How did you work it out?

[Little Rik]

I am still waiting that someone come up with a valid demostration that is possible to know if God exist or not by relying on physical science.
To know this sort of things about after life and different dimensions as i said in previous post one has got to use the right tool and physical science is definitively not the right tool.

This seems to me to be an argument from ignorance and here's why: a valid tool in the scientific method is to detect an object/force by its interactions with other objects/forces (e.g. planets cause 'wobble' in each others' orbits and the position of their star therefore we can use this to detect them). This seems to be the most suitable approach for detecting any theistic gods. Many claims have been made by believers of many faiths regarding the way that their god(s) has(have) intervened in their lives. These are all testable claims. Where there's been enough data to test them, they have all failed to support their claims. Further, where the claims are not testable, there are often known naturalistic mechanisms which could be used to explain what happened. Supernatural suppositions are therefore almost always dismissable as they have no explanatory power.

When your son-daughter are very small you tend to guide them to adulthood but when they grow up you slowly let them take their own decisions.
The same thing happen between the creator and his creation so you will see that plant and animals are driven by instinct but the most evolved form of life like human life is not that is why the interaction between God and human is so different and people can not understand why God if ever exist does not put an end to suffering and all evil on earth.hock:

If we're talking about deist gods, then the attributes are exactly the same as 'something which doesn't exist' therefore science can make no comment regarding its existence. Likewise, believers are also unjustified in holding any such position because to remain 'deist', there can be no interaction with believers; the god claim is useless and has no explanatory power.

I am not talking about atheist who do not care or are happy as they are without a God. I am talking about atheist who say.........SCIENCE SAY THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST.
It does not really matter if they mean a God that care or a God that does not care about his creation.
I am still waiting that some body come up with a demonstration that by using physical science it is possible to go outside his limitation and understand what lies outside his borders.

---

I am still waiting that someone come up with a valid demostration that is possible to know if God exist or not by relying on physical science.

That's the point, isn't it? There is no way to demonstrate that god exists through the use of 'physical science,' as you refer to it. In any other facet of your life, not being able to prove the existence of something would convince you that it doesn't exist. But on this one subject, you add an unreasonable demand-- science must prove the NON-existence of something.

That is the sort of thing we do when we're trying to cling to something that we desperately wish were true. When we must abandon reason in order to make something true, it doesn't make it true. It just makes us unreasonable.

It seem to me that you follow that old saying........... ATTACKING IS THE BEST DEFENCE.
Sorry but is you guys that relaying on physical science to prove something that of course can not prove.
Would not be better to say............SO FAR PHYSICAL SCIENCE IS UNABLE TO DISPROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD SO I CAN NOT SAY THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST......THAT IS WHY THE WORD ATHEIST SHOULD ONLY MEAN .........SOMEONE THAT IS NOT INTERESTED IN GOD NOT THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST.

[Tonus]

That's the point, isn't it? There is no way to demonstrate that god exists through the use of 'physical science,' as you refer to it. In any other facet of your life, not being able to prove the existence of something would convince you that it doesn't exist. But on this one subject, you add an unreasonable demand-- science must prove the NON-existence of something.

That is the sort of thing we do when we're trying to cling to something that we desperately wish were true. When we must abandon reason in order to make something true, it doesn't make it true. It just makes us unreasonable.

It seem to me that you follow that old saying........... ATTACKING IS THE BEST DEFENCE.
Sorry but is you guys that relaying on physical science to prove something that of course can not prove.
Would not be better to say............SO FAR PHYSICAL SCIENCE IS UNABLE TO DISPROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD SO I CAN NOT SAY THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST......THAT IS WHY THE WORD ATHEIST SHOULD ONLY MEAN .........SOMEONE THAT IS NOT INTERESTED IN GOD NOT THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST.

None of that answers my questions or addresses my point. In any other facet of your life, you rely on science and on evidence to prove things. When it comes to god, you find no evidence and there is nothing to prove he exists, so you throw science aside and decide that evidence is overrated.

And why wouldn't an atheist be interested in god? I enjoy a good fiction as much as the next person.

[Joel]

I disagree. Atheists should be interested in 'God' - or at least the topic.
An atheist disbelieves claims about a God, until sufficient reason has been provided to believe. From this, it should be clear that an atheist would take interest in anything that could provide such evidence.

