[duffyd]

Is anyone familiar with a rationale, logical, documented theory that clearly refutes the existence of God? Again, I'm not asking for you to repeat an old theory, rather, if you care to offer conjecture, please include data that is verifiable, thorough and scientifically valid.
So far, I haven't seen a single argument that is sustainable, intelligent or persuasive, but I would love to.

So would I.   

Sunday. The sun is out. I will enjoy the day and nature. Our garden is lovely. A slow day with nothing new to report. Hannity gave Cuomo a talking to about a 2015 report advising NY to buy ventilators - with an accurate report about a possible pandemic. Cuomo wasted money on pet projects.

Science is quite clear on certain matters. Science shows us that matter has never created matter. Science proves that nothing is not a source for something to become. We know, based on science that the universe began at a point in the past. The only logical conclusion rational thinkers can come to is that a Force not only initiated the explosion which sparked the manifestation of all that is and that we can measure from earth as it scatters across space/time, but that this Force created the ingredients, the very material within that which exploded. That Force logically must be more powerful, intelligent, creative, magnificent, and spiritual than anything else other than that Force's Son.

[duffyd]

While science can be a useful tool, it doesn't address issues that are extremely important to mankind, to most people, such as life after death. It does not define and it cannot list the items which form the human soul and it cannot dissect love. Science cannot explain why a mother loves her child. It cannot offer instructions to make compassion. It doesn't understand beauty.

[jfoldbar]

BTW, I want to repeat: Science provides overwhelming reasons why GOD must be. Even to suggest otherwise is ludicrous.

you show me yours and ill show you mine

actually, not really. science can not prove that there is no god. and it cant prove there is a god. there is evidence for both, but neither is provable. so the default position should be that until one is proven, both are possible. ever heard of Schrodingers cat. to accept one of those options as true is "lying to oneself" (there is a better phrase but cant think of it)

[CliveG]

Oh, it's been banned in every country in the world. Many governments required mass burning enforcement. They said it was the sickest, most disgusting, inaccurate, devious, evil, raunchy, filthy, depraved piece of junk ever committed to paper. I say it was not inaccurate.
It was about my feeding and bathroom habits since birth. It was actually very informative. But, they claimed they measured a major increase in severe agita, nervous indigestion, mass hysteria, suicidal and uncontrollable homicidal ideations, depression, lactation in adult males, tachycardia, hallucinations, strep throat, bed wetting, night terrors, and aneurysms directly attributable to reading the first paragraph. I thought it was pretty good. They allege millions became violently ill, so that ended that little project.

So you have piqued my curiosity. How do I get a copy?

Was this written before or after your conversion?

My allegations that cell radiation might be a factor in the spread of COVID-19 gets such comments banned in some places. On the basis that it is "crazy". Strangely thit was not applied to others posting the weirdest of claims. The power of the industry. My thread on this forum got pushed to "That cannot be true".

It is being said that anecdotal evidence, no matter how credible it might be, was not evidence. When it comes to hydoxyquinone people are saying that if anecdotal evidence saves their life they will try it. But anecdotal evidence of God or radiation harm must be squashed.

BTW - would the quinine in a gin and tonic work? Even if it does not, it would maybe make the symptoms easier to bear.

[jfoldbar]

Science cannot explain why a mother loves her child. It cannot offer instructions to make compassion. It doesn't understand beauty.

actually, it can

you are correct, science doesnt address issues like life after death and the souls, because as of our current technology they are still in the science fiction dept. but hey, we are learning all the time and someday we may shed light on those subjects.

science can however address the issues of people 'believing' in life after death and souls. believing in something is a completely different issue to it actually being real. and we have the whole 'psychology. of belief' thing explained pretty well.

[CliveG]

Science is quite clear on certain matters. Science shows us that matter has never created matter. Science proves that nothing is not a source for something to become. We know, based on science that the universe began at a point in the past. The only logical conclusion rational thinkers can come to is that a Force not only initiated the explosion which sparked the manifestation of all that is and that we can measure from earth as it scatters across space/time, but that this Force created the ingredients, the very material within that which exploded. That Force logically must be more powerful, intelligent, creative, magnificent, and spiritual than anything else other than that Force's Son.

Not to far from my hypothesis. Worth repeating as I have done for you. 

