Can one disprove Jesus' resurrection?

[The Greater Fool]

Modern miracles certainly can and have been examined rationally. All I know of that have been examined have been demonstrated, at least to the rational mind, as less miraculous and more firmly within the mundane. Yes, scientific principles establish what is, in fact, natural or mundane. "This miracle violates the known science" is not a debunking (though it is completely true), as again, miracle means that it is outside known science.

Which actual miracles have been examined by anything? Not just a claim of a miracle ... I want you to produce an example of an actual miracle that has been examined.

Look, you are not actually talking about any known miracles being examined by anything. All you have are claims of miracles.

Claims which have so far all been shown as untrue.

I see. This is a massive pedantic quibble. When speaking of miracles, which I have repeatedly said do not exist, I must continually say "claims of miracles?"

All I know of that have been examined have been demonstrated, at least to the rational mind, as less miraculous and more firmly within the mundane.

What do you mean merely "less miraculous"? Which "lesser" part of the claim was actually miraculous?

Perhaps you should read it again. Saying "This reply is less insightful and more irrational" means it is not at all insightful and completely lacks reason.

Yes, scientific principles establish what is, in fact, natural or mundane. "This miracle violates the known science" is not a debunking (though it is completely true), as again, miracle means that it is outside known science.

"The miracle violates the known science" (although completely true) is equally unsatisfactory at debunking holy writ miracles. Again, that it was called a miracle acknowledges it is outside of the natural or mundane. Unfortunately, unlike modern 'miracles', we have no way of examining the facts around the event.

Sorry but you are going around in your own circular argument like a mouse pedaling around a wheel. You are again trying to imply that there are indeed actual miracles that science cannot investigate. You just said "This miracle violates the known science" ... well, which miracle is that? Where is this miracle which you just said was "outside known science"?

I have, in fact, said the opposite several times: There are no meddling god(s), thus no miracles. Interpreting this as implying the opposite is a nearly miraculous FAIL. None of your reply shows understanding of the actual point.

miracle
noun

1. an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.

2. such an effect or event manifesting or considered as a work of God.

Trying to argue against miracles because they violate natural laws (again, absolutely true) is useless, because by definition miracles are miracles because they violate natural laws. If an all powerful meddling god existed, it could violate natural laws. However, there are no gods, thus they do not perform miracles.

Where is the miracle please? You do not actually have any miracles. All you have are untrue claims of miracles.

I understand that people, in attempting to parse posts, sometimes lose track of actual arguments. To head off the very confusion your post seems to reveal, I make it very clear and repeatedly state There are no god(s), thus there are no miracles. Apparently, I did not say it often enough.

If there were all powerful meddling god(s), miracles would be possible. Fortunately, at least for atheists, evidence is that there are no meddling god(s), thus no holy writ, no miracles, it's done. Until arguers settle the meddling god(s) argument, the others flowing from them are cart before the horse

What do you mean "If there were all powerful meddling god(s)"?? What you are claiming there is to say - "If there are gods producing miracles, then there are miracles"! You are just in a circular loop trying to say "if I define A to be true, then A is now true because I just said it was by my own invented definition!" ... if you had a miracle working god .... then you could have miracles ... but where is this miracle working god?, and where are the miracles??? ...

Do you see that you are replying to a straw man of your own creation? See how nonsensical the argument is in light of the whole thought?

If there were meddling god(s), miracles would be possible. There are no gods, thus no miracles.
How is that not an extremely straight forward and obvious statement?

.... what you have is an unsubstantiated claim of a miracle working god, and loads of untrue claims of miracles ... and science can most certainly be used to investigate why you or anyone else claims to know gods and claims to witness or perform miracles.

For the sake of your understanding, I'm adding [claimed] before miracle so that you won't be confused.

Again, science can be, should be, and have been used to examine modern [claimed] miracles. When such [claimed] miracles are examined they are found to have mundane explanations. Scientific investigation can be performed on modern [claimed] miracles because the investigation is not confined to the claim alone. The debunking of the [claimed] miracle is not "It violates scientific laws", but rather the [claimed] miracle was found to have a mundane explanation.

Holy writ [claimed] miracles, unlike their modern counterparts, cannot be examined beyond the actual claim. As with their modern counterparts, holy write [claimed] miracles (by definition, see definition above) are outside of natural explanations, being caused by god. Saying they violate natural law is a logical absurdity, as that little fact is part of what 'miracle' means.

