Religion
Related: About this forumCan you give an example of an argument against religion that is ...
a scientific argument and definitely not a philosophical argument, and that is also in your opinion a sound or at least strong argument?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Boojatta
(12,231 posts)then is it easy for you to make a contribution to the mathematical sciences? In particular, your contribution might be a scientific argument against the claim that Goldbach's conjecture is false.
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)of a god do not follow the principles and disciplines for the establishment of scientific evidence and proof.
Most arguments only follow some principles of logic, if that much. Logical arguments are subsumed in the philosophical sub-fields we call "logic" and "rational thinking". Being without evidence, they are merely exercises in thought, not "proof".
Such logical arguments go like this:
There must be a spaghetti monster because I like spaghetti, and I am alive.
I am alive, and there is spaghetti, so there must be a spaghetti monster, which I believe in.
Sal316
(3,373 posts)Please share that with us.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)you can't prove a negative. It's up to the believers to provide evidence of the existence of their sky fairies.
Sal316
(3,373 posts)I'm asking him to prove his claim of "no scientific evidence". I'm not asking him to prove a negative. Congratulations on missing the point.
If there's no evidence, then there's obviously a test methodology that can distinguish between a positive and negative indication. We'll stick with the hard sciences, since that's typically what's referred to in making the 'no evidence' claim.
As a scientist, negative results are often reported as "not detected", which is another way of saying "no evidence of".
So, that leaves few options.
1) The poster made an unprovable claim.
2) Humanity, through science, has developed to where they can detect the presence, or lack of, God in which case there would be a published test methodology in existence.
3) The poster meant "no evidence yet", which means humanity has yet to develop the scientific acumen, instrumentation, and methodology to definitively say there is/isn't scientific evidence. This goes back to point #1.
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)come to my door and ask me for money, I can simply say I have none. You can choose to search my house, or take me at my word. In either event, there is no evidence.
If you want to IMAGINE that SOMEDAY SOMEHOW money will fall into my chimney and you will then knock on my door and ask for money, and if I say no, I would be lying, if I knew the money had fallen in my chimney.But, until the day that you see the money fall into my chimney, and point it out to me, you will know that I know of no money in my house. Simple as that.
Now, as to what you wish for, what you hope to find, what you hope will be proof positive that every logical law of nature and chemistry and physics and any other science will be overturned by the discovery of evidence someday, that is your choice to wish for that. But it is NOT your choice to assert that the evidence is already out there. That's simply lying.
Sal316
(3,373 posts)1) Searching is an inspection that will provide a verifiable answer to the claim you have no money.
2) Taking you at your word is asking the other person to take it "on faith", as it were, that your claim is correct.
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)are the facts that back up the statement.
The statement need NOT be taken on "faith", since the invitation to look at the evidence is offered. The invitation to look at the evidence is the offer that science does affords us.
There is nothing about "faith" in the invitation to explore the facts. Science simply gives us both options, to rely upon the testimony, or to do the investigation oneself or both.
By contrast, using the same hypothetical example, your religious believer's statement would be "there might be money in that house", without the offer of proof, without the invitation to look and not find any.
Sal316
(3,373 posts)If the claim is: "There is zero scientific evidence that there is a god."
Then share how this conclusion was reached scientifically, as claimed.
Anything else is just verbal obfuscation in an attempt to get out of the hole this claim digs.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)You seem to be contesting the claim that there's no evidence.
The quickest way to put this matter to rest would be if you could provide some evidence.
Sal316
(3,373 posts)Had he said currently or yet or put some similar qualifier on it, it'd be no big deal.
The poster said, without qualification, there is no evidence. That implies that there's a valid scientific methodology.
I'm not contesting that there's no scientific evidence, I'm contesting the definitive nature of the claim, stated without any validation by any test data.
It's not up to me to prove the poster's claim either way.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)Thanks for acknowledging that there's no scientific evidence.
