Why do atheists want "God" to be proven by some kind of scientific method before they...?

Question

...give the possibility any serious thought?

Mankind is flawed. Anything mankind creates will be flawed as well. Thus, the scientific method is flawed. If you were going to search for a definitive, comprehensible (to mere mortals) piece of evidence for something as infinitely complex as the concept of an immortal, infinite deity, then the scientific method (or any other man-made means of inquiry) would be the last avenue you'd want to head down!

Now, although I'm not religious, and I see all religions as scams, I think the religious folks, at their core being, may be on the right track with this issue. Human beings themselves are much more complex and able than any outside method of biased discretion they could create, thus, it would seem that the only possible way to find or make a connection with an infinite source of energy such as a possible deity, would be to engage in the pondering and questioning from within your own being, using your inherent intuition to guide you, as we would be connected to the infinite source of energy ourselves if we indeed came from it.

Creating an external, limited method of analyzing visible data, and then relying solely upon that method to find evidence of something as infinitely complex as God would simply be foolish. Don't you think?

Answer 1

Soo.... Guess? A wall of text for "guess"?



So, another way to look at this.



If everything humans create is flawed, why would we use our intuition which is flawed to look for this infinitely powerful, best-hide-and-seeker-in-the-universe?



To consider it another way; If everything we create is flawed, and we created god, this would explain why every god ever created is flawed, as if created by flawed human?



Just...



Maybe...



;)

Answer 2

The scientific method is the best process we have for making determinations about the objective world. Reality can be characterized from two perspectives. An emic (subjective) reality is what we perceive to be true based on our impressions and intuition, etc. The etic reality is what is really real completely independent of our ability to perceive it making it objective. The scientific method works so well -- when used properly -- because it has checks and balances to ensure the determinations we make about the physical world are actually reflective of the physical world and not just our perception of it. This is why our experiments have to be repeatable, verifiable, falsifiable, etc.



The problem with the idea of gods is that we don't have any reason whatsoever to believe it exists in the etic reality. The idea of god is only ever represented as a subjective one. There have been tens of thousands of gods that people have believed in, each of them subjective beliefs. The only reason we have the concept of gods is that some people believe in them. Furthermore, when you study history and the history of belief in gods, you can quite clearly see that belief in gods has evolved.



Your concept that humans are flawed is, frankly, flawed. What is your basis for comparison? Perfection? Humans are not perfect? What does that even mean? Do you expect humans to be perfect? Should humans be perfect? What would that look like? Nature doesn't select for perfection, but for what works.



Surely you realize that the characteristic of a deity you are describing is also one that YOU are putting on that deity. YOU are the one saying gods are unknowable entities. Yet, all the recorded history of belief in gods is of the characteristics that people have put on that deity. If you ignored all descriptions of gods where people were describing characteristics of said gods, you would be left with nothing. We have no evidence or reason to believe in an unknowable god.



The very idea of an unknowable god is an example of the infinite regression of religious thought. Gods once lived on distant mountaintops or in the clouds and then we visited those places and found nothing. Gods were thought to be stars, suns and moons and when we discovered more about those places, once again we had to change our conception of gods. Your 'unknowable' god is not in a virtuous place for being unknowable. It merely smacks of convenience.



Also, it is telling the way you use the term god that you are referring to the specific Abrahamic depiction of a deity. Otherwise you wouldn't be using the term capitalized or singular.



It is essential that we be able to define the concept of god in a way that is useful and testable. Your conception of god is undefined and unworkable but there is one useful definition. Gods are memetic entities that exist in the minds of believers. This definition satisfies the entirety of the religious experience to the point where it is no longer necessary to consider the objective existence of gods.



If gods are only ever subjective, why bother projecting them onto the objective reality? That is all you are doing is presuming your subjective reality is really real when you are claiming your unknowable idea of god is real and unknowable.



I do not think you are a moron but I do not think you know what you do not know.

Answer 3

As far as I am concerned whatever is claimed without evidence may be dismissed without debate, and you offer no evidence for your assertion that scientific method is flawed. I can offer evidence to support the claim that it is the most effective method of acquiring knowledge that we have, and while it may not be sufficient to the task of *understanding* God it is certainly adequate at determining whether or not your claim that God exists is anything more than an unsubstantiated assertion. The issue is not whether or not we can know that God exists - for atheists the issue is why should we believe you if you have no way to show what you say is true?



