Present Evidence Here II

[Desdinova]

Can you support the assertions that god or the supernatural do exist?  See where I'm going here?  We can go back and forth on this forever.  And you are correct, god is defined as something supernatural or immaterial.  I, for one, cannot accept this.  He either exists or he does not.  I cannot prove that god does not exist anymore than the pope can prove he does exist.  However there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to suggest that god does not exist.  It suggests that man created god and all gods before him.  Just like he created unicorns and leprechauns.  Do you go around thinking there is a possibility that these exist as well?  I'll let you have the last word here, as for me, I'm moving on.

[Hydra009]

Would you be able to support that assertion?

It's not possible to prove a negative, but the claim that supernatural beings do not exist is the default position.  And all it would take to refute that would be a single scrap of evidence to the contrary.  The fact that we're met with logic games and word salad instead of a simple presentation of evidence in these threads leads me to believe that such evidence is lacking.

[DigitalBot]

If god was defined as something material, then yes, science would apply. Thing is, god is not defined as something material.

First of all, thing is, god is not defined. Or it is better to say God is defined as something, somewhere, sometime, somehow and it loves us.

Secondly, science would apply in any case, as well as it applies to any immaterial thing like software, data bases,  laws of nature and logic. And by the way God can not breach logic, therefore science would apply to immaterial things even more superior than God. 

[Moloth]

That which is presented without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

[ApostateLois]

If God is not material, then what is it? What is God made of? Where does it live, what does it look like, what sounds does it make, how does it interact with humans and other objects in the material world, what is the process or method by which it imposes its will upon others (as so many claim that it can)? If God cannot be seen, heard, touched, spoken to, tested, evaluated,  or examined in any way because it is not a part of this material world, then how can anyone claim they are able to talk to God? They contradict themselves in these claims. They cannot even define what it is they believe in, let alone explain to us how it functions.

[Unbeliever]

Maybe God is made of Kaluza-Klein particles.

[Unbeliever]

They cannot even define what it is they believe in, let alone explain to us how it functions.

If a thing can't be defined, even in principle, can that thing ever be said to exist? If a term can mean anything at all, then it means nothing in particular.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Oh I love this thread. "Where the internet goes to die"

Kudos on bringing it back to life and letting me read through the responses.

[kilodelta]

Yeah. Too bad it hasn't gotten the theist attention that it used to get...

[DeathandGrim]

If god was defined as something material, then yes, science would apply. Thing is, god is not defined as something material.

How is something immaterial? I never understood that.

[Mike Cl]

How is something immaterial? I never understood that.

Yeah, think you are right.  Sort of like saying something is unnatural.  That is not possible.

[stromboli]

Something that can't be defined, quantified, described or proved to exist, yet humanity has thrown trillions of dollars at it for centuries. Neat trick.

[Givemeareason]

Something that can't be defined, quantified, described or proved to exist, yet humanity has thrown trillions of dollars at it for centuries. Neat trick.

I really don't even like that word god because it is so limited in its conceptual view.  And except for our disagreements with the theists I don't think it is conceptually sound.  From a more metaphysical perspective if there is no god, then what is there.  And we should certainly be giving it a name other than a silly god.  Our better question would be why do we exist, rather than whether some god exists.

[aitm]

Our better question would be why do we exist,

Why we exist has pretty much been answered quite effectively. The question perhaps more to the point you are trying to convey is, "why do we think we need to have a reason to exist outside that which has already been proven?"

[Givemeareason]

Why we exist has pretty much been answered quite effectively. The question perhaps more to the point you are trying to convey is, "why do we think we need to have a reason to exist outside that which has already been proven?"

Because we are human beings and that is our nature.  I don't think it is sufficient to relegate that we live for no purpose any more than it is to relegate that we live because of God.  My purpose is to understand.  I  am not here though just to understand there is no God.  I feel that as Athiests we need to ultimately become more than athiests.  There is no purpose in hating religion nor in arguing over whether there is a god.  Doing so only makes religion look more attractive.  So if we want to eliminate religion which I don't agree with then we should be making ourselves look more attractive.