Sal316
(3,373 posts)So thanks for acknowledging a point I never made.
Now, about that claim..... got data?
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)Coming from one who claims the existence of supernatural forces, a creator, a god to pray to, whatever you claim, and then ask for definitive proof that your claims are false.
Now who is attempting to "obfuscate" their own statements?
Sal316
(3,373 posts)Unless your house, etc., is inspected it's not a verified fact that you have no money for anyone else but you.
Interesting that you'll accept that scenario as fact, because the claim is real to you, yet you easily dismiss others.
The claim was there is no scientific evidence.
Got data?
If not, then you're asking everyone to take it 'on faith'.
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)Greek gods are not playing a bowling game when there's a thunder storm, it's antithetical to the principles and current levels of knowledge of science.
We have no proof whatsoever that Greek gods exist, let alone bowl.
No scientific evidence, not even a scientific "theory" that Greek gods bowl and produce thunderstorms.
You are free to believe it, but there is no evidence.
Sal316
(3,373 posts)I mean, if it's all about what you can scientifically prove, then people who definitively say there is no evidence should be able to back it up with data.
Until you can show that science has a valid test methodology for detecting the presence of God, you're just making a statement of faith.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)How can one apply the test methodology to the evidence if there IS no evidence. The logical conclusion is that with the lack of evidence comes the lack of existence.
You are free to support the assertion that a god exists by simply providing some evidence to test.
Sal316
(3,373 posts)Tests are run all the time without having to provide evidence first.
For example, being a chemist, I've personally tested for things like:
- Chlorides in water
- Impurities in materials
- Contaminants in water/wastewater/reactor cooling water, etc.
...without having any evidence they exist in the medium I've tested. Yet there is a valid methodology to verify whether or not it/they exist in the medium being tested. These methodologies all have known accuracy, precision, repeatability, and influences that could cause false positive/negative/erroneous results.
Additionally, scientists develop test methodologies based on hypotheses, and not actual evidence, all the time.
You are free to claim there "is no scientific evidence that there is a God", but without actual science to back it up it's only a statement of faith.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Come on man, show some intellectual honesty here.
Sal316
(3,373 posts)I don't have any evidence there's a stray screw in a rocket motor cast, but I test them via x-ray anyway.
I don't have any evidence there's contaminants in the chemicals I use, but I test them anyway.
I don't have evidence that the polymer I use is actually jello, but I test for purity anyway.
This is the way science, and scientists, work.
Either bring data to prove the claim there is no evidence, or quit claiming it.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)But you DO have a rocket motor cast.
I don't have any evidence there's contaminants in the chemicals I use, but I test them anyway.
But you DO have chemicals.
I don't have evidence that the polymer I use is actually jello, but I test for purity anyway.
But you DO have polymer.
This is the way science, and scientists, work.
Yes, I know that. Science actually requires there to BE something to test. You know that. There is NOTHING to test when it comes to god. Nothing at all. It's like trying to prove the existence of unicorns.
Either bring data to prove the claim there is no evidence, or quit claiming it.
And that right there is your circular nonsense. How about YOU provide EVIDENCE of your claim that a god exists, or else YOU stop making it.
I cannot believe I have to explain this to another adult human being.
Sal316
(3,373 posts)Here, I'll even use smaller words.
The claim made was that there was, definitively, no scientific evidence of God.
The motor cast, chemicals, and polymer were metaphors for, wait, the known universe.
God is represented by the things in motors, chemicals, etc.
Now, wait for it, to claim there is no scientific evidence of God means there is no detectable trace within the known universe. Hence, in order to detect something, there has to be a valid methodology.
I am not the one who claimed, without equivocation, that there is no evidence, nor have I ever claimed there was such a thing as of yet.
It's up to the one who says there's no detectable God in the universe to explain his methodology.
If it's "scientific" the poster should be able to.