The fact that makes holy writ miracles fiction is that there are no gods, holy writ is fiction, there are no miracles.


I have not made a single claim that you attribute to me. I can't imagine why anyone would go to such extremes to misinterpret and distort pretty clearly stated points to arrive at the precisely opposite meaning. Or, was this a joke?

 

[IanS]

I see. This is a massive pedantic quibble. When speaking of miracles, which I have repeatedly said do not exist, I must continually say "claims of miracles?"


Perhaps you should read it again. Saying "This reply is less insightful and more irrational" means it is not at all insightful and completely lacks reason.


I have, in fact, said the opposite several times: There are no meddling god(s), thus no miracles. Interpreting this as implying the opposite is a nearly miraculous FAIL. None of your reply shows understanding of the actual point.



Trying to argue against miracles because they violate natural laws (again, absolutely true) is useless, because by definition miracles are miracles because they violate natural laws. If an all powerful meddling god existed, it could violate natural laws. However, there are no gods, thus they do not perform miracles.


I understand that people, in attempting to parse posts, sometimes lose track of actual arguments. To head off the very confusion your post seems to reveal, I make it very clear and repeatedly state There are no god(s), thus there are no miracles. Apparently, I did not say it often enough.


Do you see that you are replying to a straw man of your own creation? See how nonsensical the argument is in light of the whole thought?

If there were meddling god(s), miracles would be possible. There are no gods, thus no miracles.
How is that not an extremely straight forward and obvious statement?



For the sake of your understanding, I'm adding [claimed] before miracle so that you won't be confused.

Again, science can be, should be, and have been used to examine modern [claimed] miracles. When such [claimed] miracles are examined they are found to have mundane explanations. Scientific investigation can be performed on modern [claimed] miracles because the investigation is not confined to the claim alone. The debunking of the [claimed] miracle is not "It violates scientific laws", but rather the [claimed] miracle was found to have a mundane explanation.

Holy writ [claimed] miracles, unlike their modern counterparts, cannot be examined beyond the actual claim. As with their modern counterparts, holy write [claimed] miracles (by definition, see definition above) are outside of natural explanations, being caused by god. Saying they violate natural law is a logical absurdity, as that little fact is part of what 'miracle' means.

The fact that makes holy writ miracles fiction is that there are no gods, holy writ is fiction, there are no miracles.


I have not made a single claim that you attribute to me. I can't imagine why anyone would go to such extremes to misinterpret and distort pretty clearly stated points to arrive at the precisely opposite meaning. Or, was this a joke?

OK, I am not going to spend time going through all of the above. Because apart from anything else your very first highlighted remark actually focuses on crux of the issue, i.e. where you say that my reply to you was a "massive pedantic quibble". But that “massive quibble” was entirely about your previous remark where you said this -

Being a religious claim about a miracle performed by a meddling god, it is outside of science, and the rules of science. In fact, it's a rather useless argument either way. If you believe in meddling god(s), you don't need scientific proof, by definition. If you don't believe in god(s), you don't need scientific proof, by definition.

What I said to you about that remark (your quote above), is that in fact it is not true to say as you just did that “ .... a religious claim about a miracle performed by a meddling god, it is outside of science, and the rules of science”.

I am simply pointing out to you that the claim is very far from being “outside of science, and the rules of science”. And we do not actually have anything else except for the unsubstantiated claim. We have no miracles ; we only have the unsubstantiated claims.

In fact, I cannot immediately think of any real things, i.e. “events”, that are inherently “outside of science, and the rules of science” in the sense of being beyond any possible scientific investigation or scientific explanation ... can you?

Lets put this more simply by asking you a question - do you actually think there are real things or actual “events” (real as opposed to mere thoughts or imaginary beliefs etc.), that are inherently outside any possible scientific investigation?

The point is this - on forums like this you will very often see people claiming that certain things are inherently beyond any possible scientific investigation (in fact your own quote highlighted above, actually did say that!). Usually they mean religious ideas and ideas of the so-called supernatural. But so far I have yet to see anyone actually produce any such things that are inherently beyond the scope of any scientific investigation.

And certainly, claims of miracles, supernatural gods, or other such ideas are most definitely well within the scope of scientific study and scientific explanation.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Didn't we already tread this ground?

You can't prove that we did...

