The meaninglessness of the Christian god concept

[fr0d0]

Yes logic works that way blam. If you ask for scientific evidence for God according to the principles of the scientific method, you are commiting the fallacy of question-begging, for God is not within the scope of investigation of the scientific method, according to it's own principles.

You must use the method appropriate to the subject. If the unicorn is meant to be a physically evidenced creature then it would be appropriate to expect physical evidence. If you requested the same of a methematical equasion, for example, then requiring physical evidence of that equasion would be absurd.

[frankiej]

for God is not within the scope of investigation of the scientific method,

That is because he doesn't exist

[fr0d0]

How do you know this?

Because it can be logically summised.

What gives you the authority to claim this? You are making this statement as fact, I do not accept "christians say so" as a fact.

Is that through any rational process? Or you simply being discriminatory?

You have only posted intellectual sounding, meaningless, word salad - AKA theology.

Baseless accusations.

Because christians said so. This just isn't good enough for me.

Quite the contrary. I have presented you with reasoning and you have responded with the pantomime fallacy: "oh no it isn't"

Nooooooo, it is logical to be able to expect to be able to collect evidence of a real phenomenon.

So you dismiss everything existant which is non empirical. Would you classify your belief as scientism?

[Rayaan]

If you requested the same of a methematical equasion, for example, then requiring physical evidence of that equasion would be absurd.

"Equation" (with a "t") in case if you didn't know that.

[Norfolk And Chance]

How do you know this?

Because it can be logically summised.

What gives you the authority to claim this? You are making this statement as fact, I do not accept "christians say so" as a fact.

Is that through any rational process? Or you simply being discriminatory?

You have only posted intellectual sounding, meaningless, word salad - AKA theology.

Baseless accusations.

Because christians said so. This just isn't good enough for me.

Quite the contrary. I have presented you with reasoning and you have responded with the pantomime fallacy: "oh no it isn't"

Nooooooo, it is logical to be able to expect to be able to collect evidence of a real phenomenon.

So you dismiss everything existant which is non empirical. Would you classify your belief as scientism?

You have presented no good reasoning, no good logic, and you are boring the shite out of me with your dull repetetive answers.

Your starting point (in a nutshell) is "the christian definition of god means he cannot be empirically tested", however your opinion holds no weight because the christian definition holds no authority to anybody but a believing christian. And the reason that definition holds no authority to non christians is because there is nothing behind that definition other than "because we christians say so".

This starting point is therefore simply not a solid fact that you can build your castle on, but only, at best, a belief. This completely invalidates any complete crap shoot that you set up after that point. It is complete meaningless waffle. I want to evidence not belief.

We are wasting each others time.

[fr0d0]

Thanks Rayaan *pokes Rayaan lovingly in the eye*

Hey Norfolk. Yes indeed. Point remains: requiring empirical evidence of something non emprical is grossly illogical. If you can't understand that I'm afraid you'll have to remain in the atheist kindergarten. Have a nice life.

[Norfolk And Chance]

I'll have a great life.

You keep on postulating that this is something non empirical and say it is illogical to expect empirical evidence, yet you cannot show it is non empirical in the first place (beyond claiming christians say so) for fucks sake. YOU are illogical, you have to be illogical to be a theist.

Come back with your "having the last word always, because I've proven my point" when you have actually proven a point with a credible statement. Actually no, I'll take you just having a decent starting point which doesn't invalidate the rest of the waffle.

Have a nice death and afterlife.

[Blam!]

Yes logic works that way blam. If you ask for scientific evidence for God according to the principles of the scientific method, you are commiting the fallacy of question-begging, for God is not within the scope of investigation of the scientific method, according to it's own principles.

if I had to push scientific methods on the existence of god, it'd be wasteful of time. However, if we had to push scientific methods on the bible [in where all of concept of god based on]. It'd be easy to conclude god may not involved.

You must use the method appropriate to the subject. If the unicorn is meant to be a physically evidenced creature then it would be appropriate to expect physical evidence.

What is appropriate word to explain the existence of god? Faith, right?

If you requested the same of a methematical equasion, for example, then requiring physical evidence of that equasion would be absurd.

But mathematical equations are one of theories to describe of our understanding of the universe. The mathematical formula like kinetic energy - explaining how much energy in traveling projectile or amount of energy produced by asteroid crashing into ground.

I understand what are you trying to say that science and faith is mutually excessive.

[The Grand Nudger]

According to the tradition that Frodo belongs too, more accurately. Plenty of people claim that there are mountains of credible scientific evidence for god and the innerrancy of scripture. The only reason that Frodo likes his particular platitude over theirs is that he feels that it excuses him from providing something he does not have in his possession. The god proposition, to him, doesn't require evidence, and "there can be none". Well, gl with that. It's a not so clever way of saying "Unless you take my claims at face value without scrutiny this is all obvious bullshit". Works for him though.

[fr0d0]

It'd be easy to conclude god may not involved.

I think I know what you are saying, but could you clarify please.

You must use the method appropriate to the subject. If the unicorn is meant to be a physically evidenced creature then it would be appropriate to expect physical evidence.

What is appropriate word to explain the existence of god? Faith, right?

The evidence we have of God is what we can logically deduce. We can test that for logical soundness.

If you requested the same of a methematical equasion, for example, then requiring physical evidence of that equasion would be absurd.

But mathematical equations are one of theories to describe of our understanding of the universe. The mathematical formula like kinetic energy - explaining how much energy in traveling projectile or amount of energy produced by asteroid crashing into ground.

I understand what are you trying to say that science and faith is mutually excessive.

Well at some point they have to meet. But yes, you get the picture.