Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is it possible for science to disprove God?

ZenoCitium
Posts: 184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2015 10:56:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Is it possible for science to prove God's non-existence? Please read through this debate and let me know what your thoughts are. Voting is still open.

http://www.debate.org...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2015 11:12:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/1/2015 10:56:28 PM, ZenoCitium wrote:
Is it possible for science to prove God's non-existence? Please read through this debate and let me know what your thoughts are. Voting is still open.

http://www.debate.org...

No evidence is a universal negative that can not be proven or even vaguely likely to be true from the observational view point of earth and human beings.

If god were impossible then that would be a logical universal negative and conclusive.

Evidence of course is nothing with out argumentation. But even given if the arguments are unconvincing the statement that there is "no evidence for god" is a fallacious one. Argument from ignorance.

Because you are stating a universal truth (there is no evidence) because the counter (there is evidence) hasn't been seen by you.

Again tho many other people do see evidence, have a God bigger than the gaps in understanding, bigger than some book and bigger than a small human brain. These people see evidence that affirm God's existence.

But if you want to be an Atheist and build a foundation on a fallacy and pass rhetoric off as logic by all means you have the right to be irrational and deceptive.
ZenoCitium
Posts: 184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2015 11:29:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/1/2015 11:12:23 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/1/2015 10:56:28 PM, ZenoCitium wrote:
Is it possible for science to prove God's non-existence? Please read through this debate and let me know what your thoughts are. Voting is still open.

http://www.debate.org...

No evidence is a universal negative that can not be proven or even vaguely likely to be true from the observational view point of earth and human beings.


Doesn't this, then support PRO's arguments? If science requires evidence for proof and absence of evidence can not be proven .... That was part of the basis for the argument.

Did you have a chance to read the closing statement? This resolution doesn't support atheism or theism. It only takes a stance on science and are inability in proving a negative.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2015 6:13:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/1/2015 11:29:20 PM, ZenoCitium wrote:
At 4/1/2015 11:12:23 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/1/2015 10:56:28 PM, ZenoCitium wrote:
Is it possible for science to prove God's non-existence? Please read through this debate and let me know what your thoughts are. Voting is still open.

http://www.debate.org...

No evidence is a universal negative that can not be proven or even vaguely likely to be true from the observational view point of earth and human beings.


Doesn't this, then support PRO's arguments? If science requires evidence for proof and absence of evidence can not be proven .... That was part of the basis for the argument.

Did you have a chance to read the closing statement? This resolution doesn't support atheism or theism. It only takes a stance on science and are inability in proving a negative.

That's because some people accept illogical rhetoric as some kind of standards for rationality.

Science is a methodology which like most tools has it's limitations. Only real fool would think that all of reality has already be discerned by scientific methods.

Ignostic is the shifting criteria for 'material' or 'exist'.

Science does not disprove God. Contrary I think it has made God more likely.

Even understanding how 2 bodies of mass fall towards each other doesn't negate God, God's influence or God the creator.

I can describe and know every inch of a painting and how it IS this doesn't remove the painter.

Atheism is an argument from ignorance, semantics, and fantasy
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2015 6:40:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/1/2015 10:56:28 PM, ZenoCitium wrote:
Is it possible for science to prove God's non-existence? Please read through this debate and let me know what your thoughts are. Voting is still open.

http://www.debate.org...

Yes..................and no.

People have carefully defined God to the point to make it compatible with anything and everything.

That's kind of a joke that some religious people don't get, and you see it when they excitedly proclaim God has never being dis proven.

Just another one of those things the religious higher ups take advantage of.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
ZenoCitium
Posts: 184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 12:49:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago

People have carefully defined God to the point to make it compatible with anything and everything.

That's kind of a joke that some religious people don't get, and you see it when they excitedly proclaim God has never being dis proven.

Just another one of those things the religious higher ups take advantage of.

