I can demonstrate an experiment that is repeatable by anyone and everyone at any time and any place. This experiment proves there is no omnipresent God. Open you eyes and look to your right, your left, in front of you and behind you and up and down. Do this any where and everywhere you go. Never will you ever see God upon doing this. This proves that an omnipresent God does not exist. This experiment is repeatable with the same result every time it is done. And no matter who does it, the result will always be the same. There you go, proof that there is no omnipresent God.
But I can do the same thing and never see or sense radio waves, either. And in the current American atmosphere, I'm pretty sure radio waves are omnipresent!
I remain open to the idea that there are things that we don't yet know for sure exist. And the existence of God is really dependent on your definition of it. There are some things I can say I'm 100% sure of, for example, the non-existence of a God who will not allow a sparrow to fall. The non-existence of a God who uplifts the good and casts down the evil. The non-existence of a God who makes sure OUR football team wins!
I am honestly pessimistic that there will ever be any proof of a God, but I am also not so arrogant as to say there is nothing out there that we don't already know about. I truly invite believers to try to convince me, but no one has passed the test yet, and I doubt they ever will.
Hi Natalie, how are things?
You can sense radio waves. As soon as you turn on your radio you can sense them. This is proof that they exist.
The argument I am making is in relation to science and God. Science is only applicable to that which we can sense/observe, by definition. Because nobody has ever sensed/observed God, God is not in the realm of science. He is outside science. He is in the realm of science fiction/fantasy.
I am also not so arrogant as to say there is nothing out there that we don't already know about
Again, science can explain everything that can be observed/sensed. If it can not be observed/sensed then it is not in the realm of science.
If god existed, the scientific method wouldn't.I never thought about it like that, but you are right. Because he could just make a planet appear from nothing, and make Venus habitable by just wishing it so, and he could walk on water etc.
Actually, that strikes me as a very succinct demolition of the idea of god. If miracles were possible, physical laws couldn't be, and vice versa.
TK may be on to something, but NTK drives along a dangerous path IMHO
Knowledge can be contextually valid, that is fully integrated into a knowledge base without contradiction, and if it is, in the absence of contradictory evidence, can be certain knowledge. In fact, I think certain knowledge is somewhat redundant. For if it is found, in the future, to be false, then it wasn't knowledge. Example, the heliocentric model. The Earth centered model was not knowledge.