 

[The Greater Fool]

OK, I am not going to spend time going through all of the above. Because apart from anything else your very first highlighted remark actually focuses on crux of the issue, i.e. where you say that my reply to you was a "massive pedantic quibble". But that “massive quibble” was entirely about your previous remark where you said this -

Let us proceed...

Being a religious claim about a miracle performed by a meddling god, it is outside of science, and the rules of science. (Bolding Added by TGF)

What I said to you about that remark (your quote above), is that in fact it is not true to say as you just did that “ .... a religious claim about a miracle performed by a meddling god, it is outside of science, and the rules of science”.

I am simply pointing out to you that the claim is very far from being “outside of science, and the rules of science”. And we do not actually have anything else except for the unsubstantiated claim. We have no miracles ; we only have the unsubstantiated claims.

Yes, I said the bolded.

I believe that you and I, being atheists, do not believe there is anything outside of natural processes (which science endeavors to explore). Reality is free of god(s) and miracles, everything is governed by the rules of natural law. There are no god(s), no miracles. I trust we agree to this point?

The point is this - on forums like this you will very often see people claiming that certain things are inherently beyond any possible scientific investigation (in fact your own quote highlighted above, actually did say that!). Usually they mean religious ideas and ideas of the so-called supernatural. But so far I have yet to see anyone actually produce any such things that are inherently beyond the scope of any scientific investigation.

And certainly, claims of miracles, supernatural gods, or other such ideas are most definitely well within the scope of scientific study and scientific explanation.

Just to get this fresh in our minds:

miracle noun
1. an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.
2. such an effect or event manifesting or considered as a work of God.

Certainly, the question of the existence of God(s), supernatural entities, or generally any entities themselves are well within examination within science.

God(s), et al, exist, or they don't, and it is a scientific question:

*IF* god(s) exist, their power is beyond all natural processes (science). God(s) can make or break any law on whim. There are no natural laws on the function of such a being. Claims of miracles flowing from god(s), by definition, are outside science;

*IF* god(s) do not exist, they are no more in the realm of natural processes (science) than any other fiction. Claims of miracles are likewise fiction, and outside science.

The *IF*s above are examining each side of the proposition "Do god(s) exist?" The evidence overwhelmingly leads me to conclude god(s) do not exist. Miracles don't exist.

Because god(s), miracles, and religious doctrine our outside of science, does not imply religion gets a free pass. Quite the contrary, as a fiction, it should be dealt with as fiction. It is not a source for morality, not a source for legal foundations, not a source of comfort. Non miraculous claims could be examined or tested for veracity, but they would have little impact on reality.

 

[Nihilianth]

OK, I am not going to spend time going through all of the above. Because apart from anything else your very first highlighted remark actually focuses on crux of the issue, i.e. where you say that my reply to you was a "massive pedantic quibble". But that “massive quibble” was entirely about your previous remark where you said this -




What I said to you about that remark (your quote above), is that in fact it is not true to say as you just did that “ .... a religious claim about a miracle performed by a meddling god, it is outside of science, and the rules of science”.

I am simply pointing out to you that the claim is very far from being “outside of science, and the rules of science”. And we do not actually have anything else except for the unsubstantiated claim. We have no miracles ; we only have the unsubstantiated claims.

In fact, I cannot immediately think of any real things, i.e. “events”, that are inherently “outside of science, and the rules of science” in the sense of being beyond any possible scientific investigation or scientific explanation ... can you?

Lets put this more simply by asking you a question - do you actually think there are real things or actual “events” (real as opposed to mere thoughts or imaginary beliefs etc.), that are inherently outside any possible scientific investigation?

The point is this - on forums like this you will very often see people claiming that certain things are inherently beyond any possible scientific investigation (in fact your own quote highlighted above, actually did say that!). Usually they mean religious ideas and ideas of the so-called supernatural. But so far I have yet to see anyone actually produce any such things that are inherently beyond the scope of any scientific investigation.

And certainly, claims of miracles, supernatural gods, or other such ideas are most definitely well within the scope of scientific study and scientific explanation.

I have not read any replies to this post yet, but my two cents:

One, you are arguing past what the Greater Fool has been saying. His posts are perfectly clear that miracles are impossible, by way of non-existent spiritual realms. (He specifically said: "No god(s), no miracles.")

As to your point that "nothing is outside the realm of science," the entire point I have been making in this thread previously is that:

"Jesus cannot be proven to have risen from the dead."

