By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Is God's existence objectively verifiable?

 

Well, is it objectively verifiable?

Yes 57 15.20%
 
Not Sure 20 5.33%
 
No 244 65.07%
 
What's objective mean? 16 4.27%
 
Results 38 10.13%
 
Total:375
Dulfite on 30 January 2016
Torillian said:
Dulfite said:
Torillian said:
Dulfite said:

As for your last point, it's a heart thing. God desires people to come to HIM and to receive HIS blessing of salvation, but people refuse and reject HIM time and time again. And people, all of us, are deserving of the punishments of eternal separation from God (we kill each other, lie to each other, commit all kinds of sexual immorality, and the list goes on). But God, being merciful, offered THE way out of that in Jesus Christ. Blaming God for people going to hell when he has freely offered the way out of it is like blaming a firefighter on a lader extending his hand to someone in a burning building and that person rejecting the hand, it just doesn't make sense. 

God makes the rules and then decides what's required for him to "forgive us" our transgressions.  

In your analogy that would be like if the Firefighter lit the person's house on fire, and then when reaching out his hand said that you'll have to love him in order for him to save you.  

 

No, because mankind was not originally in sin when God create us. We put ourselves into sin and therefore the burning house. It's not like we, as a species, were created in the burning house.

God made the rule that he can't abide sin.  He's all powerful, why does he have requirements to his forgiveness?  He decided that everyone who doesn't love him goes to hell.  He absolutely lit the house on fire.  

It's not a rule against his own ability to be in sin, that is a common misconception. Sin is literally the opposite of God, because HE is totally holy and righteous. Sin is the absence of godliness. Again, people act like loving God is a sacrifice or that it's forced. HE is extending HIS hand to you and everyone else at all times. If people want to reject that hand, how is it God's fault? I love every second I've had since becoming a Christian, not just because I'm now saved (that's just the beginning) but now I have a relationship with the creator of myself, the way it was meant to be, and HE is constantly changing me for the better and ridding me of sinful desires and replacing those desires with love for HIM and love for HIS children (all humans). I have never loved believers in Christ and non believers more than I do now and I know that will continue to grow.





Around the Network
JWeinCom on 30 January 2016
sabvre42 said:
JWeinCom said:

You do not understand my point -- or need to play apologist for aethiesm apparently. You are writing the null hypothesis to state that god does not exist, when in reality that is a hypothesis in and of itself. Therefore, the null hypothesis can be easily flip flopped. From a philisophical and scientific stand point (based on what we know at this given time), you are applying your own personal bias by deeming that yours is NOT a hypothesis.

The null hypothesis is that the hypothesis has not been proven.  So, the null hypothesis to "god doesn't exist" is "god has not been proven to exist".

The hypothesis that there is no god is not atheism.  That is antitheism.  That hypothesis would absoltely need to be proven.  But this is a hypothesis that few atheists make.

Aethists believe in NOTHING -- Literally thats THE definition of aethism. Carl sagan himself refused to be labeled as a athiest for this exact reason. You claim this is an argument over symantics, but the point remains. If you are unsure of what the cause of the universe is -- you are an AEGNOSTIC.

From what source did you get this definition of atheism?  What atheists don't believe in is any supernatural being. They don't believe in "nothing".

Atheism is a belief regarding the claim that god exists.  If you believe the claim, you are a theist.  If you do not believe the claim, you are an atheist.

Gnosticism and agnosticism refer to knowledge.  You can be an agnostic atheist or a gnostic atheist. 

An agnostic atheist does not believe that god exists, but they are not sure that he does not.  This is the category that most atheists would fall under.

A gnostic atheist believes definitively that god does not exist.  Also known as an atheist.  This kind of atheist does have a burden of proof.

The problem that most "aethiests" have is that they do not understand theology -- they simply assume that god is a guy sitting on a throne in the sky (akin to most creation myths). Even the bible itself references god as being something incomprehensible and outside of anything the human brain can comprehend.  This falls inline with a higher dimensional "being". The big bang itself can even be considered "god".

So... if god is incomprehensible, how can I believe in him?  How can I believe in something I cannot comprehend?  I'm pretty sure that is literally impossible.

