As I've said, the only word for that statement is "hillarious". It's a really silly thing to say, given that science can, and is intended to, only study and describe this physical universe (and maybe any physically-inter-related multiverse of which it's a part) and relations among its constituent parts. — Michael Ossipoff

And I guess I mistakenly thought that science was about investigation in search of new information. But just one question, how do you know that god is not part of this physical universe? Could you maybe cite some articles to back up your statements. You seem so sure of these "facts" that I an really interested in seeing what you base your conclusions on.

"As far as I am concerned there is only one possible reason why a god could not be studied scientifically, the lack of existence."

Sir2u means "...lack or physical existence (which only a few denominations claim).
— Sir2u

" If there is any evidence for a god then eventually someone will find it."
— Michael Ossipoff

No I do not mean "...lack or physical existence". I meant exactly what I said, that if something exists it can be studied, therefore the only reason anyone could not study it is because it does not exist. Try studying the dragons, or the leprechauns. Not going to get very far are you?

Evidence doesn't mean proof. Merriam-Webster defines evidence as "outward sign". — Michael Ossipoff

It also has several other definitions, selective use of definitions is childish.
Evidence ; Your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to base belief : An indication that makes something evident :

Evidence therefore doesn't prove an assertion, and doesn't conclusively win a debate. — Michael Ossipoff

But which ever definition you want to use makes no difference to what I said. If there is evidence anywhere, eventual someone will find it. And if there is no evidence then, obviously, it will never be found. And that statement is true for both sides, believers and non believers.

You don't know what every Theist's belief is, or what outward-sign they have for it.

You can say that if no Theist has given you a good argument regarding the existence of God, then you win your argument or debate. That's alright. As far as I'm concerned, if you want an argument or debate, then congratulations--You win your argument or debate by default.

But you can't validly say that you know everyon'e believe and their outward-sign in support of it. You can say that you don't know of any evidence or other reason to believe that there's God. No one will argue with you or criticize that position.

And don't show the astounding pretensiousness and conceit of claiming to know, or have a sound argument about, overall Reality as a whole.

Assertion, proof, argument and debate are irrelevant, inapplicable and meaningless for matters involving the character and nature of overall Reality as a whole. — Michael Ossipoff

I have no idea why you are blathering on about what every Theist's belief is, or the rest of this for that matter, I never mentioned it. I have no idea what their beliefs.

If God the Creator exists then science is part of that creation. If, for whatever reason, God decides to remain hidden (which seems to be the case) then proving his/her/its existence will be impossible as God will be holding all the cards.

Proving God's existence is incredibly easy. The vast majority of people are desperate for God (or the like) to be real and are ready to gobble any proof given no matter how erroneous it is.

There are many that are desperate to believe there is no God and do likewise.

Proof is in the eye of the beholder?

I have no idea what their beliefs. — Sir2u

Exactly.

Michael Ossipoff

Why would anyone be desperate not to believe in God? A another fine example of the engagement in a false equivalence. Believing something without evidence is not the same as not believing in something that lack any evidence. They are two very different things.

You might be desperate to not believe in god if you were living through the horrors of religion run amok, wouldnt you? If the idea of, in the words of Hitchens, a celestial dictatorship is horrifying to you then I could see a certain desperation there.
Other than that, I think I agree with the sentiment that it would be odd to be desperate to not believe in god, especially a very benign version. I suppose it depends on how a person comes to such beliefs in the first place.

”As I've said, the only word for that statement is "hilarious". It's a really silly thing to say, given that science can, and is intended to, only study and describe this physical universe (and maybe any physically-inter-related multiverse of which it's a part) and relations among its constituent parts.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
And I guess I mistakenly thought that science was about investigation in search of new information.

.
An excusable error. Don’t feel bad.
.
Science is about “investigation in search of new information” about this physical universe and the interactions among its constituent parts.
.
But you almost got it right.
.

But just one question, how do you know that god is not part of this physical universe? Could you maybe cite some articles to back up your statements. You seem so sure of these "facts" that I an really interested in seeing what you base your conclusions on.

.
Dream on.
.
What did I just finish saying in my previous reply? I said that if you want religious instruction, then I refer you to a church or a divinity-school.
.
And I’ll repeat, yet again, that my comments on the subject are all over these forums, at various threads.
.
But, due to your conceited namecalling bigotry, your thoroughgoing sureness that you’re right, and that anyone who doesn’t agree with you is wrong—Those attributes of yours make nonsense of any notion of a worthwhile conversation with you. Believe what you want. Declare yourself the winner of your debate.
.
You want to search for a God that’s part of this physical universe? Go for it.

