Briefly, my point is the application of the scientific principle on existence when applied to god leads us, clearly, to affirm god's existence. We can very very easily observe the effects of god on people. Therefore, scientifically, god exists

How are the effects different from people believing in god, even though god does not exist? In other words, what testable and observable difference is there between people practicing Christianity when Christianity is true and people practicing Christianity when Christianity is false and the practicioners of Christianity are simply wrong about their beliefs?

Again, in science, you start from observations, go to testable hypothesis then go to experiments to eliminate those hypotheses that are false. You are beginning with the hypothesis being true and then are looking for ovservations that would be there if the hypothesis is true. You are assuming the conclusion.

Well many people on this discussion already told you about the many errors in your reasoning, so it's not my position to restate what they've said (that's a hideous work). But one word pretty much summarizes your errors: fallacy.

Whether you accept it or not is not my concern at this point. Your replies to the other posts have shown that you are not easily convinced regardless of the legitimacy of their argument.

Science makes the claim that for something to exist its effects must be detectable, measurable — TheMadFool

What you'd just said is something about hypothesis verification. That's not the same thing as what you're saying here. At any rate, show me an example of "science making a claim" that if something doesn't have detectable and measurable effects, then it can not exist.

Perhaps you can explain to me the difference between ''prove'' and ''verify''. — TheMadFool

Don't forget the word provisionally, by the way, or the phrase "in lieu of falsification " Those words weren't just there for decoration.

If you prove something, it's not possible for a contrary or contradictory claim to be true. A proof is a guarantee that something is the case.

Verification, on the other hand, is a matter of checking that facts, say, match a claim. That in no way amounts to it being impossible that the claim is wrong. It's not a guarantee that the claim is right. After all, a claim woudln't be falsifiable if we've proved it. So a provisional verification in lieu of falsification is a matter of a claim matching the facts insofar as we can tell, but it would still be possible for the claim to be wrong, and part of what we do in science is regularly challenge whether a claim isn't in fact wrong, which would thereby falsify it instead.

And for the second time now, you ignored "Is it anything other than an idea that some people have though?"

If the lack of God affects the non-believers does that mean the lack of God exists?

Therefore, scientifically speaking God must exist by virtue of the multitudinous effects God has on us humans. — TheMadFool

Textbook example of circular reasoning

Keeping that in mind let us look at the God question. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that God has an effect on people - in the way they conduct themselves, in what they eat, in what they wear, etc. In fact no other entity has as broad and deep an effect on us humans as God. In some cases these effects may even be measurable.
Therefore, scientifically speaking God must exist by virtue of the multitudinous effects God has on us humans. — TheMadFool

I don't get it. "God" is not automatically seen as the cause of these effects on people. Rather, a belief in God is what should be (naturalistically) seen as the cause of these behaviors.

It's like saying it doesn't take a scientist to realize that astrological signs have an effect on people. In reality, it takes a scientist, or at least a scientifically-oriented reasoner, to realize astrological signs are bogus and aren't doing anything at all.

How are the effects different from people believing in god, even though god does not exist? In other words, what testable and observable difference is there between people practicing Christianity when Christianity is true and people practicing Christianity when Christianity is false and the practicioners of Christianity are simply wrong about their beliefs? — Chany

I'm simply adhering to a scientific principle viz. existence is a function of observable effects. To repeat, a stone exists by virtue of its effects on measuring instruments. Ditto god - His effects are observable in human behavior. Therefore god must exist from a scientific point of view.

Again, in science, you start from observations, go to testable hypothesis then go to experiments to eliminate those hypotheses that are false. You are beginning with the hypothesis being true and then are looking for ovservations that would be there if the hypothesis is true. You are assuming the conclusion — Chany

Kindly tell me what other hypothesis there exists to explain this wonderful universe of ours. Let me take a guess - chance. Given so how do you test the chance hypothesis? I won't hold my breath.

please read my reply to Chany

Thank you very much for the clear response. I guess I've been sloppy with my terms. However, it's not a fatal flaw in my argument.