By making your null hypothesis you are by also assuming a paradox which just simply doesn't work in science.  The concept of reality is far too abstract for you to make a binary "This is" vs "This is not". My whole point is that your hypoethesis vs null hypothesis does not work on something that is NOT testable. You cannot prove, and you cannot disprove. This is why this is a theological/philosophical discussion rather than scientific.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan

"On atheism, Sagan commented in 1981:

An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed.[66]"

God is an abstract concept. I'm not asking you to believe.

That is not the argument occuring here. My point is that when it comes to defining the fundamentals of reality it is just as arrogant and niave to assume that someone has to prove to you something that is neither provable or disprovable.  You are claiming that x cannot be true because their is no evidence, even though the lack of x causes a paradox.

 

By making your null hypothesis you are by also assuming a paradox which just simply doesn't work in science.  The concept of reality is far too abstract for you to make a binary "This is" vs "This is not". My whole point is that your hypoethesis vs null hypothesis does not work on something that is NOT testable. You cannot prove, and you cannot disprove. This is why this is a theological/philosophical discussion rather than scientific.

No.  You are not assuming anything.  All you are saying is that it has not been proven.  That doesn't mean that you believe the universe came from nothing.  You can not believe either.


Let's say there is a jar of marbles.  You say that the number of objects in the jar is even.  That is your hypothesis.  The null hypothesis is that we can't prove the number is even.

If I accept the null hypothesis, that the number is not even, that does not mean I am saying the number is odd.  It simply means that I don't accept the hypothesis that the number is even.

Even though even/odd is a binary proposition, that does not mean that rejecting one means accepting the other.  I can also take the position "I don't know". As in the null hypothesis is true for both "god exists" and "god doesn't exist".  I can, and do, reject both of these claims.

An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed.[66]"

Firstly, that doesn't say that atheist's believe in nothing.

Secondly, Sagan is simply wrong.  If you look at dictionary definitions, the definitions provided by American Atheists, or the definitions given by prominent atheists, they would almost all disagree with Sagan.  For example, from Christopher Hitchens,


"We don't say on non-truth claims or faith claims that we know when we don't.....atheists do not say that we know there is no god. We say to the contrary, no argument and no evidence has ever been educed that we consider to be persuasive......The same with the afterlife. Of course we don't say that we know there isn't one. We say that we don't know anyone who can bring any reason to think that there is. "

Sagan is not an absolute authority, and neither is Hitchens, but the vast majority of atheists would go with the latter definition.  This definition also agrees with the etymology of the words.

God is an abstract concept. I'm not asking you to believe.

That is not the argument occuring here. My point is that when it comes to defining the fundamentals of reality it is just as arrogant and niave to assume that someone has to prove to you something that is neither provable or disprovable.  You are claiming that x cannot be true because their is no evidence, even though the lack of x causes a paradox.

It's good that you're not asking me to believe.  What would be even better is if you would stop trying to tell me what I believe.

Again, and I don't know any better way to describe this, the position of atheism, and my personal position, is not that god doesn't exist.

I am not claiming "x cannot be true".  I am claiming "x cannot be demonstrated to be true so I don't believe it."

And god is just as paradoxical.  Making up unjustifiable claims like he exists outside of space time does not resolve the paradox.  Existence outside of space and time is simply another paradox.  You've just pushed it back one layer.



sabvre42 on 30 January 2016
JWeinCom said:
sabvre42 said:
JWeinCom said:

You do not understand my point -- or need to play apologist for aethiesm apparently. You are writing the null hypothesis to state that god does not exist, when in reality that is a hypothesis in and of itself. Therefore, the null hypothesis can be easily flip flopped. From a philisophical and scientific stand point (based on what we know at this given time), you are applying your own personal bias by deeming that yours is NOT a hypothesis.

The null hypothesis is that the hypothesis has not been proven.  So, the null hypothesis to "god doesn't exist" is "god has not been proven to exist".

The hypothesis that there is no god is not atheism.  That is antitheism.  That hypothesis would absoltely need to be proven.  But this is a hypothesis that few atheists make.

Aethists believe in NOTHING -- Literally thats THE definition of aethism. Carl sagan himself refused to be labeled as a athiest for this exact reason. You claim this is an argument over symantics, but the point remains. If you are unsure of what the cause of the universe is -- you are an AEGNOSTIC.

