Therefore, without scientific evidence for God, God is basically useless and does more harm than good. It sows division and fear among people, it creates imaginary problems and turns away our attention from very real dangers around us.

Therefore, scientific evidence is the best reason for believing in God.
The second best reason is, if you're very old and afraid of death. (but pick a very mild version of God, otherwise you'll fear death much more than before)
The third best reason is, if someone threatens to shoot you, if you won't.
Biblical "reasons" for god belief are somewhere around number 84.

Any other proof than scientific will be necessarily limited to a small group of people or just one person. And you know how much damage can do one or more madmen, going around and claiming without evidence, that they're talking with God. George Bush was the recent one. If God is so powerful, why isn't he apparent to everyone? Why does he bet salvation of billions on help of a middle-eastern carpenter's son? 

Depends on how broadly we're defining science. In my definition, yes, it is the only way.

  Right!

I don't have time for semantic merry-go-rounds.  You know what I mean when I say those things; you are merely grandstanding.

Anyway, I've dealt with you before and you are a waste of my time.  You are perhaps the biggest moron on this entire forum--I dare say even more than cj.

Case in point.

(Note that this is the same guy who admitted in our debate thread that he's had virtually no exposure to any sophisticated discourse on the God issue; he admitted that he just happened upon this stuff recently, so anything he says here is not to be taken seriously.)

I did chuckle. Oh the irony it's heavy and it's light and it big and it's small.

Someone had to ticket that kettle for speeding

Well I guess we can't all have the steel trap minds of a true metaphysical genius.

By this guys way of thinking you know nothing and neither does he. His "five reasons" might sound good to someone who has no fukin clue.

In science there is no supposing, we label and categorize things and it is what we have to work with. If this is not good enough for you then why do you use it every minute of every day. I'm about to "walk" to the "coffee pot" and get a "cup of coffee". Wait it shouldn't be coffee, we labeled that, it should be a brown substance..no wait we made up the term brown and substance. Gee whats a mind to do. Completely ridiculous arguments.

That's bullshit.

You'll argue ad nauseum about 'perfect' 'great' 'loving' 'just', etc, etc...

No.

I actually gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were simply sincerely trying to understand how and why certain atheists (skeptics) are so reluctant to adopt or seriously entertain the notions of a supernatural prime mover.

But you're not being sincere. You're still just being an obnoxious troll. Same as the first day that you posted here.

Your take on things fascinates me.

I still can't figure out if you're a poe, or not.

I have no idea why someone who thinks he's so brilliant, keeps coming back to a place where he keeps getting told he's more and more absurd, by more and more people.

That's kinda like an ugly girl telling me she doesn't find me attractive...

?

You clowns really need to get your stories and analogies straight.

We keep hearing the 'A painting is scientific proof there was a painter' ergo, that the universe is scientific proof there was a 'creator'.

The claim of God somehow manifesting as a man named 'Jesus', and being 'killed' and his supposed 'resurrection', are empirical (and therefore scientific ) claims that underpin the Judeo Christian 'faith'.

If you deny this is used by apologists and priests to attempt to argue for the existence of God, then you're not up to speed with what your compatriots are arguing.

Christians themselves are the biggest reasons that 'Christianity' has been undermined.

Your level of debate is funny...

And what's that got to do with the price of tea in China?

Nothing.

All those 'arguments' rely on an individual's 'intuition', which is based on their life experience, to conclude that a God 'surely' must exist.

Not that he does in fact exist, other than in the hopes of people who are also somehow convinced that there is an afterlife.

It's obvious to me that in your life, you don't discuss things with people of extremely high intelligence, if these are the ideas that you lecture to people. 

Our 'intuitions' have proven to be the biggest stumbling block to human advancement, and the distilling of 'truth', when compared to the scientific method.

That's drole.

You're asserting that with a 'definition' you can prove that something exists; which is patently absurd. As someone else pointed out, you've essentially 'palmed a card' in your card trick, by saying that if 'the premises are true', then it must follow that the 'conclusion' is true.

Well fuckin' duhhhhh...

If someone accepts that the premises are 'true' (whether they are compatible with reality or not), then it's an ipso facto that the conclusion is 'true'.

The most obvious defeater to any 'God' claims, is simple. Just ask the question to any claim, with 'According to whom?', or 'How do you know that is certain?'.

The default apologist answer, (it seems) is 'According to logic', or 'Because it's logical'.

This is a fallacy, as I (and others) have proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

We cannot 'get ahead of ourselves', in certainty. This is an inescapable universal law.

So, to summarize; no one person witnessed how this universe formed, or how biological life formed, so there's no possible way for anyone (or any 'group) to assert that they know 'the truth' about those 2 base questions.

You and I (and anyone with half a brain) knows that there is a Nobel Prize, and a place in the history books for anyone that could provide the unequivocal understanding of how either of those 2 things occurred.

It hasn't happened.

But given the exponential rise in our grasp of the mechanics of the universe, in the last 100 years or so, it's obvious that science is where you should place your bets on, if you're 'objective', 'rational' and 'logical'.

