Science can say nothing about existence of God

[Bunyip]

Which discipline of science deals it? Please
Regards

Well that depends upon your approach. It depends entirely upon the characteristics the God in question is claimed to have, and what facet of belief is being explored.
Psychology, psychiatry, cosmology, physics, biology, neurology etc.

 

[paarsurrey]

Well that depends upon your approach. It depends entirely upon the characteristics the God in question is claimed to have, and what facet of belief is being explored.
Psychology, psychiatry, cosmology, physics, biology, neurology etc.

I will provide the attributes of G-d (Allah,YHWH,Brahman,Ahura-Mazda, Tao etc); would you mention the discipline of science that has taken it to probe Him.
Regards

 

[Bunyip]

I will provide the attribute of G-d (Allah,YHWH,Brahman,Ahura-Mazda, Tao etc); would you mention the discipline of science that has taken it to probe Him.
Regards

I just listed several. But sure, please go ahead.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

The existence of God is indeed not a falsifyable claim - but the non-existence of God sure is falsifyable.

Please be so kind as to provide a null?

 

[Bunyip]

Please be so kind as to provide a null?

Well any reliable evidence of god would falsify it's non-existence. Like Panda's, you disprove their absence by finding one.

 

[McBell]

No. You are assuming that establishing the existence of a god would require a different methodology. The only reason you assume that is because the existing methodology has provided no evidence.

So there are two possible ways to interpret that; 1. There is no god. 2. The scientific method which has proven it's effectiveness for some reason is not sufficient.

I'd go with 1.

I will go with 1 while excepting the possibility (regardless of how slim I believe it to be) of 2.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Science requires the exploration of falsifiable claims. The existence of God is not a falsifiable claim. Therefore science can say nothing about it.

well.. a creator God would be falsified if you could show the universe was not created.. was static, eternal, steady state, self-cyclical as in Big Crunch... which is why atheists tried all those already..

God is falsifiable, but all efforts to do so have backfired. What is falsifiable, and hence unscientific are current atheist beliefs in multiverses etc- inherently beyond the inconvenience of scientific scrutiny.

 

[Bunyip]

well.. a creator God would be falsified if you could show the universe was not created.. was static, eternal, steady state, self-cyclical as in Big Crunch... which is why atheists tried all those already..

God is falsifiable, but all efforts to do so have backfired. What is falsifiable, and hence unscientific are current atheist beliefs in multiverses etc- inherently beyond the inconvenience of scientific scrutiny.

No, again you confuse cosmology for atheism. Weird.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Well any reliable evidence of god would falsify it's non-existence. Like Panda's, you disprove their absence by finding one.

I'll take that as a fail! Can you provide a reference, or reasonable argument,

The existence of God is indeed not a falsifyable claim - but the non-existence of God sure is falsifyable.

I'll take that as a fail!

Are you saying that defining god is a simple as defining panda? To show that a panda exists, I merely have to define what is meant by "panda" than show that such thing exists!

Seems to me that to be falsifiable, the concept of god would have to be delimited in practice terms? Otherwise you are merely jumping through semantic loops!

Again, the question is can you show any reference, whatsoever, to the concept of falsifiability of the non-existence...of a term which you can't define?

 

[Bunyip]

I'll take that as a fail! Can you provide a reference, or reasonable argument,


I'll take that as a fail!

Reference for what? All I am saying is that evidence of a given god would falsify it's non-existence.

Are you saying that defining god is a simple as defining panda? To show that a panda exists, I merely have to define what is meant by "panda" than show that such thing exists!

Exactly! Bingo.

Seems to me that to be falsifiable, the concept of god would have to be delimited in practice terms? Otherwise you are merely jumping through semantic loops!

Again, the question is can you show any reference, whatsoever, to the concept of falsifiability of the non-existence...of a term which you can't define?

Hang on - I am talking about whatever god is being specified, if you have not even defined the term - what is there for science to even meaningfully engage with? I meant a specific god, like Yahweh.

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
I will provide the attribute of G-d (Allah,YHWH,Brahman,Ahura-Mazda, Tao etc); would you mention the discipline of science that has taken it to probe Him.
Regards

I just listed several. But sure, please go ahead.

