The Strongest Argument for God

[Philip]

Ken: My point is, if they found something outside this world they could address, they would address it.

HOW Ken - and why even reference ANY aspect that involves science that is beyond the capabilities of its methodologies and tools???!!!

[PaulSacramento]

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.

How do they know that and how would they address it?

[Kenny]

Ken: My point is, if they found something outside this world they could address, they would address it.

HOW Ken - and why even reference ANY aspect that involves science that is beyond the capabilities of its methodologies and tools???!!!

150 years ago, the discovery of germs and how they cause disease was beyond the capabilities and tools of science. Eventually scientists advanced to the point that it was not.

[Kenny]

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.

How do they know that and how would they address it?

Whatever method they used to discover it, that method would likely allow them to address it as well.

[PaulSacramento]

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.

How do they know that and how would they address it?

Whatever method they used to discover it, that method would likely allow them to address it as well.

Wow, I got say Kenny, as a mechanical engineer, I find you view of science and the scientific method, a bit strange and insulting.

You are saying that, even though there is no way for science to confirm or deny reality beyond the material world and, even though theoretical scientist talk about parallel universe and alternative dimensions beyond/outside the material world that, NOTHING exists outside the OBSERVABLE material world.

Wow..what is it that you do exactly?

[Philip]

Ken: 150 years ago, the discovery of germs and how they cause disease was beyond the capabilities and tools of science. Eventually scientists advanced to the point that it was not.

Yes, tools of PHYSICAL analysis have come into existence, have continued to become more and more sophisticated at measuring the PHYSICAL world. But how do you measure a world you cannot see, touch, feel, or hear (as in NONE of our senses can detect it), as it is NOT in the physical realm? So, you're saying that physical tools will one day be able to sift the non-physical / spiritual world? Face it, Ken - you should quit saying stuff like, "Science has no evidence of a spiritual being or intelligence." As well, admit that a huge percentage of people believe in a Creator BECAUSE of scientific and observable PHYSICAL evidence so extraordinary, that it compels them to believe A) these many complex things had a cause, and B) that Cause had to be intelligent. They can't see God directly, but they CAN see Him in His handiwork!

[Kenny]

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.

How do they know that and how would they address it?

Whatever method they used to discover it, that method would likely allow them to address it as well.

Wow, I got say Kenny, as a mechanical engineer, I find you view of science and the scientific method, a bit strange and insulting.

You are saying that, even though there is no way for science to confirm or deny reality beyond the material world and, even though theoretical scientist talk about parallel universe and alternative dimensions beyond/outside the material world that, NOTHING exists outside the OBSERVABLE material world

If we assume there does exist a reality beyond the material world, are you saying there is no way mankind will ever be able to discover this reality? If so, how do you know this?

[Kenny]

Ken: 150 years ago, the discovery of germs and how they cause disease was beyond the capabilities and tools of science. Eventually scientists advanced to the point that it was not.

Yes, tools of PHYSICAL analysis have come into existence, have continued to become more and more sophisticated at measuring the PHYSICAL world. But how do you measure a world you cannot see, touch, feel, or hear (as in NONE of our senses can detect it), as it is NOT in the physical realm?

150 years ago, how did they discover germs which they could not see, touch, feel, or hear as none of our senses could detect it?

So, you're saying that physical tools will one day be able to sift the non-physical / spiritual world?

Obviously as an atheist I don't believe your spiritual world exists, but if such world DID exist, I say it is only a matter of time before mankind figures out a way to find it.

[Philip]

[/quote]Ken: 150 years ago, the discovery of germs and how they cause disease was beyond the capabilities and tools of science. Eventually scientists advanced to the point that it was not.[/quote]

Yes, tools of PHYSICAL analysis have come into existence, have continued to become more and more sophisticated at measuring the PHYSICAL world. But how do you measure a world you cannot see, touch, feel, or hear (as in NONE of our senses can detect it), as it is NOT in the physical realm?

Ken: 150 years ago, how did they discover germs which they could not see, touch, feel, or hear as none of our senses could detect it?

