Is it ultimately pointless to engage in debate with those who believe in a deity

achtungbarry

A post by Liber8or on the Christianity Forum got me thinking about this.

Is it ultimately pointless to engage in debate with the religious ?

Liber8or pointed out that the person with faith "will aways win".

This is ultimately true, one cannot use logic, rationale or evidence to argue against faith or the invocation of the supernatural.

Reason, logic, evidence are not compatible with faith and the supernatural.

It's like trying to win a rugby match by playing golf.

Any number of arguments for and against the existance of deities have been (and I say this word with caution) "debated" to death here and in countless other circumstances around the world for centuries and always with the same result.....

One side relying empirical research, logic and evidence...

...and the other side....

....also relying on empirical research, logic and evidence but ultimately falling back on "faith" and the invocation of the supernatural.

Rational argument is simply not possible in this case and is a waste of time. I used to engage in these debates until recently but I came to realise what it is impossible to argue against a point of view that sees "faith" as a genuine and relevent example of evidence.


Is rational debate with the religious ultimately pointless as a result ? *

And is it only lending legitimacy to the arguments of those that do view faith and the supernatural as acceptable forms of evidence ?

* now I didn't say it wasn't fun

robindch

achtungbarry wrote: »

Is rational debate with the religious ultimately pointless as a result?

Well, it's pretty difficult to use logic to dislodge something that logic didn't really put there.

The debate can be quite fun all the same

Naz_st

achtungbarry wrote: »

Is it ultimately pointless to engage in debate with the religious ?

I suppose it depends on what your goal is. If your goal is to "win them over" to an atheistic standpoint then Yes, it is pointless. Just as pointless as a religious person trying to win over an atheist to a theistic view by quoting the bible and promoting Faith as virtue.

To better understand this point, imagine for a second that God did actually appear to you one day in such a way as for it to be impossible for you not to believe in his divinity. But he appeared to you only and left you with no proof, no handy video evidence you could stick on youtube. How would an atheist convince you that you were wrong using logic and reason? How would you convince an atheist that what you saw was real?

However, it's not pointless if your goal is to provide interesting and informative reading to anybody browsing the thread who isn't already definitively in one camp or the other. They get to read the best arguments (sometimes!) on both sides and whatever rings true to them may be enough to help them define their own standpoint (whatever that may be).

Overblood

It depends how intelligent they are. You're not going to convince an inbred red-neck from the deep south of USA or Longford. But I have seen some people de-convert in this very forum, so there is always a point in engaging in debate.

stevejazzx

Yes in the sense that it is very hard being beaten down by the same branch of maddening logic every day. No in the sense that sometimes, every once in a while, someone says 'hold on' I'm gonna look at this and really evaluate it from as impartial a viewpoint as I can manage. That's probably the goal, not conversion. Conversion should only happen if the person reaches that decision through their hard work and effort.

SonOfPerdition

achtungbarry wrote: »

A post by Liber8or on the Christianity Forum got me thinking about this.

Is it ultimately pointless to engage in debate with the religious ?

Certainly not if its a public debate . .it's all about the audience.

Denerick

*yawn*

The real question is why anybody would care about debating somebody who believes in a deity. So long as they aren't forcing a belief on you then just live and live. Stop being busy body know-it-alls. This crap often comes down to the same sort of born again whacko's who approach people on the street. Its amazing how similar some atheists are to Christian fundamentalists. Stop assuming your smarter than them for one thing.

robindch

Helpdesk's the place to discuss user bans. There's a thread set up to discuss this one at the following URL:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055534090

M@21

Naz_st wrote: »

However, it's not pointless if your goal is to provide interesting and informative reading to anybody browsing the thread who isn't already definitively in one camp or the other. They get to read the best arguments (sometimes!) on both sides and whatever rings true to them may be enough to help them define their own standpoint (whatever that may be).

Totally Agree.

I thought that was what debates were all about - different standpoints and views. Does there have to be a winner in every debate that you take part in?
If 2 people with different beliefs had 10 consecutive debates about the same thing - Deities, then that would be pointless.
But when different perspectives are given from all angles the debate gets more interesting.
OP - Is it definitely Debating you are talking about and not Preaching?

Húrin

achtungbarry wrote: »

A post by Liber8or on the Christianity Forum got me thinking about this.

Is it ultimately pointless to engage in debate with the religious ?

Liber8or pointed out that the person with faith "will aways win".

Is your debate always about the basic existence of God? Are you always trying to convert the theist? Why?

