The Power of Prayer
- This topic has 245 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
To me it makes a difference because it is often asked to “define God.” and “provide evidence.” The implication is it should be something presented in peer reviewed research or it’s not valid. I disagree. Even with peer reviewed research, just because someone manages to get published doesn’t mean there paper then holds a “new truth.”….it must be a collection of data over a long period of time to build the basis for a theory and even then….it comes down to who can cough up the dough for the research. That (to me) is not a system ever capable of defining a deity.
This is an exact copy of the tired argument Dr. Bob used. It is post-modern like and it is a cop-out.
First…when I defined myself and humans yesterday, I didn’t do it for any other reason than to demonstrate that we can define humans and an individual…which you challenged others as though it was impossible. I demonstrated that you wrong. It is possible to define humans and other things. I defined humans in a way that requires little research, in most cases no peer-reviewed papers and for the most part simple observation. A 12 year old could test many of the details I gave when describing humans with not scientific training.
Peer reviewed research is not perfect. Some of it requires years to iron out errors and kinks, but other research is robust and fairly concrete from the beginning (the rate of growth of a bacteria, the rate of jaywalking at an intersection, the trajectory and speed of a nearby asteroid etc. But in every single case, it deals with a claim that can be tested followed by actual testing and the results published which are also held up to scrutiny by others. The only exception is when it comes to the subjective arts like “literary studies” where old men pontificate about what Shakespeares plays mean. That’s precisely what theology is…old men repeating completely subjective interpretations of an old book that is vague and makes no claims. You cannot call that knowledge.
Your God doesn’t satisfy any of the above. It’s existentiality cannot be observed, it cannot be tested through research or experiments or statistics, figures of data. And the only prime source is an ancient book that is full of impossible errors and makes no claims that can be tested. And this is done on purpose as with all fantastical claims.
We are not asking for a statement we must study in a lab or research through painstaking peer review. We are asking for one single aspect that can be observed, even tested by a 12 year old, confirmed, looked into anything. Just one. Christians like to complain that we ask for certainty. That’s not the case. We are asking for ANYTHING that can be scrutinized. It rarely happens and the few times they do…they fail. God would never survive if you guys tried to define it.
You guys have had THOUSANDS of years to “peer-review” and end up with a reasonable argument. And yet there is none to be found. It is absurd to compare theological peer-review with just about any other peer-review.
Humans, the origins of the universe, love and anger, consciousness, gravity have been defined in a way that is mostly falsifiable and is being tested. God is not (and on purpose). He’s a pile of evasive claims and impossible to reasonably confirm statements. His whole being is “studied” in the way you would study Harry Potters books and is presented in a way that is so vague and elipsical that everyone fills in the blanks with whatever they want or often what other people tell them to. That is a cop-out.
There is not a way to sum up all of God into one small succinct explanation.
Of course not…say anything testable about God and it won’t survive scrutiny. We aren’t asking for a claim about God that finishes in two sentences, you are misrepresenting what we are asking for. Your claim is documented in a book with thousands of little claims, and not a single one is testable or stands up to scrutiny. When humans base a world view on a complex fantastical claims (be it a God or a political ideology) which avoid any way to reliably work it out…misinformation, confusion and human abuse follows (or simply put…disaster). “New Atheist” are tired of the abuse, misinformation, confusion and disaster.
RE: We aren’t asking for a claim about God that finishes in two sentences, you are misrepresenting what we are asking for.
(banging my head against the wall) that is what I have been trying to clarify for MONTHS and YOU called me a liar claiming it was all spelled out for me. I told you you were wrong. I still don’t understand I really don’t.
It has Belle. You simply haven’t been taking our responses seriously…and continue repeating the same questions we’ve already answered. I have run out of other ways to explain this.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.