Theologians -- Religion's "Spinmeisters"

[_Milesius]

Similarly, theology is a science, no matter how carefully or thoughtfully done, that is based on studying a being that I believe (and all scientific evidence up to this point concurs) doesn't exist.

Your parenthetical assertion is false. I hope your arguments here are not representative of your work as a physicist.

[_Milesius]

From what I gathered from the video, I would tend to agree that Dennet has a low opinion of theology.

And I have a low opinion of Dennett; he is a completely worthless individual.

[_keithb]

Similarly, theology is a science, no matter how carefully or thoughtfully done, that is based on studying a being that I believe (and all scientific evidence up to this point concurs) doesn't exist.

Your parenthetical assertion is false. I hope your arguments here are not representative of your work as a physicist.

And you will of course provide me to the published journal article citations pointing out the scientific evidence for God that I may have missed?

I've looked, honestly. It's not there.

[_keithb]

From what I gathered from the video, I would tend to agree that Dennet has a low opinion of theology.

And I have a low opinion of Dennett; he is a completely worthless individual.

I have a low opinion of Tiger Woods. That still has nothing to do with the matter at hand.

[_Milesius]

Your parenthetical assertion is false. I hope your arguments here are not representative of your work as a physicist.

And you will of course provide me to the published journal article citations pointing out the scientific evidence for God that I may have missed?

I've looked, honestly. It's not there.

LOL. You claimed that "all scientific evidence up to this point concurs" that a God-like being does not exist, which is different from claiming that there is a lack of evidence for God. Really, I should not have to explain this to a self-described physicist.

As for arguments for the existence of God, I recommend the modal ontological arguments of Charles Hartshorne and Kurt Gödel, the argument from contingency, and this argument I borrowed from David Bartholomew.

[_Buffalo]

LOL. You claimed that "all scientific evidence up to this point concurs" that a God-like being does not exist, which is different from claiming that there is a lack of evidence for God. Really, I should not have to explain this to a self-described physicist.

In reality, it IS the same.

[_Milesius]

LOL. You claimed that "all scientific evidence up to this point concurs" that a God-like being does not exist, which is different from claiming that there is a lack of evidence for God. Really, I should not have to explain this to a self-described physicist.

In reality, it IS the same.

No, it is not.

[_keithb]

LOL. You claimed that "all scientific evidence up to this point concurs" that a God-like being does not exist, which is different from claiming that there is a lack of evidence for God. Really, I should not have to explain this to a self-described physicist.

Since we're going to get picky over the semantics of all this, let me make the statement a little more clear and concrete.

In reality, we can't prove or disprove physically the existence of a "God" in the universe (although I think that we can perhaps disprove it mathematically, but that's a separate thread). In a similar fashion, one can't disprove the existence of a large number of other phenomena in the universe, including: the existence of the "Giant Spaghetti Monster", the existence of a small teapot orbiting the planet Mercury, the existence of a string of ten million 2's in a row in the decimal expansion of Pi, etc. However, that's no reason to believe that any of those things are there (with the possible exception of the string of 2's in Pi), so scientifically speaking none of the evidence that science has accumulated to this point supports the existence of these things.

We can go further than that assumption though. In the case of the existence of God that most of you would believe in, which is a physically real being who interacts with the universe, interacts in the lives of people, has revealed holy scriptures to the world's people, etc., then we have a plethora of secondary consequences to God existing that ARE falsifiable. Of all these assumptions, I am not aware of one of them that has yet to be falsified. If I have missed something here, please let me know.

Specifically, with regards to the Christian God (I am assuming here that you are Christian), we have the stories of Noah's Flood, Adam and Eve, Tower of Babel, the Exodus, Herod killing all newborn children, etc. that have been falsified. So, while I can't say for certain that Christ isn't God, the secondary predictions that come as a result of that statement have all been falsified, to my knowledge.

Does that clarify my position sufficiently?

[_Milesius]

LOL. You claimed that "all scientific evidence up to this point concurs" that a God-like being does not exist, which is different from claiming that there is a lack of evidence for God. Really, I should not have to explain this to a self-described physicist.

Since we're going to get picky over the semantics of all this, let me make the statement a little more clear and concrete.

In reality, we can't prove or disprove physically the existence of a "God" in the universe (although I think that we can perhaps disprove it mathematically, but that's a separate thread).

Yeah, I noted your anemic "Cantorian" argument; it goes nowhere.

In a similar fashion, one can't disprove the existence of a large number of other phenomena in the universe, including: the existence of the "Giant Spaghetti Monster",

I don't take people seriously who refer to Spaghetti Monsters; it is like arguing with someone who is in or has just finished high school.

the existence of a small teapot orbiting the planet Mercury,

With due diligence, you might be able to disprove such a hypothesis.

...so scientifically speaking none of the evidence that science has accumulated to this point supports the existence of these things.

Which is not the same as claiming all scientific evidence concurs against the existence of some thing.

We can go further than that assumption though. In the case of the existence of God that most of you would believe in, which is a physically real being who interacts with the universe, interacts in the lives of people, has revealed holy scriptures to the world's people, etc., then we have a plethora of secondary consequences to God existing that ARE falsifiable. Of all these assumptions, I am not aware of one of them that has yet to be falsified. If I have missed something here, please let me know.

Are you parroting the noxious mediocrity Victor Stenger here?

Specifically, with regards to the Christian God (I am assuming here that you are Christian), we have the stories of Noah's Flood, Adam and Eve, Tower of Babel, the Exodus, Herod killing all newborn children, etc. that have been falsified. So, while I can't say for certain that Christ isn't God, the secondary predictions that come as a result of that statement have all been falsified, to my knowledge.

The latter two have not been falsified. As for the former three, they may or may not have been falsified, depending on how one views them, I suppose.

[_madeleine]

The Bible is not a scientific manual. Never has been. Those who read it as such do so outside of Judeo-Christian tradition and context.

The Pentateuch, in particular, contains more of the mythology of Jews, Christians and Muslims. Not myth, as in just made up and you should believe it just because. But myth, defined as truth being conveyed by an oral-story tradition. Many times the truth being conveyed is God's Mercy and Justice.

For example, I don't know of any mainline, non-Fundamental Evangelical Christian who believes Jonah was literally swallowed by a whale, or that the earth was literally covered entirely in water. Arguments that are based on an idea that we do, don't really show a working knowledge of Christian belief.

Peace