Overblood wrote: »

It depends how intelligent they are. You're not going to convince an inbred red-neck from the deep south of USA or Longford. But I have seen some people de-convert in this very forum, so there is always a point in engaging in debate.

What is the point in converting someone to atheism?

Valmont

Regarding debate numero uno: the existence of God; I think proponents on both sides are more or less modern day embodiments of Sisyphus, condemned to repeat the same tired (not fallacious, just old) arguments to an opponent that is quite simply coming from a completely different frame of reference.
Atheists are logical and scientific and theists are faithful and spirtual (generally speaking). These two do not go together as the terms of the debate are always poorly determined from the outset.

lostexpectation

yes

Ickle Magoo

Hmmm....yes & no, I'd say.

Completely fruitless if your intention is to try to convert anyone, sure, why would you want to? I don't appreciate that from theists & I'm sure they feel the same way.

Does that make debate between theists & atheists moot - no, I don't think so. Nobody actually knows for sure so when you get down to that weird grey nitty gritty, the debates are actually really interesting. I always learn something anyhow.

Rev Hellfire

You'll never turn a committed theist with your cutting wit and razor sharp intellect.
What you may do though is open other avenues of thought which they may not have considered.

the_syco

Húrin wrote: »

What is the point in converting someone to atheism?

To show the pointless of following something that doesn't exist?

Rev Hellfire

the_syco wrote: »

To show the pointless of following something that doesn't exist?

Its only pointless if they don't get anything from it, it may (or may not) be a placebo. But its the end result that counts and many seem to get a emotional benefit from their belief.

Flamed Diving

I really don't bother, in 'real-life'. It's simply a waste of time.

On here, I revel in it, but I'm usually on here when I'm bored anyway.

philologos

Valmont wrote: »

Atheists are logical and scientific and theists are faithful and spirtual (generally speaking). These two do not go together as the terms of the debate are always poorly determined from the outset.

You're kidding me right? So you're saying that theists are incapable of being in any way logical?

I certainly don't consider atheists to be a dominant force in logic, they are about as fallacious as anyone else in any discussion.

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

You're kidding me right? So you're saying that theists are incapable of being in any way logical?

I certainly don't consider atheists to be a dominant force in logic, they are about as fallacious as anyone else in any discussion.

Can people be risen from the dead? Talking snakes? Talking bushes?

Yeah...

seamus

Jakkass wrote: »

You're kidding me right? So you're saying that theists are incapable of being in any way logical?

I don't think that was his point. The point is that when your opponents entire argument is based upon something other then logic, then by extension their entire argument is illogical. There may be flashes of logic in there, but that doesn't go any distance towards proving that the entire argument is logical.

It's like arguing that Jack and the Beanstalk is proof of the existence of Giants.

JohnMcMann

I agree with that OP on this here issue. You can't debate with a theist on logical issues for love nor money, it just doesn't work. For them, the ultamite logic is what is found in their book or religious teachings, it isn't subjective by nature and therefore they will set a standard of logic by their own reasoning.

So it's an excersise in futility if you ask me, just avoid it.

philologos

seamus wrote: »

I don't think that was his point. The point is that when your opponents entire argument is based upon something other then logic, then by extension their entire argument is illogical. There may be flashes of logic in there, but that doesn't go any distance towards proving that the entire argument is logical.

Logic is only logic, it needs to be matched with empiricism. Christians and atheists use different sources of empiricism and are able to reason with them effectively. What do you think Thomas Aquinas, Augustine or Anselm of Canterbury did for a living? Reasoned the Scriptures surely? Likewise Calvin and the Reformers.

I do find it funny to see how much people can exhalt themselves, first talking about the "problems with belief in God", and now "to why it is pointless to discuss with people who believe in a God", as if it we have some form of problem.

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

What do you think Thomas Aquinas, Augustine or Anselm of Canterbury did for a living? Reasoned the Scriptures surely? Likewise Calvin and the Reformers.

Also working from an illogical premise. From that point it doesn't matter whether they apply good logic. Belief in an undetectable entity is about as illogical as it can get.

philologos

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Also working from an illogical premise. From that point it doesn't matter whether they apply good logic. Belief in an undetectable entity is about as illogical as it can get.

Really, the Bible makes good sense to me actually if you actually read it from start to finish.

As for belief in an undetectable entity is that really any more illogical than believing that the universe created itself, or an entirely naturalistic creation process? I really don't think so.

seamus

Jakkass wrote: »

Really, the Bible makes good sense to me actually if you actually read it from start to finish.

