Book Plunge: Why Science Does Not Disprove God

[Gary]

In other words you have no suggestions for a scientific examination of Jesus interaction with the physical world except, "don't believe it."

If religious zealots today claimed to have interacted with little green Martians on a farm in Iowa 30-40 years ago, what evidence would you demand?

[One Bad Pig]

I understand your anger and contempt. However, I believe that what I am doing is necessary and a social good: I believe the world will be a much better place when all supernatural claims are debunked.

Anger? Do think that if you throw enough wild guesses out there, you'll get something right by accident? I'm more sad for you than anything.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Gary really thinks we have anger and contempt?

That is quite amusing.

[Jedidiah]

If religious zealots today claimed to have interacted with little green Martians on a farm in Iowa 30-40 years ago, what evidence would you demand?

You specifically wrote:

. . . But the existence of Yahweh-Jesus is not because Yahweh-Jesus claims to have interacted with the physical/material world, and these physical interactions with a physical world should therefore be open to scientific investigation.

I am open to a scientific investigation. Explain to me how investigating a modern claim has any scientific relevance to reported " physical interactions with a physical world" by Jesus over 2000 years ago. It sounds exactly as if you are simply saying "don't believe." If you have more I would appreciate hearing it. If you want to simply emote, I am not interested.

[Gary]

You specifically wrote:

I am open to a scientific investigation. Explain to me how investigating a modern claim has any scientific relevance to reported " physical interactions with a physical world" by Jesus over 2000 years ago. It sounds exactly as if you are simply saying "don't believe." If you have more I would appreciate hearing it. If you want to simply emote, I am not interested.

The Christian god says that he created the universe in six days, approximately 6,000 years ago if we are to believe the genealogies in Genesis. Science has proven this belief false.

The Christian god says that he flooded the entire planet, 22 cubits above the highest mountains (Everest). Science has proven this is not true.

The Christian god said that he led several millions Hebrews out of ancient Egypt to wander and die (all but two) in the desert of the Sinai. Science/archeology has proven this is not true.

The Christian god claims that he reanimated the three-day-dead decomposing body of a first century Jewish prophet. Science/Medicine says this is impossible.

I strongly suggest that you NOT believe the Christian god on the matter of whether or not he reanimated a dead corpse two thousand years ago because he has a very poor track record of being correct.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

The Christian god says that he created the universe in six days, approximately 6,000 years ago if we are to believe the genealogies in Genesis....

The Christian god says that he flooded the entire planet, 22 cubits above the highest mountains (Everest)...

The Christian god said that he led several millions Hebrews out of ancient Egypt to wander and die (all but two) in the desert of the Sinai...

The Christian god claims that he reanimated the three-day-dead decomposing body of a first century Jewish prophet.

...no, the books of Genesis, Exodus, and the New Testament say these things. And not even all Christians believe that this is intended to be a literal, historically accurate picture of cosmology, geology, or history (though it's exceedingly rare to find a Christian who thinks the Resurrection is mythology or legendry).

Science has proven this belief false...
Science has proven this is not true...
Science/archeology has proven this is not true...
Science/Medicine says this is impossible.

It is also not true that "Science has proven this belief [about cosmology] false." Science has shown that it is overwhelmingly likely that this belief is false, surely. But this is based on a great deal of inductive logic; and while inductive logic can be enormously powerful and incredibly convincing, it falls exceedingly short of deductive proof.

Nor have Science and Archeaology proven that the Exodus did not occur. There is absolutely no extra-Biblical evidence that this event did occur, and I would agree that it seems incredibly unlikely that it did. However, when you overstep the bounds of reason to pretend that something has been "proven" when it has not, you are committing the very same fallacy that you are accusing Christians of making.

Similarly medicine says that we have no idea how a deceased body could be Resurrected. It does not claim that Resurrection is impossible. It is every bit as much an Argument from Ignorance fallacy to say, "we do not know how Resurrection can occur, therefore Resurrection cannot occur," as it is to say, "we do not know how abiogenesis is possible, therefore abiogenesis is impossible." Again, I obviously do not believe that the Resurrection occurred any more than you do; but when you make exaggerated claims like these, you sound more like a fanatic and an ideologue than an honest seeker of truth.

