Any evidence that does not insert God into the "we don't know" slot. It's that simple. Is there some example of positive evidence that you feel has been wrongfully placed in this category?

Well, I think that this thread is a good start. I asked a simple question, but no one wants to answer it.

\

But give me an example. Your smart, just come up with a hypothetical that is not like "well if God came down and punched me in the face and said I'm God jerkface, then flew back up to heaven." Just something that would be within the realm of science.

I am not even asking for a plausible example at this point. Just an random scientific example even if it does not make a ton of sense or has already been disproven.

right. now fill in the blank in a way that could not be considered "god of the gaps"

Not necessarily. But I am saying that such evidence could not exist because of the framework.

SIGH. Once again, I am not claim that God should be placed in these Gaps. Nor am I trying to justify my beliefs this way. As I have stated over and over that atheists are asking for something of which because of the framework that has been set up could not possibly exist. Then they are asking why it is not there, or using it as an excuse of why the don't believe.

People have told you like a thousand times. We keep talking about whether or not god exists, but the scenarios in which I would believe in god, we would be talking about whether being X that I know exists is god. I don't have to stop and think if the guy I meet on the bus yesterday is actually god because he didn't seem to have any properties that the christian god would have. Nobody I've met has come even close to displaying the properties of god.

You asked a "simple" question that every great thinker who was also religious has been unable to come up with an answer for in the entirety of human history


Well if we're speaking of merely a deist creator-god, then I don't even think there is any hope for ever testing him/it since he/it would exist entirely outside our universe. For a personal God, it's slightly more optimistic (but not much)

Are you asking me to design some kind of experiment to test for God's existence? I'm not sure that's even possible. As far as a phenomenon that could occur for which the evidence would point to God as the explanation I believe there are (potential) examples. The rapture (I know not everyone believes this will happen but you said just try even if it isn't plausible) occurring and leaving behind only non-Christians is the most obvious I can think of off the top of my head. I can't imagine scientists of any discipline proposing a purely natural explanation for the disappearances that couldn't be trivially falsified.

The reason it is so hard for us to come up with examples, btw, is not some kind of inherent bias. A theist scientist would likely do no better. It's because the kind of God you believe in is supernatural, and totally outside the scope of scientific inquiry. As things stand today, we can no more prove his existence than we can disprove it.

No, it is you that has set up a notion of god that cannot possibly be disproven. There are, again, literally an infinite number of ways in which atheists would start believing in god. Many of these scenarios are in the early parts of the bible in which god is some dude that hangs out in a garden.

Sure, except that anything God would do that would prove his existence would be outside of the realm of science by definition, meaning that literally no mortal could conceive of it or explain it by natural science.

This is not the way it went down in this thread, nor the way I usually see it. In general, someone like whoever did it in this thread or NR holds up teleology or the KCA as a good reason to believe God exists. Then atheists say that the whole premise is fallacious, and that the argument does nothing to support the existence of God. When a theist tries to invoke science to "prove" god, it is usually by pointing to a lack of knowledge concerning some particular phenomenon, and is thus deserving of this attack.

You're going to have to elaborate on what this is supposed to mean. And I highly doubt that I have been told this a thousand times.

Yes, we understand your assertion, and we are saying we disagree. Since your claim has nothing behind it, that is all that's necessary. However, it's still nice to see that many people in this forum have went way beyond the disagree point and tried to help you see why you are wrong.

I know that no one has come up with an answer. That is because I do not believe an answer exists because of the current framework.

If a creator God (either deistic or theistic) exists, then we would hit a point where something cannot be explained naturally, that does not mean that we lack any knowledge to explain it naturally, but that there is no natural explanation.

But if the framework is set up in a way that assumes everything has a natural explanation, then even if you hit this point you would simply say that we lack the knowledge. Even though it would not be true.

How is what I wrote not clear? If there is some being that I can see/hear/meet/ect that has the properties of god I would believe in him.

lol, there way of "helping me see why I am wrong" has been basically saying "your wrong"

Either evidence for a supernatural creator can exist or it cannot within the current framework. I say that it cannot. No one has provided any way that it could.

So you are saying that the only way for you to believe in God is through personal experience, is that correct?

If the God hypothesis remains untestable then yes we will never find him EVEN if he does exist. If his existence becomes testable then look out! We have a chance at finding him! The "framework" or "natural explanation bias" has nothing to do with it.

See my last response.

But how could you test something that is not of the natural universe other than be the effects it has on the natural universe?

What other kinds of experience are there? I think a quantum theory of gravity exists and that is based on personal experiences in a sense.

How could you even observe and quantify those effects?

I don't know and I don't think anybody has ever known. The fact that people seem to want god to exist so badly and since he doesn't obviously exist like real people that you meet explains why people put him in this sort of nether region in which he somehow simultaneously explains nothing and everything.

Go outside our "natural universe". This book will help you get there. Ok that's probably a stupid joke right now, but perhaps it's possible to travel to another universe someday, and then we could use that vantage point to test something that's "not of the natural universe".

BTW Jib, if you think supernatural = untestable, then by definition there's no way we will ever find him. Everything really hinges on the untestable/testable aspect.

This is very simple though. If you have a problem with the current framework used for acquiring information, propose a better one.

Just make sure that your proposition doesn't hinder progress or discriminate against religions and belief systems that aren't yours.

(See why your issue is really a non-issue? Science is actually UN-biased.)

Am I misunderstanding Jib's question. Because if is what I think it is there are a myriad of answers. Like I already wrote, a moon being made of green cheese would be an example. Or how bout every time you heat human blood above 1000 degrees the vapors hiss to the tune of O holy Night?