Happy Atheist Forum

I am not a believer myself, but it's just something to think about... if a God exists, maybe he does not present himself through science... then again almost everything in the natural world can be explained by science, and if it's created by him, doesn't that kinda contradict the question?

I'm just asking because a lot of religious people believe he shows himself through signs, coincidences, synchronicity, angels, demons, etc, things there are many different explanations for that aren't necessarily scientific, but often even supernatural occurences can be explained through science and can be proven to not exist as anything 'supernatural'... has anyone else thought about this? Do you believe in signs, but then again signs contradict the atheist notion, as wouldn't there have to be a God to put the signs there ?

If god revealed himself to the world through a means impossible to fake in any way, he'd still be definable through science. Very advanced science maybe, but still explainable.

Quote from: "jimmorrisonbabe"I am not a believer myself, but it's just something to think about... if a God exists, maybe he does not present himself through science... then again almost everything in the natural world can be explained by science, and if it's created by him, doesn't that kinda contradict the question?

If god exists but one must be irrational in order to believe in him, what is the point? You believe in god for no rational reason or you don't believe in god because you're rational. The problem with this is that most people don't want to be crazy, because most people want to be sure their friends are actually mindless zombies before going on a zombie hunting/killing spree.

Quote from: "jimmorrisonbabe"I'm just asking because a lot of religious people believe he shows himself through signs, coincidences, synchronicity, angels, demons, etc, things there are many different explanations for that aren't necessarily scientific, but often even supernatural occurences can be explained through science and can be proven to not exist as anything 'supernatural'... has anyone else thought about this? Do you believe in signs, but then again signs contradict the atheist notion, as wouldn't there have to be a God to put the signs there ?

I believe in stop signs, billboards, yield signs, promotional signs... but as for signs that come from beyond the physical laws, I'm gonna have to decline. The problem is that if it were a sign, and it was made by some dude who is supposed to be all knowing and all powerful, then the sign would be something rational and clear.

The second thing, atheism just means that you don't believe in a god, that is all there is to that "notion." One could believe in ghosts, faeries, walking toothbrushes, aliens and even Sasquatch and still be atheist as long as they don't believe in a god.

For all I know there may be a god (or many) that are beyond the boundaries of our (current) scientific knowledge. However, if such a being were to exist I very much doubt the beliefs of our religious folk would be descriptive or indicative of it in any sensible way. Why? Lots and lots of reasons. I could write an entire book about that. I could write a whole series. This is my casual answer: Because the signs, coincidences, synchronicity, angels, demons, etc. they take as somehow related to their god are so silly.

Maybe God is a turtle?

Maybe god rides on a turtle? Look at this compelling evidence I found
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lostgarden.com%2Fgfx%2FTurtlesAllTheWayDown-small.jpg&hash=5e8cb083573561d31a228077de16321874cfa9f9)

Turtles!

Science was created by men and later by women as well to explained his/her sorroundings. Science is like a taylor making a suit that will fit the wearer just like the Universe fits its wearer for the exception that it did not have a TAYLOR. God was a creation of men and later women to dominate other men and women. Later God became a super being that was unseem and that supported the will of the ones in POWER over other men. Now God has taken another route of being beyond science to be explained, it no longer recites in the near but in the far and beyond. The more men and now women advance in science the farther God goes in being explained which is understandable. The day that science explained God by science then that day will have " A THEORY OF EVERYTHING " . First science must prove the existence of God as a fact and not as just FAITH. This question is self-defeating.

Hvargas, you are the one proclaiming the existence of god. The onus is on you to provide proof. Not the other way round.

Your tailor analogy is a little wobbly. I'll fix it for you:

The tailor is a scientist, the suit is science and the body it is being fitted to is evidence. You have a 'body' of evidence which we use science to understand. The science must fit snugly against the body to make comfortable sense. The tailor is not happy with the results until everything fits properly.

