Can science prove the existence of God? (Synopsis)

“It’s so easy to become a grumbler, someone who condemns and carps at everything on principle and sees an ulterior motive behind it.” -Eric Metaxas

If we find out that we truly are alone in the Universe, whether there’s no other life, intelligent life, or spacefaring life, there’s no doubt that makes us special. But does that make us divinely chosen? Or, even more to the point, does that mean that the Universe was designed to give rise to human beings; with us in mind as the end goal? That isn’t necessarily a question we can know the answer to, but it’s something we can approach with science.

Kepler 186f is one of a great many candidates for a very Earth-like planet. Image credit: NASA/Ames/JPL-Caltech.
Kepler 186f is one of a great many candidates for a very Earth-like planet. Image credit: NASA/Ames/JPL-Caltech.

In particular, we can ask three separate questions:

  1. What are, scientifically, the conditions that we need for life to arise?
  2. How rare or common are these conditions elsewhere in the Universe?
  3. And finally, if we don’t find life in the places and under the conditions where we expect it, can that prove the existence of God?
Reaching, broadcasting and listening for the evidence of others has so far returned an empty, lonely result. Image credit: Victor Bobbett.
Reaching, broadcasting and listening for the evidence of others has so far returned an empty, lonely result. Image credit: Victor Bobbett.

The questions themselves are interesting, but what science has to say about all of them might be the most interesting thing of all.

2,233 thoughts on “Can science prove the existence of God? (Synopsis)

  1. If god has any effect on this reality, it can be found by scientific inquiry, and therefore it can be used to prove god exists *if he does*. Nothing can prove it if god doesn’t exist.

    And only if it is impossible for life to arise (and you have to prove that claim) can you use the existence of life as proof for god, so “fine tuning” isn’t it. Only if life turns up where it physically cannot can “magic” be the reason for life being there.

  2. Let’s say I’ve got a hamster. I give him a nice cage. Quite expansive. Lots of toys. Good water and food system. Just looking at the cage, you might easily concclude, “hey, eric really likes that hamster!” Then I seal the whole thing up and drop it in a vat of nitric acid. Not just a little vat, mind you, but vat of acid that forms a cubic mile around that hamster cage. Then I take loads of radioactive waste and distribute it around the vat, so that if any hamster were to somehow exit the cage, and survive the acid, they’d get lethally irradiated.

    Now, does that sound like a system designed for the hamster’s benefit? Because it sure sounds like a prison to me. It sounds like I’m afraid the hamster might escape his cage and I want to stop that from happening at all costs. But of course, our solar system (and in fact every solar system) is equally inimical to our form of life. Sure, some of the planets might be nice. Good toys. Food and water. Its just the light-years of lethal-in-multiple-ways stuff in between that leaves me skeptical that the whole thing was designed for the hamster’s benefit.

  3. @Ethan wrote

    From the first, self-replicating organic molecule to something as specialized and differentiated as a human being, we know we need billions of years of (roughly) constant temperatures, the right evolutionary steps, and a whole lot of luck.

    There is also a school of thought that there cannot be a complete lack of mass extinction events if complex life is to come into being. If the climate is too constantly benign, all you get is a planet of slime. Catastrophe can end the stranglehold of a dominant life form, and it is the race to refill that newly devoid niche that is the true engine of evolution. The increased evolutionary advancements seen in the fossil records following each of the mass extinction events gives credence to the theory.

  4. The religious uniqueness argument requires proving a negative, which generally is not feasible.
    Ethan’s calculations do not take into account the many-worlds notion, which would radically increase the odds of intelligent life. For a start, the religious uniqueness argument would have to prove that the many-worlds notion is wrong. Good luck.

  5. Looks like a good article, I don’t have time now to read it its quite long. I was interested in question 3, for me like Ethan, the answer is it doesn’t prove anything. A corollary is would we want to know there was a proof? Someone once said (I think it was a recent pope), that if there was proof, then you couldn’t have such a thing as faith, because faith means believing in something you can’t prove.

    I like to toy with eric hamster prison thought experiment. What if the creator had good reason to believe that in a universe of hamster ages that aren’t adequately isolated, one species of hamster would acquire the means to conquer the universe and either enslave or exterminate all the other hamsters. And the creator had the wisdom to make that outcome impossible. Space is like that, spaceflight is very difficult, especially interstellar spaceflight. Then there are extra barriers at higher granularity: can a galaxy infested by an evil conquering race, infest other galaxies? Could an infested galaxy cluster infest other clusters? As a last resort the accelerating expansion of the universe, means no possible infestation can reach more than a tiny fraction of the universe. So we can at least entertain the notion that our universe was designed to limit the damage that any particular species could cause.

  6. Ethan’s calculations do not take into account the many-worlds notion

    Yes and no. Remember, these calculations were done to answer the Fermi paradox. Sentient life existing in a parallel universe does not bear on the question of “why aren’t they here?”
    Its much like the question of whether there is life in the non-observable parts of the universe. Sure, considering all that extra space increases the likelihood the answer is yes. But it doesn’t bear on the question of “why aren’t they here.”

  7. I personally look at the evidence and find that there is no need to invoke the idea of design in the universe at all. The idea of designed is not needed to explain any facet of the universe. Why invoke an unnecessary idea?

    However, if I were to grant for the sake of argument that the universe is designed, then why should I believe that it was designed for humans? Certainly, as eric points out, the vast majority of the universe is completely and utterly lethal to human (and other) life. Isn’t it far more likely that, if designed at all, it was designed as a factory for the production of hydrogen and helium? That seems to be what the universe is best at. Perhaps humans are just the “pollution” produced by this hydrogen/helium factory.

  8. according to one of Terry Pratchett’s characters, the point of the whole thing is to BE the whole thing. Even if you were to regard as valid the idea of some creator, why would it be created for life at all?

    But there’s nothing that needs a creator of any type, and all ones proposed so far have been interventionist and therefore have been, by one way or the other, wrong.

  9. Isn’t it far more likely that, if designed at all, it was designed as a factory for the production of hydrogen and helium?

    Yup. Or if life, then some form of life that likes hard vacuum, heavy radiation, temperatures at a balmy 3 K, and eats hydrogen.

    The same sort of criticism works the other way too, against arguments of rarity-implies-design instead of fit-implies-design. If someone defends the notion of design by pointing out just how limited and rare the conditions needed for humans are, point out that smallpox needs all the same conditions plus it needed humans to evolve. Conditions even more rare than what we need! So if rarity -> design (rather than fit -> design), humans still aren’t the leading candidate for the purpose of the universe. 🙂

  10. But if it was designed to produce hydrogen and helium, it would not have been designed with almost entirely hydrogen in it for a start and there would have been no expansion or cooling, since production of helium was going a lot better before it all cooled (long before the universe became opaque and waaay longer before the first stars formed).

    So even then, if it was designed to do that, it was 99% crap design.

    Heck, even us humans have managed a damn sight better than that in our controlled fusion experiments. And we don’t even know how to create universes.

  11. “I bet you weren’t as brief as that, though.”

    Not as brief – with nothing of substance to be seen. Don’t bother going there – it’s time I’ll never get back.

  12. I figured if he couldn’t be arsed to give us what he said there before clicking on his site, it couldn’t be worth reading, else it would have enticed people to go look for more of his wisdom.

  13. Science cannot prove existence of god for one simple reason- god do not exist. Period. Religions assign to god absolutely incompatible properties. Creator of the whole universe let dirty solders to crucify himself? Absurdity of it is something beyond imagination. But it seems to me, that one half of a brain of a believer do not work properly at all. Common sense sleeps well. This is why many scientists are believers- they never use scientific approach to their believes. Point by point- we’ll never be sure, that live doesn’t exist outside the Earth. Sooner or later, we’ll be able to create artificial live ourselves. Incorporating a superpower in the universe is not a scientific approach. Why sky is blue? it is god’s will. No additional comments.

  14. Ethan,

    Interesting article. I like your line of thought. I’ve never liked the fine-tuning argument. I mean, I admire the raw fact of the really impressive set of conditions, but when we say they’re “unlikely”, I have to ask, compared to what? And here we are, however unlikely.

    But like you (if I’m reading you correctly), I don’t think that necessarily invalidates a faith perspective as a logical option (though I know you don’t go there yourself). It doesn’t seem to me logical to suppose that this universe is *necessarily* equal to all reality – even if it’s all the reality we can access, being spacetime-stuff ourselves. I’m not expressing myself well.

    About God, if we start from the Jewish/Catholic viewpoint that God is not of the universe, there would be literally no way for us to connect with him from here, on our own: the characters in a Shakespeare play could never know the poet; the figures in a Rembrandt painting could never know the artist or understand his mode of life. Unless he paints himself into the picture or writes himself into the play, that is. Like, say, in a Resurrection scene.

    (BTW, Andrew #16, this comment was interesting to me:
    “Creator of the whole universe let dirty solders to crucify himself? Absurdity of it is something beyond imagination.”)

    I find I learn a lot about people by sounding out whether they would consider the Resurrection to be data. More specifically, what kind of data would they accept, in the hypothetical event of a true miracle?

    Just some thoughts – I could be wrong in my reasoning.

    Anyway, Ethan, I really admire your evident love of evidence and going where it leads, and your explanations of complex topics are a boon to the world. Please don’t stop doing what you do!

  15. 1) Any entity that fulfills the conventional definition of a deity could confound any experiment performed to ascertain its existence. Therefore no such experiment can be valid.

    To my mind that fairly conclusively demonstrates that empirical support or disproof for the existence of a deity is not possible. All else is inference: statements of the form “God exists because X,” and “God does not exist because Y,” that are each subject to refutation through counterexamples or different reasoning. (“We are unique in the universe, therefore God exists,” vs. “We are one of many, therefore God exists.”)

    2) The value of the Anthropic Principle is in enabling us to set constraints on starting conditions. We exist, therefore the starting conditions of the universe must be within a range of values that enables us to exist. This enables us to run computer simulations where the values are adjusted slightly, to arrive at conclusions about the possible starting conditions of the universe. But fine-tuning does not provide “evidence” for the existence of a deity; one can infer and reason in either direction, and neither course is demonstrably exclusively correct.

    With those things in mind, I’ll take the plunge into mythic speculation (the disclaimer “this is not science” is hardly needed in this forum):

    3) If “consistency” is the ultimate rule and ironclad law, that not even an omniscient and omnipotent deity can thwart, then:

    a) A hypothetical deity can only create persistent universes within some range of values for critical variables. (Universes created outside of that range do not fully form or do not persist long enough to evolve intelligent life.) A subset of the allowed range of values produces a universe that eventually produces us.

    b) It is likely that the cosmic structure of vast stretches of cold lethal darkness punctuated by star systems, is the only structure or “architecture” that could eventually produce any sort of intelligent life.

    c) Contrarily: I once had a dream in which all of space was breathable air at room temperature, and was full of built structures with ornate and fanciful architectures, such as a vaguely Victorian tower that spiraled like a corkscrew into the sky and out toward the Moon.

    On waking I contemplated this cozy picture for a few minutes and one of the first thoughts that came to mind was: If this was the actual structure of the universe, it would be easy for lethal microbes and large predatory animals to migrate hither & yon, without restraint. That would ultimately act as a downward-leveling factor against the evolution and persistence of intelligent life.

    4) The actual structure we observe is one example of a class of the better ones for enabling the evolution of conscious intelligent organisms. In the universe as it is, the only biological “stuff” that migrates between planets and star systems, are the chemical precursors of life, and technologically-capable intelligent organisms.

    Here I’m assuming that “transpermia” is limited by the rigors of the origins and destinations of the journey: As a thought-experiment, assume hardy Martian microbes within rock blasted loose by an asteroid. Upon entry into Earth’s atmosphere, the heat of entry would almost certainly kill them, and the only thing that would persist upon impact on Earth, would be some biologically-useful chemicals, that in turn might (if anything) contribute in some way to the existing evolutionary course of life on Earth.

    5) Conscious intelligent life that is technologically capable, will eventually develop science and in particular astronomy, and will recognize that its home star will eventually expand or explode to destroy its home planet. This will provide the strong incentive (collective survival) to work toward the capacity for interstellar migration.

    6) Natural selection on the cosmic scale favors interstellar migration as the means of continuing the existence of the biological lineage of successful life-bearing planets. Eventually each intelligent-life-bearing galaxy becomes populated by the heirs of such lineages.

    7) The propensity to believe or disbelieve in a deity is the result of an interaction between the structure & function of each individual brain, and the culture in which each person is raised. Some people are “wired” to be naturally theistic, some are “wired” to be naturally atheistic. The vast majority in the middle often find themselves “struggling” to fit into their predominant culture, e.g. the natural atheist in a deeply theistic society who “struggles” to find faith, e.g. the natural theist in a deeply atheistic society (e.g. the Soviet Union) who “struggles” to rid themselves of faith.

    That is ultimately the basis for freedom of religion or freedom of belief: recognition and respect for the natural variation in humans, just as there is natural variation in numerous other aspects of humans that are deeply important to individual existence and identity.

    • people usually mix some different things. Had this entire universe been once created by some deity, god, super mind whatever you call it? This question is outside of the science. What is the experiment. which can proof, that there is no god? Existence of such experiment is essential, according to Carl Popper. There is another interesting question. Existence of immortal soul, which can be separated from body. It makes me laugh, how many believers do not see the difference. As a programmer, I can deomstrate it in such way:
      m[0][0]=no god, no soul;
      m[0][1]=no gob, immortal soul
      m[1][0]=god is, but no immortal soul
      m[1][1]=god is and soul is too.
      You may choose whatever you want. And finally, assume that universe was once created by some super mind. And what? What is the difference for us? Do you think, that problems of thinking proteins, sneaking on the surface of one of trillions planets might have tiniest interest for such creator? That he will listen human beings, count and record their sins and heroic deeds? Think again. But only such god might have some interest for us, mortals.

  16. “1) Any entity that fulfills the conventional definition of a deity could confound any experiment performed to ascertain its existence. Therefore no such experiment can be valid.”

    Incorrect. Any event that god could do that changed this world could prove god.

    Parting of the red sea? Stopping the sun for hours? Thousands of zombies coming alive and walking around? Worldwide flood of all land everywhere?

    All 100% verifiable by science and therefore proof of god.

    A god that refuses to act could avoid science proving it, but

    a) Why?
    b) If it does so, then it’s not the god that anyone has defined as existing yet

    The only god with the powers normally described for it that could avoid being proved by science is one that doesn’t exist

    “7) The propensity to believe or disbelieve in a deity is the result of an interaction between the structure & function of each individual brain”

    Wrong.

    A survival technique is creating intention. Moving of the long grass is seen and can either
    a) be the wind, just something that happened
    b) be the movement of a predator being given away

    the second one is intention, there’s something doing it. And getting that one wrong means you’re gonna be dead. Getting the first one wrong means bugger all.

    So placing intention behind everything you see or feel is a survival technique. Believing it’s god when you find that there was no intention behind it is just a misapplication of the same desire to implement intent.

    Then when you#ve decided “something inivsible” made the grass move, another survival technique is to placate that invisible thing so it won’t become a predator of you.

    And so gods are born. Which start off being local gods or spirits, then become big pantheons of gods, then become single overarching god doing everything.

    And then some decide to try science instead of intention.

    And that works a whole load better. Instead of praying for god not to strike your place of worship with lightning, you put up a lightning conductor and that works.

  17. I would consider the existence of what one might call lessor gods is pretty likely. When I had dogs, I was a lessor god to them. A sufficiently advanced alien whether biological or cyber would probably qualify for current humans. It certainly would have qualified if it had come here a few thousand years ago. Now GOD (all caps) as a creator/ruler of the universe, thats something else entirely. But, humans notions of a big god evolved from our previous lessor gods beliefs.

  18. No, they’re only “more likely than a big singular god”, but only because they’re less incredible.

    Spiderman isn’t more likely to be real than Superman just because Peter Parker isn’t as powerful as Clark Kent.

    And, no, “sufficiently advanced aliens” isn’t god or even lesser gods. They’re aliens.

    We aren’t aliens because we can make doors open without touching them. We use IR sensors and motors. Not god powers.

    And nobody thinks that science can’t prove aliens exist.

  19. I believe that the energy necessary to animate Life is one of the basic forces in the universe. I do not believe that it was specifically created for life on this earth but rather exists throughout this universe and allows for Life to exist on many different types of planets. When the physical conditions are present, Life will develop.

  20. “Had this entire universe been once created by some deity, god, super mind whatever you call it? This question is outside of the science.”

    No it isn’t. It’s a question about reality and what is there. And that’s precisely what science CAN look into. If science isn’t about reality, what the hell do you think it is about?

    “There is another interesting question. Existence of immortal soul, which can be separated from body. It makes me laugh, how many believers do not see the difference.”

    Care to show where there is evidence there’s no perceptio of the difference? After all,if we’re talking about god and not the existence of souls, the fact that we don’t talk about the existence of souls in that conversation isn’t proof that people don’t know what the difference is, it rather proves they DO know what the difference is. If they didn’t think there WAS a difference, then they’d be talking about the existence of souls in a conversation about god’s existence.

    Hmmm. That’s what YOU are doing. And I note that you don’t say what the difference IS, either.

  21. “About God, if we start from the Jewish/Catholic viewpoint that God is not of the universe, there would be literally no way for us to connect with him from here”

    Wrong. That god appears and proves themselves ALL THE FUCKING TIME to people here in this reality.

    Hell, they specifically have that god WILL appear because wherever there are believers in him, there he is among them, and he will do whatever they ask if they ask together for it.

    So to connect between the two places, all you need are two or more christians to get together and ask that jesus appears.

    Jesus appears.

    Job done.

    The only reason why not is that the god is a liar or doesn’t exist to lie in the first place.

    But the reason IS NOT that there’s no way to connect to god. They have done many many times before (not once breaking the ability of faith to exist) and have even explicitly given carte blanche for being asked to appear again at any time.

    So, no, John, utterly wrong.

  22. “I find I learn a lot about people by sounding out whether they would consider the Resurrection to be data”

    What data is there?

    Eyewitness testimony to the specific event? None. All accounts are second hand and 30 years after the event at earliest.
    Retelling of the method of execution? Incorrect.
    Actions taken during the execution? Not ones that were ever done.
    Burial method? No such custom existed then.
    External events recounted (thousands of zombies getting up and walking around) corroborated by any other acoounts? Nope, not a one.

    So what data is there for the resurrection?

    None.

    What data would we want for any miracle? SOME would be a good start, we can look at that and find out if it’s just another David Copperfield illusionist trick or genuine magic.

  23. “I believe that the energy necessary to animate Life is one of the basic forces in the universe”

    We already know what that energy is, Pat.

    Electrical potential energy. It’s the same stuff as you find on your batteries. And it IS universal and it IS essential for ALL life, even if not carbon-based.

    What it isn’t is some “other” type of energy. It’s just plain old electric potentials.

  24. I found reading this article quite interesting. To me, the interesting part was rather sociological than the content itself, though: In the region of the world where I live (Europe), there does not seem to be much of an evolution vs creationist debate — in fact even most religious people seem to accept and even defend the concept of biological evolution here.

    That said, I also think that the content of the article does not correspond to the headline because mathematics/science can prove the existence of a god. The argument goes like this:

    1) On the most fundamental level, all science works by taking a set of assumptions believed to be true in the sense that they allow to explain a subset of all phenomena of the physical world.
    2) Math/science takes these assumptions to create “compound” statements about the physical world using logic. If these compound statements contradict observations, the fundamental assumptions of point (1) are either incorrect or at least inaccurate. Also, if some observations exist that cannot be explained by compound statements, the set of assumptions is said to be incomplete.
    3) Let us assume for a moment that a set of statements which can used to make statements about _every_ observable phenomenon of the physical world and none else exists. (The current state of scientific affairs is far from this point, but this does not matter to the argument here.) Such a set of assumptions is called an “complete and consistent axiom system” and an infinite number of them can exist, but given that they all explain exactly the same things, they are all equivalent.
    4) Question: What makes these complete and consistent axiom systems true? This question cannot be answered by science, because an answer would just be a more fundamental statement and the axiom system would not be an axiom system.
    5) Some say the answer to (4) is “god”. In my opinion that is totally valid.

    One should quickly add that this argument does not prove any properties of such a “god”. In fact, I consider it unlikely that this entity has an interest in life, the earth, or the universe or that it even has a consciousness.

  25. “4) Question: What makes these complete and consistent axiom systems true?”

    Tell us what these axioms are. It is not possible to answer any question about things you have not defined.

    “5) Some say the answer to (4) is “god”. In my opinion that is totally valid.”

    Bare assertion. Reply “No it isn’t”, Hitchens’ Razor deployed. No further need to respond, your claim is completely refuted.

    “One should quickly add that this argument does not prove any properties of such a “god”.”

    Then it is not an answer.Might as well use the word “Cabbage”, just don’t define how it is an answer and suddenly you think it valid. Who needs to know why!

    “In fact, I consider it unlikely that this entity has an interest in life, the earth, or the universe or that it even has a consciousness.”

    Then why is it god and not nothing? If it’s nonexistent, then it can take no interest in life, the earth or the universe and nonexistence means it doesn’t have a consciousness by definition.

    So why not use “nothing”? It’s far more accurate and properly defined than “god” is.

  26. > Tell us what these axioms are

    you’re fun, I’ve written about this, but here it is again: they are a set of statements that can consistently explain all conceivable observations of the physical world (and I should add: they also do not explain anything which contradicts such observations).

    If you wonder what they are: nobody knows as of yet and science is the process of finding better approximations…

    > No further need to respond, your claim is completely refuted.

    did I ever mention that I consider you to be funny? I can’t see anything you wrote which contradicts it (except, maybe, your own ideology ;)).

    > Then it is not an answer.

    yeah, if you want to see it like this. an alternative name of this “god” is “meta physics”, or “the thingy that implies physics”. My point is that this is just a matter of definition.

    > Then why is it god and not nothing?

    an equivalent to your question is: why are “we” not nothing? I assume that you think of yourself as *something*?

    > If it’s nonexistent, then it can take no interest in life, the earth or the universe and nonexistence means it doesn’t have a consciousness by definition.

    assuming “we” exist, “it” must exist too. The point is that, considering “its” definition, it is extremely unwise to attribute any properties to “it”.

    > then it can take no interest in life

    that’s one of the properties: “it” can also take an interest in life. (I personally consider this to be unlikely.)

    > So why not use “nothing”? It’s far more accurate and properly defined than “god” is.

    if you prefer to use that term, then that is fine with me. This implies that everything is “nothing”, though…

    (or to say it another way: from “nothing”, nothing follows.)

  27. “> Tell us what these axioms are

    they are a set of statements that can consistently explain all conceivable observations of the physical world”

    You didn’t tell us what they are.

    “If you wonder what they are: nobody knows as of yet and science is the process of finding better approximations…”

    OK, so we cant answer your question #4.

    “I can’t see anything you wrote which contradicts it”

    But you gave nothing to say that you were right, or that I am wrong, therefore I refer you back to “Hitchen’s Razor”. Look it up.

    “assuming “we” exist,”

    We aren’t god, so this is irrelevant.

    ““it” must exist too. ”

    No it doesn’t Hitchen’s Razor again. 100% refutation.

    “The point is that, considering “its” definition, it is extremely unwise to attribute any properties to “it”.”

    Yes we can: it doesn’t exist. Which means that no properties exist, making attributing any to it unwise, as required.

    “that’s one of the properties: “it” can also take an interest in life.”

    No it can’t. It doesn’t exist.

    “if you prefer to use that term, then that is fine with me. ”

    Fine.

    “This implies that everything is “nothing”, though…”

    No it doesn’t, they’re absolutely not the same thing. God not existing does not mean everything is nothing.

  28. “yeah, if you want to see it like this. an alternative name of this “god” is “meta physics”, or “the thingy that implies physics””

    My point is that this is meaningless.

  29. If there is a uber-Designer, then the system could’ve been set in a such a way as to disable any probing of the outside from the inside. A sort of a Tron scenario.. we being programs.. you don’t get to access “user land”. So science might be useless if so desired by the super one.

  30. But apart from special pleading here, there’s nothing about stopping outside coming in. We therefore still can see that external we’re begging to be real when it appears with effect in this universe.

    And if they deliberately try not to do that, we’re not only insisting with special pleading that being set up has absolutely no way for science to find out it being different, the lack of interaction coming in is only a contingent avoidance.

    The fact that I’m not eating ice cream doesn’t mean I CANNOT eat ice cream, does it.

    So deliberately not trying to avoid being detected doesn’t mean it can’t be detected at all.

  31. p.s.
    What I love is that Ethan used Michelangelo’s Creation of Adam. It was only in an episode of Westworld couple of weeks ago that I came upon one view of the painting that blew me, and I was un-aware off all these years. Mostly I blame my art teachers.. should have said/know about it…. Anyways… it’s that the backdrop.. where the God is positioned.. that reddish cape behind him… is actually a human brain… well.. a silouette of it… And the more I look at it.. the more the shape looks like it’s painted just like that on purpose. With a message so clear… it is us.. our intellect and our self, that is the god, that is the force that animates our material body. Not some “above” thing.

  32. though if it was a picture of the meeting, god made eve a very disappointed girl.

    (oh, and it’s not a human brain: it’s meatballs. May you be touched by his noodly appendage)

  33. I do not want to waste too much time responding to #31 since you clearly did not read the original comment (#28) and my answer to #29 ;). I’ll just just reply to this:

    >>> Tell us what these axioms are
    >>
    >> they are a set of statements that can consistently explain all
    >> conceivable observations of the physical world”
    >
    > You didn’t tell us what they are.

    First, it does not matter for the argument are what they are in concrete terms, and second let me quote myself:

    “””
    If you wonder what they are: nobody knows as of yet and science is the process of finding better approximations…
    “””

    If you’re interested in the currently best approximations, you can have a look at this:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model
    and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity

    A good but slightly outdated introduction to these can be found here:

    http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/

  34. Omega @6 (sorry, I missed your reference earlier, ignoring you wasn’t intentional):

    I like to toy with eric hamster prison thought experiment. What if the creator had good reason to believe that in a universe of hamster ages that aren’t adequately isolated, one species of hamster would acquire the means to conquer the universe and either enslave or exterminate all the other hamsters

    That’s a viable defense…IF you’re willing to give up omnipotence in your deity. Because with omnipotence, It could do both (infinite nice living space for each hamster species, and multiple hamster species).

    John K @17:

    I don’t think that necessarily invalidates a faith perspective as a logical option

    Well, science is empirical and inductive. So it can always be wrong, and a god is always philosophically possible. What science does is give us ever-higher inductively-derived confidence that a god-concept isn’t likely, because it is inconsistent with the empirical evidence we have (so far) collected.

    I mention this point because it’s often a ‘last line of retreat’ for theologians – pointing out that science can’t prove God doesn’t exist. Well yeah, that’s true. But (a) that’s not what science ever intended to do, and (b) that ain’t much of an argument to inspire confidence in ones’ theology.

    About God, if we start from the Jewish/Catholic viewpoint that God is not of the universe, there would be literally no way for us to connect with him from here

    This is enormously inconsistent with the Bible, which has God connecting empirically to humans all the time. Lots of direct ‘face to face’ communication, God reaching down and doing miracles, Jesus, etc. A deistic deity that never touches reality is, as you point out, immune to scientific examination. However, IMO you have to jettison quite a lot of Christian theology to get to such a deity.

  35. “First, it does not matter for the argument are what they are in concrete terms, and second let me quote myself:”

    Then you can’t make point 4 onwards and your entire thesis is null and void.

  36. Wow…Men of science have been trying to animate matter and create a Living Being using electricity for quite a while. So far, they have failed. When they succeed, I will admit I am wrong.

    There is much more involved in the creation of life than a simple spark, or lightening bolt. The James Leininger case proves that.

    Accept my thoughts or not, neither of us has any physical proof…at least not yet.

  37. Re. Wow @ 20:

    Sure, a deity could do some kind of divine intervention that would leave no doubt of its existence. But that is not an experiment in any conventional sense of controlled means of making observations to test a hypothesis.

    An ET spacecraft could land somewhere and be examined by metallurgists, leaving no doubt about that subject either. Until that happens, all we have are puzzling objects in the sky that are non-repeatable observations.

    A deist deity could create universes until finding one that could support life, and allow that one to continue without much further physical intervention. Such a deity could enable organisms to have souls, and occasionally communicate with the souls of such organisms. A deity of that kind would be invisible to experimental testing and measurement.

    Imparting “intention” to events in nature presupposes something that has an intention, which is to say a human or other animal, or if no such is visible, a supernatural (above or outside of nature) entity. Such entities are felt to be persons. The characteristic here is “attribution of personhood to objects other than self.” Some humans attribute personhood to other animals, and some such humans refuse to eat other animals as a result. Some humans don’t even attribute personhood to other humans, and treat other humans as objects to be manipulated. The vast majority are somewhere in-between.

    It is mundanely true that humans do vary as to degree of belief/disbelief in deities, and it’s testable as to the statistical form that applies, for example a normal curve or a power-law curve or something else. I attribute that variation to a combination of brain structure & function, and upbringing, with historic and current cultural data as support.

    Omega Centauri @ 21: “Lesser gods” that are physical beings, is stretching the definition. “Gods” as normally defined, refers to supernatural (above or outside of nature) entities.

    Pat McCormick @23: That’s basically animism or panpsychism, the idea that mind as observed is at least in part the product of a different state of existence than matter and energy as conventionally understood. As far as I know that’s also untestable, since the only ways we know of for inferring the presence of consciousness entail observing certain types of behaviors such as communication, that at present we only know how to observe for animals.

    • Wow… Professors at Princeton have been studying Global Consciousness for several years. They have some positive results. If you’re interested: http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

      Just because most of the scientific community views “Life” as an accidental infection on the skin of Planet Earth, doesn’t make it true. Their egos have kept them from accepting many other relevant phenomena when they first appeared. They had a good laugh at Quantum Mechanics for a while. Quantum entanglement as well.

      It seems the more our scientists learn, the stranger this universe gets. Open your mind to new possibilities. Don’t spend your life as a troll.

  38. Well there are two levels of cosmogenesis, that of the universe and that of life. Life is easily handled by Udo Seifert’s stochasitc thermodynamics and the mentioned charge transfer energy gradients in clay rich alkaline hydrothermal vents. You can check out the mathematical proofs by lookig for recent works by James Crutchfield on the subject. Quantum cosmogensis is less than straightforward but doesn’t appear to be intractable.

    For a brief summary with references –

    http://lifeform.net/archimedes/Cosmic_Evolution.pdf

  39. re: #42

    I guess that in Pat’s library, the only “science” book is Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.