I don't get it. "God" is not automatically seen as the cause of these effects on people. Rather, a belief in God is what should be (naturalistically) seen as the cause of these behaviors — darthbarracuda

Good point. Thanks. However it follows that you also accept, given your stance, that atoms, chemical reactions, physical laws are also simply beliefs

If the lack of God affects the non-believers does that mean the lack of God exists? — John

Ask this question to science. I'm simply following the scientific principle that for something to exist it must have observable effects.

In addition the lack of existence is a default or initial position. In this case we've clearly gone past that.

You mean this?

Briefly, my point is the application of the scientific principle on existence when applied to God leads us, clearly, to affirm god's existence. We can very very easily observe the effects of God on people. Therefore, scientifically, God exists — TheMadFool

Well, you have replied to most of the counter-argument other people made, but it does not correctly address the actual point they have made. It is like saying you like apples when someone is asking if you like swimming or not. In fact, your response to Chany does not correctly refer to the argument Chany made either. What were you reading?


People have already mentioned this, but I'll rephrase it with my own words.

One of the logical fallacies you have made is the disagreement in the target of "existence." It is our concept of God and the entailing religion that affects our lives, not the existence of God itself. Some people few millennia ago created the concept of God in an attempt to explain the world. That is not the same as actually observing a god. Unless one is actually affected by this - borrowing your words - unequivocally existing God, we cannot say that our lives are affected by God.
What you are saying is analogous to saying unicorns exist because we know unicorns from fantasy books.

Another is your claim that you are "scientifically" proving the existence of God. Just because you are using the same logic in the scientific method on the existence of God does not mean you are doing science. If you apply scientific method anywhere other than science, then that method itself is already pointless. That is not science but just some other logic. It is more commonly known as philosophy. And you don't even know if that logic can be legitimately applied to this argument. So no, you are no way "scientifically" proving anything.

You forget, Science is based on the one thing that doesn't necessarily exist; Mathematics. Take a number or any kind in your mind, Now make an equation and go out in the world and find it. You physically can't. Basing God's existence on science couldn't be more controversial because your trying to use something that doesn't exist to prove that something does exist. Does that work? 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.

Good point. Thanks. However it follows that you also accept, given your stance, that atoms, chemical reactions, physical laws are also simply beliefs — TheMadFool

Also, this is just simply wrong. I don't even slightly understand why you even thought that follows?

Just because you are using the same logic in the scientific method on the existence of God does not mean you are doing science. — FLUX23

Nitpick time:

I don't think this is the scientific method at all. There has not been an establishment of how to falsify the hypothesis, why the observations cannot be explained away by another hypothesis, or even a proper way of looking at cause and effect, i.e. science looks at the effect, observes it, and does testing to falsify other competing hypotheses for this effect until only one likely canidate remains, while this is an argument for increduility for a cause, then cherry-picking data from observations and making them fit into the hypothesis.

What you are saying is analogous to saying unicorns exist because we know unicorns from fantasy books — FLUX23

My position, repeating for the nth time, is that my reasoning is based firmly on the scientific principle that existence is a function of observable effects.

Therefore, if you find fault with my argument then, inevitably, there is a flaw in scientific thinking.

If you apply scientific method anywhere other than science, then that method itself is already pointless — FLUX23

I think you're viewing the issue from a narrow perspective. Scientific principles are rational first and foremost and rationality is a universal requirement. Therefore i object to your stand that science is so blinkered in its application.

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.

Please read my replies to the other members

You keep saying that, but you never actually addressed a single one of my criticisms.

I am addressing your conception of science. If you have a decent hypothesis for an observation, the hypothesis, by definition, will explain why we see the observation. Furthermore, science throws out hypotheses that are not falsifiable, as they are pragmatically unable to be used and including them would lead us to have to include any possible statement, no matter how absurd (for example, it would allow defendants on trial for murder to say "An alien created a body double that did the murder. You can't prove it false, so you must find me not guilty."). Simply positing a hypothesis and saying it explains our observation doesn't mean anything on its own in science.

