Did Dawkins and Tyson say that and what are the implications.

[downbeatplumb]

The hypothesis of god can and has been tested.

Test 1.

Facts assigned to god, were they supernatural.

Begining of the world-Not supernatural.
The variety of animals-Not supernatural

(at this point I got bored but you can see my point)

OK explain how something can come into existence from nothing if that's natural explained by natural law. the points you put all extend from my first something so therefore can at best be seen as a natural extention of a supernatural cause.

We know perfectly well how the world formed and can see planet formation around other star systems.

Test 2

Claims for the time scales mentioned in the bible and so "divinely inspired"are widely inaccurate.

Not every Christian believes in taking the Bible in isolation as Word for Word written by God and literally correct in every place. For the majority of Christians the position is more complicated than that but still an Inspired collection of books.

So they ignore what the bible says ,the only thing that supposedly describes god coz they don't agree with some parts.
This does not make my critique any less valid.

Test 3

The efficacy of prayer.

Now this is an interesting one because it is the one area that god™ is supposed to still interact currently with the world.

So does prayer work......No it does not and it has been tested scientifically.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12082681/ns/...sual-test/

So can god be tested scientifically?
Yes.
Does the test show positive signs of god existence?
No.

the theology of prayer is much more complicated than the simplistic attempt at a supposed unbiased test. For a start they should have all been told they were being prayed for or none told in order to be a fair test. but the only test that matters for me is my own test and it works for me and from what i've seen upto 85% of Americans beleive it works for them

but if you want to look at the results in test then at least be like this guy who looking at a test that says the opposite to above doesn't just assume the test results are accurate and actually dissects it. If he an atheist unhappy that the result went for prayer was completely fair on your test I wonder would it even stand up for him.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/g...odccu.html

In honesty if I were an Atheist I would not deny prayer works but rather ask why it works. There are plenty of "Natural explanations" around for why so accepting prayer works does not require you to beleive in GOD.

Prayer does not work dude.

[Mark 13:13]

The hypothesis of god can and has been tested.

Test 1.

Facts assigned to god, were they supernatural.

Begining of the world-Not supernatural.
The variety of animals-Not supernatural

(at this point I got bored but you can see my point)

OK explain how something can come into existence from nothing if that's natural explained by natural law. the points you put all extend from my first something so therefore can at best be seen as a natural extention of a supernatural cause.

We know perfectly well how the world formed and can see planet formation around other star systems.

Test 2

Claims for the time scales mentioned in the bible and so "divinely inspired"are widely inaccurate.

Not every Christian believes in taking the Bible in isolation as Word for Word written by God and literally correct in every place. For the majority of Christians the position is more complicated than that but still an Inspired collection of books.

So they ignore what the bible says ,the only thing that supposedly describes god coz they don't agree with some parts.
This does not make my critique any less valid.

Test 3

The efficacy of prayer.

Now this is an interesting one because it is the one area that god™ is supposed to still interact currently with the world.

So does prayer work......No it does not and it has been tested scientifically.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12082681/ns/...sual-test/

So can god be tested scientifically?
Yes.
Does the test show positive signs of god existence?
No.

the theology of prayer is much more complicated than the simplistic attempt at a supposed unbiased test. For a start they should have all been told they were being prayed for or none told in order to be a fair test. but the only test that matters for me is my own test and it works for me and from what i've seen upto 85% of Americans beleive it works for them

but if you want to look at the results in test then at least be like this guy who looking at a test that says the opposite to above doesn't just assume the test results are accurate and actually dissects it. If he an atheist unhappy that the result went for prayer was completely fair on your test I wonder would it even stand up for him.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/g...odccu.html

In honesty if I were an Atheist I would not deny prayer works but rather ask why it works. There are plenty of "Natural explanations" around for why so accepting prayer works does not require you to beleive in GOD.

Prayer does not work dude.
[/quote]

We know perfectly well how the world formed and can see planet formation around other star systems. this does not answer my reply its just a restatement using what you said before with different words.

So they ignore what the bible says ,the only thing that supposedly describes god coz they don't agree with some parts.
This does not make my critique any less valid. for some Christians that is perfectly valid but as a RC i do not fit in that category.

Prayer does not work dude. I take that as your view and wont ask you to prove it as I know prayer as I understand the concept works for me.

[KichigaiNeko]

It is a statement that you are deluded and rely on observational bias. Nothing more
Stop trying to be a martyr


Why are you here??

[Mark 13:13]

It is a statement that you are deluded and rely on observational bias. Nothing more
Stop trying to be a martyr


Why are you here??

Getting old now, I answered you on another thread now deal with it and deal with the fact I am here

[KichigaiNeko]

It is a statement that you are deluded and rely on observational bias. Nothing more
Stop trying to be a martyr


Why are you here??

Getting old now, I answered you on another thread now deal with it and deal with the fact I am here

And your proselytising is getting old, I and many others have said... No sale. We don't buy your pseudo-scientific explanations. Here on and other threads.

Your point??

