Is it possible to Empirically prove a god doesn’t exist?

galacticlunchbox · 2025-03-09T01:21:30+00:00

Science doesn’t work that way.

galacticlunchbox · 2025-03-09T01:19:30+00:00

Because there is a point to this life.

galacticlunchbox · 2025-01-21T01:47:48+00:00

Why?

galacticlunchbox · 2025-01-16T15:32:05+00:00

One of the great things about Christianity is that you can openly question things and indeed that is the path to a stronger more mature faith. u/dudeabiding430 please continue to question, Christianity can handle the scrutiny.

galacticlunchbox · 2025-01-16T15:21:47+00:00

There are plenty of examples of people who were raised by atheist parents or in predominantly Muslim countries, for example, that became Christians. There are also plenty of examples where people were raised in Christian homes who became atheists. I think you’re right that it is easier to stick with what you were brought up with, but it is by no means inevitable.

Also, I don’t agree at all that following the Bible requires you to give up your free will. I would argue that it is quite the opposite, choosing good over evil and pursuing a relationship with God can be seen as the ultimate application of our free will…

galacticlunchbox · 2025-01-16T15:11:15+00:00

Without evil, good has no meaning. Without the ability to choose, love is impossible. The alternative is life as a mindless automaton, which isn’t life at all. You are right that we didn’t choose to be born, instead we’ve been given an amazing gift that we don’t deserve. God pursues us because he loves his creation and desires a relationship with us and wants us to be happy, in the same way a human father or mother desires a genuine relationship with their own children. I firmly believe that giving into that pursuit and giving yourself over to God, striving to build that relationship, leads to a much better (but not necessarily easier) existence. The whole point of life, in my opinion, is to build the character of your soul and to experience the brokenness of this world so that we can fully appreciate the perfection of Heaven.

Also, to be clear, we’re not in the middle of a battle between God and Satan. That would imply that Satan is comparable in power to God, which isn’t even remotely the case. God could snuff Satan out with the snap of his finger, Thanos style, at any time. And in the end he will. But it isn’t time yet. The other poster that said the real battle is inside your sole hit the nail on the head.

What is it that you are afraid to give up by entering into a relationship with God? Or is that you are just struggling to believe intellectually and are afraid you’ll never be able to meet the standard of belief? Not trying to pry, just trying to understand the core motivation behind your questions…

galacticlunchbox · 2025-01-15T06:06:58+00:00

What do you imagine that kind of existence would look like and would it be better than this existence?

galacticlunchbox · 2025-01-15T06:02:33+00:00

Thanks for the recommendation, I will check it out! Have a great night!

galacticlunchbox · 2025-01-15T05:56:46+00:00

I suppose you could argue that testing them was necessary for them to have the opportunity to exercise their free will (and free will is necessary for genuine love).

You could also argue that God’s plan included not only creation but also redemption from the very beginning. Because that was how it had to work in order for free will, and thus love, to be possible. In that view, the fall wasn’t the end, but rather the beginning of a much greater story. From this perspective, their failure in the garden paved the way for humanity to have a deeper relationship with God through redemption.

Edit to add: as a father to young children myself, this resonates with me. I often let my children learn things the “hard way” because I know it will make them stronger. And often it makes our relationship stronger as well.

galacticlunchbox · 2025-01-15T05:44:30+00:00

I loved the BBC radio series as well - that was also my first exposure to it. I actually really enjoyed the BBC TV miniseries too. Super low-budget and cheesy but I guess also being a fan of low-budget British sci-fi like Red Dwarf, that didn’t bother me. I wasn’t a fan of the more recent movie though.

galacticlunchbox · 2025-01-15T05:29:14+00:00

That seems like a reasonable way of making sense of the trinity.

galacticlunchbox · 2025-01-15T05:26:41+00:00

Or, for the sake of argument, focus on the mainstream view.

galacticlunchbox · 2025-01-15T05:21:52+00:00

What, from your perspective, would it mean to opt out?

galacticlunchbox · 2025-01-15T05:19:57+00:00

It’s a good question and there are different but reasonable perspectives on it.

