Temples, prayers, rituals, behaviors, etc. are proof that belief exists, not that God exists — Bitter Crank

How do you distinguish a stone and belief in a stone then?

In the case of atomic physics, there is evidence in the form of traces, imprints on film, and so on. — Wayfarer

In the case of god there is evidence in the form of temples, prayers, rituals, behaviors, etc.

Clearly you don't understand what you're quoting, so unless you care to try explain it further, I think the discussion is finished — Wayfarer

You're telling me to discern the difference between god and belief in god.

I'm asking you to do the same - how do you distinguish an atom from belief in an atom?

So fallacies do have a important practical use.

There are centuries of medical trial data, about the effectiveness of medicine, which have measurable consequences in terms of healing illnesses.

Data on miracle cures, homeopathy or 'faith healing', by contrast, is extremely hard to come by. — Wayfarer

In response I quote you below

the counter-argument is simply that 'belief in God' is a social convention which causes such behaviours; the belief doesn't have an objective referent. — Wayfarer

But the counter-argument is simply that 'belief in God' is a social convention which causes such behaviours; the belief doesn't have an objective referent. — Wayfarer

Please read my reply to Chany

Therefore, I've falsified the hypothesis that God is causing this belief, as I've shown how the belief in a nonexistent entity can generate the observation we see — Chany

This same logic must apply to science and all its knowledge. There's no way of distinguishing whether atoms, molecules, etc. actually exist or whether these are simply beliefs as you put it.

So, either science is wrong or god exists.

The fact that 'millions of people' do something, proves nothing apart from that's what they're doing. There are also millions of people who don't do that — Wayfarer

I remember you posted on a thread regarding how many observations cancel out subjectivity and the result is objectivity. Same principle applies here. The majority of the world population are theists of some kind. Using your rationale shouldn't that be considered objective proof/evidence for god?

'Science' means considerably more than a slogan about measurement — Wayfarer

I'll ask you something. Can science exist without measurement? Obviously it cannot. So I'm not sloganeering here. I've actually mentioned a very essential/necessary feature of science viz. measurement.

You haven't 'addressed' them at all, you've simply ignored them and talked past them — Wayfarer

Have I addressed your issues as regards my view?

The way I see it is people are some kind of measuring instrument and we detect/measure god's effect. Each person being unique we detect and measure god's effects differently, sometimes in seemingly contradictory ways. However, these "contradictions" can be explained in terms of the uniqueness of each individual. In short different instruments (people) detect god in different ways. This doesn't mean god is non-existent. It simply means there are different paths to the same destination (god).

Think Zeno's pardox. Logically/mathematically one CANNOT travel any distance. However one can easily walk from one place to another. This is a perfect example that our world and this universe itself is not limited in any way by our logic and its rules. That leaves plenty of room for perfectly applicable fallacious thinking.

Correct? — Chany

Good point. However I think you're being unfair.

In science light is both a particle and a wave. Waves and particles are mutually exclusive BUT that doesn't mean light doesn't exist.

Well, scientifically speaking, all of them exist.

Well you haven't come across as either particularly sincere or particularly reasonable. — Sapientia

Sorry. I've adressed every counterpoint made against my position.

No I'm not trolling. FLUX23 found some humor in all this. I was just joining in the fun.

As for my arguments they are sincere attempts to understand our world.

Compared to a sound deductive argument, yes, of course it is. — Sapientia

Ok. So what sort of evidence do you want of god's existence?

Then you should further clarify your claim. What are you claiming? That an existing God is a more likely cause of all of these effects than any other possible cause? Where's your evidence for that, then? Good luck... you'll need it. — Sapientia

What other cause do you have in mind? Also please read my reply to jamalrob.

I think the difference is that the objects of science are described or defined entirely in terms of their measurable properties, via their effects. But to say that the cause of religious practices is the supreme being and creator of the universe, etc., is to go far beyond the evidence, i.e., beyond the effects — jamalrob

But I've only applied scientific principles. Does this mean science too is flawed?