  40. @Wow: you’re right and I am wrong. The world is exactly as you say it is. (Are you “it”?)

    Sorry to have bothered you with my unworthy thoughts.

  41. “Wow…Men of science have been trying to animate matter and create a Living Being”

    My dad managed to do that several times, Pat.

    ” So far, they have failed. ”

    No they haven’t. Ask your dad where you came from. He won’t say the Stork or you were magically poofed into existence. If he does, I would suggest a home for him.

    “When they succeed, I will admit I am wrong.”

    Lets see, hmm? Ask your dad where you came from.

    “There is much more involved in the creation of life than a simple spark”

    No, we use chemical energy, the electrical potential between atoms and molecules. That’s what we use food for. There’s no magical mystical “energy” that is essential for life. It’s the electrical energy that is in our food.

    (PS cardio electric shocks bring people back to life from a heart attack very frequently)

  42. “Sure, a deity could do some kind of divine intervention that would leave no doubt of its existence. But that is not an experiment”

    It is when we look into that miracle, G. That’s an experiment right there. The only case where science COULD NOT prove it would be if it could not ever happen, otherwise it’s just a “not yet” like seeing the surface of extrasolar planets. We can’t YET see them, but there’s no way to claim we can never see them.

    “Until that happens, all we have are puzzling objects in the sky that are non-repeatable observations.”

    Repeatability isn’t necessary. Paleontology isn’t repeatable, yet it uses science to make deductions. History is not repeatable, yet scientific.

    Seeing the ammeter move to a value is a single observation and that single observation is not repeated, except under a similar set of circumstances that we consider to be similar enough to conclude as being equivalent to a repeat of the observation (one of those axioms that Andreas bleated on about without knowing it even existed, because Andreas doesn’t know what they’re on about).

    SN1987a was an non-repeatable observation. We can still do science on it.

    “A deist deity could create universes until finding one that could support life”

    A deist deity would not bother even to look. That’s not what a deist deity does. And in “looking” they interact with this universe, showing that there is a connection between the two realms (if you posit a completely separate uberverse where deities “live”). That’s what observing means: communication.

    ” Such a deity could enable organisms to have souls”

    But they’d have to exist tied strictly to our physical bodies, else we would not change under severe trauma to the brain. And they’d STILL have to obey the natural laws of this universe and be 100% open to scientific inquiry.

    And the act of creating those souls would be yet more intervention, something deist deities do not do.

    And those souls going to the afterlife? More communication between the two “realms”. And still more intervention deities don’t do.

    Plus you need to show there ARE souls. Kinda missing the even one unrepeatable event there.

    “The characteristic here is “attribution of personhood to objects other than self.””

    No that’s not it. That’s anthropomorphisation. Intention is the requirement. If there’s nothing there, there’s nothing there, so we invent a god or spirit and then give it the power to make their intent real in this universe. We can thereafter make them persons, but the intent is there first. Without the ability to make manifest via their intention, there’s no thing there to have personhood.

    “Some humans attribute personhood to other animals, and some such humans refuse to eat other animals as a result.”

    Ducks et al attribute “Mother” to the first thing they see when they hatch. Are they attributing “duckhood” to your wellies?

    Ever seen a dog eat another dead dog? Substitute other pack animal if needed.

    Attributing personhood to others of the same type is part of what makes a pack animal a survival tecnhnique. Hyenas kill and clean up FAR more animals than lions do, because they have a stronger and larger pack structure. They are the biggest killers in Africa. They survive better because they work together cohesively. Lions do better than Tigers for the same reason.

  43. “@Wow: you’re right and I am wrong.”

    Passive aggressive bullshit. You ARE wrong. I’m not better than you, just far less deluded. But you don’t want to read 32, don’t want to explain what the hell you’re babbling on about, so you go all sneering snide BS and flounce off.

    Just letting you know I know what you’re doing and it doesn’t matter to me. Your arguments matter, your feelings matter fuck all.

  44. “I guess that in Pat’s library, the only “science” book is Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.”

    I wonder if Pat ever did chemistry in school. Or went to school. Because they’d know what we use food for if they had. They’d know what chemical energy is, if they had.

    But I suspect Pat here is thinking there must be some woomancer “energy” that they can’t define, but must be there because they’re not religious, but they know they have a soul, because they just know it, man. And that requires energy, which isn’t chemical energy, because we already know about that, and this is something “scientists” don’t know, because Pat is smarter than them, he KNOWS that this exists, and scientists don’t, therefore they can’t know what this “energy” is.

    Leylines and crystals are probably involved.

  45. “Professors at Princeton have been studying Global Consciousness for several years”

    Yeah, and? That isn’t energy and isn’t essential to life either. Segue doesn’t make a counterargument, Pat.

    “Just because most of the scientific community views “Life” as an accidental infection on the skin of Planet Earth,”

    Uh, you think that. Scientists don’t. You just caricature what you WANT them to think so you can kick down that strawman.

    “Their egos have kept them from accepting many other relevant phenomena when they first appeared”

    No, refusing to accept your unsubstantiated woomancer bollocks isn’t their ego, it’s yours unable to accept you need more than wish and hope to support a claim.

    (oh, look here: http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/07/reincarnation_a.html)

    “It seems the more our scientists learn, the stranger this universe gets”

    This doesn’t mean if you think up something even weirder it MUST be right.

    “Open your mind to new possibilities.”

    It is. Is yours open to the idea you’re absolutely wrong here? Just because my brain hasn’t fallen out doesn’t mean my mind isn’t open.

    ” Don’t spend your life as a troll.”

    No, this isn’t trolling. Look up the definition, moron.

  46. “Professors at Princeton have been studying Global Consciousness for several years. They have some positive results.”

    No, no they don’t. That “research” follows a trajectory similar to that of “alternative medicine” – experiments that are badly designed, monitored, and controlled, resulting in nothing but chance outcomes which are “significant” only because of the sheer number of blind tests done – in other words, a few random false positives.
    It is science? No. Is it statistically valid? Certainly not. Is it a waste of time and money, appealing only to the gullible? Well, you bought into it, didn’t you?

  47. Absurdity of Atheism
    If abiogenesis (spontaneous creation without specific design) can be admitted under such conditions of regularity, then purposeful generation and definitely balanced creation can be the result of error ad perplexity, since these two are opposed to abiogenesis.

    Such a statement is highly absurd that order and rectitude should come about without a Creator, and disorder and impropriety of design and fate should suppose a Creator. He is an ignoramus who says this, because anything produced without design will never be exact and proportioned, while disorder and contrariness cannot co-exist with orderly design. Allah (swt) is far above what the heretics say.

    http://www.al-shia.org/html/eng/page.php?id=1640&page=6

  48. Yeah, sorry, that’s not absurdity of atheism, it’s the absurdity of faithiest claims.

    And even if science were wrong about abiogenesis, that’s not proving god, only proving the current science wrong.

    Hence it’s an absurd post.

  49. There is something which we all know, and it was born after the existence of the earth, namely: life. Our scientists state that earth was too hot (and some of them say it was too cold) for any kind of life to exist on it. It took the earth millions of years to become a suitable place for life. Life, therefore, is, undoubtedly, a newborn.

    Science, however, tells us that life does not originate from non-living being. Pasteur’s experiment, which took place in the 19th century, is still standing. Through his sterilized soup, he proved beyond any doubt that life does not originate from inanimate material. The scientists of today are still unable to disprove his conclusion.

    The earth, along with its atmosphere, at the time of its formation was sterile and unproductive. Transforming the inanimate materials, such as carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and iron into a living being could not, therefore, be done through a natural process. It must have been done miraculously.

    This means that the existence of life on this planet is a shining evidence on the existence of an Intelligent, Supernatural Designer.

    http://www.najaf.org/english/book/9/5.html

  50. “There is something which we all know, and it was born after the existence of the earth, namely: life.”

    1) Define life. If you think we all know what it is, define it.
    2) We don’t know it was born after the existence of earth, there are billions of planets in the galaxy and billions of galaxies, have you checked to see that none of them and none of the ones that have ever existed have no life and never had it?
    3) Doesn’t prove god anyway.

    “Science, however, tells us that life does not originate from non-living being. ”

    Nope, it doesn’t.

    “Through his sterilized soup, he proved beyond any doubt that life does not originate from inanimate material”

    1) Nope,he didn’t.
    2) Miller-Urey
    3) See above: define life

    “Transforming the inanimate materials, such as carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and iron into a living being could not, therefore, be done through a natural process”

    1) Yes it can.
    2) See all of the above.

    “It must have been done miraculously.”

    1) Nope. See above.
    2) Doesn’t prove god.
    3) Especially not yours.

    “This means that the existence of life on this planet is a shining evidence on the existence of an Intelligent, Supernatural Designer.”

    1) Who says it was designed?
    2) Nope, it doesn’t. See all of the above.

    Here’s one proof you can give me: Show me where you pray to this designer and they create out of nothing an entire new adult human being.

  51. However far this infinite chain is prolonged, it will still have the attributes of neediness, dependency, and origination in time. A chain from the very nature of which autonomy and freedom from need do not arise can never put on the garment of being until it connects with one who is in his essence absolutely free of need— with a being who possesses the attributes of divinity and who is only a cause and not an effect.

    Without the existence of such an unconditional being, the source of all causes and the foundation of all existence, the order of creation cannot be explained.

    http://www.al-islam.org/god-and-his-attributes-sayyid-mujtaba-musawi-lari/lesson-7-finiteness-chain-causality

  52. Well , more meaningless bollocks from a deaf and dumb godbothering buffoon.

    He’s wrong BTW, peeps.

    @o–<
    //////////////
    Just drew mohammed lying down dead.

  53. Well , more meaningless bollocks from a deaf and dumb godbothering buffoon.

    He’s wrong BTW, peeps.

    @o–<
    //////////////
    Just drew mohammed lying down dead.
    So dead now.Good job idiot can't read, eh?

  54. The waverers failed to grasp the mysteries and causes underlying the genesis of the creatures, and their intellects remain unaware of the faultless ingenuity subsisting underneath the creation of the varied species of the sea and the land, the level and the rough.

    They became disbelievers, and because of a deficiency of their knowledge and puerility of intellect, began quibbling inimically with Truth, so much so that they denied creativeness and claimed that all this universe was meaningless and vain, without any ingenious design on the part of a Designer or Creator – a purposeless non-entity without balance or poise.

    Allah (swt) is far above what they attribute to Him. May they perish! flow misguided they are! In their misguided blindness and bewilderment they are like the blind people groping right and left in a well-furnished, well-built house with fine carpets, luscious articles of food and drink, various kinds of clothing and other necessities of essential use, all adequately supplied in proper quantity and placed with perfect decorum and ingenious design.

    In their blindness they fail to see the building and its furnishing. They move about from one room to ,another, advancing and retreating. If by chance, any one of them finds anything in its place to supply a need, and not knowing the purpose for which it is set there and unaware of the underlying ingenuity, he might begin to reprimand the architect of the building in his offensive rage, whereas, as a matter of fact, the fault lies with his own inability to see.

    This analogy holds good in the case of the sect who deny the creative factor and the argument in favour of Divine Design. Failing to appreciate the merit of their provision, the perfection of creation and the beauty of design, they start wandering in the wide world, bewildered by their inability to grasp with their brains the underlying causes and principles.

    It so happens sometimes that someone among them is aware of a thing but in his ignorance of its reality, purpose and need, begins at once to find fault with it saying, “it is untenably wrong.”

    http://www.al-shia.org/html/eng/page.php?id=1640&page=4

  55. Your very existence is a great evidence on the existence of Adam and Eve, or let us say the first two human beings. You did not see Adam and Eve, but you believe that they existed.

    To make it more clear: You came through your parents. Your parents came through their parents, and your grandparents came through their parents, and so on. You may continue going back until you reach Adam and Eve. If you deny the existence of the first two human beings, you would be eliminating the first generation of their children. By eliminating the first generation, you eliminate the second and what is beyond it. Finally, you have to eliminate your own parents. Then you have to eliminate yourself. But you say to yourself: I cannot do that because I am here. Then you have to say: Adam and Eve were there.

    http://www.najaf.org/english/book/9/5.html

    Still don’t get it? I will make it childish for you to grasp! Now you may say ” But evolution says there was no Adam and Eve etc…”

    Granted for the sake of an argument!

    Even then if you deny the existence of YOUR first “evolution” beings, you would be eliminating the whole evolution!

    To make it more clear to you AGAIN!

    You may bring YOUR darwinian monkey tricks of evolution and say: But there was no Adam and Eve, we come from ….blah blah blah!

    Granted!

    Even then if you deny the existence of the first evolution beings, you would be eliminating the whole evolution!

    Simple common sense!

  56. “Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God, but if we use our beliefs as an excuse to draw conclusions that scientifically, we’re not ready for, we run the grave risk of depriving ourselves of what we might have come to truly learn.”

    Thanks. That – all of that – needs to be said and stressed more often

  57. Science can prove or disprove the existence of any claimed god, though, unless one specifically forced to avoid any appearance.

    Making your god dance to your tune so that you can avoid being wrong seems hideously arrogant, though.

  58. The other thing to consider is that if there were ever a science experiment that proved god, is there a single believer in that god who would not accept it?

    NOMA is cried by those who know that they’re wrong, If they thought otherwise, they’d hedge their bets at least.

  59. Some people seem to have a difficult time with the essential indeterminant properties of reality. As the topic of non-material otherness has been the subject of thoughtful argument throughout history, and has produced no definitive answer – either for or against the proposition, I find it much more likely that there will be no definitive answer than the notion a blog commenter has figured it out once and for all.

    While we are each entitled to our belief systems (some expressed rather more passionately than others), it does, at times, become tiresome picking one’s way through the intellectual detritus that serves only to satisfy this or that individual’s POV.

    Ethan has presented more than once in this blog examples of the limits to what Science can authentically know. Relax and enjoy the ride Science provides; it’s a good show all on its own.

  60. Yeah, but there’s nowt there that stops science looking at gods fiddling with reality, is there.

    And it’s not like there’s any other proposition, for example religious theology, that has any area that is more capable in answering. And, no, “Science deals with ‘how’ and religion deals with ‘why'” isn’t it. There’s nothing that indicates either that science can’t deal with why, nor that religion or theology deals with “why” questions any better than science does. It just claims it does.

  61. So, would it be fair to contrast the “religious theology” proposition with, say, a “non-religious theology” proposition? Which of the two would be more capable in answering, and why?

  62. Go ahdad and define them both.

    Until you’ve defined them and given a concrete example to talk about you’ve got nothing to discuss.

    • If you take the time to read post #74, you’ll discover the originator of the term “religious theology”.
      As the word “religious” used in that post modifies the term “theology”, it necessarily follows that it – religious theology – can be compared to a non-religious theology by replacing the term religious with its complement, non-religious.
      AS the author of post #76 states: “Until you’ve defined them and given a concrete example to talk about you’ve got nothing to discuss.”

      Good luck!

  63. So, still not seeing any examples there, John.

    If you’ve got nothing, we’ve got nothing to discuss. I’d wish you good luck, but I don’t think you’re even trying.

    • People who use English to clarify rather than to confuse use adjectives to modify nouns. In the instance of post #74, the author modified the noun theology (https://tinyurl.com/gqueqmh) with the adjective religious (https://tinyurl.com/hugqjud).

      This qualification has the same structure as “green apple”, or “Newtonian Physics”. In each case one can have a “non-green apple”, or a “non-Newtonian Physics”. Examples are “red apple” and “Einsteinian Physics”. As the author of post #74 asserts as given, a “religious theology”, that author accepts that it may be held in contrast to a “non-religious theology”.

      This is, of course, if author is attempting to clarify rather than to confuse.

      Given the opportunity to warrant, substantiate, or defend the consequence of introducing in Post #74 the proposition “religious theology”, and having elected to not do so, it is reasonable to call its utility into question. Noting that a definition of theology is “the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially: the study of God and of God’s relation to the world”

      In what way might the adjective “religious”: “relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity” improve upon or enhance “the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially: the study of God and of God’s relation to the world”, particularly within a conversation on the topic Ethan defined as “Can science prove the existence of God?”?

      Not much.

      It seems that including “religious” to modify the term “theology” as used by the author of post #74 introduced more noise than signal into the conversation.

      Let us hope that this faux pas was inadvertent.

    • People who use English to clarify rather than to confuse use adjectives to modify nouns. In the instance of post #74, the author modified the noun theology with the adjective religious.

      This qualification has the same structure as “green apple”, or “Newtonian Physics”. In each case one can have a “non-green apple”, or a “non-Newtonian Physics”. Examples are “red apple” and “Einsteinian Physics”. As the author of post #74 asserts as given, a “religious theology”, that author accepts that it may be held in contrast to a “non-religious theology”.

      This is, of course, if author is attempting to clarify rather than to confuse.

      Given the opportunity to warrant, substantiate, or defend the consequence of introducing in Post #74 the proposition “religious theology”, and having elected to not do so, it is reasonable to call its utility into question. Noting that a definition of theology is “the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially: the study of God and of God’s relation to the world”

      In what way might the adjective “religious”: “relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity” improve upon or enhance “the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially: the study of God and of God’s relation to the world”, particularly within a conversation on the topic Ethan defined as “Can science prove the existence of God?”?

      Not much.

      It seems that including “religious” to modify the term “theology” as used by the author of post #74 introduced more noise than signal into the conversation.

      Let us hope that this faux pas was inadvertent.

  64. YOU were the one coming up with the demand for a non-religious theology, John, and you wanted to discuss if it could be better at answering, and why?

    If you can’t think of a non-religious theology, why did you ask to talk about it?

    • “YOU were the one coming up with the demand for a non-religious theology …”
      That is a mistake.
      As pointed out in post #77, presenting “religious theology” as an “other proposition”, which the author of Post #74 did, implicitly accepts it may be contrasted to an alternative “non- religious theology”.
      Further, if you read posts #70, #73, #75, and #77, you will discover there was in none of them a demand for anything, much less a “demand for a non-religious theology”.
      “… you wanted to discuss if it could be better at answering, and why?”
      That is also a mistake.
      I have not asked for a discussion on or about non-religious theology. I have pointed out that it could be held in contrast to a proposition advanced in post #74. As the author of that post suggested that a “religious theology” would be an inferior “other proposition”, I’m sure you’ll agree that. If it is true that it (a “religious theology”) would be (an inferior “other proposition”), a reasonable question would be “Then how about a non-religious theology”.
      “If you can’t think of a non-religious theology, why did you ask to talk about it?”
      Refer to preceding paragraph.

  65. Some people regard matter as independent and imagine that it has itself gained this freedom and elaborated the laws that rule over it. But how can they **believe** that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?

    What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.

    All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.

    http://www.al-islam.org/god-and-his-attributes-sayyid-mujtaba-musawi-lari/lesson-3-god-and-empirical-logic

  66. A religious theology does not imply or insist on non-religious theology, John.

    And for non (religious theology), it was already therein the post you complained about: science.

    Quite why you’re so butthurt about being unable to comprehend anything more complex than simple binary propositions isn’t my fault.

    If you want to ask for a conversation about how something explains things better or worse, then say what that something is, don’t whinge that you don’t know. Apologetics are the limp liberals of theology: too timid to man up and be idiotic in public.

    PS Hassan, Allah told me to tell you to shut the fuck up or he’ll make your nuts drop off from that fungus

    • “religious theology does not imply or insist on non-religious theology, John.”
      That is correct

      “And for non (religious theology), it was already therein the post you complained about: science.
      As I have not complained about any post, that is incorrect.

      “Quite why you’re so butthurt about being unable to comprehend anything more complex than simple binary propositions isn’t my fault.”
      Coarse language does not replace thoughtful discourse.

      “If you want to ask for a conversation about how something explains things better or worse, then say what that something is, don’t whinge that you don’t know.”
      That is the question I asked the author of post #74, who introduced the proposition od “religious theology”

      “Apologetics are the limp liberals of theology: too timid to man up and be idiotic in public.”
      As this exchange shows, I have let another behave that way in public.

      “PS Hassan, Allah told me to tell you to shut the fuck up or he’ll make your nuts drop off from that fungus”
      As stated above, coarse language does not replace thoughtful discourse.

  67. “As pointed out in post #77, presenting “religious theology” as an “other proposition”, which the author of Post #74 did, ”

    But what I said in there was about science, and not insisting that there must be some non-religious theology. It doesn’t even insist that the term non-religious theology exists.

    Do look up the words.

    • “As pointed out in post #77, presenting “religious theology” as an “other proposition”, which the author of Post #74 did, ”
      “But what I said in there was about science …”
      That is a mistake. “Religious theology” is not a term used to describe science.

      “… and not insisting that there must be some non-religious theology …”
      Nor was that claim made.

      “It doesn’t even insist that the term non-religious theology exists.”
      Nor was that claim made.

      What is true is that the author of Post #74 introduced “religious theology”, and has elected to avoid the implications of doing so.

      “Do look up the words.”
      I did, and provided a dictionary reference, unlike the author of Post #74.

  68. “As I have not complained about any post, that is incorrect.”

    Ah, so I don’t need to bother with what you say, sine there’s no complaints. Cur out the comments that are complaints about posts made since they don’t exist.

    • “… so I don’t need to bother with what you say, sine there’s no complaints.”
      As that comment introduces the proposition of self-restraint as it applies to comments to this blog, I agree that the discussion will be improved if irrelevant comments taking the form of “religious theology” are no longer posted. Additionally, coarse language devalues the topics Ethan introduces; their absence will improve the blog.

      “Cur out the comments that are complaints about posts made since they don’t exist.”
      I’m sure that makes sense to the poster.

  69. So are you complaining about posts NOW? Seems to be several. You know, including 74…

    Would bullshitting “I ain’t complaining” avoidance also help, John? How about less of the absolute forbidding on what science can or can’t do until you’ve worked it out? Probly help, right?

    • “So are you complaining about posts NOW?”
      No. It is true that I have identified posts with errors.

      “Seems to be several.”
      That is a mistake. I have not complained about any post.

      “You know, including 74…
      While that was one of the posts containing an error, identifying it as such does not constitute a complaint.

      “Would bullshitting “I ain’t complaining” avoidance also help …”
      “bullshitting” seldom moves a discussion forward, so I leave such behavior for others. They know who they are, and can improve these discussions by a) ceasing to engage in such behavior, and b) eliminating the gratuitously coarse language they use.

      “How about less of the absolute forbidding on what science can or can’t do until you’ve worked it out?”
      That is another mistake.
      Neither Ethan, nor anyone else (as far as I know) in these blogs has forbidden, absolutely or otherwise, what Science can or cannot do.
      In passing, I think that Ethan is speaking from a position of authority (“has worked it out” in the vernacular) in the posts he has made in regards the limits on what Science can authentically comment about.

      “Probly help, right?”
      If you are referring to adoption of self-restraint by certain commenters in these blogs, I agree with you.

  70. “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

    Well, you can at least recite lines from old movies.

  71. How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?

    Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving*, is his creator and that of all beings?

  72. @94
    You might as well believe in the coming of the ‘invisible’ planetoid NIBIRU for all that is worth; same result.
    🙂

  73. After years of careful planning and exhausting labor, biochemists have succeeded in discovering certain experimental organisms on a very simple and primitive level from which all trace of life is absent. This scientific triumph was regarded as very valuable and received with great enthusiasm in scientific circles, and nobody claimed that this highly deficient and primitive laboratory creation had come into being as the result of chance, without direction, planning and precision.

    This being the case, those who ascribe all the beings in the vast system of the universe, together with their complex and mysterious properties to the blind and unconscious forces of matter, are, in reality, doing violence and injustice to logic and human intelligence and waging open war on the truth.

    http://www.al-islam.org/god-and-his-attributes-sayyid-mujtaba-musawi-lari/lesson-5-manifestations-god-nature

  74. @96
    If you have not been able to work it out, proof for the existence of your god must be beyond a shadow of a doubt. It cannot be considered to be a belief only. Your faith does not rely on any truth other than that which you believe, or, are too scared not to believe. Give some scientific proof of your god. That is what this site is about – science.
    🙂

  75. Now let me know whether the nature which functions in such a well-planned and well-ordered fashion possesses knowledge and power or is it devoid of also of intelligence and reason, without power and without knowledge?

    If you admit that it possesses knowledge and power, then what obstructs you from a belief in the Creator?

    What we say ‘s that all things are created by One Who is Master of Knowledge and Power.

    You say that there is no Creator and yet admit that nature had done this with ingenuity and plan. As such nature is the cause of their creation, while you deny the Creator.

    If you say that nature produces such things without knowledge and power – not knowing what it is doing nor the power to do it – in connection with the type and having design and ingenuity that subsists in all phenomena, it is inconceivable that something may be performed without the corresponding power to do it and without a knowledge thereof.

    As such it is obvious that the action emanates from an Omniscient Creator, Who has laid down as only a method among His creation through his Omniscience, which you people call nature.

    In other words, Almighty God has ordained a method to produce everything according to its definite cause and principle.

  76. He’s copying and pasting from stuff he wrote at least 2 years ago, or from some source older than that. Here is the same material quoted on Patheos 2 years ago.

  77. Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind’s evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow fortuitously emerged out of mindless matter?

    Have his discoveries and insights merely brought him to a stage of thought which sees only blind concomitance and chance conjunctures in the exactly interacting phenomena?

    Where is the logic in claiming that belief in God is confined to persons unaware of the processes of creation?

    http://www.al-islam.org/god-and-his-attributes-sayyid-mujtaba-musawi-lari

  78. Hey Hasnain,
    if your deity is all-encompassing, in other words, is the universe, how long would it take for a thought to travel from one side of the universal (brain) to the other, given that C (speed of light) is the limiting factor? Oh yes, our seeable universe is 48 billion LY across.
    🙂

  79. Although science does not explicitly and definitively reject every unknown thing simply because it can have no access to it by means of its tools and instruments, patiently awaiting instead the day when it should be discovered, materialists do not even approach the question of the existence of God with doubt and hesitation; on the basis of their erroneous and hasty prejudices, they pronounce their judgment that the Creator does not exist.
    Such persons establish certain criteria and standards for themselves and are not prepared to apply a different criterion established for a definite purpose in a given area. For example, they would never use the criteria applicable to a surface to measure a body, but when it comes to measuring the supra-sensory world, they try to measure God, the spirit, and inspiration, with the same tools they use to measure the material world. When they find themselves unable to gain any knowledge

    of the entities in question, they proceed to deny their existence.
    Now, if a person imprisoned in empirical logic desires to accept the reality of the universe only to the extent permitted him by sensory experience and to deny whatever lies beyond that, he must recognize that this is a path he has chosen for himself; it is not the result of scientific investigation and experiment. This kind of pseudo-intellectualism arises from intellectual rebellion and an abandonment of one’s original nature. The god that the natural scientist wishes vainly to “prove” with his tools and instruments is, in any event, no god at all in the view of those who worship God.

    Belief in the Reality of the Unseen Involves More than God

    If man, through the application of scientific instruments and criteria, cannot perceive the existence of a thing, he cannot deny its existence simply because it is incompatible with material criteria, unless he disposes of some proof that the thing in question is impossible.
    We discover the existence of an objective law from within the totality of phenomena that it is capable of interpreting. If, then, the establishment of scientific truth is possible only by means of direct sensation, the majority of scientific truths will have to be discarded, since many scientific facts cannot be perceived by means of sensory experience or testing.

    • Hasnain,

      It is unlikely you will have a useful conversation with the other commenters to this blog. I think the differences in POVs is too great to be connected.

  80. PJ, I don;t think that’s a real person. I think it is just programmed to repeat the same posting information.

    The lack of intelligent design in the universe is proven by posts like theirs.

  81. @106 John
    Thanks, i know, but God says
    Or lest ye should say: If the Scripture had been revealed unto us, we surely had been better guided than are they. Now hath there come unto you a clear proof from your Lord, a guidance and mercy; and who doeth greater wrong than he who denieth the revelations of Allah, and turneth away from them? We award unto those who turn away from Our revelations an evil doom because of their aversion. The Quran: [6:157]

    • Hasnain,

      While that is true, we find in it nothing to require or force you to share with them what they reject, and they do not share your Faith.

      Also, it is written “Indeed, those who have divided their religion and become sects – you, are not [associated] with them in anything. Their affair is only [left] to Allah; then He will inform them about what they used to do.” [6:159]

      Relax and enjoy the portion of everything that Science can aspire to describe and explain. It does not presume to explain all, but what it can explain helps everyone.

      • “was devised to control the folk of the day by using fear of”
        If fear is the cause for the discovery of a certain thing, can we say that that thing is imaginary and unreal because it was fear that prompted man to seek it out?

        Would it not surely be illogical to maintain, for example, that the science of medicine has no reality because man has sought and discovered it out of fear, fear of disease and death?

        Is not the truth of the matter that the science of medicine is a reality, irrespective of whether the original motive of man in discovering it was fear of disease and death or some other factor?

        Would it not be a hasty judgment to say that all the religious ideas and sentiments of men, the inclination to the worship of God in all periods down to and including the present, have been caused simply by terror, by fear of the wrath of nature, of war and disease?

        Is the belief in religion of thousands of scholars and thinkers the product of fear on their part of storms, earthquakes and disease?

        Can their inclination to religion, the result of scholarly studies, of logic and rational proof, be attributed to their ignorance and lack of awareness of the natural causes of phenomena?

        What would be the answer of an intelligent person?

        • “… Can their inclination to religion, the result of scholarly studies, of logic and rational proof, be attributed to their ignorance and lack of awareness of the natural causes of phenomena?”

          I suggest that the motivation for, and interest in all these disciplines is an innate human desire to know, not fear.

  82. John: It is unlikely you will have a useful conversation with the other commenters to this blog.

    He’s not trying to have a conversation, useful or otherwise. He’s just spamming the board with cut and paste material; talking at us rather than with us. Proselytizing. Unlike wow I don’t think he’s a bot, but he’s acting like one.

    • It may be true Hasnain’s not trying to have a conversation, and only spamming. What he’s pasting is relevant from his POV, although it doesn’t fit in well here.

      If I may offer an unsolicited suggestion, relax and moderate your responses.

  83. Answer the questions!
    The Depths of Man’s Being Impel Him to Seek God
    How is it possible that accident should lie at the origin of such orderly relationships?
    If the origin of the Universe were based on accident, why are the theories even of the materialists based on the supposition of a plan, an ordering, an absence of chance?
    If the whole Universe is the result of chance and accident, what is it that did not emerge on the basis of chance?
    If an existent thing came into being not by virtue of chance, what are its distinguishing features and characteristics and can they be applied to the numerous and variegated phenomena of the universe?