I'm not going to touch the stuff you just said about super beings... I'm sorry but i don't quite feel the need to make my eyes bleed today.

Karadan your misinterpretation of what hvargas wrote is spectacular. It made me read both your posts three times and I still chuckled.  

Karadan, I think you read hvargas's post too hastily. Easy to do, givien his (or her?) writing style. Hvagas doesn't seem to be proclaiming or even defending a belief in a god, but rather (somewhat ineloquently) critiques the premise of the OP. I'll try to edit it for clarification. Changes in bold text:

Quote from: "hvargas"Scientific inquiry was discovered by men (and later by women as well) to be an effective and reliable means to explain his/her sorroundings. Science is like a taylored suit that will fit the wearer, just like the Universe fits its wearer (ie. us) except that it did not have a TAYLOR (ie. CREATOR). The concept ofGod, on the other hand, was a creation of men and later women mainly for the purpose of dominating other men and women. Later, this idea of God was elevated to the status of a super being that was unseen and that used to reinforce the will of those in positions ofPOWER over other men. Now, this new idea of God is being taken yetanother route, being redefined as "beyond science" to insulate it from all possible scrutiny, inquiry or logical criticism. It no longer resides in percievable reality but in it's own 'realm', beyond 'human understanding'. The more people advance in scientific knowledge the farther away the definitions and explanations of the alleged existence ofGod is removed from anything remotely understandable. The day that scientists explain God by scientific means is the day we will have "A THEORY OF EVERYTHING". Unfortunately science would be required to firstprove the existence of God as a fact, using factual evidenceand not rely on FAITH to reach this conclusion. Thus,this question of God being beyond scienceis self-defeating, as it removes the possibility of a meaningful answer.

That's more or less how I read it, though I'm not sure what is meant by the "theory of everything" part.


I like your revision of the taylor analogy.  

TAILOR! Arrrrggggghhhhh!

Quote from: "SSY"TAILOR! Arrrrggggghhhhh!

Ha! Sorry, I thought that looked wrong, but I forgot to check it.  

Hey jimmorrisonbabe, it's nice to have you on the forum.

Quote... if a God exists, maybe he does not present himself through science

Herein lies the problem with religion, superstition, and matters of faith in general.  Look closely at religion, astrology, dowsing, alternative medicine, etc. and you will find that they all boast the same quality of being untestable by the scientific method (at least that's what their supporters claim).  An excellent example is the study on prayer funded by the Templeton Foundation.  This was a well-done double-blind study.  Here is one of several reports on it:  http://web.med.harvard.edu/sites/RELEASES/html/3_31STEP.html.  The long and the short of it was that heart patients that were prayed for and didn't know it fared no better than heart patients that were not prayed for and didn't know it.  Funnily enough, heart patients that were prayed for and knew it actually did worse.  If you read comments by religious apologists on the results of the study, you will hear all sorts of reasons why it failed to link prayer with healing, including the idea that God cannot be tested.  Basically, the Almighty knew what was going on and decided to mess with the results of the study (although if you think about it, it would have been in his favor to skew the results in the other direction).

If everything else in the universe can be (or will eventually be) explained by the rigors of the scientific method, why would a god be the only thing immune?  Does that make sense?  

QuoteI'm just asking because a lot of religious people believe he shows himself through signs, coincidences, synchronicity, angels, demons, etc, things there are many different explanations for that aren't necessarily scientific

All of the evidence that you suggest here is subjective.  Subjective, personal experience that cannot be generally applied to other people is useless with regard to explaining how the universe works.