Well, it was written by humans so it stands to reason that if a person wrote it, it makes sense to other people. "The world is flat". Makes sense when you think about it. If the bible had been written by fish, you'd probably find it hard to identify with it and get any sense out of it.

As for belief in an undetectable entity is that really any more illogical than believing that the universe created itself, or an entirely naturalistic creation process? I really don't think so.

Well, yes it is. The idea of there being some "entity" out there is a whole other leap from saying that there's a good chance that the universe just "is". There is no evidence to suggest otherwise. An entirely naturalistic creation process is backed up by vast amounts of evidence. An artifical creation process has no evidence to back it up.

achtungbarry

M@21 wrote: »

Totally Agree.

I thought that was what debates were all about - different standpoints and views. Does there have to be a winner in every debate that you take part in?
If 2 people with different beliefs had 10 consecutive debates about the same thing - Deities, then that would be pointless.
But when different perspectives are given from all angles the debate gets more interesting.
OP - Is it definitely Debating you are talking about and not Preaching?

I suppose what I mean is, that (for either side) debating with the aim of "winning" ie convincing your opponent of your point of view is pointless as the rules of engagement are too different according to each side.

Debating for the sake of fun and providing information to others is different altogether.

Atheists are logical and scientific and theists are faithful and spirtual (generally speaking). These two do not go together as the terms of the debate are always poorly determined from the outset.

You've explained it much better than I did.

philologos

seamus wrote: »

Well, it was written by humans so it stands to reason that if a person wrote it, it makes sense to other people. "The world is flat". Makes sense when you think about it. If the bible had been written by fish, you'd probably find it hard to identify with it and get any sense out of it.

No, not really seamus. The Bible speaks in human terms, describes human behaviour, describes why we are the way we are, how we should live, and gives us an entire worldview. I've yet to see anything that so elaborately explains all of these things. I'm really doubtful that a fish could have the intelligence to witness to the things that the Bible has done.

You seem to think that because I hold the Bible as a somewhat serious text in my life that makes me an ignoramus, I contend otherwise clearly.

seamus wrote: »

Well, yes it is. The idea of there being some "entity" out there is a whole other leap from saying that there's a good chance that the universe just "is". There is no evidence to suggest otherwise. An entirely naturalistic creation process is backed up by vast amounts of evidence. An artifical creation process has no evidence to back it up.

Not really seamus. What else do you know that just is?

By the way, there is no scientific consensus on whether or not God exists or not, so I would be highly doubtful that they rule out God's existence entirely in the process (aka naturalism). Infact it would be unscientific to rule out all possibilities without a decent refutation.

seamus

Jakkass wrote: »

No, not really seamus. The Bible speaks in human terms, describes human behaviour, describes why we are the way we are, how we should live, and gives us an entire worldview. I've yet to see anything that so elaborately explains all of these things. I'm really doubtful that a fish could have the intelligence to witness to the things that the Bible has done.

You've kind of missed my point. My fault probably, there was no need for the fish analogy.

You seem to think that because I hold the Bible as a somewhat serious text in my life that makes me an ignoramus, I contend otherwise clearly.

I wouldn't say an ignoramus, that's not fair. You're allowed to take whatever you want seriously. But there are plenty of people who hold other texts and other works as a "serious" part of their life - star trek fans or scientologists. From my point of view, I make no distinction between you and these people - you've all decided to base your worldview upon stories written by men. Fair enough, that's up to you.

Not really seamus. What else do you know that just is?

Just "is", is another way of saying, "we don't know yet". If you expand the definition to mean that, then there are a lot of things which just "are". Luckily, logic allows us to pull all of these things back to a single point - the start of time as it were and say that all of these things exist because of a natural causal process derived from this one initial point (or points). The challenge is uncovering and recreating this natural process and indeed discovering the nature of this point, if it existed.

By the way, there is no scientific consensus on whether or not God exists or not, so I would be highly doubtful that they rule out God's existence entirely in the process (aka naturalism).

They don't rule it out any more than they would rule out anything else. The nature of the start of the universe is so inherently difficult to know that any hypothesis is as valid as the next. The "single entity" hypothesis is no more valid than the multiple entity hypothesis or the hypothesis that I in fact, am God, and have simply wiped my memory of creating the universe. So you can't rule anything out. That a theory hasn't or can't be debunked doesn't necessarily mean that it's valid.

