Can science prove or disprove the existence of a Spiritual existence? God?

[jasonwill2]

Science comes from naturalism meaning that it can only concern itself with the natural world. Also, the claim that a god exist is an unfalsifiable hypotheses (just like Russel's teapot).

Since a God claim is supernatural and unfalsifiable it can neither be confirmed nor denied by the scientific method.

That is not entirely true, some definitions of god can't be falsified, but proven should one explicitly make itself known in a scientifically verifiable way.

Also not all definitions of god are supernatural, some are naturalistic or define god as literally nature. I believe everything is "naturalistic", even the "super"natural as it is just the manifestation of the same principle. So in this way science and magic just study two different manifestations of the Universe, which I hold to be the "Creator God" which I call Leviathan. So to me to "prove" that god exists is to prove that the Universe has some kind of seemingly intelligent intent, though I don't think until we get close to unlocking the exact way the Universe works we can even test this specific claim of mind.

But however the thing about living souls becoming gods might be testable in some way in the future, you just need to prove that somehow a consciousness can sometimes (this is actually extremely rare imo)survive the physical death of the body.

 

[micrurus]

If you define god as literally 'nature' then why call it god?

I believe everything is "naturalistic", even the "super"natural

this statement is by definition absurd

 

[jasonwill2]

If you define god as literally 'nature' then why call it god?



this statement is by definition absurd

Because it is conscious in some capacity as opposed to the typical view of nature?

It only seems absurd to you because you are ignorant of what the metaphysical implication is. I put quotes around those words for a reason, my point is that everything comes form the same source: god.

The Universe is literally god in a specific form: physical, though at times non-physical forms of him manifest in tiny pieces. Hence "natural"=physical and "super"natural=metaphysical, and they both come from the same source: The All, which many like to call "god".

 

[micrurus]

Because it is conscious in some capacity as opposed to the typical view of nature?

If that is the case you would have to define conscience, demonstrate that that conscience is part of the natural world, prove its existence and then give a reason as to why that conscience should be called god and not just become an added trait to what we call nature.

It only seems absurd to you because you are ignorant of what the metaphysical implication is. I put quotes around those words for a reason,

Supernatural is by definition outside of the natural world. so calling the supernatural naturalistic is absurd.

Putting quotes around a word doesn't change it meaning, a "cat" is not a dog.
And If I fail to understand your invented concept it is because its up to you to define it and not up to me to guess it.

 

[jasonwill2]

If that is the case you would have to define conscience, demonstrate that that conscience is part of the natural world, prove its existence and then give a reason as to why that conscience should be called god and not just become an added trait to what we call nature.



Supernatural is by definition outside of the natural world. so calling the supernatural naturalistic is absurd.

Putting quotes around a word doesn't change it meaning, a "cat" is not a dog.
And If I fail to understand your invented concept it is because its up to you to define it and not up to me to guess it.

1. We might still call it god instead of just adding it as an attribute of nature because god is a useful label.

2. That is why I said "super"natural, as I put super in quotation marks to show that I didn't like the term. I was actually saying that there is no supernatural, that things we call "supernatural" are just part of the same source of natural things, it is just in a different form than what we are used to.

3. It is a common understanding that when someone says "word' that they are not using the word because they think it is accurate, but for the sake of simplicity and communication. For example if I thought that a leader was not showing the signs of a leader and was just a bully, I might refer to him as a "leader" with the quotations.

Or if someone said they hurt because they loved me I might say that they have a weird way of showing "love", because the quotation marks show I am referring to SOMEONE ELSE'S use of the word quoted, and not my own definition on which I disagree.

Have you seriously never seen this usage of quotation marks? I have seen it in a number of books when referring to a certain usage of a word or a description in which the person using the quotation marks is making it clear that they do not agree on the previous usage of the word/what it is supposed to describe.

 

[micrurus]

1. We might still call it god instead of just adding it as an attribute of nature because god is a useful label.

useful how?

2. That is why I said "super"natural, as I put super in quotation marks to show that I didn't like the term. I was actually saying that there is no supernatural, that things we call "supernatural" are just part of the same source of natural things, it is just in a different form than what we are used to.

if this is the case than how can these "supernatural" things be empirically observed?

and how could the claim that your god exists be falsified?

3. It is a common understanding that when someone says "word' that they are not using the word because they think it is accurate, but for the sake of simplicity and communication. For example if I thought that a leader was not showing the signs of a leader and was just a bully, I might refer to him as a "leader" with the quotations.

Or if someone said they hurt because they loved me I might say that they have a weird way of showing "love", because the quotation marks show I am referring to SOMEONE ELSE'S use of the word quoted, and not my own definition on which I disagree.

fair enough

 

[jasonwill2]

useful how?



if this is the case than how can these "supernatural" things be empirically observed?

and how could the claim that your god exists be falsified?



fair enough

1. It communicates better.

2. I am not completely sure, I don't think we have reached that point to be able to yet by scientific standards without a better understanding of the mind first. But it would include interacting with the spirit.