Ironically, I see the opposite. I see atheists that define God in such a way that He can be proven not to exist. For instance, claiming that God is omnipotent or benevolent and then proving that such characteristics are not logically possible and therefore God does not exist. I think what you describes occurs on both sides of the debate.
missmedic
Posts: 387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 1:18:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/1/2015 10:56:28 PM, ZenoCitium wrote:
Is it possible for science to prove God's non-existence? Please read through this debate and let me know what your thoughts are. Voting is still open.

http://www.debate.org...

If by "prove" you mean "establish the truth with 100% certainty", then you"re asking for the impossible. We can"t do that, and neither can you.

The scientific method only admits for universal negatives " in science, you can only falsify something completely, not confirm it completely. Something is judged to be true because it stands to the test of falsifiability extensively enough to be unassailable. But failing one single test disqualifies a specific principle from being accepted.
ZenoCitium
Posts: 184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 1:24:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If by "prove" you mean "establish the truth with 100% certainty", then you"re asking for the impossible. We can"t do that, and neither can you.

This debate concerns non-existing, disproving rather than proving. How does science prove nonexistence?
ZenoCitium
Posts: 184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 5:29:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I was suprised by my opponent's unwavering belief that if science can't disprove God then that proves God exists, or at least that there is reasonable cause for beielf in anything that science can't disprove. Any thoughts on this?
ZenoCitium
Posts: 184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 5:35:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I took over this debate from a debater that had forfeited. The arfuements that pro had submitted prior to forfeiting were completely pro God existing.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 10:57:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 5:29:11 PM, ZenoCitium wrote:
I was suprised by my opponent's unwavering belief that if science can't disprove God then that proves God exists, or at least that there is reasonable cause for beielf in anything that science can't disprove. Any thoughts on this?

Absurd. Im sure science cant disprove aliens exist on planet X either, doesnt mean its reasonable to assume or believe that its probable.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,165
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 6:33:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/1/2015 10:56:28 PM, ZenoCitium wrote:
Is it possible for science to prove God's non-existence? Please read through this debate and let me know what your thoughts are. Voting is still open.

http://www.debate.org...

God is supernatural so by definition God is not natural.

Science is strictly forbidden to study anything supernatural.

Science by definition studies only natural things.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 7:03:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/1/2015 10:56:28 PM, ZenoCitium wrote:
Is it possible for science to prove God's non-existence?

The issue here is that God -- the god of Abraham -- is defined through the claims of Abrahamic theology, such as: creator of the heavens and earth in six days, creator of man in its own image, patron of the Jews, lead the Jews out of Egypt, and so on.

The key point here is: if some other transcendental deity created the universe, that would not be God. It might be Brahma, say, the Creator of the Hindus, or Ahura-Mazda, the Creator of the Zoroastrians. But it would not be the god of Abraham.

So failure of any of the Biblical claims about God would mean that God -- Yhwh -- does not exist as defined. Some other deity might, or there might be some other god called Yhwh, but that particular deity defined in the Bible does not.

And of course we know that many Biblical claims about God have been debunked. The earth wasn't created in six days, woman wasn't created from a man's rib, humans didn't emerge fully-formed into a garden, and so on.

However, here is where theology does what it always does, and changes its story and/or the rules as far as it can get away with.

"Oh, we don't accept the authority of physical evidence", says theology. "You need to disprove God within the authority of our doctrine."

(How on earth is that supposed to work? What gave the doctrine any authority in the first place, save the presupposition that it was written clearly, and with divine inerrance?)

Or "The stories don't have literal meaning," says theology. "Even though we've been saying for centuries that they do. The stories actually mean something different."

Oh really. So there are no physical claims then? Or you're free to change them whenever they're falsified?

Here's the point I'd like to offer: theology's evasion of and retreat from scientific evidence, is itself evidence that the theological claims of God have been debunked: not just once, but repeatedly.

Science has been slaying God since the Enlightenment. And every time he dies or loses relevance, like King Arthur or Robin Hood, a new guy with the same name takes his place -- but he's actually a different character in an altered mythical story.

The God of the Pentateuch -- the only true Abrahamic god -- is debunked by our knowledge of the sciences What you have now is the stunt-double of a stand-in of an understudy.
ZenoCitium
Posts: 184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 7:18:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Oh really. So there are no physical claims then? Or you're free to change them whenever they're falsified?

