Therefore, I would like to state that there is lots of spiritual proofs that depict one and only God/Allah.

You are free to entertain any idea you want to, of course, but I can’t say I find comfort a compelling reason to consider something true. Positions held on those grounds would in other fields, such as history or economics for example, not be given much leniency, and I find comfort equally out of place in an argument on the origin or nature of existence. At least fundamentalists think their views have merit based on evidence, however wrong they may be in that regard, in that respect they are actually easier to understand than sensible religious people.

Until later
Tor

I fail to see why the god hypothesis should be treated any different then the unicorn hypothesis, either observable inferences are drawn, and observed, or the hypothesis falls to occams razor.

told you honestly that “I don’t know if there is such a flawless proof” for the existence of God. there are few things I can point out here, but prefer to leave them for a time in which I find stronger arguments to defend his Holliness!

but the only thing I might say right now is that I feel comfortable with religion… that seems enough; ye?

while there are some skeptics who even doubt our very existence…

Another religion says this, not scientists.

It is about the applicability of the natural sciences in trying to discern it.

Alright, we can stop harping about the natural sciences not providing formal prof then, because that’s par for the course with the natural sciences.

I fail to see why the god hypothesis should be treated any different then the unicorn hypothesis, either observable inferences are drawn, and observed, or the hypothesis falls to occams razor.

I recommend you again to visit some profossors, either professionals of mechanics or else, and they will tell you that none of those theories you have heard of are something for sure. they are just ‘guesses’.

if you had ever read a scientific paper, you could have known that in the Colclusion part, they use the word ‘suggest’: “this study suggests that…”, “our findings suggest that…” , for its already known that none of those equations you see in even classical mechanics books are either based on proofs or known for sure.

@ mohammad

you’re so out of your mind. no wonder why this stupid article came from you. I wrote about Classical Mechanics! not many things?!! do you understand plain english? os should somebody translate to your own language? in which school did they teach you to fallacy in that stupid way! I am sure it’s a religious school.

@ Tamara

But I believe that more often than not, people are free enough, at least in their own mind, to decide for themselves what they believe.

For sure and there is no argument about it. just I was arguing about what we grow with. I personally believe that we grow with our parents knowledge, society and environment. for instance if you grow in a christian family, usually you do have tendency towards christianty. just I can’t call this type of tendencies, choice!

It is about the applicability of the natural sciences in trying to discern it.

Some schools of philosophy extend that theorem to some more general systems of logics and say that generally there might be some undecidable statements.

Agreed, general systems of logics may contain undecidable statements besides the Godel statement.

And, here I want to know if ‘Existence of God’ is one of such statements which are absolutely out of the league of proof/refutation.

Well, since since observations of reality, as made by the experimental sciences, are not axioms, God can only be proven not to exist if the defining attributes of God can be shown to contain a contradiction, or if God is defined to be non-existent. The same holds true for dogs, cats, trolls and unicorns. This is the field in which the natural sciences operate, and they deal in evidence not proofs, theories not theorems.

I see no reason why a proposition of the existence of gods should be treated any differently than propositions of the existence of aliens, elves or albino fish. To the extent the natural sciences are ever applicable, they are applicable in determining the validity of the god hypothesis.

In regards to probbility, are you saying that if the range of possible results can not be determined probabilities go out the window? Events can still be defined which will either happen or not happen, and probabilities can be established for these, and for composites of them. I am not sure this is relevant to the topic of gods existence though.

By the way, even if we can’t make an agreement about this, we may agree about general topic that these are just probabilities, not proofs.

Absolutely.

Is this about the possibility of formally proving/disproving the existence of gods, or is it about the applicability of the natural sciences in trying to discern it?

I believe in the latter, but not in the former, unless the definition of god is inconsistent, or contradict the hypothesis of gods existence.

I’m not sure I understand your point directed at me.

Hemm,

Indeed there are people, from every religion that are brainwashed. But I believe that more often than not, people are free enough, at least in their own mind, to decide for themselves what they believe.