There is no God!

[Fapper]

There's no valid scientific evidence about God's existance, someone can agree with muslims and say "the construction of Universe is so perfect that GOD doesnt need to make miracles to make it work", its all reduced to a question of faith: you believe or not.

[Aemeth]

You were fighting like a 3rd grader and nothing was getting solved.

How many times do you have to post the same thing before you realize someone else doesn't agree or appreciate it like you do?

Deep was asking for evidence. Why can't we discuss evidence? It doesn't have to be the resurrection, but it should be something.

[Fapper]

you can easily ignore what i wrote as it really is just one more of the thousands of non sense crap i post in this forum, no need to care about it. ... and the fact i havent been promoted from second grade yet is not something you can use in a offensive way :(

[deepsepia]

Well, when I hear people say supernatural, they can never quantify it.]

That's funny. By definition, the supernatural cannot be quantified.

Says you.

Says me, and anyone who knows what natural science is. There can be no "science of magic". Natural science is about the fact that at standard temperature and 1 atmosphere of pressure, distilled water boils at 212 degrees (fahrenheit). Every time. Not 220 degrees sometimes and 200 degrees other times. Absolute zero is at zero degrees Kelvin. Everytime you measure it, everywhere. Natural law is what it is-- the supernatural can be anything, anytime, if God wants to make light, then there's light. If he wants a blood to rain from the sky, it rains from the sky. . . that is not natural science.

Planes fly because Bernoulli's law doesn't change. Natural law is unchanging-- the supernatural, on the other hand, changes all the time. No scientific statement can be made about the supernatural-- other than that it is inconsistent with natural law. In the supernatural domain, people can walk on water, turn into wolves, live to 1000 years, rise from the dead. We have no objective data demonstrating any of these things happening, ever, and they are not consistent with what we know of the natural world.

The very fact that you say "I am alive" is 'supernatural'. Who is it you are declaring that to?

doesn't matter "who I am declaring it to." Doesn't matter who does the measuring. "Life" is an objective chemical process. We can say "a dog is alive" and "an oak tree is alive" and a coffee cup is not alive. These are not opinions. These are not supernatural. They are very straightforward chemical processes that either are happening, or are not happening. They can be measured by "believers" or "unbelievers" or by machines and the answers don't change. The moment my cellular enzymatic activity stops, I'll be dead. That's true of me, and virtually every other living thing (spores and viruses being curious cases that sit somewhere between life and non-life)

[raum]

Says me, and anyone who knows what natural science is. There can be no "science of magic".

Bacon disagrees, as do I -
http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/bacon/miracle.htm

Natural science is about the fact that at standard temperature and 1 atmosphere of pressure, distilled water boils at 212 degrees (fahrenheit). Every time. Not 220 degrees sometimes and 200 degrees other times. Absolute zero is at zero degrees Kelvin. Everytime you measure it, everywhere.

WRONG!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q5gEZGo ... re=related

Learn Science has alot to learn. That is what Natural Science is about:
Propositi Scientia.

So for you, natural science is about heat and water? To me, natural science is simply: the belief that nature is organized according to dicernable laws which may remain consistent and can be emulated consistently. I do not dispute that heat can be used to render water into a gaseous state. However, I *do* question in what other ways water may be rendered into a gaseous vapor.

------

Natural law is what it is-- the supernatural can be anything, anytime, if God wants to make light, then there's light. If he wants a blood to rain from the sky, it rains from the sky. . . that is not natural science.

Actually, there is a school of Scientific illuminism that believes there are Laws of Nature, and they are not yet fully discovered and may even grow and change in stages, and that they ARE transparent on a level of some consciousness that "trickles down" into our manifestation; which as a purpose or exists as a by-product.

Planes fly because Bernoulli's law doesn't change. Natural law is unchanging--

Um, I favour the notion of Radial momentum, which allows for greater anomoly.

the supernatural, on the other hand, changes all the time. No scientific statement can be made about the supernatural-- other than that it is inconsistent with natural law. In the supernatural domain, people can walk on water, turn into wolves, live to 1000 years, rise from the dead. We have no objective data demonstrating any of these things happening, ever, and they are not consistent with what we know of the natural world.

um, my definition of the supernatural is firm. That which is observable and yet untestable by the current conventions of Science.

doesn't matter "who I am declaring it to." Doesn't matter who does the measuring. "Life" is an objective chemical process. We can say "a dog is alive" and "an oak tree is alive" and a coffee cup is not alive. These are not opinions. These are not supernatural. They are very straightforward chemical processes that either are happening, or are not happening. They can be measured by "believers" or "unbelievers" or by machines and the answers don't change.

But wait, when I said I was observed by instrument and physician to be dead, and lacked all vital signs, you stated I was not still dead, because I am still alive. You can't have both: either the observations made by machines and men of science were inaccurate, or I was dead, and you were mistaken. your stated opinions leave no room for something called anomaly.

it humours me when people think *they* are in the know. like when you discount UFO's. Grand! how do you explain this?

