/sci/ - Science & Math

Can you please point out one example of religion proving god?

Thanks

Science doesn't disprove god, it just doesn't prove god.

If it's not proven it shouldn't be treated as such.

Is that the finger Plato uses to finger his ass with?

They can't.
Your welcome.

I can point you to the door.

I think we disproved Hathor, the sky cow of the Egyptians pretty thoroughly.

Of course, they proposed Hathor with some testable conclusions - although it didn't work out for them at least their hearts were in the right place.

Not like some religions I could name.

It's impossible.

But science makes god unnecessary.

heliocentrism disproved helios.

Bible is a book. Written by humans lol.

>>1819096

Actually hes pointing at dat ass.

>>1819120

Everyone receives a passing grade but you.

>>1819110
Lol but without me there isn't a thing.

>>1819138
LOLOLOLOL 10/10 MASTER TROLL.

Get the fuck out.

>>1819110

Oh how did I miss that? You receive a D+ and must set up an office hours with your prof.

science can disprove religeons, pretty much all of them, but will never disprove the concept of a god

>>1819145
Just because I'll own your shit doesn't make me a troll.
I understand if you have a hard time swallowing defeat.

Apparently, intelligence is not a prerequisite for atheism anymore... Most people are alright but damn some atheists haven't even given it a thought. Enjoy your box, hope you aren't too claustrophobic.

WHAT CAN WE DO TO TEST IF GOD EXISTS?

If OP will answer that then we can move forward.

>>1819172
The Almighty sure is gullible. YOU can't be God because God is supposed to be all-powerful and without bounds, and since you exhibited anger and revenge then you've submitted to the effects of emotion, which means you're not all-powerful. Which means you're not God.

So please GTFO.

>>1819194

>implying that God can't be angry.

HAVNT YOU READ THE OLD TESTEMEND LOL?

>>1819201
>TESTEMEND

>>1819194

>You can't be x because x is y and you are not y so therefor you are not x.

Good logical structure, but you can't go picking your x's and y's out of your ass. Please schedule an appointment with your prof before discussing this any further.

>>1819194
Lol funny. I have emotions.
There wasn't anger, nor revenge.
Got the power to do as I please.
There is no reason for me to live up to what someone's expectation of me is.
Don't tell me what I am and not, for you don't actually know me.

>>1819201
I'm familiar with the Old Testament. It says God can be angry, but it also says God is all-powerful. Both of these things can't be true, so the Old Testament is logically flawed. If this contradiction has arisen, how can any other part of the Old Testament have credibility?

Either it is not the word of God, or God is a raving idiot. In either case, the Old Testament can be ignored entirely.

Moving on...

>>1819219

Oh god he thinks that if the christian bible is wrong then there is no god! You were given the chance to improve your grade but have demonstrated no effort in rethinking your logic. You should withdraw from the class but are welcome to try again next semester.

>>1819219
The entire basis of your argument is that power and anger are some kind of opposing force. I say that it is possible to be all-powerful and angry. Now you have no argument.

>>1819160

Well, no. So a falsifiable claim about the goings ons of religious stories could be "Humans cannot walk on water." In order to falsify this claim, we must document a specific example of a human walking on water, which conveniently, christians can describe.

However, because it cannot be replicated in the manner described by christians using a random sampling of humans, we can conclude that christians are actually very poor researchers and discredit their work as being a hoax.

>>1819219

WHAT YOU DUMB PIECE OF SHIT. BEING ALL POWERFUL DOES NOT CONTRADICT BEING A DICK. MAYBE YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT OMNISCIENCE OR "ALL LOVING" BUT EITHER WAY YOU MADE A MISTAKE AND YOU ARE NOW A RETARD

>>1819213
I picked my x and y out of my brain. You pulled a quick burn out of your ass though. If you are x, you cannot be y. Nothing wrong here. If some source says you are both x and y, it is wrong. Nothing wrong here either.

>>1819216
Exactly my point. All I know about God is based on what people or the bible have told me, both of which are satisfied that they are correct about God just because they say they are.

What I have proven above is not that there is no God, or even necessarily that you are not God; but I have proven that God as described in the old testament cannot exist. Since the old testament is so popular, it's safe to say that NOBODY knows what God is.

