The Strongest Argument for God

[Kenny]

Ken: If God exist as you say he does, it would be the job of science to investigate and provide information of God. The fact that science does not shows either science is not doing its job, or God does not exist.

As God is SPIRIT and not a physical being, how to do you think science could ever directly test for His existence?

How do YOU experience God? I suppose they could start there.

And I find that ALL we DO know - per the entire history of man's investigations into the universe

Which amounts to only 4% of the Universe

to be far more compelling than the theoretical "what-ifs" of things we don't know. And the subsequent knowledge man sees, merely confirms in an ongoing manner that only intelligent things can create other intelligent things or things with complex designs and functionality.

With only 4% knowledge, I find it far more reasonable to admit when we don’t have an answer rather than make assumptions of the 96% that we have no clue about.

[Kenny]

Why don’t you hold yourself accountable and recognize there is zero evidence that an intelligent being could live eternally, and create stuff out of nothing? Again; hold yourself to the same standards you hold me to.

There is ZERO SCIENTIFIC evidence that a MATERIAL intelligent being can be eternal.
There is ZERO SCIENTIFIC evidence that the quantum singularity from which the big band started had always existed.

Both these statements are 100% true.

They are also irrelevant to the argument.

There is also ZERO SCIENTIFIC evidence that ANY type of intelligent being can be eternal. Now that is completely relevant to the argument

No Kenny,
Please site scientific evidence of the non-material world.

There is none. No scientific evidence for the spiritual world, God, or any type of eternal being. But that isn't going to stop some people from believing.

So, science can NOT make a statement in regards to the non-material existence of anything, correct?

More like; science doesn't comment on something unless they have reason to believe it exists.

[Kenny]

If God exist as you say he does, it would be the job of science to investigate and provide information of God. The fact that science does not shows either science is not doing its job, or God does not exist.

That is probably one of the silliest things you have said, sorry.

Maybe you need to re-read that and think about it.

I stand by what I said. However, feel free to explain WHY you find my point "silly"

[RickD]

Kenny,

Again, ad nauseam , here's the definition of science:

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Science is simply not the tool used to study the spiritual world, including an eternal God.

And there's the fact that you have been told this numerous times in the 5 years you've been here, yet you still spout nonsense like this:

If God exist as you say he does, it would be the job of science to investigate and provide information of God. The fact that science does not shows either science is not doing its job, or God does not exist.

[Kenny]

Kenny,

Again, ad nauseam , here's the definition of science:

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Science is simply not the tool used to study the spiritual world, including an eternal God.

And there's the fact that you have been told this numerous times in the 5 years you've been here, yet you still spout nonsense like this:

If God exist as you say he does, it would be the job of science to investigate and provide information of God. The fact that science does not shows either science is not doing its job, or God does not exist.

If another world that is not physical or natural, were found to exist, are you seriously trying to tell me that science would refuse to study this world because they choose to restrict themselves to that which is described as physical and natural? Are you kidding me? The only reason they are said to study the physical and natural world is because they label everything that has an actual existence, physical and or natural. If the Spiritual world were found to exist, it would be given that label as well.

[RickD]

kenny wrote:
If another world that is not physical or natural, were found to exist, are you seriously trying to tell me that science would refuse to study this world because they choose to restrict themselves to that which is described as physical and natural?

"Science" doesn't study anything. Scientists use science to study the physical and natural world.
And no, people don't refuse to study this world(the spiritual). People just don't use science to study the spiritual, because that's just beyond the scope of science. Just as a hammer isn't used to cut down a tree, science is not the tool to study the spiritual.

Are you kidding me?

No Kenny, I'm not kidding you. Are you kidding me, that you still don't understand what science is, and isn't?

The only reason they are said to study the physical and natural world is because they label everything that has an actual existence, physical and or natural. If the Spiritual world were found to exist, it would be given that label as well.

Are you kidding me?

Again, google is your friend.

The definition of exist:

have objective reality or being.

By definition, that does not rule out the spiritual, including God. As God is not part of the natural world, science is not used to study God.

This stuff is basic Kenny. With the amount of time you've spent discussing this, you should understand this without difficulty.

[Kenny]

kenny wrote:
If another world that is not physical or natural, were found to exist, are you seriously trying to tell me that science would refuse to study this world because they choose to restrict themselves to that which is described as physical and natural?

"Science" doesn't study anything. Scientists use science to study the physical and natural world.
And no, people don't refuse to study this world(the spiritual). People just don't use science to study the spiritual, because that's just beyond the scope of science. Just as a hammer isn't used to cut down a tree, science is not the tool to study the spiritual.

I think this is where we need to agree to disagree. You believe the spiritual world (and God) exists, and I believe they do not, and we are discussing the ability of science in the context of what we believe.

The definition of exist:

have objective reality or being.

By definition, that does not rule out the spiritual, including God. As God is not part of the natural world, science is not used to study God.

What is it about the spiritual world that you find objective?

