If science establishes god, it is the atheist who will have to agree on the
fact that their ignorance is the synonym of atheism. If science establishes
God, it proves the belivers. Secondly if you are any such brainy, corporates or
universities would have picked you up for something better.
Then you also seem to talk about what majority of human beings are able to
think and comprehend. So you should have the same vibe as those yogis in
himalayas who live in sub-zero temperatures wearing nothing. They, like you,
dont have the vibes of the average human (please it is only an analogy and do
not construe it as my admission of your intelligence or something).
Your inflated ego and harangue stems from your cohabitation with dimwit
$1-dollar-atheist-coupon rationalists who find you their messiah of intelligence
maybe, but dont try to enforce that outside your harem, because "you must
understand that in the eyes of others" you are just another $1-dollar ruffian.
So check out if you are a ruffian by any chance or if you hangout too much with
them. Take a break from them and you will start begining to think clearly.
At the end of the day, what difference have
atheists made in this world as a group or as a movement? Simply nothing.
At least if we take the last 100
years, we know what atheist can do when they get power, like Stalin, Che
Guevara, Pol pot, Mao, Kim Jong to name a few. At the end of the day, the
theoretical beauty or perfection of a particular school of thought is not worth
nourishing or considering if implications of its practical implementation
always leads to most disastrous nightmares in recent human history.
AK Antony has always assumed office
by affirmation rather than by a religious oath because he views all religions
equally. Just because he is not religiously hyper may atheists not hijack him.
AK Antony he has shown carrots to atheists too to avoid disappointing them. He
has participated in many church functions and makes it a point to remember his
mother in a very Christian way at St. Mary's Forana Church in Cherthala every
September 12th.
Thomas Isaac, did u mean that finance minister in the last atheist-run govt in
kerala which murdered TP Chandrasekharan of RMP and 1000s of other UDF, BJP,
RSS, IUML, NDF, PDP workers in the past?
Yes when atheist massacre others it is very funny. Atheism is the art of
convenience, where the artist never has anything to lose.
Atheism is the absence of
belief in god, hence the absence of belief in the sea of humanity that finds
solace in God, hence absence of respect for their feelings and emotions and
their existence, hence absence of remorse when they are deleted. There is no
crime when you delete millions, no need for remorse or regret when you only
delete. That is simply how an atheist can have the gall to say "One death is a tragedy;
a million is a statistic." Do you know this man?
A
India is a cauldron of faiths and beliefs. Only fools can think of making India a belief-free nation. They just dont know what India is. Their thinking is only for academics and seminars and will have no bearing on the streets.
I strongly believe that Muslims in India practice Islam far better than their counterparts do in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia and Indian Christians can show Europeans and Americans on how to practice Christianity better.
Yes, what we can do is to keep a check on any sort of exploitation or abuse. For that, you have to be a good practitioner of that religion first.
If you could hold God within your fingers, therefore understand and prove Him, He wouldn't be God no? It would be science. Doesn't your approach limit the reasoning you'd require in the first place to prove such a thing scientifically if you could?
I am telling you that you cannot scientifically prove him. Like I said, even if you were able to, a scientific method adopted will be incongruous to the nature of the hypothesis. When you consider the goal of such a scientific experiment, and the hypothesis taken to be true for the sake of the experiment, you will be trying to prove a leaf to be a leaf when the hypothesis is that it is a leaf and you know well that it is aleaf you picked. Scientific much eh?
The reasonable way to measure the truth of this hypothesis is, for the sake of the experiment, to assume it true in the nature of things the hypothesis says it exists. For example in intelligent design, in order, in morality, in history. The most you can scientifically prove is that all of these allude to the hypothesis in more than big enough ways to acknowledge a presence of it.
And God needn't exist only because I can believe in Him. They don't have to be mutual co-exist to exist at all. They can also independently exist. By the very nature of that kind of reasoning, through science, you are denying what you can see an outline of but what you refuse to believe can be true because it is unproven yet. If this was provable, and it was proved, you are contradicting your own scientific outlook.
I explained to you in my last response. It's not possible to prove it scientifically because to do it scientifically you have to make a hypothesis that God does exist and does all the things that we claim he is doing and then unprove that. To do that you have to entertain the fact, which is not what we believe, that God is within/contained by the universe ( which includes you and me which itself) in order to which he will have to be a party within (and smaller to the experiment.
A scientific attempt won't really prove what we're saying in the first place. Tell me if you understand that point first. You seem to stuck in a fix because of your scientific assertion. Everything even science proved was not all provable or proved before it was established scientifically. Answer me this. Does science reject the theories that it will eventually/may support in the future?
