Chris_Sleeps Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 are you agreeing with me that Dawkins knows I could only guess what Dawkins knows. From my own point of view, I would find it hard to say what proof I would need. If we are a priori and I believed God existed, then seeing him would be proof. I believe in God and he showed himself to me, thus he exists. If we are scientific, or a posteriori, then if someone shows themself to me and says "I am God" then I would want more proof. If he turned water into wine then I would want more proof, because it could be a trick, and even if it was real then that still isn't proof of God but proof of a being that can turn water into wine. It's a very deep thing to ponder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 probably as well as they have "proved" that god does not exist yes. Ok, science has definitly disproved the existence of a particle with mass travelling at C (speed of light) by both Einsteins initial theory, backed up by many empiriacl observations showing that the mass of particles appraoches infinity as they are accelarated close to C. What's the equivalent means by which science has 'proven' God does not exist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 science has proved that many things don't exist (e.g. the ether, particles with mass that travel at the speed of light etc, etc) No, it did not. They disproved the hypothesis that they do exist. jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 Ok, science has definitly disproved the existence of a particle with mass travelling at C (speed of light) by both Einsteins initial theory, backed up by many empiriacl observations showing that the mass of particles appraoches infinity as they are accelarated close to C. What's the equivalent means by which science has 'proven' God does not exist? see above! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 I ca think of several things that a God* could do to convince my of its existence. For example, any being capable of doing all of the following I would quite willingly name a God. 1) Heal everybody on the planet simultaneously of all ailments, disease and disability and preventing any further ailments, disease or disability from ever occurring again. 2) Turn the moon into cheese. 3) Write my name in stars. 4) Reverse the second law of thermodynamics. 5) Write a post of SF completely free or all spelling and grammatical errors. jb * or at least some being so powerful so as appear God like that the difference is academic. Thank you, for at least making a effort. But, as I'm sure you realise, all of the above to the extent that they are actually logically possible are, in principle, acheivable by a being/beings that are not God, but merely very technologically advanced. So, they may convince you, but, if you were a true rationalist, they shouldn't. You seem to have a bit of a get-out clause with the "difference is academic" part, but, I'd suggest it's not academic- just because a being has many of the characteristics associated with a God, does not mean it is identical with God, particualrlty when there's an equally plausible alternative explanation. Of course, for a final determination, we'd need a definition of what you mean by God. But, thank you for that- it's actually very rare, I find, for atheists to actually give a straight answer to questions of that type. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 Ok, science has definitly disproved the existence of a particle with mass travelling at C (speed of light) by both Einsteins initial theory, backed up by many empiriacl observations showing that the mass of particles appraoches infinity as they are accelarated close to C. What's the equivalent means by which science has 'proven' God does not exist? By analysing the many many claims that religions of all types make and finding them to be false. Creation myths for example. But why would you need to prove that something is false. How has science proven that Santa clause doesn't exist? It hasn't really spent a lot of time searching for him. Why would any rational person believe in sky fairies and jolly fat men who deliver presents? When there is no evidence for something other than statements made by other people, why would you give it any credence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 I could only guess what Dawkins knows. From my own point of view, I would find it hard to say what proof I would need. If we are a priori and I believed God existed, then seeing him would be proof. I believe in God and he showed himself to me, thus he exists. If we are scientific, or a posteriori, then if someone shows themself to me and says "I am God" then I would want more proof. If he turned water into wine then I would want more proof, because it could be a trick, and even if it was real then that still isn't proof of God but proof of a being that can turn water into wine. It's a very deep thing to ponder. It is. However many tricks such a being pulled, to a true rationalist, it could in no way constitute proof that it was God. Like i said before, I challenge each and every atheist to attempt to imagine any set of circumstances that could convince them that God is real- I really do believe that nothing would suffice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 Thank you, for at least making a effort. But, as I'm sure you realise, all of the above to the extent that they are actually logically possible are, in principle, acheivable by a being/beings that are not God, but merely very technologically advanced. Can any technology achieve the feat of writing a post with no spelling or grammatical errors? As AC Clarke said, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Personally for proof I'd like to see omniscience demonstrated that breaks the bounds of causality. Ie to know about an event before that information can have arrived (according to our current understanding of the universe)... But even that might just be proof that we don't quite understand the universe and the causality boundary correctly. So, they may convince you, but, if you were a true rationalist, they shouldn't. You seem to have a bit of a get-out clause with the "difference is academic" part, but, I'd suggest it's not academic- just because a being has many of the characteristics associated with a God, does not mean it is identical with God, particualrlty when there's an equally plausible alternative explanation. Of course, for a final determination, we'd need a definition of what you mean by God. But, thank you for that- it's actually very rare, I find, for atheists to actually give a straight answer to questions of that type. That's probably because the question doesn't actually make an awful lot of sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 No, it did not. They disproved the hypothesis that they do exist. jb That's clever by the same token then, presumably science has not actually proven God doesn't exist, rather science has disproved the hypothesis that God does exist? And if so, the difference in terms of this discussion is...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 By analysing the many many claims that religions of all types make and finding them to be false. Creation myths for example. But why would you need to prove that something is false. How has science proven that Santa clause doesn't exist? It hasn't really spent a lot of time searching for him. Why would any rational person believe in sky fairies and jolly fat men who deliver presents? When there is no evidence for something other than statements made by other people, why would you give it any credence? Personally I don't need to prove God exists (or doesn't exist). But a lot of atheists, on threads like this, seem to be preoccupied with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.