"As far as I am concerned there is only one possible reason why a god could not be studied scientifically, the lack of existence."—Sir2u

.
“Sir2u means "...lack or physical existence (which only a few denominations claim).”
— Michael Ossipoff
.
No I do not mean "...lack or physical existence". I meant exactly what I said, that if something exists it can be studied, therefore the only reason anyone could not study it is because it does not exist.

.
What he meant (or would have meant if he knew what he was saying) was:
.
If something exists physically then it can be studied by science, and therefore the only reason anyone could not study it by science is because it does not exist physically.
.
Sir2u is making the common Science-Worshipper assumption that Science (capitalization intentional) applies to all of reality.
.

Try studying the dragons, or the leprechauns. Not going to get very far are you?

.
They’re fiction, like Materialism’s objectively, independently, fundamentally existent physical universe, the supposed ultimate-reality and the basis of all else, on which all else supervenes.
.
Anyway, science doesn’t apply to Robert’s Rules of Order either, but you can discuss them. …just not with physics.
.

If there is any evidence for a god then eventually someone will find it.

.
There is, and they have.
.
Remember that evidence doesn’t mean proof. And no, instead of asking me, do a little reading. In matters relating to the nature or character of Ultimate Reality as a whole, evidence is subjective and individual. Logic, argument and physical science have nothing to do with it.
.

”Evidence doesn't mean proof. Merriam-Webster defines evidence as "outward sign". “— Michael Ossipoff
.
It also has several other definitions, selective use of definitions is childish.

.
1. “Outward sign” is the first definition stated in the Merriam-Webster edition that I looked at.
.
2. It’s a concise statement of what “evidence” means to me and to most people. In particular, it expresses the difference between evidence and faith, by being what faith isn’t based on. Faith is trust without or in addition to outward sign.
.

Evidence ; Your basis for belief or disbelief

.
Wrong. Belief can be based on faith. No, don’t ask me how. There’s no way you could benefit from the discussion.
.
Anyway, you already know all about these matters, and so there’s no reason for you to be asking questions, is there.
.
Anyway, that distinction is why Merriam-Webster said “outward sign” instead of the more general “basis for belief or disbelief”.
.
Your other definitions are re-wordings of the one that I stated, if it’s understood that it’s based outward sign, an effect or result on something external to what the evidence is for.
.

”Evidence therefore doesn't prove an assertion, and doesn't conclusively win a debate.” — Michael Ossipoff

.
But whichever definition you want to use makes no difference to what I said. If there is evidence anywhere, eventual someone will find it.

.
There is, and they have.
.
Remember that evidence doesn’t mean proof. And no, instead of asking me, do a little reading. (and, as I said, I’ve discussed these matters throughout these forums). Also, remember that, in matters relating to the nature or character of Ultimate Reality as a whole, evidence is subjective and individual. Logic, proof, assertion, debate, argument and physical science have nothing to do with it.
.
And, aside from that, faith isn’t about evidence anyway.
.
If you don’t like that, then maybe it would be better if you chose a different topic.
.
One comment that I’ll make is that our Aggressive-Atheists seem to share an astounding delusional belief that they understand or know reality, and can authoritatively say that all of Reality consists of the physical word (and maybe what supervenes on it), and that they’re qualified to rule on the validity or justification of others’ beliefs about the nature and character of Reality.
.
Reality isn’t describable.
.
Write down a complete description of the smell of mint, or how it feels to step on a tack.
.
As I often point out, no finite dictionary can non-circularly define any of its words. But you still think that Reality is describable?
.
Get a little humility and modesty.
.
Michael Ossipoff

But you almost got it right.
.Dream on.
.
What did I just finish saying in my previous reply? I said that if you want religious instruction, then I refer you to a church or a divinity-school.
.
And I’ll repeat, yet again, that my comments on the subject are all over these forums, at various threads. — Michael Ossipoff

.
I think that I made it very clear that I was not looking for religious instruction, having had way to much of that is why I am a non believer. What I asked for if you read it carefully is the proof that you have that god is not part of the physical world. You are insisting that you are right and that I am wrong even though I have not stated the there is a god that is part of the physical world.
It seems as though everyone else has to provide text book evidence but we have to accept your word for it there it is impossible. I have admitted that I do not believe that god is within the physical world or that there is even a god. I also admit that I do not believe there is a god, even though I have no proof of it.
You on the other hand are insistent that even thinking about such things being possible is irrational.
So what do you know that can prove that there is no god in the physical universe?

But, due to your conceited namecalling bigotry, your thoroughgoing sureness that you’re right, and that anyone who doesn’t agree with you is wrong—Those attributes of yours make nonsense of any notion of a worthwhile conversation with you. Believe what you want.