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

Really, the Bible makes good sense to me actually if you actually read it from start to finish.

As for belief in an undetectable entity is that really any more illogical than believing that the universe created itself, or an entirely naturalistic creation process? I really don't think so.

I don't believe the universe created itself. No one knows how that happened, so believing in that would be as illogical as believing a magic sky beast did it.

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

By the way, there is no scientific consensus on whether or not God exists or not, so I would be highly doubtful that they rule out God's existence entirely in the process (aka naturalism). Infact it would be unscientific to rule out all possibilities without a decent refutation.

There is a scientific consensus on God. It is that god/s cannot be tested, therefore science has nothing else to say.

You know this.

Stop pretending that you don't.

JimiTime

Flamed Diving wrote: »

There is a scientific consensus on God. It is that god/s cannot be tested, therefore science has nothing else to say.

You know this.

Stop pretending that you don't.

Actually, I think that is his point. The Scientific method favours not the atheist or the theist, yet alot of atheists talk as if they've got science on their side.

Goduznt Xzst

SonOfPerdition wrote: »

Certainly not if its a public debate . .it's all about the audience.

Naz_st wrote: »

However, it's not pointless if your goal is to provide interesting and informative reading to anybody browsing the thread who isn't already definitively in one camp or the other.

Exactly. It is not pointless to debate in a public forum if you are doing it mainly for the peanut gallery and lurkers. The kind of individuals that will drift through this and the Christianity forum will be people who wonder about something about their belief or have questions. It would be biased if the only responses a person read where from Christians only.

One on one, heck in any limited public gathering, I would never bring religion up... unless poked of course

Jakkass wrote: »

So you're saying that theists are incapable of being in any way logical?

I wouldn't say Christians are incapable of logic, far from it, I completely accept that some of the most logical and brightest minds amongst us could believe in a deity or even a specific religious dogma, but in regards to their religion they suspend their disbelief and are not logical.

Imagine if you applied the same faith you had in Gods existence and the dogma of your religion to any other areas of your life. How would that work? If you trusted men with your money to give you things you wanted but had no knowledge that they had ever given anything to anyone before. Would you buy a house without seeing it and merely take the word of the seller that he has had many happy customers, none of which you are allowed to speak to.

In most areas of a Christians life they are largely logical. But they have learnt to suspend this logic as their fear of death, and the death of their loved ones is a strong enough motivation.

Flamed Diving

JimiTime wrote: »

Actually, I think that is his point. The Scientific method favours not the atheist or the theist, yet alot of atheists talk as if they've got science on their side.

Well, the point of an atheist would be that if testable evidence of god/s appears, we would be all ears. But until then, we are not interested in your elaborate guesswork.

If you want to talk about the validity of the Bible (not solely god/s), then science is making a mockery of that book. So much so that interpretation of that inerrant/infallible book has changed over the centuries. Funny, that.

seamus

JimiTime wrote: »

Actually, I think that is his point. The Scientific method favours not the atheist or the theist, yet alot of atheists talk as if they've got science on their side.

I think that stems from the fact that science continually falls on the opposite side of the God hypothesis whenever a natural process is examined. In fact, science has never once found something to be caused by God. So if an atheist is to have a "tool" against the God Hypoethesis, science would seem to offer the most support.

Things which for years were claimed in the name of God - the wind, the sun, natural terraforming processes (to name but three out of millions of things) have been and are being continually shown to have nothing to do with God whatsoever and are a result of natural processes. Religion has of course continually moved the goalposts in order to justify their hypothesis and have at this point abandoned all which they once claimed as "God's Will" and retreated back to the unknowable, irrationally claiming that because it's inherently unknowable, therefore it must be God.

pH

Flamed Diving wrote: »

There is a scientific consensus on God. It is that god/s cannot be tested, therefore science has nothing else to say.

Hang on here, they can be tested, have been tested and found to be non-existent.

This is different from an other entirely related "modernish" phenomenon which goes something along the lines of "A human being can imagine things which cannot be tested". This has nothing whatsoever to do with "God", nor is it a fundamental property of a god, however this has been so drilled into us recently that even atheists are happy to parrot it back to believers and agree with them.

The fact that humans have the mental capacity to dream up "untestable" concepts has absolutely nothing to do with God, there is nothing inherently untestable about a supreme being, we can all imagine a God (or an infinite number of different ones )whose existence would be testable, we can imagine (again infinitely) Gods whose existence is untestable.