  84. “John: It is unlikely you will have a useful conversation with the other commenters to this blog.

    He’s not trying to have a conversation, useful or otherwise. He’s just spamming the board with cut and paste material”

    John is not trying to have a conversation, they were trying to defend godbothering and run the tone argument schtick. What anyone else is doing is, to them, irrelevant, only whether we’re doing it the way he likes it.

    • “John is not trying to have a conversation …”
      That is a mistake. That you have elected to use coarse language is a deterrent, but I have attempted to explain to you why moderating your language in your comments would improve the discussion.

      “… they were trying to defend godbothering …”
      That too is a mistake. I have promoted no religious beliefs.

      “… and run the tone argument schtick.“
      (chuckling) I decline to debate an expression that can mean anything convenient.

      “What anyone else is doing is, to them, irrelevant, only whether we’re doing it the way he likes it.”
      That is a mistake. While I think that antagonistic language in comments devalues the discussion here, I do not consider them irrelevant. The issue, as I see it, is not if I like how others are commenting, but if their comments move the discussion forward.

  85. @ Husnain

    I kindly ask, if you wish to continue to post things like you did, to do so here: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/09/23/weekend-diversion-you-are-responsible-for-what-you-say/

    Because what you’ve been doing so far violates the comment policy of this blog: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/comments-policy/

    specifically this part: “… from here on out, you are no longer free to promote your own, personal, anti-scientific screed here. Not on this blog, not on any old posts, not on any new posts. It’s wrong, it’s distracting, it’s deleterious to the community and it’s damaging to the good people who come here for the same purposes I do: to share the story of what we know about the Universe and how we know it with one another.”

    thank you

  86. Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!
    Is science too heavy for you to comprehend?

    Is it not true that all the things we accept and believe to exist have an existence belonging to the same category as our own or as things that are visible to us? Can we see or feel everything in this material world? Is it only God we cannot see with our senses? What proof exists to substantiate the claim that being is equivalent to matter and that the whole world of being consists of material entities?

    What scientist rejecting metaphysics has ever been able to found his denial on logic or proof, or to furnish evidence that beyond absolute non-being, nothing exists outside the seen realm?

    All deluded atheists are aware that many of the things known to us consist of matters and realities that we cannot sense and with which we are not customarily familiar. There are many invisible beings in the universe. The progress of science and knowledge in the present age have uncovered numerous truths of this kind, and one of the richest chapters in scientific research is the transformation of matter into energy.

    When the beings and bodies that are visible in this world wish to produce energy, they are compelled to change their original aspect and transform it into energy. Now is this energy—the axis on which turn many of the motions and changes of the universe— visible or tangible?

  87. Getting back to the topic of this thread, I do not see the possibility of science proving the existence of a god. The idea of a godhead was devised to control the folk of the day by using fear of the unknown as the tool for that end.

    This topic was always going to bring the religious pundits to the fore.

    • I agree. It seems to depend on what properties are attributed to the entity. I suspect one of the reasons for the endurance of the Greco-Roman gods is their all too human natures, but that makes them easy to “disprove”. With sufficient abstraction, the deity is dehumanized and placed beyond proof, and for that matter, disproof..

  88. “I do not see the possibility of science proving the existence of a god. ”

    Well, yeah, NOTHING can prove the existence of a thing that doesn’t exist.

    But if it DID exist, science could prove it. Unless it either deliberately crafted everything to look as though it didn’t do anything ever (so none of the ones we know about) and refrained from EVER doing anything supernatural for all eternity, OR is forced to do the above restrictions to its actions. Neither of those two fit any god except a powerless one or a malicious one.

  89. I do not see the possibility of science proving the existence of a god.

    Science alone, no.

    But the way you test a deity claim is to ask the deity to design a surefire deity test for you. If they can’t do it, they’re not omnipotent, thus not a diety. If they can, you run it (which may involve science) and they fail, not a deity. If they can, you run it, and they pass, well they might have fooled you but they’ve pretty much met the best possible test we can think of, almost by definition, because they came up with a test nobody could find a hole in.

    Of course if they just fail to show up and engage in telling you anything, the reasonable conclusion is: not a deity.

  90. @ john
    In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

    “invite (all) to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth, best who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance.” The Quran 16:125

    • As wisdom and beauty are relative measures, I suspect you will have more success and receive less resentment if you tailor your comments in this blog to the audience of this blog.

  91. Is your denial of God, then is, because, you have not felt Him with the senses given to us for knowing objects?

    Have you ever ascended or visited this sky, which you behold with your eyes, or been in the depths of the earth?
    Have you traversed the world, dived in every sea, and moved through the Universe?

    To *presumptuously* deny the existence of an Omniscient, Omnipotent Creator, you must have been to all these places.

    Well, How can you say that He is not in those places where neither you *nor* your *senses* have ever been?

    Perhaps He may be living there. Perhaps a person of extraordinary intelligence may reside in one of those places. May be you have admitted the *probability* of a creator, you will, I hope, be convinced to admit the certainty. From *flat denial* you may have come to *doubt*, from that perhaps to *faith.*Imagining is a sign of impotence when confronted with what you cannot be certain of. Now tell me, have you ever been everywhere?

    How strange it is that you have not been everywhere to know what lies everywhere, but nonetheless you deny what exists there. Would any wise man deny the reality of what he is ignorant of? And you deny the existence of the Creator because you cannot see him with your eyes.

    So, in fact, you have doubts concerning the existence of God; you think He may exist and He may not exist? So how do you know what is there?

    Have you seen that the universe always existed and will always exist?How come you have taken one side over the other. It is wiser for you to say ‘I don’t know,’ and I will subject myself to further scrutiny, than to take a stand and say there’s ‘No God’ because you have taken that stand and you have no evidence.

  92. Is it **logical** to say that belief in God is peculiar to those who know nothing about man’s composition and creation, and that, by contrast, a scientist who is aware of the natural laws and factors responsible for man’s growth and development, who knows that law and precise calculation preside over all stages of man’s existence, is bound to believe that matter, lacking all perception and consciousness, is the source of the wondrous laws of nature?

    • Hasnain,

      Based upon the comments you’ve provided, and those of most of the other commenters, the essential difference between you position and theirs appears to be that you are presenting with a presumed existence of God, a presumption they do not make.

      Science is generally understood to be a methodical study of the natural world, and that domain does not include the supernatural. This predisposes those presenting with a scientific POV to devalue arguments coming from outside that domain.

      A more nuanced approach incorporating and accommodating the norms in a nominally scientific blog will be less likely to be rejected and dismissed.

  93. John
    Is it at all feasible to regard all the precise geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?

    When so much planning, thought and precision are needed for man to perform such a task, are not the subtlety, exactitude and orderliness observable in the world a proof of origination deriving from the intelligence, creative planning and far-reaching wisdom of the creator?

    • Hasnain,

      “… are not the subtlety, exactitude and orderliness observable in the world a proof of origination deriving from the intelligence, creative planning and far-reaching wisdom of the creator?”

      No, not necessarily. You’ve introduced the issue of what constitutes evidence. For example, the subtlety, exactitude and orderliness observable in the world can be described – and are described – very well by good, old-fashioned Newtonian Physics. You’ll recall that the Second Law can be written F = ma, etc.

      If the mass is exceedingly large, or the acceleration is exceedingly large, a more accurate description of relationships will be given by using Einsteinian Physics, his General Theory of Relativity. If the mass is exceedingly small, a more accurate description of relationships will be given by using the Standard Model of Quantum Mechanics.

      So, the wonderful and splendid reality around us can be well explained without recourse to a deity.

      I acknowledge as correct that both these excellent scientific descriptions of reality are incomplete. That said, just because they are incomplete does not mean that reality cannot in principle be described by scientific theories. While that may be true, there is no proof that it is,

      • “Einsteinian Physics, his General Theory of Relativity”
        Exactly!

        God destine matter and energy to be dissolve into time. He so arranged and consolidated these factors – matter, time and space that the intensity of their diverse and opposing properties was reduced….., to have their existence relative to and dependent upon time, thus giving matter time, and therefore,space a continuum that one cannot exist without the other two.
        God made every part of universe and everything in it dependent upon others, so that none could exist without the other ; time cannot exist without space or matter, similarly space cannot exist without time and matter and matter cannot exist without space and time and this triple alliance or triangle or interdependence is the *general relativity.*

        • Husnain,

          “God destine matter and energy to be dissolve into time …”
          While that may be true, I am, and I think everyone should be cautious about using any scientific physical theory as a warrant for the existence of God.

          The reason I think no scientific physical theory is a useful warrant for the existence of God is because they are all incomplete descriptions of reality. All of them are incomplete, including Einstein’s Theory of Relativity (a classical, continuous description of gravity), and the Standard Model (a quantum field theory describing the electromagnetic, weak, and strong nuclear interactions).

          People who use an incomplete scientific physical theory as a warrant for the existence of God are therefore, in my estimation, arguing from an inherently weak position.

      • ” recall that the Second Law can be written F = ma, etc.”
        The second principle of thermodynamics, entropy or the decline of thermal energy, teaches us that although we cannot fix a date for the appearance of the world, the world certainly did have a beginning. The heat in the world is gradually decreasing and falling, like a piece of molten iron that gradually diffuses its heat in the air until finally the heat of the iron will be identical with that of the objects and the air surrounding it.

        If there were no beginning or point of departure for the world, all the existing atoms would have dissolved and been transformed into energy an infinite number of years ago. In the course of a very long past, the heat of the world would have come to an end, for matter, in the course of its successive and continuous transformation, is transformed into perishable energies.

        It is not possible for all the energy dispersed to be transformed a new into matter and mass comfortable to the world of being.

        In accordance with the principle just mentioned, once usable energy is exhausted, chemical action and reaction can no longer take place. But given that chemical action and reaction do take place that life is possible on the earth, and that a huge body like the sun is divisible each day and night into three hundred thousand million tons, it is clear that the world has originated in time.

        The death of planets and stars, the disappearance of suns, is a proof of death and mutation in the existing order; they show that the world is advancing towards non-being and an inevitable conclusion.

        We see, then, that the natural sciences have expelled matter/energy from the stronghold of eternity. Science not only proves the createdness of the world but also bears witness that the world came into existence at a given time.

        http://www.al-islam.org/god-and-his-attributes-sayyid-mujtaba-musawi-lari/lesson-7-finiteness-chain-causality

        • Hasnain,

          “… The second principle of thermodynamics, entropy or the decline of thermal energy, teaches us that although we cannot fix a date for the appearance of the world, the world certainly did have a beginning …”
          Setting aside for the moment the Dark Energy conjecture which complicates that inference, contemporary Science (in the guise of Cosmology) agrees.

  94. @ Husnain

    here is something to ponder. Make a homopolar motor and admire the building blocks of creation. Indeed.. such beautiful precise functioning from matter (and energy) in it’s ignorance. The only “creator” is your mind and hands. No need to fear it or bow to it. They’ve been (the building blocks) here long before a bunch of humans started thinking about super beings… and they will be here long after not a sniff of humans or gods are left. So it’s up to you..

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbCN3EnYfWU

    • ” your Allah must have come from ”
      His Existence is not coming into Being from non-existence.
      If in the course of developing the argument of the orderliness of the universe we attempt to prove the existence of a maker similar to the human maker, the divine maker will, in reality, also be a created being on the level of man; proving the existence of such a maker is an entirely different matter from proving the existence of the Maker and Creator of all being.

      The Creator of the universe cannot be preceded by non-existence; otherwise, He would need another god to create Him; and that god, if he is preceded by non-existence, would need another god and so on. Thus, we would have an endless chain of gods without reaching a **causeless cause** to be the source of the existence of the universe.

      Then we have to deny the existence of the universe. We would also have to deny ourselves because we are a part of the universe.

      But you say to yourself: I cannot do that because I am here. Then you have to say: God is there. Simple common sense!

      From a scientific point of view, the self-origination of matter is impossible; the theory that the material world is constantly evolving and advancing toward higher states is clearly contradictory to scientific data and the realities of nature. All development and motion in the mineral realm is due either to the intervention of a will external to matter or to attraction, interchange, and compounding with other bodies.

      “Do they imagine that they’ve been created without any cause, or do they suppose that they are their own creators?” The Quran (52:36) “Have they created the heavens and the earth ? They have no certain belief in what they say” (52:37) Do they have a Lord other than God? No, it is not so; God is exalted above the partners they ascribe to him.” (52:43) “Glorified be He in Whose hand is all sovereignty and Who has power over all things.” (67:1)

      • Hasnain,

        ‘From a scientific point of view, the self-origination of matter is impossible …’
        While I am uncertain what you mean by “self-origination”, it is quite possible to create or destroy matter. The interaction of an electron and a positron result in the annihilation of both particles (matter is destroyed) with the production of electromagnetic radiation (energy is created). The reverse can, and has been done; energetic photons have produced electron positron pairs.

        “… the theory that the material world is constantly evolving and advancing toward higher states is clearly contradictory to scientific data and the realities of nature.”
        That is correct. Evolutionary adaptation is not an effort of “advancing toward higher states”.

        “All development and motion in the mineral realm is due either to the intervention of a will external to matter or to attraction, interchange, and compounding with other bodies.”
        What “will” intervenes to cause “development and motion in the mineral realm”?

        • In his equation, Einstein says that energy is equal to the mass of muter times the velocity of light squared (E = mc2 where E is energy, m mass, and c velocity of light). The velocity of light is equal to 186,282 miles per second. Also, the mass is equal to the energy divided by the velocity of light squared (m= E/c2).

          With this, it became established that the atom with its protons and electrons is nothing in reality but concentrated energy that can be analyzed and reduced to its primordial state. Thus, according to the modern analysis, energy is the substratum of the world. It is manifested in various shapes and in numerous forms, whether sonic, magnetic, electrical, chemical or mechanical.

          In light of this, the duality between matter and radiation, between particles and waves, and between the appearance of electrons sometimes as matter and some other times as light was no longer strange.

          Rather, it became somewhat understood; since all these phenomena are [but] forms of one reality, namely, energy.

          Then how can the duped atheists and some of the scientists delude themselves and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?

          • “Then how can the duped atheists and some of the scientists delude themselves and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?”

            Setting aside the pejorative language, creation of matter (electrons and protons in your example) is well understood and documented through the process of Pair Production, where the creation of an elementary particle and its antiparticle, occurs by transforming the equivalent energy.
            The conditions for pair production existed shortly after the end of Cosmic Inflation.
            Later, after the mean energy level decreased sufficiently, electrons and protons could bind to form hydrogen atoms. Those, in turn under the influence of gravity, formed stars that created heavier elements (oxygen in your example)
            To what decrees are you referring?
            There is no obvious delusion there.

  95. @ Husnain

    thank you for such a clear and quite logical disproval of any supernatural creators.

    As you correctly stated, there can’t be a god before universe, since it gets you into a neverending loop. There can’t be a god in it since then he obeys the same laws as rest of things. And not that we haven’t been looking up for a while now and haven’t seen anyone there.

    Thus yes… you are here, universe is here.. and that’s it. If you care to call Universe a God… oki.. no problem from my standpoint. It did make everything “in it” and was here from the start. But then by your own conclusions.. you should thrust physics, cause it sort proves everyday that it sure understands the Universe. You using a computer being one simple example.

    So there we go. Maybe YOU HAVE TO say “God is there”. But humans in general sure don’t have to. And Universe doesn’t have to, since (like you pointed) doesn’t need one before it and doesn’t have one in it.

    • The Finiteness of the Chain of Causality!
      The close minded duped atheists may insist obstinately on denying the truth and put forward another specious argument. They may say, “We do not cut off the chain of causality but, on the contrary, perpetuate it indefinitely; we defend the principle of the infinite nature of the causative link.”

      So how did each part of the chain, which is dominated by neediness from one end to another, emerge from non-being?

  96. Well, he’s not even right there, SL,

    He claims it inspired the Quran, AND talked directly to some religious heretic and terrorist (remember, he was the underdog to begin with. At the same time as he was preaching to be nice to everyone. Then the Quran goes all “burn the infidel” at, oddly enough, the same time as the same author was top dog and troubled with heretics and terrorists…).

    So he’s asking for a god that’s inside this universe (because of the talking stuff). Where we’ve looked all over for it. And all we’ve proved is that there’s no god there.

    • “religious heretic and terrorist”
      All the THEISTS AND *ATHEIST* terrorist can go to HELL!
      In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
      “Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth stands out clear from Error; whoever rejects Evil and believes in God hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And God heareth and knoweth all things.” The Quran [2:256]

      In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
      “invite (all) to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth, best who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance.” The Quran 16:125

      He it is Who has revealed the Book to you; some of its verses are decisive, they are the basis of the Book, and others are allegorical; then as for those in whose hearts there is perversity they follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation. ….The Quran Chapter 3 Verse 7

      • Hasnain,

        Since the topic is “Can science prove the existence of God?”, those three truth claims with no scientific support are off-topic.

  97. “obeys the same laws as”
    How can you delude yourself and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?

    • Hasnain,

      Creation of matter (electrons and protons in your example) is well understood and documented through the process of Pair Production, where the creation of an elementary particle and its antiparticle, occurs by transforming the equivalent energy.

      The conditions for pair production existed shortly after the end of Cosmic Inflation.

      Later, after the mean energy level decreased sufficiently, electrons and protons could bind to form hydrogen atoms. Those, in turn under the influence of gravity, formed stars that created heavier elements (oxygen in your example)

      There is no obvious delusion there.

  98. You should know this better then me… and I shouldn’t have to spell it out for you…

    “O you who believe! do not enter houses other than your own until you have asked permission and greeted the inmates . . . and if it is said to you, ‘Go back’, then go back.” (24:27-28)

    so what are you doing here? Clearly this isn’t your house, and clearly we don’t want you here.. so please go back to your own house and do whatever you wish there.

  99. “Where we’ve looked all over for it. And all we’ve proved is that there’s no god there.”
    Things are compound elements atoms etc, made of parts. Every compound elements etc possesses shape and colour that attracts the senses. Therefore, that which is felt or known by the senses, having shape and colour, cannot be God.

    Your argument for disbelief is *foolish*, because God cannot be like any of the things perceived by the senses, nor can He be said to bear any resemblance to anything which has to undergo an ordeal of change and decay.

    For, everything is under the one and the same law-the law of transformation and decline. God, our creator cannot be perceivable by the five senses for, He is not a thing-which is compound elements etc or created. If He was visible to the eye, and perceivable to the senses, He would have resembled the things that are visible and perceivable to the senses on account of their being compound and created and in that case He would no longer have remained a creator.

    http://www.al-islam.org/tradition-myrobalan-fruit-hadith-al-halila-imam-jafar-al-sadiq/hadith

  100. God, our creator cannot be perceivable by the five senses…

    Hmmm…doesn’t God appear to people multiple times in the Tawrat? Since it’s basically (parts of?) the first few books of the OT, there are lots of incidents in it where God either talks to people (= perceived by hearing) or appears to them in some form.

    • Above all them, are the atheists to be pitied, who demand to see with their physical eyes One Who is inscrutable even to the intellect. This being impossible, they took to flat denial of His
      Existence. They demanded, why He cannot be encompassed within the intellect? He transcends intellect just as things beyond the visual field cannot be perceived by the eyes.

      As an example, if you see a piece of stone flying up in the air, the logical conclusion you draw is that someone has hurled it above. The eye may not have seen it and yet the intellect realises it because of its discerning capacity, in that the piece of stone cannot go up by itself. You see that the eye stopped at a point and could not advance further. Similarly the intellect stops short at its prescribed limit in the matter of the Divine Immanence. It cannot advance further.

      We say, however, that the intellect which perceives that man possesses mind and soul, notwithstanding the fact that no one has seen the mind with the physical sense, the same intellect should be able to realise and admit the Existence of the Creator, without being able to perceive His Essence.

      http://www.al-shia.org/html/eng/page.php?id=1640&page=60

  101. Hasnain,

    Okay, let me get this straight. God cannot be part of the universe. God cannot be perceived by the senses. Basically, you’re telling me there’s no way God can be detected. Why should anyone believe God exists? Where is the evidence for God’s existence? Please don’t quote me text written in a cave in Arabia in the 7th Century; that’s not evidence. That’s just the writings of an Arab guy. We have no way of verifying that these writings are divine.

    Please don’t point to anything in the universe and tell me it’s obviously designed by someone. Even if that’s true, that doesn’t get you to God. It’s logically possible that some alien race living somewhere we cannot perceive has created it. Plus it’s quite hard to believe that design is in fact true. The evidence points rather to a lack of such design.

  102. “Okay, let me get this straight. God cannot be part of the universe. God cannot be perceived by the senses. Basically, you’re telling me there’s no way God can be detected.”

    And why can the Quran be the word of god if there was no way for the five senses to have seen him to make this the word of god?

    Patently he’s saying he’s proven that his god doesn’t exist.

    (PS: he needs to show us something complex and alive coming into existence by god’s magic, otherwise we have no evidence for god making things at all)

  103. The Request of Moses to See God
    Eyes can not bear the vision of God. He tells us in the Quran:

    “Vision cannot grasp Him, but His Grasp is over all vision.” (Quran 6:103)

    Moses, to whom God spoke and gave great miracles, was chosen by God to be His Prophet. It is said that he thought that, since God used to speak to him, he might be able to actually see God. The story is in the Quran, where God tells us what happened:

    “And when Moses arrived at Our appointed time and his Lord spoke to him, he said, ‘My Lord, show me (Yourself) that I may look at You.’ (God) said, ‘You will not see Me, but look at the mountain; if it should remain in place, then you will see Me.’ But when his Lord appeared to the mountain, He rendered it level, and Moses fell unconscious. And when he awoke, he said, ‘Exalted are You! I have repented to You, and I am the first of the believers.’” (Quran 7:143)

    God made it clear that no-one, including the great prophet Moses, can bear the sight of the divine, for God is too great to be grasped by human eyes in this life. According to the Quran, Moses realized his request was in error; therefore, he sought forgiveness from God for having asked.

  104. Human faculties of conception, perception and learning, and attributes of volition, intuition and apprehension cannot catch sight of His Person or fathom the extent of His Might and Glory. Reason and sagacity cannot visualise Him. His Attributes cannot be fixed, limited or defined.

    There is no difference between His Person and His Attributes, and His Attributes should not be differentiated or distinguished from His Person. Whoever accepts His Attributes to be other than His Person then actually forsakes the idea of Unity of God and believes in duality ( He and His Attributes).

    Such a person in fact believes Him to exist in Parts. One who holds such a faith cannot form a true concept of God, he is *IGNORANT* and will always try to believe in some *creation* of his *imagination* as his god. Intelligence, understanding and attainment cannot attain the depth of knowledge to study or scrutinise the Godhead. None can fully understand or explain His Being however hard he my try. There do not exist words in any language to specify or define His qualities, peculiarities, characteristics and singularities. He has not permitted human mind to grasp the Essence of His Being **YET** He has not prevented them from realising His Presence.

    In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. 1 Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;
    2 Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
    3 He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
    4 And there is none **like** unto Him.
    The Quran Chapter 112

    • Hasnain,

      “Human faculties of conception, perception and learning, and attributes of volition, intuition and apprehension cannot catch sight of His Person or fathom the extent of His Might and Glory.”

      Based upon that statement, it would appear that your opinion is that Science cannot prove the existence of God, an opinion I share.

      • “Science cannot prove the existence of God,”
        It is very hard to accept the idea that matter is infinitely old. When one says that matter or energy is infinitely old, one assumes that the material out of which the billions of stars were built, existed simultaneously.

        When we are aware that each star contains billions of tons of materials, and that the balance of the raw material is much more than the material which is contained in the stars and planets, we realize the improbability of such an idea. We cannot conceive that all these quantities of materials existed at once and that nothing of it was preceded by non-existence.

        To say that only a portion of the material is infinitely old, and that the other portions came to existence at a later stage, is to admit the need of a creator, because the inanimate material does not increase by self-reproduction.

        Only living beings are capable of multiplying by self-reproduction. To allow any gradual increase in the material quantity is to admit the **need of a creator.**

        • Hasnain,

          “It is very hard to accept the idea that matter is infinitely old …”
          That is understandable, as matter is not infinitely old, having an age no older that this universe, which is not infinitely old.

          “… When one says that matter or energy is infinitely old …”
          No one I know says that. Is that what you believe?

          “… To say that only a portion of the material is infinitely old …”
          No one I know says that. Is that what you believe?

          “… Only living beings are capable of multiplying by self-reproduction. To allow any gradual increase in the material quantity is to admit the **need of a creator.**”
          That’s one of the reasons no on I know claims that there is any more matter in the universe now than there was following the end of Cosmic Inflation. While matter and energy may transform from one state to another, the net total remains constant.

  105. GENDER.
    The deficiency lies in all the languages of the world, None of them have a word to define the gender for God. The word He, She, Thou, Thy, It….etc are all merely substitutes, they do not represent the gender of the One who does not have a gender.

  106. ” Please don’t quote me text written in a cave in Arabia in the 7th Century; that’s not evidence. That’s just the writings of an Arab guy.”
    Ever heard truth has no time factor?
    Islam demands from its followers to believe in God, the Creator of the Universe, but it does not advise them to base such a belief on the statement of any religious book or any authoritative words, not even the word of the Holy Qur’an or of the holy Prophet.

    Our belief in a holy book, such as the Qur’an, or in a holy prophet, such as Mohammad, must be preceded by our belief in God. A religious book is holy because it is introduced by a man whom we consider a prophet. Prophethood is conceivable only if there is God, because a prophet is a messenger of God. Our belief in God, therefore, must come before our belief in a religious book or a prophet, not vice versa.

    No religious book is believed by all people, and no prophet is universally recognized. Therefore, it would be futile to rely on an authoritative statement of a prophet or a holy book when dealing with an atheist who disclaims all heavenly revelations and denies the whole concept of God.

    http://www.najaf.org/english/book/9/5.html

  107. @ Husnain

    “A religious book is holy because it is introduced by a man whom we consider a prophet……. No religious book is believed by all people, and no prophet is universally recognized. Therefore, it would be futile to rely on an authoritative statement of a prophet or a holy book..”

    Wonderful! And yet I hope we can agree that mostly all people believe and KNOW that if you i.e. jumped from the top of the twenty story building, you would fall and die, due to this thing called gravity! Well, that’s what we care about. Since gravity doesn’t care about your considerations or beliefs.. that’s what science studies. You can go study what types of virgin fairy ghosts await you for all the good you’ve done in the name of allah… and it still won’t affect gravity. So who’s deluded here? Us caring about present things that affect us, or you blindly (against instructions from your own suposedly sacred book) yelling “teaching” islam to a group who doesn’t want you to do that and has repeatedly said so. Consider what you are doing.

    • “this thing called gravity!
      When Newton, for example, put forth the law of general gravity in light of experimentation, did he perceived this gravity force by any of his five senses.?

      Let us for a short while inquire about those who glorify experimentation and scientific understanding, and who declare with full pride that they do not adopt any view unless confirmed by experiments and demonstrated empirically. (They continue saying) that since the theological position is concerned with invisible things beyond the limits of the senses and experimentation, we must case it aside, concentrating on the truths and knowledge that can be grasped in the experimental field.

      We would ask the experimentalists, ‘What do you intend by “experiment”, and what do you mean by rejecting every doctrine not confirmed by the senses?’

      If what is meant by their words is that they do not accept the existence of anything except if they have direct sense perception of chat thing, and they reject any idea except if they grasp its *objective* reality by one of their senses, then this will be a *blow* to the whole scientific edifice and a falsification of all the major truths that are demonstrated by the experiments they glorify.

      A demonstration of a scientific truth by experimentation does *not* mean a direct sense perception of that truth in the scientific field.

      Again! When Newton, for example, put forth the law of general gravity in light of experimentation, did he perceived this gravity force by any of his five senses.?

  108. Another way to look at it is this… even if all of this has been made by god.. or is god.. or however shape or form you put it.. the universe is here. It is then actually the scientists who are exploring and studying this god. Without any prejudice. What you and your side is doing can at best be described as being historians. So what exactly is your problem? That we don’t believe in your version of history? Scientists are the ones that are killing you now or in the past. It’s you yourselves. So give us a beak…

    • “last sentece should be: Scie….”
      Should be **SenteNce?*

      Before he enters the realm of science and knowledge with all its concerns, man is able to perceive certain truths by means of these innate perceptions. But after entering the sphere of science and philosophy and filling his *brain* with various proofs and deductions, he may forget his natural and innate perceptions or begin to doubt them. It is for this reason that when man moves beyond his innate nature to delineate a belief, differences begin to appear.

      God and Empirical Logic.
      One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to restrict one’s thought to the “logic” of the empirical sciences and to *fail* to recognize the *limits* and boundaries of that “logic”.

      Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?

  109. So we are not free in your view to believe in what we wish? Is that what you are saying? You can believe in your fancy and we can’t in our?

    “One of the most destructive and misleading factors …”

    for whom? If for me.. then again.. is mine to make and as long as I’m not IN YOUR HOUSE, and doing harm to anyone, who the f*** are you to say what I can or can’t believe?

    Am I (or anyone else from this blog) interefering and being destructive about your beliefs on your sites? You are the one being destructive in other persons house you dumb zealot.

  110. “And yet I hope we can agree that mostly all people believe and KNOW that if you i.e. jumped from the top of the twenty story building, you would fall and die, due to this thing called gravity!”

    I wonder, do Mosques have lightning rods to protect them from lightning strikes? Because surely if they were besties with the one who made everything and saw to lightning, there’d be no need for them.

    And when it comes to priests and even mohammed, what point is there for them, since god can just as easily appear similarly to ALL of us. So mohammed proves that there’s no god, otherwise god would have already told all of us like he told him.

  111. “A religious book is holy because it is introduced by a man whom we consider a prophet……. ”

    And what’ to say that A Brief History of Time is not likewise introduced by a man who was inspired by god with reality’s truth?

    That book disproves the Quran and the Old Testament, proving them 100% wrong.

    And, as far as hassan here knows, inspired by god himself.

  112. “That was entertaining; didn’t really add to what most of us already realize.”

    There’s a lot there. One a little older you may want to check out, EVERYONE, including the religious, is the one about God and the All-knowing.

    It is a pastiche of what it REALLY means to have an onmipotent and omniescent and timeless superbeing god, and how NOBODY, not even supernatural entities, can have any form of relationship with such a being. It’s a couple of months old, I think.

    But even if you still believe there’s a god, it’s an eye opener, because it restructures what it means to “know god”.

