Nonsense: Prove/Disprove existence of a god or gods

A proof requires some axioms assumed to be true & some logical arguments based on those axioms.

The axioms required for proving or disproving the existence of god are undoubtedly biased by the agenda of the person presenting the proof.

Issues like the existence of a god or gods & many other non-scientific notions are not provable or dis-provable.

Logic/science & religious belief are not compatible. Due to cultural context, some scientists claim to have religious beliefs. This must require the 1984 novel’s concept of DoubleThink.

BTW: Various words/terms used in the axioms of a logical system must be viewed as undefined primitive words/terms.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Proof that gods have existed is in the ancient texts , at least 5000yrs. BC.

Although these advanced beings were not called " gods " back then

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please provide this "proof" that gods have existed, rather than just proof that people claimed gods existed.

What were they called? Bob?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

A book is one of the most mundane sources there is.

 

Religion and science handle entirely separate subjects; they're not entirely incompatible, because they generally don't (and shouldn't) overlap in areas of interest. Science is a tool for discovery of the natural world (not a worldview). Religion is a structure for groups and individuals to interact with the Sacred (the nature and form of which varies from religion to religion).

 

Obscure books written in an obscure age by obscure men, are not examples of proof.
Hans Christian Anderson also wrote books.

 

Most of that is wrong. A definition of a God can (and often does) include effects on the material world. Therefore the premise can be addressed by science. Science and some religious beliefs are compatible. A religion can be non-theistic. Or a God could prove it exists and therefore not conflict at all with science. It just depends on how you define a God.

 

Extraterrestrials

 

A definition of God can be constructed that makes existence logically possible.
However that does not means it exists, nor that it does not.

 

There is an entire range of phenomena that cannot be investigated by the scientific method. For example, if I have a dream and relay the details I cannot prove I actually saw these details, with the scientific method. It can't be reproduced in the lab since dreams are often unique. We have all had dreams, to know these exist.

The scientific method is not design to address things of the mind. Dreams are common as sand, yet these are out of reach in terms of full detail verification by science.

When the scientific method was developed, these things were excluded to narrow science to only that which comes in from outside the mind. It has to enter the eyes or ears. Everyone is looking outside for god, even though the spirit of god is within. It will be a dream or vision not a movie. If someone sees science will not be able to prove this due to limitations imposed by the method; has to be outside the mind and not inside the mind.

 

Yes, science is limited to things which can be observed objectively, which means by more than one person. However, dreams are physical events in the brain and are not theoretically beyond scientific investigation.

Objectively, if God is communicating to you in a dream, you should be able to reveal knowledge that would have been impossible for you to know by yourself. If such knowledge can't be revealed, the more likely scenario is that the perception of God is generated within the brain, like an hallucination or dream.

So, these things are not off limits to science, it's just that science is still in the process of developing the tools to investigate living brains. Wellwisher's post is a classic example of a God of the Gaps argument, where theists make room for God in the existing gaps in scientific knowledge.

 

So non-belief is equivelant to belief. Science is passive neutral.

 

No.

 

Delaring a belief is the same thing as declaring that you don't believe.

 

No it's not.

 

Explain?

Non belief is a position when you need be observant.

 

Why?
You didn't.

Nope.
Non-belief is a lack of (declared) position.

Whut?

 

If you were to say religion was wrong you wouldn't be holding a belief or opinion?

 

Sure: the belief that religion is wrong.

What does that have to do with non-belief?

 

Nvm