RE: Let's be honest
May 16, 2023 at 4:07 pm
(This post was last modified: May 16, 2023 at 4:15 pm by Simon Moon.)
(May 16, 2023 at 12:16 pm)Kingpin Wrote:(May 15, 2023 at 11:28 pm)Astreja Wrote: Until we have actual testable physical evidence for a god-like being, a god is an untestable and unfalsifiable hypothesis. This puts it in violation of the scientific method.
If God created matter, thus by definition is immaterial.
Not sure how you get to the claim that a matter creating god is necessarily immaterial.
Please state that in a logical syllogism so it can be tested for validity and soundness.
Quote:How can immaterial be tested with scientific method? It cannot.
How is it the fault of the scientific method, good standards of evidence, valid and sound logic, that you've defined your god in such a way as to be unverifiable by any method?
If none of the above is applicable to verifying that your god exists, by what method should we use?
You have also seemed to spell out, in pretty plain terms, that your own beliefs are unjustifiable.
Quote:I believe you can extrapolate and deduce some logical inferences that point to a "super"natural mind/being.
Please enlighten us!
I hope you are not referring to the so called, philosophical arguments for the existence of a god, i.e., Kalam, ontological, teleological, arguments.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
