A scientific claim must be open to possible falsification. Debunking fanciful claims about “what is god” not the role of science, it’s up to you to falsify the current scientific position that there is no god. You can do his by providing substantiated evidence of god existing, mere ideas of “what god is” is not sufficient.
The world is awash with “ideas” – in literature and art etc. But to credit them them as being true at any level other than allegory or metaphor one needs evidence. Nice ideas, on their own don’t count for much; nor can they exist independently of a material brain - something, BTW, that God doesn't possess.
Yes we know. Without people the repository of such “ideas” ceases to exist. If you are postulating that these “ideas” exist independently of a material brain then you must provide evidence that they can. There is none I know of.
Science can be proved wrong about these “ideas” of yours by the mere presentation of verified evidence. If you cannot provide this then you have no case.
Correct, re the bolded. And until you provide evidence to the contrary we DO “know either way”, namely: here is NO credible evidence for the existence of a non-material mind.
They are “statements” based on the lack of substantiated evidence, nothing more than that.
How could you be neutral when ALL the evidence supports one side and not the other? That’s not neutrality, that’s bias.
You entire posts are testament of your “beliefs” couched in terms of attempted even-handedness. This is as nonsensical as Creationists demanding that ‘Evolution’ vis-à-vis ‘Creationism’ be given equal time in schools. Again, this is bias.
Re no. 3: There is no credible evidence that your “consciousness” will survive the disintegration of your material body. There are not two sides to the argument– just one. To entertain the notion of everlasting life is escapist fantasy and divorced from reality.
All the available evidence indicates that ‘consciousness’ is a by-product of the material brain and that it perishes when the body perishes. OR our consciousness is modified by brain trauma (e.g. car crash, brain tumor etc) in ways which are increasingly being understood by neurologists
Science makes the statement that “god does not exist”. This is falsifiable by providing verified evidence that he does. Unless you can do this then a belief in God is mere wish fulfillment.
Well, until we have evidence that a) god exists AND b) that he “may have had something to do with the existence of the physical universe” it’s hardly worth giving consideration to it is it? Except perhaps as escapist entertainment of the Matrix sort! Personally, I’ve always had a soft-spot for the Nordic gods. Wagner wrote some great opera’s about them.
NOT believing in unevidenced entities or concepts doesn't need defending. OTOH: Giving credence to the possibility of concepts existing when they are not supported by credible evidence DOES need defending, because it is an irrational position.
If you keep positing unsupported concepts such as ‘consciousness existing independently of the material brain' then you need to “defend’ the notion if you want to be taken seriously.
Credible evidence please? In what way “might” it be possible?
Why would you assume a God exists in the first place – let alone interact with the physical universe? How could a non-material entity interact with a material entity or universe? What is the point of contact or nexus?
Your position does no more than hypothetically elevate “possibilities” into probable actualities without any supporting evidence .
What does science mean when it says as you claim that god does not exist?
Why do you claim god does not have a brain? How do you know that the physical universe is not gods brain?
The argument was that human will one day cease to exist because the sun will expand. I said that this is not known. It is fortune telling at best because it assumes things which cannot be known given the time period being worked with.
Besides that it also assumes that once the earth is incinerated, that is the end of all human ideas.
I don't postulate anything. This universe is still a great mystery and we all know very little about it. That is my position. I know or I don't know, and leave others to their argue beliefs
I am not presenting a 'case' -
Neutral is lack of bias.
There is no credible evidence therefore it must be...however as you know, science is not a closed book and thus cant be used to make claims as you are making them.
As long as there are possibilities, the books remain open. That is my position and as it is not for or against, does not need to be justified. A neutral position for things which are not so provable scientifically is the best one to have.
Again, what evidence does science have when as you claim, it states that 'god does not exist'? What does it mean by 'god' and how has it tested this to come to this conclusion?
You infer far too much into my position. Perhaps you are wondering if the whole world were to be like this, what kind of world it would be? I don't know but you obvious taking offence at my position says more about your own belief systems and your need to defend them.
You don't like that anyone can be in a position where they dont have to argue for or against peoples beliefs?
I like my position. It is a good place to be.
