Why can we not observe God?
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
@Captain Crunch Re: "...and it might be true that god is a banana."
Well, unfortunately, if god was a banana, Cog would have eaten him by now. Therefore, we still may never know one way or the other... *disappointed sigh*...
And since god is supposdly THE PERFECT being, the banana should be utterly delicious.
@Captian Crunch: Universe creating bananas? Hmmmm? Nope. I am sticking with the Blue Universe Creating Bunny Rabbits. It's either that or Turtles all the way down.
Whatever, as long as the bananas are good.
You said that "Nobody can know that something doesn't exist we only know what exist." Are you saying that an atheist cannot know that god does not exist? Are you saying we cannot prove a negative? Science proves negatives all the time. The earth is not flat. If I had the ability I could drain the Lock Ness and prove there is not monster in the lake.
"Science proves negatives all the time."
Nothing can be examined by science unless it is falsifiable. All unfalsifiable claims are rejected as unscientific.
Define your deity, with evidence and then if it is falsifiable your demand it be disproved will make sense.
Until then, its just the same tired cliched old canard theists trot out to obfuscate away from fact they an demonstrate no objective evidence for their belief or deity.
"Science proves negatives all the time. The earth is not flat."
Your logic has failed. Science has proven that this Earth is an oblate spheroid. That is all it has proven. Since an oblate spheroid is not a flat object, that rules out a flat earth.
Did you know that the top of Mount Everest is not the peak furthest from the center of the earth? Chimborazo is.
Look! Up in the sky! It's a bird! It's a plane! It'sss It'sss It'sss WHAT THE FK IS IT?
I don't know what it is. It's wearing a mask!
"Nobody can know that something doesn't exist we only know what exist."
What kind of God would you want to exist? How would you like to relate to such a being? Would you rather interact with him on a one-to-one basis or would you rather go through a priest? Would you do everything he tells you to do or would you draw the line at some of his orders? What would you want him to do for you? Would you want him to be kind and generous to everyone or mean to your enemies? Would you expect special rewards for being his buddy?
We cannot observe God because the invisible dragon that is usually under my bed stands in front of him every time someone tries to see God... he is jealous.
Dave, I said in another string that I would respond to this string, so here is my attempt at answering your question.
Your question appears to be a statement disguised as a question.
You have not defined what "observing" god would look like. Should you expect to see a shining, white haired bearded man waving to you, when you look in your telescope? What should one expect to see?
You are stating that if god exists he would have to be observable in a naturalistic way. Where is your proof?
You have also implied that if god exists he would be able to be discovered and identified like any celestial object, I would like some evidence, not just opinion or guesses. Are you implying that the natural universe is all there is? Is that falsifiable, or just your belief?
Maybe you are "missing what is right in front of your face". That like a black hole, god is immensely powerful, not directly observable, but his effects are tangible? That you are seeing god through his creation. That nature can clue you into what god is like.
Please provide facts, evidence, proofs, sound reasoning, and not just your beliefs. I will sit back in doubt about your claims, until you have provided sufficient evidence that I deem valid.
My original question was "So if science can achieve such a difficult task, why not the same for god?"
One hundred years ago even Einstein could not deal with the concept of a black hole. And even today, a black hole in itself is not directly observable because by definition, you look at it, there is nothing to see. But a black hole influences everything around it. We have mapped the orbits deep within Sagittarius A, and that data has revealed that many stars follow an orbit centered on some point in space where nothing has been observed. The laws of general relativity have held strong, those laws predict black holes and their characteristics. It is those effects we have observed, and since those effects are exactly what was predicted, the observation has matched the prediction.
By the same thought process, your god is not directly observable, yet it does influence what is in this known universe. It created this universe, it has taken the form of a burning bush, it has revealed itself to people, it has brought disasters, it has answered prayers, and it has performed miracles. These are the breadcrumbs that are the starting point for research into the proof of a god.
I do not claim I know what methods would work, but a few decades ago neither did anyone know what methods would be use to provide more proof of a black hole. But thinkers kept thinking, technology advanced, and we finally found a solution. The image gleaned by the Event Horizon Telescope is a landmark in the history of science, and it has opened a new method in exploring this known universe.
Black holes have left breadcrumbs, and we followed the evidence and math to reach the famous image.
Your god has left breadcrumbs, so just like the black hole, why not god? Why is this areas of research not being pursued?
I can't fully answer why science does not "follow the breadcrumbs to god". Maybe because it is not allowed to? Or maybe it is just not capable? Isn't it a rule that all scientific answers must be naturalistic answers.
I think you are off to a good starting point about he proof of god, but can't you think of good methods to address the issue? Ones that don't prejudice your findings?
But wasn't your original question, "why you can't observe god"?
"But wasn't your original question, "why you can't observe god"?"
All you have to do is return to the OP and it is there as ........
"So if science can achieve such a difficult task, why not the same for god?"
I am not attempting to prove any god, I am asking the question why no major institute has put up the money and effort in a search using modern tools and techniques.
A good debater makes sure they have read and understand the original premise and/or question. You did not and just assumed something else. Or else you attempted a diversion, discussing something completely different than the original question. But I was ready and did not allow you to divert the conversation.
And based on your two replies in this mini-conversation, you have answered my question because you have been throwing up obstacles and excuses why we could not, or should not attempt to make an observation.
