God can not be disproven by science

[Kfox]

Time and space are defined as physical quantities, whereas G-d is not defined of
physical matter.

I have always considered time to be the measurement from one moment to the next, and space to be the location where nothing physical exists; neither of which are physical matter. Where am I going wrong here?

 

[firedragon]

I don't. I don't engage religion with science unless (like this case) the conversation at hand is about science and religion; then I have no choice but to. But I understand religion is about what is believed to be true, and science is about what can be demonstrated as true.

That's not a true description of science or religion. Your statement is false.

Anyway, thanks for engaging. Cheers.

 

[AppieB]

Do you really believe empiricism or scientism is rationalism? Why don't atheist evangelists do some research prior to making this kind of statements? Where is your epistemic responsibility?

No. I referred to irrationality in relation to the unfalsifiability of the claim. It also is the case that when somethings is unfalsifiable, it can't be disproven by science.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I have always considered time to be the measurement from one moment to the next, and space to be the location where nothing physical exists; neither of which are physical matter. Where am I going wrong here?

They are both physical measurements.

 

[firedragon]

No. I referred to irrationality in relation to the unfalsifiability of the claim. It also is the case that when somethings is unfalsifiable, it can't be disproven by science.

It's irrational, unreasonable, logically flawed, scientifically absurd to talk about falsifications and science in relation to the metaphysical. So this should end this conversation. Thanks for engaging.

 

[AppieB]

It's irrational, unreasonable, logically flawed, scientifically absurd to talk about falsifications and science in relation to the metaphysical. So this should end this conversation. Thanks for engaging.

So I guess you didn't understand my point after my clarification. Let me try again.
My response in regard to the irrational belief had nothing to with science or falsification within science.

If someone claims that God exists in reality and that someone defines God in a way that makes it impossible to show that claim is false, then that is an irrational belief.

 

[muhammad_isa]

If someone claims that God exists in reality and that someone defines God in a way that makes it impossible to show that claim is false, then that is an irrational belief.

There is nothing irrational in believing that the universe was created and maintained by
something greater than ourselves.
There is nothing irrational in believing that mankind have limited knowledge.
There is nothing irrational in believing that the Bible and Qur'an are not based on
'fairy tales'.

You limit rationality and reality to the physically observable .. and ignore the spiritual
and psychological. That is the 'religion' (belief) of materialism.

 

[AppieB]

There is nothing irrational in believing that the universe was created and maintained by
something greater than ourselves.
There is nothing irrational in believing that mankind have limited knowledge.
There is nothing irrational in believing that the Bible and Qur'an are not based on
'fairy tales'.

I never claimed these beliefs in itself are irrational beliefs

You limit rationality and reality to the physically observable .. and ignore the spiritual
and psychological. That is the 'religion' (belief) of materialism.

No I'm not.

 

[firedragon]

So I guess you didn't understand my point after my clarification. Let me try again.

No point brother. I understand your point, just that you don't understand the category error you are making.

Cheers.

 

[AppieB]

No point brother. I understand your point, just that you don't understand the category error you are making.

Cheers.

It's not a category error. You're welcome to show my mistake in reasoning.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So I guess you didn't understand my point after my clarification. Let me try again.
My response in regard to the irrational belief had nothing to with science or falsification within science.

If someone claims that God exists in reality and that someone defines God in a way that makes it impossible to show that claim is false, then that is an irrational belief.

Well, it may be, but if I write it out as a deduction with premisses and a conclusion, I am pretty sure it is an invalid deduction.

 

[firedragon]

It's not a category error. You're welcome to show my mistake in reasoning.

Alright. I like that approach.

Science works with axioms. One of the key axioms is methodological naturalism. That's one category. The topic of metaphysics is a different category. You cannot test metaphysical matters using science because by definition science as an axiom practices naturalism. So asking for testing, falsifications and empirical evidence of any kind for the metaphysical is a category error.

Asking for falsification for a metaphysical being is a category error because falsification applies to empirical claims within the physical world, while metaphysical beings, by definition, exist beyond empirical observation and testing.

You could read a book on the philosophy of science and most of them definitely will show you this very clearly. Maybe pick up the philosophy of science by Samir Okasha. It's good. Cheers.

