God can not be disproven by science

[Marwan]

God would be absolute truth if he exists.

But that doesnt mean he handed any of it to you.

Going by the gross absurdity of " science is
falsehood" we'd say he didnt share much.

You know nothing about what He has handed to me and not.

Science constructs a false reality. It had nothing to do with reality. Spirituality is about reality. Consciousness. Soul. God. Non-material.

If you believe the opposite, you are literally insane.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God is Absolute Truth, The Truth.

Science is falsehood.

If God is real, science is the study of God's creation.

Something I realized years ago was that if I were a theist, I would see science denialism as an especially insidious sort of heresy.

 

[Audie]

If God is real, science is the study of God's creation.

Something I realized years ago was that if I were a theist, I would see science denialism as an especially insidious sort of heresy.

Not to mention a level of vanity
that surpasseth all trace of sanity

 

[Nakosis]

You know nothing about what He has handed to me and not.

Science constructs a false reality. It had nothing to do with reality. Spirituality is about reality. Consciousness. Soul. God. Non-material.

If you believe the opposite, you are literally insane.

If science has nothing to do with reality, I suppose that means your belief that you are communicating across vast distances to other people with a computer device is just a fantasy.

 

[Link]

If God is real, science is the study of God's creation.

Something I realized years ago was that if I were a theist, I would see science denialism as an especially insidious sort of heresy.

It's the study but the trust of those who claim to study objectively yet deny God - why should we take their study conclusions seriously? Feels like they have an agenda, main one, see it that we don't need God for an explanation for the universe.

 

[Link]

If science has nothing to do with reality, I suppose that means your belief that you are communicating across vast distances to other people with a computer device is just a fantasy.

I divide expertise into two types:

(1) Real time effects (Engineer build a building, it doesn't fall, planes actually fly, etc).

(2) Theory but not way to measure it's effects.

Since religion is really 2, especially since the effects is unseen and hidden in the soul, some of it effects justice and well being of society in the outward, but a lot of it amounts to unseen. I decided myself not to trust "religious" experts, so do not follow scholars of my religion nor my sect.

I believe people talking about start of universe, can talk about it all they want. I treat them like my sect religious experts, yeah they study more, but get more wrong than me about things in religion. I feel the same is about these so called experts in science. They don't realize simple things I've realized about nature.

 

[paarsurrey]

God can not be disproven by science

It is beyond the limits of Science as per Scientific Method, please, right?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

God can not be disproven by science

It is beyond the limits of Science as per Scientific Method, please, right?

Regards
______________
My cherry picking from pages-1,15 :
Science does not deal with that that cannot be evidenced

Nah, if you're talking about the god of the Bible, that god lies outside the auspices of science for other reasons - namely, the inherent limits of science as a mode of acquiring knowledge. That god is, by definition, non-empirical (non-observable) and thus its existence is understood primarily through logic and reason rather than by experience or observation.

Also, some posters are trying to stuff the general statement in the OP into an Abrahamic box which is not what the OP asserted.

Science is independent of any consideration of questions concerning the existence of God or subjective religious beliefs.

 

[shunyadragon]

I divide expertise into two types:

(1) Real time effects (Engineer build a building, it doesn't fall, planes actually fly, etc).

(2) Theory but not way to measure it's effects.

Since religion is really 2, especially since the effects is unseen and hidden in the soul, some of it effects justice and well being of society in the outward, but a lot of it amounts to unseen. I decided myself not to trust "religious" experts, so do not follow scholars of my religion nor my sect.

I believe people talking about start of universe, can talk about it all they want. I treat them like my sect religious experts, yeah they study more, but get more wrong than me about things in religion. I feel the same is about these so called experts in science. They don't realize simple things I've realized about nature.

Very poor understanding of science as science without a religious agenda.

Science is independent of any consideration of questions concerning the existence of God or subjective religious beliefs.

What about your sect of religious beliefs?

 

[wellwisher]

Sure, but it has yet to give good evidence it exists.

All we have to do is black box science, God, like we do with evolution. We place God in a black box, and look at input and outputs and plot the data and draw the best curve. We do not open the black box to know if God is in there. The correlation does not even have to touch the data points. Miracles are output attributed to God. For example to become a Saint you need to do two miracles and there are 10,000 plus Saints. That is plenty of data. Now we have a correlation for God, without even opening the black box, which is how casino science works. If that is proof enough for evolution that is proof enough for God.