[Ben Davis]

When your son-daughter are very small you tend to guide them to adulthood but when they grow up you slowly let them take their own decisions.
The same thing happen between the creator and his creation so you will see that plant and animals are driven by instinct but the most evolved form of life like human life is not that is why the interaction between God and human is so different and people can not understand why God if ever exist does not put an end to suffering and all evil on earth.hock:

That has nothing to do with what I wrote. You asked for a scientific mechanism which would allow us to demonstrate 'god' (I assume you're talking about the Abrahamic god?). I gave you an example of one, one which has been used and has yet to be able to support any of the testable claims made for any theistic gods. Your claim that theistic gods can't be detected by 'physical science' is wrong.

I am not talking about atheist who do not care or are happy as they are without a God. I am talking about atheist who say.........SCIENCE SAY THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST.
It does not really matter if they mean a God that care or a God that does not care about his creation.

It matters a great deal because the definitions of those gods are essential. Theists make a bunch of testable claims based on the attributes of their god(s). If, when tested, those claims fail to meet their burden of proof then it is appropriate to say that those attributes are flase; consequently, that god, as defined, can not exist. So far, all theistic gods have failed to meet their burden of proof consequently, it's fair to say that they do not exist.

Deists on the other hand, have defined their gods as completely external to the human experience consequently, science can make no statement about them but neither can any other mechanism, including those claimed by deists. Consequently, it's fair to act as if they don't exist irrespective of their actual existence but not fair to say that they absolutely don't/can't exist. However this argument can not apply to theistic gods.

I am still waiting that some body come up with a demonstration that by using physical science it is possible to go outside his limitation and understand what lies outside his borders.

Please see my first paragraph.

THAT IS WHY THE WORD ATHEIST SHOULD ONLY MEAN .........SOMEONE THAT IS NOT INTERESTED IN GOD NOT THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST.

It doesn't matter what you think it should mean. What it means is 'an absence of belief in god(s)'. That definition makes no implication regarding one's level of interest in the subject. Some atheists don't care, some care a great deal. It seems that you're confusing 'antitheism' (the opposition to belief in god(s)) with 'atheism' (the absence...). That will always make it harder for you.

[The Grand Nudger]

When your son-daughter are very small you tend to guide them to adulthood but when they grow up you slowly let them take their own decisions.
The same thing happen between the creator and his creation so you will see that plant and animals are driven by instinct but the most evolved form of life like human life is not that is why the interaction between God and human is so different and people can not understand why God if ever exist does not put an end to suffering and all evil on earth.hock:

Oh, is that what happened..? lol.

We're not "the most evolved" - who the hell told you this? Compared to some of our "simpler" brethren we're genetic dunces.

I am not talking about atheist who do not care or are happy as they are without a God. I am talking about atheist who say.........SCIENCE SAY THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST.

Science can,more specifically, say that "x" god does not exist, when the claimants of "x" god make testable claims with regards to their gods (which they have a nasty habit of doing).

It seem to me that you follow that old saying........... ATTACKING IS THE BEST DEFENCE.
Sorry but is you guys that relaying on physical science to prove something that of course can not prove.
Would not be better to say............SO FAR PHYSICAL SCIENCE IS UNABLE TO DISPROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD SO I CAN NOT SAY THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST......THAT IS WHY THE WORD ATHEIST SHOULD ONLY MEAN .........SOMEONE THAT IS NOT INTERESTED IN GOD NOT THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST.

Just because you are personally incapable of proving something does not mean that it is impossible to prove it. Perhaps, if you are personally incapable you should leave these sorts of discussion to people who aren't? Atheist simply denotes that a person doesn't believe in a god, it's not a statement about gods existence, it is a statement about whether or not they believe. Nevertheless, in common fashion you feel obliged to dictate to others what things should and should not mean based on deference to your fucking pixies......all the while insisting that the onus is on the skeptic to disprove your magical mindset. Sorry, that's not how it works.

[Little Rik]

Rhythm...........We're not "the most evolved" - who the hell told you this? Compared to some of our "simpler" brethren we're genetic dunces.

When i say.........human life is not...... i mean that human life is not driven by instinct not that human life is not the most evolved form of life.
English is not my mother language but i though that was clear enough.

Science can,more specifically, say that "x" god does not exist, when the claimants of "x" god make testable claims with regards to their gods (which they have a nasty habit of doing).

The science to which you refer (PHYSICAL SCIENCE) is not able to make any judgement regarding something that is outside her limitation so let us not rely on physical science to understand what is outside her limitation.

