My whole point was that this question of God is beyond the reach of science. Science is limited and it is a mistake to assume that it encompasses the whole of reality. There are realities outside the boundaries of physical science. I cannot prove God exists and you cannot prove he does not. This is because of the limitations of the human mind and the limitations of proof. Prove to me you love your mother. Prove to me life is not a gigantic simulation planned by aliens. You can't. Proof is very limited. No, I can't prove those things - showing again only the limitations of proof. My point still stands. When we start to discuss the existence or non-existence of God we leave scienitific proof far behind and enter another dimension of experience entirely. Prove to me scieintifically it is wrong to lynch a man without a fair trial. You can't. Prove to me Mozrt is better than Elvis. You can't.
You did not respond to my point. You have no evidence to prove evolution is not the result of God's plan and guidance. How do you know no one has seen God? Are you privy to the experience of the entire human race?
If someone states that evoution is guided by God you do not have to prove them wrong, but you cannot claim your opposition is based on scientific proof.
But no evidence there is not. My point stands. If I said "God is real whether you believe it or not" I don't think you would find my argument compelling. Science has shown nothing of the kind. Your statement is solidlygrounded on air. It is opinion or belief, not fact. What scientific evidence do you have to show that Jesus did not rise from the dead? None.
I am not demanding evidence, I am saying there is none. There is only argument as you say because scientific proof does not go this far. It is too limited. Science doesn't deal in supernatural explanations because of its limitations. The fact that science cannot reach up to a certain thing does not mean that thing cannot exist, as if science were the sole measure of reality. It is not. God is not bound to natural laws, but he can work within them and use them, which he does most of the time (exceptions being very rare, we call them miracles). About the donkey and evidence, I am not demanding evidence, but 9again) saying there is none.
I cannot prove that there is no God, but as with most things in science apart from physics and math, proof is not necessary, only to show something is true beyond a reasonable doubt. I can show that beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no God as described in the Judeo/Christian/Islamic tradition. Such a God is said to be actively involved in this world, changing things, influencing events. If he didn't interact with the physical world, he couldn't change anything. Anything observable is within the realm of science. God is not beyond the reach of science, in fact there have been some science experiments to investigate certain aspects of theism, particularly prayer. Some evidence that the Christian God does not exist: 1. Prayer doesn't work in rigorously designed studies. 2. Bad things happen to good people. 3. Creationism is false. 4. Religious people aren't any more good than non-religious people. 5. Religious texts are self-contradictory. 6. Religious texts show evidence of being written and rewritten by many authors, in contrast to the myth of their origins. 7. No reliable evidence for miracles. 8. No evidence that religious texts contain knowledge that could not have been known at the time they were written. 9. Religious texts promote immoral behavior. 10.The universe is not fine-tuned for life. Even the supernatural is within the realm of scientific study. It's just that there isn't any evidence for the supernatural yet.
God's existence and non-existence is unprovable by ordinary science and logic. This is because science and logic are very limited and do not come even close to covering the entire range of human experience and higher realities.
We do know that the early universe was small, far too small to contain the information necessary for a God to exist, since information is limited by certain physical constraints. Since God is said to be complex, he could not have existed then. He could have come later, as a result of an evolutionary process, but then, that doesn't fit with the mythology.
Where is your evidence he rose from the dead? Anecdotal evidence doesn't count, since people are subject to delusions and insanity.
Confrontation? I asked a serious question in a serious way. If that is too confrontational maybe internet debating is not for you.
And there's no evidence to refute my claim that the elf living in my kitchen cupboard created your "god". What's your point?
i like the way you are communicating joe,very informative..cudo's um..he can work outside them too, only we argue with it and say there is no proof..
Science cannot, but how do you know no one else can? Human emotions are observable phenomenon, at least in so far as we cat on them, and there is no materialistic explanation for human consciousness and personality. It does not have to suppose it knows the 'why'. It can simply say "There is no God because I don't like the idea of God.' Unless there really is a God. We could know if God decided to reveal it to us.
The evidence is that you cannot provide any scientific law showing God could not have created things. My evidence is your lack of evidence.
