The single greatest scientific pardox revealed.....er....nevermind

[Observer of dreams]

Ok heres the paradox. An atheist cannot rely on God to prove that God doesn't exsist obviously so he must rely on science. In an atheists response they say "God doesn't exist because [PLACE SCIENTIFIC FACT HERE]". Now before anyone gets defensive I want to point out that there is nothing wrong with this. The problem arises when one tries to refute the scientific finding. The main principle of science is the ability to test things.[EXAMPLE] my theory is that a balloon will float when filled with helium regardless of its color. The scientific test is essential to the art of science. Now when an atheist says "God doesn't exist because so and so is this and that. It gives the believer a chance to partake in the scientific way of thinking. So, thinking like a scientist, they refute the claim, over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over using different arguments each time. When the atheist derails every single claim you can only come to one conclusion and that is the claim cannot be tested. So here is the contradiction and thus the paradox.

[sTATEMENT]

God cannot exist because he cannot be tested by science, and is therefore illogical.

[END STATEMENT]

No person can show any evidence to show that the statement is untrue.

The statement is not scientifically testable because nothing can be provided to show it is untrue.

Since the statement cannot be tested by science the statement is therefore illogical.

[spiritman]

Ok heres the paradox. An atheist cannot rely on God to prove that God doesn't exsist obviously so he must rely on science. In an atheists response they say "God doesn't exist because [PLACE SCIENTIFIC FACT HERE]". Now before anyone gets defensive I want to point out that there is nothing wrong with this. The problem arises when one tries to refute the scientific finding. The main principle of science is the ability to test things.[EXAMPLE] my theory is that a balloon will float when filled with helium regardless of its color. The scientific test is essential to the art of science. Now when an atheist says "God doesn't exist because so and so is this and that. It gives the believer a chance to partake in the scientific way of thinking. So, thinking like a scientist, they refute the claim, over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over using different arguments each time. When the atheist derails every single claim you can only come to one conclusion and that is the claim cannot be tested. So here is the contradiction and thus the paradox.

[sTATEMENT]

God cannot exist because he cannot be tested by science, and is therefore illogical.

[END STATEMENT]

No person can show any evidence to show that the statement is untrue.

The statement is not scientifically testable because nothing can be provided to show it is untrue.

Since the statement cannot be tested by science the statement is therefore illogical.

200 years ago, you couldn't test for protons either.

[Observer of dreams]

huh?

[Observer of dreams]

Well that's what I don't get. Scientists wont except the evidence. I don't understand why tangible evidence should be provided for an intangible being. For instance I say that if you have faith in God/Jesus and pray for something you will get it, and with that comes proof, but the whole idea is rejected by science. It's not so much that God can't be tested, but anyway to prove he is real is shut down by the scientists asking for a photo. If a scientist asked for a photo of gravity he would be laughed at because you can only SEE the effects of gravity, but the gravity itself can't be seen. God can't be seen but his effects can, so why should asking for photos of God be any different than asking for photos of gravity? (I mean the actual pull itself not the bowling ball being pulled towards the Earth)

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

In this case it is God making the claim that He Loves you and desires for you not to perish. He has set out certain parameters for you to follow to partake of His Grace.

He has provided proof in the form of His only Begotten Son.

However, you deny this proof and often refuse to even examine Him.

If God knew your greatest need was a Scientific explanantion, He would have priovided one.

However your greatest need was and still is Salvation from damnation.

So He provided a Savior.

Everything else is Academic (pardon the pun).

Peace,

Dave

[AnotherTraveler]

There is a coming test, but it will not determine if God exists (by then the answer will already be known by all), rather it will determine the judgement.

There are no athiests before the White Throne.

[Guest pixy]

Science certainly has its purposes. However, we must realize that it cannot provide an explanation for everything. Like any field of academia, it only seeks to provide an explanation for that which meets a certain criteria. For example, I would not ask a mathemetician to explain to me why pink is my favourite colour. It just doesn't have anything to do with math. Likewise, I would not ask a scientist to quantify how much God loves me. Love is not something that science measures. Although I believe there a lot of facts that point to the reality of the Jesus, the manifestation of that Love, I wouldn't expect the limited field of academia to provide me with a scientific explanation of this. This would be like me asking a scientist to prove that I'm a compassionate person. Character traits cannot be quantified any more than the nature of God can be. Quite frankly, this doesn't really bother me.

I've certainly grappled with the issue of God's existance. I've read scientific journals and books on apologetics, and have gone to lectures from physicists on such topics. I've listened to both sides of the issue, and, for awhile, even found myself teeter-tottering between which explanation for the existence of earth and the possibility of a higher being was more realistic. What I finally realized, is that no explanation was ever going to truly satisfy me, because scientists have yet to fully prove any of it. Evolution hasn't been proven any more than the existence of God has. And really, I don't believe any of these related theories ever will be "proven" by science. No one alive now existed at the time of Genesis, or at the time of Christ's death and resurrection. Trying to "prove" such things is like going back to a crime scene thousands of years later and trying to find some evidence that will hold water in a courtroom.

No matter which theory I chose to accept, it is done so on faith. I am not sure of God's existence because of science, I am sure of it because I have seen God work in people's lives. I have experienced God's power in my own life, the same power that was exerted in resurrecting Christ. That's the clincher for me.

[Floatingaxe]

My position is, has, and always will be, that the burden of support rests upon the shoulders of the person making the positive statement. In this case, that is the person claiming that there is a Heaven and Hell, Jesus and God, and all the other Christian beliefs. Until something is produced to back that up factually, I'm not going to believe it.

I share your position.

Unfortunately most of us aren't given the liberty of making our own ideological choices until young adulthood. We haven't always gotten to choose what we believe in. In our childhood we were taught to believe many things before we were able to and aware we could think critically on our own. How many intellectual choices have we made "on our own"? What does "on our own" even mean? (How does one make an intellectual choice independently, without the input of others?)

Sometimes in these debates we talk like we're just floating around calmly in a sea of beliefs from among which we're free to chose, but unfortunately I don't think all of us have that much freedom.

Freedom? Not in this life without Jesus! Be free in Christ. That is true freedom!

[systemstrike_7]

There is a coming test, but it will not determine if God exists (by then the answer will already be known by all), rather it will determine the judgement.

There are no athiests before the White Throne.

Well, duh. If, when I die, I pop into being in front of some giant bearded guy in a white throne, you can be sure I'll believe he exists.

Of course, the problem is that I cannot see any reason to expect that it will happen.

I personally don't think that He will be bearded. Maybe a nicely trimmed goatee. With dreads...or maybe bald....I don't know...but He will be BEAUTIFUL!!!

[MorningGlory]

Which is why my children will be raised Unitarian and be allowed to examine all the options, from Christian to Muslim to Wiccan to atheistic. Brainwashing children into believing something so much that everything else is shut out of their vision is immoral at best and evil at worst, and I will not be a part of it.

I'm actually very grateful that I've always been a skeptic, disbelieving what I'm told, in that I now have the mental equipment left intact to examine all the sides in this issue and choose the one that made the most sense. I was not raised an atheist, but came to it after concluding that the possibility that there is no god is the most logical, reasonable, and possible.

I have to ask (and keep in mind that I ask kindly and out of genuine curiosity without any sarcasm intended) if you are truly grounded in your belief that God does not exist why are you here? Why does the subject require discussion for you? Why do you believe that your children should be free to follow their chosen path? That path could end in a mosque, a cult, a coven or worse. Parents have a duty to show their children the right path. If you have chosen atheism, and are sure of your beliefs, why are you not raising your children to believe as you do?