Religion

Sal316

(3,373 posts)

47. Ok, let me type slower.

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 08:52 PM

Dec 2011

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".

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

86 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Can you give an example of an argument against religion that is ... [View all] Boojatta Dec 2011 OP

Sure. There is zero scientific evidence that there is a god. n/t Scuba Dec 2011 #1

If there's zero scientific evidence that Goldbach's conjecture is false ... Boojatta Dec 2011 #4

And, as the corollary to that: All arguments for the existence MarkCharles Dec 2011 #5

If there's zero scientific evidence, then there is a test methodology, right? Sal316 Dec 2011 #6

that makes no sense. bowens43 Dec 2011 #8

That's not what was requested. Sal316 Dec 2011 #10

Where there is no evidence there is simply that. Your mind is begging other questions. If you.. MarkCharles Dec 2011 #11

You prove my point. Sal316 Dec 2011 #13

You missed the point. One is a statement of fact, the other MarkCharles Dec 2011 #14

And I'm simply asking for the facts to back up the claim. Sal316 Dec 2011 #16

Would you like to provide the scientific evidence for God? laconicsax Dec 2011 #20

I'm not the one that made the definitive claim. Sal316 Dec 2011 #35

"I'm not contesting that there's no scientific evidence" laconicsax Dec 2011 #43

Never said there was. Sal316 Dec 2011 #46

Why should I substantiate a claim I never made? laconicsax Dec 2011 #48

A statement of fact is now "obfuscation"? Good one! MarkCharles Dec 2011 #26

How is something unproven a verified fact? Sal316 Dec 2011 #29

How, it is antithetical to the principles and current levels of revelations of science MarkCharles Dec 2011 #32

Got data? Sal316 Dec 2011 #36

The test methodology is the same, just provide the evidence first... cleanhippie Dec 2011 #15

*bzzt* Nope, that's not how it works. Sal316 Dec 2011 #18

That's circular logic, sal, and it's worthless. cleanhippie Dec 2011 #22

How is it circular? Sal316 Dec 2011 #28

Seriously? cleanhippie Dec 2011 #41

Ok, let me type slower. Sal316 Dec 2011 #47

Sal, I feel you are being obtuse. cleanhippie Dec 2011 #50

"Science actually requires there to BE something to test" tama Dec 2011 #64

The problem is that the examples you use have tried and tested methodologies... Humanist_Activist Dec 2011 #53

A question tama Dec 2011 #76

If god is just a matter of definition, it becomes meaningless... Humanist_Activist Dec 2011 #78

Semantic games tama Dec 2011 #79

I would, more or less, agree with Smolin's definition... Humanist_Activist Dec 2011 #84

Zeilinger tama Dec 2011 #86

If your considerations for the existence or non-existence of deity extend no farther humblebum Dec 2011 #21

so, just use your imagination? lazarus Dec 2011 #23

Edison "imagined" a light bulb. So what's your point? humblebum Dec 2011 #24

Not Really, Sir The Magistrate Dec 2011 #30

Thank you for the clarification and making me realize that the potential value of humblebum Dec 2011 #31

Your 'What's This Glow Hover'ng In My Mind? I Shall Call It Light Bulb!' Version, Sir, Needed A Kick The Magistrate Dec 2011 #37

Did I ever say that it was not? We live in a material world. However, humblebum Dec 2011 #39

The Leap Between 'Accepting the Possibility' And 'Declaring As Fact', Sir, Breaks Many Bones The Magistrate Dec 2011 #42

I can definitely see that you are not in the "other ways of knowing" group. What you just humblebum Dec 2011 #44

But It Is Exactly the Proposition You Suggest, Sir The Magistrate Dec 2011 #45

And that is exactly where you are wrong. If there was 100% ojectivity for every idea ever conceived humblebum Dec 2011 #57

Not Worth the Efort At Four In the Morning, Sir The Magistrate Dec 2011 #58

Yes I can see by the spelling in your subject line that it is humblebum Dec 2011 #59

That's what Aristotle tama Dec 2011 #65

What you are talking about is illusion... Humanist_Activist Dec 2011 #54

Define real :) tama Dec 2011 #66

Something that can be indepently verified to exist or occur... Humanist_Activist Dec 2011 #75

Using multiple sources of evidence tama Dec 2011 #80

Anecdotal evidence is not data.. Fumesucker Dec 2011 #2

Yes, but much of that so-called "data" rises no higher than being hypothetical. humblebum Dec 2011 #25

? Fumesucker Dec 2011 #27

Anecdotal evidence is data. tama Dec 2011 #67

Astronomy is a science that produces hard data and yet it has no laboratory. Fumesucker Dec 2011 #71

Granted, observatories and LHC tama Dec 2011 #72

It was at one time possible to do cutting edge astronomical research with the naked eye.. Fumesucker Dec 2011 #74

Ancedotal evidence can't be repeatedly observed or independently verified... Humanist_Activist Dec 2011 #77

Lab experiments tama Dec 2011 #82

Its not necessarily philosophical, but practical... Humanist_Activist Dec 2011 #83

Those are valid tama Dec 2011 #85

Can you give an example of an argument for religion that is... comipinko Dec 2011 #3

there is no evidence supporting the existence of gods. bowens43 Dec 2011 #7

Arguement "against" religion? deacon_sephiroth Dec 2011 #9

anyone?...anyone? deacon_sephiroth Dec 2011 #61

I like the little boy tama Dec 2011 #68

Re dogmas and intolerable presumption Boojatta Dec 2011 #81

The kind of god being argued about here is irrelevant to most saras Dec 2011 #12

And you know the gender and name of these forces how? cleanhippie Dec 2011 #17

It is a joke from hippy-counter culture. ZombieHorde Dec 2011 #40

Have you been tama Dec 2011 #69

shifting the burden lazarus Dec 2011 #19

Can you give me an argument against the Invisible Pink Flying Unicorn uriel1972 Dec 2011 #33

The Easter Bunny told me last week that there is no god. lindysalsagal Dec 2011 #34

I can. ZombieHorde Dec 2011 #38

Whoa major brain spasm uriel1972 Dec 2011 #49

How do you get "false" out of "detrimental"? Boojatta Dec 2011 #51

Um where did I say it was false? uriel1972 Dec 2011 #55

I got one specifically for you Eliminator Dec 2011 #52

The OP said an argument against religion uriel1972 Dec 2011 #56

What's the difference? Eliminator Dec 2011 #60

I don't contend that willfull ignorance is a good thing, uriel1972 Dec 2011 #62

The Prince of peace, the end of strife and war and suffering....Hasn't happened, yet. lindysalsagal Dec 2011 #63

Can you give an example of an argument against the Magic Sandwich that is... laconicsax Dec 2011 #70

And tama Dec 2011 #73