Mankind is curious, we never stop asking questions and exploring. If not, you would not have your computer, the internet, the car you drive, basically anything above the level of raw meat and living in caves or trees. The recent release of the black hole image is testament to the drive to explore and learn. And those who achieve do not ask "what reasons do we have in not attempting this endeavor?", but instead we say "let us try"
If you do not try, you will never learn and advance.
This is one reason why I am opposed to religion. If allowed, it does not promote the advancement of mankind. Your failed attempt to debate this topic adds support on that proposal.
"Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time."
Quote from Thomas Edison.
Since when does positing an unevidenced assumption like "maybe" represent fully answering anything?
Dear oh dear, this started with absurdity and has gone downhill fast.
Who told you that?
That would be a pretty shitty rule, if for no other reason than in my experience, people don't agree on what is "natural". For example: if I pile up some logs and light them on fire, is that natural?
I don't have the exact quote with me right now, but here is one that is essentially the same.
Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations
Do gods exist? Do supernatural entities intervene in human affairs? These questions may be important, but science won't help you answer them. Questions that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science.
Science is just a collection of tools used to predict the state of a system at time 2, given the state of the system at time 1. Right now mathematical modelling is the most productive tool in that box. Currently praying and tarot cards don't get the job done, but if they ever do, they will be science.
(1) They're supernatural claims, not "supernatural explanations. They'd need to cite objective evidence before they'd have any explanatory powers." Science doesn't draw conclusions about myths, fables and fictions either, it's impossible to take seriously the assertion that science not drawing conclusions about the Kraken, unicorns, or mermaids is a flaw in that method. So it's hard to ignore the bias when religious apologists ignore such an obvious double standard.
(2) The first question is too vague to be of any use, as it is prima facie unfalsifiable, thus it is demonstrably unimportant, as it can teach us nothing. The second question is an obvious oxymoron, as you are both claiming your core belief is beyond natural methodology like science to examine and that its effects can be detected in that same natural world, try again.
(3) You can't ring fence your unevidenced belief in the supernatural from science and the natural world, then simultaneously claim it has a measurable effect in that natural world, which would mean science could study that effect. So which is it, does it have a measurable effect in the natural world that science can measure or does it not? While you think that over, consider that the scientific method has conducted research into that very claim, and found intercessory prayer had no discernible effect, and I think you know this already as I have told you about it, and offered links.
You're playing fast and loose with the facts here, I must say.
"Please provide facts, evidence, proofs, sound reasoning, and not just your beliefs. I will sit back in doubt about your claims, until you have provided sufficient evidence that I deem valid."
Please provide for what? "The gnome" makes no assertions on this thread. He is just pointing out the lack of evidence of your claim.
The gnome is making many assertions in his thread. I addressed them in my response. I made no claims.
The gnome and this site, would not even be here if a claim of god was not put forward. I hope you realize that...I also hope you realize what the definition of atheism is...as it sounds like you do not have a clear understanding of who an atheist is.
-google definition- "A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."
I believe it is highly unlikely that god exists as the supernatural nature of god is disproved by many immutable natural laws of the universe. Do you personally think there is a god? If so, why?
Personally my starting point is that I disbelieve or lack belief in the non-existence of God.
No one cares in you lack belief in the non-existence of god. It means nothing. You can believe as you like.
Yes, I understand the dictionary definition of an atheist. But in practice, atheists often make many unproven claims.
So if a person says, I have looked at all the evidence, considered everything, and concluded that god does/does not exist. One conclusion requires proof and the other does not?
I believe that the many immutable natural laws of the universe are highly indicative of a god. Can either of us prove our belief? I don't think it is very good evidence to say that because there are immutable laws, they disprove an immutable law giver. One could easily go the other way with it.
Again, I don't think you understand atheism. If sufficient evidence presents itself, that any god exists, all atheists will believe. You should work on that evidence, don't you think? Now you also seem to have an aversion to stating your belief when asked...I have told you what and why I think that a god is highly unlikely...it is only fair that you do the same. The fact that you are not, when asked, shows your dishonesty...those are poor apologetic debate tactics. Can you tell us why you believe in a god?...as I told you my stance.
Jo: "So if a person (Atheist) says, "I have looked at all the evidence, considered everything, and concluded that god does/does not exist."
You understand that this is not a claim and does not require proof, right?
There are no Immutable laws in our universe. Physics breaks down at Planck Time. We have no idea what the laws of our universe are because we have not discovered them yet. We do not understand quantum gravity, black hole physics and so much more. Our 'LAWS" are descriptive and not prescriptive. We make them up based on our observations and they do not apply in all situations.... YET. We hope someday they do. We rely on the laws because scientists have proved that they are consistent and predictable in our current environment.
"The team say that situations which break the second law of thermodynamics are not ruled out in principle, but are rare."
Laws are made to be broken.
I am a / an Non-Atheist
Jo "I made no claims."
Theres two claims you have made on your profile page. So this silly game of semantics is doubly doomed to fail...
The gnome...LOL...sorry David. :)
It is all good doG.
I am actually surprised this was such an easy slam-dunk. I expected Jo to give at least a feeble attempt, but failed completely, even added weight to my original premise. Jo went into this little "contest" after thinking for at least 24 hours and fully aware of my challenge.
Theists, sheesh, what can I say.
p.s. doG, if you use the gnome reference, the correct application is "gnome on the throne" lol