 

[wellwisher]

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

All we need to do is use black box math and science and we can correlate God, as well as most things in the life sciences. Statistical science is about correlation but not logic and reason, since the black box stays closed. Statistics is not definitive but leaves margin of error and levels certainty.

We could put God in the black box, like we do with evolution and look at input and output, but never open the box. For example, we have zero alive dinosaurs, for direct evidence, just bone remnants. We piece all the dinosaurs bones together and give our best guess of what a living dinosaur was like. Science expects a living God sitting on the lab bench, but not a living dinosaur. The Atheist try to use two standards, with God having the harder standard of proof; alive. How about we need a living Dinosaur standard to include dinosaurs in evolution?

The oldest living thing on earth is a 5000 year old Bristlecone Pine, which is within the time frame of creation. The live standard better suits creation. The dead and inanimate standard is different. Evolution is about changes within living things yet most of the evidence is from dead things; ironical. Dead things do not evolve but only decay.

If we apply that diluted standard to God; use a black box with minimal direct evidence, and no requirement of alive and kicking, we can say miracles are black box output evidence from the past and present. There are plenty of sightings, written in ancient texts to offer anecdotal evidence. We have no sightings of live dinosaurs even as anecdotal evidence.

I am not saying dinosaurs never existed, but live and kicking would be the harder standard, even for dinosaur science. A future prediction with any theory would bridge the fuzzy past by showing the tangible future. I bet there will be more miracle in the future. But we do not know exactly when, sort of like evolution and specific future changes. Both appear to work better in the black box of science.

 

[firedragon]

If someone claims that God exists in reality and that someone defines God in a way that makes it impossible to show that claim is false, then that is an irrational belief.

You have to seriously consider the words you are using and your epistemology. Practice epistemic humbleness.

An irrational belief is a conviction or idea that lacks logical reasoning or evidence, often persisting despite contradictory facts. These beliefs can stem from emotions, cognitive biases, or social influences, and they typically do not hold up under critical scrutiny. Examples include superstitions, conspiracy theories, or unwarranted fears. You could be having the same thing because you do refuse to be rational or scientific which are both methods you claim to embrace. You "believe" that God doesn't exist because there is no empirical evidence which by itself is a category error as I have already explained. That's irrational and illogical by nature. That's an irrational belief.

You should do some reading on what rationalism is prior to making such statements.

What do you mean "impossible to show"? You mean physically? Do you know how irrational your question even is? This is like a child's made up idea with no knowledge of so much of philosophical discourse. Don't follow what others just blurt out on the internet. Rather, read a book on the philosophy of science, and do some research on the terms you are using and go a little deep.

Stanford encyclopedia is a good resource and is accessible online.

Cheers.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

All we need to do is use black box math and science and we can correlate God, as well as most things in the life sciences. Statistical science is about correlation but not logic and reason, since the black box stays closed. Statistics is not definitive but leaves margin of error and levels certainty.

We cannot know anything with certainty. But we can know things are true with a high level of confidence.

We could put God in the black box, like we do with evolution and look at input and output, but never open the box. For example, we have zero alive dinosaurs, for direct evidence, just bone remnants. We piece all the dinosaurs bones together and give our best guess of what a living dinosaur was like. Science expects a living God sitting on the lab bench, but not a living dinosaur. The Atheist try to use two standards, with God having the harder standard of proof; alive. How about we need a living Dinosaur standard to include dinosaurs in evolution?

Not true. The evidence for god is insufficient to conclude a god exists whether a god is alive or not. The evidence for a dinosaur is sufficient to conclude it existed.

The oldest living thing on earth is a 5000 year old Bristlecone Pine, which is within the time frame of creation. The live standard better suits creation. The dead and inanimate standard is different. Evolution is about changes within living things yet most of the evidence is from dead things; ironical. Dead things do not evolve but only decay.

How does the age of a tree good evidence to conclude the age of the earth? How do you know when it was created? There is overwhelming evidence that the earth is older than 5000 years or so. Why ignore that better evidence and rely on a tree age?

No one says dead things evolve.

If we apply that diluted standard to God; use a black box with minimal direct evidence, and no requirement of alive and kicking, we can say miracles are black box output evidence from the past and present. There are plenty of sightings, written in ancient texts to offer anecdotal evidence. We have no sightings of live dinosaurs even as anecdotal evidence.