Doesn't science also follow this procedure?

Here's the point I'd like to offer: theology's evasion of and retreat from scientific evidence, is itself evidence that the theological claims of God have been debunked: not just once, but repeatedly.

This is not really correct. Theology examines subjects that are not related to the natural world, and therefore aren't within the realm of our scientific understanding.

The God of the Pentateuch -- the only true Abrahamic god -- is debunked by our knowledge of the sciences What you have now is the stunt-double of a stand-in of an understudy.

This type of argument commits a fallacy, actually THE fallacy that was the flagship argument against my opponent. With respect to this resolution, you can't prove non-existence. Absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 7:30:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 7:18:52 PM, ZenoCitium wrote:
Oh really. So there are no physical claims then? Or you're free to change them whenever they're falsified?
Doesn't science also follow this procedure?
No. If science conjectures that disease is created by an imbalance in four humours, but then disease is discovered to be the agency of bacteria, then the four humours conjecture is abandoned.

Here's the point I'd like to offer: theology's evasion of and retreat from scientific evidence, is itself evidence that the theological claims of God have been debunked: not just once, but repeatedly.
This is not really correct. Theology examines subjects that are not related to the natural world, and therefore aren't within the realm of our scientific understanding.
Untrue. When theology makes physical claims, they can be confirmed or refuted scientifically. If a physical claim is made with respect to a supernatural agency, then the existence of the agency is defined by that claim.

Debunking the claim therefore debunks the agency. Theology then has to go back and reinvent the agency, possibly attributing new physical claims -- which is actually what it does.

The God of the Pentateuch -- the only true Abrahamic god -- is debunked by our knowledge of the sciences What you have now is the stunt-double of a stand-in of an understudy.
Absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence.

There God of Abraham is the god worshipped by ancient Jews and defined by the Pentateuch. That god created the earth in six days, created Adam whole from clay, and then made Eve from his rib.

That god has been shown never to have existed. What modern Christians worship is a reinvented deity by the same name.

In summary: a god is what a god does. If the god you worship didn't do what you say it did, then the god you worshipped doesn't exist.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 1:40:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/1/2015 10:56:28 PM, ZenoCitium wrote:
Is it possible for science to prove God's non-existence? Please read through this debate and let me know what your thoughts are. Voting is still open.

http://www.debate.org...

It could but so far it only confirms that God exists. For example, fresh discoveries of complexities in living things strengthen the argument for God from design.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
ZenoCitium
Posts: 184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 8:27:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Debunking the claim therefore debunks the agency. Theology then has to go back and reinvent the agency, possibly attributing new physical claims -- which is actually what it does.


This seems to be aligned with the fallacist's fallacy. It is tempting to conclude that the conclusion is false. However, you are inferring that, since the argument contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false. This would be to go beyond the evidence. Debunking the claim would prove that God did not create the earth in six days but it would not prove that God does not exist.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 8:39:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/11/2015 8:27:28 AM, ZenoCitium wrote:
Debunking the claim would prove that God did not create the earth in six days but it would not prove that God does not exist.

God is the entity worshiped by its adherents. Having no location other physically distinguishing features, its identity is knowable only by its purported deeds.

If those deeds didn't occur then the God as worshiped does not exist. Could some other god with some other deeds be worshiped, even under the same name? Perhaps. But the God as defined does not exist.

What precedent is there for that conclusion? In fact there are many.

King Arthur is not known by his physicality; only by stories told about his deeds. When we ask does King Arthur exist, we are not asking whether there were ever any kings called Arthur, but whether the deeds in the tales were actually performed by a king of that name. In particular, certain key deeds define Arthur's mythology, such as drawing a magic sword from a stone and ruling the whole of England from a wondrous city called Camelot.

If it turns out that those deeds never occurred, then there may well have been many kings called Arthur, but not the one we were talking about, because that one is a myth.

In that regard, the Yhwh worshiped by modern Christians is not the Yhwh worshiped by ancient Israelites. The old Yhwh -- the original one -- did things modern Christians no longer believe occurred. Christians worship a different Yhwh now, not because their scriptures have changed, but because scriptural claims have been debunked.

