Does the 'throw out science' argument work

[Boris Godunov]

~13.7 for the universe, actually.

[Mr. Harley]

Somebody is having "fun".

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by nostromo


Ah, I see where this is heading... So you're asking whether we can prove or not God's existence. But the first question to ask is which God? Zeus? Vishnu? Brahma? Allah? Probably not. You probably meant Yahweh, right? But why? Probably just because you were born in the USA.

Now can we prove that Yahweh exists or not? I think a lot of claims about Yahweh can be proven or disproven by facts. For example, the claim that Yahweh created the world 10 000 years ago is demonstrably false. If he created the world its about 15 billion years ago. The flood is also demonstrably false. So it's not only a question of faith. I think that if you proceed this way, by confronting claims about God with known facts, you will come up with a very different concept of God, a God that has not much to do with the Bible version. Assuming, that is, that God survived the ordeal.

Absolutely.
You might not be able to disprove god, but with a high degree of certainty you are able to disprove certain things told within holy scriptures like the bible (and which many fundamentalists claim to be literally true)
If you still believe in god afterwards you might end like myself, believing that there is some kind of god to which to some degree all major religions point to, but which no single religion can wholly claim for itself (with assertions like "Either you believe in our religion or you go to hell" ).

[Nostromo]

Except that I came to a very different conclusion. I basically don't care whether God exists or not; I don't care whether I have a soul or not; I don't care whether heaven exists or not. Why? Because these things are not worth caring for. Why? Even if a concept of God survives this confrontation with facts, it will probably not be worth caring for. It will probably be a philosopher's God, like Aristotle's or Descartes' or Spinoza's. Probably not the kind of fatherly God who watches over me, that cares for me, or that judges me at the end of my life. Probably not the kind of God that gives hope to people.

[Mr. Harley]

I believe someone like the Buddha came to that conclusion - not to worry about whether there is a god. Quite explicitly, in fact.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
~13.7 for the universe, actually.

And 4.66 billion for the Earth.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

No. The burden of proof lies with the proponents of the assertion. This is elementary.

Definite respectable signature material. One of the best points I have seen yet. I see bible thumpers say evidence is needed to disprove them, but they don't provide evidence for their own views.

The god-in-the-gaps argument is one of the most annoying to myself. I get very annoyed and mad when I hear it.

[Last Conformist]

I'd go so far as say that the reasonable options are atheism and deism.

[Whaleboy]

Scientific method is always sound, the problems of history's science and the resultant progress as we move toward the present is that people used invalid assumptions. These naturally creep in when limited information is available... it's a human thing, not a scientific or logical thing... in which case you could pretty much deduce relativity from the falling of leaves. Ok that's a little OTT but you get the idea.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
It seems that it will never be possible to conclusively say that there is or is not a God. Atheists, deists, and agnostics will all have to rely on faith to continue believing in what they believe.

Why is that a prob? If noone can prove God's existance they have enough reasons for disbelief. And even if God was proven one day - wouldn't it mean he's "scientific" then?

[Whaleboy]

BeBro: I do sometimes get irritated by the "oh well, we'll never know" attitude, it only serves to belittle the power of human reason.

[Last Conformist]

Why shouldn't human reason be belittled?

If there is a God, He doesn't do anything perceptible. What difference does it make to be an atheist, an agnostic, or a deist?

[Whaleboy]

Ideally none, however if God can be refuted then the 3000 year old bull**** that says that if you're not heterosexual, male and belligerent then you're inferior, can finally be consigned to the history books.

[Flandrien]

Originally posted by nostromo
The flood is also demonstrably false.

Some say it is not entirely false, just largely exaggerated

Link

[Whaleboy]

Indeed, it is perfectly reasonable to expect ancient events to be represented in mythology thousands of years after they occur. Naturally the Chinese whispers effect plays a part in oral history.