I strongly suggest that you NOT believe the Christian god on the matter of whether or not he reanimated a dead corpse two thousand years ago because he has a very poor track record of being correct.

What an incredibly awkward and perverse statement. You've put yourself in the strange position of affirming that the Christian god exists and asserting that this god has made several incorrect claims, all in an ostensible attempt to show that the Christian god does not exist.

It is exactly statements like this that cause many Christians to think that atheists secretly do believe in God, and are just rebelling against him. Do us all a favor: step back from the hyperbole and the hype, for a bit, and stop giving the apologists so much ammunition to work with.

[Gary]

...no, the books of Genesis, Exodus, and the New Testament say these things. And not even all Christians believe that this is intended to be a literal, historically accurate picture of cosmology, geology, or history (though it's exceedingly rare to find a Christian who thinks the Resurrection is mythology or legendry).


It is also not true that "Science has proven this belief [about cosmology] false." Science has shown that it is overwhelmingly likely that this belief is false, surely. But this is based on a great deal of inductive logic; and while inductive logic can be enormously powerful and incredibly convincing, it falls exceedingly short of deductive proof.

Nor have Science and Archeaology proven that the Exodus did not occur. There is absolutely no extra-Biblical evidence that this event did occur, and I would agree that it seems incredibly unlikely that it did. However, when you overstep the bounds of reason to pretend that something has been "proven" when it has not, you are committing the very same fallacy that you are accusing Christians of making.

Similarly medicine says that we have no idea how a deceased body could be Resurrected. It does not claim that Resurrection is impossible. It is every bit as much an Argument from Ignorance fallacy to say, "we do not know how Resurrection can occur, therefore Resurrection cannot occur," as it is to say, "we do not know how abiogenesis is possible, therefore abiogenesis is impossible." Again, I obviously do not believe that the Resurrection occurred any more than you do; but when you make exaggerated claims like these, you sound more like a fanatic and an ideologue than an honest seeker of truth.

What an incredibly awkward and perverse statement. You've put yourself in the strange position of affirming that the Christian god exists and asserting that this god has made several incorrect claims, all in an ostensible attempt to show that the Christian god does not exist.

It is exactly statements like this that cause many Christians to think that atheists secretly do believe in God, and are just rebelling against him. Do us all a favor: step back from the hyperbole and the hype, for a bit, and stop giving the apologists so much ammunition to work with.

i·ro·ny1 /ˈīrənē/

noun: irony

the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.

[Jedidiah]

The Christian god says that he created the universe in six days, approximately 6,000 years ago if we are to believe the genealogies in Genesis. Science has proven this belief false.

The Christian god says that he flooded the entire planet, 22 cubits above the highest mountains (Everest). Science has proven this is not true.

The Christian god said that he led several millions Hebrews out of ancient Egypt to wander and die (all but two) in the desert of the Sinai. Science/archeology has proven this is not true.

The Christian god claims that he reanimated the three-day-dead decomposing body of a first century Jewish prophet. Science/Medicine says this is impossible.

I strongly suggest that you NOT believe the Christian god on the matter of whether or not he reanimated a dead corpse two thousand years ago because he has a very poor track record of being correct.

Well if you choose to believe one particular interpretation of the Genesis story your first two accounts are okay. Since I do not accept the interpretation you choose to attack, your account is not answering me at all. Not to mention the fact that you are still not doing any scientific examination of the Biblical report of Jesus activities. You are simply saying what we know about other things today must certainly apply to what happened then. I was still looking for a response related to your desire to subject "these physical interactions with a physical world" via "scientific investigation." You still have not explained how you propose to do this scientific investigation of events of 2000 years ago.

I suggest you check out Reasons To Believe for some help on this.

[Sea of red]

Disclaimer: I think the user Gary is an idiot too.

Nor have Science and Archeaology proven that the Exodus did not occur. There is absolutely no extra-Biblical evidence that this event did occur, and I would agree that it seems incredibly unlikely that it did. However, when you overstep the bounds of reason to pretend that something has been "proven" when it has not, you are committing the very same fallacy that you are accusing Christians of making.

