Because we can't disprove it 100 % makes it believable because God is suppose to be bigger than science.That's one important reason religious people don't take all scientific discoveries seriously,if something doesn't fit their religious description of the world they're gonna reject it.You see it all the time people like John Lennox for example really smart guy but doesn't take it seriously because if he affirm that we did evolve through natural selection the foundation argument about morals changes and you have to change the hypothesis therefor you have to give science more authority which they don't like because science works and it's testable.Religion is basically philosophy it's old philosophy but it's been a important part of the history and we shouldn't want a different past in the world or else we wouldn't be were we are but that aside religious people not being sincere seems to me to be fundamental problem or just plane ignorance.Lot of atheist might be that as well of course..
We can't explain the laws of physics that's basically why we can't disprove the existence of the christian doctrine.
We can't explain what's behind that wall for some reason..I really do wonder sometimes if we have a intellectual,philosophical capacity to even grasp at all what we're apart of..I really like what Dawkins said about
this he there might be creatures with higher intelligence and advanced developed technology that are doing all this lol..I know it sounds very "alien" but I do think it's something in it..not that im gonna pretend im capable of understanding..the magnitude of what we're apart of.
The christian doctrine does exist, however it's merely text formed by humans led by belief patterns.
Besides belief, nothing else can be extracted from it.
Dawkins is a genius of sort; he's articulate enough to dissect and expose all the bullshit of religion.
There's nothing wrong with discussing possibility, but worshipping it is simply stupid.
This reminds me of missionary work....why don't missionaries go to Sweden, Norway, Denmark, UK, etc to try and convert people? Because it's easier to convert simpletons that live in mud huts in 3rd (or actually 4th) world countries. It's much easier to instill fear and guilt and miscredit the services provided as "from god" into people with limited knowledge.
There's a simple answer to this, and most of us here know it; THERE IS NO GOD.
But, religious ignorance prohibits this acceptance. Religion relies on ignorance, fear, and many fallacies.
If people in general would take a unbiased look at all this, they could easily comprehend the impossibility of their religious beliefs. But that will not happen for the vast majority who cling to bullshit.
They simply can't come to terms with mortality and accept its reality.
If human beings didn't waste time with superstitions, fear, and guilt, we would probably be traveling to other planets on a regular basis by now.
I had this dream last night! I was walking on a beach with God and when I looked behind me there were footprints. For some of the way there were two sets of footprints but there were long stretches where only one person had walked.
I said unto God, "LORD - if you're like, ya know, omniscient and all - how were Adam and Eve able to hide from you in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:8-9)?"
"For some of the way there were two sets of footprints but there were long stretches where only one person had walked"
It was a nightmare!
That was when god had his holy heavenly cock rammed so far up your ass that you were lifted off the ground. lulz
Well theology is the study of God...which already assumes there is a God. But if we look at a building and say, "surely this building was built by human hands." Why? "Because of the fact that buildings don't grow naturally" (except for that of the raw materials used in the process). At least, from what we have observed in biology, chemistry, physics, and all the other sciences. Can we not compare the nature of our own works to that which we see in DNA. DNA doesn't just grow naturally, there is a high probability of it being engineered. Then we would have a comparative study on our hands. We know that humans create stuff. And we are attempting to see if there is another Creator of higher intelligence (not aliens..though they might exist too). I would imagine that the study/science to prove God would look something like this.
Furthermore, carrying on the nature of DNA. If DNA was to grow naturally, what would that look like. How would that affect humanity? Would there be different classes/family of humans. Beyond what we see in race and color. If DNA was to grow naturally, would we not see more variances. I must be the first to admit that I know nothing of genetics, so....I'm just being curious.
There is no such thing as "the science of disproving God". It's no more than a philosophical exercise. Science is not even interested in the question. Science will always be trying to understand and explain natural reality, whether God exists or not. That's what Hawkings was trying to say about "God isn't necessary".
My only interest in God or any other supernatural "explanation" of reality is when it becomes anti-science. Defending science and skepticism and critical thinking should be the over-arching goal, not disproving fairies or Santa Clause or God (except for fun).
I just want more people to be smarter and understand science. I don't even want to tell religious people that they can't join the science club. (Well ok, THEN WE THROW THEM IN THE DUNGEON! But just for fun.)
I get what you're saying - however I don't think that concepts have any existence - they have no basis in the observable world (or any other rational version of "reality"). The concept of God is not God in any sense, just as a picture of an apple is not an apple in any sense.
Poor old Matt Slick tried to use this very argument to prove God in his version of the Transcendental Argument for God.