Jesus, specifically as an individual, his resurrection must be proven by those making the claim. The point is, those making that claim cannot possibly prove it, especially not through science. Whereas, the opposing claim: "Jesus did not rise from the dead," stems from the myriad known scientific facts. It is incredible to claim that "Jesus rose from the dead."

People can still sit here and spout that they "believe" in the Resurrection, despite all the scientific evidence to the contrary: People do not rise from the dead, after being dead and buried for three days. That specific claim: "Jesus did not rise from the dead," cannot actually be "PROVEN." The evidence is pretty insurmountable, but you cannot actually prove that one specific event did not occur.

Likewise, you cannot prove that it did either. In the end, I think that stating that delusional belief itself is outside the realm of science; rather than stating that "MIRACLES" are outside the realm of science; is a more precise argument.

 

[Mcreal]

Resurrection of a human body, after being dead for 2 days, is biomedically impossible.

Especially a body ravaged by the elements by being crucified to death on a cross (sure Jesus's body is alleged to have been taken down straight away, and wrapped, but that won't change the absolute death of crucial bodily faculties).

 

[The Greater Fool]

Resurrection of a human body, after being dead for 2 days, is biomedically impossible.

Especially a body ravaged by the elements by being crucified to death on a cross (sure Jesus's body is alleged to have been taken down straight away, and wrapped, but that won't change the absolute death of crucial bodily faculties).

Yep, it would take a miracle

 

[IanS]

Let us proceed...


Yes, I said the bolded.

I believe that you and I, being atheists, do not believe there is anything outside of natural processes (which science endeavors to explore). Reality is free of god(s) and miracles, everything is governed by the rules of natural law. There are no god(s), no miracles. I trust we agree to this point?



Just to get this fresh in our minds:


Certainly, the question of the existence of God(s), supernatural entities, or generally any entities themselves are well within examination within science.

God(s), et al, exist, or they don't, and it is a scientific question:

*IF* god(s) exist, their power is beyond all natural processes (science). God(s) can make or break any law on whim. There are no natural laws on the function of such a being. Claims of miracles flowing from god(s), by definition, are outside science;
*IF* god(s) do not exist, they are no more in the realm of natural processes (science) than any other fiction. Claims of miracles are likewise fiction, and outside science.

The *IF*s above are examining each side of the proposition "Do god(s) exist?" The evidence overwhelmingly leads me to conclude god(s) do not exist. Miracles don't exist.

Because god(s), miracles, and religious doctrine our outside of science, does not imply religion gets a free pass. Quite the contrary, as a fiction, it should be dealt with as fiction. It is not a source for morality, not a source for legal foundations, not a source of comfort. Non miraculous claims could be examined or tested for veracity, but they would have little impact on reality.

OK, so we agree on all of this, although we might phrase it differently, and we might think the way in which we say or write/phrase such things is important, because it can make all the difference to the impression that we give to others. But just re. the highlighted phrase - I have a suspicion that the way you have written that highlighted part is again concealing the same conceptual mistake, or perhaps I should say it's containing a hidden assumption (an incorrect assumption). That is -

- when you write "*IF* god(s) exist, their power is beyond all natural processes (science). ", that simple statement necessitates that this supernatural thing called a God could in fact exist! Otherwise the entire statement is rendered redundant.

So the question then is - could any such supernatural God exist? How could a supernatural God actually exist?

In case that simple explanation was not clear, let me put it like this - unless the God really could exist, there is no validity at all in posing a question saying "If the God exists then ....".

So I'd ask you the same question that I asked in my previous reply - do you actually think it is possible in this universe to have what we would call real events (i.e. anything which can be detected or observed as physically interacting with the fabric of our universe) which is inherently beyond any possible scientific investigation and/or explanation?

Because just on the face of it, I cannot immediately think of how it would be possible for any such supernatural events to occur in a universe that we define as "natural" (i.e. a universe that appears from a big Bang process, leading eventually to the world that we see around us today, with the earth, stars, galaxies, space & time (i.e. “space-time“).