  113. The childish lies of the parents “If you are bad, god will punish you, but if you are good, santa will bring gifts”. Piffle.

  114. Eric, et al.

    Ethan posted in another post a quote by Werner Heisenberg which supports my opinion that Science cannot prove the existence of God; “What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.”

    If what humans can know of reality is limited to how humans inquire about it, and if the tools used to inquire are limited to those in Science, then only a selected representation of reality can be known.

  115. “Science cannot prove the existence of God,”
    We can raise precisely the same objection against the materialists and ask them, “If we follow the chain of causality back, we will ultimately reach the primary cause. Let us say that cause is not God, but matter. Tell us who created primary matter. You who believe in the law of causality, answer us Ws: if matter is the ultimate cause of all things, what is the cause of matter? You say that the source of all phenomena is matter-energy; what is the cause and origin of matter-energy?”

    Since the chain of causality cannot recede into infinity, they can answer only that matter is an eternal and timeless entity for which no beginning can be posited: matter is non-created, has no beginning or end, and its being arises from within its own nature.

    This means that the materialists accept the principle of eternity and non-origination; they believe that all things arose out of eternal matter and that being arises from within the very nature of matter, without any need for a creator.

    Russell openly states this belief in the lecture quoted above. He says: “There is no proof that the world ever had a beginning. The idea that things must once have had a beginning results from the poverty of our imagination.”4

    In just the same way that Russell regards matter as eternal, believers in God attribute eternity to God. Belief in an eternal being is then common to materialist and religious philosophers: both groups agree that there is a primary cause, but believers in God regard the primary cause as wise, all-knowing, and possessing the power of decision and will, whereas in the view of the materialists, the primary cause has neither consciousness, intelligence, perception, nor the power of decision. Thus, the removal of God in no way solves the problem posed by eternal being.

    Moreover, matter is the locus for motion and change, and its motion is dynamic and situated within its own essence. Now, essential motion is incompatible with eternity, and matter and essential stability are two mutually exclusive categories that cannot be fused in a single locus. Whatever is stable and immutable in its essence cannot accept movement and change within that essence.

    How do Marxists, who believe that matter is accompanied by its antithesis, justify the eternity of matter?

    http://www.al-islam.org/god-and-his-attributes-sayyid-mujtaba-musawi-lari/lesson-6-need-world-one-without-need

    • Hasnain,

      “We can raise precisely the same objection against the materialists …”

      I fear you are missing the point. The topic is “Can science prove the existence of God?”, not if this or that POV or frame of reference is better than another.

      Please stay on-topic.

  116. ” Scientists are the ones that are killing you now or in the past. It’s you yourselves. So give us a beak…”
    As a matter of fact, the scientists for several decades have tried ceaselessly to unseal the secret of life and to explain its commencement on this planet. But their intensified efforts so far did not produce any substantial knowledge in this field.

    The presence of life on this planet is, no doubt, a great wonder that could not happen without a supernatural cause. Man has unsealed many secrets in the universe, advanced in his scientific and technical knowledge, and even landed on the moon; but in spite of all this, he is still unable to produce a leaf of a plant or a seed of an apple from **nothing**.

  117. “Okay, let me get this straight. God cannot be part of the universe. God cannot be perceived by the senses. Basically, you’re telling me there’s no way God can be detected.”
    From our previous discussions, it became clear that the Creator of the universe must be Absolute and Unlimited. He encompasses the whole universe. He is Omnipresent and never absent from anywhere. With His Omnipresence, His visibility is not going to make us believe in Him or know Him. His visibility would be very destructive to us. Before we know Him with His Omnipresence, we would perish. His visibility would be blinding to every human being.

    Suppose that the air (which exists only in a very limited space) is visible. It would have a color, and we would not be able to see anything but the air because it fills the atmosphere. Should this be the case, we would not be able to acquire our food or water, nor would we be able to find roads or shelters. If the visibility of the air which exists only in the atmosphere of our little planet would be so blinding and destructive, what would be the case of the visibility of the Creator who encompasses the universe?

    When we think of this, we realize how fortunate we are not to be able to see God, our Creator.

  118. “text written in a cave in Arabia in the 7th Century; that’s not evidence. That’s just the writings of an Arab guy.”
    If we continue the chain of cause and effect indefinitely, the existence of each link in the chain will be conditional on that of the preceding link, which, in turn, will be conditional on the existence of the link preceding it. It is as if each link in the chain of causality were to proclaim loudly from the depths of its being: “I shall not don the garment of existence until that other one has set foot on the plain of being.”

    Each link depends on a condition that has not been fulfilled, and each one is, therefore, *barred* from enjoying the blessing of existence.

    Since we see the whole of the universe to be surging with different forms of being, there *must* exist in the world a cause that is *not* an effect, a condition that is not subject to a condition; *otherwise* the surface of the world would *not* be this thickly covered with phenomena.

  119. “You can believe in your fancy and we can’t in our?
    You mean your Pseudo-Scientific Demagoguery?
    The materialists claim that the establishment of their school of thought in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was directly connected to the progress of science and that the dialectical method was a fruit plucked from the fertile tree of science.

    They depict every philosophy apart from materialism as a form of idealism, opposed to the scientific method of thought, and insist that their position is a scientific and progressive one. According to them, realism consists in turning away from metaphysical truths; everyone ought to base his worldview on sensory and empirical logic and opt for materialism. But this claim is nothing more than a fanatical illusion based on unproven theories.

    Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.

    Belief in an object of worship is without doubt one of the principal sources of human culture and knowledge. The propounding of belief in God as basis for a correct worldview has brought about profound changes in the foundations of society and thought throughout human history. Now, too, in the age of science and technology, when man has found his way into space, a considerable number of scientists have a religious outlook as part of the intellectual system; they have come to believe in the existence of a creator, a source for all beings, not only by means of the heart and the conscience, but also through deduction and logic.

    If the materialists’ justification for their worldview were true, instead of being based on inadequate knowledge of the history of materialist thought, there ought to be a particular connection between science and an inclination to materialism; only materialist views would be represented in the realm of science.
    Has every philosopher and scholar, in every age, held an atheistic worldview and belonged to the materialist camp?

    A scholarly examination of the lives and works of great thinkers will suffice to show that not only is the religious camp by no means empty of true scientists, but also that many great scientific thinkers and personalities, including the founders of muchof contemporary science, have believed in monotheism.
    In addition, materialistic and atheistic beliefs have by no means been confined to the period of the evolution and advancement of science; since ancient times and, indeed, throughout history, materialists have stood in opposition to a united front of believers.

    Today it is primarily in a vulgarized form of Marxism that the wares of science have been turned into a tool of deception. Those who supposedly should be mapping out their path in the clear light of knowledge and weighing all matters with profound, logical perception and investigation, in complete freedom from all fanaticism and hasty prejudice—precisely these people have fallen prey to stagnation and blind imitation. They have arrogantly denied all values higher than intellect and reason, and even boast of their ignorant denial.

    Their claim that the coming of science has put out the notion of God is purely rhetorical and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.

    Materialism is a metaphysical belief, and must, therefore, be proven or disproven according to philosophical method. Precisely for this reason, an acceptance of materialism cannot be made a basis for the denial of metaphysics. To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be **treason to science. **

  120. “The childish lies of the parents “
    Can we say that William James, the monotheist or rather the mystic of his time, Bergson, Alexis Carrell and other such thinkers were ignorant of the scientific ideas of their time and their thinking was in tune with the ideas of a thousand years ago, while a certain ⏰ PJ* who does not possess a tenth of their knowledge and does not believe in God is familiar with the scientific ideas of his age?!

    At times one sees two mathematicians, one of whom believes in God and religion while the other is a materialist, or for that matter two physicists, two biologists, or two astronomers, one with a materialist and the other with a theistic bent of mind. Therefore, it is not that simple to say that the advent of science has made metaphysical issues obsolete.

    How is that for Your **childish** observation?

  121. “this thing called gravity!”
    So? Pseudo-Scientific Demagoguery?
    When Newton, for example, put forth the law of general gravity in light of experimentation, he had *not* perceived this gravity force by any of his five senses.

    Instead, he discovered it by way of another perceptible phenomenon for which he found no explanation except by supposing the gravity force. He noticed that the planets do not move in a straight line. Rather, they have a circular motion.

    According to Newton, this phenomenon could not occur had there not been a gravity force. The reason is that the principle of essential deficiency requires chat a body move in a straight direction unless another manner [of movement] is imposed on it from an external force.

    From this, Newton obtained the law of gravity that asserts that the planets are subject to a central force, which is gravity. If these experimentalists who advocate and glorify experimentation intend the same method by means of which the forces and secrets of the universe are discovered scientifically – namely, the study of a fixed perceptible phenomenon by experimentation and the rational inference of another thing from that phenomenon as the only explanation of the existence of that phenomenon – then this is *exactly* the method of demonstrating the *theological* position.

    • Hasnain,

      “… He noticed that the planets do not move in a straight line. Rather, they have a circular motion …”

      This was well known many years before Sir Issac published his law of universal gravitation that explained Kepler’s laws of planetary motion.

  122. “If what humans can know of reality is limited to how humans inquire about it,”

    And if that’s wrong?

    We can definitely investigate what we see,and the bible has a plethora of things that are easily open to investigation.

    World wide flood.

    Bats being a bird.

    All testable, all are actions of god. If they aren’t true, there’s no god.

    • “… If they aren’t true, there’s no god.”

      That is another mistake. The existence of God does not depend upon reports, descriptions, or measurements of material events.

      I suppose if one defines the attributes of a deity to be limited to those testable by the tools available to Science, then such a straw man would, unsurprisingly, be knocked down and disposed of. Such sophomoric behavior will always satisfy some.

      If, on the other hand, one recognizes the limits of Science, as evidenced in Ethan’s quote of Werner Heisenberg, one can appreciate and enjoy the wonder and splendor of reality as seen through that limited lens. To admit such limitations is only to acknowledge that humans have limitations. Some, such as Herr Heisenberg, accept that fact. I do too.

  123. Just a reminder to the True Believers on both sides: this is a discussion about if science can prove the existence of God, not if God does or does not exist.

  124. There aren’t True Believers on both sides, John, yours is just a false balance rhetoric to make you feel like you’re the moderate, just because you see two people either side of you and you don’t agree with either.

    The only god that could not be proven by science is one that is indistinguishable from there being no god.

    And if there’s no difference, what does it mean to say there exists a god?

    Nothing.

    So any god that could be in any way, shape, or form claimed actually to exist *can* be proven by science.

    • “There aren’t True Believers on both sides …”
      You are mistaken.
      You believe without proof that God does not exist. Hasnain believes without proof that God does exist. Each of you asserts that what you consider to be evidence “proves” your position. You and Hasnain are two sides of the same coin. You are both True Believers. Not only do you both not agree with me, but you also disagree with each other.

      “… John, yours is just a false balance rhetoric to make you feel like you’re the moderate …”
      You are mistaken.
      I have identified weaknesses and limitations in both yours and Hasnain’s arguments. I will let others determine if the sum of my criticisms about your POV is greater than those of mine about Hasnain’s.

      “… The only god that could not be proven by science is one that is indistinguishable from there being no god …”
      LOL! What utter nonsense! That is the same as saying that only Science can articulate true statements! Not only are there limits to what Science can authentically speak about, but Kurt Gödel has proved that Mathematics, the language of Science, contains truths that cannot be proved. Do you ever read you posts before pressing Submit Comment?

      “… And if there’s no difference, what does it mean to say there exists a god? …”
      This exemplifies your abysmal ignorance of the subject matter.

      “… So any god that could be in any way, shape, or form claimed actually to exist *can* be proven by science.”
      ROFL! Well, my fine fellow, prove that God does not exist. If, as is inevitable, you will fail miserably, the only honest claim you will be able to make is that Hasnain cannot prove that God does exist.

      As I’ve posted here before, and have provided supporting evidence to warrant, my response to Ethan’s question is: “No, Science cannot prove God exists”.

  125. “That is another mistake. The existence of God does not depend upon reports, descriptions, or measurements of material events.”

    Yes it does.

    The god of the bible: disproved by science.

    Got another god handy? Go get one and lets see if it exists or not, or if it cannot be proven to exist despite existing.

    Feel free to give us one, because the one of the Jews, Muslims and Christians has been proven not to exist by science. Geology is a science. As is Biology. Both prove that that god of theirs does not exist.

    • “… The god of the bible: disproved by science …”

      … chuckling … I was wondering when you were going to start backpedaling and limiting the definition of God to one you felt you could “disprove”?

      You may have missed it, but Ethan’s topic is “Can science prove the existence of God?”, not (as you have obdurately, repeatedly, and wrongly asserted) “Can science disprove the existence of God?”

  126. If you don;t define what it is you’re talking about, the lack of ability to prove it exists is because you have no “it” not that it can’t be proven by science.

    • I shall accept that as a grudging, ungraceful acknowledgement that Science cannot, in fact prove the existence of God.

      Welcome aboard the Indeterminate Express.

  127. “You believe without proof that God does not exist. ”

    Nope.

    “Each of you asserts that what you consider to be evidence “proves” your position. ”

    Nope again.

    “What utter nonsense! That is the same as saying that only Science can articulate true statements”

    Nope again. You even quoted what it said. And STILL got it wrong.

    The problem here is that you believe, as a matter of faith, that god can’t be proven to exist by science.

    Indeed it now looks like you believe that god can’t be proved NOT to exist by science. Because I’ve just proven god doesn’t exist: the one of the jews, christians and muslims. Proven not to exist.

    Yet you, despite this proof otherwise, insist as a matter of unshakeable belief, that this cannot be done.

    And to support this, pretend that reality is other than it is and lie about what I’ve said or thought.

    “ROFL! Well, my fine fellow, prove that God does not exist”

    Already proven that the one of the jews, muslims and christians don’t. So I’ve proven that god doesn’t exist, and that science did it.

    Got any other god?

    • ” Nope … Nope again. … Nope again …”

      You seem to have mistaken Contradiction for Argument.

      I’ll add it to your ever-lengthening list of mistakes.

  128. ” chuckling … I was wondering when you were going to start backpedaling and limiting the definition of God to one you felt you could “disprove”?”

    Wondering when you’re going to give me another one.

    • “Wondering when you’re going to give me another one.”

      As I have not given you one, I cannot give you another, can I? Yet another mistake of yours.

  129. You may have missed it, but Ethan’s topic is “Can science prove the existence of God?”, not (as you have obdurately, repeatedly, and wrongly asserted) “Can science disprove the existence of God?”

    Yet you didn’t set with the topic of conversation either, because it doesn’t suit you:

    “prove that God does not exist.”

    That’s not asking if god can be proved to exist.

  130. “I shall accept that as a grudging, ungraceful acknowledgement that Science cannot, in fact prove the existence of God.”

    It isn’t.

    It’s asking that you tell me what it is I’m supposed to prove exists.

    Tell me and I’ll tell you if science can prove it exists.

    • “It’s asking that you tell me what it is I’m supposed to prove exists.

      Tell me and I’ll tell you if science can prove it exists.”

      I need tell you nothing at all. The topic is “Can science prove the existence of God?”.

      Are you up to the task? So far it seems that the answer is “No”.

  131. As I’ve posted here before, and have provided supporting evidence to warrant, my response to Ethan’s question is: “No, Science cannot prove God exists”.</blockquote

    Proof plz tks.

    • “Proof plz tks.”

      Let us start with the proof of the theorem of the inability of Mathematics, the language of Science to be able to prove all true mathematical statement (Gödel’s Unprovability Theorem).

      This means that there are true mathematical statements that cannot be proved. Given this proven inability to articulate all truths, I am surprised you would assert as true the heretofore unproven claim that Science can prove the existence of God.

  132. “Welcome aboard the Indeterminate Express.”

    I’ll take that as grudging admission that you don’t know that science can’t prove god exists.

    • “I’ll take that as grudging admission that you don’t know that science can’t prove god exists.”

      Ah! Moving the goalposts now? LOL! The topic Ethan posted is “Can science prove the existence of God?”, not “Does John know or does John not know that science can’t prove god exist”

      We can in some other forum discuss this other topic, but you are now posting off-topic.

  133. “As I have not given you one, I cannot give you another, can I?”

    Uh, christian, muslim, jewish god.

    One down.

    Wondering when you’re going to give me another one.

    • “Uh, christian, muslim, jewish god.
      One down.
      Wondering when you’re going to give me another one.”

      That was your selection, not mine. As I have not given you one, I cannot give you another, can I?
      You are now repeating your mistakes.

  134. “You seem to have mistaken Contradiction for Argument.”

    You seem to have taken monty python as argument. The words are there and nope, they don’t mean what they say, and you don’t know what I think, so when I say “Nope” to a claim you’ve made about what I think, there’s no proof needed. I know what I think.

    And I note that youre avoiding giving me another god to see if he exists.

    So far, I’ve had one, and science has proven it doesn’t exist. And it’s not science that can’t prove a god that doesn’t exist exists it’s a definitional axiom of something not existing that it can’t be proven to exist. So not science failing to prove that god exists, just failure to prove that that god, which doesn’t exist, exists.

    And I’m still waiting for you to give me another god to see if science can prove it exists.

    But if that god is proven not to exist, then it’s not science’s failure that it can’t be proven to exist, is it.

    • “… The words are there and nope, they don’t mean what they say …”
      You probably mean that.

      “… and you don’t know what I think …”
      That’s why it is important to write what you think.

      “… so when I say “Nope” to a claim you’ve made about what I think, there’s no proof needed …”
      There is if you wish to communicate with others. Perhaps you don’t.

      “… And I note that youre avoiding giving me another god to see if he exists.”
      Now I tell you for the third time “As I have not given you one, I cannot give you another, can I?”

      “So far, I’ve had one …”
      That is the one you selected.

      “.. and science has proven it doesn’t exist”
      Has it now? Please provide that proof.

      “And it’s not science that can’t prove a god that doesn’t exist exists …”
      You acknowledge that Science can’t prove God doesn’t exist. OK. I can accept that

      “… it’s a definitional axiom of something not existing that it can’t be proven to exist …”
      More foolish nonsense. While I cannot prove that you have an interior experience like I do, my not knowing that does not mean you do not have an interior experience.

      “And I’m still waiting for you to give me another god to see if science can prove it exists.”
      Now I tell you for the fourth time “As I have not given you one, I cannot give you another, can I?”
      You seem to be unaware of that.

    • “Yes, it can.” [can science prove the existence of God]

      Then provide a demonstration. You have not yet done so. Provide the proof.

  135. “Let us start with the proof of the theorem of the inability of Mathematics

    This means that there are true mathematical statements that cannot be proved. ”

    Prove that god is one of those statements.

    Tks.

    • “… Prove that god is one of those statements.”

      I need not do so. You have made the claim that Science can prove the existence of God. It is up to you to provide any proof, not me.

  136. “Ah! Moving the goalposts now?”

    Ah, nope again!

    You made a claim of certainty and insist that there is uncertainty.

    These are contradictory and mutually exclusive claims. One or the other can be true, but not both.

    • “Ah, nope again!”
      Back to contradiction rather than argument again. Pity.

      “You made a claim of certainty and insist that there is uncertainty.”
      If, by that you mean that I think reality is at the quantum level indeterminate, then I’m sure you agree with me that it is so.

      “These are contradictory and mutually exclusive claims. One or the other can be true, but not both.”
      You are mistaken.
      The Standard Model incorporates the indeterminate nature of reality throughout. It is quite accurate enough for the likes of me and you. Unless, of course, you believe it is wrong?

  137. “Can science prove the existence of God?”, not “Does John know or does John not know that science can’t prove god exist”

    Then why do you keep asking me to prove you wrong?

    • “Then why do you keep asking me to prove you wrong?”

      What I ask you to do is warrant your claim that Science can prove that God exists.

      You have so far failed to do so.

  138. Can science prove Russel’s teapot exists? Does the fact that we haven’t looked prove science can’t? No. Does the fact that we can’t detect such a teapot prove science can’t? No.

    Therefore, if Russel’s Teapot exists, science can prove it does. Even though we cannot yet do that test.

    As with the genesis of Russel’s Teapot, substitute god with Russel’s Teapot and the proof holds still.

    • “… if Russel’s Teapot exists, science can prove it does. Even though we cannot yet do that test. …”

      An acknowledgement that Science cannot [yet] prove God exists. OK. I’ll accept that.

  139. “I need not do so. ”

    Then you haven’t prove that science can’t prove god exists. Sorry.

    So, again:

    As I’ve posted here before, and have provided supporting evidence to warrant, my response to Ethan’s question is: “No, Science cannot prove God exists”.

    Proof plz tks.

    • “… Proof plz tks”

      Yes, please provide proof for your claim that Science can prove God exists. Thank you.

  140. “Then provide a demonstration. You have not yet done so. Provide the proof.”

    I don’t have to.

    I can buy a Ferarri. They are on sale. I don’t have to buy one to prove they can be bought.

    The question is “Can science prove the existence of God”.

    • “… I don’t have to.”
      You need to do so if you want anyone to believe your claim that Science can prove that God exists. Otherwise it is just another empty claim.

      “I can buy a Ferarri”
      You will need to provide proof for that claim before anyone will believe you. Otherwise it is just another empty claim.

      “The question is “Can science prove the existence of God”.
      But if that god is proven not to exist, then it’s not science’s failure that it can’t be proven to exist, is it.”
      OK, then prove that God does not exist

  141. Now I tell you for the fourth time “As I have not given you one, I cannot give you another, can I?”

    Yes you can. If you thought it would work for your baseless and entirely belief led insistence that science can’t prove the existence of god.

    I’m STILL waiting. Either give me the same god, or give me another god and I’ll see if science can prove it.

    I’ve proven one god doesn’t exist.

    I’m waiting for you to give me another.

    If you want to give me the same god (therefore it isn’t another god), then we’ve already proven it doesn’t exist. So a failure to prove it exist is not because science can’t prove it, it’s because it doesn’t exist.

    • “Yes you can. …” [having not given you one, I cannot give you another]
      For the fifth time, “As I have not given you one, I cannot give you another, can I?”

      “… If you thought it would work for your baseless and entirely belief led insistence that science can’t prove the existence of god …”
      And now attacking the man? LOL!

      “I’m STILL waiting. Either give me the same god, or give me another god and I’ll see if science can prove it.”
      For the sixth time, “As I have not given you one, I cannot give you another, can I?”

      “I’ve proven one god doesn’t exist.”
      … smiling … You have, have you? What comment was that?

      “I’m waiting for you to give me another.”
      For the seventh time, “As I have not given you one, I cannot give you another, can I?”

      “If you want to give me the same god (therefore it isn’t another god), then we’ve already proven it doesn’t exist. So a failure to prove it exist is not because science can’t prove it, it’s because it doesn’t exist.”
      I have not given you any God.

  142. “An acknowledgement that Science cannot [yet] prove God exists. OK. I’ll accept that.”

    An acknowledgement that science [can] prove god exists. OK, I’ll accept that.

    • “An acknowledgement that science [can] prove god exists. OK, I’ll accept that”
      You are mistaken.

      An acknowledgement that Science cannot yet prove the existence of God is not an acknowledgement that it will

  143. What I ask you to do is warrant your claim that Science can prove that God exists.

    You have so far failed to do so.

    Any act god does on this reality can be proven by science to have happened, and this would prove god exists.

    That’s what the “Russel’s Teapot” example shows, but you’re too blinkered by your unreasoning believe that science cannot prove god exists, despite having failed whatsoever to do so.

    I’ll stop asking you to give me another god since you clearly cannot give me anything.

    • “Any act god does on this reality can be proven by science to have happened, and this would prove god exists.”
      You are mistaken.
      That would be true only if Science can prove any act in this reality. There are many event in this reality inaccessible to Science.

      “That’s what the “Russel’s Teapot” example shows, but you’re too blinkered by your unreasoning believe that science cannot prove god exists, despite having failed whatsoever to do so.”
      Feel free to attack the man, so that everyone can witness the nature of your argument.

      “I’ll stop asking you to give me another god since you clearly cannot give me anything.”
      Excellent! Now I’ll not need to tell you an eight time that I have not given you one.

  144. ““… Proof plz tks”

    Yes, please provide proof for your claim that Science can prove God exists. Thank you.”

    see (currently) 234.

    You now.

    • “Yes, please provide proof for your claim that Science can prove God exists. Thank you.””

      I have not claimed that Science can prove God exists

    • ““The Standard Model incorporates the indeterminate nature of reality throughout”

      So what?”

      That indeterminacy is an example of the limits of the knowledge available to Science, and why it is so very unlikely that it will ever be able to prove or disprove the existence of God.

  145. “… I don’t have to [prove god exists].”
    You need to do so if you want anyone to believe your claim that Science can prove that God exists.

    No I don’t. All I have to prove is that science CAN prove God exists, not prove god does.

    See post (now, currently) #235.

    • “No I don’t. All I have to prove is that science CAN prove God exists, not prove god does”

      Yes, you do. You have asserted as true the claim that Science can prove that God exists.

      OK. Prove it.

  146. “An acknowledgement that Science cannot yet prove the existence of God is not an acknowledgement that it will”

    An acknowledgement that science cannot yet prove it is not acknowledgement it can’t. And I haven’t even acknowledged THAT.

    But acknowledging that we haven’t yet proved god is accepting that it could.

    I’ll take that.

    • “An acknowledgement that science cannot yet prove it is not acknowledgement it can’t.”
      That is a mistake.
      The statement “science cannot yet prove it” is a statement about the current state of Science. Ethan’s question “Can science prove the existence of God? ” is a question about the current state of Science.

      “And I haven’t even acknowledged THAT.”
      You have claimed that Science can prove the existence of God. That is a statement about the current state of Science.

      “But acknowledging that we haven’t yet proved god is accepting that it could.”
      I’m quite comfortable that change is possible. I leave it to others to assert absolutes – they’re usually wrong.

      “I’ll take that.”
      OK.

    • ““I have not given you any God.”

      So it doesn’t exist?”

      The existence or non existence of God does not depend on my giving.

      Your question is off-topic.

  147. Glad you’ve now said there is no god.

    I guess that’s why you really can’t believe that science can’t prove god: because there is no such thing.

    I’ll accept that.

    • “Glad you’ve now said there is no god”
      Alas, I’m not in a position to claim as true there is or there is no God. I leave that to People of Faith. People who believe, without proof, that God does not exist are examples of People of Faith

      “I guess that’s why you really can’t believe that science can’t prove god …”
      You are mistaken.
      The reason I think Science cannot prove te existence of God is due to the limits of human understanding.

      “… because there is no such thing.”
      I’m sure you Believe that is True.

  148. You have asserted as true the claim that Science can prove that God exists.

    OK. Prove it.

    Any act god does on this reality can be proven by science to have happened, and this would prove god exists.

  149. You have asserted as true the claim that Science can prove that God exists.

    OK. Prove it.

    Any act god does on this reality can be proven by science to have happened, and this would prove god exists.

    • “Any act god does on this reality can be proven by science to have happened, and this would prove god exists.”

      That would be true if and only if Science can know it.

    • ““I have not claimed that Science can prove God exists”

      Prove you have to.”

      As I am not the one making the claim that Science can prove the existence of God, I need prove nothing.

      You’re the one making the claim that Science can prove the existence of God, not me.

  150. “The existence or non existence of God does not depend on my giving.”

    No, you said there that there was no god.

    “I have not given you any God”

    That is saying that there is no god.

    But if there was god, any act god did on this reality would be possible to prove with science and that would mean science had proven god’s existence in that case.

    • “… you said there that there was no god.
      You are mistaken.
      I have not said there is no God.

      “ “I have not given you any God”
      That is saying that there is no god.”
      You are mistaken.
      Saying “I have not given you ” does not mean There is no ”

      “But if there was god, any act god did on this reality would be possible to prove with science and that would mean science had proven god’s existence in that case.”
      “Would” does not mean “can”. Ethan’s question is “Can science prove the existence of God?”, not “Would science prove the existence of God? ”

  151. Alas, I’m not in a position to claim as true there is or there is no God.

    But you just did.

    The reason I think Science cannot prove te existence of God is due to the limits of human understanding.

    But that is just belief, you haven’t proven it.

    If there was god, any act god did on this reality would be possible to prove with science and that would mean science had proven god’s existence in that case.

    • “ “Alas, I’m not in a position to claim as true there is or there is no God.”
      But you just did.”
      You are mistaken
      I have neither claimed that God exists nor that God does not exist. I do think that Science cannot prove God exists, and I have provided the reasons why.

      “ “The reason I think Science cannot prove te existence of God is due to the limits of human understanding.”
      But that is just belief, you haven’t proven it.”
      Nor do I need to. Unlike you, I have not claimed that Science can prove the existence of God.

      “If there was god, any act god did on this reality would be possible to prove with science and that would mean science had proven god’s existence in that case.”
      “Would” does not mean “can”. Ethan’s question is “Can science prove the existence of God?”, not “Would science prove the existence of God? ”

  152. “Any act god does on this reality can be proven by science to have happened, and this would prove god exists.”

    That would be true if and only if Science can know it.

    But it can. Any act god does on this reality can be proven by science to have happened, and this would prove god exists.

    • “Any act god does on this reality can be proven by science to have happened, and this would prove god exists.”
      That is true only for what Science can record. Are you suggesting that nothing happens that cannot be measured by Science?

  153. “As I am not the one making the claim that Science can prove the existence of God,”

    Prove you have to.

    Meanwhile I proved that god can be proven to exist by science, because any act god does on this reality can be proven by science to have happened, and this would prove god exists

    • ‘ “As I am not the one making the claim that Science can prove the existence of God,”
      Prove you have to.”
      I do not have to. You are the one claiming that Science can prove the existence of God, not me.

      “Meanwhile I proved that god can be proven to exist by science, because any act god does on this reality can be proven by science to have happened, and this would prove god exists”
      That is true only for what Science can record. Are you suggesting that nothing happens that cannot be measured by Science?

  154. You are mistaken.

    So give me another god and I’ll see if science can prove it.

    “But if there was god, any act god did on this reality would be possible to prove with science and that would mean science had proven god’s existence in that case.”
    “Would” does not mean “can”.

    Yes it does. If science would prove god’s existence then it can prove god’s existence. If it couldn’t, then it wouldn’t.

    • “So give me another god and I’ll see if science can prove it.”

      As I have not give you one, I am unable to give you another.

  155. You are mistaken.

    So give me another god and I’ll see if science can prove it.

    “But if there was god, any act god did on this reality would be possible to prove with science and that would mean science had proven god’s existence in that case.”
    “Would” does not mean “can”.

