If science could explain everything observable and I mean everything, would that constitute as evidence to disprove god? As there is no need to invoke supernatural being, Everything can be explained rationally with evidence and is self consistent with itself.
Poll: Who believes in God?
- Thread starter salami1212
- Start date
If science could explain everything observable and I mean everything, would that constitute as evidence to disprove god? As there is no need to invoke supernatural being, Everything can be explained rationally with evidence and is self consistent with itself.
Yes there is, go look at the umpteen research papers on segregation of species and their adaptions, or probably the most important of all, transitional forms such ichthyostega and its relatives. It shows how a small freak adaptation of a fish in the devonian era caused it to become a tetrapod, i.e four legged animal but you already know this i assume.
This is a moot point because it is rational and logical to ask for someone to prove something to be real, not disprove it.
I can not disprove like Richard Dawkins said that their is not a china teapot orbiting the sun, but evidence suggest that it is otherwise impossible. It is a better theory to say that there is not one, until you can show me otherwise.
Acidhell2 kind of logic is a religious person only escape from the truth.
You can't use anything to prove god, science, text, picture, sounds, anything, none of it proves god so why do you believe? At least science can say what if, what if im wrong, what will happen if i try, what is the conclusion, are those results repeatable. These are important things, and they have helped the human race more than some bablings of an idiot.
Would you believe a 2000yr old mans ideas on medicine to cure yourself, i hope not. So why believe a 2000yr old mans writings in a book on how the earth was created.
Last edited:
I'm well aware of all that. However it is not concrete evidence it does not show increase in chromosomes. I still consider it to be a hole. But I'm sure in time we will discover such evidence.
If your sure we will discover such evidence, then why are you debating god. If such evidence, as incredibly hard as it would be to find, is found. (due to time and its many effects) Then man was not created in the image of God, unless of course he was a fish to begin with! By denying one of the fundamental parts of the creation theory or the bible, you are denying God.
If you deny all the bibles of the world because they claim a massive difference in their theories, i.e. how we came about, then unless you find a 4 billion yr old bible that says God created the world then buggered off to let everything get on with it, he is a fable, plain and simple.
Last edited:
Just because you can't disprove something, is no reason to believe it. You can still make a rational decision, based on the evidence available.
I can't entirely disprove Father Christmas, but I don't believe in him.
There are many interpretations, you are considering but one of them. Don't jump on the slagging off creationists bandwagon and then claim that evolution disproves the existence of God.
And what has evolution got to do with a figurative piece of scripture like "God created man in his image"?
Last edited:
the key here is you don't go out to disprove things, rather prove them. if your really struggling to prove something unlikely (ie god), then just by doing so you are practically disproving it
i think the fact that no one can prove it since mankind appeared, is a pretty good case closed, next please....
edit: here's a thought, if god wanted us to worship him as most religions believe, that would make him a egotist, hardly perfect role model for mankind lol
I disagree. If you beleive in an interventionist god, which most of the major religions do, then these interventions would manifest themselves in the real world as physical phenomen.
Indeed, double blind control studies have already been performed on the efficacy of intercessory prayer.
I'm sure religious people would be very happy to jump on the scientific bandwagon if evidence for god were ever to surface.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
At most you would be denying a specific God (the Abrahmic one), not all possible gods (and I suppose that has to include those that haven't been named/worshipped yet).
As with your idea of denying God above you are also getting into the issue of whether the Bible is entirely literal and to be interpreted as such or whether it is allegorical (in parts or in whole).
But you have none, there could be a higher being related to one or more of the many religions. All the religions may be wrong, but there could still be a higher being.
8 pages and not one person says it.......
Science and Religion have got bog all to do with each other.
Science explains how it happens.
Religion explains why it happens.
In one of these explanations there is an intentional state involved...can you guess which one it is.
Theres been plenty of scientists who believe in God as well... they dont contradict each other.
Science and Religion have got bog all to do with each other.
Science explains how it happens.
Religion explains why it happens.
In one of these explanations there is an intentional state involved...can you guess which one it is.
Theres been plenty of scientists who believe in God as well... they dont contradict each other.
People do - it's called homeopathy
Sadly my tax £s are currently being wasted providing it on the NHS.
I wouldn't refute that there COULD be one. But given that I see the liklihood of this as being infinitessimally small, I am to all extents and purposes an atheist.
I certainly see no point in wasting my time believing in one, or using it as basis for ethics and morality.
the key here is you don't go out to disprove things, rather prove them. if your really struggling to prove something unlikely (ie god), then just by doing so you are practically disproving it
That makes no sense. Also notice the fact that you take the stance that the existence of God is unlikely. You couldn't possibly say either way, and you certainly shouldn't start from a biased perspective when attempting to prove something.
But you're still taking a faith-based stance and dressing it up as irrefutable logic. Which it isn't.
It has been said: several times, by several people. Unfortunately the "science is the only answer" crowd doggedly refuse to take it onboard.
Sorry, but that just doesn't go. "Why is the sky blue?" - I would hardly go to a theologian to have that particular question answered.
If I was a Christian, I could certainly ask "How did God create the world."
And in answer to your second point - I'm pretty sure that most geologists would consider their particular field of science to be completely incompatible with the biblical story of creation.
imagine if evidence of gods existance was found ?, what form would that take.
the fact you cant even imagine that, puts serious doubts to the whole idea...
maybe hubble telescope finds a big friendly old man shaped thing in space with a long grey goaty beard waving at us and smiling... with higly sensitive microphones they hear him say 'worship me ya buggers, show some respect coz im tha boss'
....then again, maybe not
the fact you cant even imagine that, puts serious doubts to the whole idea...
maybe hubble telescope finds a big friendly old man shaped thing in space with a long grey goaty beard waving at us and smiling... with higly sensitive microphones they hear him say 'worship me ya buggers, show some respect coz im tha boss'
....then again, maybe not
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
Father Christmas isn't exactly a fantastic example for several reasons, amongst which are that to go to all the homes in the World in one night would require a sleigh that travels faster than any man-made craft ever, the size of the sleigh etc etc and then you have the simple and more pragmatic reasoning of actually having seen your parents putting out the stocking filled with presents.
Because you can't disprove something isn't a reason to believe in it but nor does it mean that you should instantly dismiss it and then call it the logical thing to do. If you can't disprove something then the logical stance is to say that you don't know the veracity of the issue unless of course you wish to put your faith in logical positivism or some other such philosophy.
I'm not saying YOU endorse rape.
God does though, in the bible.
I'm pretty sure that is Old Testament vengeful God, not peace loving beatnik New Testament God who gave his only begotten Son for the pesky humans to crucify.