That old Yhwh, Christians know, never existed. So like the constant retelling of King Arthur, they've replaced the old Yhwh with a new one -- one who did different things in different ways and often for slightly different reasons, which they hope science can't refute.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 8:57:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 6:33:24 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/1/2015 10:56:28 PM, ZenoCitium wrote:
Is it possible for science to prove God's non-existence? Please read through this debate and let me know what your thoughts are. Voting is still open.

http://www.debate.org...

God is supernatural so by definition God is not natural.

Science is strictly forbidden to study anything supernatural.

Science by definition studies only natural things.

Humans are natural things, they are not supernatural. The universe and everything in it is natural, it is not supernatural. Everything that affects humans from the universe is natural, it is not supernatural. Therefore, if something supernatural affects the natural things of the universe, it must also be natural.

If God is supernatural, God cannot affect humans or anything in the universe without that effect being natural. Therefore, one of two conclusions must be true.

The effects of God on humans can be studied by science, therefore God can be studied by science.

Or, God does not exist.

Theists would be forced to accept the first conclusion for if they have any knowledge or relationship with God, that knowledge/relationship must be a natural thing, or else theists would never have any knowledge of God.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Accipiter
Posts: 1,165
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 7:28:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/11/2015 8:57:38 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/9/2015 6:33:24 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/1/2015 10:56:28 PM, ZenoCitium wrote:
Is it possible for science to prove God's non-existence? Please read through this debate and let me know what your thoughts are. Voting is still open.

http://www.debate.org...

God is supernatural so by definition God is not natural.

Science is strictly forbidden to study anything supernatural.

Science by definition studies only natural things.

Humans are natural things, they are not supernatural. The universe and everything in it is natural, it is not supernatural. Everything that affects humans from the universe is natural, it is not supernatural. Therefore, if something supernatural affects the natural things of the universe, it must also be natural.

If God is supernatural, God cannot affect humans or anything in the universe without that effect being natural. Therefore, one of two conclusions must be true.

The effects of God on humans can be studied by science, therefore God can be studied by science.

Or, God does not exist.

Theists would be forced to accept the first conclusion for if they have any knowledge or relationship with God, that knowledge/relationship must be a natural thing, or else theists would never have any knowledge of God.

The study of people who believe in God is of course science, it is the direct study of God it self that is impossible.

People do not believe in God for unnatural reasons there are many theories regarding why people seem to have this need to believe in a god or gods.

One of my favorites is the false positive theory.

https://www.psychologytoday.com...
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2015 4:38:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/11/2015 7:28:21 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/11/2015 8:57:38 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/9/2015 6:33:24 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/1/2015 10:56:28 PM, ZenoCitium wrote:
Is it possible for science to prove God's non-existence? Please read through this debate and let me know what your thoughts are. Voting is still open.

http://www.debate.org...

God is supernatural so by definition God is not natural.

Science is strictly forbidden to study anything supernatural.

Science by definition studies only natural things.

Humans are natural things, they are not supernatural. The universe and everything in it is natural, it is not supernatural. Everything that affects humans from the universe is natural, it is not supernatural. Therefore, if something supernatural affects the natural things of the universe, it must also be natural.

If God is supernatural, God cannot affect humans or anything in the universe without that effect being natural. Therefore, one of two conclusions must be true.

The effects of God on humans can be studied by science, therefore God can be studied by science.

Or, God does not exist.

Theists would be forced to accept the first conclusion for if they have any knowledge or relationship with God, that knowledge/relationship must be a natural thing, or else theists would never have any knowledge of God.

The study of people who believe in God is of course science, it is the direct study of God it self that is impossible.

It is possible to study God if people say they know God exists, or else they simply wouldn't know.

People do not believe in God for unnatural reasons there are many theories regarding why people seem to have this need to believe in a god or gods.

Often, it is because they are indoctrinated into their parents religion.