From what source did you get this definition of atheism?  What atheists don't believe in is any supernatural being. They don't believe in "nothing".

Atheism is a belief regarding the claim that god exists.  If you believe the claim, you are a theist.  If you do not believe the claim, you are an atheist.

Gnosticism and agnosticism refer to knowledge.  You can be an agnostic atheist or a gnostic atheist. 

An agnostic atheist does not believe that god exists, but they are not sure that he does not.  This is the category that most atheists would fall under.

A gnostic atheist believes definitively that god does not exist.  Also known as an atheist.  This kind of atheist does have a burden of proof.

The problem that most "aethiests" have is that they do not understand theology -- they simply assume that god is a guy sitting on a throne in the sky (akin to most creation myths). Even the bible itself references god as being something incomprehensible and outside of anything the human brain can comprehend.  This falls inline with a higher dimensional "being". The big bang itself can even be considered "god".

So... if god is incomprehensible, how can I believe in him?  How can I believe in something I cannot comprehend?  I'm pretty sure that is literally impossible.

By making your null hypothesis you are by also assuming a paradox which just simply doesn't work in science.  The concept of reality is far too abstract for you to make a binary "This is" vs "This is not". My whole point is that your hypoethesis vs null hypothesis does not work on something that is NOT testable. You cannot prove, and you cannot disprove. This is why this is a theological/philosophical discussion rather than scientific.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan

"On atheism, Sagan commented in 1981:

An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed.[66]"

God is an abstract concept. I'm not asking you to believe.

That is not the argument occuring here. My point is that when it comes to defining the fundamentals of reality it is just as arrogant and niave to assume that someone has to prove to you something that is neither provable or disprovable.  You are claiming that x cannot be true because their is no evidence, even though the lack of x causes a paradox.

 

By making your null hypothesis you are by also assuming a paradox which just simply doesn't work in science.  The concept of reality is far too abstract for you to make a binary "This is" vs "This is not". My whole point is that your hypoethesis vs null hypothesis does not work on something that is NOT testable. You cannot prove, and you cannot disprove. This is why this is a theological/philosophical discussion rather than scientific.

No.  You are not assuming anything.  All you are saying is that it has not been proven.  That doesn't mean that you believe the universe came from nothing.  You can not believe either.


Let's say there is a jar of marbles.  You say that the number of objects in the jar is even.  That is your hypothesis.  The null hypothesis is that we can't prove the number is even.

If I accept the null hypothesis, that the number is not even, that does not mean I am saying the number is odd.  It simply means that I don't accept the hypothesis is odd. 

Even though even/odd is a binary proposition, that does not mean that rejecting one means accepting the other.  I can also take the position "I don't know". As in the null hypothesis is true for both "god exists" and "god doesn't exist".  I can, and do, reject both of these claims.

An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed.[66]"

Firstly, that doesn't say that atheist's believe in nothing.

Secondly, Sagan is simply wrong.  If you look at dictionary definitions, the definitions provided by American Atheists, or the definitions given by prominent atheists, they would almost all disagree with Sagan.  For example, from Christopher Hitchens,


"We don't say on non-truth claims or faith claims that we know when we don't.....atheists do not say that we know there is no god. We say to the contrary, no argument and no evidence has ever been educed that we consider to be persuasive......The same with the afterlife. Of course we don't say that we know there isn't one. We say that we don't know anyone who can bring any reason to think that there is. "

Sagan is not an absolute authority, and neither is Hitchens, but the vast majority of atheists would go with the latter definition.  This definition also agrees with the etymology of the words.

God is an abstract concept. I'm not asking you to believe.

That is not the argument occuring here. My point is that when it comes to defining the fundamentals of reality it is just as arrogant and niave to assume that someone has to prove to you something that is neither provable or disprovable.  You are claiming that x cannot be true because their is no evidence, even though the lack of x causes a paradox.

It's good that you're not asking me to believe.  What would be even better is if you would stop trying to tell me what I believe.

Again, and I don't know any better way to describe this, the position of atheism, and my personal position, is not that god doesn't exist.

I am not claiming "x cannot be true".  I am claiming "x cannot be demonstrated to be true so I don't believe it."

