[REASON]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

The other statement says that there is zero evidence or reason to accept the existence of said entity, and therefore it can be logically assumed not part of reality until empiricism shows otherwise.

Originally Posted by Overdog

Likewise the statement "God Exists" is not falsifiable even in principle; there is no way to test whether God does or does not exist.

Originally Posted by REASON

While both of you guys are absolutely correct, her argument to this could be that by equating god with nature, god is therefore obsrervable, testable, and falsifiable in that studying nature is studying god.

Originally Posted by nutronjon

If God exist or not, and therefore, can or can not be scientifically tested, depends on how we define God. Stoics, and Greeks who thought things were made of atoms, and later Spinoza and others, have said God is the stuff of the universe. A material God, that is a God of substance, can be scientifically tested. Now finding Zeus and his brothers and sisters is a different matter. I don't think we can scientifically prove supernatural beings exist. But we can study nature.

See what I mean?

Note that her evidence for why we should define nature as god is that "Stoics, and Greeks who thought things were made of atoms, and later Spinoza and others, have said God is the stuff of the universe."

So because they said it, it must be so. They are the authority.

So I will reiterate:

Originally Posted by REASON

What's missing in this situation is a reasonable scientific explanation for why it becomes necessary, beneficial, or in any way logical to assign the label of *god* to what is being observed in nature. It is therefore relegated to a personal opinion. This has been explained in countless ways by numerous people.
.....

From the perspective of science, nature is not god, and will continue not to be god no matter how much someone wants it to be recognized by the scientific community as such.

[nutronjon]

I am getting over my mind being shut down, because I was put on the defenisve. You all may never understand how harmful to freedom of speech and freedom of thought you have been, but I hope you do.

Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence of "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God". Nature's God is not the same as the man made God, and the problem is not with what I am saying, but your illiteracy. You do not understand what I am saying because you are illiterate in history and you are illiterate in the classics that are the foundation of our republic and democratic way of life.

The word ignorance contains the word ignore. It is excusable to not know something, but it is not excusable to ignore information and argue out of ignorance. The information that has been demanded of me, is in the classics and if you like the freedom and liberty that you inherited, I suggest you stop ignoring the classics, because those ignorant of the foundation of democracy and the republic they enjoy, can not defend it. All your high tech military ability, can not defend your liberty and justice.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

You all may never understand how harmful to freedom of speech...

There is no "freedom of speech" here. This is a private forum where we make the rules. Start your own forum and make your own rules if you want freedom of speech. You have no "right" to say what you want here. You can participate according to the site's rules or you can move on.

Originally Posted by nutronjon

Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence of "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God". Nature's God is not the same as the man made God, and the problem is not with what I am saying, but your illiteracy. You do not understand what I am saying because you are illiterate in history and you are illiterate in the classics that are the foundation of our republic and democratic way of life.

The word ignorance contains the word ignore. It is excusable to not know something, but it is not excusable to ignore information and argue out of ignorance. The information that has been demanded of me, is in the classics and if you like the freedom and liberty that you inherited, I suggest you stop ignoring the classics, because those ignorant of the foundation of democracy and the republic they enjoy, can not defend it. All your high tech military ability, can not defend your liberty and justice.

Jefferson wrote of his "opinion" and his opinion does not make something a fact. He was a deist and just because he had a belief in a creator does not make that a "fact". That anyone does not consider Jefferson's opinion to be evidence that Nature's God exists does not make them illiterate. I am quite well read in Jefferson's works and I occasionally give away copies of Jefferson's Bible to theists in my area to show them that they can believe in the life and morals of Jesus without believing in all of the alleged supernatural miracles claimed of him in the Christian bible.

You act like an intelligent person so I am having a real hard time understanding why you cannot tell the difference between your opinions and factual knowledge unless you are being intentionally obtuse. What has been demanded of you is testable, verifiable, predictable evidence according to the methods of science. We have made it perfectly clear in our rules that statements like "I just know that this is the way it is" (especially when religion is being discussed) are considered ignorant and might be deleted. Statement's like "God is the stuff of the universe and organizing forces" are not acceptable just because you claim to know that this is the way it is. We expect you to prove that such a God exists and not by simply redefining a word like nature. If you want to believe in Nature's God, as Jefferson did, then have at it but understand, your belief does not make it true and if you want to claim that it's true, that it's a fact, we will expect you to prove it.

[Galapagos]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

You do not understand what I am saying because you are illiterate in history and you are illiterate in the classics that are the foundation of our republic and democratic way of life.
The word ignorance contains the word ignore. It is excusable to not know something, but it is not excusable to ignore information and argue out of ignorance. The information that has been demanded of me, is in the classics and if you like the freedom and liberty that you inherited, I suggest you stop ignoring the classics, because those ignorant of the foundation of democracy and the republic they enjoy, can not defend it. All your high tech military ability, can not defend your liberty and justice.

I find a very sound basis for freedom and liberty in the reasoned works of John Stuart Mill. At no point did he succumb to the tempting cop-out that is conceding responsibility of justification to an absent or invisible arbiter, which makes his claims to freedom particularly valuable in my opinion:

Originally Posted by John Stuart Mill

• “The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right...The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns him, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”
  
• "If mankind minus one were of one opinion, then mankind is no more justified in silencing the one than the one - if he had the power - would be justified in silencing mankind."
  
• "Silencing the expression of an opinion is ... robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. "
  
• " We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still."
  
• " The principle itself of dogmatic religion, dogmatic morality, dogmatic philosophy, is what requires to be booted out; not any particular manifestation of that principle. "
  
• "On religion in particular, the time appears to me to have come, when it is a duty of all who, being qualified in point of knowledge, have, on mature consideration, satisfied themselves that the current opinions are not only false, but hurtful, to make their dissent known."

[Overdog]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

I am getting over my mind being shut....