never stop this I said he said merry go round do you. You say i am some what contradicting that is only because I must work with what I am given.

You admit the existence of butterflies and Einstien but are not them. That is because butterflies and Einstien are external and can be proven to be so. God on the other hand can not thus it is internal and everything internal is a result of Me, Myself, and I. God does not equal Einstien and butterflies.


OK, rather than take recent event that are relatively easy to prove or disprove, let's go back a few hundred years - who wrote Shakespeare's plays?

If, after four hundred years, it is turning out to be impossible to prove such a simple fact, how much more difficult is it to prove whether God was active two thousand years ago.

That He is not front centre stage now does not prove that he never was and never could have been. If He only acts at the person by person level talking to those who have accepted His message then you, as someone who has not done so, would never know of His existence.
User avatar
Infinite Stop
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:57 am

Science will never prove God

Post by Infinite Stop »

littleCJelkton;1391039 wrote: Man you guys never stop this I said he said merry go round do you. You say i am some what contradicting that is only because I must work with what I am given.

You admit the existence of butterflies and Einstien but are not them. That is because butterflies and Einstien are external and can be proven to be so. God on the other hand can not thus it is internal and everything internal is a result of Me, Myself, and I. God does not equal Einstien and butterflies.


You want it both ways: You want to argue God's existence, but you reject God as possible because that God would have to be "external" to the self, while Einstein and butterflies can be proven to be so. Obviously if God truly does exist and reveals itself in a revelation, then God is both external and proven, just like butterflies and Einstein.

Honestly, I don't get you. You seem to talk in circles.
User avatar
littleCJelkton
Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 5:57 pm

Science will never prove God

Post by littleCJelkton »

Infinite Stop;1391082 wrote: You want it both ways: You want to argue God's existence, but you reject God as possible because that God would have to be "external" to the self, while Einstein and butterflies can be proven to be so. Obviously if God truly does exist and reveals itself in a revelation, then God is both external and proven, just like butterflies and Einstein.

Honestly, I don't get you. You seem to talk in circles.


I am dispute the fact that God's existence (real or Not) does not makes a difference in how I decide to treat others.

I am contending that any evidence for someones god is all internal thus every God is created in the image of the person who believes in that GOD

further upon that if a group of people are brought up to have a strict set of views an are deprived of the knowledge there is something different then their ideal will be similar and thus have similar GODs

the fact there are now more than one ignorant person does not change the fact that their ignorant. Even further there has only been one thing that has been able to prove ignorant people ignorant

and that is science not revelation. Revelation as it is shown to happen in the bible is the opposite of science it witholds knowledge from all others except one person. Revelation like that of the bible begets ignorance and if more than one person wants to be ignorant then that is there choice but they are not better than me or anyone else for chosing to be so. The type of ignorance that the Revelations from the bible spreads, is good at doing one thing though, and that is putting all the knowledge and power of the people who believe in that revelation in the hands of a few or one person and I personally don't believe in that.
User avatar
littleCJelkton
Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 5:57 pm

Science will never prove God

Post by littleCJelkton »

Bryn Mawr;1391059 wrote: OK, rather than take recent event that are relatively easy to prove or disprove, let's go back a few hundred years - who wrote Shakespeare's plays?

If, after four hundred years, it is turning out to be impossible to prove such a simple fact, how much more difficult is it to prove whether God was active two thousand years ago.

That He is not front centre stage now does not prove that he never was and never could have been. If He only acts at the person by person level talking to those who have accepted His message then you, as someone who has not done so, would never know of His existence.


Neither does it prove that there never was a Pecos Bill or a Paul bunyan or that George Washington Chopped a Cherry tree or that Abraham Lincoln never told a lie. No I don't believe in any of those stories I agree with the morals that each one tells and that some of what they tell have actual facts, characters, places, and events in them but I don't believe whole heartedly that every character and every event and every fact in those stories are real. In the case with the bible God is one of those characters I believe isn't real nor does he have to be for the important messages that the bible teaches on how to live life and treat your fellow man to be learned and followed. Unfortunately those messages get overlooked in the name of proving the stories are 100% real and that God is too.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 16113
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Science will never prove God

Post by Bryn Mawr »

littleCJelkton;1391127 wrote: Neither does it prove that there never was a Pecos Bill or a Paul bunyan or that George Washington Chopped a Cherry tree or that Abraham Lincoln never told a lie. No I don't believe in any of those stories I agree with the morals that each one tells and that some of what they tell have actual facts, characters, places, and events in them but I don't believe whole heartedly that every character and every event and every fact in those stories are real. In the case with the bible God is one of those characters I believe isn't real nor does he have to be for the important messages that the bible teaches on how to live life and treat your fellow man to be learned and followed. Unfortunately those messages get overlooked in the name of proving the stories are 100% real and that God is too.


Given that your logic does not prove that God does not exist do you accept that this belief is therefore an act of faith no different from that of the Christians you are disparaging?
User avatar
littleCJelkton
Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 5:57 pm

Science will never prove God

Post by littleCJelkton »

Bryn Mawr;1391175 wrote: Given that your logic does not prove that God does not exist do you accept that this belief is therefore an act of faith no different from that of the Christians you are disparaging?
No because I am not having to put faith in anything, unless you are saying treating others with respect and dignity is an act of faith, or not out right trying to kill everyone you meet who doesn't agree with you as an act of faith. then no I wouldn't consider any of it an act of faith. I don't disprove GOD because it GOD doesn't really matter it is how I treat you and others on hear and through out my life that does.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 16113
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Science will never prove God

Post by Bryn Mawr »

littleCJelkton;1391219 wrote: No because I am not having to put faith in anything, unless you are saying treating others with respect and dignity is an act of faith, or not out right trying to kill everyone you meet who doesn't agree with you as an act of faith. then no I wouldn't consider any of it an act of faith. I don't disprove GOD because it GOD doesn't really matter it is how I treat you and others on hear and through out my life that does.