I simply don't care for this kind of reasoning. If one takes the account of the Exodus story as history then one has to ignore the screaming silence that shows how unlikely it is. It is not necessary to "prove" anything by history in the sense that we can be absolutely certain of what took place. It's just like we can't prove Jesus, John The Baptist, or the Apostle Paul lived, but that doesn't stop Jesus mythers from their theories. Why? Because history is never certain. We can be pretty certain that based on the available evidence, Jesus was an historical person. By that same standard we can write the Exodus off as being mostly ( if not entirely) a mythological tale.

Similarly medicine says that we have no idea how a deceased body could be Resurrected. It does not claim that Resurrection is impossible. It is every bit as much an Argument from Ignorance fallacy to say, "we do not know how Resurrection can occur, therefore Resurrection cannot occur," as it is to say, "we do not know how abiogenesis is possible, therefore abiogenesis is impossible." Again, I obviously do not believe that the Resurrection occurred any more than you do; but when you make exaggerated claims like these, you sound more like a fanatic and an ideologue than an honest seeker of truth.

This is just silly. Modern neurology and medical science do construct theories on death, and none of them include resurrections. If they included resurrections as a possibility then medical examiners and pathologists would never be able to due their job. To compare such an idea to abiogenesis is a very poor analogy because at least an abiogenesis has constructive, predictive theory, that is consistent within current frameworks of biochemistry. There isn't even an idea - much less a theory or hypothesis - where a resurrection occurs in medicine.

[Gary]

Well if you choose to believe one particular interpretation of the Genesis story your first two accounts are okay. Since I do not accept the interpretation you choose to attack, your account is not answering me at all. Not to mention the fact that you are still not doing any scientific examination of the Biblical report of Jesus activities. You are simply saying what we know about other things today must certainly apply to what happened then. I was still looking for a response related to your desire to subject "these physical interactions with a physical world" via "scientific investigation." You still have not explained how you propose to do this scientific investigation of events of 2000 years ago.

I suggest you check out Reasons To Believe for some help on this.

Ok, let me try to make this clear: There is zero evidence in the history of mankind of a witnessed reanimation/resurrection of a dead body. None. Zip. Zero. Not even Christianity claims that the actual resurrection of Jesus' body was witnessed, they only allege post-resurrection appearances, and the only one of these alleged witnessed appearances, from whom we have an actual statement, from the alleged witness himself, is Paul of Tarsus, and he specifically says it was a vision.

Science, in particular, medicine, can say that the probability of a first century reanimation is highly improbable due to the fact that today, with our advanced technology, we are unable to reanimate dead human tissue, just as science can state that it is highly improbable that a seventh century man flew on a winged horse to heaven due to the fact that we have no fossil evidence of any winged horses.

That is what science can do. Science cannot PROVE that a first century reanimation did NOT happen. But, science can give you probabilities of events which occur in the real world which allows you to make up your own mind as to the probability of events that have never been observed in human history, such as the reanimation of a dead body, or a flying horse.

[Gary]

Disclaimer: I think the user Gary is an idiot too.


I simply don't care for this kind of reasoning. If one takes the account of the Exodus story as history then one has to ignore the screaming silence that shows how unlikely it is. It is not necessary to "prove" anything by history in the sense that we can be absolutely certain of what took place. It's just like we can't prove Jesus, John The Baptist, or the Apostle Paul lived, but that doesn't stop Jesus mythers from their theories. Why? Because history is never certain. We can be pretty certain that based on the available evidence, Jesus was an historical person. By that same standard we can write the Exodus off as being mostly ( if not entirely) a mythological tale.

This is just silly. Modern neurology and medical science do construct theories on death, and none of them include resurrections. If they included resurrections as a possibility then medical examiners and pathologists would never be able to due their job. To compare such an idea to abiogenesis is a very poor analogy because at least an abiogenesis has constructive, predictive theory, that is consistent within current frameworks of biochemistry. There isn't even an idea - much less a theory or hypothesis - where a resurrection occurs in medicine.

Now, now. If we are going to start calling names, here's mine for you: Christian-derrier brown-noser. You and Nick should get a room.