Otherwise someone is just asking everyone, believers and atheists and everyone in between, to just "have faith" in the claim. To make the claim without having the data to back it up is, well, having faith it's true, so to speak.
Like I've heard scientists say over and over "In God we trust, all others bring data".
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)There IS no scientific evidence for the existence of a god. period. It does not exist. If or when it does, I will retract my statement, but until then, the fact remains that there is no evidence at all.
I fail to see what more discussion on the subject there can be.
tama
(9,137 posts)Metaphysical ideas/presumptions, mathematical formulas (Schrödinger equation, EPR-thought-experiment, etc.), STUFF like that?
And then they say that the particle/observable did not exist (at least in any normal/usual sense of the word as dimensional object) before the observation event.
PS: All logic is circular, so no problem with that.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)to test for purity, etc. X-ray machines, centrifuges, acid baths, etc. are all used to detect things you think might exist. They can be used to determine the existence of an impurity, or not.
You are testing for the existence of something that shouldn't be there, for quality control, but its impossible to test for a negative. You either get a positive result, or you don't.
So evidence exists that impurities occur in the materials you test, so you test other batches, for consistency.
For a deity, there is none of this, no method to objectively prove such a being exists, and therefore we must err on the side of non-belief. Its the only honest conclusion, after all.
Its on you to provide any evidence that a god exists, not on the one who simply says there's no evidence. Note, that in none of this are we saying that such evidence can't exist, just that none has been provided at this time.
tama
(9,137 posts)that just popped to mind: how can you prove objectivity exists, objectively?
And, given that Göd is just a matter of defintion, what kind of Göd objectively proven Objectivity would be?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)As far as the existence of objectivity, we can play semantic games, but basically its the removal, as much as possible, of subjective bias.
tama
(9,137 posts)is what this forum and language is about. I agree that god as a matter of definition of existing or not-existing is not most meaningful semantic game.
You, as usual, define objectivity by the semantic opposite of subjectivity, revealing again that the subjective-objective distinction is a codependent relation. Bounds of which and freedom from have been subject of much philosophical etc. thought. Also in science, especially in quantum physics.
Fully "objective" view of universe would be possible only for external all-knowing god, science is what we do in participatory and inclusive universe, with naturally limited "subjective" viewpoints - speed of light, event horizons, uncertainty principles etc., condemning us to this or that localized niche of universe and entropic loss of available information. I've been looking for a positive meaning for objectivity in quantum era that would be consistent with scientific advance towards unificatory theory and quantum gravity, and I like what Lee Smolin said about that question: according to Smolin, objective means that when we ask the same questions, we get same answers or similar enough to be able to live in shared world. Of course, we do not always ask same questions, and different questions can decohere into parallel - and/or overlapping - localized "classical universes" or viewpoints of quantum potential.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)its articulated better than I would have done, but I was trying to drive to the same point. However, I want to take issue with your misuse of quantum theory, and namely the uncertainty principle. This is a red flag of pseudo-scientific abuse and intrinsic misunderstanding of a scientific theory to push their own viewpoint.
You cannot extrapolate the gaps and idiosyncrasies of quantum observations to the macroscopic level. Yes, we cannot both measure the spin and the orbit of an electron at the same time, this is true, we also see subatomic particles appear and disappear in a vacuum. But don't use these as an excuse to push an idea that "parallel" universes that overlap. There's no observable evidence for this, and just because people ask different questions or perceive things in a slightly different way doesn't make those ways equally valid without objective evidence.
As far as it only being possible for a god that's all-knowing and external to fully have an objective view, I certainly don't see how that could be the case. Indeed, its very likely that any being external to the universe can't interact with it at all, and may not even be able to detect it. The all-knowing part would be an impossibility in this case.
tama
(9,137 posts)a great experimentalist, has shown that macroscopic molecules can also show quantum behaviour - wave pattern - in double slit experiment. Uncertainty principle is closely related to information entropy and macroscopic notions like Bekenstein bound etc. Decoherence is not fully understood, but theoretical physics is abandoning the view that quantum behaviour is limited to microscopic levels only.