Let us look at the observation you initially provided:

People show certain behaviors (acting certain ways, refraining from certain foods, dress, and activities, performing certain rites and activities like reading holy texts, etc.) that they attribute to God.

What are the hypotheses we need to consider? Honestly, I'm having a hard time formulating a testable hypothesis for your position, so I'll simply go:

H1) God exists and indirectly causes people to believe in God, therefore causing people to behave on those beliefs (our observation).

We can consider this against the opposing hypothesis:

H2) People believe in God, therefore causing people to behave on those beliefs (our observation).

The main and obvious difference is that H1 requires God to exist, while H2 is indifferent to the existence of some conception of god. In order to show God exists scientifically, H1 must be true. Scientifically, in order to show H1 is true, you must falsify H2, and vice versa. In order to falsify H2, you must illustrate why H2 cannot account for some other observation that H1 explains. In order to falsify H1, I must show that the actual existence of God is irrelevant to the belief fueling their behavior.

I can easily falsify H1. We know that there are adherents of mutually exclusive religions that behave in different ways and believe in different conceptions of God. The god of Christianity has Jesus as full man and full divine and does not have Muhammad as a prophet. The god of Islam does not have a divine Jesus, but rather a prophet Jesus and a prophet Muhhamad. Christianity and Islam have different practices, theologies, and gods. Only one is right. Therefore, I know that there is a group of people who belief in a god that does not exist. However, does the nonexistence of their god prevent people believing in it and practicing its tenets? Clearly not. Therefore, H1 is false. God's existence is not required to explain the observation of religious practices and belief, as people can act on false beliefs. Therefore, H2 is true.

Now, H2 does not state that God does not exist. God may exist and may interact with humans in some form, thus causing those beliefs to emerge. People might be completely justified in their belief in God and may even be correct. 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. Therefore, observing people behaving a certain way and attributing it to God is not scientific evidence for the existence of God.

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?

and for gazillion times, I am saying that is exactly the fallacy you are making.

This is you on this thread:

You: I like apples better because they are healthier than oranges considering that they have fewer calories.
Others: Well, oranges have much more good nutrition than apples. Besides, an apple is only 2/3 of the calories of an orange. It's not much of a difference.
You: Well you have admitted that apples have fewer calories than oranges. So apples are more healthy and better.
Others: Like I said, the calories difference is not that significant, and there are so much more good nutrition that oranges have than apples. Besides, higher calories don't necessarily mean bad for health.
You: I am just simply stating I like apples.
Others: I know, but your reasoning behind it is not legitimate.
You: Like I've said thousands of times before, I am only simply saying that I like apples because they have lower calories and is better for your health.
Others: WTF?

You see what is wrong here? First, you are not addressing other people's concern correctly. Second, you are simply making a mistake that lower calories are always better. This is exactly what you are doing in this thread, so much that this thread isn't a discussion anymore. Can you actually, for once, correctly address what other people is trying to say? Can you actually, for once, at least attempt to understand the logical fallacy you are making that other people are telling you so many times, instead of stating same fallacious statement over and over again?

Seriously? Are you even reading anything other people are saying?

I know. I was being generous with him.

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

Well someone has already done so, scientifically. I know you disregarded it. So I don't feel like doing the same thing.

Besides, if you are going to start on ontology, which you have already made huge fallacy out of it on this thread, I do not believe you will be able to understand.

You said that God affects believers and that therefore he exists. I say that the lack of God affects non-believers; and ask why this should not lead us to conclude that the lack of God exists (i.e. that God does not exist). You have not shown why it applies in one case and not the other. It has nothing to do with science.

You could say that God exists for believers and does not exist for non-believers; but to say that would be to say something quite different from, and irrelevant to, what you have been claiming, I think.

OK. Thanks

How do you provide evidence for the existence of something?

Have I spoken about evidence?

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.