    Yes it does. If science would prove god’s existence then it can prove god’s existence. If it couldn’t, then it wouldn’t.

    • ” “Would” does not mean “can”.

      Yes it does …”

      You are mistaken.
      “Would” is conditional, “can” is not.

      “… If science would prove god’s existence then it can prove god’s existence …”
      “If science would prove god’s existence ” is conditional. Note the “If”. “it can prove god’s existence” is unconditional.

      ” If it couldn’t, then it wouldn’t.”
      Both phrases are conditional.

  156. “Any act god does on this reality can be proven by science to have happened, and this would prove god exists.”
    That is true only for what Science can record.

    No. Science doesn’t record gravity, but it CAN prove that gravity exists.

    Do you mean “investigates”?

    Are you suggesting that nothing happens that cannot be [investigated] by Science?</blockquote?

    Yes.

    • Nice try with the html editing.

      “Science doesn’t record gravity, but it CAN prove that gravity exists”
      Gravity is currently best understood as the curvature of space-time, and that has been recoded.

  157. “Any act god does on this reality can be proven by science to have happened, and this would prove god exists.”
    That is true only for what Science can record.

    No. Science doesn’t record gravity, but it CAN prove that gravity exists.

    Do you mean “investigates”?

    Are you suggesting that nothing happens that cannot be [investigated] by Science?

    Yes.

    • “… Are you suggesting that nothing happens that cannot be [investigated] by Science? …”

      That’s not what I wrote.

    • ” “I do not have to.”

      Yes you do.”
      You are mistaken.
      You are the one who claimed (and have yet to warrant your claim) that Science can prove the existence of God.

      It is up to you to warrant or prove your truth claim.

  158. “As I have not give you one”

    I haven’t said you gave me one. I’m saying you haven’t. So give me a god and I’ll see whether science can prove god exists.

    • “I haven’t said you gave me one.”
      You have repeatedly requested that I give you another one. As I have not given you one, I cannot give you another.

      ” I’m saying you haven’t.”
      I’m glad you now agree with me.

      “So give me a god and I’ll see whether science can prove god exists”
      You have claimed that Science can prove God exists. OK. Do so.

  159. “Both phrases are conditional.”

    Yes.

    “Gravity is currently best understood as the curvature of space-time, and that has been recoded.”

    Correct.

    ““If science would prove god’s existence ” is conditional. Note the “If”. “it can prove god’s existence” is unconditional.”

    Wrong. it’s conditional. Notice the “If”.

    • ” “it can prove god’s existence” is unconditional.”
      Wrong. it’s conditional. Notice the “If”. ”
      You are mistaken.
      There is no “If” in “it can prove god’s existence”

  160. Well, at least now we know why teabaggie is always so ANGRY.. He believe that he’s going to hell because he has no god.

    Sad.

  161. “So give me a god and I’ll see whether science can prove god exists”
    You have claimed that Science can prove God exists. OK. Do so.

    Yup. Doesn’t exist. Thanks for that. Care to give me another one?

    • “Yup. Doesn’t exist. Thanks for that. Care to give me another one?”

      That is another unwarranted truth claim. I do not share your Faith.

    • ” There is no “If” in “it can prove god’s existence”
      I know. But that’s not where the “if” is.”

      That’s why it is unconditional

    • ” “I’m glad you agree with me.”
      I’m glad too, teabaggie, that you agree with me too.”

      Reduced to insulting in lieu of arguing? Pity.

      All you need to do is substantiate your truth claim that Science can prove the existence of God, and you’ll not need to insult anyone.

  162. Let’s think about invisible beings (such as spirit, demons or divine beings). To prove scientifically, we have to create an hypothesis which should be able to replicate by scientists and experiments must result the same thing. When scientists find a new kind of animal they have the death body. So other scientist can see the same thing(death body). There is an evidence.

    According to the mythical facts invisible beings have a different kind of material (I call those as fine materials) which we can’t see. When an invisible being born their body suddenly arise(with a Karmic power) and when they die their body vanish without any evidence. So, there is no scientifically testable thing even in fine materials. So, it is almost impossible to prove them scientifically. But we can make some hypothesis with use psychic powers gain from higher meditation as a tool.

    Here is my proposal of scientifically proving existence of higher beings.
    Steps;
    1)Group of scientists do Samata meditation and get Eight Attainments(Ashta-Samapatti) and Five Supernormal Powers(Pancha-Abhigna) Levels of Meditation.
    2)Then this scientists group go to a heavenly world with their psychic powers(and remember their goal without attracting to goddess). They can’t just tell that there are heavenly worlds and divine beings. Since they don’t have any evidence.
    3)With psychic powers extort a diving being.
    4)Safely come back to the human world.
    5)Make a psychic jail(which other scientist can’t see) and put him.
    6)Force him to show appearance.
    7)Then other scientist have to investigate with all of electromagnetic wave cameras. Have to prove he is not a human magician.

    Here is my prediction of what will happen then;
    Final conclusion about the experiment.
    Some higher meditators claim they can bring a divine being from a heavenly world. But when scientist check those with all possible ways he it just a human magician but having some unusual huge radiations. Next day after the experiment. News from the television. “Huge earthquake happen and lot of humans died. Government ask help from other countries.”

    So, you can understand that there is no way to prove it scientifically. Scientific method can’t prove every aspect of nature.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_photography

  163. That is another unwarranted truth claim.

    No it isn’t, it’s a factual one. You gave me no god, therefore by definition a thing that doesn’t exist does not exist.

    An entirely warranted truth claim. you didn’t give me a god, therefore that god does not exist, just like the other one didn’t exist either. This, however, was a lot easier, since the nonexistence of that god was right there in the nonexistence of it in your post.

    I do not share your Faith.

    How can we share something that doesn’t exist??? Maybe you believe it does.

    • “You gave me no god, therefore by definition a thing that doesn’t exist does not exist.”
      That is a mistake
      “I did not give you {noun goes here}” does not mean the same as “There is no {noun goes here}”

      “… you didn’t give me a god, therefore that god does not exist, just like the other one didn’t exist either. This, however, was a lot easier, since the nonexistence of that god was right there in the nonexistence of it in your post
      That is a mistake.
      “I did not give you {noun goes here}” does not mean the same as “There is no {noun goes here}”

      ” “I do not share your Faith”
      How can we share something that doesn’t exist??? ”
      You are the one who claims as True that what you cannot prove. Your Faith in the Non-existence of God is touching

      “Maybe you believe it does.”
      I’ve just demonstrated that you are a Man of Faith.

    • “No, the if was in the sentence. That is why it is conditional”
      And that is why “Would”, which is conditional does not mean the same as “can” which is unconditional.

  164. ll you need to do is substantiate your truth claim that Science can prove the existence of God,

    I did.

    Give me another one, and this time actually include a god for me to test if science can prove it exists.

    and you’ll not need to insult anyone.

    I didn’t, teabaggie.

    • “All you need to do is substantiate your truth claim that Science can prove the existence of God,”
      I did.
      That is a mistake.
      You conditioned your claim with “would”. A proof is unconditional.

      “… Give me another one, and this time actually include a god for me to test if science can prove it exists.”
      As I have not given you one I cannot give you another.

  165. And that is why “Would”, which is conditional does not mean the same as “can” which is unconditional.

    Not if it’s in a sentence with “if” in in which case it’s conditional.

    • “Not if it’s in a sentence with “if” in in which case it’s conditional.”
      That makes your truth claim conditional, and unproven

  166. So, teabaggie, we’ve had your claimed god proved wrong (and I guess you were pissed off to find out that it was the same god as the jews and muslims, eh?), you’ve said you have no god, you’ve sockpuppeted – AGAIN – you’ve not proven any of your claims, you have now changed them to absolute claims to “you think”, which is not a truth claim therefore not a proof science can’t, just an assertion you think it can’t, and we have science can because any act of god that affects this earth can be investigated and prove that god exists.

    Probably not what you’d hoped to achieve this evening after a few too many cheap beers.

    • “… we’ve had your claimed god proved wrong …”
      That is a mistake.
      I have not claimed the existence of God.

      “… you’ve said you have no god …”
      That is a mistake.
      I have not claimed the non-existence of God.

      “… you’ve not proven any of your claims …”
      I have not attempted to prove anything. I have warranted my claims.

      “… you have now changed them to absolute claims …”
      That is a mistake.
      I have not changed any of my claims to absolute claims.

      “… just an assertion you think it can’t …”
      Yes, I think you are unable to prove Science can prove the existence of God.

      “…and we have science can because any act of god that affects this earth can be investigated and prove that god exists.”
      OK. Go ahead and prove it then. If you cannot, then it is just another empty truth claim.

      “Probably not what you’d hoped to achieve this evening after a few too many cheap beers.”
      To be honest, I wasn’t expecting too much from you, so I wasn’t disappointed by your behavior.

  167. “That makes your truth claim conditional”

    Yes. When you claimed it was unconditional.

    Glad you’re finally agreeing with me. Well done, teabaggie.

    • “… Glad you’re finally agreeing with me”
      If that means you no longer claim that Science can prove God exists, I’m in complete agreement with you.

  168. Give me another one, and this time actually include a god for me to test if science can prove it exists.

    As I have not given you one

    Glad you agree with me that god doesn’t exist.

    Now, care to give me another one? We’ll see whether we agree whether that god exists.

    • “Glad you agree with me that god doesn’t exist.”
      That is a mistake.
      I do not agree with you about that.

      “Now, care to give me another one? We’ll see whether we agree whether that god exists.”
      As I have not given you one, I cannot give you another.

  169. Quick recap for you, teabaggie.

    The god of the jews, christians and muslims has been proven not to exist by testing their existence with science investigating the claims of their acts.

    We have ALSO proven you haven’t given me another god to test, and a thing that doesn’t exist, does not exist, just like I said when you gave me nothing when I asked for a god to test.

    Since we have proven one god doesn’t exist via science, there is evidence that god CAN be DISPROVED by science.

    And if a claim can be disproved by science, it can also be proved by science. This is how science works.

    • “The god of the jews, christians and muslims has been proven not to exist by testing their existence with science investigating the claims of their acts.”
      That is a mistake.
      As the domain of Science id limited to the natural, and God claimed to be supernatural, the exitence of God does not lie with the domain of Science.

      “We have ALSO proven you haven’t given me another god to test, and a thing that doesn’t exist, does not exist, just like I said when you gave me nothing when I asked for a god to test.”
      As I have not given you one I cannot give you another.

      “Since we have proven one god doesn’t exist via science …”
      That is a mistake.
      You have not provided a roof that God does not exist.

      “… there is evidence that god CAN be DISPROVED by science.”
      OK. Prove that God does not exist.

      “And if a claim can be disproved by science, it can also be proved by science. This is how science works”
      OK, then provide a proof that God does exist or that God does not exits..

  170. Just in case you’re confused about the meaning of common English words, teabaggie:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_%28truth%29

    A proof is sufficient evidence or a sufficient argument for the truth of a proposition

    We have already seen your incomprehension at the meaning of the word “Another”

    adjective
    1.
    being one more or more of the same; further; additional:

  171. “… Glad you’re finally agreeing with me”
    If that means you no longer claim that Science can prove God exists

    If that means you no longer claim science cannot prove the existence of god, I agree.

    As I have not given you one

    So you agree that god didn’t exist. Brilliant. So, another one?

    “…and we have science can because any act of god that affects this earth can be investigated and prove that god exists.”
    OK. Go ahead and prove it then.

    I did.

  172. By definition:

    affect1
    əˈfɛkt/
    verb
    verb: affect; 3rd person present: affects; past tense: affected; past participle: affected; gerund or present participle: affecting

    have an effect on; make a difference to.

    If something made a difference, that difference must be measurable.

  173. Since you seem confused about what you did, lets leave out your attempt to test if science can prove the existence of god. Recap:

    The god of the jews, christians and muslims has been proven not to exist by testing their existence with science investigating the claims of their acts.

    Since we have proven one god doesn’t exist via science, there is evidence that god CAN be DISPROVED by science.

    And if a claim can be disproved by science, it can also be proved by science. This is how science works.

    I hope this is easier for you to read, teabagger.

  174. “and God claimed to be supernatural

    And that is a mistake.

    Since god was claimed to have caused a worldwide flood, and no worldwide flood happened, it proves that god does not exist.

  175. ” “As I have not given you one”
    So you agree that god didn’t exist. …”
    Not giving you one does not mean there is not one to give.

    ” “…and we have science can because any act of god that affects this earth can be investigated and prove that god exists.”
    OK. Go ahead and prove it then.”

    “I did”
    Alas, no. Not yet..

  176. “… there is evidence that god CAN be DISPROVED by science.”
    OK. Prove that God does not exist.

    I did. That god was said to have said that bats were birds, but bats aren’t birds, therefore proving that god does not exist.

  177. ” Since god was claimed to have caused a worldwide flood, and no worldwide flood happened, it proves that god does not exist.”
    You are mistaken.
    That shows the claim was false, not that God does not exist.

  178. Not giving you one does not mean there is not one to give.

    But it does mean that you didn’t give one. And therefore saying that god did not exist is a valid truth claim, even oyu agree that god was nonexistent

  179. Since god was claimed to have caused a worldwide flood, and no worldwide flood happened, it proves that god does not exist.

    You are mistaken.

    No I am not.

    That shows the claim was false, not that God does not exist.

    No, it shows that god does not exist since there was no flood.

  180. “The god of the jews, christians and muslims has been proven not to exist by testing their existence with science investigating the claims of their acts.”
    You are mistaken.
    Falsifying the claims made about God does not prove God does not exist.

    “Since we have proven one god doesn’t exist via science …’
    You have not yet done so.

    “.., there is evidence that god CAN be DISPROVED by science.”
    OK, then prove that Science can do so. I doubt you’ll have any more success at that effort than your failed attempts to prove that Science can prove the existence of God.

    “And if a claim can be disproved by science, it can also be proved by science. This is how science works.”
    Yes, and as you have failed to do either, neither has so far been proven.

  181. “No, it shows that god does not exist since there was no flood.”
    You are mistaken.
    A false claim about God is not proof that God does not exist.

  182. “And if a claim can be disproved by science, it can also be proved by science. This is how science works.

    Yes, and as you have failed to do either,

    No, I have proved that the god of the jews and muslims and christians doesn’t exist.

  183. “I have proved that the god of the jews and muslims and christians doesn’t exist.”
    Not yet you haven’t.

  184. I have proved that the god of the jews and muslims and christians doesn’t exist.

    Not yet you haven’t.

    Prove it.

  185. “Prove it.”

    As I have not made the claims I need prove nothing. You made the claims. You provide the proofs.

  186. As I have not made the claims I need prove nothing.

    So you I have proved that the god of the jews and muslims and christians doesn’t exist.

  187. “It is if that claim is what god did”
    You are mistaken.
    If I claim that God is the cause of “X”, and my claim is falsified, that does not prove that God does not exist.

  188. “Prove it.”

    As I have not made the claims I need prove nothing. You made the claims. You provide the proofs.

    If you made no claims then I have nothing left to prove.

  189. If I claim that God is the cause of “X”, and my claim is falsified, that does not prove that God does not exist.

    Yes it does.

    If you want to claim a different god exists, then provide one.

  190. “So you I have proved that the god of the jews and muslims and christians doesn’t exist.”

    That is nonsense. That is not even a meaningful sentence.

  191. ” “If I claim that God is the cause of “X”, and my claim is falsified, that does not prove that God does not exist.”

    Yes it does”
    You are mistaken. The purported actor’s existence is not falsified by a false claim made about the actor.

    You’re resorting to contradiction again.

  192. “If you made no claims then I have nothing left to prove.”
    As you have failed to substantiate or warrant your claim that Science can prove the existence of God, I agree you have nothing else to prove.

  193. As you have failed to substantiate or warrant your claim that Science can prove the existence of God,

    I have proven it, though.

    The god of the jews, christians and muslims claimed to have caused a worldwide flood. There is no worldwide flood, this therefore proves that god doesn’t exist.

  194. “You’ll need to identify what you are referring to.”

    Why? You didn’t.

    Indeed you refuse point blank to identify what you’re referring to.

  195. ” “The purported actor’s existence is not falsified by a false claim made about the actor.

    Yes it is.”

    More contradiction in lieu of argument, eh?

  196. More contradiction in lieu of argument, eh?

    Yeah, I wonder when you’ll start making an argument, teabaggie and stop going “I haven’t made a claim” then making one and then going “I haven’t made a claim” and going round and round.

    Try making an argument instead of contradicting yourself every other post.

  197. ” “You’ll need to identify what you are referring to.”

    Why? …”
    Because without a subject there is no argument. Is that what you are attempting to achieve?

  198. “… stop going “I haven’t made a claim” then making one and then going “I haven’t made a claim” and going round and round.”
    Unlike some other commenters, I am cautious about what I claim is true. I let them suffer the embarrassment of being unable to warrant their claims.

  199. Unlike some other commenters, I am cautious about what I claim is true.

    Without a subject there, you have no argument. IIs that what you are attempting to achieve, teabaggie?

  200. “Because without a subject there is no argument.”

    So identify your subject”
    You asserted as True that Science can prove the existence of God. I have noted that you have failed to substantiate your claim.

  201. Unlike teabagger here, operating under the sockpuppet account of “John” because he’s here illicitly after his homophobic and spittle-flecked rant, I know what words mean.

    Teabagger here knows how to avoid being specific enough to be caught in his lies.

    But not the meaning of words.

  202. ” “You asserted as True that Science can prove the existence of God’

    Yup. And proven it.”
    Which comment contained the proof?

  203. Why have you stopped your unsubstantiated claim that science can’t prove the existence of god, teabaggie?

    Why?

  204. “Why have you stopped your unsubstantiated claim that science can’t prove the existence of god …”
    As my opinion that Science cannot prove the existence of God passed without comment, I need not restate it.

  205. As my opinion that Science cannot prove the existence of God passed without comment

    It didn’t, though.

    So why?

  206. “That was meaningless complaining….”
    You are mistaken.
    That was an observation, not a complaint.

    “Run out of arguments?”
    I’ve already provided lines of discussion should you with to pursue them, although you have not yet done so.

  207. As my opinion that Science cannot prove the existence of God passed without comment

    It didn’t, though.

    Why have you abandoned your mistaken assertion that your claim passed without comment?

  208. ” “As my opinion that Science cannot prove the existence of God passed without comment”

    It didn’t, though.”
    It has so far. Are you interested in discussing the limits to what Science can meaningfully discuss?

  209. As my opinion that Science cannot prove the existence of God passed without comment”

    It didn’t, though.

    It has so far.

    It did nearly as soon as you made it, teabaggie. Why are you continuing with your unsupported and erroneous claim?

  210. “…Why are you continuing with your unsupported and erroneous claim?”
    I shall take that as your decision to not discuss the limits on what Science can comment meaningfully.

    Is there anything else you are able to discuss now?

  211. So why are you running away from your erroneous and unsupported claims, teabaggie?

    Is it because you don’t want to accept you’ve been lying on the subject of the contents of this thread? If you were sure of your claims, you would be willing and able, even happy, to support them.

    Why are you unable to support your claims you make?

  212. “So why are you running away from your erroneous and unsupported claims …”
    I’m not. Although it is neither erroneous nor unsupported, are you interested in discussing the limits to what Science can meaningfully discuss?

  213. If you are unable to bring your reason to bear on a subject whose evidence exists here on this thread, what else is your reason incapable of achieving?

    If your reason is incapable of being applied here, what other claims you make can be assumed to arise from reason?

  214. “If you are unable to bring your reason to bear on a subject whose evidence exists here on this thread, what else is your reason incapable of achieving?

    If your reason is incapable of being applied here, what other claims you make can be assumed to arise from reason?”

    I shall take that as your decision to not discuss the limits on what Science can comment meaningfully.

    Is there anything else you are able to discuss now?

  215. So why are you running away from your erroneous and unsupported claims …
    I’m not.

    You are, though. Your claim that your “opinion that Science cannot prove the existence of God passed without comment” is supported by no evidence but blank assertion. Is this intended to be proof?

  216. So why are you running away from your erroneous and unsupported claims …

    I’m not.

    You are, though. Your claim that your “opinion that Science cannot prove the existence of God passed without comment” is supported by no evidence but blank assertion. Is this intended to be proof?

  217. The limits to what Science can meaningfully discuss is related to the question “Can Science prove the existence of God” so I thought you’d be interested.

  218. If your reason is incapable of being applied here, what other claims you make can be assumed to arise from reason?”

    I shall take that as

    However, that is not what I asked. If you cannot keep to what was asked but insist instead on making up whatever words you wish to nd whatever interpretation you feel like applying, in what way can you be arguing or reasoning at all?

    Since you make blank assertion “proof” of your claims, are incapable or unwilling to apply reason and evidence, and will make up intent to fit your purpose, then your desire to argue is meaningless since you refuse to retain reason and factual reality if it becomes inconvenient for you.

  219. “Is this intended to be proof?”

    No. My comment was more of an observation that no one picked up on it, even though the limits to what Science can meaningfully discuss is related to the question “Can Science prove the existence of God”

  220. The limits to what Science can meaningfully discuss is related to the question “Can Science prove the existence of God”

    But you make blank assertion as “proof”, refuse to apply reason, and make up intent as you see fit, so no meaningful discussion is possible until you sop running from your baseless and unsupported assertion that your “opinion that Science cannot prove the existence of God passed without comment”.

    You need to start proving your claims when they are so simple and the evidence contained in this thread alone before any further discussion can be entertained.

  221. “… Since you make blank assertion “proof” of your claims, are incapable or unwilling to apply reason and evidence, and will make up intent to fit your purpose, then your desire to argue is meaningless since you refuse to retain reason and factual reality if it becomes inconvenient for you.”

    I shall take that as your decision to not discuss the limits on what Science can comment meaningfully.

    You appear to be now limiting your comments to off-topic subjects. Is there anything related to Ethan’s topic you are able to discuss now?

  222. “Is this intended to be proof?”

    No. My comment was more of an observation that no one picked up on it,

    But your claim to observing this is itself unsupported, when evidence should be ample. If you merely back up to a different blank assertion in lieu of proof, then the problem of unsupported truth clams remain, and no meaningful argument can continue.

  223. It’s not any big deal of course, but if you prefer to focus on off-topic subjects for the moment, I’ll let you do that alone.

  224. Since you make blank assertion “proof” of your claims, are incapable or unwilling to apply reason and evidence, and will make up intent to fit your purpose, then your desire to argue is meaningless since you refuse to retain reason and factual reality if it becomes inconvenient for you.

    I shall take that as

    But yet again you manufacture an intent that is not there out of whim and fancy? If this is supposed to be meaningful discourse and argument in your circles, you are mistaken and this failure on your part must be addressed and corrected.

    And this in addition to your continuing use of blank assertion in place of proof.

  225. It’s not any big deal of course

    That is most definitely not the case. If you think that inserting blank assertion in place of proof or evidence or even reason is “not any big deal”, then you will remain incapable of meaningful discussion on any topic until this is cleared up.

    Running away from your failures will not make them go away.

  226. It seems you prefer to focus on off-topic issues at the moment. You’ll probably have a better time doing that alone.

  227. It seems you prefer to focus on off-topic issues

    Wrong again. Whether blank assertion can substitute for proof is a basic requirement for any discussion on ANY topic, and refusing to deal with this renders any attempt to argue or discuss this topic moot until this is rectified.

    Should your current method of “arguing” be accepted as “no big deal” and instead we should insist it is “off topic” and pass it by, no claim can be required to have proof instead of blank assertion.

    And no argument can continue on that basis.

    Why are you so insistent on not addressing your problem with proof and evidence claims?

  228. When you decide to return to the topic

    I will willingly do so as soon as we clear up what is aceptable when making a claim. Currently you seem whim and fancy are acceptable, and blank assertion is acceptable proof.

    But this does not seem to be a rational course of action to take, teabaggie.

    And without rationality, rational argument becomes moot with the irrational actor, yourself.

    This MUST be addressed, not danced around as you have done for the past score-and-more posts, and the sooner we do, the sooner we can start again on the topic.

    Or is that what you wish to avoid?

  229. “Why are you so insistent on not addressing your problem with proof and evidence claims?”

    … chuckling … The topic is “Can science prove the existence of God?”

    Let me know when you’re ready to discuss this. A comment to that effect here will do.

  230. Teabaggie, why do you refuse to accept that rational discourse requires that claims have to be supported by evidence and proof?

    Chuckling to yourself merely cements the idea that you are unstable and irrational when added to your dance around the problem you have with truth, reality, and evidence.

    Until your issues with the requirements of a rational discourse are dealt with here and now, chuckling by typing it in on the web form is not going to substitute for methods of rationality.

  231. Let me know when you’re ready to discuss this

    Let me know when you’re ready to discuss your problem with the difference between evidence and blank assertion.

    I’ll be here when you wish to start the discussion of your problem.

  232. So, are there others who would like to argue Ethan’s question, “Can science prove the existence of God?”

    I argue that it is unable to do so, due principally to the limitations on the domain of Science: the natural world.

  233. And I argue it can. See above for why.

    See above for teabaggie here running away from the questions about his misrepresentations, lack of reality and unsupported claims that he has been running away from addressing.

    The only one who could, but won’t get on topic, is Hasain, because he doesn’t care about rationality either, and runs away from accepting it.

    • “… See above for teabaggie … “ etc.
      Substituting argument with such discourtesy demonstrates unwillingness to remain on-topic.

    • A fourth example of the limitations of Science is that Science doesn’t make moral judgments. Such questions as “When is euthanasia appropriate?”, “What universal rights do humans have?”, “Should other animals have rights?”, are important, but Science does not address them. Science can help us learn and understand terminal illnesses and the history of human and animal rights — and that knowledge can inform our opinions and decisions. Ultimately however, individuals make moral judgments. Science helps us describe how the world is, but it cannot make any judgments about whether that state of affairs is right, wrong, good, or bad.

  234. One example of the limitations of Science that it focuses on and deals with nature. Supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. For many, such questions are matters of personal faith and spirituality. This indicates that those who believe – either pro or con – espouse Faith Claims.

  235. Another example of the limits of Science is that it doesn’t provide guidance how to use scientific knowledge Although scientists often care deeply about how their discoveries are used (ref here the engagement in public forums by scientists on the topic of AGW), Science itself doesn’t indicate what should be done with scientific knowledge. Science, molecular biology in particular, can tell you how to recombine DNA in new ways, but it doesn’t direct whether you should use that knowledge to correct a genetic disease, develop a bruise-resistant apple, or construct a new bacterium. For all important scientific advances I’m familiar with, one can imagine both positive and negative ways that knowledge could be used. Science provides information about, and assists in describing reality, we then step outside of Science when deciding how to use that knowledge.

  236. Another example of the limits of Science – this time at the individual level – is that Science doesn’t make aesthetic judgments. Science can reveal the frequency of a G-flat sound and how our eyes relay information about color to our brains, but Science cannot tell us whether a Beethoven symphony, a Kabuki performance, or a Marc Chagall painting is beautiful, boring, or ugly. Individuals make those decisions for themselves based on their own aesthetic criteria.

  237. These are observations in re the limitations on what Science can usefully speak. I present them to show that Science does not answer all questions.

    What then might Science say about the existence of God? Can it, accepting that its domain is the natural, prove that God, a supernatural entity by many accounts, exists?

  238. All that I see there, teabaggie, is yet more screaming and shouting to hide the fact that you’ve abandoned your unsupported claims and trying to hide that fact.

    Why?

    And why try spamming to hide that fact?

  239. All that I see there, teabaggie, is yet more screaming and shouting from you to hide the fact that you’ve abandoned your unsupported claims and trying to hide that fact.

    Why?

    And why try spamming to hide that fact?

    • “All that I see there, teabaggie, is yet more screaming and shouting from you …”
      Substituting argument with such discourtesy demonstrates unwillingness to remain on-topic.

  240. How then to reply to Ethan’s topic? Can Science usefully say much about the existence of God?

    The existence of God is a subject of debate in philosophy, the philosophy of religion, popular culture such as this forum. Moral judgments, aesthetic judgments, decisions are important and even vital to humanity, but those, and those about applications of science, and conclusions about the supernatural are outside the realm of science.

    Knowledge of ethics, aesthetics, and religion fundamentally influence human societies and how those societies interact with Science. Neither are such domains unscholarly; topics like aesthetics, morality, and theology are actively studied by philosophers, historians, and other scholars. However, questions that arise within these domains generally cannot be resolved by science.

    In philosophical terms, the notion of the existence of God involves the disciplines of epistemology (the nature and scope of knowledge) and ontology (study of the nature of being, existence, or reality). While interesting in their own right, epistemology and ontology are not usually considered to be scientific topics.

    Science has generated the knowledge that allows us to call a friend halfway around the world with a cell phone, vaccinate a baby against polio, build a skyscraper, and drive a car. Science helps us answer questions like which areas might be hit by a tsunami after an earthquake, how the hole in the ozone layer formed and how it might be closed, how crops can be protected from pests, and who were our evolutionary ancestors?

    With such marvelous, astonishing breadth, the reach of science might seem to be endless, but it is not. Science has definite limits.

  241. But, teabaggie, you’ve already displayed a complete disrecard for the need of your claims to be based on fact, or have any evidence for them. You even assert reality is different than it is in several ways, and a ridiculous disregard for the meaning of common English words.

    No claim you make can be taken as valid since there’s no way to tell if you’ve arrived at it via valid logical inference.

    It is just as apparently valid to answer the question with “Yes”, and say that god acting on this reality would create a difference that science could investigate and thereby prove god.

    The fact that science HAS proven the existence of so many things and the complete lack of anything it’s failed to prove exist despite existing is yet more evidence that you do not see. Not accept. You do not even see it.

    And your refusal to deal with your unsupported and baseless claims that can be supported easily by the information on tis blog thread alone indicates that this is the only method by which you have arrived at your assertion that the question must be answered “No”.

    But it ALSO indicates that your blank assertion, as well as being entirely unreliable, is pointless to argue against since you have no ability or desire to engage in genuine discussion of the claims you make.

  242. Substituting argument with such discourtesy

    Begging the question fallacy
    Tone argument informal ad hom fallacy

    Two logical fallacies engaged in one, teabaggie.

    Your refusal to accept your baseless claims or even attempt to support their reality with evidence but instead relying on blank assertion proves that your claim is known to be fallacious and that you have no ground on which to argue on ANY rational discussion.