One of my favorites is the false positive theory.

https://www.psychologytoday.com...
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Accipiter
Posts: 1,165
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2015 9:30:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/12/2015 4:38:22 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/11/2015 7:28:21 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/11/2015 8:57:38 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/9/2015 6:33:24 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/1/2015 10:56:28 PM, ZenoCitium wrote:
Is it possible for science to prove God's non-existence? Please read through this debate and let me know what your thoughts are. Voting is still open.

http://www.debate.org...

God is supernatural so by definition God is not natural.

Science is strictly forbidden to study anything supernatural.

Science by definition studies only natural things.

Humans are natural things, they are not supernatural. The universe and everything in it is natural, it is not supernatural. Everything that affects humans from the universe is natural, it is not supernatural. Therefore, if something supernatural affects the natural things of the universe, it must also be natural.

If God is supernatural, God cannot affect humans or anything in the universe without that effect being natural. Therefore, one of two conclusions must be true.

The effects of God on humans can be studied by science, therefore God can be studied by science.

Or, God does not exist.

Theists would be forced to accept the first conclusion for if they have any knowledge or relationship with God, that knowledge/relationship must be a natural thing, or else theists would never have any knowledge of God.

The study of people who believe in God is of course science, it is the direct study of God it self that is impossible.

It is possible to study God if people say they know God exists, or else they simply wouldn't know.

People do not believe in God for unnatural reasons there are many theories regarding why people seem to have this need to believe in a god or gods.

Often, it is because they are indoctrinated into their parents religion.

One of my favorites is the false positive theory.

https://www.psychologytoday.com...

"Often, it is because they are indoctrinated into their parents religion."

Yeah that's a pretty crucial part of the system especially since the Bible is looking more and more ridiculous as society, science and technology advances into the future.

You got to get them when they are young and willing to believe in fairy tales.
ZenoCitium
Posts: 184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2015 9:42:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Humans are natural things, they are not supernatural. The universe and everything in it is natural, it is not supernatural. Everything that affects humans from the universe is natural, it is not supernatural. Therefore, if something supernatural affects the natural things of the universe, it must also be natural.

If God is supernatural, God cannot affect humans or anything in the universe without that effect being natural. Therefore, one of two conclusions must be true.

The effects of God on humans can be studied by science, therefore God can be studied by science.

The term supernatural is defined as "above the laws of nature." In other words, supernatural beings have the power to violate the laws of nature. They are, by definition, not able to be examined by science.

https://www.google.com...
ZenoCitium
Posts: 184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2015 9:44:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Yeah that's a pretty crucial part of the system especially since the Bible is looking more and more ridiculous as society, science and technology advances into the future.

You got to get them when they are young and willing to believe in fairy tales.

It seems to me that is true with almost any belief system. I would argue that agnostics could make the same claim about atheists.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2015 9:57:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/13/2015 9:30:57 AM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/12/2015 4:38:22 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/11/2015 7:28:21 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/11/2015 8:57:38 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/9/2015 6:33:24 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/1/2015 10:56:28 PM, ZenoCitium wrote:
Is it possible for science to prove God's non-existence? Please read through this debate and let me know what your thoughts are. Voting is still open.

http://www.debate.org...

God is supernatural so by definition God is not natural.

Science is strictly forbidden to study anything supernatural.

Science by definition studies only natural things.

Humans are natural things, they are not supernatural. The universe and everything in it is natural, it is not supernatural. Everything that affects humans from the universe is natural, it is not supernatural. Therefore, if something supernatural affects the natural things of the universe, it must also be natural.

If God is supernatural, God cannot affect humans or anything in the universe without that effect being natural. Therefore, one of two conclusions must be true.

The effects of God on humans can be studied by science, therefore God can be studied by science.

Or, God does not exist.

Theists would be forced to accept the first conclusion for if they have any knowledge or relationship with God, that knowledge/relationship must be a natural thing, or else theists would never have any knowledge of God.

The study of people who believe in God is of course science, it is the direct study of God it self that is impossible.

It is possible to study God if people say they know God exists, or else they simply wouldn't know.

People do not believe in God for unnatural reasons there are many theories regarding why people seem to have this need to believe in a god or gods.

Often, it is because they are indoctrinated into their parents religion.

