There are many examples of people giving their lives for god, not a good example as if you are including people's behaviour as empirical evidence then there is a shedload of evidence for god(s).
Existence of God disproved!
- Thread starter jsmoke
- Start date
There are many examples of people giving their lives for god, not a good example as if you are including people's behaviour as empirical evidence then there is a shedload of evidence for god(s).
Soldato
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18644098
This has been in speakers corner for over 2 months now.
This has been in speakers corner for over 2 months now.
But your belief holds no more value to me than the belief of anyone else.
Soldato
You couldnt find it because it is both pink and invisible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn
Soldato
I see what you did there. You tried to rig the game in your favour. Sorry but that kind of dishonest debate doesn't wash with me.
If god is everywhere and I'm saying pink unicorns are as unlikely as god, then pink unicorns are everywhere too.
For example, in a galaxy 1 billion light years from our own. So how do you prove/disprove pink unicorns now ? Pink unicorns could be scattered amongst the cosmos on billions of planets in billions of galaxies. There could be trillions of them.
We can only work with the facts we know. These facts as of 2015, do not bear witness to any god nor do they bare witness to any pink unicorns.
Last edited:
Now, that does change things a bit, but then you are in to the realms of untestable hypothesis again.
The scientific position on an untestable hypothesis isn't that it must be false, an untestable hypothesis is irrelevant to science.
Soldato
Likewise. We all have our views, hopefully based on evidence and we all live our lives as either believers or non believers. Nothing wrong with either option. Personally, I care about truth and so I'm not given to fantastical theological claims about the universe in which I find myself.
An untestable hypothesis is irrelevant to science, that doesn't mean it's false. Science is agnostic by default.
Soldato
Correct, science does not state that an untestable hypothesis (invisible pink unicorn or God) MUST be false. It states that due to more evidence supporting alternative hypotheses, it is LIKELY to be false.
Soldato
Agreed. Hence why earlier in this discussion I stated that we assign probability values to things as opposed to claiming they are false. This is the reason god can never be disproven.
No, science suggests that the simplest hypothesis is the most predictively useful, and should be used to predict future behaviour. It does not regard alternative, more complex hypothesis as false unless they contradict the evidence. Don't confuse the assumptions of the scientific method (used to aid prediction) with evidence.
There are schools of scientific philosophy that take the assumptions of science as fact, but they do so in absence of any supporting evidence, it is effectively an expression of faith.
But dishonest "debate" is your forte.
Associate
**** happens god doesn't ergo there is no god.
God/gods have no place in modern society.
That is all.
God/gods have no place in modern society.
That is all.
Soldato
In this case it does contradict the evidence:
-There is evidence which suggests evolution.
-There is evidence which suggests the world is older than 6000 years.
This cant disprove the existence of God because the counter-hypothesis is that the evidence was put there by God as a test, this can never be disproven.
Soldato
Have you ever argued with someone who sucks at arguing? More often then not, when they start running out of points, the argument rapidly degenerates into a semantics dance.
"Ok, well see how pi is defined as 3.141xxx and not something else like 5.82? That is just a 'fact of nature' right?... just like how 0 degrees kelvin is -273°C rather than -841°C... the natural logarithm e is 2.71... Why are we all experiencing time moving forwards, etc... Well you see how all these things just happened to be the way they are? Well, my friend, that right there is 'God'. Personify it or not, you cannot deny the existence that the universe is 'configured' in a certain way. We're just gonna call that God now."
I'm calling it right here: In maybe 100-200 years from now, when science & technology has helped us explain the exact mechanics of virtually every observable phenomenon (e.g. Grand unified theorem etc), the very definition of "God" will simply become synonymous with "The Laws of Nature".
...