IOW - if the event manifests itself in a “natural" universe composed of underlying particles and fields (as described within Quantum Theory), then on the face of it, without thinking too deeply about that, it seems to me the event would have to be a natural one (however supernatural it might appear or however supernatural it might be claimed to be)

But as I say - the point that I am trying to make, is not to have a semantic set of pedantic quibbles (as you put it), but to get rid of the frequent claims which say that there are indeed things/events/occurrences in this universe that are “beyond the remit of scientific understanding or explanation”. Because as I say, off hand, I can’t actually think of any examples of any such thing at all. And in fact, it seems to me on the face of it, i.e. if I take a bit of "punt" on this - that if the event can happen at all in this universe, then it must be a natural event capable of investigation and explanation by science, because to have any manifestation at all it has to interact with the particles & fields that comprise what we call the entire fabric of our universe.

 

[annnnoid]

OK, so we agree on all of this, although we might phrase it differently, and we might think the way in which we say or write/phrase such things is important, because it can make all the difference to the impression that we give to others. But just re. the highlighted phrase - I have a suspicion that the way you have written that highlighted part is again concealing the same conceptual mistake, or perhaps I should say it's containing a hidden assumption (an incorrect assumption). That is -

- when you write "*IF* god(s) exist, their power is beyond all natural processes (science). ", that simple statement necessitates that this supernatural thing called a God could in fact exist! Otherwise the entire statement is rendered redundant.

So the question then is - could any such supernatural God exist? How could a supernatural God actually exist?

In case that simple explanation was not clear, let me put it like this - unless the God really could exist, there is no validity at all in posing a question saying "If the God exists then ....".

So I'd ask you the same question that I asked in my previous reply - do you actually think it is possible in this universe to have what we would call real events (i.e. anything which can be detected or observed as physically interacting with the fabric of our universe) which is inherently beyond any possible scientific investigation and/or explanation?

Because just on the face of it, I cannot immediately think of how it would be possible for any such supernatural events to occur in a universe that we define as "natural" (i.e. a universe that appears from a big Bang process, leading eventually to the world that we see around us today, with the earth, stars, galaxies, space & time (i.e. “space-time“).

IOW - if the event manifests itself in a “natural" universe composed of underlying particles and fields (as described within Quantum Theory), then on the face of it, without thinking too deeply about that, it seems to me the event would have to be a natural one (however supernatural it might appear or however supernatural it might be claimed to be)

But as I say - the point that I am trying to make, is not to have a semantic set of pedantic quibbles (as you put it), but to get rid of the frequent claims which say that there are indeed things/events/occurrences in this universe that are “beyond the remit of scientific understanding or explanation”. Because as I say, off hand, I can’t actually think of any examples of any such thing at all. And in fact, it seems to me on the face of it, i.e. if I take a bit of "punt" on this - that if the event can happen at all in this universe, then it must be a natural event capable of investigation and explanation by science, because to have any manifestation at all it has to interact with the particles & fields that comprise what we call the entire fabric of our universe.

…the funny thing about this is the degree to which anyone thinks the question of the existence of a thing called ‘God’ can actually be resolved.

Nope.

The simple fact is…what we do not know about this universe runs from the beginning to the end of it and from one ‘side’ right to the other. We don’t know what it is, and we don’t know where it comes from. Nor do we have the faintest idea how any of these scientific ‘rules’ originate that presumably explain it. Nor do we have the faintest idea as to the actual explicit relationship between these rules and the universe they so effectively describe and predict (except, of course…that they effectively describe and predict it).

IOW…we do not even know what the ‘natural’ is. No need to add a ‘supernatural’ to accommodate a God!

These are not just gaps, they are gaps easily big enough for a God to slip through. It may well be that ‘science’ has the potential to adjudicate a God (eventually)…but do we?

Not to mention that the mere fact that everything seems to function according to some vast ‘order’ implicates some variety of intelligence. Not in any empirical manner, simply qualitatively. It’s a variety of evidence based upon the metaphysics we humans seem to have an inclination for…which, it should be noted, is the basis of science. Nobody knows where any of it comes from or how, but it exists so it is evidence of something.

So…we can’t establish that something on the scale of a God does exist. But nor can we establish that it does not. And…there is evidence that implicates ‘something’ on such a scale (not to mention the avalanche of cognitive evidence). Whether that ‘something’ could intervene to enable a ‘resurrection’ is entirely unknowable at this point in time. If this ‘something’ can create and / or continues to create a universe I would imagine a resurrection would be peanuts. Pure speculation though.

It is also worth pointing out that...if we adjudicate events according to the metric "if science can explain them they have happened"...then we have just eradicated the entirety of human activity...including science itself.