Hence, to take something you (you're an atheist right?) don't believe exists, but then assign it a definite property - "untestable" seems rather bizarre, you wouldn't agree with a theist that any other claimed properties of God are true - he has blue hair or 8 arms, so why give a non-existent being this definite attribute?

Goduznt Xzst

JimiTime wrote: »

yet alot of atheists talk as if they've got science on their side.

You misunderstand, Atheism leads to Scientific inquiry, not vice versa. Also, it seems to be frequently misunderstood, Atheists are not saying they are right, they are saying you are wrong.

Imagine a classroom where the maths teacher is looking for the solution to an equation written on the blackboard. The religious are the ones putting their hands up and randomly shouting out numbers, the atheists are the ones telling them to sit down as the teacher has not yet covered this area of maths, and their constant stream of guesses is interrupting the teacher from doing so.

philologos

Goduznt Xzst: Christians can't ever be led to scientific enquiry?

As for scientific enquiry, I think it pertains to science. Other forms of enquiry should be used for other subjects.

pH

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

You misunderstand, Atheism leads to Scientific inquiry, not vice versa. Also, it seems to be frequently misunderstood, Atheists are not saying they are right, they are saying you are wrong.

Indeed, and your maths classroom maths analogy is a good one, if presented with (say) an answer for the roots of an equation, you can check that answer is wrong, even if you don't have the correct answer yourself.

Not knowing the answer yourself in no way prohibits you from being able to tell if someone else's answer is the right one.

philologos

Bad example

pH

Jakkass wrote: »

Goduznt Xzst: Christians can't ever be led to scientific enquiry?

I'm sorry, but how can a Christian honestly do a scientific experiment? If you believe in an intervening God who answers your prayers how can you tell if any set of results are real or just God's current whim. Maybe he's rewarding you or punishing you or maybe he hasn't intervened this time, how can a Christian tell and have any confidence in their results.

My particular favourite answer the last time I asked this question was "repeat the experiment a few times", implying that your all powerful God would eventually get bored, stop messing with the results and move on, I'm sure you can do better though.

Flamed Diving

pH wrote: »

Hang on here, they can be tested, have been tested and found to be non-existent.

This is different from an other entirely related "modernish" phenomenon which goes something along the lines of "A human being can imagine things which cannot be tested". This has nothing whatsoever to do with "God", nor is it a fundamental property of a god, however this has been so drilled into us recently that even atheists are happy to parrot it back to believers and agree with them.

The fact that humans have the mental capacity to dream up "untestable" concepts has absolutely nothing to do with God, there is nothing inherently untestable about a supreme being, we can all imagine a God (or an infinite number of different ones )whose existence would be testable, we can imagine (again infinitely) Gods whose existence is untestable.

Hence, to take something you (you're an atheist right?) don't believe exists, but then assign it a definite property - "untestable" seems rather bizarre, you wouldn't agree with a theist that any other claimed properties of God are true - he has blue hair or 8 arms, so why give a non-existent being this definite attribute?

Please provide this test for a god/s. I am intrigued, and would like to try it out.

Zillah

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Please provide this test for a god/s. I am intrigued, and would like to try it out.

Hypothesis: God "A" exists. He is all powerful and praying to him when you are sick makes you better.
Methodology: Have religious cancer patients pray, and receive no medication. Have group of athiests not pray, but receive medication.
Result: Mass grave full of dead fools.
Conclusion: God "A" does not exist.

pH

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Please provide this test for a god/s. I am intrigued, and would like to try it out.

Fine, a God that strikes down blasphemers with lightning could easily be tested by statistically analysing where lightning strikes occur, or even by uttering blasphemies in a laboratory setting and carefully observing the results.

There are an infinite number number of testable Gods, but you seem to have completely missed my point, and are still insisting on sticking to this idea that is deeply ingrained in your mind that there is something inherently untestable about a "God", that it is tied up in the definition of "God" and they cannot be separated. This is not true, as I pointed out above, you are confusing "things which cannot be tested" with "god", they are not the same thing at all, there is no logical reason why a God with testable characteristics couldn't exist, therefore being "untestable" in not an inherent property of a God, and I find it strange that you would continue to claim it is.

Flamed Diving

Zillah wrote: »

Hypothesis: God "A" exists. He is all powerful and praying to him when you are sick makes you better.
Methodology: Have religious cancer patients pray, and receive no medication. Have group of athiests not pray, but receive medication.
Result: Mass grave full of dead fools.
Conclusion: God "A" does not exist.