You guys are trying to apply the higher and tougher standards of rational science, to God but the science of evolution and even climate change get pass with black box science. In black box science there is no yes or no, just margins of error and levels of certainty. God does not have to appear with crystal clarity but can remain wrapped in fuzzy dice.

 

[shunyadragon]

All we have to do is black box science, God, like we do with evolution. We place God in a black box, and look at input and outputs and plot the data and draw the best curve. We do not open the black box to know if God is in there. The correlation does not even have to touch the data points. Miracles are output attributed to God. For example to become a Saint you need to do two miracles and there are 10,000 plus Saints. That is plenty of data. Now we have a correlation for God, without even opening the black box, which is how casino science works. If that is proof enough for evolution that is proof enough for God.

You guys are trying to apply the higher and tougher standards of rational science, to God but the science of evolution and even climate change get pass with black box science. In black box science there is no yes or no, just margins of error and levels of certainty. God does not have to appear with crystal clarity but can remain wrapped in fuzzy dice.

I disagree with the use of "black box" in tis discussion of science and the existence of God. It is the terminology used in the anti-science fundamentalist arguments.

black box Creationism - Google Search

Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael J. Behe is a book that uses the term "black box" to describe biochemical machines that perform a function but have complex and mysterious inner workings. Behe argues that these machines must have been designed, either by God or another higher intelligence, and that Darwinism fails to explain their origin. He also claims that the scientific literature on evolution is silent on how these molecular machines developed, which are the basis of life.

 

[firedragon]

Science does not deal with that that cannot be evidenced

You are misrepresenting science. No philosopher of science says what you said. In fact, you straw manned science.

Science does not deal with (to use your own words) that that is metaphysical. That's a steal man.

Try not to misrepresent your own claimed epistemology.

 

[Audie]

You are misrepresenting science. No philosopher of science says what you said. In fact, you straw manned science.

Science does not deal with (to use your own words) that that is metaphysical. That's a steal man.

Try not to misrepresent your own claimed epistemology.

" philosopher of scirnce" being what? Who?

While at it, let's hear some unevidenced science.

 

[Audie]

I divide expertise into two types:

(1) Real time effects (Engineer build a building, it doesn't fall, planes actually fly, etc).

(2) Theory but not way to measure it's effects.

Since religion is really 2, especially since the effects is unseen and hidden in the soul, some of it effects justice and well being of society in the outward, but a lot of it amounts to unseen. I decided myself not to trust "religious" experts, so do not follow scholars of my religion nor my sect.

I believe people talking about start of universe, can talk about it all they want. I treat them like my sect religious experts, yeah they study more, but get more wrong than me about things in religion. I feel the same is about these so called experts in science. They don't realize simple things I've realized about nature.

You are so out of your depth attempting to talk science.

And as previously noted, pretending to know more than them foolish scientist is ta taking vanity past the limits of sanity.

 

[firedragon]

" philosopher of scirnce" being what? Who?

Do some research.

 

[firedragon]

You are so out of your depth attempting g to talk science

You don't even know what a philosopher of science is but you are insulting others? Do you thrive on insults and just some remarks? What kind of complex is that?

 

[Audie]

Do some research.

So you just made it up that
" no philosopher of science says".

You can't identify one, nor support your claim

 

[firedragon]

So you just made it up.

Maybe that's your world making things up is your methodology so you project cheaply with no integrity.

But do some research. "Google".

I'll give you even the line to google. "" philosopher of scirnce" being what? Who?"

Your own statement, cut and paste on google. Do some research.

 

[Audie]

You don't even know what a philosopher of science is but you are insulting others? Do you thrive on insults and just some remarks? What kind of complex is that?

Speaking of insults that's essentially all you do.

I know about philosophy of science. I want to know
who your philosophers of science are.

 

[Audie]

Maybe that's your world making things up is your methodology so you project cheaply with no integrity.

But do some research. "Google".

I'll give you even the line to google. "" philosopher of scirnce" being what? Who?"

Your own statement, cut and paste on google. Do some research.

Bye