 

[Pup]

Not to mention that the mere fact that everything seems to function according to some vast ‘order’ implicates some variety of intelligence. Not in any empirical manner, simply qualitatively. It’s a variety of evidence based upon the metaphysics we humans seem to have an inclination for…which, it should be noted, is the basis of science. Nobody knows where any of it comes from or how, but it exists so it is evidence of something.

I don't agree with the premise that order implies intelligence, but if we can agree that things appear to function with order, that would eliminate any god that performs miracles like miraculously rising from the dead.

 

[tsig]

…the funny thing about this is the degree to which anyone thinks the question of the existence of a thing called ‘God’ can actually be resolved.

Nope.

The simple fact is…what we do not know about this universe runs from the beginning to the end of it and from one ‘side’ right to the other. We don’t know what it is, and we don’t know where it comes from. Nor do we have the faintest idea how any of these scientific ‘rules’ originate that presumably explain it. Nor do we have the faintest idea as to the actual explicit relationship between these rules and the universe they so effectively describe and predict (except, of course…that they effectively describe and predict it).

IOW…we do not even know what the ‘natural’ is. No need to add a ‘supernatural’ to accommodate a God!

These are not just gaps, they are gaps easily big enough for a God to slip through. It may well be that ‘science’ has the potential to adjudicate a God (eventually)…but do we?

Not to mention that the mere fact that everything seems to function according to some vast ‘order’ implicates some variety of intelligence. Not in any empirical manner, simply qualitatively. It’s a variety of evidence based upon the metaphysics we humans seem to have an inclination for…which, it should be noted, is the basis of science. Nobody knows where any of it comes from or how, but it exists so it is evidence of something.

So…we can’t establish that something on the scale of a God does exist. But nor can we establish that it does not. And…there is evidence that implicates ‘something’ on such a scale (not to mention the avalanche of cognitive evidence). Whether that ‘something’ could intervene to enable a ‘resurrection’ is entirely unknowable at this point in time. If this ‘something’ can create and / or continues to create a universe I would imagine a resurrection would be peanuts. Pure speculation though.

It is also worth pointing out that...if we adjudicate events according to the metric "if science can explain them they have happened"...then we have just eradicated the entirety of human activity...including science itself.

You are aware that the "I know nothing, mankind knows nothing" argument cuts the ground from under you as well as anyone else?

 

[JoeMorgue]

You are aware that the "I know nothing, mankind knows nothing" argument cuts the ground from under you as well as anyone else?

Which is where this whole nonsense immediatly breaks down and is revealed to be nothing but the most distilled form of special pleading that it is.

But as you point out it's never presented that way, it's always "We can't be sure, therefore I'm right and you're wrong" which doesn't make any kind of sense.

And I find it utterly hilarious how often believers once argued into a corner about facts or evidence have to resort to trying to have an omnipotent, all powerful sky wizard that leaves zero evidence for his existence which again doesn't make any kind of sense.

But sure whatever "mysterious ways" and "you can't be sure" and "can't you see both sides are being equally unreasonable" and all that jazz.

 

[The Greater Fool]

God(s), et al, exist, or they don't, and it is a scientific question:

*IF* god(s) exist, their power is beyond all natural processes (science). God(s) can make or break any law on whim. There are no natural laws on the function of such a being. Claims of miracles flowing from god(s), by definition, are outside science;

*IF* god(s) do not exist, they are no more in the realm of natural processes (science) than any other fiction. Claims of miracles are likewise fiction, and outside science.

The *IF*s above are examining each side of the proposition "Do god(s) exist?" The evidence overwhelmingly leads me to conclude god(s) do not exist. Miracles don't exist.

- when you write "*IF* god(s) exist, their power is beyond all natural processes (science). ", that simple statement necessitates that this supernatural thing called a God could in fact exist! Otherwise the entire statement is rendered redundant.

So the question then is - could any such supernatural God exist? How could a supernatural God actually exist?
In case that simple explanation was not clear, let me put it like this - unless the God really could exist, there is no validity at all in posing a question saying "If the God exists then ....".

Sadly, I anticipated something like this reply, when I wrote the RED part of my post quoted above.

Basically, you're saying we can't examine the question "Is there a god?" because by entertaining the question, we open the possibility that god(s) might exist. However, we can entertain the equally masturbatory sub-question "Can god(s) exist?" because, somehow, this question doesn't also open the possibility of god(s) existence.