The problems with many people is that they think or feel that science is " GOD ". The second problem is that " science is the answer or will be the answer to all of their questions ". All of the books that I had read by noted scientists claimed that science may never be able to answer many of its most pressing questions such as " why things are as they are ". Let alone prove the existence of God. So, there are a lot of theories going around that many people take for granted or accept them as facts. We live in a Universe that has a Galaxy called the Milky-Way and in this Galaxy there is a planet called Earth. This planet called Earth is the home of " HUMANS " and other animals. It is taylor made to support such life. The word "MADE" in this case is not to mean that its a design but rather that it just the way it is. The third problem is that for most people its better for them to place God beyong science and the sentence or question " Maybe God is beyond Science " , is to create a being thats beyond any explanations or any kind or type of descriptions. You can then only say that its attributes are infinite/finite and by saying this you get stuck with some sort of character. There was nothing there and then there was something, this something became " LIFE ". Now this life can't understand why it came to be. This question science will never be able to answer and becouse science can't answer it most are looking towards " GOD " but that then comes into conflicts. If we are to say that maybe God is beyong science then science must discover " WHAT OTHER SCIENCE IS THAT ? ". Now tell me that you don't understand this. And yes, there are scientists searching for a " Theory of Everything "  this means one theory that will explained everything instead of so many . I'm not a believer in GOD. I will tell you something else; when you believe in something there is room for doubts and when you truely know something there is no room for doubts. When you need to prove to others what you know -- you are not certain. I KNOW THAT WE ARE NOT THE ONLY EXISTENCE.

Usually I only worry about what the truth is, but I have thought about this a lot. I came to the conclusion that this kind of question is useless to me because whether it's true or not, it's not useful. When I started doubting the Christian god, I searched for other answers and this concept was a common theme in several belief systems even with Christians. In the end I decided to change my approach: instead of seeing if a god could fit any where into reality, I started asking why would a god even be considered.

My reasoning goes like this: in reality there is an explanation for everything (even though we may not know the answer, I'm very confident that one exists), so why would I search for something random to explain things than to look at the evidence and see where it leads. So to me the question "maybe god is beyond science?" is the same as "maybe microscopic gremlins are beyond science?" Or any random concept really.

So is god beyond science? I don't care. If god is beyond science then there is no way to be sure it is real, if god isn't then there will be scientific evidence.

^ This is my approach as well. Your story, as outlined here, pretty much parallels mine.

To say God is beyond Science is the equivalent of saying he does not exist.

Science is simply a method of discovering or explaining the truth. If God can't be found in the truth, where does that leave him to be?

Oops, thank you for the clarification. I was obviously in a rush when i posted in this thread the other day.

Horrendous spelling amended. Soz  

Quote from: "jimmorrisonbabe"I am not a believer myself, but it's just something to think about... if a God exists, maybe he does not present himself through science... then again almost everything in the natural world can be explained by science, and if it's created by him, doesn't that kinda contradict the question?

I'm just asking because a lot of religious people believe he shows himself through signs, coincidences, synchronicity, angels, demons, etc, things there are many different explanations for that aren't necessarily scientific, but often even supernatural occurences can be explained through science and can be proven to not exist as anything 'supernatural'... has anyone else thought about this? Do you believe in signs, but then again signs contradict the atheist notion, as wouldn't there have to be a God to put the signs there ?

I don't believe that god is beyond science. God is certainly transcendental but it's not beyond science in the sense that it can't be proven scientifially, because I believe that it not only can be but is at all moments being proven. It is self evident, the thing is that perceiving god is a personal matter, some can, some can't.

Quote from: "Filanthropod"I don't believe that god is beyond science. God is certainly transcendental but it's not beyond science in the sense that it can't be proven scientifially, because I believe that it not only can be but is at all moments being proven. It is self evident, the thing is that perceiving god is a personal matter, some can, some can't.

But here lies a BIG problem for me in believing in god.  Why would god make some of its creation able and open to perceiving it and others not?  Please don't tell me it's a mysterious part of his plan or that it's freewill.  I'll scream, because these arguments fall apart very quickly when talking about traditional religious views of an all-knowing, all-loving god.

Also, let's assume that it's true that some can and some can't.  Why aren't they all perceiving the same thing?

