Science cannot understand God

Whoever makes says God doesn't exist must prove it, otherwise it's just the rant of a disgruntled silly human. Those of us that "know" what is true, don't have a problem with God.

 

Sorry, but no.
I don't need to prove that Shiva, Wotan, Allah or any other god doesn't exist.
It's enough to state I do not believe. The onus of proof is on the one who claims whichever god exists - if they wish to convince me and demand I live as if this god existed and follow its rules.

 

Prove The Invisible Pink Panda does not exist. IF you cannot, then its just another rant of a disgruntled silly human. I "know" he exists, as he talks to me every day when I get home from work.

 

Larf. I say that the flying spaghetti monster is real. Now you must prove me wrong.

Larf.

 

Did you leave school early?

It is up to the religious crowd to prove that there is some devine entity. The onus is on you.

 

Are you claiming that there is no God?

 

Are you saying there is?

 

Of course not. Why would I say something like that?

 

No idea. Thought you might have been crazy or something.

Seems you're just confused.

 

Actually, when you bring forth a question which has already been answered many times by me, it would seem more likely that you are the one that is confused about other people. As for your thoughts of the possibility of me being "crazy or something"... Well, so much for your ability to make a proper psychological analysis of anyone.

 

Such remark has as much to do with "proper psychological analysis", as quoting from a concise dictionary has with "semantic analysis": nothing!

lol

 

Well my goodness, then you should also know my feelings about the relevance of you bringing up the subject of my sanity. It means NOTHING! LOL.

 

It is up to the religious crowd to prove that there is one. I will be waiting.

 

Oh. I see now... you are ignorant of the subject matter of God. You have a lack of opinion. You seem to be avoiding or missing one of the prime requisites of the scientific method..... experience....

 

Ah, yes. The typical attempt at taunting. It is a little pathetic

And I believe you mean 'experiment'. Feel free to tell how the existence of a divine entity can be proven using a scientific experiment.

 

Can an experiment be conducted without forming 'experience'?

At the highlighted text: That is a problem for those that call themselves scientists. Are you one of them?

 

The real problem here is that God cannot understand science, and by that I mean that faith heads tend to be a scientifically illiterate lot. I blame the education system.

 

The experience has to come from scientific experiments and not from religious books or wishful thinking.

 

Oh really! Then you are going to discount the experience of theists (even though the theist experience might have been part of a theistic experiment) because of your prejudice? In other words, you are wanting to 'stack the deck', so to speak?

 

Theists' experiences are chuckle-worthy emotional nonsense and unsubstantiated, most often second-hand accounts of miracles.

 

Are you suggesting that the chuckle-worthy emotional nonsense made by atheists and other non-theists regarding theories promoted by participants of the fields of science are any greater than what you have stated about the theists? Are you suggesting that atheists and other non-theists do not have emotions influencing their claims? Are you suggesting that some of the narratives given by atheists and other non-theists are anything more than second hand accounts originally spewed forth by one of their peers?

 

Nope.

You are aware that scientific theories are based in fact, right? Unlike theistic deepities such as "God is love," a scientific theory is developed on the basis of observed facts and other incontrovertible proofs, e.g. mathematics.

 

Scientific theory is not based on fact. If the theories were based on fact, then the theories would not be theory, but rather be fact. The scientific theory is nothing more than speculation ... a 'what if' scenario. 'What if' implies a moving away from the fact of reality and venturing into an unknown. So, in essence, the so-called "theistic deepities" (whatever that is) meets on the level playing field with scientific theories. Both being based on individual and or group belief regarding a subject matter. Neither of which have been proven and likely not to be proven... (especially in regard to the formation of everything that we currently recognize as reality/physical realm). How did everything suddenly appear?

 

Nay, O semantic champion, you fail to understand what a scientific theory actually is. Behold, saith the scientist:

A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

 

that dude does not realize that we obervse what is real (of fact; witnessed) and it is the explanations that vary (theory)


imagine having an incorporeal imagine of an incorporeal being to worchip.


Facts aint what some perfer. Some aszume that incorporeal beliefs are what to base fact on.