That's if we don't nuke each other to oblivion first
Personally I see religion itself as a smokescreen/tool that has proven itself to be very effective in allowing moderately small groups of sly humans to coerce and control many other human beings for their own selfish gains. Fear of what happens after death is a very powerful tool. It's a polymorphic power structure that has been established for millennia. Pick holes in the underlying logic of religions as much as you want, given enough time you will probably succeed, but until you tackle elements of human nature such as greed and narcissism, new "tools", just like religion, will spring up and replace their predecessors in an instant.
Today we have news outlets, social media, cleverly designed campaigns that cunningly reshape the mindset of huge demographics of people (ooh look at ISIS, see how undeniably awful they are, woohoo a new common enemy for everyone to hate! Just as the demand for oil suddenly drops and world economy shifts in a major way... pretty convenient timing wouldn't you say? Ooh a new strain of influenza, time to whip up some fear... what's that, swine flu? Oh snap, Russia / North Korea are about to start WW3, everyone hide!). Also why do you think there's all this wonderful noise on authority figures desperately trying every trick in the book to keep a lid on the internet and record/monitor communications between individuals? The "religion = power" age is fading, meanwhile we've got a whole bunch of other things that achieve the same ultimate goals for the people who have the most influence.
Just like in the animal kingdom, humans are greedy, and they want to be "better" than their peers. This will never change, so ultimately there will always be a "god". "God" will simply mean whatever is convenient for the era at the time.
"Ok, well see how pi is defined as 3.141xxx and not something else like 5.82? That is just a 'fact of nature' right?... just like how 0 degrees kelvin is -273°C rather than -841°C... the natural logarithm e is 2.71... Why are we all experiencing time moving forwards, etc... Well you see how all these things just happened to be the way they are? Well, my friend, that right there is 'God'. Personify it or not, you cannot deny the existence that the universe is 'configured' in a certain way. We're just gonna call that God now."
I'm calling it right here: In maybe 100-200 years from now, when science & technology has helped us explain the exact mechanics of virtually every observable phenomenon (e.g. Grand unified theorem etc), the very definition of "God" will simply become synonymous with "The Laws of Nature".
...
That's if we don't nuke each other to oblivion first
Personally I see religion itself as a smokescreen/tool that has proven itself to be very effective in allowing moderately small groups of sly humans to coerce and control many other human beings for their own selfish gains. Fear of what happens after death is a very powerful tool. It's a polymorphic power structure that has been established for millennia. Pick holes in the underlying logic of religions as much as you want, given enough time you will probably succeed, but until you tackle elements of human nature such as greed and narcissism, new "tools", just like religion, will spring up and replace their predecessors in an instant.
Today we have news outlets, social media, cleverly designed campaigns that cunningly reshape the mindset of huge demographics of people (ooh look at ISIS, see how undeniably awful they are, woohoo a new common enemy for everyone to hate! Just as the demand for oil suddenly drops and world economy shifts in a major way... pretty convenient timing wouldn't you say? Ooh a new strain of influenza, time to whip up some fear... what's that, swine flu? Oh snap, Russia / North Korea are about to start WW3, everyone hide!). Also why do you think there's all this wonderful noise on authority figures desperately trying every trick in the book to keep a lid on the internet and record/monitor communications between individuals? The "religion = power" age is fading, meanwhile we've got a whole bunch of other things that achieve the same ultimate goals for the people who have the most influence.
Just like in the animal kingdom, humans are greedy, and they want to be "better" than their peers. This will never change, so ultimately there will always be a "god". "God" will simply mean whatever is convenient for the era at the time.
Last edited:
Science adjusts its views based on what's observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.
No it isn't. Faith is synonymous with trust.
Soldato
No it isn't.
Trust is based on experiential evidence. I trust people to varying degree's based on my experience with them. Faith is just a blind leap into the abyss. Faith is the excuse people give when they have no good justification for their beliefs.
We've been over this before but you continue to reject reality and substitute your own.
Yes, it is. It's a fact.
If you want to whinge about it, go and whinge to Oxford dictionary about it.
Last edited: