Show me the proof??

[ProphetMark]

We both agree that science never made any claims about god.

Science makes claims that contradict the bible doesn't it? Isn't that implying that God doesn't exist?

 

[kpd560]

Here's another way to see it. After considering many scientific things some people are of the opinion that a god exists (demonstrably true, if not all scientists would be atheists). If these people have faith, how is their faith different from yours?

In my opinion God does not exist but I don't know for sure (We can't know for sure one way or the other unless he physically manifests and does something that proves he exists). This position requires no faith. Theists apparently claim to know that God exists even though it's impossible to know. Theists are making an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary faith and therefore the burden of proof is on them. Do you follow the logic here?

 

[kpd560]

We both agree that science never made any claims about god.

Science makes claims that contradict the bible doesn't it? Isn't that implying that God doesn't exist?

Science contradicts most of the bible which indicates to me that the bible is exactly what it appears to be and not what it claims to be. But I still can't know for sure so I make no absolute claims about the bible.

 

[Rick W]

Here's another way to see it. After considering many scientific things some people are of the opinion that a god exists (demonstrably true, if not all scientists would be atheists). If these people have faith, how is their faith different from yours?

In my opinion God does not exist but I don't know for sure (We can't know for sure one way or the other unless he physically manifests and does something that proves he exists). This position requires no faith. Theists apparently claim to know that God exists even though it's impossible to know. Theists are making an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary faith and therefore the burden of proof is on them. Do you follow the logic here?

We both agree that science never made any claims about god.

Science makes claims that contradict the bible doesn't it? Isn't that implying that God doesn't exist?

Science contradicts most of the bible which indicates to me that the bible is exactly what it appears to be and not what it claims to be. But I still can't know for sure so I make no absolute claims about the bible.

Science is not an entity of it's own. "Science" is but the conclusion of men, what he believes or concludes from certain observations. And of course he may pick and choose what observations he may conclude as evidence to make that conclusion.
Can what man concludes contradict the bible? Of course. If man relies solely on what can be observed then he has faith only the physical concluding there is nothing spiritual because it cannot be observed.
Against all odds people have hope. When logic dictates a certain circumstance will prevail people have hope against that logic. When all else fails people have faith and the hope that all is not dictated by what is observed. And through faith people look toward God in hope.
Hope isn't scientific. Hope isn't logical. Hope can and does survive when logic has failed. It's what separates us from the machines. It's what separates us from despair.
The atheist has faith the theist is wrong believing that God exists. The theist has faith the atheist is wrong believing that God doesn't exist. There's no difference between the two other than where one chooses to put their faith. The only extraordinary thing here is the heart of man. And no amount of logic will replace it.

 

[kpd560]

Science is not an entity of it's own. "Science" is but the conclusion of men, what he believes or concludes from certain observations. And of course he may pick and choose what observations he may conclude as evidence to make that conclusion.

Since you are presumably a theist, your disparaging view of science is quite predictable and quite wrong. There may have been a time when the bible was the best science book around but that time is long past. Science is the accumulated knowledge of mankind taken from observation and testing of the real world around us. Science has taken us from the iron age to the space age and it will continue to reveal truths about the universe that we can only dream of today.

Can what man concludes contradict the bible? Of course. If man relies solely on what can be observed then he has faith only the physical concluding there is nothing spiritual because it cannot be observed.

Science has done a fair job so far assuming that the supernatural doesn't exist. You probably enjoy the fruits of scientific knowledge and technology as much as I do. You may personally long for the supernatural but science is not obliged to do the same, right?

Against all odds people have hope. When logic dictates a certain circumstance will prevail people have hope against that logic. When all else fails people have faith and the hope that all is not dictated by what is observed. And through faith people look toward God in hope.
Hope isn't scientific. Hope isn't logical. Hope can and does survive when logic has failed. It's what separates us from the machines. It's what separates us from despair.

I'm not sure what you're driving at here but I can assure you that atheists have hope without believing in the supernatural.

The atheist has faith the theist is wrong believing that God exists. The theist has faith the atheist is wrong believing that God doesn't exist. There's no difference between the two other than where one chooses to put their faith. The only extraordinary thing here is the heart of man. And no amount of logic will replace it.

I've already explained that it takes no "faith" for me to believe that God doesn't exist because there is zero scientific evidence for the supernatural meddling in the natural world where we live. The theist on the other hand must have faith that science has somehow overlooked this vast universe of the supernatural because science has done such a marvelous job of explaining the world around us without any need for the supernatural. In fact, one of the main tenets of science is that the supernatural doesn't exist. If it did, anything would be possible and science would be useless. The definition of faith I'm using here is to believe something in spite of the evidence against it. And absence of evidence in not proof of absence but it sure doesn't help in the case of the supernatural. Best.

 

[ChattyMute]

In fact, one of the main tenets of science is that the supernatural doesn't exist.

No, it isn't. Science and scientists don't make any professional claims or have any professional opinions (personal opinions and claims are a different matter) about the supernatural because science only deals with the natural.

 

[kpd560]

In fact, one of the main tenets of science is that the supernatural doesn't exist.

No, it isn't. Science and scientists don't make any professional claims or have any professional opinions (personal opinions and claims are a different matter) about the supernatural because science only deals with the natural.

I mean that not in the sense that science asserts that the supernatural doesn't exist because as we all know the presence or absence of something supernatural cannot be ascertained. I mean that science must make the assumption that the supernatural doesn't exist or anything is possible and science is meaningless. Best.

 

[ChattyMute]

In fact, one of the main tenets of science is that the supernatural doesn't exist.

No, it isn't. Science and scientists don't make any professional claims or have any professional opinions (personal opinions and claims are a different matter) about the supernatural because science only deals with the natural.

I mean that not in the sense that science asserts that the supernatural doesn't exist because as we all know the presence or absence of something supernatural cannot be ascertained. I mean that science must make the assumption that the supernatural doesn't exist or anything is possible and science is meaningless. Best.

I fail to see how something like a ghost existing making anything possible or how that then makes science meaningless. So if something supernatural, like ghosts, exists, cancer research is then meaningless? That makes no sense.

 

[logical bob]

The atheist has faith the theist is wrong believing that God exists. The theist has faith the atheist is wrong believing that God doesn't exist. There's no difference between the two other than where one chooses to put their faith. The only extraordinary thing here is the heart of man. And no amount of logic will replace it.

This is a very basic misunderstanding about atheism. I don't have faith that you're wrong. I don't even know what faith would mean in that context. I think you're wrong. It's my opinion that you're wrong. I'm not aware of sufficent reason to think God exists. Where does faith come into it?

As an example, what if someone says to you that whenever you say "I don't believe in fairies" a fairy dies? I presume you don't believe them. Would you say that you have faith that they're wrong? Would you say there's no difference between you other than where one chooses to put their faith?

 

[Rick W]

I have faith science can't save me from sin. I have faith that any conclusion made by science or the toothfairy that I don't need forgiven is wrong. I have faith what Christ said is right.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

I have hope of an eternal life. I have faith a contrite heart asking for mercy through our Savior Jesus Christ will receive it. I have faith in the work Christ performed on the cross, that God's judgment is true and righteous regardless what one concludes by observation.

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

I believe this with my mind, my heart and my soul.

I have no faith what-so-ever in man's conclusions based on observation, scientific conclusion, to give me hope for the redemption from sin. I have no faith in the wisdom of man's science but rather in the wisdom of God and the gift of His Son.

If anyone can prove to me that science can save me from my sin, give me the hope Christ promises me and gives me the peace of heart I so enjoy because of our Lord and Savior then I'm all ears. I'll gladly look at the proof.

 

[logical bob]

Thanks for that Rick, you've made the point I want to make better than I ever could. That's a great description of what your faith means to you, and an atheist doesn't have anything that compares to what you describe. That's why I dispute the idea that atheism and belief are "the same" except for where the faith is placed.

 

[Rick W]

Thanks for that Rick, you've made the point I want to make better than I ever could. That's a great description of what your faith means to you, and an atheist doesn't have anything that compares to what you describe. That's why I dispute the idea that atheism and belief are "the same" except for where the faith is placed.

Depends on the target of faith too. Salvation is my target. "Science" does nothing to that end. That doesn't mean I cast science aside altogether. Heck, I make my living professionally in a very technical field. Likewise, just because I don't use a 1/2" open end wrench on every job I do doesn't mean I'm supposed to toss it out the window.

And that's point anyway. Too often the debate becomes one of little relevance. People who don't think they need saved from sin constantly ask those that do to prove by some sort of "science" that God exists, or Christ exists or even if there's a need for salvation. Apples and oranges. If one feels one doesn't need saved then that's their decision. But please don't try to convince me I have no basis of salvation just because it can't be scientifically proven or attempting to prove scripture is wrong to prove somehow there is no need for salvation in the first place and there will be no judgment for sin. Again, apples and oranges.

In the meantime I'll hold my faith in Christ for redemption and the truth of scripture, His testimony to man. And I'll pray for mercy and forgiveness from the One who has the ultimate authority to do just that.

 

[TanNinety]

In my opinion God does not exist but I don't know for sure

You hold an opinion that you are not sure of ..umm faith much? I’m teasing ya

Here’s how I see your statement: Opinion + Doubt.
Opinion: God does not exist.
Doubt: We can't know for sure one way or the other unless he physically manifests and does something that proves he exists.
Your conclusion: This position requires no faith.

What I am saying is that your conclusion only applies to your doubt but not your opinion.

Let’s consider the following.
Opinion: God exists.
Doubt: We can't know for sure one way or the other unless he physically manifests and does something that proves he exists.
Conclusion: This position requires no faith.

If a theist made the above claim, what would you find inconsistent with his reasoning and conclusion?

Theists apparently claim to know that God exists even though it's impossible to know.

Let’s go with the milder theist from the above example. Does he have faith?

I mean that science must make the assumption that the supernatural doesn't exist or anything is possible and science is meaningless. Best.

Let’s put the assumption ‘supernatural doesn’t exist’ through ockham’s razor to define scientific method. Think it will survive?

Science makes claims that contradict the bible doesn't it? Isn't that implying that God doesn't exist?

This kind of reasoning is invalid.
http://personal.bellevuecollege.edu/wpa ... theses.htm

For example, let’s consider evolution. Evolution has a core hypothesis and several auxiliary hypotheses. Let’s say one of the auxiliary hypothesis belongs to prediction of a certain specific branch of species and their evolution. Evidence is later found and it falsifies the prediction. Would you say evolution is false? Hardly so. Falsification of auxiliary hypothesis does not mean the core hypothesis is false. But that is what you are doing when you say, science claims contradict certain bible claims, hence God doesn’t exist. That does not follow.

 

[ProphetMark]

Science makes claims that contradict the bible doesn't it? Isn't that implying that God doesn't exist?

This kind of reasoning is invalid.
http://personal.bellevuecollege.edu/wpa ... theses.htm

For example, let’s consider evolution. Evolution has a core hypothesis and several auxiliary hypotheses. Let’s say one of the auxiliary hypothesis belongs to prediction of a certain specific branch of species and their evolution. Evidence is later found and it falsifies the prediction. Would you say evolution is false? Hardly so. Falsification of auxiliary hypothesis does not mean the core hypothesis is false. But that is what you are doing when you say, science claims contradict certain bible claims, hence God doesn’t exist. That does not follow.

Ah but I think the bible's different in that either the whole of the bible is true or it's all a load of rubbish. The bible claims that ALL scripture is God-breathed; the bible also says that God claims to never lie. Perhaps you could say that God, by definition, never lies. So if science contradicts the bible, then it implies that part of what God has said isn't true, ie God does lie. So God, who by definition doesn't lie, doesn't exist. (Or if he does exist, he's a contradiction.)

 

[kpd560]

In my opinion God does not exist but I don't know for sure

You hold an opinion that you are not sure of ..umm faith much? I’m teasing ya

Consider how much faith you require to not believe in Santa Claus. That's exactly how much faith I require to not believe in God.

 

[TanNinety]

Ah but I think the bible's different in that either the whole of the bible is true or it's all a load of rubbish. The bible claims that ALL scripture is God-breathed;

Adam was God-breathed (how he became a living soul). Yet the bible shows how Adam was fallible. So, God-breathed is not equal to infallible. Given this your conclusion all or nothing of the bible since it’s God-breathed is not valid.

the bible also says that God claims to never lie. Perhaps you could say that God, by definition, never lies. So if science contradicts the bible, then it implies that part of what God has said isn't true, ie God does lie. So God, who by definition doesn't lie, doesn't exist. (Or if he does exist, he's a contradiction.)

If I say, I never lie, and then I lie, it neither makes me annihilate out of existence nor does it make me a contradiction. Why so? I do not follow the reasoning here. It makes God a liar may be or even at best a hypocrite.
Your argument is: Bible says God doesn’t lie. God lies. Hence God doesn’t exist. (non-sequitur?)

If the apocalypse of 2012 doesn’t come upon us, have the Mayans lied? No? We would not conclude the outcome against Mayans. If God breathed, then men orally transferred the knowledge, then men chipped it down, then men made copies, then men translated, then men interpreted translations ..so on so forth. How come the direct conclusion is God lied without the investigation on the rest of the transactions? In the good old game of telephone, the message that the final person got was different from the one who initiated the message. Did the one who initiate the message lie since his message isn’t the same when it reached the final audience of it? Your argument assumes God breathed a scientific book. May be that wasn’t its purpose.

Consider how much faith you require to not believe in Santa Claus. That's exactly how much faith I require to not believe in God.

How much faith is a cutoff to not call a belief system faith based? Very less faith ..may be very very less faith? Becomes subjective doesn’t it. It's a serious question though. If a theist said, "God exists. but I don't know for sure since he doesn't manifest himself physically", is this a faith based belief system?

 

[kpd560]

Consider how much faith you require to not believe in Santa Claus. That's exactly how much faith I require to not believe in God.

How much faith is a cutoff to not call a belief system faith based? Very less faith ..may be very very less faith? Becomes subjective doesn’t it. It's a serious question though. If a theist said, "God exists. but I don't know for sure since he doesn't manifest himself physically", is this a faith based belief system?

The faith cutoff is indeed subjective but is not the entire christian religion based on faith? I'm sure I read the word "faith" very frequently on this forum. I honestly cannot imagine another atheist encouraging me with "you've gotta have faith" if my belief in atheism is flagging. Again, how much faith do you require to not believe in Santa Claus? None, I hope is your answer and that's how much faith I require to not believe the supernatural exists.

 

[TanNinety]

At this point I think we are going back in circles with the semantic disjoint of what faith each of us is referring to. We have provided good portion of arguments so far, so we can leave it to the readers to draw their conclusions.