  243. Science routinely adds to our knowledge of, and sometimes transforms our perceptions of the natural world and the process through which that knowledge is built. One such transformation of our perceptions of the natural world in described in Thomas Kuhn’s book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”. The process of “normal” Science relies on the testing of ideas with evidence gathered from the natural world. Science can investigate a vast range of questions:

    By what chemical reactions do bacteria get energy from the nutrients they absorb?
    Why is Jupiter’s red spot persistent? What causes it?
    Does smog affect women differently than it does men?

    Very few questions are off-limits in Science — but the sorts of answers Science can provide are limited. Science can only answer in terms of natural phenomena and natural processes. When one asks questions like “What is the meaning of life?” and “Does the soul exist?”, we generally expect answers that are outside of the natural world — and hence, outside of Science.

  244. I present them to show that Science does not answer all questions.

    This is irrelevant, because the question is not “Can science answer all questions”.

    But this is mere proof that your arguments and claims, unsupported by anything other than blank assertion are known to be fallacious and the conclusion unproven, despite the insistence it is true.

  245. Since you have refused to acknowledge your false and evidence free claims before, your continuing claim to truth is also rendered moot and unproven.

    Up your game, teabaggie, and show that you know what rational argument is before you make a claim of proof.

  246. I’ve never read Science precisely defined, but I think it can be broadly described by some common characteristics.

    SCIENCE ASKS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE NATURAL WORLD: Science studies the natural world. This includes physical universe around us like atoms, plants, ecosystems, people, societies and galaxies, as well as the natural forces at work on those things. In contrast, Science cannot study supernatural forces and explanations. For example, the idea that a supernatural afterlife exists is not a part of Science since this afterlife operates outside the rules that govern the natural world.

    SCIENCE TRIES TO EXPLAIN AND DESCRIBE: Science as a collective institution aims to produce a better and more accurate natural explanation of how the natural world works, what its components are, and how the world came to be the way it is now.

    SCIENCE WORKS WITH TESTABLE IDEAS: Only testable ideas are within the purview of Science. For an idea to be testable, it must logically generate specific expectations — in other words, a set of observations that we could expect to make if the idea were true and a set of observations that would be inconsistent with the idea and lead you to believe that it is not true. A scientific idea may require a lot of reasoning to work out an appropriate test, may be difficult to test, may require the development of new technological tools to test, or may require one to make independently testable assumptions to test — but to be scientific, an idea must be testable, somehow, someway.
    As Ethan has posted sometimes those tests are a long time coming: think Heisenberg’s Astrophysics Prediction (80 Years), and gravity waves (100 years or more).

    SCIENCE RELIES ON EVIDENCE: When all is said and done, scientific ideas must not only be testable, but must actually be tested — preferably with many different lines of evidence by many different people. This characteristic is at the heart of all Science. Scientists actively seek evidence to test their ideas — even if the test is difficult. Performing tests is important to Science because in Science, the acceptance or rejection of a scientific idea depends upon the evidence relevant to it — not upon dogma, popular opinion, tradition, or internet trolls.

    SCIENCE IS A GROUP EFFORT: Progress in Science depends on interactions within the scientific community (that is, the community of people and organizations that generate scientific ideas, test those ideas, publish scientific journals, organize conferences, train scientists, distribute research funds, etc.). The scientific community provides the cumulative knowledge base that allows Science to build on itself.

    SCIENTIFIC IDEAS LEAD TO ONGOING RESEARCH: Science is an ongoing endeavor. It did not end with the most recent edition of your college physics textbook and will not end even once we know the answers to big questions, such as how our 20,000 genes interact to build a human being or what dark matter is. So long as there are unexplored and unexplained parts of the natural world, Science will continue to investigate them. Most typically in Science, answering one question inspires deeper and more detailed questions for further research in the natural world.

    There are additional “checklist items” for what Science is, but I think these are generally accepted.

    What is missing from that list is the supernatural. The supernatural lies outside the domain of Science.

  247. Having provided several warrants for my stated position that the domain of Science is limited to the natural world, in the absence of any reasoned arguments to the contrary, that proposition will be taken as accepted.

  248. MAKING CAPS DOES NOT MAKE IT VALID.

    You have not yet understood what a rational argument is, therefore any attempt to parse your wild claims are a waste of time since they may be just as riddled of logical fallacies and blank assertion as the claim you continue to dance away from rather than face and clear up.

    Science can prove god exists. Unsupported assertions that just because there are mathematical problems that cannot be proven does not mean that god is a mathematical problem that cannot be proven.

    And just because there are unprovable mathematical problems does not mean science can’t prove gods existence, since one is talking about maths, the other science.

    • “MAKING CAPS DOES NOT MAKE IT VALID.”
      You have mistaken an editing technique for an assertion.

      If you review that comment, you’ll notice that the capitalized text is a heading for the following body text.

    • “… And just because there are unprovable mathematical problems does not mean science can’t prove gods existence, since one is talking about maths, the other science.”

      Mathematics is the science of pattern.

    • “… Unsupported assertions that just because there are mathematical problems that cannot be proven …”

      Ref Gödel’s proof of the Incompleteness Theorems that demonstrate the inherent limitations of every formal axiomatic system containing basic arithmetic for support,

  249. “Having provided several [unsubstantiated and irrelevant claims]”

    FTFY.

    You have not proven your claim is correct. Nor can you since you have demonstrated you do not know what rational argument is.

  250. Turning now to the other portion of Ethan’s question: God.

    “In monotheism, God is conceived of as the Supreme Being and principal object of faith. The concept of God as described by most theologians includes the attributes of omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), divine simplicity, and as having an eternal and necessary existence. Many theologians also describe God as being omnibenevolent (perfectly good) and all loving …” (Wikipedia)

    A few items of note here are that theologians, not scientists are identified as investigators. I note also that limitless quantities (infinite, unlimited, everywhere, etc.) are used.

    Scientists, being limited by their discipline to exploring the natural world are unable to bring their tools to bear on the supernatural. Further, limitless quantities are the exception, not the rule, when practicing Science. Ref here how commonly the singularity inside a black hole’s event horizon is described as the point where infinities occur and physics breaks down

    Taking these as generally accepted (though not, of course, by all) facts, it appears that the probability of Science being able to prove the existence of God.

  251. it appears that the probability of Science being able to prove the existence of God is very low indeed.

    But your claim was it could not.

    Why have you, after, what, 300 or more posts, now dropped your claim that science cannot prove the existence of god?

    If we take your route, the massive probability is that there is no god, and therefore logic proves god does not exist, science does not have to be asked.

    • That the probability of Science being able to prove the existence of God is very low indeed will do quite nicely for me.

      I let others tend tendentiously to absolutes.

  252. Scientists, being limited by their discipline to exploring the natural world are unable to bring their tools to bear on the supernatural

    Please show that the supernatural exists.

    • “Please show that the supernatural exists.”

      When one asks questions like “What is the meaning of life?” and “Does the soul exist?”, we generally expect answers that are outside of the natural world (supernatural) — and hence, outside of Science

      QED.

  253. And teabaggie now thinks that by ignoring the problems with his claims, and even ignoring that his claims are falling like dead flies, that he can continue on as if there were nothing untoward happening.

    Proving that it’s not just AGW teabaggie is in denial of, it’s everything on this thread.

    • “Proving that it’s not just AGW teabaggie is in denial of, it’s everything on this thread.”

      Off-topic (Can science prove the existence of God?) again.

  254. You have not yet understood what a rational argument is, therefore any attempt to parse your wild claims are a waste of time since they may be just as riddled of logical fallacies and blank assertion as the claim you continue to dance away from rather than face and clear up.

    Science can prove god exists. Unsupported assertions that just because there are mathematical problems that cannot be proven does not mean that god is a mathematical problem that cannot be proven.

    And just because there are unprovable mathematical problems does not mean science can’t prove gods existence, since one is talking about maths, the other science.

    • … And just because there are unprovable mathematical problems does not mean science can’t prove gods existence, since one is talking about maths, the other science.”

      Mathematics is the science of pattern.

    • “… because there are mathematical problems that cannot be proven does not mean that god is a mathematical problem that cannot be proven.”
      Nor was that claim advanced. What was pointed out was that Mathematics, the language of Science is unable to prove all the true statements it contains. Any one of those unprovable truths could be the proposition that Sciencecan prove the existence of God.

      A reasonable counter to that would be to demonstrate that the proposition of Science proving the existence of God it not one of the unprovable truths within the language.

    • “… Unsupported assertions that just because there are mathematical problems that cannot be proven …”

      Ref Gödel’s proof of the Incompleteness Theorems that demonstrate the inherent limitations of every formal axiomatic system containing basic arithmetic for support,

  255. If you have made no claim, teabaggie, then my assertion stands with its evidence, there being no claim to counter it.

  256. I have used generally accepted definitions of Science and God. I have also used generally accepted ideas about the limitations of Science to present a plausible, perhaps even persuasive, argument that the probability of Science being able to prove the existence of God is very low.

    There will always be those who will not be persuaded by this or that argument in favor of or in opposition to any claim. I’m comfortable with that. I have no expectations that People of Faith will change their mind. Hasnain is a representative of those who believe there is a God in the absence of proof, and we all know another who believes there is no God in the absence of proof. I let them enjoy their Faith as they wish, insofar as doing so does no violence to others.

    As I have commented before, I leave it to others to adopt and support absolute propositions. They are welcome to them.

  257. Re 422, again teabaggie lies.

    You’ve never said what defintion of god you’ve used. Despite many attempts to get anything about you.

    You have also failed entirely to comprehend the meaning of words like “prove”, “Another” and “evidence.

    And despite your wild accusations and slowly disappearing claims, the answer is still standing: Yes, science can prove the existence of god.

  258. I refer teabagger here to my previous questions.

    Why won’t he answer them?

    Because he knows he has no ground to stand on and “learned” his lesson when his fallacious claims were queried and, instead of admitting error or, at least, avoiding seeing the query, doubled down, then tripled down on the unsubstantiated and fallacious claims.

    So teabagger is ensuring that there is no actual solid definition from him so he can hide in the uncertainty.

    “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.”
    ―Thomas Jefferson

  259. teabagger, please stop.
    Ethan, the only way to get this moron to end is to close this thread and stop this moron shitting all over the blog.

  260. Wikipedia is a reliable source for general reference. All the points made here are available there.

    If there are any details that need to be fleshed out in re Science’s inability to prove the existence of God, fell free to inquire.

  261. Well, the problem with that is that I look at the definition and nowhere does it support your claims, teabagger.

    And mine is still fine. Yes, science can prove the existence of god.

    • “… the problem with that is that I look at the definition and nowhere does it support your claims …”
      I’m pleased to see you’re following along. When one develops a line as a series of posts, it can be lonely, but I can on at least count you to read them, if not necessarily to agree with them.

      It’s unfortunate that you are having such a difficult time using Wikipedia, but keep at it, it will get easier the more you use it. The portion on God was a direct quote, so I’m confident that wasn’t the one that you couldn’t manage.

      Where are you having trouble? I’ve corrected your misunderstanding of the Science checklist headings, so that can’t be it. Do you disagree with them? Do you think that any are not representative characteristics of Science? Do you think there should be others?

      “… Yes, science can prove the existence of god.”
      Sure, by all means then, feel free to try.

  262. #412: So no, teabaggie can’t prove it exists.

    Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise.

    And re: #417: again still incapable of showing that god is a mathematical problem impossible to solve. False attribution.

    But as to the WP definition, if teabaggie here thinks otherwise, maybe he can show me what I missed in the definition.

    But he’ll probably demand I prove his claim first…

    • “… maybe he can show me what I missed in the definition.”
      I am uncertain I will be able to live long enough to achieve such a Herculean feat.

  263. “Why have you stopped your unsubstantiated claim that science can’t prove the existence of god …”

    As my opinion that Science cannot prove the existence of God passed without comment

    Your response was a lie, teabaggie, remember. You need to do more than make blank assertion, you have to substantiate your claims, whatever they are.

    Therefore you still haven’t answered my question.

    And I’ve been waiting for about 80 posts.

    • “And I’ve been waiting for about 80 posts”
      Then I am most fortunate to have such a virtuous interlocutor as you, for patience, we are taught, is a Virtue.

  264. The generally accepted definitions of Science and God I took from (quoted in the instance of God, paraphrased in the case of Science) Wikipedia. I used generally accepted ideas about the limitations of Science to present a reasonable argument that the probability of Science being able to prove the existence of God is very low. For those who might be struggling with one or another, let me know where you need guidance, and I’ll try to help.
    That said, I freely accept that there will be those who will not be persuaded by this or any argument they disagree with. I’m comfortable with that. I have no expectations that People of Faith will change their mind. Faith can be very limiting. So be it.

  265. No John, godels work doesn’t apply here. You don’t even seem to understand what it says. Hint: it doesn’t say there are true statements whose validity can’t be determined. Which of his theorems are you trying to use?

  266. Heck, I’m still trying to get teabaggie here to understand what evidence is. And “another”.

    But, teabaggie, looking through, I fail to see what you think I missed out, only yet more blank assertion without evidence. And a failure to understand what words means.

    “… Yes, science can prove the existence of god.”
    Sure, by all means then, feel free to try.

    I succeeded. It’s out there several times. Let me know what you don’t understand. When it’s actually specific, please. I’m not taking you back to 3rd grade because you skipped it.

    • ” It’s out there several times.”
      Can you provide the comment number where you proved that Science can prove the existence of God?

  267. ” I used generally accepted ideas about the limitations of Science to present a reasonable argument that the probability of Science being able to prove the existence of God is very low”

    Ah, another fallacy. Appeal to probability.

  268. Is anyone still having problems with the generally accepted definitions of Science and God I took from (quoted in the instance of God, paraphrased in the case of Science) Wikipedia?

    As I used generally accepted ideas about the limitations of Science to present a reasonable argument that the probability of Science being able to prove the existence of God is very low, I would have expected most, if not all, the readers of this thread to understand.

    If anyone is struggling with one or another, let me know where you need guidance, and I’ll try to help.

    Of course, I freely accept that there will be those who will not be persuaded by this or any argument they disagree with. I’m comfortable with that. I have no expectations that People of Faith will change their mind. That’s just the way they are.

  269. I’m not having any problems. I’m fine with them. They don’t support your claim. So my claim, that science can prove the existence of god, remains untarnished.

    If you have problems with this, maybe you need to check that wikipedia definition again and tell me where you have gotten confused, teabaggie.

    PS I note you haven’t answered dean’s question either. Still asking a grown up to get you an answer?

  270. Can you provide the comment number where you proved that Science can prove the existence of God?

    You claim to have succeeded several times in comment (current) #438.

  271. John, you haven’t done squat to argue about the probability of anything. You’ve simply said that not seeing how something could happen means the probability is small (I think: your exposition is terrible).

    • Are you having problems with the generally accepted definitions of Science and God I took from (quoted in the instance of God, paraphrased in the case of Science) Wikipedia?

  272. You’ve simply said that not seeing how something could happen means the probability is small

    Dean, back in the 200s, teabaggie here was insisting that science CAN’T prove god. A claim he only recently recanted (like 40 posts ago), so no wonder you haven’t seen it in all the shitposting he’s done.

    I had to clear him up on that score, but

    a) Never a word of thanks
    b) Never an acceptance that he changed his tune either

    So I don’t think we can accord any positive step in his early learning progress to this change.

    And I notice that teabaggie is back to trying to get me to answer a different question while ignoring both yours and mine.

    Like I said, we can’t accord this change in claims any positive step in his early learning progress.

  273. And apologies to any readers of SWAB. Until Ethan reins in this nutcase, there’s no chance of getting anything useful from this site.

  274. “I’m not having any problems. I’m fine with them. …”
    That’s good to read. Now that you have acknowledged you are fine with what I have posted about the limits to science, return to Wikipedia, and search on “Empirical limits in science”. Just in case that presents difficulties to you, I’ll quote what’s there: “In philosophy of science, the empirical limits of science define problems with observation, and thus are limits of human ability to inquire and answer questions about phenomena. These include topics such as infinity, the future and god. In the 20th century several of these were well-documented or proposed in physics:”

    Further, as you seem to have mastered some level of Wikipedia searching, I shall assume you were able to find the entry for “Science”. Perhaps that’s not so, but I’m an optimistic guy. If you scroll all the way down to Certainty and science, you can read what Karl Popper has to say, but I’ll quote it here anyway: “He wrote that scientific knowledge “consists in the search for truth,” but it “is not the search for certainty … All human knowledge is fallible and therefore uncertain.” ]”

    Now that you and I – we – both know that the limits to science include attributes that you read in my other quote from Wikipedia (you remember – the one about God – comment [current] #407) as well as explicitly identifying god (see, I’m even doing it in lower case, now that we both agree), you are therefore on board (“I’m not having any problems. I’m fine with them. …” comment [current] #443) with the notion that Science cannot prove the existence of God.an

    Hey, it was fun!

  275. “I’m not having any problems. I’m fine with them. …”

    That’s good to read. Now that you have acknowledged you are fine with

    And you’re back to the same making stuff up again, teabaggie. Please stick to reality, there’s a good lad and try that again. From the top, please.

  276. “For those who are willing to discard the scientific method to shore up their position…”

    Teabaggie here is not one to talk to, since you have to attempt the scientific method before it can be discarded.

    If you want to find out how to discard earlier false claims and pretend that this was never the case, he’s your go-to guy…

  277. Is anyone having problems with the generally accepted definitions of Science and God I took from (quoted in the instance of God, paraphrased in the case of Science) Wikipedia?

    Not you wow, you’ve already commented that you’re fine with them (comment [current] #443).

    As I used generally accepted ideas about the limitations of Science to present a reasonable argument that the probability of Science being able to prove the existence of God is very low, I would have expected most, if not all, the readers of this thread to understand.

    For those having difficulties with one or another of the ideas presented here (and there), let me know where you need guidance, and I’ll try to help.

    Inevitably, there will be those who will remain convinced they’re right, and not be persuaded by this or any argument they disagree with. I’m OK with that. I have no expectations that People of Faith will change their mind. I suspect it’s very difficult for them to do so.

  278. John, again, you haven’t given argument involving probability, all you’ve done is use the word – in regards to what isn’t clear.

    • Dean,

      Good evening. As you’ve not commented about them, I’ll let the comments I’ve presented about Science, the Limits of the Scientific Domain, and God stand.

      While my personal opinion is that it should be apparent to all who examine the particulars that Science, being bounded to the natural world, is obviously unable to prove that God, a supernatural entity, exists, I’m always ready to acknowledge that I may be mistaken, and so I assign a very low probability to that outcome, rather than a probability of zero.

      That said, it is true that nothing I’ve read to date in this thread has increased that very low probability.

      Certainly nothing posted by the foul mouth troll.

  279. So I was correct John, you don’t know what you’re doing.

    Now that we know there is no intent on his part to be serious, PJ gives good advice.

    • Dean,

      “… you don’t know what you’re doing”

      If you don’t mind me asking, what is your reason for that statement? I’d like to know what I posted that brought it out of you.

  280. “Can science prove the existence of God?”, not if this or that POV or frame of reference is better than another.
    Please stay on-topic.”
    You want to see God in a laboratory?

    When the experimental sciences demonstrate that the elements and natural factors cannot exert any independent influence and do not possess any creativity; when all of our experiences, our sensory feelings, and our rational deductions point to the conclusion that nothing occurs in nature without a reason and cause and that all phenomena are based on an established system and specific laws, when all of this is the case, it is surprising that some people turn their backs on scientific principles, primary deductions and propositions based on reflection, and deny the existence of the Creator.

    Now, too, in the age of science and technology, when man has found his way into space, a considerable number of scientists have a religious outlook as part of the intellectual system; they have come to believe in the existence of a creator, a source for all beings, not only by means of the heart and the conscience, but also through deduction and logic.

    http://www.al-islam.org/god-and-his-attributes-sayyid-mujtaba-musawi-lari/lesson-8-pseudo-scientific-demagoguery

    There is something which we all know, and it was born after the existence of the earth, namely: life. Our scientists state that earth was too hot (and some of them say it was too cold) for any kind of life to exist on it. It took the earth millions of years to become a suitable place for life. Life, therefore, is, undoubtedly, a newborn.

    Science, however, tells us that life does not originate from non-living being. Pasteur’s experiment, which took place in the 19th century, is still standing. Through his sterilized soup, he proved beyond any doubt that life does not originate from inanimate material. The scientists of today are still unable to disprove his conclusion.

    The earth, along with its atmosphere, at the time of its formation was sterile and unproductive. Transforming the inanimate materials, such as carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and iron into a living being could not, therefore, be done through a natural process. It must have been done miraculously.

    This means that the existence of life on this planet is a shining evidence on the existence of an Intelligent, Supernatural Designer.

    http://www.al-islam.org/inquiries-about-islam-mohamad-jawad-chirri

    • Hasnain,

      “Transforming the inanimate materials, such as carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and iron into a living being could not, therefore, be done through a natural process. It must have been done miraculously.”

      That is not necessarily true. While the emergence of life may have been caused by a non-natural actor, that is not the only way it could have happened.

      The Miller–Urey experiment demonstrated that most amino acids can be synthesized from inorganic compounds under conditions that are thought to be similar to those of the early Earth. The Earth is, by some estimates, 4.5 billion years old. Terrestrial life is, by some estimates approximately 4 billion years old. Even if a natural process such as Abiogenesis is unlikely (has a low probability of happening) at any particular moment, 500 million years may have been long enough for that to occur.

      Just a reminder: the thread topic Ethan posted is “Can science prove the existence of God?”, not “Does God exist?”.

  281. dean, you’ll find that teabaggie here doesn’t do proofs or answer questions. If you dare to ask him one, he’ll misundertand or demand you get answering or even that you are “off topic”. Or just flat out denial.

    I’m still waiting for him to address the massive fraudulence in his actions some 150-200 posts ago. Which request only caused him to shitpost intil there were enough posts of no content between now and then to stop anyone trying to find out what’s going on with him.

    Apparently he wants to be the only one to decide what faith is (and science is a faith to him), and that god really could exist (even if he can’t say what it is) and that anyone not agreeing with him is just non science.

    Teabaggie here is just a moron.

    PJ, another way to look at this is giving the retard the opportunity to manufacture more rope to hang himself with.

  282. While the scientific method is a powerful tool, it does have its limitations. These limitations are based on the fact that a scientific theory or hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable (ref Popper) and that experiments and observations be repeatable. This places certain topics beyond the reach of the scientific method, which operates in the natural world. Science cannot prove or refute the existence of God or any other supernatural entity.

  283. Any god actions that change this universe can be investigated by science and therefore, yes, science can prove the existence of god.

    That it hasn’t is because there’s no god to exist.

  284. “That it hasn’t is because there’s no god to exist.”
    That is not necessarily true. While that which des not exist cannot be measured, the lack of a measurement does not require the non-existence of an entity. (ref Wikipaedia, “Empirical limits in science”).Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

  285. But absence causes the evidence to be absent, teabaggie.

    Every single time we’ve looked where god was supposed to be, he wasn’t there.

    You apologetics crack me up. You go off and find some authority to tell you how your condescending attitude to both the religious (they must have their religion, it makes them happy) and reality (we can’t say because we might be wrong, so we say we can’t) can be argued, your diatribe and un-baked “ideas” are, as dean has shown, completely empty of comprehension.

    Because you haven’t looked at this, you’ve been told this.

    Absence of evidence when there was supposed to be evidence is evidence of absence.

    And we have that in spaces for god.

    Any act god takes on this reality can be investigated by science and thereby prove that god’s existence.

    The fact that we haven’t done this is because there’s no god.

    • “… as dean has shown …”
      You are mistaken.
      Dean has claimed, but not shown. His claim is, to date, unwarranted.

  286. “inanimate materials,”
    All beings were originally non-beings; they were non-existent, and then they became existent. Deluded atheists wish to say that the energy/matter/universe/natural forces/ etc are eternal, but this notion is incorrect for the following reasons:

    First, if the material energy/matter/universe/natural forces/ etc are eternal, it follows that an eternal being should be subject to change and cessation, which is impossible.

    “Second, if the elements comprising the energy/matter/universe/natural forces/ etc are eternal by virtue of their essence, how is it possible that they should enter the embrace of death and disappearance?

    And if, conversely, they lack life in their essences, how can life surge forth from them?

    “If you say that living beings emerge from living elements and **inanimate** beings from inanimate elements, we reply that an essence that lacks life in and of itself cannot be eternal and cannot be the source for life.

    Belief in the eternity of the energy/matter/universe/natural forces/ etc is held by those who deny the existence of a ruler and planner of creation, reject the messengers of God, regard the books they bring as the fables of the ancients, and **concoct** beliefs pleasing to themselves.

    • “… And if, conversely, they lack life in their essences, how can life surge forth from them?”
      Life can de described as an emergent rather than an immanent or inherent property of matter.

  287. Physicalism is the philosophical position that everything which exists is no more extensive than its physical properties, and that the only existing substance is physical.

    If one defines Physicalism as the belief that the universe is only composed of everything known by physics, one can point out that physics cannot describe how the mind functions; if Physicalism is defined as anything which may be described by physics in the future, then one is really saying nothing.

  288. “there’s no god to exist.”
    Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq (a.s.) and Abu Shakir
    Ja’far as-Sadiq (a.s.) was one of the most patient and tolerant teachers of his time. He used to take his classes every day. After his lectures he would listen and reply to the objections of his critics. He had asked his critics, who attended his classes, not to interrupt him during his lectures. They were quite free to ask him any question or raise any objection after the classes were over.

    Once Abu Shakir, one of his opponents, said to him: “Would you allow me to say something and ask some questions?”

    “Yes, you can”, replied Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq.

    Said Abu Shakir: “Is it not a myth that there is Allah? You want people to believe in a thing which does not exist. If there was Allah, we could have felt his existence through our senses. You may say that we can feel His presence by the help of our inner senses, but our inner senses also depend upon our five outer senses. We cannot conjure up an image of anything in which some of our senses were not involved. We cannot conjure up the picture of a person whom we have not met; recall to our memory his voice if we have not heard him and feel the touch of his hand by our inner senses if we have never taken his hand in our hand.”

    “You may say that we can perceive the presence of Allah by our intelligence and not through our inner or outer senses. But our intelligence also needs the assistance of our five outer senses, without which it cannot function. We cannot make any reasoning or come to any conclusion without the help of our senses.

    By your imagination you have created a being, which is of your own image. Since you see, talk, hear, work and rest, He also does exactly what you do.”

    “You do not show Him to anyone. To maintain your hold on the people you say that He cannot be seen. You also say that He was not born from the womb of a woman. He does not procreate and that He would not die. I have heard that there is an idol in India, which is hidden behind a curtain and is not allowed to be seen by the Hindu devotees. The custodians of the idol say that it is out of mercy that their god does not appear before them, because whoever casts his eyes on it, would instantly die.”

    “Your Allah is also like the veiled god of the Hindus. It is out of His mercy that He does not appear before us. If he does, we shall surely die. You say that the universe was created by Allah, who did not talk to anyone, except to the Prophet of Islam. As a matter of fact the universe came by itself. Does anyone create the grass, which grows in the field? Does it not grow and get green by itself? Does anyone create the ants and the mosquitoes? Do they not come out by themselves?”

    “I must tell you, who claims to be a scholar and the successor of the Prophet, that among all the stories, which circulate among the people, none is more absurd and baseless than the story of Allah, who cannot be seen. There are many baseless stories, but they, at least, depict real life and present before us the people and personalities, who may themselves be fictitious, but their acts and deeds are like those of real human beings. We can see them.

    They eat, they drink, they talk, they sleep and they love. When we read these fictitious stories, we enjoy them. We know that they are false, but we see in them the faces of men and women, who are like us. The people mentioned in the stories might not have existed, but our common sense accepts existence of such people in the world. However, when we cannot see, feel or touch your Allah, our logic and reasoning, which depend upon our senses, do not accept his existence.”

    “l know that some people, who have been deceived by you, believe in your invisible Allah, but you cannot deceive me and make me believe in Him. I worship God, who is made of wood and stone. Although my God does not talk, but I can see him with my eyes and touch him with my hands.”

    “You say that the God whom I have made from my own hands is not worthy of being worshipped, while you ask the people to worship Allah, you have created by your imagination. You deceive innocent people by saying that your imaginary Allah has created the universe, but I do not deceive anyone. No one created the universe. There was no need of any god to create it. It came by itself. God cannot create anything. He is himself our creation. I created him by my hand and you by your imagination.”

    Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq (a.s.) did not say a word during the long tirade of Abu Shakir. Sometimes his students, who were present, wanted to intervene but he asked them to remain quiet. When Abu Shakir stopped his lengthy discourse, the Imam asked him, if he had anything more to say.

    Retorted Abu Shakir: “By introducing your invisible Allah to the people, you want to acquire wealth and position and have a respectable, comfortable and luxurious life. These are my last words. I do not want to say anything more.”

    Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq (a.s.) said: “l would like to start with the last part of your speech. Your accusations that I want money, position and a comfortable life would have been justified if I was living like a caliph. You have seen today that I have eaten a few morsels of bread only and nothing else. I invite you to my house to see for yourself what I will have for dinner and how I live.”

    “Abu Shakir, if I wanted to acquire wealth and have a good life, as you say, I was not obliged to teach and preach to get rich. I would have earned money and got rich by my knowledge of chemistry. Another way to get rich was to do business. I have more knowledge’ about foreign markets than any merchant in Medina. I know what goods are produced in different countries and where to sell them for profit. I also know how to bring them here to reduce the cost of transport. Our merchants import goods only from Syria, Iraq, Egypt and some other Arab countries. They do not know what goods are available in Isphahan, Rasht and Rome, otherwise they would have imported them and sold them with profit.”

    “Abu Shakir, you have said that I ask the people to worship Allah to deceive them and to get rich. I must tell you that I have never taken anything from anyone, except some fruits as presents. One of my friends sends to me every year fresh dates from his garden and another some pomegranates from Taif. I accept these presents so that they may not get offended.”

    “I have heard, O Abu Shakir, that your father was a pearl merchant. Perhaps you may have some knowledge about pearls. But I know all about pearls and precious stones. I can also appraise their market value. If I wanted to get rich I would have worked as a jeweller. Can you test and recognise a precious stone? Do you know how many kinds of rubies and emeralds there are in the world?”

    “I know nothing about them”, replied Abu Shakir.

    “Do you know how many kinds of diamonds there are and what colours they have?” asked Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq.

    “I do not know”, replied Abu Shakir.

    Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq said: “I am not a jeweler, but I know all about the pearls and precious stones. I also know where they come from. All jewelers must know about gems, what I know, but few of them know their sources.”

    “Do you know what makes a diamond shine?”

    “I never was a diamond merchant, nor was my father. How can I know why diamonds shine?; replied Abu Shakir.