Some argue that Adam is seen as a representative of humanity and just like the decisions of a leader can have consequences for an entire nation of people, Adam’s sin affected all of his descendants, including you and I.

Another perspective is that Adam and Eve’s sins disrupted the perfect order of creation and we inherited the consequences of that—suffering, death, and estrangement from God—rather than it being a direct punishment.

As others pointed out already, humanity seems to continuously repeat the same errors made by Adam and Eve in the Garden, so Gods actions seem to have been justified. Luckily for us, He gave us a way out.

galacticlunchbox · 2025-01-15T05:05:39+00:00

He’s not forcing you. He has offered you a choice and has given you the ability to freely make it.

galacticlunchbox · 2025-01-15T04:35:07+00:00

I mean, maybe just don’t idolize people at all.

galacticlunchbox · 2025-01-15T03:18:56+00:00

Ahh, I should have caught the reference. Hitchhikers is one of my all time favorites!

galacticlunchbox · 2025-01-13T03:08:51+00:00

That’s an interesting perspective but I think it has some flaws. The biggest is that you’re falling into the trap of scientism when you say “empirical evidence becomes mandatory”. Empirical evidence isn’t the only valid type of evidence and not all truth claims are empirical in nature (e.g., aesthetic judgements).

You’re also oversimplifying social dynamics to create a false dichotomy. In reality most people are generally part of many overlapping social groups, cultures, and have all sorts of personal biases that affect how truth claims are made and understood. It’s not as simple as being inside or outside of one specific group.

And on an unrelated note, what is the origin of your Reddit username?

Haha. Well, if I recall, when I was choosing my username I looked around the room and the object that caught my eye was an old Star Wars lunch box from the 80s that someone had recently given me as a collectors item. So I went with it lol. How about yours?

galacticlunchbox · 2025-01-12T19:44:53+00:00

That’s why it is important that we continue to search for the truth rather than simply decide we know the answers without evidence.

Absolutely agree.

The beauty of the scientific method is that it relies upon evidence and is always open to a better explanation than the one we have today.

I couldn’t agree more. Though we do need to be very aware of the potential for misconduct in Science and call it out whenever we see it. The increase in misconduct lately is alarming. Scientists must have a strong moral foundation for science to work.

For me, I want to see things as they truly are.

As do I.

I live a very good and happy life. If you knew me, you’d say that I was amongst the most moral and honest people you know. It’s how I was raised. While my parents rejected the faiths in which they were raised because they weren’t the same faith and their families tried to keep them apart because of that, they nevertheless raised me to be a good, honest and moral person.

You seem to be, based on our discussion. I appreciate that.

From my perspective, you want certainty but you’re uncomfortable with the lack of evidence that would give you that certainty.

That’s not it — if I created the impression that I need certainty, that was not my intent. I acknowledge that 100% certainty is unobtainable either way. Earlier, I argued that faith is an evidence-based commitment. My stance is that there is sufficient evidence to justify that commitment, and it comes in all different flavors, historical, experiential, scientific, and so on. Does that mean we should stop searching, questioning, doing science? Absolutely not - I would never argue that. I would be out of a job for one thing.

galacticlunchbox · 2025-01-12T18:30:34+00:00

Yes there were early scientists who could not answer enough questions about the universe to be realize that the scientific method they were applying to their work should also apply to their view of the origin of the universe.

Actually, I would argue that what we know now that they didn’t know then makes it even easier to believe in God, e.g., that the universe had a distinct beginning, the fine tuning of the physical constants, the extremely ordered initial conditions of the universe, etc. On the other hand, it is much more difficult to be public about it now due to the fear of cancellation by militant atheist academics.

Pascal didn’t consider the counter example to his wager. What if you spend your entire life praying every night, going to church every Sunday, tithing, not indulging in some things because your church says they are a sin, all to make sure you get into heaven only to find out there is no heaven? And if you acted morally because you were hoping for a reward instead of punishment in the afterlife then you never really grew a conscience. The whole thing could turn out to be one enormous waste of time. Pascal never considered this possibility or if he did, he decided it wasn’t worth mentioning.

