Explain In Detail How, Using The Scientific Method, One Would Prove/ Disprove The Existence Of God?

[goodlife]

What men do can never make God false or prove God false.

[Khandro]

joko; Neither in 'this situation' nor any any other, does default mean 'the basic start position'.
jomifl; (welcome!) Answer: I don't know, do you? Why can a bird build a nest without ever having seen it done?

[vetuste_ennemi]

Welcome back, Jom.

[ll_billym]

Yes, birds do build nests. The provability of this fact does not rub off onto other things, even if they are used in the same sentence or argument though.

[joko]

oh dear. if you wish to split hairs go ahead.
it does not alter the fact that you are wrong.

in the computer language i referred to, it means the factory presets - the way it is when it comes out of the box - before it gets changed.
i used this analogy with people to mean, as we are before we are changed by outside influences

if you cannot comprehend that very simple premise then i can say no more to explain it.

everybody else understood the way i was using the term...

[Khandro]

'.........and Humpty Dumpty replies "When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."'

[joko]

lol ... you're getting a bit desperate now.

i suggest you do a bit of research before claiming i have made that up...

i used the word and i explained why - arguing that the word has more than one meaning and that the other meanings don't fit, is just childish and does nothing for your pointless argument
if you cannot understand a post, then just don't reply to it, this just makes you look a bit stupid.

[Khandro]

joko/birdie; To be called stupid by you birdie is nothing new, this epithet is distributed by you to anyone who holds views differing from your own. Now joko is ready to join the fray, so either we are speaking different languages or one of us is wrong, (or I am really stupid, which I am not). joko; In an earlier post you said; //the default state [of humanity] is really to believe nothing,// You then contradict this position by saying //in the computer language i referred to (?) , it means the factory presets //. It must be one or the other, is a human being born free of belief, or does it have the equivalent of 'factory presets' from which it can default? It is not possible to default from nothing.

[Anngel]

As a Christian I believe that Christ's teachings are of value. Whether he is the son of God or born of a virgin is irrelevant. Be good to each other and help one another. If everyone did this I think the world would be a better place. However, back to the real world which is full of self-serving malicious money-grabbing people. The best we can do is try and affect those around us and give what we can to help those who are not. As for proving the presence of God. This is less important than appreciating our surroundings and being amazed by the diversity in nature.My mother is a devout Catholic. She informs me that God answers all prayers...sometimes the answer is no, sometimes it is wait...What a cop out!

[joko]

oh khandro - like i said - you are just splitting hairs and making yourself look stupid.

i have explained why i used that word, i have explained what i meant a few times - it is actually irrelevant really, so i am not sure why you seem to have latched onto it - everybody else understood it - and actually i believe you did too - you are just being obtuse.

a computer comes out of the box with a basic set of presets in order for it to function - it has all the capabilities of a fantastic machine... its is not just a lump of plastic and metal.

humans are also born with a basic set of presets - they are preset to breathe, see, smell, taste, swallow, feel, sneeze, digest, heartbeat, process waste, learn - etc etc - the list goes on - all without any external forces ... that is our default position ...
or are you suggesting babies come of the womb like a formless jelly blob?
a blob that believes in god...?

are you really trying to say that humans automatically believe in god? ..
that it is not taught or learned or discovered, but that it is our natural state?

seriously?

[Khandro]

joko; You do talk nonsense; you list a series of birth attributes and then claim that they are "without any external forces ..." . If these attributes are without external forces, from where do they come? All life is the product of external force.

[joko]

khandro - haha ... OMG.
is english not your first language? - serious question.
because i cannot believe you are honestly misunderstanding so much, and grasping onto irrelevant words and trying to twist them.

what external force?
are you suggesting that once a baby is born they are taught all these things?
they are taught, by their families, to breathe, see, hear...?
or ... do they just grow that way naturally?

so we are back to the original point ...

You believe that babies are born with a belief system already in place - naturally ... they do not need to be taught it, because its already built into them... before they can speak, or walk etc - they believe in god...

wow...

either you are deliberately pretending to misunderstand to be argumentative or you are an idiot. haha!

[Answerprancer]

In reference to your OP, my proselytizing dogmatic friend, the burden of proof of the existence of *YOUR* diety rests upon YOUR shoulders not ours.

[Khandro]

joko; I don't think you are reading my posts correctly, nowhere have I said a child is born believing in God, and I repeat all life form is the product external forces. At least you accept that a child is born with certain 'presets' though you cannot account for their presence other than by vague and imprecise terms like "nature". Please bear with stupid me, while I try to explain why I think you have a wrong view.
At the beginning of the Heart Sutra - a Buddhist work that holds a preeminent place in Zen, are the words:
"Form is no different from emptiness.
Emptiness is no different from form.
Form is precisely emptiness,
emptiness is precisely form".
Two thousand years later Western physicists agree. Science's concept of the universe was changed irrevocably by quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity which questioned the separate identity of energy and matter. Our comfortable ideas of a universe made up of little bits of matter behaving in logical ways have been exploded. A particle is not a separate entity but a set of relationships. The world and our part in it is an interconnected tissue of events, a dynamic unbroken whole. Scientists are no longer observers but participants and physics and mysticism converge in striking parallels.
As Zukov says; " A powerful awareness lies dormant in these discoveries: an awareness of the hitherto-unsuspected powers of the mind to mould 'reality,' rather than the other way around. In this sense the philosophy of physics is becoming indistinguishable from the philosophy of Buddhism, which is the philosophy of enlightenment. "

[joko]

khandro, i understand all that - but its irrelevant.

i said that people begin without belief, and that belief in god is taught and learned thing... and therefore it is up to the religious to prove god exists, not for atheist to prove he doesn't... and you have pointlessly argued with me about it, splitting hairs etc - you said i am wrong - and if i am wrong then it must mean you are saying that we are born with belief - since that is the opposite of what i said

and now you're saying you didnt say that...
like i said you are just arguing for the sake of it, because you dont want to accept that religion is not the natural state of a human being.

your comment

[joko]

sorry got cut off

your comments stem from a religious notion - so therefore dont count

[Khandro]

^ //i understand all that// That my friend, I doubt very much.

[joko]

khandro - lol, coming from you it really doesn't mean very much

but yes, obviously you are the only person who understands everything - the person who thinks people being able to heal wounds is some how unexplained and supernatural, and the work of a higher being, and who thinks babies have an inbuilt belief system ... and who also cannot understand simple words and their premise ...

yeah you have all the answers ...haha

[WaldoMcFroog]

Khandro - you appear to have misunderstood what "Mitochondrial Eve" actually is. She's not the first human, but the most recent common ancestor of all humans currently alive. There were other humans at the same time (and other humans before her), but their lines ended. All currently living humans are directly descended from Mitochondrial Eve via the matrilineal line.

[jim360]

There's no mysticism in quantum mechanics, that's just a load of old hoo-ha invented by people who read far too much into it.