If someone offers to sell me the Brooklyn Bridge I am not likely to ever accept any proof of ownership, since history shows that to have been a scam. Similarly if you want me to believe your claim that God exists you will have to provide evidence for your extraordinary claim to MY satisfaction, because thousands of religions have made similar claims and none of them have ever presented any evidence. Otherwise I have no reason to think you are anything other than yet another fraud or con-artist (aka priest/imam/rabbi/etc.)



If you want me to accept that your God exists -- then put up or shut up. If you can't then stop wasting everyone's time with pointless and banal rhetoric.

Answer 4

"Why do atheists want "God" to be proven by some kind of scientific method before they...?"

I don't really care cos I KNOW it's impossible cos god is imaginary.





1. There is NO evidence which points to an imaginary psychopath in space suffering cerebral palsy, uncontrollably waving his arms about, creatin' stuff outa nothin' for no discernable reason.



2. Just by the SIMPLE act of looking around anyone can see that shït happens to all and sundry regardless of ANY thought, deed or circumstance, exactly as if there was NO invisible space chappie pulling any strings at all.



The world works exactly as you'd expect if there were no god.



I have no evidence to back up my belief that Universe is constantly expanding and then contracting but it just makes more sense to me than an invisible sky guy who came from nowhere for no reason *poofing* all this out of nothing, just one time only.



It seems like a hell of a lot of effort to go to just so you can play psychotic games with mere humans offering them Heaven or Hell as a choice when everyone has not been given the same chances to pick the 'right box' AND ‘he’ already knows what the outcome is in any case… like, how stupid is that?



[[ edit ]]

"Everard, YOU gave "God" all those characteristics. You hate what you have created. What a silly goof you are. Prove that God has those characteristics if you can, and prove that he ever did anything wrong to you"



I didn't give any imaginary creature those characteristics.

They're self-evident in bibel (you should read it) IF such a critter existed...

And 'he' doesn't exist in any dimension - that's why I have no FEAR.



Oh, and stop trying to beat me with logic - you care and I don't = I already win ;)

You're not up to it and I'm not even that smart.

You really should look up Pseudo - Intellectual.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pseudo-intellectual&defid=4454105

~

Answer 5

By "scientific method" do you mean, for example, independently verified sources for its extraordinary claims? Then yes. If you make claims about reality, evidence for those claims should also be found within reality.



You're concept of "flawed" is based on your concept of "perfection"(lacking any possible flaws), which is a concept that has no physical representation. So saying "Mankind(which is physical) is flawed" is obvious, it couldn't be anything but that. Because "perfect"(lacking any possible flaws) is purely conceptual.



"...something as infinitely complex as the concept of an immortal, infinite deity..." Again trying to apply concepts that have no physical representation to reality as if they physically existed. "Infinity" is just a concept based on an extension of our concept of a quantity. And "eternity" an extension of our concept of time. No such concepts have any actually represented physically(only the signals forming them in your brain). Why would your erroneous theoretical application of such concepts be of interest to anyone?



The scientific method is just a form of analyzing reality that has demonstrated itself as resulting in the most accurate conclusions. And it certainly doesn't need to analyze concepts that have no physical representation as if they did.



EDIT: "as if we don't already know perfection is a concept."



Your problem is that you're not differentiating between concepts like "apple" with direct physical representations, and concepts like "perfect" or "eternity". You can't expect something physical and real(like humans) to match your concept of "perfect", when "perfect" is not represented physically. So clearly you do not understand, because this is a blatant mistake that you're making.



"Why would anyone be interested in such a thing? Really?"



Why would anyone be interested in the implications you find after erroneously applying concepts like perfection and infinity as if they have physical representations? It's a matter of your own laziness/incredulity, not a matter of any flaws in science.

Answer 6

"Mankind is flawed. Anything mankind creates will be flawed as well."



I agree...look at the god of the bible. Created by man in the image of man.



Bible god : Murders innocent babies and children to get what it selfishly desires (egypt's first born, amalikites, flood, she bears sent to murder 40 children).



A god that suffers from severe emotional problems such as anger and jealousy...a god that is so full of itself that it threatens to hurt me badly for eternity if I don't worship it...oh boo hoo poor little child has to lash out at those who refuse to give it what it wants.



Why would I worship a god with such glaring flaws?



Why would I think a god that can be easily compared to Saddam Hussein actually exists?