Such sophistry. Careful, for if anyone asks "Is Satan real?" we create the possibility that he is real, then we might be doomed!

The most used definition of god is that of an entity that is eternal, all-powerful (meaning, it can do [literally] anything). Certainly, one avenue of discussing the existence of such an entity is "can it exist?" Also, "Can the universe exist without a god?" and "could the universe start from nothing without a god?" are additional avenues of discussion.

*IF* "Can god(s) exist?" is unequivocally "No", why does the belief in god permeate humanity?

BECAUSE, while we can gather evidence pro and (overwhelmingly) con using the scientific method, ultimately it is not a scientific topic because we are talking about a supernatural God:

Supernatural
adjective
1. of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

God(s) do not exist. Holy writ is not inspired by god(s). There are no saviors, no miracles.

[ETA]

Because just on the face of it, I cannot immediately think of how <courteously snipped>

Argument from ignorance.

But as I say - the point that I am trying to make, is not to have a semantic set of pedantic quibbles (as you put it), but to get rid of the frequent claims which say that there are indeed things/events/occurrences in this universe that are “beyond the remit of scientific understanding or explanation”.

I would like to rid the world of religion, hate, and telemarketers, as I've said earlier in the thread (sans telemarketers). But, here we are talking about it. We're tilting at windmills.
[/ETA]

I've effectively said the above three times now. Following my own advice (drat!), I'll leave the final words to you.

Thank you for the discussion.

 

[Donn]

The simple fact is…what we do not know about this universe runs from the beginning to the end of it and from one ‘side’ right to the other.

Doge summary. Much clear, very welcome. Wow.

Many god. Much uncertain. I can't even.
Such rulez! Much complex.

Much vast, so space.
Very God. Such science. Wow, space.

So, smart? Very order. Amaze variety!
Much intelligence. So ordered. Wow, order.

Very meta. So physics. Wow metaphysics:
Science basis. So noted.

Unknown knows. Much evident. Wow evidence.
We can't. Much also. Very cannot.

Vast cognition. Much vast. Wow scale.
Creates all. Much busy. Excite, creator!

Unperish hero. Totes simple. Very Bible. Wow novel.
You speculate. Very say. Much speak. So spectacle.

Small science. Much puny. So garble. Wow, hubris.

~

 

[Toontown]

The inability to absolutely rule out a claim in no way prevents us from effectively ruling it out.

For example, a 1-in-10,000 chance of being hit by a vehicle if I ride my bicycle today is not an effective deterrent to my going out for a ride. Laziness is a far more effective deterrent in this example.

Likewise, the very slim possibility that Jesus was actually required by his omnipotent Father to be tortured to death so that the Father could forgive our sins does not effectively require me to worship the hypothetical psychopathic Father.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The inability to absolutely rule out a claim in no way prevents us from effectively ruling it out.

And everybody outside of a mental institution understands this, which is why this whole "I'm just gonna pretend I don't understand how evidence works" routine believers pull grew old some time ago.

Everybody understands the difference between ruling something out on a practical level and ruling it out on some manufactured philosophical hair splitting level of special pleading. Whenever they demand that the conversation happens on the later level instead of the former, it's because they want to hide the fact that they don't have an intellectual leg to stand on.

 

[The Greater Fool]

And everybody outside of a mental institution understands this, which is why this whole "I'm just gonna pretend I don't understand how evidence works" routine believers pull grew old some time ago.

Everybody understands the difference between ruling something out on a practical level and ruling it out on some manufactured philosophical hair splitting level of special pleading. Whenever they demand that the conversation happens on the later level instead of the former, it's because they want to hide the fact that they don't have an intellectual leg to stand on.

Isn't this poisoning the well? (Not that I disagree with the sentiment).

Atheists (like myself) try to frame it as a scientific issue, philosophy is so much nonsense. After all, reality is what's real, philosophy is support for the unsupportable.

Believers try to frame it as a philosophical (faith) issue, science be damned. After all, god(s) are what created everything, yet science can't see the truth.

Each insists theirs is the proper approach, and the other is sticking your head in the sand. Which is how and why threads like this go on for so long, with no apparent movement.

 

[Donn]

… it's because they want to hide the fact that they don't have an intellectual leg to stand on.

And it's a peg-leg cut short to level with the floor.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Doge summary. Much clear, very welcome. Wow.