It was hard enough (impossible even) to prove scientifically that God does or does not exist. Now, trying to prove the existence of something that we have trouble defining? It's a meaningless exercise.

So, for once, can we drop threads like this and relegate this board to the fucking discussion of SCIENCE?

Would the OP please take a moment to establish how one may prove or disprove "God"?

For instance is it enough to disprove one kind of God? Say the pantheon of the vikings?

Or should we not count those in the same way we count capital g God?

May we disprove by logic? And if so what form - are we allowed to merely show that the beliefs people hold of him are inconsistent? Would that be proof enough?

Would it be fair to prove that a loving, good, whole, and giving life is possible without God - thereby establishing that the counter proff of his necessity is obviated for daily conditions. Or should we carry it further and establish that a functionally equivalent existence can be had in all cases where God doesn't exist - just as much as if he did. And then by Occams Razor remove the unnecessary assumption?

What OP - What is it you think will satisfy your condition of proving or disproving God?

>>1819250

I didn't say there was anything wrong with your structure, I just see it as like...

"All turtles can fly, but this animal here cannot fly so it is not a turtle."


--Get what i'm saying?


inb4 i like turtles

I'm number 1819271 - and I'm sorry I posted to a troll thread.

To be true, a statement must be both logically valid and supported by evidence. Since the concept of a deity is logically contradictory, in many ways (omnipotence, which I would say is the fundamental prerequisite for being a deity and not just some Very Powerful Sky Wizard, is the cause of most such contradictions, see "Could God create a stone so heavy he could not lift it?"), no further proof or disproof is necessary.

>>1819085
Your question is stupid and here is why:

Every example science creates as a standard for disproving God is true because science creates its standards for analysis. Since science relates to what is PHYSICALLY TANGENTIAL, things that are, I don't know, INVERSE PHYSICS, ANTI-PHYSICS, UP PHYSICS, DOWN PHYSICS are untouchable.

Thanks for playing the I CANT WIN game.

>>1819289
But turtles can't fly.

And it's certainly not unreasonable to say that any being that is supposed to be "all powerful" cannot have emotions, because emotions influence both thought action. If you are not devoid of even the smallest influence, then you are not all-powerful.

>>1819300
In other words, you're saying that gods reside outside of reality, and therefore do not exist at all.

>>1819289

>>1819319
LOL
then >>1819300 can't win.

I'mma rev up my secondary school philosophy education and tackle this troll with a calm and well balanced refutation of the crux of the core of the implied suggestions of his question.

Science has not disproven the concept of a god.
The concept of a bible literalistic god whom is omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient was not disproven via the scientific method or from ideas that were built upon it.
The concept of an omnipotent (all-powerfull), Omniscient (all-knowing) Omnibenevolent (gives a flying fuck about human's ideas about good and evil) is disproven under the epicurian paradox which belongs in the realm of philosophy not science.
If god is omnibenevolent then if he knows of evil and can resovle evil then it cannot exist. Clearly it does exist, to say it does not requires a pretty fucked up interpretation of moral values, So either he is not omnibenev, not omnisci or not omnipot.

The main arguements that have been used to argue against this idea are the free will defence, the original sin and that evil is good for us.

The free will defence is that evil exists as a result of the presence of free will, this is a retarded defence. If god is realy omnipotent then free will could exist without the presence of evil, the fact thatevil MUST exist for free will to exist means that god cannot alter the nature of what free will is and entails. This is impossible, a omnipot god cannot exist in a universe where there are things he cannot do, to say that he does is to describe something meaninless and nonsensical. Furthermore if free will does exist then yes it explains the presence of murder, rape and scientlology but it does not explain natural evils such as aids, earthquakes, polio, malaria and others, these are not things that are under the control of humans so they cannot be a result of the freedom of choice.
Thus the free will defence is refuted.

Continued
pick related, I'm stexitanly disproving god via 316;

>>1819300

>science relates to what is PHYSICALLY TANGENTIAL

Are you a retard? Do you not know anything? You're so dumb i'm gonna have to add you to the filter. There's no way I can tolerate visiting and engaging with a science board if I have to read idiotic posts like this.

Jesus christ.

Jesus.