One of my favorites is the false positive theory.

https://www.psychologytoday.com...

"Often, it is because they are indoctrinated into their parents religion."

Yeah that's a pretty crucial part of the system especially since the Bible is looking more and more ridiculous as society, science and technology advances into the future.

You got to get them when they are young and willing to believe in fairy tales.

Take them to church every week to instill the doctrines on a regular basis. I wonder how well religious indoctrination would work without churches?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
missmedic
Posts: 387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2015 10:20:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/1/2015 10:56:28 PM, ZenoCitium wrote:
Is it possible for science to prove God's non-existence? Please read through this debate and let me know what your thoughts are. Voting is still open.

http://www.debate.org...

Science is not needed to disprove god, society has proven gods are no longer necessary. Gods only provide comfort to people that lack knowledge, reason and reject truth.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,165
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 6:47:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/13/2015 9:57:46 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/13/2015 9:30:57 AM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/12/2015 4:38:22 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/11/2015 7:28:21 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/11/2015 8:57:38 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/9/2015 6:33:24 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/1/2015 10:56:28 PM, ZenoCitium wrote:
Is it possible for science to prove God's non-existence? Please read through this debate and let me know what your thoughts are. Voting is still open.

http://www.debate.org...

God is supernatural so by definition God is not natural.

Science is strictly forbidden to study anything supernatural.

Science by definition studies only natural things.

Humans are natural things, they are not supernatural. The universe and everything in it is natural, it is not supernatural. Everything that affects humans from the universe is natural, it is not supernatural. Therefore, if something supernatural affects the natural things of the universe, it must also be natural.

If God is supernatural, God cannot affect humans or anything in the universe without that effect being natural. Therefore, one of two conclusions must be true.

The effects of God on humans can be studied by science, therefore God can be studied by science.

Or, God does not exist.

Theists would be forced to accept the first conclusion for if they have any knowledge or relationship with God, that knowledge/relationship must be a natural thing, or else theists would never have any knowledge of God.

The study of people who believe in God is of course science, it is the direct study of God it self that is impossible.

It is possible to study God if people say they know God exists, or else they simply wouldn't know.

People do not believe in God for unnatural reasons there are many theories regarding why people seem to have this need to believe in a god or gods.

Often, it is because they are indoctrinated into their parents religion.

One of my favorites is the false positive theory.

https://www.psychologytoday.com...

"Often, it is because they are indoctrinated into their parents religion."

Yeah that's a pretty crucial part of the system especially since the Bible is looking more and more ridiculous as society, science and technology advances into the future.

You got to get them when they are young and willing to believe in fairy tales.

Take them to church every week to instill the doctrines on a regular basis. I wonder how well religious indoctrination would work without churches?

As much effort as they put into it you would think something stupendous would have happened by now, instead it just get stupider and stupider.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 8:48:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/1/2015 10:56:28 PM, ZenoCitium wrote:
Is it possible for science to prove God's non-existence? Please read through this debate and let me know what your thoughts are. Voting is still open.

http://www.debate.org...

You can't disprove the general concept of a supernatural entity in general.

However, Religions all make positive claims as to the features, desires, form and function of God; which can be disproven.

For example, the old testament God that wrote an inerrant bible can be eliminated as a possibility just from one line:

Then the Lord said to Moses, "Write this on a scroll as something to be remembered and make sure that Joshua hears it, because I will completely blot out the name of Amalek from under heaven."

a.) We still remember the name Amalek.
b.) An intelligent God would not ask someone to remember that God eliminated a name from under heaven. Sort of defeats the purpose.
Student4Life1975
Posts: 57
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 6:43:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/1/2015 10:56:28 PM, ZenoCitium wrote:
Is it possible for science to prove God's non-existence? Please read through this debate and let me know what your thoughts are. Voting is still open.

http://www.debate.org...

Science doesnt need to disprove God, it only needs to disprove Religion, then God will fall with it as a result. Neuroscience is making amazing discoveries about the human brain and its just a matter of time it identifies the mechanisms within the brain that will explain the religion question.
there is no progress without compromise"