3. Same as before, but much more complicated and perhaps not possible, though at least number two is completely possible.

 

[paarsurrey]

Since a God claim is supernatural and unfalsifiable it can neither be confirmed nor denied by the scientific method.

I agree; scientific method is not designed for that; the atheists will like to bring everything within it though. I think it is their obsession only.

 

[micrurus]

1. It communicates better.

It seems to me that even if nature was conscious, adding the label of god would be a personification which would only lead to misconceptions.

2. I am not completely sure, I don't think we have reached that point to be able to yet by scientific standards without a better understanding of the mind first. But it would include interacting with the spirit.

3. Same as before, but much more complicated and perhaps not possible, though at least number two is completely possible.

As long as you cannot make empirical observations and/or don't have a falsifiable hypotheses your claims can neither be confirmed nor denied by the scientific method so my initial argument still stands.

 

[micrurus]

I agree; scientific method is not designed for that; the atheists will like to bring everything within it though. I think it is their obsession only.

science cannot make claims about the existence of some supernatural deity, but it can make claims about attributes that people give to those deities.

science can tell us for example that god didn't create the world 6000 years ago, that bats aren't birds, that the earth isn't flat,...

 

[lunakilo]

I totally forgot about the Arctic, people always go on about the ice shelves on the Antarctic, I'm not sure though about if the Arctic is all salty-ice or more like freshwater ice, though the rising water level would be bad enough. I was more concerned with the salinity of the water being diluted. I live over 1,000 feet above sea level so at most it will just make a nice change of look for our maps, but the freezing is what I don't want to deal with once the northern currents stop coming our way.:sarcastic

I can't help myself...

Copenhagen, summer 2011:
[youtube]tINAEETaZnE[/youtube]
Skybrud i København (2011) - YouTube
[youtube]t7-CERo-_qM[/youtube]
Oversvømmelse på Vesterbro 2 juli 2011 - YouTube

This was actually caused by a cloudburst. Warmer air holds more water you know...

 

[jasonwill2]

I can't help myself...



This was actually caused by a cloudburst. Warmer air holds more water you know...

Of course millions of die, but my point was that in the scope of human history we will probably survive through this.

Also nations that take land from the ocean and intentionally make dry areas below sea level are ASKING for it to oneday be flooded when their systems fail.

 

[paarsurrey]

science cannot make claims about the existence of some supernatural deity, but it can make claims about attributes that people give to those deities.

science can tell us for example that god didn't create the world 6000 years ago, that bats aren't birds, that the earth isn't flat,...

Please quote from the truthful religion in this connection. Will you? Please

 

[jasonwill2]

science can only disprove through predictions based on falsification, but you can't disprove that an object doesn't exist, just show through deduction that it's not likely.

However if you find it you can prove it exists.

So science can't technically disprove spiritual existence or god,but it can prove it. So far god has not been proven to exist by scientific standards.

 

[work in progress]

I can't help myself...

Copenhagen, summer 2011:

This was actually caused by a cloudburst. Warmer air holds more water you know...

And warmer atmosphere contains more energy and leads to greater instability of weather. On June 1 we broke the previous record for precipitation on that day, and that came after almost no rain in May....which was also an all time record. All these records are bad for farmers, who depend on regularity of the weather patterns.

 

[Falvlun]

If the spiritual existence effects the physical world, then yes, I think science would be able to discover that.

 

[Willamena]

If the spiritual existence effects the physical world, then yes, I think science would be able to discover that.

From some points of view, it already has. It's psychology.

 

[jasonwill2]

If the spiritual existence effects the physical world, then yes, I think science would be able to discover that.

From some points of view, it already has. It's psychology.

I think we are still a ways from understanding enough of the mind to say that. Also psychology is only useful to a point. Neuroscience is rapidly replacing it form what I understand.

As for spirits and gods affecting the physical world, I am convinced that they do so subtly. I do not think we are at the level of development to pin them down long enough to prove that they are there scientifically. Besides, they are more inclined to come to someone practicing magick than they are for a scientist disrespectfully trying to force them to "prove" themselves by doing something really difficult like knock over a glass.. the kind of energy needed to do that is enormous by using thought and emotion alone... and since such entities have no bodies, that's all they really are, conscious thoughts and emotions that float around without bodies.

The emotional energy needed to move a glass is equivalent to the energy needed to move it with your hand... and a thought only has so much energy.

 

[micrurus]

Please quote from the truthful religion in this connection. Will you? Please

that's from the bible, not quran

 

[paarsurrey]

that's from the bible, not quran

So you have no issue with Quran. Am I right?