Quote from: "Filanthropod"I don't believe that god is beyond science. God is certainly transcendental but it's not beyond science in the sense that it can't be proven scientifially, because I believe that it not only can be but is at all moments being proven. It is self evident, the thing is that perceiving god is a personal matter, some can, some can't.

Would anybody buy a car off this guy? No. Quite right too.

C: I'd like to buy a car please?
S: Certainly sir which one would you like?
C: Where are they?
S: All around you sir!
C: But I can't see them.
S: What a shame sir, they are there sir, I swear it, but you just can't perceive them sir.
C: Backs away slowly and calls the local lunatic asylum.

If there's a God who interacts with reality, those interactions are susceptible to observation, and therefore science, which is only organized observation anyway.

If God doesn't interact with reality at all, what is the difference between this God and no god?

Quote from: "Filanthropod"I don't believe that god is beyond science. God is certainly transcendental but it's not beyond science in the sense that it can't be proven scientifially, because I believe that it not only can be but is at all moments being proven. It is self evident, the thing is that perceiving god is a personal matter, some can, some can't.

So: you have to believe, before you believe so that you'll believe.

Quote from: "Businessocks"

Quote from: "Filanthropod"I don't believe that god is beyond science. God is certainly transcendental but it's not beyond science in the sense that it can't be proven scientifially, because I believe that it not only can be but is at all moments being proven. It is self evident, the thing is that perceiving god is a personal matter, some can, some can't.

But here lies a BIG problem for me in believing in god.  Why would god make some of its creation able and open to perceiving it and others not?  Please don't tell me it's a mysterious part of his plan or that it's freewill.  I'll scream, because these arguments fall apart very quickly when talking about traditional religious views of an all-knowing, all-loving god.

Also, let's assume that it's true that some can and some can't.  Why aren't they all perceiving the same thing?

When I say that some can and some can't, it's to do with orientation, not ability. We all can. I instinctively know that god exists, I absolutely know it (god that must be frustrating to hear, sorry). And to understand that, let's say there is a god...would knowing that it exists be a casual matter, or would it be something much deeper? It would of course be something much deeper. The reason why atheists hit a brick wall every time they ask theists to prove it, is simply because it cannot be proven in the same way as say proving that someone is standing outside your door. The proof doesn't lie in observation, it lies in interpretation. It's a philosophical matter, and that's why asking for proof is not the right question, because asking for proof is asking to be convinced by means which are irrelevant and impossible. Can you prove that the material is all there is? I wouldn't seriously ask you to do that because I understand that it's your philosophy and I respect it and I know that it is part of who you are. The least significant reason why I wouldn't seriously ask you to prove that the material is all there is is because you can't, so there's no point in asking. It's just how you view things, it's part of your worldview. You don't have a problem with believing in god, because it's not a problem. From experience (not just assumption), atheists always ask for proof, but this is a matter of subjective philosophy. The question of god's existence shouldn't centre around proof as neither of us can prove our side and therefore shouldn't even bother. The dialogue between atheists and theists should be a philosophical one and I'm happy to have such a discussion.

Quote from: "Filanthropod"

Quote from: "Businessocks"

Quote from: "Filanthropod"I don't believe that god is beyond science. God is certainly transcendental but it's not beyond science in the sense that it can't be proven scientifially, because I believe that it not only can be but is at all moments being proven. It is self evident, the thing is that perceiving god is a personal matter, some can, some can't.

But here lies a BIG problem for me in believing in god.  Why would god make some of its creation able and open to perceiving it and others not?  Please don't tell me it's a mysterious part of his plan or that it's freewill.  I'll scream, because these arguments fall apart very quickly when talking about traditional religious views of an all-knowing, all-loving god.

Also, let's assume that it's true that some can and some can't.  Why aren't they all perceiving the same thing?