    Said the Imam: “Diamonds are obtained from the beds of rivers and streams. Rough diamonds are cut by experts. This is the cut of a diamond, which gives it its brilliance. Those who are experts in cutting diamonds are trained from the childhood in the profession of their fathers and forefathers. Cutting a diamond is a very delicate and difficult art. A diamond is cut only by a diamond.”

    “Abu Shakir, I have said all this simply to show to you that if I wanted to accumulate wealth, I could have done so by making use of my knowledge about jewels. I have replied to your accusations and now I shall deal with your objections.”

    “Abu Shakir, you have said that I have fabricated stories and ask the people to worship Allah, who cannot be seen. You refuse to acknowledge existence of Allah, because He cannot be seen. Can you see inside your own body?”

    Replied Abu Shakir: “No, I cannot.”

    Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq said: “If you could have seen what is inside you, you would not have said that you do not believe in Allah, who cannot be seen.”

    Abu Shakir asked: “What is the relationship between seeing within one’s own body and the existence of your unseen Allah?”

    Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq (a.s.) replied: “You have said just now that a thing, which cannot be seen, touched, tasted or heard, does not exist.”

    Abu Shakir said: “Yes, I have said that and I believe it is true.”

    Ja’far as-Sadiq asked: “Do you hear the sound of the movement of blood in your body?”

    Said Abu Shakir: “No, I do not. But does blood move in the body?

    Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq (a.s.) said: “Yes, it does. It makes a full circuit of your body. If the circulation of blood stops for a few minutes you will die.”

    Abu Shakir said: “I cannot believe that blood circulates in the body.”

    Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq said: “It is your ignorance, which does not let you believe that your blood circulates in your body, and the same ignorance does not let you believe in the existence of Allah, Who cannot be seen.”

    Then the Imam asked Abu Shakir whether he has seen the tiny living beings, which Allah has created in his body.

    Ja’far as-Sadiq continued: “It is because of these small creatures and their wonderful work that you are kept alive. They are so small that you cannot see them. Since you are a slave of your senses, you do not know about their existence. If you increase your knowledge and decrease your ignorance, you will come to know that these small beings in your body are as large in number as the particles of sand in the desert. These small creatures are born in your body, multiply in your body, work in your body and die in your body. But you never see them, touch them, taste them or hear them in your life time.”

    “It is true that one who knows himself knows his Allah. If you had known yourself and had the knowledge of what is going on inside your body, you would not have said that you do not believe in Allah, without seeing Him.”

    Pointing his finger to a huge stone he said: “Abu Shakir, do you see the stone, which is in the foot of that portico? To you it seems lifeless and motionless, because you do not see the brisk motion, which is inside the stone. Again it is lack of knowledge or your ignorance, which would not let you believe that there is motion inside the stone. The time will come when the learned people would see the motion which is in the stone.”

    Continued the Imam: “Abu Shakir, you have said that everything in the universe came by itself and has no Creator. You think that the grass in the field grows and gets green by itself.

    You must know that the grass cannot grow without seeds and seeds would not germinate without moisture in the soil and there would be no moisture if no rain falls. The rain does not fall by itself. First the water vapours rise and gather above in the atmosphere in the form of clouds. The winds bring the clouds. Then the water vapours condense and fall down as rain drops. The rain must also fall at the right time, otherwise no grass will grow and become green.

    Take the seeds of ten kinds of herbs and put them in a closed jar, which has sufficient water, but no air. Would they germinate? No, in addition to water, seeds need air also. It is possible to grow grass, herbs and fruits in hot houses, when it is very cold, provided there is sufficient air. Without the presence of air no grass will grow in the fields and get green. If there is no air, all plants and animals, including human beings, would die.”

  289. “Abu Shakir, do you see the air, on which your very existence depends. You only feel it when it moves. Can you refuse to believe in the existence of air? Can you deny that to grow and get green the grass needs many things like seeds, soil, water, air, a suitable climate and above all a strong managing power, which may co-ordinate the action of these different elements. That Managing and Coordinating Power is Allah.”

    “You say that everything comes by itself because you are not a scientist. No scientist would ever say that. All scientists and all scholars believe in the existence of a creator, albeit, they may call Him by different names. Even those, who do not believe in Allah, believe in a Creative Force.”

    “Abu Shakir, it is not because of one’s knowledge, but it is due to his ignorance that he does not believe in Allah. When a wise man thinks of himself, he finds that his own body needs a controller so that all its organs and systems may function properly. He then realises that this vast universe also needs a controller or supervisor so that it may run smoothly.”

    “You said just now that both of us create our own gods – you by your hands and I by my imagination. But there is a big difference between your god and my Allah. Your god did not exist before you made him out of wood or stone, but my Allah was there before I could think about Him. I do not create my Allah by my hands or by my brain. What I do is to know Him better and think of His Greatness. When you see a mountain you try to know more about it. It is not creating the mountain by imagination. That mountain was there before you saw it and it would be there when you are gone.”

    ‘You cannot know much about the mountain because of your limited knowledge. The more your knowledge grows, the more you will learn about it. It is impossible for you to find out when and how that mountain came into being and when it would disappear. You cannot find out what minerals are there inside or underneath the mountain and what is their benefit to mankind.”

    “Do you know that the stones, out of which you make your idols came into being thousands of years ago and shall exist for thousands of years more. These stones have come here from a distant place. They could travel that long journey because different parts of the earth are always moving, but this movement is so slow that you do not feel it. There is nothing in the universe, which is not in motion. Rest or motionlessness is meaningless. We are not at rest even when we are sleeping. We are in motion because the earth is in motion. Besides, we have a motion inside our own bodies.”

    “Abu Shakir, if you had any knowledge about the piece of stone, out of which you carve an idol, you would not have denied the existence of Allah and said that I have created Him by my imagination. You do not know what a stone is and how it came into being. Today you can handle it as you like and cut it into any shape or form, but there was a time when it was in liquid state. Gradually it cooled down and Allah solidified it. In the beginning it was quite brittle and would have broken into pieces in your hand like a piece of glass.”

    Asked Abu Shakir: “Was it in a liquid condition before?”

    “Yes, it was”, replied Ja’far asSadiq (a.s.)

    Abu Shakir burst into a peal of laughter. One of the students of Ja’far as-Sadiq got angry and was about to say something when he was stopped by his teacher.

    Abu Shakir said: “I am laughing because you say that the stones are made of water.”

    Ja’far as-Sadiq (a.s.) replied: “I did not say that the stones are made of water. What I had said was that in the beginning they were in a liquid state.”

    Abu Shakir said: “What difference does it make. The liquid and water are the same things.”

    Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq replied: “There are many liquids which are not water. Milk and vinegar are liquids, but they are not water, although they have a water content in them. In the beginning the stones were liquid like water and they flowed like water. Gradually they cooled down and became hard so that you could cut them and make them into idols. The same hard stones will turn into liquid, if they are heated.”

    Said Abu Shakir: “When I go home I will check the truth of your statement. I will put the stone in the fireplace and see if it turns into liquid or not.”

    Said the Imam: “You cannot liquefy stone in your fireplace. Can you liquefy a piece of iron at home? A very high temperature is required to turn solid stone into liquid.”

    Cont…
    “Do you realise how you could make the idols out of stones? It was Allah, who made the stones. It was He Who created you and gave you the hands with the unique fingers, which enabled you to handle tools and chisel out the idols from the stones. Again it was He who gave you power and intelligence, which you used in making the idols.”

  290. “Abu Shakir, do you think that the mountains are only heaps of stones? The Great Allah has created them to serve some very useful purpose. They were not created so that you may take stones and turn them into idols. Wherever there is a mountain there is flowing water. Rain and snow which fall on the mountain tops produce streams of fresh water. These streams combine together to form big rivers, which irrigate farms and fields. The people who live in the valleys, through which the rivers flow, are assured of constant supply of water. People who can afford it, go to the mountains during the summer season to escape the heat of the plains.”

    “The mountains work as a great bulwark and protect towns and villages, which are in their valleys from the devastation and destruction of hurricanes. Green mountains provide good grazing grounds for sheep. When scorching heat burns the pastures down in the plains and no fodder is left, the shepherds take their flocks of sheep to the mountains and stay there till the end of summer. Mountains are also habitats of birds and animals, some of which are a good source of food for those, who live there. Even the mountains, which are not green, are not without some use. If the people try, they may discover in them mines of metals and minerals which are useful for mankind.”

    “Abu Shakir, I am too small and too weak to create Allah with my brain. It is He, who has created my brain, so that I may think of Him and know Him – my Creator. He was there before I came into being and He would be there when I am no more. I do not mean that I would be totally destroyed. Nothing in the universe is totally destroyed. Everything is subject to change. It is only Allah, Who does not change.”

    “Abu Shakir, please tell me sincerely to whom will you turn for help when you are in trouble? Do you hope that the idol you carve out of stone can come to your succour? Can it cure you when you are sick; save you from mishaps and calamities; save you from starvation and help you pay your debts?”

    Abu Shakir replied: “I have no such expectations from the stone, but, I think there is something inside the stone, which will help me. Moreover, I cannot help worshipping it.”

    Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq enquired: “What is inside the stone? Is it also stone?”

    “I do not know what it is. But it cannot help me if it is also stone,” replied Abu Shakir.

    Said Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq: “Abu Shakir, what is inside the stone and is not stone and can help when you are in trouble is, Allah.”

    Abu Shakir pondered over the subject for a while and then said: “Is Allah, who cannot be seen, inside the stone?”

    The Imam replied: “He is everywhere.”

    Abu Shakir said: “I cannot believe that a thing may be everywhere but remain unseen.”

    The Imam said: “Do you know that the air is everywhere but cannot be seen?”

    Said Abu Shakir: “Although I cannot see the air, I can, at least, feel it when it moves. But I can neither see your Allah nor feel his presence.”

    Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq said: “You do not feel the presence of air when it is not moving. The air is only a creation of Allah. He is everywhere, but you cannot see Him or feel His presence by your senses. You have admitted just now that although you do not see it, but your instinct or your soul tells you that there is something inside the stone, and is not the stone, which can help you. That something is Allah. Your instinct also tells you that you cannot live without Allah and without worshipping Him.”

    Abu Shakir said: “It is true. I cannot live without worshipping idols.”

    Said Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq: “Do not say idols. Say Allah. It is He, Who is worthy of worship. just like you everyone is obliged to worship Him. One, who does not worship Allah has no guide and no guardian. He is just like one, who cannot see, cannot hear, cannot feel and cannot think. He does not know where to go and on whom to depend when in trouble. Worshipping Allah is a part of living. Every living being worships Him instinctively. Even the animals cannot live without worshipping Him. We cannot ask them and they cannot tell us that they worship Allah, but their well regulated and orderly life is sufficient proof that they worship Him.

    “I do not say that the animals believe in Allah and worship Him just as we do. But there is no doubt that they obey the laws made by their Creator faithfully, which means they worship Him. If they were not obedient to their Creator, they could not have such an orderly and regulated life.”

    “We see that just before the advent of spring the titmouse (a kind of small bird) always comes at the same time and sings, as if to give us the tiding of the new season. The itinerary of these migratory birds is so regulated and their schedule so fixed that even if the last days of winter are still cold, their arrival is not delayed for more than a few days. When Chilchila (a migratory bird) returns after covering a distance of thousands of miles, it builds its nest at the same place, where it had built it last spring. Was it possible for these small birds to have such a well organised life if they did not obey the laws of Allah and worship Him?”

    “Abu Shakir, even the plants obey the laws made by Allah faithfully and worship Him. Out of 150 species of plants, which are further divided into hundreds of sub-species you will not find even one plant, which has a disorganised and disorderly life.”

    “Abu Shakir, just like us the plants also do not see their Creator, but they worship Him by obeying His laws instinctively.”

    “I know that you will not accept, or perhaps you do not understand, what I say. A man must have sufficient knowledge to understand complicated problems.”

    “Abu Shakir, not only animals by their animal instinct and plants by their plant instinct obey Allah and worship Him, the lifeless and inanimate objects also, with whatever instinct they have, obey Allah and worship Him. If they did not worship Him, they would not have followed the laws made by Him. As a result, their atoms would have broken apart and they would have been destroyed.”

    “The light which comes from the sun also worships Allah by obeying his laws, which are very stringent and exact. It comes into being by the combination of two opposite forces. These forces also obey the laws of Allah and worship Him, otherwise they cannot produce light.”

    “Abu Shakir, if there was no Allah there would have been no universe and no you and me. The sentence, “There is no Allah’, is meaningless. The existence of Allah is a must. If attention of Allah is diverted, even for a moment from the affairs of the universe to something else, it would break up. Everything in the universe obeys His laws, which are permanent and eternal. Because of His absolute wisdom and knowledge, He could make such wonderful laws, which will last for ever. Each and every law, made by Him serves some special and useful purpose.”

    When the Imam concluded his discourse, Abu Shakir fell into a deep reverie as if he was greatly inspired.

    Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq asked: “Do you now believe that Allah, who cannot be seen, does exist and what you worship is the unseen Allah?”

    Cont…
    Abu Shakir replied: “I am not yet convinced. I am in a quandary. I am full of doubts and misgivings about my faith and my convictions.”

    Ja’far as-Sadiq remarked: “The doubt about idol worship is the beginning of the worship of Allah.”

  291. And while you’re checking your sock drawer, teabaggie, show that I’m wrong about science being able to prove the existence of god.

  292. I guess, though, that the absence of evidence for teabaggies claims are not evidence the evidence doesn’t exist

  293. @ WOW,#466
    my #461 is the only way. Ignore him and Hasninsane. Why Ethan allows this, I have no idea. Perhaps he ignores the tripe as well.
    Catch up on another topic. As I stated earlier, this was always going to happen re the header.
    Cheers, it’s early afternoon for you, near past my bedtime. Old farts need our beauty sleep.

  294. Hang on, according to the philosophical underpinnings of why there should be freedom of speech is that the only valid counter to bad ideas is good ideas, not the suppression of ideas.

    All I’m doing is living up to the only philosophical argument that makes it uncomfortable for Ethan to shut them up and stop supplying an uneding and free transport for their disparate Worlds of Batshit.

    The idea of the shitpost pen was workable, but only with the concession of reasonable people (and,fuck me, denier and even ragbat medium,if he’s not actually sockpuppeting as “john” here as he clearly WANTS to imply, would be included in “reasonable people”, that’s how low this bar is).

    Fruitloops like hassan and john aren’t even interested in anything other than using this free platform to shitpost this blog out of existence.

    The worst thing I’m doing is not slowing down the shitposting.

    The crashing of the scienceblog part of ethan’s work is merely the result of his inaction against them and his action of giving them a free platform to talk complete bollocks.

    Deltoid is now being shitposted by two denier trolls. The owner does nothing but produce the occasional open thread and otherwise avoids all contact or effort in the “work”, and so only a few people were left to stem the tide of bullshit.

    And due to lambert’s aggressive lack of action and steadfast disdain of reality-crushing morons, I’ve had to leave Jeff alone with the deniers crowing about their win and now emboldened to give jeff an even worse time, now that their shitposting has made me give up as you are telling me to do now.

    Jeff is not merely alone, he’s now alone against invigorated toxic morons who now have a proof that their sewage works, all they need is to up the pressure and hose reality off Deltoid.

    And only Jeff remains to be the sole target left for it.

  295. The assumption that any event that happens in nature can be measured by Science presumes there is nothing else. This is the philosophy of Physicalism.

    As explained previously, Physicalism fails to account for recognized phenomena in nature. As a result, the proposition that depends upon it lacks a valid warrant.

  296. It’s not a hard question, teabaggie. Are there unicorns in your sock drawer?

    “This is the philosophy of Physicalism.”

    Uh, no
    1) you jut say it is
    2) it’s reality.
    3) to claim that there’s more than reality requires you show it to be the case, else you’re another fallacy in:assertion fallacy.

    but, this is a REALLY simple question, teabaggie: are there unicorns in your sock drawer?

    • “…1) You just say it is …”
      For additional information, ref Wikipedia, “Physicalism”

      “… 2) it’s reality …”
      Physicalism fails to describe the mind. Reality includes the mind. Therefore Physicalism is an incomplete description of reality.

  297. John @184:

    If what humans can know of reality is limited to how humans inquire about it, and if the tools used to inquire are limited to those in Science, then only a selected representation of reality can be known.

    Fair point. But you don’t know the size of that selected representation compared to the whole (is it 1%? 100%?). Also regardless of how much of reality science can’t discover, any proposed method for studying the remainder must be defensible on it’s own merits – merely pointing out that science can’t isn’t a measure of any credibility. “Science can’t discover all of reality, therefore theology has a place” makes as much logical sense as “x-rays can’t discover organic explosives, therefore dowsing has a place.” The response to both is: nooooo….if the “alternative” technique is to be thought credible, it must demonstrate its effectiveness at detecting the subject/problem independently, it can’t just claim a place at the table by pointing out science hasn’t been able to do it (yet).

    And that ‘…yet…’ also points out the fundamental flaw in your argument @484. True, we don’t have a physical explanation for everything yet. Lack of one doesn’t mean physicalism is wrong, however – it just means we don’t know for certain if physicalism is right or wrong. And just as with my analogies above, if you are going to come up with an alternative theory to physicalism, that theory must stand on its own. “Physicalism can’t explain X” isn’t, on it’s own, a warrant to believe in some theory other than physicalism. Any alternative theory ‘contender’ must demonstrate it’s effectiveness independently of what physicalism can or can’t do. As as far as I know, none, zero, nada, bubkis alternative ideas have any demonstrated capability to predict anything, explain anything, or help us manipulate the world in any way.

    • “ “… only a selected representation of reality can be known.”
      Fair point. But you don’t know the size of that selected representation compared to the whole (is it 1%? 100%?).“
      I agree. If the presenter of the selection can describe why the selection is X%, Y% or Z%, of the whole then I too would know the size of that selected representation compared to the whole. If not, then neither would the presenter.

      “Also regardless of how much of reality science can’t discover, any proposed method for studying the remainder must be defensible on it’s own merits – merely pointing out that science can’t isn’t a measure of any credibility.”
      Had I proposed an alternative to Science I would be happy to defend it.

      “ “Science can’t discover all of reality, therefore theology has a place” makes as much logical sense as “x-rays can’t discover organic explosives, therefore dowsing has a place.” “
      I agree. Ref my responses to Hasnain .

      “The response to both is: nooooo….if the “alternative” technique is to be thought credible, it must demonstrate its effectiveness at detecting the subject/problem independently, it can’t just claim a place at the table by pointing out science hasn’t been able to do it (yet).”
      I agree. Ref my responses to Hasnain .

      And that ‘…yet…’ also points out the fundamental flaw in your argument @484. True, we don’t have a physical explanation for everything yet. Lack of one doesn’t mean physicalism is wrong, however – it just means we don’t know for certain if physicalism is right or wrong. …”
      Let us focus on the “… yet …”.
      1. By introducing the yet, you acknowledge that Physicalism is currently an incomplete description of reality.
      2. By introducing the yet, the evaluation of Physicalism is deferred until sometime in the future. The question of “when I the future?” then becomes pertinent. At any previously identified occasion, if there still is no physical explanation for everything, that some future “ideal” physics is what is meant, the same reasoning will be trotted out with a new proposed schedule. Until then, the promise of Physicalism remains rather empty. This cycle will then repeat until, if at some point in the future there is a physical explanation for everything.
      3. By introducing the yet, you acknowledge that Physicalism has no predictable schedule to become a complete description of reality.

      “And just as with my analogies above, if you are going to come up with an alternative theory to physicalism, that theory must stand on its own.”
      I agree. I am not proffering an alternative, but rather criticizing Physicalism. The criticism appears to be valid.

      “Physicalism can’t explain X” isn’t, on it’s own, a warrant to believe in some theory other than physicalism. …”
      Nor have I suggested so. What I have pointed out is that due to Physicalism’s current incompleteness, and considering there is no reasonable schedule for it becoming complete, those who believe it to be True are doing so in the absence of evidence to support their belief, and with no reasonable schedule for evidence to be provided.

      “Any alternative theory ‘contender’ must demonstrate it’s effectiveness independently of what physicalism can or can’t do. As as far as I know, none, zero, nada, bubkis alternative ideas have any demonstrated capability to predict anything, explain anything, or help us manipulate the world in any way.”
      A fair point, but not one I was, or am, arguing.

  298. Hasnain,

    Just catching up on this thread. You must have confused my blog with a place where it is appropriate to post your religious ramblings. It is not. Normally I’d issue a warning but you have been warned by many others here and no changes have ensued in your behavior. I’m sorry to have to ban you but you are banned effective immediately.

    John,

    I don’t agree with most of what you’re saying, philosophically, scientifically or logically. But I’ll allow it.

    • Ethan,

      That’s encouraging. I’m comfortable with disagreement, particularly when expressed in a civilized manner.

      If I may request a favor, would you encourage courtesy among some of the more zealous who do not share others’ opinions?

      Thanks in advance,

      John

  299. You missed a bit, teabaggie!

    but, this is a REALLY simple question, teabaggie: are there unicorns in your sock drawer

    (ps nope, mind is a process, not a thing)

    • As I did not specify either, my criticism of the philosophical position required to support your position stands.

  300. Uh, how can you make a claim about his logic when it’s so near nonexistent that it’s not even a string shirt of an idea, Ethan?

    It basically goes
    1) Maths has proven you can’t prove some things
    2) Maths is used in science
    3) Therefore science can’t prove god

    There’s a whole alphabet of connection between 2 and 3 missing, but the apologetics moron doesn’t even connect 1 with 3.

    He’s blasted out the “absence of evidence” but so far has not said whether the lack of evidence of them means that the sock-drawer unicorn is real

    because, just like his fallacious claims he has spent near 300 posts avoiding showing have anything more than just blank assertion with reckless disregard to any evidence for them (nor any care to make the claim of an “observations” claim to “support” it actually comport to reality), he knows enough to spot that he’s stuck either admitting that lack of evidence can be proof of nonexistence or saying in public there could be unicorns in his sock drawer.

    Hence he’ll answer any questions (except with a “please trawl through the entire thread for your evidence which I have indicated every willingness to ignore” or a batshit loon disability to comprehend English) apart from those that don’t go where he wants.

    Yet will proclaim that refusing to respond is acceptance of his claim…

  301. “As I did not specify either,”

    Then your criticism had no basis or conclusion and my claim stands unopposed.

    So, now, sock-drawer unicorns. Care to answer the question pending?

    • The assumption that any event that happens in nature can be measured by Science presumes there is nothing else. This is the philosophy of Physicalism. For additional information, ref Wikipedia, “Physicalism”

      Physicalism fails to describe the mind. Reality includes the mind. Therefore Physicalism is an incomplete description of reality.

      Physicalism fails to account for recognized phenomena in nature. As a result, the proposition that depends upon it lacks a valid warrant.

  302. “Physicalism fails to describe the mind”

    Uh, we can *describe* it quite well. As a brain surgeon.

    My claim is still valid. Sorry.

    So I guess you admit that just because you can’t prove something doesn’t exist, doesn’t mean it does. You’ve never answered my query, and the only possible reason is that you know why you cannot afford to answer it.

    • “… Uh, we can *describe* it quite well. As a brain surgeon.”
      You are mistaken

      I used the word “mind” not “brain”.
      The two are not the same.

  303. Oh, btw, teabaggie, don’t go the cartesian duality route. It’s centuries old now, dude.

    Because that proves that even if you took “mind” as a supernatural thing and outside science’s remit (the BS NOMA idea), it rather proves my point: brain damage and electronic stimulation, as well as drugs, all show that the mind is highly affected by the material of the grey matter that most people (you excepted, of course) use to think with.

    MRI scans can show the patterns of thought. If there’s any supernatural going on, we can measure its effect quite easily.

  304. “I used the word “mind” not “brain”.
    The two are not the same.”

    Mind is a process carried out by the brain. Some of us use it to think with. YMWV. See #500.

  305. “Having reduced your argument to mere contradiction, I can dismiss it.”

    Check up Hitchen’s Razor, retard.

  306. “Physicalism fails to describe the mind”

    Uh, we can *describe* it quite well. As a brain surgeon.

    My claim is still valid. Sorry.

    I used the word “mind” not “brain”.

    So did I.

  307. “Had I proposed an alternative to Science I would be happy to defend it.”

    So since you have no alternative, then we’re left with science.

    So if god has any effect on this reality, it can be found by scientific inquiry, and therefore it can be used to prove god exists *if he does*. Nothing can prove it if god doesn’t exist.

    • “So since you have no alternative, then we’re left with science.”

      … chuckling … Since I have no alternative, then you’re left with science?

      Besides attempting to put words into my mouth (I did not say I had no alternative), you have suborned you options to my situation.

      If nothing else, you do provide entertainment!

  308. Yeah, remember that tell you give away when your medication is wearing out? Just happened again, teabaggie.

    “Since I have no alternative, then WE’re left with science?”

    FTFY dude. Keep to the facts.

    “Besides attempting to put words into my mouth ”

    Lie. No words were put in your mouth. You said you had no alternative.

    “I did not say I had no alternative”

    Uh, so since this is just contradiction, I can discard it.

    “you have suborned you options to my situation.”

    Since there is no evidence of that, why did you say it?

    “If nothing else, you do provide entertainment!”

    Since that is irrelevant, I can see that you have no argument and have to track off into the irrelevant (well, more irrelevant).

    So my conclusion still stands because there has been no counter to it.

    • LOL! Everyone can read what we posted.

      What I posted: “Had I proposed an alternative to Science I would be happy to defend it.”

      What you posted: “Lie. No words were put in your mouth. You said you had no alternative.”

      Having reduced your argument to mere contradiction, I can dismiss it.

  309. What you posted was:

    “I did not say I had no alternative”

    Having reduced your argument to mere contradiction, I can dismiss it.

    Which means you DID Say you didn’t have an alternative.

    • “… Which means you DID Say you didn’t have an alternative.”

      … smiling … You are in rare form this evening!

      What was/is the comment # you are referring to? … chuckling …

    • … smiling … You are in top entertainment form this evening!

      OK, what/is the comment # where you found the text to which you are referring?

  310. “Having reduced your argument to mere contradiction, I can dismiss it.”
    LOL, John you can pretty much dismiss anything retard Wowzer says.
    BowWow Wowzer the forum barking dog is pretty knowledgeable about stars/suns I will give her that., but out side of that she is pretty limited in wisdom or knowledge of other things.

  311. So we have on one side that god HAS proven gods don’t exist, for any extant definition of god, and gods don’t exist by the generally accepted definition of god.

    And on teabaggie’s side,we have “there might be one” and “there might be more than reality”.

    So by evidence of, well evidence given, science CAN prove the existence of god.

    • As you are aware, I did not claim “there might be more than reality”.

      What I have noted is that Physicalism, the philosophical thesis or doctrine upon which the notion that “Any act god takes on this reality can be investigated by science …” ([current] #471) rests, currently fails to account for recognized phenomena in nature.

      By all means, believe it to be true.

      As there is, I think, no complete, consistent description of reality, be it Scientific, Philosophical, or Theological, the correct question is not “which description is correct”, but rather “which description is best”. “Best”, then becomes an individual choice influenced by that individual’s experience.

  312. “What was/is the comment # you are referring to? ”

    This one: “Had I proposed an alternative to Science I would be happy to defend it.”

    • “ “What was/is the comment # you are referring to? ”
      This one: “Had I proposed an alternative to Science I would be happy to defend it.” “

      That is a quote, not a comment #. Still, if that’s the best you can do, we’ll use it. As a matter of passing interest, that quote was taken from comment (current) #489.

      At #489, I commented “Had I proposed an alternative to Science I would be happy to defend it.”
      At (current) #506, you commented: “So since you have no alternative, then we’re left with science.”
      At (current) #507, I responded: “Besides attempting to put words into my mouth (I did not say I had no alternative), you have suborned you options to my situation.”
      At (current) #508, you commented: “Lie. No words were put in your mouth. You said you had no alternative.”

      … and at (current) #516, you posted in response to my request for the comment # containing the text you claimed I posted stating I had no alternative, not only did you not provide a comment number ([current] #489), but the text you quoted at (current) #516, “This one: “Had I proposed an alternative to Science I would be happy to defend it.” “ does not, in fact, say I have no alternative [to Science].

      So, I’ shown you to be wrong.

      Again

  313. So you don’t have an alternative.

    And therefore my conclusion stands unopposed. If god has any effect on this reality, it can be found by scientific inquiry, and therefore it can be used to prove god exists.

  314. Never said otherwise. Just that there is no alternative.

    And without one, the conclusion stands: yes, science can prove the existence of god.

    • “Never said otherwise. Just that there is no alternative”
      Ah, but you claimed at (current) #519 I said such, and that is false.

      LOL! Caught you again.
      Your comments do provide entertainment!

  315. “As you are aware, I did not claim “there might be more than reality”.”

    And so even you haven’t a clue what might be more, hence there’s no evidence that science can’t test gods for existence by their actions, therefore the claim stands: yes, science can prove the existence of god

    • “And so even you haven’t a clue what might be more …”
      … chuckling … The issue is not that there is “more”, it’s that the philosophy underneath the notion that “Any act god takes on this reality can be investigated by science …” ([current] #471) rests, currently fails to account for recognized phenomena in nature.

  316. “currently fails to account for recognized phenomena in nature.”

    Except there is no phenomena not accounted for in nature.

    • “Except there is no phenomena not accounted for in nature.”

      Nature is not in question. The philosophy underlying your claim “Any act god takes on this reality can be investigated by science …” ([current] #471) rests, currently fails to account for recognized phenomena in nature.

      Physicalism (ref Wikipedia, “Physicalism”) fails to describe the mind. Reality includes the mind. Therefore Physicalism is an incomplete description of reality.

      Physicalism fails to account for recognized phenomena in nature. As a result, the proposition that depends upon it (current) #471 lacks a valid warrant.

  317. “As there is, I think, no complete, consistent description of reality,”

    Who cares what you think? What can you prove?

  318. Person above is not me, but a hacker who managed to guess my email. Check IP Addresses to confirm he is not me.

  319. John @489:

    1. By introducing the yet, you acknowledge that Physicalism is currently an incomplete description of reality.

    No, you’re confusing ‘levels’ of description. We don’t have an explanation for all phenomena. However, there is nothing incomplete about the proposition ‘all phenomena will have a physical explanation.’ It could be false, but as a proposition it has no gaps.

    By introducing the yet, the evaluation of Physicalism is deferred until sometime in the future.