[Mark 13:13]

Getting old now, I answered you on another thread now deal with it and deal with the fact I am here

And your proselytising is getting old, I and many others have said... No sale. We don't buy your pseudo-scientific explanations. Here on and other threads.

Your point??

My point is i'm here, I've answered his question fully on another thread on one of his posts so move on.

[KichigaiNeko]

And your proselytising is getting old, I and many others have said... No sale. We don't buy your pseudo-scientific explanations. Here on and other threads.

Your point??

My point is i'm here, I've answered his question fully on another thread on one of his posts so move on.

Whose question was that mark?

---

And in which thread?

[Mister Agenda]

Well I got lost in your words if I read them wrong then sry but so I can be clear before I answer are you saying that GOD can only exist if he can be defined properly ? or if scientific theory accepts him ? what exactly are you saying.

Fair enough. I am saying you're not saying anything when you say a God that hasn't been defined, exists. You could be using such a loose definition that I would agree that what you've defined, exists, even though I might think it's meaningless to call it God, like 'whatever started the universe, even if it was a quantum fluctuation'.

A hypothesis (God exists) can only be part of a theory if there's a way it could be disproven. Most versions of God are unfalsifiable by definition (like he transcends the universe and doesn't want to be detected anyway, and you can't detect an omnipotent being who doesn't want to be detected).

What I am saying is that a God who can't be falsified cannot be a part of a scientific theory, even if it exists. It's like putting 'and then a miracle happens' in the middle of an equation. It doesn't mean you've got a sound equation, it means you don't understand how to get from the first part of the equation to the last part. The equation isn't solved until you can replace 'and then a miracle happened' with math.

Now a God with a definition that CAN be falsified can be proposed as a scientific explanation, for instance 'Thor is responsible for all electrical activity and won't permit electrical activity where his name is blasphemed'. Now you've got an experiment that can be performed. Of course, a faithful Thorist will throw out the testable part when it turns out electricity works just fine no matter how much you blaspheme Thor; but at least it was a testable hypothesis, and if it turned out you can disrupt electrical activity by blaspheming Thor, but not Zeus or Yahweh, the Thor hypothesis might become a part of a scientific theory.

[Mark 13:13]

Well I got lost in your words if I read them wrong then sry but so I can be clear before I answer are you saying that GOD can only exist if he can be defined properly ? or if scientific theory accepts him ? what exactly are you saying.

Fair enough. I am saying you're not saying anything when you say a God that hasn't been defined, exists. You could be using such a loose definition that I would agree that what you've defined, exists, even though I might think it's meaningless to call it God, like 'whatever started the universe, even if it was a quantum fluctuation'.

A hypothesis (God exists) can only be part of a theory if there's a way it could be disproven. Most versions of God are unfalsifiable by definition (like he transcends the universe and doesn't want to be detected anyway, and you can't detect an omnipotent being who doesn't want to be detected).

What I am saying is that a God who can't be falsified cannot be a part of a scientific theory, even if it exists. It's like putting 'and then a miracle happens' in the middle of an equation. It doesn't mean you've got a sound equation, it means you don't understand how to get from the first part of the equation to the last part. The equation isn't solved until you can replace 'and then a miracle happened' with math.

Now a God with a definition that CAN be falsified can be proposed as a scientific explanation, for instance 'Thor is responsible for all electrical activity and won't permit electrical activity where his name is blasphemed'. Now you've got an experiment that can be performed. Of course, a faithful Thorist will throw out the testable part when it turns out electricity works just fine no matter how much you blaspheme Thor; but at least it was a testable hypothesis, and if it turned out you can disrupt electrical activity by blaspheming Thor, but not Zeus or Yahweh, the Thor hypothesis might become a part of a scientific theory.

You are correct and this is the great stumbling block when science meets religion. The definition of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim God is in essense that GOD is Trancendant and by very nature indefinable which is why despite the obvious and understandable frustration of those who want to use science theory to apply to GOD it can just be applied to His creations and any miracles that can be attributed to him or any event or person where God reveals something of Himself through, and of course a miracle is only defined a miracle if a natural cause cannot be found, and again I understand the frustration of those who think disproving a claimed miracle will work to change Theists when the Theist responds well so what it obviously wasn't a miracle then.

Of course there are plenty of people who could live out their lives with the working knowledge that the Answer to Life,The Universe and Everything is 42. Others that the answer is to be found in the Cosmos and yet others that there is something beyond the Cosmos. Who can say that those that settle for 42 and get on with it are wrong to do so.

[Mister Agenda]

That's fine for you and Christians who agree with you (and people happy with '42', I suppose), but you're the one who was trying to bring God into science, it's what your OP is about, playing 'gotcha' with Dawkins and Tyson, as though their speculations on the possible consequences if life were discovered to be vanishingly rare had something to do with God. Their scientific opinions have no applicablility outside of science. Their religious opinions have no applicability inside of science.

The hypothesis that 'there is no God' is as equally useless to science as the reverse, if that's any comfort.