Cultural relativism and localism is philosophical and ethical position with information limits - what is it like to be and perceive and experience as member of Amazon tribe, bat or ant, ask the questions they ask? You say that "just because people ask different questions or perceive things in a slightly different way doesn't make those ways equally valid without objective evidence.", but the point was and is that there is no universal "objective(-subjective)" measure of value to judge validity, or in stronger form, attempts to dictatate and force universal measures of value is *evil* in regards of respecting difference and freedom of experience.
What is considered "objective" in terms of Newtonian mechanics (a very limited theory in regards to contemporary understanding) cannot be extrapolated as universal measure of value - or if it is, it's in ethical conflict with cultural relativism and localism and also scientific ideals. Smolin's "participatory quantum" objectivity is not. At least philosophically. 
Last, I agree that all-knowing external god that can view universe fully objectively is just a thought-experiment that disproves itself - that was and is the whole point of that thought experiment. Smolin among many others is suggesting that in participatory universe for a local system to receive valid infromation about the larger whole that it is part of, some form of holographic principle is needed, and that is where theoretical physics is going by asking commonly shared questions.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)than what can be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched - then your thoughts and ideas are very limited and narrow indeed. Some people actually dare to extend their thinking processes (reasoning) outside of that "self - imposed box."
lazarus
(27,383 posts)Or define god into existence?
humblebum
(5,881 posts)That imagination doesn't exist? Who are you to define what thinking processes are to be used by others?
The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)Long before Mr.Edison it had been observed that passage of electricity through materials heated them, and many materials glow when heated sufficiently. Filaments made to glow by electricity had been displayed long before Mr.Edison; such filaments had been even enclosed in glass bulbs, either filled with inert gas or evacuated to prevent combustion of the filament. Mr.Edison simply developed the thing to a pitch of commercial viability, and openly owned he was simply improving on an existing technology. He did so by painstaking experiment with various materials and methods, conducted with reference to a substantial body of scientific knowledge already in existence.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)such an observation came from no one's imagination.
The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)All exercise of imagination in the matter was based on observation of physical phenomena, calculation from known properties of materials and forces, and selection of means and materials in light of experimental results: in short, a material and materialist process, not some other 'way of knowing' bringing illumination....
humblebum
(5,881 posts)some of us see much reason to accept the possibility of existence beyond that which the five senses can assess, and the immediate physical world.
The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)It is possible that, on stepping out my house tonight to the corner store for milk, my eyes will catch sight of a suitcase containing a hundred thousand dollars cash near the door of the empty laundromat, but this forms no part of my financial planning.....
"A man's got to know his limitations."
humblebum
(5,881 posts)described is every bit as ridiculous to me as it is to you.
The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)You suggest that something be accepted as possible, and proceed than to treat such an acceptance of a possibility as an admission of, or declaration of, certainty the thing is so, which is exactly the same as my saying because it is possible this evening's errands might see me stumble over a large sum of cash, we can plan on buying a flash car tomorrow. That a thing is possible does not mean it actually occurs or exists. It is in the very nature of the supernatural, as described by those who believe it to exist, that it cannot be proved or disproved, but can only be believed or denied. Belief in what cannot be proved or disproved can be many things, but knowledge is not one of them.
And by the way, not too long ago, it was reported in Australian newspapers that a man left a briefcase in a restaurant, which when found by a later customer and opened proved to contain a hundred thousand dollars cash....
humblebum
(5,881 posts)then your point would have merit, but unfortunately, reality is not like that.
"You suggest that something be accepted as possible, and proceed than to treat such an acceptance of a possibility as an admission of, or declaration of, certainty the thing is so" - No, I do not suggest that.
The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)Your post carries no argument, no refutation, does not make or rebutt any point, attempts to introduce unnecessary complications, and in general, can best be classed as squid's ink.