Well, that doesn't prove he doesn't exist. It demonstrates that:

A) He is not all powerful?

He does not respond to prayers?

C) He does not respond to tests?

D) He doesn't care?

E) He does not exist?

F) All human-invented religions are wrong, and the god/s is watching this, facepalming?

I could go on and on.

Flamed Diving

pH wrote: »

Fine, a God that strikes down blasphemers with lightning could easily be tested by statistically analysing where lightning strikes occur, or even by uttering blasphemies in a laboratory setting and carefully observing the results.

There are an infinite number number of testable Gods, but you seem to have completely missed my point, and are still insisting on sticking to this idea that is deeply ingrained in your mind that there is something inherently untestable about a "God", that it is tied up in the definition of "God" and they cannot be separated. This is not true, as I pointed out above, you are confusing "things which cannot be tested" with "god", they are not the same thing at all, there is no logical reason why a God with testable characteristics couldn't exist, therefore being "untestable" in not an inherent property of a God, and I find it strange that you would continue to claim it is.

I find it strange that you claim the opposite.

As for your test, see my post to Zillah.

Goduznt Xzst

Jakkass wrote: »

Goduznt Xzst: Christians can't ever be led to scientific enquiry?

I never said this, and please stop using superlatives. By saying Atheism leads to scientific inquiry, I am not postulating that the inverse in also true (i.e. Theism can't lead to scientific inquiry)

Again, I am saying a Theist can be logical and also a scientist, but their logical outlook is more restricted then an Atheists, and that Theism does not naturally lead to scientific inquiry as it supposes the answers to questions that it can't possibly know the answers to. When you add an unknown intervening deity into the equation, you needless overly complicate the science. How exactly would it work? Would Christian scientists have to pray to God before performing experiments to stop him answering someone elses prayer that could mess up their results, or ask him to hold back Satans demons from having a little fun.

I would expect most Christian Scientists are Christians at home, but deists at most in the lab.

Borneo Fnctn

It's never pointless to argue your point. It's always good to practice. The world is full of people who won't always agree with you, and it's a wonderful skill know how to communicate your views effectively. But you probably won't deprogramme religious people and if that's your goal, then yes it probably is futile.

seamus

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Well, that doesn't prove he doesn't exist. It demonstrates that:

The point here is that God is generally defined as having parameters. In fact all of the Abrahamic religions give God some defining characteristics, almost all of which can be tested. To disprove the existence of that particular God, all you have to do is show that one of these characteristics cannot or does not exist. Such as "listens to prayers".
If they're disproven and then you shift the goalposts and claim that, "God cannot be tested", well then you've proven that you're just in fact making things up and your original God never existed in the first place except in your head.

A God without definition, without any testable characteristics, such as "he exists outside of time and space", is as consequential as no god at all. The "Lazy Creator" hypothesis fits in here, and in terms of religion a non-interventionist creator is as good as no god at all because worship of a higher power is not required.

pH

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I find it strange that you claim the opposite.

As for your test, see my post to Zillah.

No you can't wriggle out that way, that test shows that Zillah's all powerful prayer-answering God doesn't exist.

Fine you may hypothesise another God, "Flamed's God", and start giving him all the wiggle room and untestable characteristics you like, but this is just you making up a God and assigning it characteristics which you believe will hide it from enquiry, there is no logical reason why a God should behave in such a way, there is no logical reason why a God wouldn't be open about its existence and in certain circumstances behave in a predictable and testable manner.

At no stage am I saying that a human being can't imagine and postulate an untestable God (as you are doing), what I am saying is this "untestable" thing is added on by you, and in no way can be shown to be an inherent property of a supreme being.

Goduznt Xzst wrote:

I would expect most Christian Scientists are Christians at home, but deists at most in the lab.

So what you're getting at is that a Christian can do science, as long as he/she doesn't actually believe in Christianity while they are doing it?

Flamed Diving

Ok, just to be clear. I'm not discussing any specific god. I believe that a god with defined assumptions, like any scientific experiment/model, is testable to some degree.

But the existence of a universe creator is untestable.

So relax. We will never know.

Flamed Diving

pH wrote: »

there is no logical reason why a God should behave in such a way, there is no logical reason why a God wouldn't be open about its existence and in certain circumstances behave in a predictable and testable manner.

Why, do you happen to know how the mind of a god/s would work?

You have yet to provide a reasonable test for this. I know that one doesn't exist, as do you. But I still have to ask.