What method would you use to prove the scientific method is valid? — Rank Amateur

I thought you had nothing to discuss??

I do not have to defend the scientific method. But you still have to prove your belief in a god. It is not up to me to show you how to do that. And dont use the common tactic of "reversing the burden of proof" on one who questions that belief.

You seem to have made your decision, so there's nothing to discuss. — Wayfarer

Not so fast- I am not done, and dont claim for me certain " decisions". But looks like youve made up your mind not to add anything else to this tread since you have "nothing to discuss".

What kind of evidence would you consider? What kind of evidence would you expect of a 'supernatural cause of existence'? — Wayfarer

OK, figured out how to quote.....
So, wayfarer, evidence I would accept would be based on the scientific method. But it appears that we both agree that since we are talking of a supernatural thing, unlikely any evidence would be possible. Some evidence would be say, if one prays and asks for favors to the divine being or jesus, the favor would be provided every time. But since I know this s bunk and praying is useless, we know in advance evidence will never be provided. Thats just one example. t does get silly, of course.

Again, you sad there is a god, but you have no evidence. Hate to repeat, but thats where we are at.
If you say there s a god, the burden of proof is on you, not me to prove that one does not exist. It s like prooving that the tooth fairy does not exist. get it?

Can any fellow member help me figure out how to quote a post? I would appreciate it v much! I cant find a "quote" tab/button. How do yous do it?

Wayfarer,

You say "a believer would answer that the Universe IS the answer". Is that really adequate for you? That because one can not explain the universe entirely, (as Darwin explained life for Biology/evolution) that we should simply submit by deferring to a god for the answer?

That approach is dark age Europe-esque. Because there was no better understanding, no better science, in a society rampant with illiteracy, ignorance, and despotism we submit it has to be god's work.

sorry, I misspelled a few words above, but cant seem to find the edt function. Any help appreciated. I am still learning about this site as a new member.........

People,

I agree that the question of Einstein's belief can be interpreted as yes/no. We can go on and on on this like many other threads on this forum. In short, all I wish to say about it is he could not explain all in the universe (the link between relativity and quantum mechanics among other endeavors), so like many of us, when there s no explanation we easily submit- there MUST be a god.

Moving on, and away from that to my man point, Make a claim, supply the evidence. There have been now a few posts back/forth, which I . very much appreciate, but so far, as I expected, no evidence had been supplied for this preposterous claim that there s such thing as a god, a "celestial being", some would say creator of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen.

Again, show me the evidence, not articles from a quick google search on wiki.

oops, no edit function as I wanted to add- the scientific method can not of course, prove that a god does not exist. But it s the gold standard of proving what does. Again , as i said, extraordinary clams need extraordinary evidence. Show me the evidence.

Beware of a scientist who believes there is a god. I didnt take a gallup poll but most probably do not believe. Unless you include charatans like deepok chopra a scientist. Some would say Einstein was a believer, which is not true. Etc etc.

true scientists believe n the scientific method. And reasoning by observation or inference/experimentation.

I agree that the bible god is nonsense, but then shouldnt any other god? The bible god is just one of perhaps hundreds in human history. Can you explain why it makes sense that a "great being" or creator should make sense?

If there are other species outside our solar system, that is not evidence of a god.

To the original question of the thread, Morally "wrong"? Yes, and no. You would expect that on a philosophy forum, right?

It is as wrong as it is to find it acceptable that thousands of children die every day of preventable diseases in Africa, and India, and Central America, not to mention other areas (using cheap/low tech chlorine to sterilize water, cheap nets to protect against mosquitoes, etc).

We evolved as omnivores, requiring meat as well as plant matter to survive, regardless of if t is humane or not. Therefore, "wrong" is a relative thing.

Morals may not have anything to do with it other than that it has been presented here.

Life101

To make "sense"to me means understanding that the concept is rational, logical, and reasonable. In my (our??) world, the Western World, and from the perspective of a scientist, the concept of god does not make "sense" . The existence of a god is a profound phenomenon which requires profound evidence, so far for which has not ever been presented.