Can science disprove the existence of God?

[s13ep]

Are you that Time Cube guy?

I was being serious, but oh well, it looks like you and the other Atheist, are the same, at least.

 

[Demonslayer]

I haven't really been following Demonslayer's posts in this thread.

You really should, I do damn fine work if I do say so myself.

 

[Demonslayer]

you and the other Atheist, are the same, at least.

Maybe we're the same in one regard; we both seem to be confused by your garbled posts.

 

[Iti oj]

I was being serious, but oh well, it looks like you and the other Atheist, are the same, at least.

what about places that don't experience any of that like the deep of space

 

[s13ep]

what about places that don't experience any of that like the deep of space

Quote the post you're replying to please, magic friend

 

[paarsurrey]

If at all science should support the existence of G-d.
It is failure of science if it does not support the existence of G-d.
Regards

 

[Iti oj]

Sunrise, Sunset, Midday, and Midnight occur simultaneously; which proves Cubic Science is the truthful science.

what about places that don't experience any of that like the deep of space

 

[s13ep]

what about places that don't experience any of that like the deep of space

What is deep space?
What sense are you using it in?

 

[Iti oj]

What is deep space?
What sense are you using it in?

i think the question works if i just say outer space instead of deep.

 

[s13ep]

i think the question works if i just say space instead of deep.

Space would also be cubic; which I regard from the fact it supports cubic planets and stars. I imagine there would be some logic to it, if you give me some time I'll work it out; Cubic Science isn't off-the-top-of-the-head science!

I imagine it would be a more complex cubic product, such as Metatron's cube, or even the outer limits.

 

[Iti oj]

Space would also be cubic; which I regard from the fact it supports cubic planets and stars. I imagine there would be some logic to it, if you give me some time I'll work it out; Cubic Science isn't off-the-top-of-the-head science!

I imagine it would be a more complex cubic product, such as Metatron's cube.

doesn't really adress what i was asking

 

[s13ep]

doesn't really adress what i was asking

I'd have to work it out, as I said, this isn't done in a few minutes! Just because it isn't academic doesn't mean it's completed in 5 seconds flat.

And it still doesn't disprove my point, since I'm correct about the Earth and Sun rotation!

 

[gnostic]

Which god are you talking about here?

The Christian God.

In another word - Jesus????

 

[Crypto2015]

Is it possible to disprove something that doesn't exist?

The closest you'll ever come to disproving the Rhinoceros Men from Atlantis is building an argument based on the biological improbability of Rhinoceros men, and amassing tons and tons of archeological and geological data which does NOT contain evidence for Atlantis... But you can never actually disprove the Rhinoceros Men from Atlantis, can you?

The same is true of any God.

Does that include the intervention of the gods (e.g. Zeus) in the narrative of the Illiad?

Ciao

- viole

That is just an embellishment. However, the fact remains that the Iliad contains historical events.

 

[Crypto2015]

Is it possible to disprove something that doesn't exist?

The closest you'll ever come to disproving the Rhinoceros Men from Atlantis is building an argument based on the biological improbability of Rhinoceros men, and amassing tons and tons of archeological and geological data which does NOT contain evidence for Atlantis... But you can never actually disprove the Rhinoceros Men from Atlantis, can you?

The same is true of any God.

The difference between God and the Rhinoceros men is that the latter's existence:

(1) have not been seriously believed in by some of the brightest minds in the history of mankind.
(2) do not change our notions of morality, ethics, and the afterlife.
(3) is not supported by historical facts such as the resurrection of Christ (if this sounds doubtful, we can open a thread about it later).
(4) is not supported by logical arguments such as the ones proposed by Saint Thomas Aquinas.

 

[Crypto2015]

In another word - Jesus????

Yes

 

[Crypto2015]

Sure it wasn't.


Setting aside the fact that they often are falsifiable, why would God be the sort of thing that can be rationally accepted despite being falsifiable, i.e. aesthetic preferences and subjective judgements? Is the existence of God the sort of thing that can be "true for you" while being false for me?

What I said is not circular. This is circular: "No absolute true can be known". If no absolute true can be known, we already know one absolute true. Regarding why the existence of God is rationally acceptable, there are several reasons for it. For example, the universe cannot be infinite because infinity is just a concept and doesn't exist in the real world. Hence, the universe must have had a beginning. If the universe had a beginning, it must have been created from nothing. However, we know that nothing comes from nothing. Hence, the universe must have had a cause that exists outside of the universe (i.e., that can exist outside of time and space). For this eternal cause to have originated a temporal phenomenon, the cause must be personal and have a will. In other words, impersonal eternal causes can only originate eternal consequences. Since this consequence, the universe, is not eternal, the cause must be personal and able to act at its own will. Hence, the cause is a personal being who is eternal and powerful enough to create the universe from nothing. That sounds a lot like the Biblical God.

 

[Crypto2015]

Anyone you think of in particular? I think I know which ones you're thinking of, but I don't consider them to be high-calibre scientists. Most high-calibre scientists aren't talking much in media. The ones who do science, do science. Those who don't, just talk about doing it. The more they talk, the less they do.



I agree. And my science teachers all did too.


I agree. The only thing I disagree on is that these media hungry scientists should be considered "high-calibre". They're only high-calibre in the sense of shooting of their mouths a lot in media, but they're hardly Nobel prize winners.

Yes, I agree with everything you said. I was thinking about Richard Dawkins, Laurence Krauss, Sam Harris, and a few others.

 

[Crypto2015]

I haven't seen that to be honest.


My experience is that most do not and like most good things, it's mostly the responsibility of the students themselves if they want to learn philosophy or history of their field or get a wider understanding.


I believe science can't disprove any god that isn't claimed to be active in our universe. For example gods that are claimed to have created static lifeforms and skipped the evolutionary process would have a problem with science.

It can't disprove the existence of an active God either.

 

[Crypto2015]

Dawkins has a well paid hobby that fools many and, it seems, Krauss has decided to join that gravytrain. Better than collecting stamps for an old aged pensioner I suppose.

True!