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

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.

pH

Flamed Diving wrote: »

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

No - hence I have no basis to give any attributes at all to a possible god. I merely claim that given no knowledge whatsoever I cannot see how I or anyone could rule out a testable God, therefore it's just not true to claim as if it's an axiom (by definition true) that God is untestable.

Your original quote:

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

It appears to be you who are claiming some knowledge of God's attribute or mind to claim that they're untestable!

Flamed Diving

pH wrote: »

No - hence I have no basis to give any attributes at all to a possible god. I merely claim that given no knowledge whatsoever I cannot see how I or anyone could rule out a testable God, therefore it's just not true to claim as if it's an axiom (by definition true) that God is untestable.

Your original quote:



It appears to be you who are claiming some knowledge of God's attribute or mind to claim that they're untestable!

*MEGA SIGH*

There is a difference between God and god/s.

Geddit?

darjeeling

pH wrote: »

No - hence I have no basis to give any attributes at all to a possible god. I merely claim that given no knowledge whatsoever I cannot see how I or anyone could rule out a testable God, therefore it's just not true to claim as if it's an axiom (by definition true) that God is untestable.

Could it be that the only ones we're left with are the untestable ones?

pH

Flamed Diving wrote: »

*MEGA SIGH*

There is a difference between God and god/s.

Geddit?

Oh, you switched between them in your original comment?

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

Now perhaps with correct capitals you'd restate your point, because I cannot see what the difference would be between discussing God and god. Unless the point you're making is that one of the words (God or god?) includes in its definition "untestable" then I really don't see where the "mega sigh" comes from or why the capitalisation is now important.

Flamed Diving

pH wrote: »

Oh, you switched between them in your original comment?



Now perhaps with correct capitals you'd restate your point, because I cannot see what the difference would be between discussing God and god.

No, I haven't switched. Someone more observant would have noticed that I addressed the God from whoever I replied to, and in the next sentence proceeded to lump that God in with all the other god/s, even the god/s no one has invented yet.

I thought on this forum the distinction would be clear to all.

pH

Flamed Diving wrote: »

No, I haven't switched. Someone more observant would have noticed that I addressed the God from whoever I replied to, and in the next sentence proceeded to lump that God in with all the other god/s, even the god/s no one has invented yet.

I thought on this forum the distinction would be clear to all.

Right, let's get this straight.

God is a specific God (the one in the bible) right?, and he's a member of the set gods (all possible gods), and you're now claiming that "God" (with a capital) is testable but belongs to a set whose entire contents are untestable. Someone more intelligent than you might have noticed that that's nonsense. [note to mods HE STARTED IT!]

Flamed Diving

pH wrote: »

Right, let's get this straight.

God is a specific God (the one in the bible) right?, and he's a member of the set gods (all possible gods), and you're now claiming that "God" (with a capital) is testable but belongs to a set whose entire contents are untestable. Someone more intelligent than you might have noticed that that's nonsense. [note to mods HE STARTED IT!]

Ok, this is getting tangled.

God can be any correctly specified god. Of course, it will more than likely be the God of the desert, in this discussion. Certain faculties/claims/skills of this god can be tested-ish, to a certain extent, but whether he actually exists cannot be tested, and therefore science would be silent on the matter. This goes for all god/s and it also goes for magic teapots, etc.

If you can provide a reliable, consistent scientific test for god/s, magic teapots, please provide one. Any of the tests that have been provided so far could be explained away by anything you come up with. ANYTHING.

stevejazzx

seamus wrote: »

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.

That is true except for the fact that we cannot fully claim that God does not answer prayers despite all the evidence suggesting it. There may well be a way in which a prayer is answered, in the longterm or in a way that is completely mysterious to us. In the same way we cannot 'test' God on anything because said God already has, by default, abilities outside of our scope and understanding. So what we can test is the whether or not a God that has been reported is still operating in the same way as the reports suggests. If we chose something like prayer answering then we would have to include all the events which happen to our test group and to the people with whom our test group have an immediate effect on.
Also we need to conduct it over the course of the lifespan of everyone involved. Now these parameters are still not perfect but they allow us the opportunity to to include much more evidence for 'prayers which have been answered indirectly'. The evidence would of course be in part open to interpretation as inevitably most of the prayers will be deemed as being answered indirectly. That only represents a small part of the complexity involved in conducting a test of whether of not a God answers prayers. So without even going into the idea that we would miss evidence because God is mysterious the evidence that it would be possible to unearth is too complex in to be quantified. The straightforward study as suggested by Zillah is unnecessary from the outset as if it were the case that God was directly answering requests to say something as low as even 5% it would be easily observable in our daily lives.

Naz_st

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Certain faculties/claims/skills of this god can be tested-ish, to a certain extent, but whether he actually exists cannot be tested, and therefore science would be silent on the matter.

So you can test aspects of this god, but not whether he actually exists?

I think your point is that the hypothesis of an all-powerful God who doesn't interfere in the material world can't be tested? Is therefore definitionally "untestable" in the material world, as this definition of God doesn't impinge on it?

But surely a God of that type is essentially the same as no God (a non-existant God also wouldn't impinge on the material world in exactly the same fashion as your "untestable" God).

So, assigning "untestable" as an attribute of a subset of Godhood is meaningless, no?

philologos

pH wrote: »

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.

There aren't scientists who are Christians? That's what I meant.