For all the atheists out there
What evidence do you have that proves to you that there is no God? Is the "there is not God" a statement simply a statement of faith?
61-69, M
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
BlueSkyKing · M
[b]THE SCIENTIFIC GOD MODEL[/b]
So, let us now define a scientific God model, [i]a theory of God.[/i] A supreme being is hypothesized to exist having the following attributes:
1. God is the creator and preserver of the universe.
2. God is the architect of the structure of the universe and the author of the laws of nature.
3. God steps in whenever he wishes to change the course of events, which may include violating his own laws as, for example, in response to human entreaties.
4. God is the creator and preserver of life and humanity, where human beings are special in relation to other lifeforms.
5. God has endowed humans with immaterial, eternal souls that exist independent of their bodies and carry the essence of a person's character and selfhood.
6. God is the source of morality and other human values such as freedom, justice, and democracy.
7. God has revealed truths in scriptures and by communicating directly to select individuals throughout history.
8. God does not deliberately hide from any human being
who is open to finding evidence for his presence.
Most of these attributes are traditionally associated with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God, and many are shared by the gods of diverse religions. Note, however, that the traditional attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence—the 3 '0' characteristics usually associated with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God—have been omitted.
The scientific argument against the existence of God will be a modified form of the lack-of-evidence argument:
1. Hypothesize a God who plays an important role in the universe.
2. Assume that God has specific attributes that should provide [b]objective[/b] evidence for his existence.
3. Look for such evidence with an open mind.
4. If such evidence is found, conclude that God [i]may[/i] exist.
5. If such objective evidence is not found, conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a God with these properties does [i]not[/i] exist.
Recall that it is easier to falsify a hypothesis than verify one. The best we can do if the data support a particular god model is acknowledge that faith in such a God is rational. However, just as we should not use a failed physical model that does not work, it would be unwise for us to guide our lives by religions that worship any gods that fail to agree with the data.
[i]God: The Failed Hypothesis—How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist.[/i] by Victor J. Stenger
So, let us now define a scientific God model, [i]a theory of God.[/i] A supreme being is hypothesized to exist having the following attributes:
1. God is the creator and preserver of the universe.
2. God is the architect of the structure of the universe and the author of the laws of nature.
3. God steps in whenever he wishes to change the course of events, which may include violating his own laws as, for example, in response to human entreaties.
4. God is the creator and preserver of life and humanity, where human beings are special in relation to other lifeforms.
5. God has endowed humans with immaterial, eternal souls that exist independent of their bodies and carry the essence of a person's character and selfhood.
6. God is the source of morality and other human values such as freedom, justice, and democracy.
7. God has revealed truths in scriptures and by communicating directly to select individuals throughout history.
8. God does not deliberately hide from any human being
who is open to finding evidence for his presence.
Most of these attributes are traditionally associated with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God, and many are shared by the gods of diverse religions. Note, however, that the traditional attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence—the 3 '0' characteristics usually associated with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God—have been omitted.
The scientific argument against the existence of God will be a modified form of the lack-of-evidence argument:
1. Hypothesize a God who plays an important role in the universe.
2. Assume that God has specific attributes that should provide [b]objective[/b] evidence for his existence.
3. Look for such evidence with an open mind.
4. If such evidence is found, conclude that God [i]may[/i] exist.
5. If such objective evidence is not found, conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a God with these properties does [i]not[/i] exist.
Recall that it is easier to falsify a hypothesis than verify one. The best we can do if the data support a particular god model is acknowledge that faith in such a God is rational. However, just as we should not use a failed physical model that does not work, it would be unwise for us to guide our lives by religions that worship any gods that fail to agree with the data.
[i]God: The Failed Hypothesis—How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist.[/i] by Victor J. Stenger
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@BlueSkyKing So we should ignore the 'scientific atheists' because their 'god' does not match the data. While it is easier to disprove than prove one does have to accept the most believable hypothesis. The atheist hypothesis simply does not match any of the data. One can not explain the natural based purely on the natural. In very short order the natural is shown to be severely lacking. Stephen Meyer has an excellent book called the Return of the God Hypothesis.
BlueSkyKing · M
@hippyjoe1955 It’s about evidence versus lack of evidence. Science can’t design and tests models based on the latter.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@BlueSkyKing Given that there is no evidence that abiogenesis is possible..... The lack of evidence is all on the natural.
BlueSkyKing · M
@hippyjoe1955 You’ll need to put that subject to Newjaniev.