Scientific Proof Of God

[JimC]

Gladly, my cross-eyed bear...

[Joe]

Ah! You remembered my spirit animal. I wonder what our friend will see.

[rainbow]

Ackshoolly, millions of us exist. For proof, just ask any one of us if we harbour a belief in the existence of a supernatural being.

You could be mistaken, or lying.

Of course, and I would not be surprised if millions of people living in the People's Republic of China do exactly that. Meanwhile, there are millions of people who do not harbour a belief in the existence of a supernatural being. They are by definition atheists, "a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods".

Testimony alone cannot be sufficient, otherwise the millions of people who've experienced the power of the Holy Spirit would be proof of the existence of the Spook - so no ''just asking any one' is no proof.

You believe that you don't believe, but can't prove it.

Huh? Since when does belief in x prove the existence of x?

Anyway, what pErv said.

Exactly!

Therefore the only logical position is Agnosticism.

Atheists can't exist because they'd be relying on belief, not proof.

[pErvinalia]

Atheism is the lack of belief. Just read the damn definition.

[Hermit]

You could be mistaken, or lying.

Of course, and I would not be surprised if millions of people living in the People's Republic of China do exactly that. Meanwhile, there are millions of people who do not harbour a belief in the existence of a supernatural being. They are by definition atheists, "a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods".

Testimony alone cannot be sufficient, otherwise the millions of people who've experienced the power of the Holy Spirit would be proof of the existence of the Spook - so no ''just asking any one' is no proof.

You believe that you don't believe, but can't prove it.

Huh? Since when does belief in x prove the existence of x?

Anyway, what pErv said.

Exactly!

Therefore the only logical position is Agnosticism.

Atheists can't exist because they'd be relying on belief, not proof.

Nonsense. Atheists are people who lack a belief in a god or gods. That's the definition. Proof does not enter into it. It's not part of the definition. It's just something you made up. End of story.

As for agnosticism, we've discussed this several times - most recently here.

I am an agnostic atheist. You'll find me among the millions of people in the bottom right quadrant.

[Brian Peacock]

Happy New Year Dennis.

...
So do millions of blind and ignorant fools who can't learn even with the most basic and direct demonstrations...

What "basic and direct demonstrations" have been demonstrated here?

[rainbow]

I am an agnostic atheist. You'll find me among the millions of people in the bottom right quadrant.

Yes, my point is that as soon as you add Agnostic, you're diluting the Atheism to nothing.

A non-belief in a non-provable entity.

Where's the fun in that?

I got kicked out of Dawkins' for pointing out that showing the inconsistencies in one belief system doesn't prove the non-existence of Gods.
It proves only that THAT particular religion has flaws.
One out of Ten for stating the bleeding obvious.

...and I called Atheism a Belief System (with capitalisation, which really upset some)

[pErvinalia]

Because it's retarded.

[rainbow]

Because it's retarded.

...and I said that Abiogenesis was a Creation Myth.

That did upset a lot of people, including your fine self - do I remember correctly?

[Brian Peacock]

I get the argument. There's nothing epistemologically secure or empirically proveable about the claims and assertions of theism, and therefore there's nothing of significance to butt that prefixed and negating 'a' in atheism up against. Athiesm isn't a thing because theisms are an unproven, unsupported, unjustified, and unjustifiable collection of unfalisfiable claims and assertions - so atheism, and atheists, do not really exist.

However, atheism isn't a claim about demonstrable truth or the security of knowledge in the empirical, copper-bottomed sense, but simply the term we use to denote those who reject the claims and assertions of theisms. Atheists are those people who remain unconvinced by the claims and assertions of theists.

Placing obligations on atheism to prove itself factually correct is a bankrupt exercise in partial condition setting, because atheism itself doesn't comprise a set of claims and assertions about the world but rather represents a conclusion about the veracity and security of the claims and assertions about the world made by theism. To place such obligations on atheism is to frame atheism as positing a compelling epistemological alternative to theism, which is to erect a false dichotomy. Whereas, at its base, atheism is fundamentally qualified in simply rejecting theism - for whatever reasons.

[Hermit]

I am an agnostic atheist. You'll find me among the millions of people in the bottom right quadrant.

Yes, my point is that as soon as you add Agnostic, you're diluting the Atheism to nothing.

Saying "I don't believe in the existence of God or Gods, but I don't claim to know with certainty" is not diluting atheism to nothing. It means that I could conceivably change my mind if robust, testable and reproducible evidence turns up pointing to the existence of personally interfering God or Gods most Christians, Muslims, Jews and others (at least nominally) believe in. Then I'd become an agnostic theist, saying "I do believe in the existence of God or Gods, but I don't claim to know with certainty".

As for the Divine Watchmaker type of god, nothing can be said of such an entity beyond the assertion that said entity is the uncaused originator of everything that came into existence. The existence of this god is an ultimate irrelevance precisely because nothing else but that single assertion can be made. Deism is not even a no through road. It is an immediate stop.

[Hermit]

I get the argument. There's nothing epistemologically secure or empirically proveable about the claims and assertions of theism, and therefore there's nothing of significance to butt that prefixed and negating 'a' in atheism up against. Athiesm isn't a thing because theisms are an unproven, unsupported, unjustified, and unjustifiable collection of unfalisfiable claims and assertions - so atheism, and atheists, do not really exist.

However, atheism isn't a claim about demonstrable truth or the security of knowledge in the empirical, copper-bottomed sense, but simply the term we use to denote those who reject the claims and assertions of theisms. Atheists are those people who remain unconvinced by the claims and assertions of theists.

Placing obligations on atheism to prove itself factually correct is a bankrupt exercise in partial condition setting, because atheism itself doesn't comprise a set of claims and assertions about the world but rather represents a conclusion about the veracity and security of the claims and assertions about the world made by theism. To place such obligations on atheism is to frame atheism as positing a compelling epistemological alternative to theism, which is to erect a false dichotomy. Whereas, at its base, atheism is fundamentally qualified in simply rejecting theism - for whatever reasons.

[pErvinalia]

I got kicked out of Dawkins' for pointing out that showing the inconsistencies in one belief system doesn't prove the non-existence of Gods.

Which atheists are in the business of proving the non-existence of Gods? Sounds like a straw man argument.

[superuniverse]

I got kicked out of Dawkins' for pointing out that showing the inconsistencies in one belief system doesn't prove the non-existence of Gods.

Which atheists are in the business of proving the non-existence of Gods? Sounds like a straw man argument.

Exactly. This entire forum.

[Joe]

I got kicked out of Dawkins' for pointing out that showing the inconsistencies in one belief system doesn't prove the non-existence of Gods.

Which atheists are in the business of proving the non-existence of Gods? Sounds like a straw man argument.

Exactly. This entire forum.

Yeah, the burden of proof falls on those claiming the existence of gods.