God is a CONCEPT

    It is impossible to prove or disprove god because god neither exists nor fails to exist.  It's like trying to prove the number e exists: chances are that you've never actually seen e in real life, you've only read about it in books.  Of course, it would be silly to say that the existence of e is therefore infinitely improbable, since  e doesn't go about existing or not existing anyway.
    This is where /sci/ seems to be stuck, trying to prove/disprove the general concept of god.  For the arguments to progress, you need to understand the relationship between god and religion.  Religion tends to consist of three components: God(s), miracles, and practices.  Miracles are what the religion claims to be god's manifestation on Earth: these range between things that happened naturally(ie the existence of the universe, people recovering from illness on their own) and magical stories of things that never really happened(ie Moses parting the Red Sea, God creating the world in a week.)  Practices are the component of religion that says things like: love thy neighbor, thou shalt not murder, slay the infidels (often openly conflicting with itself.)  Religion ties the three together using miracles to "prove" that their god "exists" and wants them to follow their religion's practices.  The miracle->god->practice chain is normally non sequitur and is facilitated by a magic book (ie bible, qur'an) and/or a class of priests/prophets who are free to (mis)interpret the religion for the common people.
    Religion is afraid of science because science can disprove the "miracles" with which religion "proves" its god is correct.  However, neither science nor religion can prove/disprove a concept.

Hmm.  You're right, and I stand corrected.  Thank you, 4tran.  I now await an explanation from #32/37 on what "irrational arenas" mean.

>>41

32/37 here. That depends on whether you "believe" (in a non-scientific, IRrational sense) that there exists some essence of human consciousness or spirit, or life itself, that cannot be quantified and explained rationally, merely experienced in some vague way untouchable by our sciences.

Or whether you believe that science is the ultimate and only explanation or existential requirement (I suppose) of literally EVERYTHING.

#42, I was only interested on the "irrational arenas" you mentioned, so that I can understand where nonevidentiary belief possibly fits into Human lives.

>>43

Hypothetically let's say then, that I believe in the human "spirit", some essence of our consciousness that exists beyond the physical or scientific realm. Such a concept is neither provable nor disprovable by scientific method, since it has no "falsifiable" physical influence, however because I believe in some kind of spiritual existence that links all human (and possibly any kind of) life, or even just replicatory processes together, and I "believe" that this irrational arena calls for some kind of "love" of this spirit, then this may affect my everyday attitude.

Here we have something that is believed in just because someone "feels" it is true, not for some evidentiary reason, and it does fit into their life; perhaps it makes them feel better, be a better person, but it cannot be said to be right or wrong by any scientific reasoning, merely "invalid" as you seem to like to say. Invalid to cold logic perhaps, but most of us believe there is more to human life than cold logic, and why shouldn't we?

That's all well and good, #44, but it's still not what I was asking for.  What "irrational arenas"?  When I ask for an arena, I'm looking for words like "marriage", "neighborliness", etc. ... just as I used concrete examples before for what you seem to called rational arenas, like courts and schools.

Is "spiritual existence" not an irrational arena, then?

>>46

Because that's the kind of thing I meant by "irrational arena" in the first place...

>>36

28 & 33 here

What the fuck are you talking about?  Whatever it is, it's clearly not relevant to anything I've said.  All I've done is question the grammatical correctness of a particular phrase you used; this is completely independent from any supernatural beliefs or opinions.  It is solely a question of your use of English.  Your tendency to make up and engage in an argument is mildly disconcerting.  In any case, I stand by my claim that you are an incoherent retard.

>>45
I think he means something like heaven/hell/simultaneous but non physical existence on this current planet/"spiritual plane".

>>48
I'm pretty sure "validity to" is a valid English construct.  I've heard it used numerous times myself (though that doesn't prove validity, it does suggest it).

No, #46, "spiritual existence" not an irrational arena in the sense that I continue to ask about it.  "Spiritual existence" could mean your ENTIRE LIFE, which could be easily interpreted to mean that you intend to bring ridiculous religious standards into every place you go -- courts, schools, theatres, restaurants, etc.  I'm talking about those "irrational arenas" which affect the public, or not.  I hardly think that my request could spark such strong dodges.  Just be concrete; it can't be that difficult.

#48, what I said is perfectly well constructed English:

"[T]here's no flaw in reasoning to demand proof of something that should be emitting proof at the rate of furlongs per fortnight[.]"

It is perfectly rational to demand proof of something that can only produce lots and lots of proof in the first place.  When I ask you to produce evidence of your marriage, you can produce a lot of proof of that since a MARRIAGE is a thing that generates a lot of proof by its very nature.