[CliveG]

Science cannot explain why a mother loves her child. It cannot offer instructions to make compassion. It doesn't understand beauty.

actually, it can

you are correct, science doesnt address issues like life after death and the souls, because as of our current technology they are still in the science fiction dept. but hey, we are learning all the time and someday we may shed light on those subjects.

science can however address the issues of people 'believing' in life after death and souls. believing in something is a completely different issue to it actually being real. and we have the whole 'psychology. of belief' thing explained pretty well.

Would you agree that atheists have a belief based on rejection of "anecdotal evidence", and try to rationalize any event that physics cannot explain? Should atheists actually be agnostics if they really apply their minds?

[jfoldbar]

Should atheists actually be agnostics if they really apply their minds?

me personally. i think that the strong belief there there is no god is incorrect. this is the opposite spectrum to the belief in a god. which are both beliefs and by definition are not proven. i think the correct stance is 'we dont know so i will stay neutral until it is known'.
there are numerous psychological studies showing that any stance but neutral is detrimental to our ability to determine the 'truth' if it does come along.

[duffyd]

Honestly, I can't say whether they have one at the CIA filed under "alternative mass weaponry" that is so classified the presidents are forbidden from looking into it until MAD is well underway. You can always contact FOIA and the pres to see if you can have a peek. When I wrote it, it was intended as a textbook for scholars only but a chapter hit the black market and that was all she wrote. (Believe me, I never intended it to be an alternative, lethal, incurable, inexpensive weapon of mass poisoning of the human psyche for use in peacetime.) 

[duffyd]

[quote author=j
Clive, Your answer is below or above as the case may be. That thing is so dangerous alerts stream across the world  warning governments that someone mentioned it. You've got to be careful.

[duffyd]

Science is quite clear on certain matters. Science shows us that matter has never created matter. Science proves that nothing is not a source for something to become. We know, based on science that the universe began at a point in the past. The only logical conclusion rational thinkers can come to is that a Force not only initiated the explosion which sparked the manifestation of all that is and that we can measure from earth as it scatters across space/time, but that this Force created the ingredients, the very material within that which exploded. That Force logically must be more powerful, intelligent, creative, magnificent, and spiritual than anything else other than that Force's Son.

Not to far from my hypothesis. Worth repeating as I have done for you. 

Listen my friend. You are a nice guy. This is what I will do. When I have finished the rough draft of my next book, I'll sent you a copy of it.

Look for a hefty volume that says, "Hey! Don't Throw That Rock At Me" or, I haven't decided yet, "Hey! Who Discovered Ladies?" "Bernie!"

[Bored chemist]

Ali Binazir did the calculations and decided that the chances of anyone existing are one in 10 to the 2,685,000th power.
 Ali Binazir, M.D., M.Phil. is a graduate of Harvard College, UC San Diego School of Medicine, and Cambridge University.

That's a remarkably wrong answer.
I exist.
The probability of anyone existing is  1.
So he's obviously made a mistake.

Again, the appeal to authority bit is a logical fallacy. Why include it?
Why pretend that "M.D., M.Phil. is a graduate of Harvard College, UC San Diego School of Medicine, and Cambridge" makes any difference to him being obviously wrong.

[CliveG]

Should atheists actually be agnostics if they really apply their minds?

me personally. i think that the strong belief there there is no god is incorrect. this is the opposite spectrum to the belief in a god. which are both beliefs and by definition are not proven. i think the correct stance is 'we dont know so i will stay neutral until it is known'.
there are numerous psychological studies showing that any stance but neutral is detrimental to our ability to determine the 'truth' if it does come along.

So I was an atheist from 12 to 17 years of age when a crisis caused me to re-think my absolute conviction that God did not exist. I decided to become an agnostic and wait until I was in a position to be able to make a decision.

I was 45 when I first thought that there were some benefits to a belief in God. Such as assuring my 4-year old son that he could go to sleep after saying his prayers because God would look after him. No other assurance and logic was acceptable to him. He was too smart and could figure a way into the house by bad guys which his school-mates had told him about.

I was about 55 to 60 when events gave me more assurance that the probability of the existence of God was reasonably likely. I still retain some skepticism and accept I may be wrong. Can you explain how I was absolutely certain a biker would die on an open road in good weather with little traffic and there was no problem with the way he was driving? That to me was the one example that illustrates the existence of the supernatural.

