Excellent point there as it pertains to this discussion, bazillion.

You can read about some of the evidence of help God has given me here.

Personal experience does NOT count as empirical evidence. Nobody on this forum has yet demonstrated any kind of evidence that supports the existence of a supreme being.

bazillion: "If that's not good enough for you, I suggest that you pray. Do that and you'll get the message, sooner or later."

That voice your hear inside your head when you pray... that's called YOU. If you sincerely believe you are receiving messages from a supreme being, then well, you have some traits in common with people who have mental illnesses.

http://searchwarp.com/swa272727.htm "Everything that we can know of is within existence. Therefore, science could eventually unlock all knowledge and all the mysteries of a corporeal universe that follows physical laws. The part of religion that delves into Ultimate Reality, however, can never be known from this side of existence. We can touch Ultimate Reality or God, but since it is beyond experience, as we know it, we can never speak about God because God would never register in our minds other than vague, ephemeral images. "

The very search that you recommended just refuted your other point about receiving communications from God! How ironic.

Also, these are questions that science has not answered YET, and that is no justification to believe in invisible, intelligent beings.

Science will never be able to prove or disprove the existence of a Supreme Being.

That is because spiritual matters are outside the purview of the physical sciences.

Therefore, to demand physical-science proofs or evidence is totally nonsensical. The evidence of the existence of God lives in the minds and souls of those who have that faith. Science has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Well put, bazillion.

That argument from atheists is an honest one from their "world view". But, it is closed-minded (to put it mildly) to hold the position that it is impossible for there to be anything outside of what science can measure.

Heck, I never thought of it this way, but scientists saying "God is all just imagined since he cannot be scientifically proven" is a self-contradictory statement since the imagined cannot be scientifically proven.

.....whatever - I started typing just to say "well put, bazillion"

Yeah, that's the problem with any contention that "my viewpoint is better than yours" - my viewpoint is mine, and your viewpoint is yours.

I guess the best thing to be said is, "Hope you enjoy your view." And then, of course, grab your bag and head out for the course

bazillion: thank you, in your last post, for agreeing with everything I said (seriously). And you are right that science will never be able to disprove the existence of a supreme being. Science can also never disprove the existence of an invisible elephant sitting right there in the room with you. It's an elephant that you can't detect with any of the five senses, but you must believe me that he is there.

The scientific method works in a way that no such claim (God or elephant) can ever be disproven. They are untestable hypotheses. So you are right that God cannot be disproven; however that does not mean there actually is a such being.

"The evidence of the existence of God lives in the minds and souls of those who have that faith."

That was exactly what I said: God exists in faith only. We appear to agree that the idea of a God existing cannot be brought into science, therefore no one can say they have evidence or proof of his/its existence.

You make it sound like Science has exclusive ownership of "evidence" and "proof". If I were to introduce the line of reasoning I quoted to a judge in the judicial system, they would think I was foolish.

Say it to a judge? The judicial system is not related to the scientific method. Don't mix the two. I'm saying that no one can prove a negative (disprove) the invisible elephant/god existence because they cannot be applied to the scientific method. Yes, science does require evidence and proof, while religious beliefs do not. I think that today, in the Age of Reason, it is appropriate to ask for evidence and proof of things claimed to be factual.

The difference between us is that my beliefs about reality will change as there are new scientific discoveries. Your beliefs will be forever rooted in a book which does not and cannot adapt.

It's been stated on here that the feelings people have when praying are proof of God. What about all the hundreds of millions of people of other religions who have been equally as certain that THEIR deity was communicating with them in exactly the same way? Everyone can't be right. What makes you so pompous to claim that your god is the real one, even when those with your beliefs make up the vast minority?

I am really surprised that you do not see the common thread of evidence/proof between the judicial system and science. Sorry - I will continue "mix" the two since the evidence and proof to determine "motive" used in court is more similar to the paradigm of presenting evidences for the existence of something science does not have the tools to do.

But I am more science-trained than legal-trained, so I am not even able to call myself a "legal hack" in the same way I call myself a "science hack" (as in years and years of course work in that field....and a career in an applied science).

No. The difference is that I am a big fan of science and will adapt those beliefs as science discovers new things (Science is the one with the challenge of disproving a negative) AND I live a life acknowledging that I live at the intersection of a physical reality and a spiritual reality.....and acknowledging that I am in a relationship with one who not only adapts but also creates.

It is frustrating to me that you keep on saying stuff like this and making it seem like you are not reading/comprehending anything I (and others) write. It is very hard for me to feel like we are having an adult discussion.