However, your quote of my essential point is appreciated: repetition is one of the keys to persuasion, people remember what they hear repeatedly and their thought is often shaped by what memories their minds hold, so your assistance in driving home my point, that your basic method of arguing for 'special' ways of knowing is to suggest that something be accepted as possible, and then to proceed to treat such an acceptance of a possibility as an admission of, or declaration of, certainty the thing is so....
humblebum
(5,881 posts)four in the morning and I certainly wouldn't want to tax your thinking processes at such a time. You talk about "special ways of knowing" and I have no idea what you are talking about. However, other ways of knowing are used regularly on a massive scale in everyday life and there is nothing "special" about them.
If you want to define "other", then that other must be compared against something else or a standard (for lack of a better word). If your world or concept of reality extends no farther than what your 5 senses can verify as objective proof, then you do not need to use other ways of knowing. Unless, of course, you should take your wife to a play, and she likes it, you hate it. then you are left with deciding what is the standard by which a play is deemed to be great, good, or horrible.
tama
(9,137 posts)said. What is potential will (certainly!) actualize, otherwise it would not be possible.
In Feynmann diagrams (How and where do they exist and came to be?) photons (and other observables) travel all possible paths, you shut up and calculate and end up with mathematical constant that is roughly the same number as number of atoms in chlorophyll-molecule that enables photosynthesis and life as we know it. And a question: what kind of coincidence is that?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)sure you can experience something "out of the ordinary", just drop acid and you can meet your god of choice. This doesn't mean that deity is real, anymore than floating pink elephants, which you might also see.
tama
(9,137 posts)Nothing new here, but needs to be reclarified - certainly the experiences alternative states in mind are as real as any other experiences. Also, comparative studies based on various evidence strongly suggest that there are common shared pattern experienced during alternative states of mind, regardless of time and place.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Using multiple sources of evidence.
Note, personal experience and states of mind don't mean much, just because you think something is real doesn't make it real. Just because there are broad patterns in all humans doesn't mean much beyond identifying we all have the same structured brain. Given we are the same species, this is no surprise.
tama
(9,137 posts)personal experience and states of mind can and do mean much, regardless of your subjective valuations and estimates of meaning and definition of real. Quanta of meaning is not the same as quantity of information in bits of qubits, meaning is... indeed, what is the meaning of meaning? Can meaning mean even when left undefined?
For many people altered states of mind have been most meaningful experiences of their lives, changing and defining their behavioral patterns etc.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)There is as of yet no data that cannot be explained without the need to resort to supernatural causes.
Edited for redundancy.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)tama
(9,137 posts)It's just data that has not been produced in controlled laboratory environment.
There are many kinds of data basis of anecdotal evidence. Beginning from personal memories...
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Just as one tiny example , we can "hear" sound waves not only in our own sun but in other stars as well.
http://soi.stanford.edu/results/heliowhat.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroseismology
tama
(9,137 posts)are not "labs" in the sense of the prototypical alchemist den. But besides the point of the usual meanings of 'data', which was now qualified with the epithet 'hard', which can be used to separate anecdotal evidence from "hard data".
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Indeed, for much of the history of astronomy that's the only optical instrument that was available.
We know of the supernova that created the Crab Nebula through records from Chinese astronomers in 1054 CE who worked without optical aid and yet they recorded their data which was then correlated with modern optical and other data to increase our overall knowledge of that particular event and object.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Its not the opposite of lab experiments. Get your definitions right before you debate.
tama
(9,137 posts)aim to produce data that can be repeatedly observed in any lab. Which is not necessarily the case with data consisting of anecdotal evidence. As we all know.
A more philosophical point to discuss would be questioning why repeatability should be considered THE criterion for truth...