Why would I need any kind of scientific method to argue against the existence of a baby murdering book god with emotional problems?

Answer 7

If something exists or manifests itself in our world, then it has to be able to be tested and proved demonstrably through verifiable scientific means.



Where else do you not demand proof?



I mean if I should a car that was an absolutely lemon, but told you it had a magical switch that made it fly, would you buy it despite never having any experience or a y evidence for it?



What if I told you I had experiences in my magical car, and so did other people, what if I told you there were books written about my magical car?



Would you buy it just on faith?



What about if you came to see the car, and I insisted it was flying and it was not, and I told you that the reason why it was not flying because you were stubborn or sinful.



What about if I threaten you, will that make you want to buy the car?



What about if I told you I did not have to provide evidence for it, that its something that just was and you had to accept?



No, then do not expect me to buy you have a god without any scientific evidence.



Stop making excuses for having no Evidence and start realising you believe in myths.

Answer 8

so by that same logic anything can be true because nothing can be proven. I could claim that the world is going to have a zombie Apocalypse tomorrow and only you will not realize it. And you could not prove me wrong. But if you look at it from an atheists point of view, there is nothing to prove it to them. Im not an atheist, but its called faith for a reason. You have to believe with no proof.

Answer 9

The scientific method isn't perfect, it's true, simply because humans aren't perfect. But, it's the best we have.



However, any all-powerful deity should be easily detected, one would think. Unless it didn't want to be detected, in which case, why would it want me to worship it?



Edit: I'm inclined to agree with you there. If you haven't already, I highly recommend the viewing of Marjo, a documentary about Marjo Gortner and how he used preaching to get ridiculous amounts of cash.

Answer 10

Some questions on YA are well thought and are a pleasure to respond to.



Others contain such poor logic and thought that they show the person asking it ot be a buffoon.



This question is of the second variety.

Answer 11

'Mankind is flawed. Anything mankind creates will be flawed as well.'



-That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.-



-I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.--Stephen F. Roberts



-Why do theists want "Zeus" to be proven by some kind of scientific method before they...?-



You're a major willful moron. HTH.

Answer 12

Energy is just the transfer of molecules. Electromagnetic radiation energy, for instance, is just made of photons in oscillation from one space to another. Given that energy is a purely natural, observable, measurable phenomenon, please don't equate it to God. It's untrue and sounds dumb.



And before we can decide how to measure God, we need a definition, at least.

Answer 13

Considering we are flawed contemplating your flawed belly button would hardly help you find a god

Answer 14

So basically, we cannot test god because... we are flawed? Isnt that just a cop out and basically your way of saying "YOU CAN'T QUESTION HIM!"



I fail to see why empiricism is bad.

_______

That's right. Humans are a bit flawed, and so is the scientific method.



So stop all thinking and dont question the possibility of god

Answer 15

I believe in the Flying Spaghetti monster, and since you can't disprove his existence that means he exists.



That is usually a theist's method of logic. You don't need the scientific method, a common sense and logical way of thinking is good enough to prove the nonexistence of a religious being.

Answer 16

if you have ever heard of the phrase " if you see it, you believe it" so thats what they follow. and wont ever consider the chance of god being real for just a simple phrase. or they had never asked god for any help to there problem, so they had never seen god do any miricles in their miserable lives.

Amen

Answer 17

No, not at all. Your reasoning is foolish. There is no sane reason to believe in the existence of any invisible magician as a cause for ANYTHING.

Answer 18

The scientific method is the best method we have for minimising bias so as to determine reality and truth

Answer 19

If mankind is flawed, then certainly any understanding mankind has about religion or deities is also flawed.



Believing in magic is considerably more foolish than relying on evidence.

Answer 20

well, they want to be sure before they sign there life away to a being, that this being actually exists.

Not totally unfair. Does that make them right? Obviously not. But it isn't totally unreasonable.

Answer 21

Yes we humans are flawed and so is your god. Hence the reason he gave us ALL this water yet we can't drink most of it because it's too salty for us to consume.



So sorry but your god isn't perfect either.

Answer 22

Why do you want proof the doctor that will operate on you is actually a doctor?



I'm not going to waste my life on a "maybe".

Answer 23

Okay, if you can't prove to me god is real I have no reason to believe it.

Answer 24

Have you read the Bible?

Answer 25

Dude, atheists are dumb. Learn to grasp that and move on. James 4:7 God Bless

Answer 26

That is correct



100%



in fact