Many god. Much uncertain. I can't even.
Such rulez! Much complex.

Much vast, so space.
Very God. Such science. Wow, space.

So, smart? Very order. Amaze variety!
Much intelligence. So ordered. Wow, order.

Very meta. So physics. Wow metaphysics:
Science basis. So noted.

Unknown knows. Much evident. Wow evidence.
We can't. Much also. Very cannot.

Vast cognition. Much vast. Wow scale.
Creates all. Much busy. Excite, creator!

Unperish hero. Totes simple. Very Bible. Wow novel.
You speculate. Very say. Much speak. So spectacle.

Small science. Much puny. So garble. Wow, hubris.

~

Totally Wow. Such Smart. How Words. Much Nom.

 

[IanS]

I have not read any replies to this post yet, but my two cents:

One, you are arguing past what the Greater Fool has been saying. His posts are perfectly clear that miracles are impossible, by way of non-existent spiritual realms. (He specifically said: "No god(s), no miracles.")

.

OK so then what did Greater Fool mean when he said the following -

Being a religious claim about a miracle performed by a meddling god, it is outside of science, and the rules of science. In fact, it's a rather useless argument either way. If you believe in meddling god(s), you don't need scientific proof, by definition. If you don't believe in god(s), you don't need scientific proof, by definition.

And then to explain that, he followed it up with statements like these (which I also disagreed with) -

Modern miracles certainly can and have been examined rationally. ...
.
.
Unfortunately, unlike modern 'miracles', we have no way of examining the facts around the event.
.
.
If there were all powerful meddling god(s), miracles would be possible.
.
.
"This miracle violates the known science" is not a debunking (though it is completely true), as again, miracle means that it is outside known science

What I am saying to The Greater Fool, and to you if you agree with the way he wrote those sentences, is that they are implying, if not in fact directly saying, that there are indeed some things in this universe that are inherently beyond any possible scientific investigation or explanation.

And the point that I am making about statements or beliefs like that, is that they are almost always used by theists (and sometimes by those trying to argue philosophical points), in order to claim that a creator God could indeed exist on the basis that there are "things that are outside the scope of scientific understanding".

What I am saying to The Greater Fool, and to you if you agree with his remark saying "Being a religious claim about a miracle performed by a meddling god, it is outside of science, and the rules of science.", because that remark, which is as I say always used by theists to parachute God into possible existence, is manifestly wrong. The mere "claim" (and Greater Fool presented it saying it was a "claim") is most definitely NOT beyond explanation by science.

And I think it was equally mistaken when in explanation Greater Fool followed up with these remarks -

1. "Modern miracles certainly can and have been examined rationally ..."

2. "Unfortunately, unlike modern 'miracles', we have no way of examining the facts around the event."

3. "If there were all powerful meddling god(s), miracles would be possible."


Statement 1 is certainly wrong, because there are no known "modern miracles" (whatever a "modern" miracle is supposed to be, as distinct from any other claimed "miracle"?) - there are only unsubstantiated untrue claims of people witnessing miracles.

Statement 2 is also wrong, because when it says "we have no way of examining the facts around the event.", then (if by “the event” he means a so-called "miracle") then he is implicitly assuming that there actually was an "event" which could have no possible way of being "examined" ... that's what 2 actually says. So it's assuming that there is indeed an actual event that cannot be examined by science. But that is untrue, isn't it? E.g.; what is this actual event that was or is beyond any possible scientific "examination"??

Statements 3 is again wrong, because it says "miracles would be possible, IF there were all powerful meddling Gods". So what does a statement like that mean by saying "IF" X is true, then X would be true". That is just a mistaken way of trying to say "If miracles exist and cannot be examined by any science, then miracles exist and cannot be examined by science!"

To summarise - all that I am trying to point out to The Greater Fool (and to you if you agree with his statements), is that we should avoid making the sort of statements that theists almost always make when trying to argue that a supernatural creator could exist, by saying "not everything in this universe is explicable by science, some things are inherently beyond the remit of science, and God is one is one of those things, hence God may very well exist and science can have no way disputing or disproving that".

I am just asking that we avoid falling into the trap of appearing to support theist claims of things such as God and his miracles being outside and beyond the scope of any science, because I think that is actually an erroneous semantic way of using language in order to claim that God does exist and that he is automatically beyond any possible scientific investigation or explanation.