[Jedidiah]

Ok, let me try to make this clear: There is zero evidence in the history of mankind of a witnessed reanimation/resurrection of a dead body. None. Zip. Zero. Not even Christianity claims that the actual resurrection of Jesus' body was witnessed, they only allege post-resurrection appearances, and the only one of these alleged witnessed appearances, from whom we have an actual statement, from the alleged witness himself, is Paul of Tarsus, and he specifically says it was a vision.

Science, in particular, medicine, can say that the probability of a first century reanimation is highly improbable due to the fact that today, with our advanced technology, we are unable to reanimate dead human tissue, just as science can state that it is highly improbable that a seventh century man flew on a winged horse to heaven due to the fact that we have no fossil evidence of any winged horses.

That is what science can do. Science cannot PROVE that a first century reanimation did NOT happen. But, science can give you probabilities of events which occur in the real world which allows you to make up your own mind as to the probability of events that have never been observed in human history, such as the reanimation of a dead body, or a flying horse.

It is not cricket to assume what you are trying to demonstrate. I don't know a single Christian who claims that people are resurrected all the time. Do you know what a miracle is? You can not assume that such things do not happen to demonstrate that such things could not have happened.

[Gary]

It is not cricket to assume what you are trying to demonstrate. I don't know a single Christian who claims that people are resurrected all the time. Do you know what a miracle is? You can not assume that such things do not happen to demonstrate that such things could not have happened.

You are absolutely correct. Neither I nor anyone in science/medicine can PROVE that the Resurrection of Jesus did not happen.

It is no more possible to disprove the Resurrection of Jesus than to disprove the existence of leprechauns, fairies, or goblins. These are supernatural claims. They defy the laws of nature and are not examinable by the usual standards of evidence. However, we can use science and medicine to demonstrate that reanimations/resurrections are extremely improbable events in the collective history of human beings. Therefore when someone claims that such an event has occurred, the burden of providing extra-ordinary evidence for this extra-ordinary claim is squarely and entirely on the shoulders of the person who is making the very improbable claim. And just as with someone attempting to convince us of the existence of leprechauns, we should set the bar for acceptable, convincing evidence for this extra-ordinary claim very, very high.

[Gary]

Disclaimer: I think the user Gary is an idiot too.


I simply don't care for this kind of reasoning. If one takes the account of the Exodus story as history then one has to ignore the screaming silence that shows how unlikely it is. It is not necessary to "prove" anything by history in the sense that we can be absolutely certain of what took place. It's just like we can't prove Jesus, John The Baptist, or the Apostle Paul lived, but that doesn't stop Jesus mythers from their theories. Why? Because history is never certain. We can be pretty certain that based on the available evidence, Jesus was an historical person. By that same standard we can write the Exodus off as being mostly ( if not entirely) a mythological tale.

This is just silly. Modern neurology and medical science do construct theories on death, and none of them include resurrections. If they included resurrections as a possibility then medical examiners and pathologists would never be able to due their job. To compare such an idea to abiogenesis is a very poor analogy because at least an abiogenesis has constructive, predictive theory, that is consistent within current frameworks of biochemistry. There isn't even an idea - much less a theory or hypothesis - where a resurrection occurs in medicine.

Let me add this: You should be ashamed of yourself for your chummy relationship with the members of this cult; throwing softballs to them (for how many years?) instead of hardballs; refusing to challenge them head on, with no holds barred, regarding the discrimination-inciting indoctrination and downright insanity of their belief system; a belief system that will teach yet another generation of young children to view an ancient superstition as a higher authority than reason and science; teaching little children that if they refuse to love and obey the ghost of a 2,000 year old dead man, that this "loving, perfect, compassionate" ghost will hurl them into a dark pit to be horrifically tortured, in some fashion, for all eternity.

SHAME
ON
YOU.

[JonathanL]

Let me add this: You should be ashamed of yourself for your chummy relationship with the members of this cult; throwing softballs to them (for how many years?) instead of hardballs; refusing to challenge them head on, with no holds barred, regarding the discrimination-inciting indoctrination and downright insanity of their belief system; a belief system that will teach yet another generation of young children to view an ancient superstition as a higher authority than reason and science; teaching little children that if they refuse to love and obey the ghost of a 2,000 year old dead man, that this "loving, perfect, compassionate" ghost will hurl them into a dark pit to be horrifically tortured, in some fashion, for all eternity.

SHAME
ON
YOU.