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/ ... 61,00.html

The moment my cellular enzymatic activity stops, I'll be dead. That's true of me, and virtually every other living thing (spores and viruses being curious cases that sit somewhere between life and non-life)

I assert I won't be dead. You assert you will. How is my assumption any more wrong than yours? To me there is a state between thought and matter, and it also can neither be created or destroyed. I have observed that to be true consistently.

[deepsepia]

Says me, and anyone who knows what natural science is. There can be no "science of magic".

Bacon disagrees, as do I -
http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/bacon/miracle.htm

Francis Bacon died in 1626. Many "scientists" of the day believed in alchemy, magic, and so on. With the tools they had available at the time, they didn't know better. Bacon's science is of philosophical and historical interest, but cannot be regarded as methodologically valid. The folks at CERN look to Bacon for poetry, not the behavior of sub atomic particles.

Were they alive today, they'd have better tools, better evidence. You will not find any reputable contemporary scientist espousing "miracles" or magic.

The cornerstone of science is prediction and repeatability. Grand claims that can't be repeated ("cold fusion") are hardly uncommon-- but they're not considered scientifically valid. Unlike Bacon, our tools for measurement are extraordinarily precise. We can measure the distance to the moon in microns. . . were tiny variations in the nature of gravity occurring, we'd see that.

So for you, natural science is about heat and water?

Nope. You misunderstand me. I cite the boiling of water as an example. Macroscopic physical systems operate the the same way all the time.

Its possible to imagine a universe in which values drifted from one thing to another-- in such a universe, it would be impossible to state what is natural and what is supernatural, because the natural would be changing.

That's not the way our universe functions, though.

I assert I won't be dead. You assert you will. How is my assumption any more wrong than yours?

I cannot say that there is no supernatural event which will occur. I can say that natural science gives you no basis to make such a statement. Your statement is akin to: "When I die, my soul will flow out of my body, and fly to interplanetary space to a distant planet, where it will inhabit a new body." Could that be true? Yes. Is there any evidence to believe that its true? No.

To me there is a state between thought and matter, and it also can neither be created or destroyed. I have observed that to be true consistently.

No, that is merely something that you think. There is no measurable objective evidence for such a statement. When I say, "I am alive" -- I can show you an EKG, an EEG, and metabolic data which would satisfy anyone that the subject is indeed a living human.

What can you show me or anyone else to demonstrate that you or anyone else will continue to live after their heart and brain stop irreversibly?

Nothing.

You have an opinion. It might be right, but there's no scientific basis to believe so.

[Aemeth]

Ok, I guess we are doing this the long way...I'll just be reading for a while...

[x3n]

My, my...I leave for a little while and suddenly I am one of those that crave pity, am a masochist and overall inept. Granted, "inept" seems to be aimed at fundamental Atheists but boy, respect around here seems pretty fleeting, eh?

Aemeth, a reply was expected 2 years ago in this thread:
http://www.ayhja.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=279&t=16042
Which was an offshoot of this thread:
http://www.ayhja.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=279&t=16143
Started on this thread:
http://www.ayhja.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=279&t=12131

I think I've provided more than enough discussion to warrant a bit more credit than what I see in this thread so far but hey, we're all brothers here, let's move along...
Now in order to jump in the pool where everybody's already been peeing for a while, I want to know if I can dive in with the confidence that we are way past discussing the god of the many. The interventionist god, with a moral code and mood swings, and the neediness of requiring belief and prayer. I only ask this because most people will argue for god knowing very well they will find damnation if they reason their beliefs. Beliefs that have been with us for generations, and are in no way evidence for the claim. The same way rumors stick when we don't know better.

I'll start with a quote. Fuck you, Fapper.

Furthermore, when something occurs that is Scientifically discredited that religion or folklore or ancient thought held true; Science cautiously absorbs it, and then says "this works, and thus can not be evidence of anything other the superiority of secular science.

I would argue the opposite. I think religious dogma used to occupy most of what we regarded as real and unknown, and science, by its method has slowly pushed the mysteries of our planet and what we know of the universe back and unveiled explanations. They are revised and updated, sure but it beats having to be afraid of an angry god every time lightning strikes. My point is now that science brings new revised findings, religion simply says: "God did it" as if somehow this 'seal of approval' renders all the hard work they never bothered doing into an automatic "win". The only way "something from nothing" works is when a god, created, rehashed and made king, is put in the mix. Otherwise, it requires "a valid argument". Please.
My personal beef with religion, not god is that, while many are still on the grind trying to figure this whole mess out, most are blissfully happy to leave everything as "god's will". A god they have no desire to understand, simply out of laziness masquerading as "faith". It's that lazy approach to understanding our life that creates boneheads that call the banana an "atheists nightmare", ignoring the fact that it was a long process from the wild original to the nice, bright yellow and perfectly form-fitting produce it is today.