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)if you claim to know something or seen something, I'd like to see or know it too, and if for some reason I can't do either, then why should I believe something when I only have your subjective impression of it?
tama
(9,137 posts)practical and skeptical considerations. I was speaking about the philosophical point of 'truth' of unique non-repeatable occurrences that standard scientific method is not devised to handle.
comipinko
(541 posts)a scientific argument and definitely not a philosophical argument, and that is also in (a reasonable persons) opinion a sound or at least strong argument?
bowens43
(16,064 posts)there is nothing that hasn't been or won't eventually be explained by natural processes.
It is up to those with the extraordinary claims (the believers) to provide a rational or scientific argument for the existence of of these unseen beings.
deacon_sephiroth
(731 posts)religion, or a specific religion, or god?
There's no point in argueing against religion, that's just a belief system, it's very real, in that there really are people running around believeing things, I can't argue against that.
However I think we all know what you're TRYING to say, and it's of course a mistake. (and you know better)
Perhaps my friend Mr. Russell can clear this one up, since it's been done to death, and rather a dead issue since (ever) 1952 at least... Bertrand?
"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."
Once you have proven to myself and Mr. Russell that his teapot does not in fact exist, I will summarilly disprove your religious faith.
and... GO!
deacon_sephiroth
(731 posts)Bueller?......Bueller?....
tama
(9,137 posts)in the tale about Emperors New Clothes.
Boojatta
(12,231 posts)The concept "dogma" isn't entirely clear to me. Are we talking about some quality of various statements, or are we talking about how the statements are presented? For example, I imagine that if some statement is presented with no explanation and no description of the thought process that generated it, then it might be a dogmatic presentation, even though it might be possible to introduce the same statement in a non-dogmatic manner.
I imagine that a dogmatic presentation could have one advantage: any defects in the thought process that generated a statement could have a kind of guilt-by-association effect, provoking people to harshly judge the statement itself, even though the statement itself might be true.
On the other hand, most of the time it's probably more important to ensure that we are dealing with ideas and not merely words, understanding rather than mere memorization. Thus, I think that a non-dogmatic presentation is almost always better.
***
"But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense."
I don't think that it's an intolerable presumption to doubt the claims of religion. In fact, I think that most people who believe in God don't have good reasons to believe in God. I think that they are in a sense lucky: what they believe happens to be true or close to the truth.
saras
(6,670 posts)It's relevant to fundamentalists of various stripes derived from the Old Testament - the Book. And to those who are locked in tarbaby opposition to them.
The best scientific argument I know of against religion is the simple observation that none of the things really important to religion are the sorts of questions or issues that science deals with, any more than science can tell you whether Thomas Pynchon is any good or not.
The world is run by impersonal forces of immense complexity. These impersonal forces are female, and Her name is Eris.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Please, be specific.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Fnord.
tama
(9,137 posts)nominated Pope of Discordianism? Any case, here goes...
lazarus
(27,383 posts)those making a positive claim are the ones who must supply the argument. This whole thread is a waste of time and energy.
Can you give an example of an argument against Santa that is ...
a scientific argument and definitely not a philosophical argument, and that is also in your opinion a sound or at least strong argument?
uriel1972
(4,261 posts)Or indeed the Flying Spaghetti Monster that is sound etc... The burden of proof is on the extraordinary claim. Give me scientific proof or at least a strong argument in favour of supernatural entities.
lindysalsagal
(22,903 posts)But Santa is Real! 
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Jesus Christ offered testable claims for our consideration.
Mark 16:17-18
17And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
Christians should be able to do the following:
1) Cast out devils. (I don't know how to test this.)
2) Speak with new tongues. (Almost anyone can learn a second language, so this is not very good for testing.)
3) Take up serpents (Almost anyone can take up a serpent, so this is not very good for testing.)
4) Drink any deadly thing without harm. (This is great for testing.)
5) Heal the sick by laying hands. (This is also great for testing.)