What name did I call you and where did I do it? Where you by any chance looking at the mirror or reading your own posts when you wrote this.
— Michael Ossipoff

Declare yourself the winner of your debate.You want to search for a God that’s part of this physical universe? Go for it. — Michael Ossipoff

If, from the beginning you had tried to understand what I said instead of inventing your own versions you would know that I have no interest in winning any of your silly competitions. I have stated so in many of my posts here. You are the one that is being competitive and trying to force people to agree with you by making silly childish remarks about their posts.

If you want a worthwhile discussion then you have to put your part into it. Making claims about textbooks and telling others their ideas are absurd will not get you anywhere at all.

If you really think that science can only study the physical world the explain the following.
How can you prove something is of the physical world? Try it with thought if you want or dreams.
Why are scientist studying the possibility of existence of the souls after death?
Why are some scientist religious?

think this in someway is what mr ossipoff is saying

“Perhaps even atheism versus theism is an example of this principle that an apparent either/or can really be a both/and. For I suspect that the God you insist does not exist is probably a God I also insist does not exist; and perhaps the God I maintain does exist is a God you have never denied.”
― Peter Kreeft

That is a nonsense argument. Semantic goalpost shifting.

The only thing believers ever bring is silly word games. There is a very good reason for that, because it is the only thing they have. Cut the BS and show us a single scrap of real evidence.

not a proponent of full contact philosophy. Not an evangelist. Have no desire to prove anything.

One can by faith alone choose to believe what one wants. So long as that belief is not in conflict with fact or reason. Theism is not in conflict with fact or reason.

Would however be interested in engaging any supported argument that ends in a proposition that says

Therefore theism is not a reasonable position

If one finds theism reasonable then they don't need faith to believe, they have reason. Genuine faith is believing when you know it is unreasonable to believe.

thank you for your opinion.

To be honest, I have only met one person which I think may have had genuine faith, he both recognized the absurdity of the belief and believed at the same time. Most people who claim to have "faith" are always trying to justify the absurdity of the belief. They are trying to rationalize something that is beyond rationalizing. It is absurd.

I ripped it off from Soren Kierkegaard.

People who need their belief in God to be rational are people who lack faith.

thank you for sharing another opinion.

I got tons of opinions if you want more.

opinions are not very interesting, I prefer arguments based on propositions

I many plenty of arguments, clearly ones you didn't understand.

enjoy the rest of your evening. Again, if you would care to make a supported argument that my theism is irrational, would be happy to engage.

I have made several valid arguments against your silly position.

Genuine faith is believing when you know it is unreasonable to believe. — Jeremiah

Faith consists of trust without or aside-from evidence ("outward-sign", as Merriam-Webster, in their definition #1, concisely stated what we all mean by "evidence").

That doesn't require belief known to be unreasonable.

Michael Ossipoff

Cut the BS and show us a single scrap of real evidence. — Jeremiah

No one's saying that you should believe what you don't know of any reason to believe (...whether it be evidence, or justification for faith).

Many Theists have evidence. That includes the various kind of evidence, and justifications for faith, that the Scholastics have cited.

As I've said before, Jeremiah might want to do a little reading. (But maybe not.)

Remember that evidence needn't be proof, and, that even in mundane matters of the physical world, the convincingness of evidence is subjective, individual, and not objectively quantifiable.

But, especially, in a non-logical, subjective matter like the nature and character of Reality, it's naive in the extreme for Jeremiah to presume to authoritatively objectively evaluate others' evidence by his own feeling or opinion about, or agreement with it.

...or to expect proof.

...or to continually engage in assertion.

Michael Ossipoff

I don't know what god or what religion anyone on this thread is writing or thinking about. As is often the case, folks have jumped right in without worrying at all that absent some definition, the discussion is nonsense behind a mask of entertainment and trying to pass for "philosophy." In as much as theology and science and logic and philosophy are all different, arguments that blend them willy-nilly cannot end well.

If, however, it's the Christian faith, then all you got is faith, expressed in the Credal, "We believe...". It's pretty clear that folks who move beyond this are either or both ignorant or playing word games. Further, Christian thinkers for almost two thousand years have arrived at the conclusion that there really isn't much substantive you can say about God, except that there isn't much substantive you can say about Him.

Outside of this, and without either defining terms or referring specifically to some other god, religion, or other specific purpose, it's just nonsense. So what is it? And to those who feel this enables them to disengage, you're welcome!

A dictionary is no authority in such matters. Talk about not understanding limits.

When discussing something as philosophically deep as faith, a dictionary definition is going to fall massively short.

All I am hearing is more talk. Where is the evidence?