Does God really exist?

wil said:
Except atheists don't believe in demons either.
Click to expand...
I would say that "most" atheists don't believe in demons. I have met some atheists who have some odd beliefs. They have staunchly denied the existence of deities (fair enough) but then told me that demons, fairies, gin, unicorns, aliens, good Taylor Swift songs, and bigfoot definitely exist.
 
Guru said:
You cannot know, that’s why it’s pointless for you to ask.
Click to expand...
What I was responding to was your earlier comment in this thread:
"If I told you it would be dismissed as lies am I right" by you, Guru, Post #19 of this thread.

I could not tell you if you were right.
Why don't you tell us and then see if it is "dismissed as lies"
Or not??
Or maybe people would be skeptical and you would distort it to saying "see I told you it would be dismissed as lies"
 
wil said:
hmmm... I don't know that I know any of her songs.... but I think there is more proof of Taylor Swifts success than ....
Click to expand...
You and I are old enough to know that success does not always equal high quality music.
 
Aupmanyav said:
I would like to know that 'science stuff' that supports Bible.
Click to expand...
Feel free to explain how a book of fiction counts as "evidence". With that you can explain which "science stuff" validates your point. Don't be pointing fingers without looking at your own claims first.

I will be more than happy to give "science stuff" to confirm parts of the Bible.
 
moralorel said:
Feel free to explain how a book of fiction counts as "evidence". With that you can explain which "science stuff" validates your point. Don't be pointing fingers without looking at your own claims first.

I will be more than happy to give "science stuff" to confirm parts of the Bible.
Click to expand...
What book of fiction are you referring to? Wikipedia articles have ample references, not Bible. So, which is the "book of fiction"?
 
Aupmanyav said:
What book of fiction are you referring to? Wikipedia articles have ample references, not Bible. So, which is the "book of fiction"?
Click to expand...
You deserve an apology. But please let me explain. On my computer I hovered over your article and it gave me an AI summary of the book. It told me the book was fiction. But when I looked at the article just now, it says "non-fiction". I guess I'm finally getting too old for technology.

So you are right. I am wrong. My apologies.
 
Aupmanyav said:
Science information on how universe came up is not complete, though there is a lot of it. That is why I cannot and do not claim evidence.
Click to expand...
Well quite. Science – by which we mean the empirical sciences – have hit a wall.

But the point here is that the empirical sciences are founded on what can be observed, what can be measured, and what can be determined or derived from the data thus gathered ... and yes, there are still significant 'open questions' that science is grappling with.

Aupmanyav said:
Where as you want to escape the question by making God beyond all empirical determination, and not subject to any inquiry.
Click to expand...
No, not at all.

It's a given that 'God' is not within the remit of empirical – that is, physical – determination because 'God' is understood to be a non-physical entity, and thus, for the physical sciences, the question doesn't apply.

It's not so much 'escaping the question' as asking too much of the particular science – it's outside its scope – that's just the nature of the thing. You might not like it, but there it is.

Or again, it's not so much 'escaping the question' as over-stating the science.

God is, of course, subject to inquiry – philosophy and theology, metaphysics and ontology – which are 'sciences' in their own right, although tend, I think, to be classed as 'humanities'. These are modes of inquiry that are not primarily and solely dependent upon the empirical method.

The assumption that the empirical sciences somehow trump everything else, that they are the sole arbiter and benchmark of truth, is clearly claiming too much for the said sciences – it suggests a 'blind faith' in empiricism that is equivalent to the more extreme kinds of religious fundamentalism.

It's unreasonable and irrational.
 
moralorel said:
But the book is literally a book of fiction. It says so. We're starting to get into Scientology territory here.
There is "science stuff" to support the Bible. So is the Bible now evidence? According to you, yes!
Click to expand...
'Book of fiction' was mentioned by @moralorel in one of his posts. He did not name it. That is why I asked for the name.
@Thomas, you have no need to apologize. Moreover, let us not get into children's games like AI. I do not think AI can give sensible answers.
Scientology is unknown in India, though I saw one try. In India, we have many conjurers (gurus, nearly every tenth person is) and books of fiction.
 
Last edited:
Thomas said:
Well quite. Science – by which we mean the empirical sciences – have hit a wall.

It's a given that 'God' is not within the remit of empirical –

It's not so much 'escaping the question' as asking too much of the particular science – it's outside its scope – that's just the nature of the thing. You might not like it, but there it is.
Or again, it's not so much 'escaping the question' as over-stating the science.

God is, of course, subject to inquiry – philosophy and theology, metaphysics and ontology – which are 'sciences' in their own right, although tend, I think, to be classed as 'humanities'. These are modes of inquiry that are not primarily and solely dependent upon the empirical method.

The assumption that the empirical sciences somehow trump everything else, that they are the sole arbiter and benchmark of truth, is clearly claiming too much for the said sciences – it suggests a 'blind faith' in empiricism that is equivalent to the more extreme kinds of religious fundamentalism.
It's unreasonable and irrational.
Click to expand...
Science is known for breaking walls.
And that is why the question that is he real or just peoples' imagination.
Psychology does explain why people think of God.
I do not consider the subjects mentioned by you as 'sciences'.
Empirical sciences where they have proof or reasonable theories, do trump 'sciences' mentioned by you.
 
Aupmanyav said:
Science is known for breaking walls.
Click to expand...
Still within the purview of its own premise, though, and God stands beyond that horizon.

Aupmanyav said:
And that is why the question that is he real or just peoples' imagination.
Click to expand...
No, it's not. It's nonsense to suggest something is not simply because empiricism cannot access the nature by which it is said to be.

Aupmanyav said:
Psychology does explain why people think of God.
Click to expand...
But that in itself does not rule out the existence of God, nor does it mean God is a purely mental construct.

Aupmanyav said:
I do not consider the subjects mentioned by you as 'sciences'.
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter.

Aupmanyav said:
Empirical sciences where they have proof or reasonable theories, do trump 'sciences' mentioned by you.
Click to expand...
Where they have proof or reasonable empirical theories, then yes, when there is a crossover.
 
Thomas said:
Well quite. Science – by which we mean the empirical sciences – have hit a wall.
Click to expand...
What do you mean? What wall have they hit?
In the 19th century there were rumors that they thought to close the Patent Office with the idea that all that could be invented had been invented (that story may be apocryphal) However the idea that they had hit a wall of some kind was out there. Yet here we are today.
 
TheLightWithin said:
What do you mean? What wall have they hit?
Click to expand...
The limits of empiricism. Or the 'edge' of the cosmos.

TheLightWithin said:
In the 19th century there were rumors that they thought to close the Patent Office with the idea that all that could be invented had been invented (that story may be apocryphal) However the idea that they had hit a wall of some kind was out there. Yet here we are today.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top