There is no way NOT to use observation in some way, that is HOW we collect data. Doing it wisely and pragmatically count MORE in important areas, that say hearing how your spouses day went. Religion and all deity beliefs are a result of our egos and our emotions over riding our pragmatic side. AS A SPECIES collectively in our evolution.

SCIENCE is not a person, or a feild, it is a tool. Just like you can use a hammer to build a house. The house is not the tool, it is the "field" just like an apartment would be a "feild" but both use hammers "the tool" to build.

"God" is not in dispute by those in the know. It is merely a super hero humans like making up. Just like Santa and just like invisible friends kids make up and believe in.

SCIENCE is the only universal tool that can be used to settle disputes on how reality is measured. It has a strict standard of testing repeating, falsifying and independently verifying.

DEITY belief doe not. It is a social club, not a classroom. It does NOT have the same standard of testing nor do fans of god/s or fans of a religion, like handing their claims over to outsiders to have the tires kicked to insure quality of data. It is nothing more than group ego protecting a group myth.

You do not have a hammer in religion, so any "house" you build is merely hollow and based on a non existent foundation based on wishful thinking.

You are right in that you DONT have to present us any scientific evidence for your god. True, but why should we buy it if you don't?

Only a fool would go to the used car lot and simply buy the car because the salesmen said, "look at the pretty blue it is"

The skeptic takes the car to an independent mechanic and has him check under the hood.

Theism gets you to buy it first only for you to turn around and sell it. It is never tested empirically and cannot build anything like science has. It only builds clubs and sells superstition and comic book super heros.

No you don't have to prove anything, but I don't have to buy it without proof, and your claim doesn't deserve blind respect just because I agree with your right to make any claim you want.

It's arguments like this that annoy. We have not even proven the bible was written by anything other than a bunch of socialistic goat herding wannabe philisophical saps and we delve into this kind of stuff. I'll begin to consider the deep end of the pool when we get past the shallow kid side.

It's like someone claiming they saw a ufo and there are aliens that want to take over the world. Ufo what? And they want to discuss why the aliens want to take over the earth..wtf what aliens what ufo huh?

I like this post.  

Mr Metaphysics,

EXAMPLE:

"snarfwidgets"

There, now you have "knowledge" of "snarfwidgets".

What exactly do you have knowledge of?

Do not confuse being aware of a claim as being the same as the claim having credibility,

If all I do is go around claiming "snarfwidgets", all you have knowledge of is the claim. Unless I can demonstrate to you in an empirical manor, with testing and falsification and independent verification, "snarfwidget" should be merely a claim to you. Only a fool would swallow "snarfwidget" merely because they have "knowledge" of a claim.

What kills me, is that as a kid I fell for the Big Foot myth, and that was back in the 70s. I am pissed as hell that one of the few channels Animal Planet, which for the most part, does a great job providing educational material, is now rehashing that bullshit story in a new show.

I have "knowledge" of claims of Big foot. But I also know that evolutionary biology is not a myth and "Big Foot" is merely another conspiracy superstition people like buying into.

I have knowledge of Ouija boards, Loc Ness, 4 leaf clovers. I have knowledge that people go around believing those things, yes.

BUT merely hearing a claim ON ANY ISSUE is not the same as having that claim universally tested and independently verified.

I have knowledge of Mickey Mouse too. I have Knowledge of Harry Potter. I have knowledge of Star Wars. And now you have knowledge of "Snarfwidgets".

Claims by themselves are not facts and facts are not opinions. You can have knowledge of other's opinions and others positions, but those by themselves do not constitute facts.

I think it is stupid for our species in today's age to still cling to utopia claims of invisible friends. I UNDERSTAND WHY humans do this, yes. And from a human empathy, human rights standpoint, I defend their right to believe what they want.

BUT defending someone's right to make a claim, is a separate issue than that persons ABILITY to DEMONSTRATE the credibility of their claim.

Unless a claim can be kicked around by multiple sources with the same standard of testing, it should remain a claim, and not a fact.

DNA is a fact. Black holes are a fact. Entropy  is a fact.

Allah, Vishnu, pantheism, Big Foot, are all CLAIMS. Popularity of these claims do not make them fact. And considering that the people who make these claims run like cockroaches when you challenge them to allow you to look under the hood, shows me that these claims are not worthy of any consideration and merely amount to the superstitious placebos people fall for.

In fact, after I hit submit on this post, I am going to shoot Animal Planet an e-mail and express my disgust at their pandering for add dollars by selling Big Foot. It sickens me that shit like that is still being sold and bought.

My point to you is the same it has been for Cap, and any other woo claimant. Yes, you have the right to claim it. But unless that claim can be tested and falsified, it is not worthy of any serious consideration.

Wondering if and when Mr_M is going to grace us with his presence again - I am not going to bother responding to his last response to me until he does, since I see little likelihood of anyone else needing to be straightened out on Mr_M's misunderstanding of my points about the limits of 'definitions' and the subtleties of Modal Logic...