And god is just as paradoxical.  Making up unjustifiable claims like he exists outside of space time does not resolve the paradox.  Existence outside of space and time is simply another paradox.  You've just pushed it back one layer.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

noun

1. a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme beingor beings.

noun

1.a person who does not believe in God or gods

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god?s=t

noun

1.the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.

2.the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particularattribute:the God of Islam.

3. (lowercase) one of several deities, especially a male deity, presidingover some portion of worldly affairs.

4.(often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particularconception: the god of mercy.

5.Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth,Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.

6.(lowercase) an image of a deity; an idol.

7.(lowercase) any deified person or object.



Volterra_90 on 30 January 2016
Puppyroach said:
Volterra_90 said:
It's impossible to justify objectively God's existence. And it's impossible to deny his existence too. So, I remain agnostic. Though I don't believe it's possible the existence of an interventionist God, like some religions say. Maybe it's a physical force which keep the Universe balanced and non-chaotic. It's a complex subject.

So you're agnostic when it comes to Zeus, Oden or Santa as well? :)

XDDDD. Okey, I get what you're saying. But the examples you say were concepts made by humans to explain irrationally the nature (okey, except Santa, but we already know SPOILER FOR BELIEVERS who gives us the presents). So I have a hard time believing them and I find more likely the existance of a "god" as natural force which keep things balances and mantain the order. The concept of an interventionist god, male, female, a kind deity... Are kinda ridiculous and irrational. But, funny thing, their existance can't be discarted 100%, so we can't say that they don't existe for sure, even if I have a hard time believing them.

Answering the OP, the only possible, sustained and rational answer is no.



Torillian on 30 January 2016
Dulfite said:

It's not a rule against his own ability to be in sin, that is a common misconception. Sin is literally the opposite of God, because HE is totally holy and righteous. Sin is the absence of godliness. Again, people act like loving God is a sacrifice or that it's forced. HE is extending HIS hand to you and everyone else at all times. If people want to reject that hand, how is it God's fault? I love every second I've had since becoming a Christian, not just because I'm now saved (that's just the beginning) but now I have a relationship with the creator of myself, the way it was meant to be, and HE is constantly changing me for the better and ridding me of sinful desires and replacing those desires with love for HIM and love for HIS children (all humans). I have never loved believers in Christ and non believers more than I do now and I know that will continue to grow.

So what stops him from forgiving people of their sin without the whole "you have to love me and believe in me even though I gave you an analytical brain and refuse to prove myself logically" thing?  The concept of an all-powerful all-loving god that sends you to hell if you don't believe in him either requires that he has to (not all-powerful) or wants to (not all-loving).  





...

Around the Network
sabvre42 on 30 January 2016
Torillian said:
Dulfite said:

It's not a rule against his own ability to be in sin, that is a common misconception. Sin is literally the opposite of God, because HE is totally holy and righteous. Sin is the absence of godliness. Again, people act like loving God is a sacrifice or that it's forced. HE is extending HIS hand to you and everyone else at all times. If people want to reject that hand, how is it God's fault? I love every second I've had since becoming a Christian, not just because I'm now saved (that's just the beginning) but now I have a relationship with the creator of myself, the way it was meant to be, and HE is constantly changing me for the better and ridding me of sinful desires and replacing those desires with love for HIM and love for HIS children (all humans). I have never loved believers in Christ and non believers more than I do now and I know that will continue to grow.

So what stops him from forgiving people of their sin without the whole "you have to love me and believe in me even though I gave you an analytical brain and refuse to prove myself logically" thing?  The concept of an all-powerful all-loving god that sends you to hell if you don't believe in him either requires that he has to (not all-powerful) or wants to (not all-loving).  

FYI - This is a classical misinterpretation. It wasn't until The Divine Comedy that hell was considered to be the concept that it is now. Its often considered a misintrepration by the catholic church in order to scare people into good behavior. 