If someone says that God helps him achieve material things, how else is it possible to prove that except we do a live testing. To prove that scientifically via a live testing, we have to first scientifically prove that God does exists, that that particular God exists, and ascertain what that claim is of that particular God to match the results of a prayer with. There's just a tiny problem. That God also won't be a machine that works the same way because if we assume Him to exist, for the experiment to be be actually done scientifically, we also have to accept that He does not have a rule to how he gives. He has principles thought and they aren't simplistic - all this according to the basic proposition which we are assuming to be true to be scientific about proving whether God does that indeed.
Would you accept this scientific anomaly 'scientifically'? I would guess not.
If I say God controls my destiny, which I don't, I would have to prove that he created the system within which He does. For that I would have to assume that 1) He exists (problem explained in the first paragraph) 2) that He created that system (which you would know better than me what problems you have with that).
That is what it would take to prove God scientifically. Agree? Is the very basic variable in the hypothesis even scientifically provable? Yes, you think?
I have no responsibility to prove what I claim. You would not make what me or any others on this thread are saying wrong by saying that our beliefs don't pass by your scientific test. God is scientifically unprovable by virtue of what we claim Him to be, as similar or as different as each our individual views are on Him. Whatever the right claim is for a God who does exist in the very form that he does (if he does, according to you) is by nature scientifically impossible to prove.
You can't prove the Universe. You can prove what's in the Universe. Similarly you can't/won't be able to prove God but you can assume that to be right and watch the pattern of what He created. If you are going to ignore belief on the basis of it's unscientific nature, you are building a stone wall and talking to it for scientific proof for which there is none. You've locked yourself in to satisfy the small purview of your scientific knowledge and approach.
Tell me if we were to prove God scientifically, how would science have us do it? What would be the hypothesis and and what would be its basis?
Before that, Dude, think about whether, between the two, hope or doom is scientific enough and which you trust A better place to start to prove semi-rational and probability based theories under the garb of science.
Also for an atheist I didn't think your view of your atheist absence of belief would be apathetic to the cause.
Also would you say reason came first or science? Would reason subscribe to science or science to reason? By reason I mean, in the case of science, the logic and extended logic that comes from observation and also perception?
I apologise on your behalf and on the behalf of the walls that science has built around itself, even these that exclude logical reason, which claim that I must prove the unprovable else it does not exist. It contradicts the very spirit of inquiry. Here's a pin you may use to burst that bubble.
The nature of God cannot be proved by the conditions you smugly refuse to accept it by. If you prick up a grain of sand, you don't set out to prove that it is a grain of sand. You make the assumption that it is and you proceed to backwards to test it to see if it is a grain of sand i.e. you assume it to be true and check to see if it is indeed. To always hold the forward reasoning process to experiments is naturally convenient to science and you like to stand by your weaknesses you allow me to assume. Correct me where I am wrong. Reason with me, if you will. If the science you claim to stand tall by absolves itself of this reason, tell me how.
Therefore, since the very claim of what God is (to me at least) cannot be put to forward test (why?: note the above paragraph, or reason with me, likewise), such a method will not really help prove anything but your stubbornness to utilise your wall conveniently. This same wall is one you will immediately disband when you talk about the assumptions that surround the theory of the Black Hole and you will call perfectly 'sound' assumption via science.
Either Hyperactive Agency Detection is right and therefor we believe in God, or you, by your highly self-lauded scientific means, can prove how things can be created without basic intelligence at least. You are/used to e a writer. Can you tell me the probability of any single sentence that you could ever write that can possibly lack fully intended or wrongly communicated meaning. There cannot be meaninglessness, by logical probability. Everything done must be meant to be done unless it is done by machines, which would also would have to be meant to created before they exist to do that- or they could be an experiment gone wrong (which still means they will do that which their malfunction has them do). At each level of doing, even as I type this, if not induced (designed to be) involuntary action, choices - voluntary, unconscious, subsequential or consequential - are being made. Here's an elongated simplistic breakdown of that -
put-theory-put-down. Intelligence, at least, had to be in the first step of putting it together. Science seems to ignore where that order, impetus or design could possibly come from - but no wait, you can't say that because you can't pre-prove that he exists, yes? But then how would you prove that he exists anyway? Has science failed in one certain instance, or do we just write God off because it is science and it cannot fail? Perhaps fail is a bad word. Perhaps a better word to use is 'not acceptable', yes? After all, it's going with the populist impression of the topic, yes?
