Temples, prayers, rituals and beliefs are evidence for belief in God, not for the existence of God — John
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. — TheMadFool
If you want 'evidence for God', what are you even going to look for? — Wayfarer
do you agree with me that science is not entirely correct in its methods and principles. — TheMadFool
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. — TheMadFool
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. — TheMadFool
Mass, charge, spin are properties of electrons, not evidence for electrons — FLUX23
It's useless to debate with those who don't understand the meaning of basic terminology, such as 'measurable' and 'scientific'. — Wayfarer
I'm still on the right track here. — TheMadFool
To clarify this a little more let me take the example of the ether hypothesis of science. Its existence was suspected/hypothesized just as god's existence was. — TheMadFool
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. — TheMadFool
However I don't see how one can be justified in ignoring it for science but not in the case of god. — TheMadFool
However I don't see how one can be justified in ignoring it for science but not in the case of god. — TheMadFool
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. — TheMadFool
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? — TheMadFool
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.