Ken, redundantly, GERMS / bacteria are physical things that merely required the development tools that could detect and see them. How long will it before you finally realize that SCIENTIFIC tools are totally limited to the analysis of physical things and phenomena? They can prove nor disprove anything outside of the physical realm!

[Kenny]

Ken: 150 years ago, the discovery of germs and how they cause disease was beyond the capabilities and tools of science. Eventually scientists advanced to the point that it was not.[/quote]

Yes, tools of PHYSICAL analysis have come into existence, have continued to become more and more sophisticated at measuring the PHYSICAL world. But how do you measure a world you cannot see, touch, feel, or hear (as in NONE of our senses can detect it), as it is NOT in the physical realm?

Ken: 150 years ago, how did they discover germs which they could not see, touch, feel, or hear as none of our senses could detect it?

Ken, redundantly, GERMS / bacteria are physical things that merely required the development tools that could detect and see them.

Once something is found to exist, it will be labeled as a part of the physical realm. If your spiritual world were found to exist, it would get this label as well.

How long will it before you finally realize that SCIENTIFIC tools are totally limited to the analysis of physical things and phenomena?

How do you know this?

[RickD]

Philip wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 11:32 pm
How long will it before you finally realize that SCIENTIFIC tools are totally limited to the analysis of physical things and phenomena?

Kenny wrote:
How do you know this?

As you have been shown before, we know this because of what science is. And how do we know what science is? We look up the word "science" in a dictionary. Dictionaries are tools that give us definitions of words, Kenny. And science is defined as:

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

Collins-
Science is the study of the nature and behavior of natural things and the knowledge that we obtain about them.

Cambridge-
the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the natural and physical world, or knowledge obtained about the world by watching it carefully and experimenting

Merriam-Webster-
knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation

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

Btw,

Obtuse is defined as:
not able to think clearly or to understand what is obvious or simple

[Kenny]

Philip wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 11:32 pm
How long will it before you finally realize that SCIENTIFIC tools are totally limited to the analysis of physical things and phenomena?

Kenny wrote:
How do you know this?

As you have been shown before, we know this because of what science is. And how do we know what science is? We look up the word "science" in a dictionary. Dictionaries are tools that give us definitions of words, Kenny. And science is defined as:

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

Collins-
Science is the study of the nature and behavior of natural things and the knowledge that we obtain about them.

Cambridge-
the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the natural and physical world, or knowledge obtained about the world by watching it carefully and experimenting

Merriam-Webster-
knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation

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

Btw,

Obtuse is defined as:
not able to think clearly or to understand what is obvious or simple

First of all, we were discussing TOOLS of science, not the definition of science. I asked him how does he know tools of science will never be able to detect things in his spiritual world, after all 150 years ago, nobody was able to detect germs at the microscopic level (microworld) but today we can.

Second; concerning the definition of “science” yeah it is the study of the natural world (as opposed to the imaginary world or make-believe world I guess). But you act as if science restricts itself from other worlds that exist.
You and I have been over this countless times, and obviously you will never agree, but I will explain it again for the sake of others who might be reading along.
The problem is as a spiritual person you presuppose the existence of the spiritual world, and as a non spiritual person, I do not.
As I said before, if such a world DID exist, and were discovered, it would be labeled physical. From my perspective, what you are doing is no different than somebody proclaiming the existence of world “X” and science is unable to detect things at the world “X” level because science is only about the natural world. When I was a little kid, I used to believe cartoons were real! I believed there was a cartoon world where all cartoons lived, but adults just didn’t know about it.
As absurd as this sounds to you, that is how it sounds to me because until somebody can provide objective evidence (something other than faith) that the spiritual world exists, to a non spiritual person (like myself) the claim of a spiritual world will sound as empty as any other world an imagination can dream up.

But as I said before, that response was concerning the tools of science not the definition of it.

[Philip]

Ken: As I said before, if such a world DID exist, and were discovered, it would be labeled physical.

NO it would not - unless the definition of physical is expanded to include things with characteristics that are NOT physical, and physical tools cannot detect the non-physical realm!

Ken: When I was a little kid, I used to believe cartoons were real! I believed there was a cartoon world where all cartoons lived, but adults just didn’t know about it.

