Can we be 100% sure there is/isn't a God?

Doesn't matter.The way I see it, there may be, there may not be. For all intents and purposes though, there isn't. We still have to go it alone on this planet, and might as well start taking a little responsibility for our actions without trying to pass the buck onto God.[EDIT]:
To more directly answer your question... we could 100% prove the existence of a God if God decided to take a stroll down Times Square and say hi to everybody. However, we can't ever definitively 100% prove any negative, ever. For instance, I want you to prove that Mickey Mouse isn't sending coded messages directly into my brain telling me to obey the Freemasons.Can't do it, can you?This is why the burden of 100% proving something is on the shoulders of the person who makes the assertation. No need to prove God isn't there. If the facts at hand don't support it, there's no reason to entertain the idea at all.-----------
Dan Carroll[This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 04-29-2003]

quote:

---

In your example about Mickey, all that is required is for
some experiments to examine your brain activity, the energy
fluctuations around your body, perhaps some other things,
and we could potentially rule out that any signals where
being transmitted to your body ... that would disproove the
proposition.

---

Nope. They're invisible, untraceable signals.But they're there. Honest.Do you see what I mean? I can always whip out another uncheckable theory.In fairness though, I'm talking more about logical rules than scientific ones.------------------Dan Carroll[This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 04-30-2003]

quote:

---

If, for example, no evidence at all is found then we can say nothing regrading the proposition. Absence of evidence is not
evidence of absence.

---

Um... I think we're agreeing, and just not understanding one another. Damn, I'm not used to agreeing with people on message boards, what do I do? What I was saying is that you can't ever 100% prove a negative, for the very reason you give above. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That's why, according to general logical rules of debate, the person making the assertion has to support their claim, and not rely on, "you don't know it isn't, do you?"------------------
-----------
Dan Carroll

quote:

---

I don't agree with this. Why should we accept that we are just alone and that science is the only answer? Our human capabilities clearly have limits.

---

Again, it has nothing to do with science (directly). It has to do with asserting a reality that is not supported by that which is immediately in front of us.I don't think what I'm saying is so radical an idea. It just boils down to supporting your claims. In other words, I don't see a God in front of me. If you think there's one there, please point out why. If you can't, why should I think there is?I'm also not saying there is definitely no God, or that there are no arguments to be made for God's existence. I'm just saying that the argument "you can't prove there isn't one" is a fallacy.

quote:

---

If we are able to comprehend the possiblility of God then it is worthy to be explored.

---

Sure. But how would it be explored? By seeking out evidence to support it. And if that evidence isn't there, then get back to me when you've found some. (Not you specifically... the universal you.)------------------
Dan Carroll[This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 04-30-2003]

quote:

---

You still had the ability to refuse their help. If God intervened you wouldn't have a choice.

---

Why not?God could knock down the wall and say "Go on and take off." At which point a person could easily say, "No thanks, I'm nice and comfy here among the zyklon B." (For some unknown reason.)Isn't there a contradiction when you discuss an omnipotent figure that is unable to offer his help without forcing it?

quote:

---

I see your point, but you haven't answered my point about him contradicting his natural law.

---

What law is it specifically? I'm not getting the reference.------------------
-----------
Dan Carroll

quote:

---

It’s not really any one law. I see any and every law that seems to be inscribed upon creation as a part of his natural law. IMO, being an evolutionary creationist, God allowed the Big Bang to happen and let things unfold according to his natural law. It would violate God's character to just arbitrarily mess around with his natural law.

---

I'm still a little confused as to what you mean, but let me see if I have it down.Basically, it seems that you're saying that God has a specific way he wants the universe to run. He set those laws at the beginning of the universe, and won't change them. Given that these laws are unchanging, God is unable to interfere with mankind.But doesn't it still remain God's choice? Whether by choosing to not go against his order of things now, or by setting that order from the beginning, it still boils down to God refusing to help.If I'm misinterpreting your statement, please clarify it for me.

quote:

---

Any assumption that we make in science is based on the belief that natural law does not change. After all, why research evolution if at any point in the process, God can come in and turn everything upside down?

---

How would changing the laws of physics and nature be helping? Is God incapable of working within the system? (A system he established, no less?)------------------
-----------
Dan Carroll

quote:

---

Like I said before, he did it to show us supernatural signs that he is real. I'm confused as how you would expect him to act physically in this world at all without bending natural law. By definition, any action he takes will be supernatural and therefore out of the realm of natural law.

---

Unless he allows us to understand it, making it a natural law.------------------
-----------
Dan Carroll