You are at your computer reading this, and suddenly you get a shock (and I mean a shock as if it had happened) that a car is going to crash into the side of the house in 5 minutes and you leave the room. The crash happens. A mild sunny day with little traffic and no unusual sounds. The man just dies at the wheel of the car from a heart attack and does not take the corner. It happens to you and no-one believes you - but you know what happened.

When such an incident is just one of many other strange events it becomes hard to not believe. But time fades the extraordinary nature of such events, and one is left doubting everything. I sit here and I have no faith that there is a God. I do not feel his presence. He only spoke to me once (maybe twice) and I will admit that while it was strange and different it could well have been my imagination - except for the events that followed to confirm.

God does not make it easy to believe. I envy those who do. My belief is by choice not by faith. I do admit it has benefits.

[alancalverd]

Science shows us that matter has never created matter. Science proves that nothing is not a source for something to become.

Neither statement is true. It's good enough for everyday practical chemistry and engineering but these phenomena are not prevented by any known physics. Indeed since the observable universe seems to have a finite age, physics actually demands ex nihilo creation of matter, by simple observation. We just don't fully understand the mechanism or have the ability to replicate it in the lab yet.   

[CliveG]

Ali Binazir did the calculations and decided that the chances of anyone existing are one in 10 to the 2,685,000th power.
 Ali Binazir, M.D., M.Phil. is a graduate of Harvard College, UC San Diego School of Medicine, and Cambridge University.

That's a remarkably wrong answer.
I exist.
The probability of anyone existing is  1.
So he's obviously made a mistake.

Again, the appeal to authority bit is a logical fallacy. Why include it?
Why pretend that "M.D., M.Phil. is a graduate of Harvard College, UC San Diego School of Medicine, and Cambridge" makes any difference to him being obviously wrong.

After a coin is tossed, the probability that the coin would be what it is, is 1. Before the coin is tossed, it is not 1.

Before life existed, the probability is not 1.

[CliveG]

Science shows us that matter has never created matter. Science proves that nothing is not a source for something to become.

Neither statement is true. It's good enough for everyday practical chemistry and engineering but these phenomena are not prevented by any known physics. Indeed since the observable universe seems to have a finite age, physics actually demands ex nihilo creation of matter, by simple observation. We just don't fully understand the mechanism or have the ability to replicate it in the lab yet.

How about the ex nihilo of the laws of physics?

[Bored chemist]

Before life existed, the probability is not 1.

Before life existed, nor did Ali Binazir.
So, at the point where he said the probability was essentially zero, it was actually 1.

[Bored chemist]

comforting lie.png (351.74 kB . 603x448 - viewed 3914 times)

I was 45 when I first thought that there were some benefits to a belief in God. Such as assuring my 4-year old son that he could go to sleep after saying his prayers because God would look after him. No other assurance and logic was acceptable to him. He was too smart and could figure a way into the house by bad guys which his school-mates had told him about.

[duffyd]

Faith in ‘Creatio Ex Nihilo’ (CEN) theory is real faith. Unbelievers now embrace faith wholeheartedly. They have done a 180 degree shift. Today, as of this moment, they are true converts. They are Reborners, a dedicated, fundamentalist, devout congregation of believers in Gobbledygook

[jfoldbar]

I was about 55 to 60 when events gave me more assurance that the probability of the existence of God was reasonably likely. I still retain some skepticism and accept I may be wrong. Can you explain how I was absolutely certain a biker would die on an open road in good weather with little traffic and there was no problem with the way he was driving? That to me was the one example that illustrates the existence of the supernatural.

You are at your computer reading this, and suddenly you get a shock (and I mean a shock as if it had happened) that a car is going to crash into the side of the house in 5 minutes and you leave the room. The crash happens. A mild sunny day with little traffic and no unusual sounds. The man just dies at the wheel of the car from a heart attack and does not take the corner. It happens to you and no-one believes you - but you know what happened.

i dont know you personally or that exact circumstance but science has many explanations for this. 1 possibility from the top of my head is the same as when we know what song will come on the radio next or we know who the next person to call us is. it happens to everyone and is quite well understood by science. theres nothing supernatural there. its just our brain doing what it does.
a bit like when you dream about some stranger, and then the next day you meet that stranger for the first time. again, perfectly explainable by science. nothing supernatural.
so i used to get surprised by this stuff, thinking i was 'special'. until i learned more facts.