[RickD]

kenny wrote:
I think this is where we need to agree to disagree. You believe the spiritual world (and God) exists, and I believe they do not, and we are discussing the ability of science in the context of what we believe.

First, that's not how "agree to disagree" works. You need to understand my position, before you can disagree with it.
And second, you cannot discuss science, if you don't even know what science is.

What is it about the spiritual world that you find objective?

Kenny, if something is said to have objective reality or being, it just means that it exists. And something doesn't have to have being in the physical or natural realm/world, to exist.

[Kenny]

kenny wrote:
I think this is where we need to agree to disagree. You believe the spiritual world (and God) exists, and I believe they do not, and we are discussing the ability of science in the context of what we believe.

First, that's not how "agree to disagree" works. You need to understand my position, before you can disagree with it.

You erroneously assume because I didn't agree with you I don't understand you. If I were to claim "X" is real ("X" being something you know is not real) but you cannot experience its existence, there is nothing you would be able to say to convince me "X" is not real, and there is nothing I could say to you to convince you that it is. That doesn't mean you don't understand me,its just something we will have to disagree on.

[RickD]

kenny wrote:
I think this is where we need to agree to disagree. You believe the spiritual world (and God) exists, and I believe they do not, and we are discussing the ability of science in the context of what we believe.

First, that's not how "agree to disagree" works. You need to understand my position, before you can disagree with it.

You erroneously assume because I didn't agree with you I don't understand you. If I were to claim "X" is real ("X" being something you know is not real) but you cannot experience its existence, there is nothing you would be able to say to convince me "X" is not real, and there is nothing I could say to you to convince you that it is. That doesn't mean you don't understand me,its just something we will have to disagree on.

No Kenny. Remember, this is what you said:

If God exist as you say he does, it would be the job of science to investigate and provide information of God. The fact that science does not shows either science is not doing its job, or God does not exist.

And my position, which you fail to understand, is that science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

So, science cannot, EVER, be the study of God, because God is not physical nor part of the natural world.

Your argument is asinine. Your argument that since science, or a scientist using science, hasn't found God, is like saying that the sound of birds chirping must not exist, because I cannot see the chirping sound with my eyes.

[Kenny]

And my position, which you fail to understand, is that science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

So, science cannot, EVER, be the study of God, because God is not physical nor part of the natural world.

And my position which thou fail to understand is that if God existed and had an actual affect on the natural world, Scientists would study God and his effect on the natural world. And if the spiritual world existed, they would study that too. I believe it is the job of scientists to study all things that exist. If God and the spiritual world did exist, and science was not equipped to study it, then science is incapable of doing it’s job. That’s how I see it, I wouldn’t expect you to understand.

[RickD]

And my position, which you fail to understand, is that science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

So, science cannot, EVER, be the study of God, because God is not physical nor part of the natural world.

And my position which thou fail to understand is that if God existed and had an actual affect on the natural world, Scientists would study God and his effect on the natural world. And if the spiritual world existed, they would study that too. I believe it is the job of scientists to study all things that exist. If God and the spiritual world did exist, and science was not equipped to study it, then science is incapable of doing it’s job. That’s how I see it, I wouldn’t expect you to understand.

[Philip]

Ken: And my position which thou fail to understand is that if God existed and had an actual affect on the natural world, Scientists would study God and his effect on the natural world. And if the spiritual world existed, they would study that too. I believe it is the job of scientists to study all things that exist. If God and the spiritual world did exist, and science was not equipped to study it, then science is incapable of doing it’s job. That’s how I see it, I wouldn’t expect you to understand.

[PaulSacramento]

There is also ZERO SCIENTIFIC evidence that ANY type of intelligent being can be eternal. Now that is completely relevant to the argument

No Kenny,
Please site scientific evidence of the non-material world.

There is none. No scientific evidence for the spiritual world, God, or any type of eternal being. But that isn't going to stop some people from believing.

So, science can NOT make a statement in regards to the non-material existence of anything, correct?

More like; science doesn't comment on something unless they have reason to believe it exists.

Science doesn't have "reason" Kenny, Scientists do.
You talk of science as if it was "alive".

Science does NOT address anything outside the observable and material world.
Science doesn't address the WHY, only the HOW.
It doesn't address the SHOULD, only the CAN.

You understand that right?

[Kenny]

No Kenny,
Please site scientific evidence of the non-material world.

There is none. No scientific evidence for the spiritual world, God, or any type of eternal being. But that isn't going to stop some people from believing.

So, science can NOT make a statement in regards to the non-material existence of anything, correct?

More like; science doesn't comment on something unless they have reason to believe it exists.

Science doesn't have "reason" Kenny, Scientists do.
You talk of science as if it was "alive".

You're right; that was a typo; I said science when I should have said "scientists".

Science does NOT address anything outside the observable and material world.

That's because as far as they know nothing exists outside the observable material world. My point is, if they found something outside this world they could address, they would address it.

Science doesn't address the WHY, only the HOW.

I disagree, they address the why also.

It doesn't address the SHOULD, only the CAN.

You understand that right?

They don't address moral issues, because they vary from person to person