Science has lots of ground to gain, yes, and it isn't going to get very far by stalling the spirit of inquiry by your "not acceptable" because you can't pre-prove God's existence. Even the scientific reason you use will tell you that it's not possible to do that and the only way forward is to experiment backwards. Does science suddenly lose its adaptability when it comes to that question and place the blame on the inaccessibility to an answer (and therefore the invalidity of the question) fathomable by it? Mighty self-certifying that speaks of the logic in the method you purport. Then you can say anything you want to say and sit smug. Well, I hope populist works for you. I doubt it will much further.
Attributing any unknown thing to God can also be that God does exist and that there is much beyond science to also appreciate and know and it doesn't have to be a false populist victory of thought that contradicts the very spirit of enquiry that's much more easier to believe. Be a convenient rationalist when you can't e a reasonable one. It serves you well.
You're running in circles from inability to extend scientific process to to actually discredit God, thereby placing the 'onus of proof' on the ones who do believe, to psychology which, if you really look up, isn't all that credible in its own reason all the time to convenient logic when you it suits your argument.
Can't the establishment of Hyperactive Agency Detection have to do with the fact that the people who came up with it didn't believe in God? Isn't it convenient that you pick on that particular one because it suits your argument and not one of Freud's understanding of the sub-conscious? Isn't it a strange convenient convenient circle of scientific reasoning that you have chosen to stick with an argument that sounds best on the ear and not so good with the reason behind it? Pray tell. Do you choose populism over reason?
Similarly, your theory is just another one to me which is also is not completely provable. How does that make your stand better than mine? What's important to note is that either stand is not equipped to solve its own problems; those contradictions/unanswered questions are intrinsic to them. It's safe to say that neither you or me can find any answer to the question with wither of these paradigms of approach or reason.
If I was obsessed with my theory, I wouldn't be repeating my logic over and over again allowing for the particular query with each response. You can take the time to note that each response is not simply posing the same questions, like yours are, but they are adapting my perspective to the query. It is also explorative and not deterministic like yours. You have assumed a paradigm of scientific approach and are applying that universally regardless of whether it fits or not. How is (your) scientific approach universally acceptable and not subject to reason and logic and how does it automatically supercede mine which? Who's the stickler here if his outlook is not able to embrace new, perceivable paradigms? Does that make your outlook limited or mine?
I did not for one second say that an intelligent being controls the non-intelligent beings. I said that the very fact there is intelligence anywhere and in any form means that someone or something intelligent in the first place had to create it. That or intelligence was a pre-states. I am stating based on that, that intelligence was exercised and it was, by probability, be a being that exercised choice. I'm not even saying it is God. That is what I chose to believe. I say that because it would have to design it with a purpose for all of it to turn out to be intact and functional. To assume that competition and survival outed all options of existence of non-superior organisms before they could exist for even a few years is absurd proof for the theory of the survival of the fittest and cannot, by reason, outroot the theory of intelligence, yet at least.
Going by the manner in which a theory becomes fact, you should also watch that the ones you lay claim to fall within the same bracket of credibility. Are you aware of the many assumptions even science makes in its many theories? The ones you claim have more proof than mine (and the others) I agree, but that's just more proof. It only gives you more brownie points - qualification enough you say for passing the 'burden of proof' test or just the next best face which still offers no complete conclusion? The very nature of my claim is unprovable, obviously something that people of (your) scientific paradigm of thought won't accept because you are too limited in perspective to link the world with your perspective and check it out. You agree as well. Why should the burden of proof apply when it is clearly not compatible? Isn't it unreasonable then to assert that rule of credibility? Superiority because what? How, then, can the burden of proof test be even acceptable to something that is by nature not acceptable to your paradigm of reason?
*check it out against other clearly prevalent understanding which even if not proved as a complete external entity shows an influence (the non-God ones) and by which we understand it.
also - " How does it establish the existence of god? If it establishes, you will have to agree on the fact that your ignorance is the synonym of god." - a tribute to the fact that you have pre-decided that God cannot exist? Way to go for your scientific spirit of enquiry.
Also: "If you can’t understand this simple logic, you are unqualified to enter into a discussion that demand high logical comprehension."
I suggest you use high logical comprehension to analyse how you have assumed that God, for what he is claimed to be, can ever be under the purview of science. Just like how science can independently prove that the universe exists while being in, and a small part of, it? Who even knows that it should be called the universe. Maybe it deserves a name which should be derived from the understanding we lack of it? Not a possibility you'd allow? One that's too small-minded for your scientific mind to get around?