Just because you are personally incapable of proving something does not mean that it is impossible to prove it. Perhaps, if you are personally incapable you should leave these sorts of discussion to people who aren't? Atheist simply denotes that a person doesn't believe in a god, it's not a statement about gods existence, it is a statement about whether or not they believe. Nevertheless, in common fashion you feel obliged to dictate to others what things should and should not mean based on deference to your fucking pixies......all the while insisting that the onus is on the skeptic to disprove your magical mindset. Sorry, that's not how it works.

Sorry, but you got all sort of atheists.
As i already said you got those who do not care, those who are happy without a God, those with different ideas and those who say..........God does not exist.
It is about the latest that i refer.
To say something like this with total certainty one must have some evidence.
All i would like to know is............WHERE IS THIS EVIDENCE?

[Joel]

Sorry, but you got all sort of atheists.
As i already said you got those who do not care, those who are happy without a God, those with different ideas and those who say..........God does not exist.
It is about the latest that i refer.
To say something like this with total certainty one must have some evidence.
All i would like to know is............WHERE IS THIS EVIDENCE?

You can't have evidence for non-existence.

As usual, the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim... The initial claim.
For someone to say that they don't believe there is a God, there first has to be a claim of a God's existence. It is that person, the claimant, that has to prove this: not the person that says "PAHAH, no there isn't!" or the person that says "I don't believe you; can you persuade me?"

[pocaracas]

The science to which you refer (PHYSICAL SCIENCE) is not able to make any judgement regarding something that is outside her limitation so let us not rely on physical science to understand what is outside her limitation.

Is there anything outside of physics?
How would you determine that?

[Little Rik]

Ben Davis.............. You asked for a scientific mechanism which would allow us to demonstrate 'god' (I assume you're talking about the Abrahamic god?). I gave you an example of one, one which has been used and has yet to be able to support any of the testable claims made for any theistic gods. Your claim that theistic gods can't be detected by 'physical science' is wrong.

a valid tool in the scientific method is to detect an object/force by its interactions with other objects/forces (e.g. planets cause 'wobble' in each others' orbits and the position of their star therefore we can use this to detect them). This seems to be the most suitable approach for detecting any theistic gods.

Your example which i reported in red is not evidence of anything that we are talking about.
Your example is limited to matter and therefore confined to the phenomena within this PHYSICAL UNIVERSE.
Again your problem is that you pretend to study something that is not material with material instruments.
I repeat.............RIGHT TOOL FOR THE RIGHT JOB.

Theists make a bunch of testable claims based on the attributes of their god(s). If, when tested, those claims fail to meet their burden of proof then it is appropriate to say that those attributes are flase; consequently, that god, as defined, can not exist. So far, all theistic gods have failed to meet their burden of proof consequently, it's fair to say that they do not exist.

There are a lot of gullible people out there. Some people feel safe in believing in something.
It really does not matter whether this thing is a God or the matter (atheism).
Just believe that God exist will not bring any real spiritual progress.
The theory want take anyone too far.
It is with spiritual practice that one is able to progress.
In other words i am not really interested in those who rely on theories alone.

Deists on the other hand, have defined their gods as completely external to the human experience consequently, science can make no statement about them but neither can any other mechanism, including those claimed by deists. Consequently, it's fair to act as if they don't exist irrespective of their actual existence but not fair to say that they absolutely don't/can't exist. However this argument can not apply to theistic gods.

Again, even deists rely on theories and nothing practical that help to progress spiritually.
Not interested in them either.

It doesn't matter what you think it should mean. What it means is 'an absence of belief in god(s)'. That definition makes no implication regarding one's level of interest in the subject. Some atheists don't care, some care a great deal. It seems that you're confusing 'antitheism' (the opposition to belief in god(s)) with 'atheism' (the absence...). That will always make it harder for you.

Uhh,..........only an absence of belief in god(s)!!!
You see when you put something in your mind is like putting down bricks to build a house.
Your mind will slowly build up the believe that that particular thing is real or not so when you tell yourself that there is nothing regarding God then your mind will deny the existence of that thing.
It is also true the opposite.
You remember my example how the dolphin acquire the sonar?
The creature put in his-Her head that there was a need for something that would solve his-her problem and that thing build up in his-her body-mind.
So we got to be carefully about what we feed our brains with.

[NoraBrimstone]

I believe that there is an invisible ceature that is part monkey, part cat and part platypus that controlls the sun. Now you must all believe it too, because SCIENCE CAN'T DISPROVE IT!!!!!111