So your argument fails if you claim it to be deductive or if probability theory doesn't justify the (non-deductive) inference — Michael

Thank you. No, the certainty in my proof is at par with the certainty of science. Not more and also, not less.

However I don't see how one can be justified in ignoring it for science but not in the case of god.

Thank you for taking the time to reply. My humble observation follows:

The central two statements being discussed here are statements in deductive logic. Deductive logic is characterized by certainty in the process of inference.

Probability is a feature of inductive logic.

You're conflating inductive and deductive logic in your analysis.

Please read my reply to jamalrob

You're not, because in saying that God has measurable effects you're assume that God exists, so the argument begs the question. Others have pointed this out. — jamalrob

Let me clear up the matter. My reasoning, in complete agreement with the scientific method, is as follows...

If god exists there should be observable, measurable effects.

There ARE observable, measurable effects

Therefore, god exists

Of course this is a fallacy - affirming the consequent. However I don't see how one can be justified in ignoring it for science but not in the case of god.

It's useless to debate with those who don't understand the meaning of basic terminology, such as 'measurable' and 'scientific'. — Wayfarer

''Measurable'' simply requires a unit of measurement and we can count how many people pray, how many times we pray, etc.

''Scientific'' means one must have measurable evidence. Kindly refer to the paragraph above.

Mass, charge, spin are properties of electrons, not evidence for electrons — FLUX23

You're right BUT...

One has to measure these, you say, properties. The only way you can do that is by observing effects of these properties on instruments. In the case these properties are undetectable and unmeasurable it must be that given object doesn't exist. I'm still on the right track here.

If you want 'evidence for God', what are you even going to look for? — Wayfarer

Measurable effects of God:

1. How many people pray?

2. How many times do people pray?

3. How many people avoid a certain kind of food item?

4. How many people undergo circumcision?

Etc.

Temples, prayers, rituals and beliefs are evidence for belief in God, not for the existence of God — John

Then you should agree that...

Mass, volume, charge, velocity, etc. are evidence for the mere belief of electrons, protons, neutrons, in fact the whole of science is nothing more than a belief.

Scientists used instruments to detect physical evidence of the ether. Had they found any, they would've affirmed the existence of ether.

There's plenty of physical evidence for god - temples, prayers, rituals, beliefs.

LIFE is a joke.

Philosophy helps to understand the joke

Please consider the following very closely.

1. Sometime in the 1900's electromagnetism was discovered. The next question was the medium in which EM waves propagated. Scientists hypothesized the existence of a substance they called ether.

Sometime in human history human beings hypothesized the existence of god based off of the observations they made (order, design, etc).

2. For ether scientists attempted to detect the effects of ether on instruments. They found none. Therefore, as per scientists, the ether didn't exist. However, had they detected the ether they would've concluded that the ether did exist.

As concerns the god question we can very easily see the effects of god on people. Therefore god does exist.

Hi. Can you please explain how you used math on this paradox. I can't find it. Only if you have the time ofcourse.

Well, you seem to say that there's an equivalence between ''god exists'' and ''god doesn't'' as evidenced by you claiming that a lack of god can also be demonstrated (I'm still wondering how you reasoned that out) to the same extent that a god can be demonstrated.

I'm very confused by this. Kindly give me some examples where a lack of existence of something/anything has been demonstrated in the way you seem to be suggesting.

How do you provide evidence for the existence of something?

OK. Thanks

Kindly provide me your method of proving that something exists or not.

However, the existence of God is not required to explain the observation; mere belief is all that required, regardless of the actual existence of God — Chany

Then please tell me in what way one could provide evidence/proof that an entity exists?

Perhaps justice is more than just a redressal mechanism in the sense that it involves more than the individuals concerned. We have to also factor in the community too.

Although I understand (to a certain extent) why vengeance is immoral I still can't shake off my intuition that it is actually a very fair scheme.

Please read my replies to the other members

Let's try. I'm going to use the concept of Unicorns to prove that my dream island exists. It doesn't work, nor does it make sense — GreyScorpio

You're right. Well, since my reasoning is unmistakably scientific do you agree with me that science is not entirely correct in its methods and principles.