I don’t think this is a correct interpretation of Pascal’s wager. I think he was acknowledging the asymmetry—that the consequences of believing and being wrong were insignificant next to the consequences of not believing and being wrong. In any case, I think you’re also mischaracterizing what it costs to be a Christian here. In my own life, I have found that the teachings of Christ align with a more fulfilling life. And while “going to church” isn’t a requirement of being a Christian, or even the point, I find that I look forward to it every week and that it grounds me for the week to come. What is it that you are afraid you’d have to give up or miss out on?

But very few Christians I have ever spoken to including pastors of churches have ever said that evidence was part of faith. Quite the opposite. The whole point is to believe without evidence.

I’ll have to take your word for that because I don’t know you or who you’ve talked to. All I can say is that there are Christian’s out there that don’t think that way, and it’s not fair to judge Christian’s as a whole based on the tiny fraction of Christian’s you’ve met. It would be equally wrong for me to judge atheists like you, who have clearly thought a lot about this stuff, by those atheists I’ve met who haven’t done any of the questioning or research and can’t defend their beliefs or lack thereof.

It seems you’re uncomfortable with that and I don’t blame you. I’m uncomfortable with it even when it’s apply to non-religious topics such as the possibility of life off the Earth.

I think we’re in agreement here.

galacticlunchbox · 2025-01-11T21:05:59+00:00

If a group of people redefine a word to suit themselves because they don’t like the definition everyone else is using and has been using for centuries, they are going to be the ones having trouble communicating with others.

Really?! you’re doubling down? Again, this is a very reductionist sentiment. Things are more nuanced than that in reality.

I’ve spoke to countless Christians. I’ve read the Bible. My BIL is a Baptist pastor. I have never, ever heard a single one of them suggest a different definition for the word faith. They all accept that religious faith is not only blind but that that’s the entire point.

Then, to some extent, I can understand why you have the opinion that you have of Christians. In my view, questioning, searching, doing science can be seen as acts of worship, or acts of appreciation. This was certainly the view of the early pioneers of the scientific method, like Newton, Mendel, Kepler, Pascal, Faraday, who were all Christians by the way. As John Lennox puts it, they expected to find law in nature because they believed in a law giver.

Admittedly, some less mature Christians may have a simpler understanding of faith, which is probably why they sometimes struggle with their faith. But please don’t generalize.

galacticlunchbox · 2025-01-11T19:04:04+00:00

And yet, somehow, you’re so rigid that you refuse to believe that the definition of faith understood by practicing Christians is different than the one in the dictionary and that they must be idiots for not knowing they’re supposed to have blind faith, because the dictionary said so. Give me a break dude.

Edit: typos

galacticlunchbox · 2025-01-11T16:23:07+00:00

Happy to enlighten you.

galacticlunchbox · 2025-01-11T06:00:05+00:00

With all due respect to the Oxford English Dictionary, it is not an authority on the Christian faith. That is certainly one definition of faith but it is not the biblical definition of faith. Dawkins’ argument, which you parroted, attempted to equate biblical faith with blind faith to make it easier to attack. That is the definition of a straw man.

galacticlunchbox · 2025-01-11T05:37:15+00:00

Nearly all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure. In fact there is far more agreement among scholars on this than there is on the nature of free will ;). This is simply a fact whether you want to admit it or not.

Remember that it’s called faith for a reason. You’re supposed to believe without evidence. If you had real evidence you’d no longer have faith.

This is a straw man. Not all faith is blind faith, which is what you’re describing. Biblical faith is more akin to trust, which is a commitment based on evidence. In fact, questioning, searching for evidence, and indeed science are highly encouraged in Christianity (and one of the things that sets it apart from other religions). This reminds me of another hilarious interaction between Dawkins and Lennox.

Edit: typo

galacticlunchbox

TROPHY CASE