When I say that some can and some can't, it's to do with orientation, not ability. We all can. I instinctively know that god exists, I absolutely know it (god that must be frustrating to hear, sorry). And to understand that, let's say there is a god...would knowing that it exists be a casual matter, or would it be something much deeper? It would of course be something much deeper. The reason why atheists hit a brick wall every time they ask theists to prove it, is simply because it cannot be proven in the same way as say proving that someone is standing outside your door. The proof doesn't lie in observation, it lies in interpretation. It's a philosophical matter, and that's why asking for proof is not the right question, because asking for proof is asking to be convinced by means which are irrelevant and impossible. Can you prove that the material is all there is? I wouldn't seriously ask you to do that because I understand that it's your philosophy and I respect it and I know that it is part of who you are. The least significant reason why I wouldn't seriously ask you to prove that the material is all there is is because you can't, so there's no point in asking. It's just how you view things, it's part of your worldview. You don't have a problem with believing in god, because it's not a problem. From experience (not just assumption), atheists always ask for proof, but this is a matter of subjective philosophy. The question of god's existence shouldn't centre around proof as neither of us can prove our side and therefore shouldn't even bother. The dialogue between atheists and theists should be a philosophical one and I'm happy to have such a discussion.

I've been reading alot of your posts lately..and it seems that you insist on placing many non-believers (in regards to a god), under one umbrella. (For example: "....and I know that it is part of who you are"). You need to stop assuming like you personally know ALL atheists just because we share the same view in regards to a deity. I know many atheists who believe in other superstitions or souls, ghosts etc. Not all atheists are materialists.

On another note, when it comes to God being "above" science. I'm not even sure how to respond to that. Why would anyone believe anything exists that is supposedly "above" reality? Philosophy can be interesting for the sake of discussion, but I do not think that it's as useful as science.The scientific method is very useful because it allows us to understand the world around us, we may not be able to 'prove' that 'ALL' material is all there is CURRENTLY, but that does not mean it cannot be done in the future. It's much more honest to suspend judgement instead of claiming that something exists with no evidence to work off of. I believe it is intellectual honesty that leads atheists to nonbelief. In addition, when it comes to discerning what is 'real' or not real in the observeable universe, I like to refer to Sagan's dragon. :|

I asked: Also, let's assume that it's true that some can and some can't.  Why aren't they all perceiving the same thing?


You Said:
When I say that some can and some can't, it's to do with orientation, not ability. We all can. I instinctively know that god exists, I absolutely know it (god that must be frustrating to hear, sorry). And to understand that, let's say there is a god...would knowing that it exists be a casual matter, or would it be something much deeper? It would of course be something much deeper. The reason why atheists hit a brick wall every time they ask theists to prove it, is simply because it cannot be proven in the same way as say proving that someone is standing outside your door. The proof doesn't lie in observation, it lies in interpretation. It's a philosophical matter, and that's why asking for proof is not the right question, because asking for proof is asking to be convinced by means which are irrelevant and impossible. Can you prove that the material is all there is? I wouldn't seriously ask you to do that because I understand that it's your philosophy and I respect it and I know that it is part of who you are. The least significant reason why I wouldn't seriously ask you to prove that the material is all there is is because you can't, so there's no point in asking. It's just how you view things, it's part of your worldview. You don't have a problem with believing in god, because it's not a problem. From experience (not just assumption), atheists always ask for proof, but this is a matter of subjective philosophy. The question of god's existence shouldn't centre around proof as neither of us can prove our side and therefore shouldn't even bother. The dialogue between atheists and theists should be a philosophical one and I'm happy to have such a discussion.



I don't think you answered my question at all.  I didn't ask for proof that god exists.  I said let's assume you're right and some have the right "orientation" (I'm not sure I know what you're getting at there) and others don't...why does this difference exist?  And for those who *are* perceiving, why aren't all of them perceiving the same thing?

See, and as someone pointed out, you did make a BIG assumption about my beliefs, and they are way off.  I actually believe either everything has to be god or nothing is god.  I think we will never know for sure.  But regardless...

You still didn't answer my sincere questions.  I'd really like to hear why all the believers don't believe in the same things when they all claim to have personally experienced god.