Continued from
>>1819339


The idea that evil is good for us is stronger than the free will defence but it is still invalid.
The premise of this line of defence is that god allows evil to exist because evil is good for us, e.g. it build character and gives opportunity for greatness. This explains both the presence of natural evils and ones of human action but it does not work with the concept of god that it is oftern used to protect. For the arguement to work the concept of evil must be altered. Evil becomes tolerable in this arguement and the eradication of suffering and the trimuph of what humans consider unanimously to be good is not what god seaks to achive. The god that this arguement defends is as axiologically (the study of ethics, morality, good and evil ect.) relevent as a non-benevolent morallaly apathetic divine being. The good and the evil this good acts to achive and seaks to destroy do fit with the idea that this god is also omnisci and omnipot, however what this god considers to be the ultimate good is the world and reality that exists currently and now. The idea that this god shares human values of good and bad is pretty weak as if you look as the world that currently exists as a whole it is closer to the later than the former.

Continued

Pic related, if god were murtage he would not be friends

>>1819091
here ya go

Continued from
>>1819355

The remaining defence is the original sin, it is the one probably used the most by the more conservative religous sects. The orignal sin defence is that evil exists as a punishment for eve being fooled into eating fruit she was told not to. All of humanity is punished continually as a result of this original event. First of all, prior to eating the fruit eve had no knowledge of good and evil and as a result is not morally acountable for her actions. If she had no knowledge that to eat the fruit was bad or evil then she was ignorant of the consequences of her actions and therefore punishment is not applicable. The idea that the offspring of these poor humans must also be punished is a primive and riduclous idea. This idea is based on tribal blood payments, the justification of this action is centered on the idea of revenge, retribution and spite. All of which are against the nature of god according to the own ideas of the god defended by this arguement. The idiocy of the concepts of morallity that this arguement entails aside, it is based on asumptions that can be scientifically refuted.

As this arguement is scriptual it requires the asumption that the bible in it's entirety is literally true. Ignoring the contradictions within the book the assertioins that it makes about the nature of reality and actual events can be refuted via the work of science and if even one is shown to be false the bible cannot be interpreted literally as the word of god and the arugment ceases to have any validity.

continued

pic related the idea of god only works from idimpsic reason.

Continued from
>>1819369

So as this was the only arguement left that could invalidate the epicruain paradox the refuteation of the orginal sin defence does constitute the act of disproving the idea of a omnibenev, omnisci and omnipot god.
The original sin defence is based on a bible literallist perspective and makes many assertions and asumptions that scinece is able to and has disproven so therefore in this idea of god science has indeed disproven it.

Fin

pic related, it is my pleasure to have eightinated you on this issue.

>>1819369
>>1819355

Your writing is dense and obtuse. You're shit at explaining things.

Please stop.

>>1819194
Or he did because he is the only individual with free will and randomly wanted to do it for SHITS AND GIGGLES

POINTS FOR ME

>>1819391
No points for you. You did not show that he is omnipotent but is still able to do things for shits and/or giggles.

>>1819319
Reality is your perspective and what you interact with.
Think about ejecting yourself into a video game world where the individuals there cannot interact with the REAL you handling the controller. You are existent even though you aren't real to your world.

I did it for the dreamtime lulz... From Down Under.

>>1819402
If he has unlimited power, he exists beyond time. Therefore, he can do multiple things at once, at the same time, at different times, in different places.

Do I get my points yet?

>>1819085
You do realize you are not the only sesquipedalian who is either strung out on stimulants or having a psychotic break, right?

Take a benzo and a nap if it is the first one. If it's the second, go ahead and take the anti-psychotic medications you are already prescribed.

>>1819391
>>1819403 You are smart.
It's a fucking pain.
>>1819384 True.
>>1819369 There is some truth in the Bible, yet the Bible is filled with many lies.
Science with the rare truth in religion can formulate success.
This is why philosophy is a sin, because philosophy warps weak minds.
You can't disprove things that have happened in my own life.
Your posts annoyed the hell out of me.

>>1819413
Still no points. You assumed he is omnipotent and can do anything, but in your prior post you suggested that he did something out of some kind of motivation, albeit an asinine motivation.

However, any motivation is an influence and existence of any influence to his actions nullifies his omnipotence.

To put it easy OP, it doesn't

But it certainly shows that the Bible, Koran, and every other 'holy' book is full of shit

Thank you for your time, now gtfo of my /sci/