Have atheists redefined science to get rid of God?

Yeah it is non sequitur but eh let it serve as a warning i guess.

I guess my problem is this...atheists have tried to use science to explain away God, when in reality, you can never disprove God, no matter how hard you try. Without divine intervention, we should all probably be agnostics.

Quote, "...you can never disprove God..." Isn't it funny that they can't prove god, but insist we can't disprove god. Logic, anybody?

Well, events that transcend the natural world have to have an origin, God explains these nicely. Why is it illogical to presume that created things(universe, people, everything) have a creator?

Quote, "...the natural world have to have an origin..." That's exactly what science attempts to do by observation and facts - not speculation and faith. It is "illogical," because faith depends on believing one book called the "bible" that has many errors and contradictions.

What makes you think that there even *are* events which transcend the natural world?

thunder runner

What do you mean by "events that transcend the natural world"?
And why must those "events" have an origin? Causality only applies in the natural world. If you believe in God, you believe in some sort of transcendent event that was not created.

About created things. By saying "created" you are already assuming the answer. If the universe, people, everything, were created, then, it follows that there must have been a creator - or several creators. But why must we assume that things were created?

Because it is illogical to assume that they spontaneously made themselves.

yes that IS your problem; not mine!

the burden of proof is on the claimant, not the critic - if you wish to propose the existence of something for which there is absolutely no concrete evidence, the burden of proof, is on you!, not those who find the suggestion nonsense.

[if there is a 'creator' of humanity, it is either an alien from a distant world, much like our own, or the chance perturbations of the solar wind.]

the whole concept of a deity, as an uncreated creator, negates itself.

[the concept of there having to be a 'creation' is negated by the logical need for the 'creator' to be 'created', ad infinitum.]

I'm not sure if I am taking this right...do you mean to try and disprove God, because someone had to create him?

yes, actually the required iterations of creation tell the whole story.

for every deity that creates something, it implies that there had to be a deity that created it, and so on, and so on............ad infinitum.

[i won't bother to point out that there did not have to be a starting point, at all - that is a myopic 'religious' conceprt!]

Creationists are required to have a "starting point," because that's the only answer available to them. Without it, everything else falls apart.

thunder runner

No, you think it's illogical because you persist in the idea of creation. If you face the possibility of a world never created, but always changing, there is no need for a starting point.

Are you saying that the universe has existed infinitely in the past?

Either something appared out of nothing, or something always existed. Seems to me that adding a god to the equation fails to change anything.

How the earth was created.
***********************
http://www.rednova.com/news/display/?id=141974&source=r_space

thunder runner

Why not? Perhaps not this kind of universe. But another form of organized matter or energy.
Even the "big bang", if we accept it, does not mean "starting from zero". Energy was already there.

God perhaps...?

thunderrunner


If you choose to name electrons and the other particles as God, be welcome.