Torillian on 30 January 2016
sabvre42 said:
Torillian said:
Dulfite said:

It's not a rule against his own ability to be in sin, that is a common misconception. Sin is literally the opposite of God, because HE is totally holy and righteous. Sin is the absence of godliness. Again, people act like loving God is a sacrifice or that it's forced. HE is extending HIS hand to you and everyone else at all times. If people want to reject that hand, how is it God's fault? I love every second I've had since becoming a Christian, not just because I'm now saved (that's just the beginning) but now I have a relationship with the creator of myself, the way it was meant to be, and HE is constantly changing me for the better and ridding me of sinful desires and replacing those desires with love for HIM and love for HIS children (all humans). I have never loved believers in Christ and non believers more than I do now and I know that will continue to grow.

So what stops him from forgiving people of their sin without the whole "you have to love me and believe in me even though I gave you an analytical brain and refuse to prove myself logically" thing?  The concept of an all-powerful all-loving god that sends you to hell if you don't believe in him either requires that he has to (not all-powerful) or wants to (not all-loving).  

FYI - This is a classical misinterpretation. It wasn't until The Divine Comedy that hell was considered to be the concept that it is now. Its often considered a misintrepration by the catholic church in order to scare people into good behavior. 

So then there is no hell or hell isn't a place of fire and burning?  Because if there isn't hell and everyone goes to heaven I don't really have to concern myself with believing in god, and if there is a hell and god sends people there then I don't want to worship an asshole.  





...

sabvre42 on 30 January 2016
Torillian said:
sabvre42 said:
Torillian said:
Dulfite said:

It's not a rule against his own ability to be in sin, that is a common misconception. Sin is literally the opposite of God, because HE is totally holy and righteous. Sin is the absence of godliness. Again, people act like loving God is a sacrifice or that it's forced. HE is extending HIS hand to you and everyone else at all times. If people want to reject that hand, how is it God's fault? I love every second I've had since becoming a Christian, not just because I'm now saved (that's just the beginning) but now I have a relationship with the creator of myself, the way it was meant to be, and HE is constantly changing me for the better and ridding me of sinful desires and replacing those desires with love for HIM and love for HIS children (all humans). I have never loved believers in Christ and non believers more than I do now and I know that will continue to grow.

So what stops him from forgiving people of their sin without the whole "you have to love me and believe in me even though I gave you an analytical brain and refuse to prove myself logically" thing?  The concept of an all-powerful all-loving god that sends you to hell if you don't believe in him either requires that he has to (not all-powerful) or wants to (not all-loving).  

FYI - This is a classical misinterpretation. It wasn't until The Divine Comedy that hell was considered to be the concept that it is now. Its often considered a misintrepration by the catholic church in order to scare people into good behavior. 

So then there is no hell or hell isn't a place of fire and burning?  Because if there isn't hell and everyone goes to heaven I don't really have to concern myself with believing in god, and if there is a hell and god sends people there then I don't want to believe in an asshole.  

That depends on the particular interpretation of the bible. I like to consider heaven the judiac version of nirvana/ the "dao"/etc. 

If the bible is correct -- you may still be sent to hell. But it wouldn't be the torture that Dante made it out to be. Its more likely a version of "purgatory". Or the ones left behind during "the rapture".

The concept of non believers being damned to hell has too many problems for most foward thinking christians to believe in (same with infant baptism for catholics... and misscarried children being damned to hell). Take for example a person that grew up isolated on a deserted island. Why would "god" punish them for them not having been given a chance?



fatslob-:O on 30 January 2016
DivinePaladin said:

In fairness, burden of proof sits with the person making the outlandish claim. Not to say religion is outlandish necessarily, but it's definitely more so than the claim that there isn't a god. 

I personally don't care as I don't contemplate over pointless questions about God's existence and just get on with being an agnostic athiest because it's seemingly impossible to prove or disprove such ... 

I want science to focus for our benefit, not be used as some futile attempt to deface religion ... 



Nem on 30 January 2016
Nighthawk117 said:

The question is: " Is God's existence objectively verifiable?"

Guys, the answer is rather really simple.
If you can prove that ghosts exist, then I would say unequivocally that God exists.
Evolution cannot explain the existence of ghosts, which is the human soul.
Only God could have created the human soul, and thus ghosts.

Now, good luck proving to me that ghosts exist, because I would need to see them with my own eyes.

 

Err... what? Even if Ghost's existed i don't know how you jump to "only God could have created them". I'm sure there would be a logical explanation. But, it needs to be real to have a logical explanation.