The truth is we still know so little about the world, the universe, or even ourselves... and yet some people are so quick to say what there is or what there isn't. Such rash children!

We all agree, I hope.

AYHJA, I believe at some point you asked what evidence it is that Atheists look for when debating god and so that is why I start my reply by asking which god we're debating. The GOD of the many could start with bringing soldiers back to life, healing amputees and sorting out this mess about which cult is right, because arguing has given way to wars with big, big fucking guns. That would be my request.
Of course, I found this quote by George McDonald (admired by Twain and CS Lewis) :

" A man capable of proposing such a test, could have in his mind no worthy representative idea of a God, and might well disbelieve in any: it is better to disbelieve than believe in a God unworthy."

He was referring to a test proposed by scientists of his time, regarding the power of group prayer. This test was questioned by CS Lewis as well since after all, science couldn't verify the result if these prayers were, apparently, a success. The problem is, that is the god everyone roots for. Therefore, it seems like a good enough and certainly simple test. Does prayer work, every time?

If we are to argue a different God:

There are also those who believe the earth is overpopulated, and the forces of a Supersentient balance of universal forces have no vested interest in the personal health of every single person, due to the instablity of overpopulation.

...Then I stand by statements I have made in the previous discussion's we've had. Do we really need to devote ourselves and offer prayer and praise, to this essence? This ghost in the machine that is as dependent on our conscience as we are on his approval and is as real as we make it out to be, just as well dismissed?
Or like RAUM mentioned, he has a will, and uses it to keep the matrix balanced and all anomalies accounted for? Independent from us, a separate being.

The "popular" GOD is not much different than that. Except with curiously human traits and flaws, but with superpowers...and will. Like Galactus?

[AYHJA]

The site is just so much better when you and raum are here x3n...No disrespect to anyone else, but you guys are just the best IMO...When it comes to challenging thoughts, and great discussions, there is just no substitute...Welcome back old friend...Try to leave again, and I will find a way to hurt you...

But holy shit:

I cannot say that there is no supernatural event which will occur. I can say that natural science gives you no basis to make such a statement. Your statement is akin to: "When I die, my soul will flow out of my body, and fly to interplanetary space to a distant planet, where it will inhabit a new body." Could that be true? Yes. Is there any evidence to believe that its true? No.

Damn, did I just read that right..? From my point of view, didn't you just qualify what at least 4 other people in this thread have been trying to say (more or less) for like 10 pages..? Your beef with the existence of God seems to be based on the one presented in the bible, and I'm pretty sure that I said that several times...All this talk about Supernatural, walking on water, the lord paying my bills this month, and Michael Jackson being black again at the snap of a finger has led the sheep away from the flock...Nobody said that in trying to define God...You could just as easily say God/Gods exists in the things we do not yet understand as much as the things we do and think we do...

That which is observable and yet untestable by the current conventions of Science.

Is there logical dispute in that claim..? I don't think so...Shit goes down everyday we can't quantify or put it in a little category and tuck it away...Known unknowns, unknown unknows, remember that little spill..? It makes sense...

A stance of 'There is no God' will falter if you admit the possibility of such a thing existing, period...If it can exist, it does...

[raum]

Congratulations xen,.. you win my official "where the hell is my kickass reply" award today. I wrote a good reply last night, thought it posted... but hm. not there.

The site is just so much better when you and raum are here x3n...No disrespect to anyone else, but you guys are just the best IMO...When it comes to challenging thoughts, and great discussions, there is just no substitute...Welcome back old friend...Try to leave again, and I will find a way to hurt you...

I think everyone here who regularly posts pulls their own weight, and we tend to keep it off of other people's toes... for the most part. And we have done a damn good job of keeping the drama out.

But holy shit:

Damn, did I just read that right..? From my point of view, didn't you just qualify what at least 4 other people in this thread have been trying to say (more or less) for like 10 pages..?

The difference in those four people saying it, and deep saying it is only athiests make sense. Mystics and Religious people just don't seem to make sense, even if they same the same thing, because the labcoat of the scientist is the only true cassock of the priest.

Your beef with the existence of God seems to be based on the one presented in the bible, and I'm pretty sure that I said that several times...All this talk about Supernatural, walking on water, the lord paying my bills this month, and Michael Jackson being black again at the snap of a finger has led the sheep away from the flock...Nobody said that in trying to define God...You could just as easily say God/Gods exists in the things we do not yet understand as much as the things we do and think we do...

No one yet has ever told me what I myself have witnessed. And yet what I witnessed encompasses everything I have ever heard proposed. Your statement cracks me up!

Is there logical dispute in that claim..? I don't think so...Shit goes down everyday we can't quantify or put it in a little category and tuck it away...Known unknowns, unknown unknows, remember that little spill..? It makes sense...

buleedat!

A stance of 'There is no God' will falter if you admit the possibility of such a thing existing, period...If it can exist, it does...

Truth.