Similarly, a god-thing that not only creates the universe, but allegedly messes around in it often, is something that we can only expect would produce a lot of proof of its existence.  The religitards made the mistake of asserting that miracles were conducted, therefore we should expect inexplicable physical events to occur as evidence of this god-thing.  However, once the age of reason arrived, then the industrial age, then the information age, all this god-activity not only disappeared, but left no traces at all.  That's sort of strange, isn't it?  Occam's Razor only tells us that instead of accepting the existence of a being that escapes detection in this fashion, it makes much more sense to establish that this being never existed in the first place.  After all, Humans are drug-addled liars who simply can't be trusted ... hence the sensible man's insistence upon EVIDENCE.

So, let's see that 900ft-tall Jesus, guys.  Let's also see that huge walking man WITHOUT the aid of whatever drugs you religitards were on, at the time.  Evidence and logic are the "bullshit cutters", to be sure.

>>51

""[T]here's no flaw in reasoning to demand proof of something that should be emitting proof at the rate of furlongs per fortnight[.]"

It is perfectly rational to demand proof of something that can only produce lots and lots of proof in the first place.  When I ask you to produce evidence of your marriage, you can produce a lot of proof of that since a MARRIAGE is a thing that generates a lot of proof by its very nature.

Similarly, a god-thing that not only creates the universe, but allegedly messes around in it often, is something that we can only expect would produce a lot of proof of its existence.  The religitards made the mistake of asserting that miracles were conducted, therefore we should expect inexplicable physical events to occur as evidence of this god-thing.  However, once the age of reason arrived, then the industrial age, then the information age, all this god-activity not only disappeared, but left no traces at all.  That's sort of strange, isn't it?  Occam's Razor only tells us that instead of accepting the existence of a being that escapes detection in this fashion, it makes much more sense to establish that this being never existed in the first place.  After all, Humans are drug-addled liars who simply can't be trusted ... hence the sensible man's insistence upon EVIDENCE.

So, let's see that 900ft-tall Jesus, guys.  Let's also see that huge walking man WITHOUT the aid of whatever drugs you religitards were on, at the time.  Evidence and logic are the "bullshit cutters", to be sure.
"

None of the above was relevant.

#52, the thread is titled "God is a CONCEPT", to which the demands of proof apply whether you like it or not.  Hence, what I said was perfectly relevant ... utterly germane, you follow?  (Thanks for quoting me almost entirely, BTW.  I love that.)

>>53
I don't know what sort of disorder you have, but you were consistently responding to my posts by talking about things I never brought up, while completely ignoring what I had actually said.  Yes, what you've said was relevant to the thread title and several other posts, but what you did was the equivalent of responding to a man who asked for the time in a supermarket by saying that the bananas are out of season and there's a few sales in aisle 12.

#54, you said:  "what you've said was relevant to the thread title and several other posts"

Then there can't possibly be a problem.  Is there a "superrelevance"?

Just admit that on the basis of logic alone, you got pwned and are now cryin' like a little bitch as you try to worm your way out of it.  Proof is the determinant of truth, NOT your stupid and reality-contrary opinion.

>>55
I'm forced to disagree with your response again.  I asked a question regarding the meaning of a particular phrase that you had used.  I did not agree or disagree with something you had said, I merely asked for clarification.  You repeatedly pointed to my post, ignored what I had said and started talking about various other points you had already made related to other posts.

I'm convinced you can't be asking that question seriously.  There is a relevance to the thread's topic, and there is a seperate relevance if I do something like this: >>55 In response to what you've said...

You made a post relevant to the topic of the thread.  I made a post relevant to the wording you used in your post.  You pointed to my thread and made posts relevant to the topic of the thread, but neither relevant to my post nor what it was relevant to, the wording you used in your post.  If you don't recognize that as strange, I'm not sure how to help you.

I didn't try to worm my way out of anything, It took you a couple tries to sit still for three seconds and say something like, 'no what I said was correct', which is just a self-validation rather than a clarification.

And still again, you've managed to pull shit out of nowhere: My "reality-contrary opinion"?  What opinion is that?  Certainly not one regarding religion or god or anything supernatural, since I haven't commented on those in this thread.  So, on the basis of logic alone, I have to assume that you mean the only opinion I've espoused here: that you're making shit up and being incoherent.  However, proof is increasingly abundant.

>>56
tl;dr

#56, if you want to "help me", then produce evidence for this giant space alien monster that millions claim exists otherwise.  DEMANDING PROOF is neither "making shit up" nor "being incoherent".  In fact, it's the precise opposite of those two things.

If you've got your panties in a twist about anything else I've said, then it's not germane to my topic and therefore it's something you'll just have to get over.

P.S.  The lack of proof is the stench of fail.

>>58
God damn, you must be the most verbose retard in the world.

>>59
LOL

The word pirahna, is all I can think of that rhymes with marijuana

Marijuana MUST be legalized.