If Christians cannot drink any deadly thing without harm, or heal the sick by laying hands, then this religion is false.
uriel1972
(4,261 posts)The scientific arguments against religion would be found through studies of the detrimental effects of religion as opposed to it's benefits.
All science can say about God is they are not needed to make the universe what it is today.
Boojatta
(12,231 posts)In the late 1990s, the financial news included stories about dot com stock prices climbing steadily, with no apparent ceiling in sight. Such news had the detrimental effect of attracting speculative investors who kept the bubble growing. That growth created a hazard for the unwary, and the inevitable popping of the bubble had various detrimental effects. I trust that you don't on that basis conclude that news of high and rising dot com stock prices was false information.
If you don't like that example, then consider a quite different one. Eyewitness testimony can be quite valuable in establishing that some alleged events of the past actually occurred. Consider events that have led to post-traumatic stress disorder in most of the witnesses. Obviously the effects are detrimental, but just as obviously the eyewitnesses play an important role in establishing that the events actually occurred. If all eyewitnesses had been secretly hunted down and killed quickly and painlessly, then they wouldn't be alive to experience any detrimental effects, but the truth about the past might then be inaccessible to us.
uriel1972
(4,261 posts)Religion is real. It ain't false. All I did was provide an outline of how science can provide an argument against religion.
Eliminator
(190 posts)The belief that Jesus died, rose from the dead, and then bodily floated up into heaven is demonstratably false. Scientifically and logically. People can't fly without airplanes or helicopters or hot air balloons, and people don't rise from the dead days after they die.
Ok I have a few more.
The host does not transform into the body and wine does not transform into the blood of Christ during mass. This can easily be demonstrated scientifically.
Moses did not part the sea. That is physically impossible.
Noah could not have built an arc that housed two of every animal on the planet. Again, physically impossible.
Mohammed did not hear God's words. It has been learned that what he experienced were nothing more than schizophrenic hallucinations.
The rock that Muslims walk around every year in Mecca during the Hajj is nothing more than a meteorite.
There's more, but I think you get my point.
uriel1972
(4,261 posts)Not the claims a religion makes, I don't believe that Moses parted the Red Sea for instance, or the physical existence of a Jesus Christ as outlined in the Bible.
Nor is it an argument about God, which I also don't believe in.
Apart from the claims about the host transforming into the body of Christ, the claims you state, are so unlikely as to be untrue, I would not go as far as to say demonstrably false. Skeptic as I am I like to steer away from definite statements like that, one day you may drop a ball and it will fall up.
Eliminator
(190 posts)Arguments against claims a religion makes amounts to an argument against religion, does it not? Or is it your contention that being willfully ignorant is a good thing? Because people actually DO believe these things to be true.
And no, the claims are not merely "unlikely". They are, in fact, demonstrably false. If a ball does fall up one day, a SCIENTIFIC explanation will exist, not a religious one.
uriel1972
(4,261 posts)but I don't have the scientific evidence to back it up.
If the claims of a religion are untrue and if willful ignorance is harmful then that amounts to an argument against religion. It is not a given, the first and second parts of the argument must be shown to be true.
Science requires inquiry, evidence, doubt and openness/honesty, unless you have the physical evidence to say 'This thing did not happen' then you can't say it was demonstrably false. To say this thing can't happen under today's conditions is another thing entirely.
To say 'This thing did not happen' without actually having the records/evidence is to be as dogmatic as any religion. It may of happened and if it happened, yes there will be a scientific explanation for it even if we don't have the science to investigate it yet.
Trust me there will always be a religious explanation as well as a scientific explanation.
lindysalsagal
(22,903 posts)There's your proof: None of the prophesies that were to accompany the coming of the messiah have materialized.
There is a slow, general evolving and enlightening going on, but that's not due to a metaphysical visitation. That's called evolution.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)a scientific argument and definitely not a philosophical argument, and that is also in your opinion a sound or at least strong argument?
can you give an example of any scientific argument that is also not an philosophical argument?