What a terrible and silly analogy! First off, the cartoon world IS real. Physical beings animated many manmade physical drawings with physical projections upon physical screens that little boys (also physical) watched. Were those animations fictionalized - of course - but nonetheless they physically existed!

Ken: As absurd as this sounds to you, that is how it sounds to me because until somebody can provide objective evidence (something other than faith) that the spiritual world exists, to a non spiritual person (like myself) the claim of a spiritual world will sound as empty as any other world an imagination can dream up.

A statement which has zero to do with the issue at hand - that science cannot sift the non-physical world!

[RickD]

Kenny wrote:
First of all, we were discussing TOOLS of science, not the definition of science. I asked him how does he know tools of science will never be able to detect things in his spiritual world, after all 150 years ago, nobody was able to detect germs at the microscopic level (microworld) but today we can.

And again, the reason why tools of science won't ever be able to detect things in the spiritual or supernatural realm, is because science only deals with the natural world. And by its very definition, "supernatural" means beyond scientific understanding, and the laws of nature.

Second; concerning the definition of “science” yeah it is the study of the natural world (as opposed to the imaginary world or make-believe world I guess).

No Kenny. There's natural and supernatural.

But you act as if science restricts itself from other worlds that exist.

I didn't write the definition of science. And I'm not the one who's trying to force science to be used for something that is was never intended to do.

You and I have been over this countless times, and obviously you will never agree, but I will explain it again for the sake of others who might be reading along.
The problem is as a spiritual person you presuppose the existence of the spiritual world, and as a non spiritual person, I do not.

And you're doing a marvelous job of defending your version of materialism.

As I said before, if such a world DID exist, and were discovered, it would be labeled physical.

No Kenny. That's not how it works. You don't get to define God. God must have certain attributes, in order for Him to be God. And one of the attributes is that He must be beyond the natural world. If God exists, He cannot be a part of the natural world. That means God must be what? That's right, SUPERNATURAL. And as we know, science doesn't deal with the supernatural.

From my perspective, what you are doing is no different than somebody proclaiming the existence of world “X” and science is unable to detect things at the world “X” level because science is only about the natural world.

If world "X" is a planet, then it would be part of the natural world/realm. So, from your perspective, you still fail to grasp the very basic difference between the meanings of natural and supernatural. It takes maybe a 3rd grade comprehension of the English language, to know the difference. And as we all know, you're well beyond a 3rd grade level of comprehension. So, the only other option, is that you just refuse to understand.

As absurd as this sounds to you, that is how it sounds to me because until somebody can provide objective evidence (something other than faith) that the spiritual world exists, to a non spiritual person (like myself) the claim of a spiritual world will sound as empty as any other world an imagination can dream up.

And as we've said, and you REFUSE to understand, science deals with EVIDENCE. So you will NEVER, EVER have objective evidence of something supernatural.

But guess what? We've shown you actual proof that God exists. Which you've also just refused to understand. The existence of God is completely logical! So, again, you refuse to understand logic.

[Kenny]

Ken: As I said before, if such a world DID exist, and were discovered, it would be labeled physical.

NO it would not - unless the definition of physical is expanded to include things with characteristics that are NOT physical, and physical tools cannot detect the non-physical realm!

Then name something that is known to exist, that isn’t labeled physical.

Ken: When I was a little kid, I used to believe cartoons were real! I believed there was a cartoon world where all cartoons lived, but adults just didn’t know about it.

What a terrible and silly analogy! First off, the cartoon world IS real. Physical beings animated many manmade physical drawings with physical projections upon physical screens that little boys (also physical) watched. Were those animations fictionalized - of course - but nonetheless they physically existed!

No; drawing a rabbit on a piece paper does not make the rabbit real. Cartoons are make-believe.

Ken: As absurd as this sounds to you, that is how it sounds to me because until somebody can provide objective evidence (something other than faith) that the spiritual world exists, to a non spiritual person (like myself) the claim of a spiritual world will sound as empty as any other world an imagination can dream up.

A statement which has zero to do with the issue at hand - that science cannot sift the non-physical world!

All you do is make claims of the non-physical world, but saying it doesn’t make it true. Unless you can point to some objective evidence that it exists, I will remain skeptical of your claims.