There are 99+ attributes of G-d. I give four from them:

The Islamic name of God is ‘Allah’. This name, in Arabic, applies only to the One Supreme Being and to no one else. The word ‘Allah’ is never used in the plural, because Islam advocates the belief in the absolute unity of Allah. In addition to the proper name ‘Allah’, Allah has many beautiful names called al-Asmaa'ul Husnaa (59:25), signifying His various attributes. The opening Chapter of the Qur’an (Surah al-Fatihah) explains (commentary follows) that those Divine attributes that relate to human beings in any manner, branch out from His four principle attributes as follows:
♦ Rabbul-`Aalameen (Lord of all the Worlds). This means that Allah creates everything and then fosters everything gradually towards perfection;
♦ Ar-Rahmaan (the Gracious). This means that without any effort on the part of His creatures, Allah provides everything that is necessary for their development and progress;
♦ Ar-Raheem (the Merciful). This means that Allah is the Giver of the best and highest reward for those who do good voluntarily, and that reward continues indefinitely; and,
♦ Maaliki-yaumiddeen (Master of the Day of Judgment). This means that the ultimate judgment concerning everything rests with Allah alone.​

Page 27:
https://www.alislam.org/library/books/BasicsReligiousEducation.pdf

Please
Regards

 

[Bunyip]

paarsurrey said: ↑
I will provide the attribute of G-d (Allah,YHWH,Brahman,Ahura-Mazda, Tao etc); would you mention the discipline of science that has taken it to probe Him.
Regards



There are 99+ attributes of G-d. I give four from them:

The Islamic name of God is ‘Allah’. This name, in Arabic, applies only to the One Supreme Being and to no one else. The word ‘Allah’ is never used in the plural, because Islam advocates the belief in the absolute unity of Allah. In addition to the proper name ‘Allah’, Allah has many beautiful names called al-Asmaa'ul Husnaa (59:25), signifying His various attributes. The opening Chapter of the Qur’an (Surah al-Fatihah) explains (commentary follows) that those Divine attributes that relate to human beings in any manner, branch out from His four principle attributes as follows:
♦ Rabbul-`Aalameen (Lord of all the Worlds). This means that Allah creates everything and then fosters everything gradually towards perfection;
♦ Ar-Rahmaan (the Gracious). This means that without any effort on the part of His creatures, Allah provides everything that is necessary for their development and progress;
♦ Ar-Raheem (the Merciful). This means that Allah is the Giver of the best and highest reward for those who do good voluntarily, and that reward continues indefinitely; and,
♦ Maaliki-yaumiddeen (Master of the Day of Judgment). This means that the ultimate judgment concerning everything rests with Allah alone.​

Page 27:
https://www.alislam.org/library/books/BasicsReligiousEducation.pdf

Please
Regards

Ok, that's great. What evidence do you have for any of those claims?

On the assumption that those claims can not be demonstrated - I would suggest that cultural anthropology would be the relevant field. Cultural anthropology studies different cultures, their philosophies and metaphysical beliefs.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Science requires the exploration of falsifiable claims. The existence of God is not a falsifiable claim. Therefore science can say nothing about it.

So is the underlying basis of big bang theory....the big bang event occurred in a conceptual realm where nothing existed....not space....not time...not matter...nothing!

How can that be falsified?

 

[paarsurrey]

So is the underlying basis of big bang theory....the big bang event occurred in a conceptual realm where nothing existed....not space....not time...not matter...nothing!

How can that be falsified?

G-d (Allah, YHWH, Brahman,Ahura-Mazda,Tao etc) is a being with absolute attributes, His existence is absolute and hence out of the domain of science. We know Him from His communications made to righteous humans at different regions of the world and at different times.

Regards

 

[Marisa]

Science requires the exploration of falsifiable claims. The existence of God is not a falsifiable claim. Therefore science can say nothing about it.

That's very true. But it can and often does have quite a lot to say about the parts of our natural world that are attributed to god(s).

 

[paarsurrey]

That's very true. But it can and often does have quite a lot to say about the parts of our natural world that are attributed to god(s).

Whatever science says about nature that could be accepted if truthful as it is its specific domain and within its scope of study for which it has been made as a tool. This is quite another thing.

Regards

 

[viole]

Whatever science says about nature that could be accepted if truthful as it is its specific domain and within its scope of study for which it has been made as a tool. This is quite another thing.

Regards

I think science can say a lot about God. For instance, it is almost trivial to explain why you believe in Allah and not Thor.

Anyway, i think there are good evolutionary reasons why we believe in gods. A possible misfiring of our agency detection mechanisms could be one. Another could be our innate craving for justice, if not here in the hereafter, which is necessary for social animals like us. Religious markings (we all believe in the same god) could also help social cohesion. The need of external dictates about morality could also increase stability of social animals and be selected. An extension of our survival instinct beyond death is another one. And so on.

An imaginary being provides cognitive optimization of our brain structure by solving all those problems with only one meme. So, it is possible that God is the natural result of a process of energy optimization. Best genes propagation rate per unit of brain complexity, so to speak.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Willamena]

Ok, that's great. What evidence do you have for any of those claims?

They are not presented as claims, but description.

 

[YmirGF]

They are not presented as claims, but description.

However, it's not like anyone can prove or disprove those descriptions. One may as well claim that Allah loves cats because cat's are Allah's favorite dog.

 

[Willamena]

However, it's not like anyone can prove or disprove those descriptions. One may as well claim that Allah loves cats because cat's are Allah's favorite dog.

No one can prove or disprove descriptions. They're descriptions. They're lovely, nothing more.