No, I mean an act of faith in that you are quite obviously firm in your belief that God does not exist but have no way of logically proving the proposition - you are therefore accepting your belief on faith rather than on reason which is exactly the same position that you so criticise in theists.
User avatar
littleCJelkton
Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 5:57 pm

Science will never prove God

Post by littleCJelkton »

Bryn Mawr;1391234 wrote: No, I mean an act of faith in that you are quite obviously firm in your belief that God does not exist but have no way of logically proving the proposition - you are therefore accepting your belief on faith rather than on reason which is exactly the same position that you so criticise in theists.


I have a firm belief in it doesn't matter if one Chooses to believe in God or not, as God can not be proven or dis-proven as such Gods effect on man "good or bad" can not be proven or dis-proven.

I have a firm belief that trying to make others believe in the same God you do does not make you a "good" person or any better than those who believe in a different God, no God at all, or that God doesn't exist.

I have a firm belief that an act of faith or an act of reason can be either for good or ill and it is up for the person performing the act to decide which one that is .

I have a firm belief that I not you have the final say in what I have firm beliefs in. Just as you know your beliefs much better than anyone else and others cannot tell you or tell anyone else your beliefs better than yourself, thus I have a firm belief against others who say something they cannot prove or dis-prove knows what I believe in better than I do.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 16113
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Science will never prove God

Post by Bryn Mawr »

littleCJelkton;1391295 wrote: I have a firm belief in it doesn't matter if one Chooses to believe in God or not, as God can not be proven or dis-proven as such Gods effect on man "good or bad" can not be proven or dis-proven.

I have a firm belief that trying to make others believe in the same God you do does not make you a "good" person or any better than those who believe in a different God, no God at all, or that God doesn't exist.

I have a firm belief that an act of faith or an act of reason can be either for good or ill and it is up for the person performing the act to decide which one that is .

I have a firm belief that I not you have the final say in what I have firm beliefs in. Just as you know your beliefs much better than anyone else and others cannot tell you or tell anyone else your beliefs better than yourself, thus I have a firm belief against others who say something they cannot prove or dis-prove knows what I believe in better than I do.


Obviously I cannot know what you believe, I can only know what you have posted here in the Garden. As an example of that :-

In the case with the bible God is one of those characters I believe isn't real


(from post #112 of this thread) appears to be quite clear.

If you review my posts in this (and other) thread(s), you will find that I've been saying that you can neither prove nor disprove God, thus, I have not been saying anything I cannot prove or dis-prove.

All in all, you haven't answered the question :-)
User avatar
littleCJelkton
Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 5:57 pm

Science will never prove God

Post by littleCJelkton »

Bryn Mawr;1391322 wrote: Obviously I cannot know what you believe, I can only know what you have posted here in the Garden. As an example of that :-



(from post #112 of this thread) appears to be quite clear.

If you review my posts in this (and other) thread(s), you will find that I've been saying that you can neither prove nor disprove God, thus, I have not been saying anything I cannot prove or dis-prove.

All in all, you haven't answered the question :-)


I don't have faith in the knowledge that GOD isn't real the fact you cant prove it and it is only in a story shows me it is not real. Are you saying it is also an act of faith I believe that Santa Clause, or the Easter Bunny, or the tooth fairy aren't real. Or it is an Act of faith that I don't believe that Pecos Bill Rode around on Tornadoes in the 1800's or that Paul Bunyan is not real. That is not to say that if someone were to discover proof that god is real I wouldn't change my mind as I did say when I was a child and found out that Santa Clause and The Easter Bunny and Tooth fair were not real. I believe the faith I have been criticising is one that requires you to believe in what cannot be proven, not to not believe in what cannot be proven. Though, that type of thinking 'since you do- do not - not believe" in something you have faith and thus you are christian is the type of He said she said I said you said they said I know he knows she knows we believe in god thinking I have been firmly against throughout this post
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Science will never prove God

Post by Mickiel »

Infinite Stop;1388331 wrote: I contend that science or logical deduction alone is incapable of proving the existence of a living, sentient, creator Being; a.k.a. God.

There will never be a scientific conclusion or argument that will end, "Therefore, God exits" that will convince the majority. There would always be an element of doubt, and the question, "What if we are wrong?" No matter how profound sounding the argument, that argument will never be worth more than the paper it's printed on, in regard to God's existence. No Holy book, argument, or scientific deduction will ever=God.

Only God itself has the power to cause one of us experience its existence as self-evident truth. A direct communication from God is the greatest and only "proof" possible for God.

That one and only proof is the miracle of revelation, and it comes from God as a gift. Nobody discovers or proves God; instead God reveals itself to those it desires, and from that--and only that--one attains proof of God.

Agree? Disagree?




Science began as an effort to prove God; the origin of science was a search for the divine.
Post Reply

Return to “General Religious Discussions”