No one needs a live god or live dinosaur to conclude they existed. We need good evidence. Sighting and anecdotal evidence is not good evidence. Actual ones of dinosaurs is good evidence. We have writings of dragon and bigfoot sightings. Do you believe in them?

I am not saying dinosaurs never existed, but live and kicking would be the harder standard, even for dinosaur science. A future prediction with any theory would bridge the fuzzy past by showing the tangible future. I bet there will be more miracle in the future. But we do not know exactly when, sort of like evolution and specific future changes. Both appear to work better in the black box of science.

No one is saying we need a live god, we are saying we need good evidence.

 

[McBell]

The oldest living thing on earth is a 5000 year old Bristlecone Pine, which is within the time frame of creation.

Except that Glass Sponges are three times that age....

These creatures are long-lived, but the exact age is hard to measure; one study based on modelling gave an estimated age of a specimen of Scolymastra joubini as 23,000 years (with a range from 13,000 to 40,000 years). However, due to changes in sea levels since the Last Glacial Maximum, its maximum age is thought to be no more than 15,000 years,[13] hence its listing of c. 15,000 years in the AnAge Database.[14]​

 

[AppieB]

Alright. I like that approach.

Science works with axioms. One of the key axioms is methodological naturalism. That's one category. The topic of metaphysics is a different category. You cannot test metaphysical matters using science because by definition science as an axiom practices naturalism. So asking for testing, falsifications and empirical evidence of any kind for the metaphysical is a category error.

Falsifiability is a concept that is not merely applicable to science. I'm not talking about the method, I'm talking about the concept of falsifiability. Where do you think this concept came from? Science? No, it's a philosophical concept that relates to epistemology.
So the category error is on you.

Last week I responded to a post where someone said that there would be nothing that would change her mind (she later changed her statement if I recall). If there is nothing that would change your mind, then you set yourself up in a way that you could never tell if you're wrong. That's irrational.
The same goes for my original statement: If you define your god in a way that it is unfalsifiable, then that is irrational. So if you define something in a way that you (or someone else) are never be able to falsify then you could never tell if you're wrong. I call that irrational.

 

[AppieB]

ou have to seriously consider the words you are using and your epistemology. Practice epistemic humbleness.

An irrational belief is a conviction or idea that lacks logical reasoning or evidence, often persisting despite contradictory facts. These beliefs can stem from emotions, cognitive biases, or social influences, and they typically do not hold up under critical scrutiny. Examples include superstitions, conspiracy theories, or unwarranted fears. You could be having the same thing because you do refuse to be rational or scientific which are both methods you claim to embrace. You "believe" that God doesn't exist because there is no empirical evidence which by itself is a category error as I have already explained. That's irrational and illogical by nature. That's an irrational belief.

You should do some reading on what rationalism is prior to making such statements.

What do you mean "impossible to show"? You mean physically? Do you know how irrational your question even is? This is like a child's made up idea with no knowledge of so much of philosophical discourse. Don't follow what others just blurt out on the internet. Rather, read a book on the philosophy of science, and do some research on the terms you are using and go a little deep.

Instead of assuming what I belief or don't belief, why not ask what I belief or respond what I'm actually saying? Because the underscored texts are false. So practice what your preach yourself and apply a little epistemic humbleness when you talk about what other people belief.

Cheers.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Falsifiability is a concept that is not merely applicable to science. I'm not talking about the method, I'm talking about the concept of falsifiability. Where do you think this concept came from? Science? No, it's a philosophical concept that relates to epistemology.
So the category error is on you.

Last week I responded to a post where someone said that there would be nothing that would change her mind (she later changed her statement if I recall). If there is nothing that would change your mind, then you set yourself up in a way that you could never tell if you're wrong. That's irrational.
The same goes for my original statement: If you define your god in a way that it is unfalsifiable, then that is irrational. So if you define something in a way that you (or someone else) are never be able to falsify then you could never tell if you're wrong. I call that irrational.

As long as you accept that so far you have given no evidence that it is irrational, then fine with me.

 

[AppieB]

As long as you accept that so far you have given no evidence that it is irrational, then fine with me.

How can you claim something to exist in reality when there is nothing that could prove you wrong if it wouldn't exist?