    No, we evaluate it now as the best available theory. ;nhere is no need for any sort of philosophical paralysis here. Scientific theory evaluation is something like a game of king of the hill; methodological naturalism will sit on top of the hill until something else supplants it, and issues of whether some philosopher thinks its incomplete are largely irrelevant to it being on top of the hill.

    The question of “when I [sic] the future?” then becomes pertinent.

    No, there is no specific time by which humanity or scientists must make any sort of formal declaration or commitment to it. We just keep using it until something better comes along. Without a contender/competitor theory, the issue of when it will explain everything or when it will meet some objective criteria of completeness is largely irrelevant. We use the best we’ve got, until its no longer the best.

    …Until then, the promise of Physicalism remains rather empty.

    I don’t know what you think it’s promising, but it is certainly useful right now. It helps guide research proposals, funding decisions, and so on. How does the government decide between funding the development of a TSA dowsing program or GC/MS program? Methodological naturalism…hopefully. So I would argue it’s not empty at all, because it provides useful information for decision-making. And it will continue to do so, until a better idea supplants it. Are you detecting a trend in my responses yet?

    By introducing the yet, you acknowledge that Physicalism has no predictable schedule to become a complete description of reality.

    Okay…so what? Again, we’ll use it until something better comes along. Scientists rarely say “this theory doesn’t help answer question x…therefore we can’t use it.” If it doesn’t answer x but it does help answer y, we use it on y but not on x.

    I agree. I am not proffering an alternative, but rather criticizing Physicalism. The criticism appears to be valid.

    Valid perhaps in the sense that you are making true comments about it, but also useless in the sense that without an alternative concept or proposed modification and some evidence that the alternative works to help us solve problems, nobody who believes physicalism or uses methodological naturalism is going to stop using it.

    You’ve just told us our ideas are imperfect. Okay. True but useless point made. Got any constructive commentary on how to improve them?

  320. We use the best we’ve got, until its no longer the best.

    QFT.

    Apologists don’t get it and sophists don’t want to accept it, since it ruins their game.

    But it’s true nonetheless.

  321. Just a couple more points of John’s I want to address. @489:

    What I have pointed out is that due to Physicalism’s current incompleteness, and considering there is no reasonable schedule for it becoming complete, those who believe it to be True are doing so in the absence of evidence to support their belief,

    No, there’s evidence in it’s favor. That evidence is every successful use of a natural theory or hypothesis to explain a phenomena. It’s also the spectacular failure of non-natural hypotheses to successfully predict or explain or be useful for any form of science or engineering. Now, that’s inductive support and induction can always turn out be wrong, but it’s support nonetheless. Uncertainty is not the same as equivalency; we are philosophically uncertain that naturalism will turn out to be true tomorrow because science is inductive. However, that doesn’t mean it and any proposed alternative is equivalently supported. Right now, physicalism has by far (IMO) the most inductive support. Supernaturalist ideas and concepts have far less (and arguably no meaningful) empirical support at all.

    @518:

    “Had I proposed an alternative to Science I would be happy to defend it.” “ does not, in fact, say I have no alternative [to Science].

    So, I’ shown you to be wrong.

    Okay, so you haven’t proposed one but you have one? I’m waiting for the other shoe to drop here, John. There’s no need to string us along; if you have an alternative you think is better than current science, lay it on us. If you don’t (or you have one but have no intention of discussing it here) and your argument ends at “physicalism may not cover everything”, just say that.

  322. eric, no he doesn’t.

    But he still clings to the hope that because we do’;t know we can’t know.

    Because reasons.

    If god has any effect on this reality, it can be found by scientific inquiry, and therefore it can be used to prove god exists *if he does*. Nothing can prove it if god doesn’t exist.

  323. “the philosophy underlying your claim “Any act god takes on this reality can be investigated by science …” ([current] #471) rests,”

    Is solid.

  324. “Physicalism (ref Wikipedia, “Physicalism”) fails to describe the mind.”

    Nope, destribes it fine.

    It’s the process taking place a brain.

    • “Nope, destribes it fine.
      It’s the process taking place a brain.”

      While that description may be true for some specific minds, the scientific explanation of self awareness still needs fleshing out.

  325. “Ah, but you claimed at (current) #519 I said such, and that is false.”

    Ahm but that’s a lie. I never said you said such. I said you had no such.

    Caught out again.

  326. Eric @534

    “… you’re confusing ‘levels’ of description. We don’t have an explanation for all phenomena. However, there is nothing incomplete about the proposition ‘all phenomena will have a physical explanation.’ It could be false, but as a proposition it has no gaps.”
    It (the proposition) only has no gaps if it is true. As it currently fails to describe phenomena found in nature, it currently is not true. It follows that Physicalism is currently an incomplete description of reality.

    “ “By introducing the yet, the evaluation of Physicalism is deferred until sometime in the future.
    No, we evaluate it now as the best available theory…”
    OK. Physicalism is currently an incomplete description of reality.

    “… no need for any sort of philosophical paralysis here.”
    I agree.

    “Scientific theory evaluation is something like a game of king of the hill; methodological naturalism will sit on top of the hill until something else supplants it, and issues of whether some philosopher thinks its incomplete are largely irrelevant to it being on top of the hill.”
    You have yet to accept that I have presented a criticism, and not proffering an alternative.

    “ “The question of “when I [sic] the future?” then becomes pertinent.”
    No, there is no specific time by which humanity or scientists must make any sort of formal declaration or commitment to it. “
    *** I would suggest not making an issue of typos, as we both have made them. ***
    In re the no specific time fix schedule, that is only meaningful if the proposition is shown to be true sometime in the future. If sometime in the future it is shown to be false, then it was always false, even if during that interval it was useful.

    “We just keep using it until something better comes along. Without a contender/competitor theory, the issue of when it will explain everything or when it will meet some objective criteria of completeness is largely irrelevant. We use the best we’ve got, until its no longer the best.”
    Sounds reasonable to me.

    “I don’t know what you think it’s promising, but it is certainly useful right now … Are you detecting a trend in my responses yet?”
    I am confident you are aware I’ve not suggested that Physicalism was not useful. What I’ve pointed out is that it is currently incomplete.

    “ ”By introducing the yet, you acknowledge that Physicalism has no predictable schedule to become a complete description of reality.”
    Okay…so what? …”
    I shall read that as granting the point.

    “ “I agree. I am not proffering an alternative, but rather criticizing Physicalism. The criticism appears to be valid.”
    Valid perhaps in the sense that you are making true comments about it …”
    I shall read that as granting the point.

    “… useless in the sense that without an alternative concept or proposed modification and some evidence that the alternative works to help us solve problems, nobody who believes physicalism or uses methodological naturalism is going to stop using it. “
    Again, I’ve not suggested that Physicalism was not useful. What I’ve pointed out is that it is currently incomplete.

    “You’ve just told us our ideas are imperfect. Okay. True but useless point made. Got any constructive commentary on how to improve them?”
    You sir, are an honest man. I shall reply to your request.

  327. Goodness, that’s a lot of words used just to communicate “no, I do not wish to say anything more than ‘natural explanations don’t explain everything at this time.'” What a point to spend your life making. Who knew that?

    • eric,

      Unlike the most prolific commenter to this forum, I prefer to not extrapolate beyond the bounds of the model.

      I think there is now a general concurrence about:
      1. The philosophical foundation of Science, Physicalism, is incomplete.
      2. Science is limited to making authentic statements about the natural world. Within that domain. The empirical limits of Science place additional limits on human ability to inquire and answer questions about natural phenomena.
      3. What Sciences observes is not all of nature, but that portion of nature exposed to the method of questioning employed. This also limits the domain within which Science can speak authoritatively.
      4. The language of Science, Mathematics, is unable to articulate (prove) all true statements (theorems) that can exist with it.

      (For those still uncomfortable with these propositions, references are available on request)

      Perhaps I’m making unwarranted assumptions, but I think these 4 points are uncontroversial.

    • eric,

      Unlike the most prolific commenter to this forum, I prefer to not extrapolate beyond the bounds of the model.

      I think there is now a general concurrence about:
      1. The philosophical foundation of Science, Physicalism, is incomplete.
      2. Science is limited to making authentic statements about the natural world. Within that domain. The empirical limits of Science place additional limits on human ability to inquire and answer questions about natural phenomena.
      3. What Sciences observes is not all of nature, but that portion of nature exposed to the method of questioning employed. This also limits the domain within which Science can speak authoritatively.
      4. The language of Science, Mathematics, is unable to articulate (prove) all true statements (theorems) that can exist with it.

      (For those still uncomfortable with these propositions, references are available on request)

      Perhaps I’m making unwarranted assumptions, but I think these 4 points are uncontroversial.

  328. “Unlike the most prolific commenter to this forum”

    Irrelevant trolling comment is irrelevant.

    ” I prefer to not extrapolate beyond the bounds of the model.”

    There’s a lie.

    “1. The philosophical foundation of Science, Physicalism, is incomplete.”

    More irrelevant.

    ” Within that domain. The empirical limits of Science place additional limits on human ability to inquire and answer questions about natural phenomena.”

    Remember the “I don’t extrapolate” BS?

    “3. What Sciences observes is not all of nature,”
    Irrelevant again.

    “4. The language of Science, Mathematics, is unable to articulate (prove) all true statements (theorems) that can exist with it.”

    Still irrelevant.

    “Perhaps I’m making unwarranted assumptions, but I think these 4 points are uncontroversial.”

    They’re irrelevant.

    Nowhere do you show that science can’t prove the existence of a nondefined god being in a nondefined somewhere else with a nondefined argument for nondefined reasons asserted without support.

    Since there is no competing assertion, my claim remains: any act by god in this universe can be investigated by science and thereby prove the existence of god.

    • “There’s a lie.”
      Among people who try to use language to communicate, in contrast to those who try to use it for other purposes, a lie is usually thought to be intentional expressions of a known false statement.

      As I have attempted – successfully so far – to substantiate or warrant my opinions, not only have I not intentionally posted false statements (I believe them to be true), but I can support those I have with references to authoritative sources (independently corroborated).

      You are wrong.
      Again

  329. teabaggie, care to link any of your crap to god?

    All you blather about is how you don’t define anything and insist that nobody else try defining it for you. While making crap up too, for extra irony.

    Just show what limitations there are on any god that would preclude it from being able to be found, and what causes gods to be so limited in scope that even they are forbidden from such actions.

  330. John,
    No, I don’t necessarily agree with your statements.

    1 glosses over the difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism, assuming all scientists agree with you that the foundation is philosophical naturalism. I can think of at least one counterexample that proves the “all” statement wrong – me. Saying “philosophical basis” also misses the point that our methodological naturalism is inductively derived, and is thus provisional and subject to change. So I would argue that our naturalism is not really a hardline ‘philosophical basis’ at all. If new experiments and observations started to show that assuming natural causes was a bad assumption, we would stop assuming it. I’d say the scientific world’s acceptance of quantum indeterminacy and ‘spooky action at a distance’ is a prime example of science ditching assumptions thought to be a necessary part of naturalism and physicalism once the evidence points to those assumptions being wrong. Would we consider new forces, should the evidence begin to support them? Yep. New mind-brain interactions? Yep. New dimensions? Yep. And so on.

    You #2 glosses over the problems associated with defining natural vs. supernatural. Science would have a hard time addressing irreproducible, unpatterned and unpredictable phenomena. But if some phenomena typically labeled ‘supernatural’ (such as ghosts, ESP, faith healing, etc.) is reproducible and follows regular patterns, then science can study it – regardless of whether we label it natural or not.

    Your #3 is an assertion. I thought we agreed on this – you don’t know what portion of the universe science can’t even in theory explain. It could end up limited to explaining a mere 0.001% of it. Or that number could be 1%. Or it could be 100% of it and we just haven’t gotten there yet. You don’t know.

    If your #4 is a reference to Godel, then the conclusion only applies to deductive systems that involve arithmetic (and arithmetical-like functions, such as symbolic logic, and so can encompass assertions about the world). Science is an inductive system. Thus the limitation is on our ability to formally, mathematically prove our set of natural laws to be true, but since science doesn’t really set out to do that, this is not a major limitation on science. I’m sure it gives some philosophers conniptions to think that we’ll never be absolutely, logically, formally and deductively certain whether F=ma is true, but most scientists think induction without the formal proof provides sufficient confidence to provisionally accept it as true. So you’d be right to say it imposes a limit on our ability to know, but that limit is mostly irrelevant for empirical studies of the world, since they don’t typically aim for deductively sound formal proofs of physical laws. Godel’s ideas do not prevent us from (in theory) developing a “merely inductively well-confirmed” explanation for every observed phenomena.

    The one statement of yours that I have agreed with is: science does not have a natural/physical explanation for all observed phenomena at this time. And I’d agree that that is an uncontroversial statement.

    • eric @551,

      I’ll work with your concurrence that Science does not currently not have a natural/physical explanation for all natural phenomena. Please note that I’ve changed your “observed” to “natural”, as the Mind is natural, while not observed. It’s a start.

      Now, in re our disagreement about Science being limited to making authentic statements about the natural world – I was referring to the natural sciences such as Physics, Chemistry, and Biology. I thought they were representative.

    • eric,

      “Your #3 is an assertion. I thought we agreed on this – you don’t know what portion of the universe science can’t even in theory explain. It could end up limited to explaining a mere 0.001% of it. Or that number could be 1%. Or it could be 100% of it and we just haven’t gotten there yet. You don’t know.”

      The assertion about the fidelity (how close to True [100%]) a theory or observation has in comparison to reality is made not by me, but by the presenter of the selection. If the presenter can describe why the selection is X%, Y% or Z%, of the whole, then I too would know the relationship of that selected representation in comparison to the whole. If the presenter cannot do so, then neither the presenter nor I will know. If the fidelity is unknown, there is no reason to assume 100%

      Observations are often provided with error bars ( ± ) to indicate how close to a theoretical prediction the measurements are. The theory or hypothesis is assumed to be true, and the published observations (measurements) are provided to corroborate the theory.

      Ref here “Heisenberg’s Astrophysics Prediction Finally Confirmed After 80 Years” (http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/02/02/heisenbergs-astronomy-prediction-comes-true-after-80-years-of-waiting/#78dacce22441)

  331. “The one statement of yours that I have agreed with is: science does not have a natural/physical explanation for all observed phenomena at this time. ”

    the statement isn’t just that, though, it says that there are things which science hasn’t got an explanation for, then when cornered, says it can only explains “certain minds”. Nothing there about what it means by that claim.

    teabaggie here is proclaiming that incomplete exists now and means that there must be things forever unexplained. Yet their first go-to shot of “minds” fails its stated aim: to be a thing that science doesn’t explain.

    The insistence that incomplete current explanation of everything is predicated on things being inexplicable existing right now. But either that’s wrong already, or it presupposes that something else is happening there.

    But they then insist that they’re “not saying” that there’s anything else. Because they know they’ll have to say they don’t know or make up some argument from ignorance that, like the one about mind, is wrong.

    And that’s just to get the idea that there are things forever inexplicable by science, which teabaggie has failed at already. But that doesn’t come to what’s required to counter the evidence that science CAN prove god, even if it’s so far been that god doesn’t exist.

    Teabaggie here is trying to insist on a god-of-any-gaps idea. The gap of “explaining consciousness” is irrelevant to any god unless you’re trying to say that consciousness is some supernatural godishness that creates universes and life. And rather demands the question of “how much consciousness would be needed?”. Brain damage or deformities can lead to lower cognition than canines, so are canines participants in godishness, or are the damaged excluded from it? And that’s even if you take the assumption.

    But teabaggie insists that they’re not saying what they’re saying and berate you for trying to intuit for them what they’re saying, then berate you for not accepting what they themselves insist they’re not saying or claiming.

    And solely so that those he doesn’t agree with can be claimed to be “believers”.

    Proving that he doesn’t know what belief is either.

  332. the Mind is natural, while not observed

    I disagree with the latter. Given observations of brain activity can now predict in advance – sometimes seconds in advance – how people will answer simple questions, I’d say we are starting to observe minds.

    • I’ll admit I think you’re stretching a good bit there, but I’ll work with your concurrence that Science does not currently not have a natural/physical explanation for all natural phenomena.

      Are you comfortable with Physics, Chemistry, and Biology being representative of the natural sciences? They are examples of what I was referring to as Science (2). I don’t see the Social Sciences adding value to this conversation.

  333. John @555: no, you misunderstand my response. You said “What Sciences observes is not all of nature.” To which I responded: you don’t know that. As in, you don’t know whether the methodology is limited in what it can eventually discover.

    Its trivial but true that human scientists as of today can’t observe some parts of nature. That, however, is philosophically unimportant if you’re talking about the limits of the methodology. Its a much deeper claim – but much more controversial and unsupported – to claim you know there are some aspects of reality the methodology itself will not and never be able to access. I thought you were making the second type of claim, and I’m disagreeing with that.

    If you’re making the former claim – that, basically, we’re cavemen without a microscope when it comes to some aspects of nature – well I’d agree with that. Just keep in mind that that sort of trivial claim doesn’t support future claims that there can be no microscope. Your particular bugaboo seems to be the mind-body problem. Pointing out that human science can’t observe mind now (which I disagree with) in no way helps support a stronger claim that science won’t ever be able to see it. Observing mind may just require a microscope we cavemen have yet to invent. And if you’re leading up to the assertion that this will be fundamentally, philosophically impossible for science to do, you’re going to have to explain why it’s impossible.

  334. Are you comfortable with Physics, Chemistry, and Biology being representative of the natural sciences?

    I’d really be a lot more comfortable if you told me where you were going with all this. Feeding us your grand argument tiny bits at a time is somewhat intellectually deceptive or dishonest, as it hints that you’re trying to entrap us by getting us to agree to something before we understand the consequences of what we’re agreeing to. I have agreed many many times that current science doesn’t explain everything in practice. I have also disagreed many many times with your attempts to broaden that claim into a claim about what science can or can’t do in principle. I don’t think you’re going to change my opinion on that. So…time to move forward with phase 2 of your argument, please.

    • eric,

      “I’d really be a lot more comfortable if you told me where you were going with all this …”

      It is difficult to have a discussion with another who is unwilling to share enough agreement to serve as a basis for the discussion. You’ve seem many examples in this thread of that, where the other resorts to contradiction.

      I wanted to, and still want to, establish that basis. I had assumed that the proposition that Science is body of knowledge and a methodology of studying the natural world would have been uncontroversial. (#545 & #546) Yet here, in a “Starts With a Bang” thread, that agreement seems out of reach.

      As we have achieved some agreement on this topic, I suppose that will suffice.

  335. The idea of discussion is to bring in all points of view. It does not mean others have to agree with one persons point of view exclusively to allow the flow to continue.

  336. Feeding us your grand argument tiny bits at a time is somewhat intellectually deceptive or dishonest,

    That’s deliberate. Teabaggie here doesn’t know what his argument can be, so he cannot give it until someone tells him another reason why his claims don’t hold up. All he knows is his conclusion MUST BE right.

    And his projection insists that this must be other people’s fault, they must be believers.

    The fact is that he doesn’t know or care what argument is made, he will insist that science can’t prove the existence of god so that he can keep his cognitive dissonance.

    Because there’s no method by which something that the average person could call god would NOT be able to be proven with science. Bill Nye said this himself when in answer to “What would convince you that you’re wrong” with “Some evidence”. Teabaggie here is acting like Ken Ham, who answered “Nothing could convince me”.

    Teabaggie will never accept evidence he’s wrong.

    Science can prove the existence of god. There is no limit to anything that could be called god that forbids them from proving themselves to mankind, and that proof would be available to the rigours of scientific investigation.

    Science CAN prove the existence of god.

  337. “You’ve seem many examples in this thread of that, where the other resorts to contradiction. ”

    You.

    But what other answer is there to the claim that I’ve said something that I never said other than “Nope, didn’t” to one who doesn’t accept a consistent reality?

    None.

    It’s hard to have a conversation with someone who makes a claim then insists they have made no claim, who demands proof, then refuses to accept it, who will refuse to know what the question is and ask irrelevant queries, but insists on using the topic of the thread to avoid giving any proof themselves of their claims (which they insist they never made).

    For all your whining and complaining and passing-off of your failure to engage or even want to engage with eric, you refuse to acknowledge his assertions and either counter or concede them, e.g.:

    Its trivial but true that human scientists as of today can’t observe some parts of nature. That, however, is philosophically unimportant if you’re talking about the limits of the methodology. Its a much deeper claim – but much more controversial and unsupported – to claim you know there are some aspects of reality the methodology itself will not and never be able to access. I thought you were making the second type of claim, and I’m disagreeing with that.

    That’s far worse a failure to engage than “mere contradiction”.

    • “… to one who doesn’t accept a consistent reality”

      The apparent inconsistencies in reality are more likely due to the limits of Science than of reality.

      “… That’s far worse a failure to engage than “mere contradiction”.”

      Your contradiction was an absence of argument. By engaging with eric, I was able to secure some agreement.

      I prefer the agreement I secured to your results.

  338. “The apparent inconsistencies in reality”

    Irrelevant, since this is either accepting or avoiding answering the claim against you that you do not accept reality.

    “Your contradiction was an absence of argument. ”

    Irrelevant since you are supposed to be responding to “That’s far worse a failure to engage than “mere contradiction”, and your whinge here is nothing to do with countering that claim.

    Absent a counter to the claim, the objections stand.

    “I prefer the agreement I secured to your results.”

    This admission here is merely accepting the claims against you for blank refusal and unreasoning actions.

    Your preferences are irrelevant in any argument or rational discourse, they only matter in a case of directed reasoning and is an admission that you do not argue in good faith.

  339. “… you that you do not accept reality.”

    That is inaccurate. If my comments are used for evidence, it is evident I’m quite comfortable with reality. I have referred to Science’s incomplete description (much less explanation) of reality. This position more closely reflects the current state of affairs than those who claim Science does provide a complete description. That seems to have antagonized some here.

  340. And that, by the way was another aovidance of eric’s post.

    You can’t claim you had no time or effort to spare.

    And you can’t insist you missed it.

    But you still avoided it.

  341. ““… you that you do not accept reality.”

    That is inaccurate. ”

    That is a contradiction. If only you are allowed that then it is also hypocrisy.

    And it is also still irrelevant, since your response is supposed to be what the claim was, not the very small part you provided after the ellipsis.

    And it is, yet again, refusal to engage with eric’s point, despite you preferring an agreement with him.

    Indicating even more reality refusal from you when you claim you’re preferring that agreement.

    • ” ““… you that you do not accept reality.”
      That is inaccurate. ”
      That is a contradiction ”

      No, that is a quote from your post #566, and an observation about it.

      Perhaps a longer excerpt will be helpful, “… the claim against you that you do not accept reality.”, again from your comment #566.

      You comment remains inaccurate.

      If my comments are used for evidence, they make clear I’m quite comfortable with reality. It is true I have referred to Science’s incomplete description (much less explanation) of reality. This position more closely reflects the current state of affairs than those who claim Science does provide a complete description.

      … chuckling … That is a far cry from not accepting reality.

  342. “… you are supposed to be responding to “That’s far worse a failure to engage than “mere contradiction” …”

    No, we are supposed to be responding to “Can science prove the existence of God?”.

  343. And I’ve done so. Many times.

    I also pointed out how when you’re unable to reply to a question about YOUR claims, you come back with “But the topic is…”.

    That’s done, been answered, many many times, you don’t get to refuse to defend your asinine claims with “But the topic isn’t about my claims!”. Your attempt to avoid reality again by deflection has been noted.

    And your refusal to see the reality of eric’s post when it has no text with the word “agree” in it is yet more proof of my claim’s veracity against you as a dishonest and ignorant buffoon.

    • “… YOUR claims …”

      To what claims are you referring? Is it the proposition that Science is body of knowledge and a methodology of studying the natural world? Yes, I’m quite comfortable with that. I find the lack of concurrence here passing strange.

      To what other claims of mine are you referring?

    • “… you don’t get to refuse to defend your asinine claims …”

      I doubt you can identify any “asinine” (extremely stupid or foolish) claims I’ve made. But feel free to try.

      You’ll fail.
      Again.

  344. “” ““… you that you do not accept reality.”
    That is inaccurate. ”
    That is a contradiction ”

    No”

    And that’s another contradiction in the place of argument.

    Yet more hypocrisy? In what reality is this a sensible scheme for you to try, teabaggie?

    At least one thing is being proven by this flailing you’re undertaking: that you only want eric’s agreement, no matter how much you proclaim to do something for him, you’re not actually going to try.

    ““… you are supposed to be responding to “That’s far worse a failure to engage than “mere contradiction” …”

    No,”

    Another contradictin and another race off to attempt in a Kellyanne Conway method to rebound the problem of your inability to deal honestly with others or defend your crass statements into a deflection back to a case that has already been sorted and solved.

    What we’re left with is trying to get you to either defend your claims, change them to something that is at least defensible by reality, or admit you haven’t got a clue what you’re talking about, but feel very deeply that science is forbidden somehow by supernatural means, whether they exist or not, from proving god exists.

    The only way by which god can NEVER be proven to exist is if no such thing exists.

    Like sock-drawer unicorns, unicorns being a magical (therefore supernatural) creature and not, by your unsupported assertion, able to be proven or disproven to exist in your sock drawer by any method of natural determinism or the scientific method.

  345. “I doubt you can identify any “asinine” (extremely stupid or foolish) claims I’ve made. But feel free to try.”

    And how will this be determined?

    I can give several, but you have either ignored or doubled-down on them, so who can we turn to as arbiter of whether this has been done or not?

    And what will you do when I find several examples and they are upheld?

    Lets get the rules down and then test it.

    It’s called “rational argument”.

  346. John:

    It is difficult to have a discussion with another who is unwilling to share enough agreement to serve as a basis for the discussion

    It’s called ‘making a conditional argument.’ You posit A and B. You argue that if A is true, then C follows. If B and C are both true, than D follows. You seem to be stuck on the notion that I must accept A and B to be true before you can tell me about how they deductively connect to C and D. That’s not necessary. I’m perfectly fine with you going on to explain what you think logically follows from the premise that the scientific methodolgy can’t – even in principle – explain everything…even if I don’t accept that premise.

    Do you understand the concepts of validity vs. soundness in logic? What I’m saying is, we do not have to accept your argument as sound in order to have a fruitful discussion over whether it’s valid. Since you’ve already spend days trying to convince us that your premises are true and it isn’t working, how about having that validity discussion as a means of moving forward? Once we’ve seen the logical structure and you’ve convinced us that you have a valid argument, you can always go back again and spend more time trying to convince us that the argument is also sound because your premises are true.

  347. NB: I can’t speak for other commenters, but I’ll even promise not to bring up (what I perceive as problems with) your premises, if you’ll move on to telling us what you think those premises logically imply. IOW I will take your premise as true ‘for sake of argument’ for a while, and I’ll limit myself to critiques of validity. If you’ll move forward with giving us the full enchilada.

  348. The short of it is, teabaggie, that EVEN IF science doesn’t explain the mind, EVEN IF science could NEVER explain the mind, how does that prove science cannot prove god?

    You insist that we have to accept science doesn’t explain the mind AND that it never can, and until then you won’t say how that proves science cannot explain god.

    Eric wants you to say how, even if taken as true, which hasn’t happened, a thing I have to bring up because you falsely acclaim agreement merely by lack of disagreement (hence eric is absolutely right to query the validity of your claims about the mind), how does the claim that science cannot prove god exists arise from that.

    But you will flail off at tangents and complaints about how you’re being treated mean instead.

  349. Last comment for the moment:

    I had assumed that the proposition that Science is body of knowledge and a methodology of studying the natural world would have been uncontroversial. (#545 & #546)

    Your posts @545-6 say a lot more than that de minimis statement. Yes, science is a body of knowledge and a methodology that we use to study the world. ‘Natural’ has some wiggle room. No, those statements do not logically imply that philosophical naturalism (which is how I interpret your word ‘physicalism’) must be wrong or that there must be stuff out there that science cannot, even in theory, access. It might be wrong, but the simple statement I’ve quoted in this message doesn’t logically imply that it’s wrong. As I said in @559, I’m not really sure whether you’re arguing the trivial point that science doesn’t explain everything now, or the deeper point that science as a method can’t explain everything even in principle. You don’t seem to be clearly distinguishing between those two propositions.

  350. “… EVEN IF science doesn’t explain the mind, EVEN IF science could NEVER explain the mind, how does that prove science cannot prove god?”

    Taking the first (“doesn’t explain the mind”) possibility to be true, then that inexplicable thing (or process, or place) could be the locus of an inexplicable interaction between God (assuming that such an entity exists) and the natural world. That would be an example of why Science cannot explain the existence of God.

    Taking the second (“could NEVER explain the mind”) possibility to be true, then following a similar line of argument That would be an example of why Science could never explain the existence of God.

  351. “then that inexplicable thing (or process, or place) could be the locus”

    Presuppositional argument is not valid.

    “That would be an example of why Science cannot explain the existence of God.”

    And this, from you, is another asinine claim. That you whine and whinge with “But this topic is ‘can science prove the existence of god'” and then go here and say “EXPLAIN”…

    “Taking the second possibility to be true, then following a similar line of argument ”

    But we can “see” mind. You insist it’s right there.

    “That would be an example of why Science could never explain the existence of God.”

    But we can’t see god, we don’t know it’s there, so how can following the argument that we can see mind and not explain it means we can’t explain something we don’t see, and it’s god?

    Are you claiming that mind is supernatural?

  352. Note: the presupposition is not “mind can’t be explained”, it;’s that mind is god’s path. And you’ve avoided explaining what that means.

    “locus” is a woomancer word here, abused in usage that means nothing but “sounds sciencey” without actually explaining anything.

    And yet again, you avoid eric…

  353. eric: “Your posts @545-6 say a lot more than that de minimis statement.”

    Maybe we should just take him “at his word” (now) and that all he’s currently saying is that science is body of knowledge and a methodology of studying the natural world.

    So if that’s all he’s saying, then there is no counter to my answer. He now needs to say something else or concede the point.

  354. eric @581

    As you led with “Last comment for the moment”, I am uncertain if there is value in replying to your comment, but as it contains a mischaracterization of my position, I shall.

    “… those statements do not logically imply that philosophical naturalism (which is how I interpret your word ‘physicalism’) must be wrong or that there must be stuff out there that science cannot, even in theory, access …”

    I think I have not posted at #545 or elsewhere that Physicalism (the thesis that “everything is physical”) is wrong. I have suggested, and warranted with a (contested) example, why it is incomplete.

    Many, if not most things that are incomplete are not wrong.

  355. ” “That would be an example of why Science cannot explain the existence of God.”
    And this, from you, is another asinine claim …”

    You are mistaken. An example is not a claim.