I did not say he could not affect us. I said he could affect us, but in such a way which science may not be able to test or prove.
Right, but I did. When has this god affected us as a race ever? And if you say "by bringing us into existence", I'm going to cry. That is unverifiable and thus untrue. If he can only affect us in ways human understanding (SCIENCE) cannot prove, what relevance does he have? We only have what we
know. Is there any knowledge outside of the sciences (incl. social sciences etc.) that we can objectively know to be true? No, except this mystical god you speak of. I don't like this inherent, gigantic "PARADOX" stamp your god seems to bear the burden of.
I don't demand any proof of the nonexistence of God. My word is worthless, except to express what I believe. Your word is just as valuable. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, except that science is limited and it is unreasonable to make definitive statements about the existence of God based solely on science. I really think that is the crux of what I have been saying since I jumped into this thread again.
OK, now you're getting somewhere. Of course we can't define a god through science, because the bar of god is automatically set beyond a level we can comprehend so as to make this discussion go on for millenia. However, we have done the same and set the bar of god beyond science so that we can't ever understand him. It's a mutual non-understanding in the case of atheists. Like I said, I don't see the point of a god, you'll hear more about this soon.
Yeah, I guess that statement was a little strong. I do believe science is awesome and we have progressed in so many ways because of it. I understand that it is a vital discipline and that it is set up to verify and correct itself. I only said what I said based on how much there is vs how much science knows. It is great for what it has done, but even among the things it can examine, there is so much it doesn't know.
This is silly; science has always been all we have ever had. That is why I think the idea of a god is irrational. Science can only know things it can test and verify, of course. God is beyond science. There is no correlation between science and a god. The idea of god is a VERY abstract and personal concept, one which may be unique to everyone who believes. Subjectivity is not scientific, much like art and the principles of beauty; art cannot be defined by science except extremely loosely (paintings, music, sculpture are ART, for instance). There is no science to the finding of things to be beautiful or aesthetically pleasing, since this is inherently subjective. I cannot believe in a god whose very essence is subjective and whose presence is unprovable except by its own revelation of itself. There are too many holes there for us to ever comprehend.
You see no point to believing in God? I feel there is a point to finding the truth, and then seeing what significance it has for me.
The Christian God has never been a bringer of truth or anything but more questions and, actually, quite a bit of pain and suffering. I don't believe there's a point in a god whose truth involves millenia of destruction and catastrophe before it goes "ta-da here I am! It's me GOD!" Like I said in a previous post, you would doubt this revelation more than any of us here; if the god is subjective and personal, he would appear to everyone as different, correct? He is omnipresent/omniscient, after all. What about the people who disbelieve? He wouldn't appear at all, and that's the nature of my atheism.
Why must you throw in the word "unrealistic"?
Why must you use scary anti-science judgments without understanding the nature of science? Science doesn't want to and cannot prove a god; it has better things to, like focusing on things that affect human life and the environment right now.
I do accept that people don't agree with me. I have not been trying to convince anyone that God exists or even to follow Christianity. See above for what my main point has been. Trace it back through the thread.
Well, that's good. Since we fundamentally disagree, there is no point for this argument. I have my truth, you have yours. Take it and run with it. It is your prerogative and mine also.
In all seriousness though.. I do not rigidly stand on my building's terrace and yell about praises about how far I can see.. I'm missing detail in vision when I look down at the street. Anyway, advancement is not necessarily progress along the same road.. I'm open to any U-turns the human race may take as far as its belief/truth system goes (referring to the 'gonna-be-majority-perception' of truth here, which is largely scientific/logical in nature).. which might be 'miraculous', scientifically plausible or not, and it's gonna meet the same resistance theories of Copernicus or Galileo did. Only this time, from the 'other' kinda narrow minded folk. Thanks for the spark, AchrisK.
