True for whom? You? Or them?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
God can not be disproven by science
- Thread starter Starlight
- Start date
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Well if it was just them I don't think they would have made any claims in the first place.
Maybe a better way of putting it is asking just who exactly are they directing the claims to?
If they make a claim to you, are you under any obligation to accept that as your truth?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
No but they should still be challenged for something they claim to be. That's the whole purpose of claiming something. You're trying to convince somebody else of that claim.
If you're not convinced, why do they need to be challenged? Why can't they just be left to believe what they will? Why is it your job to challenge them?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Well you don't make open claims if you don't want to be challenged. That's pretty much what the bottom line is on these kind of matters.
It makes sense doesn't it?
It would if folks didn't routinely mistake sharing and self-expression as "claims" and then proceed to pick needless fights with others. This happens especially often on the internet where voice tone and body language cues are lost.
What you're saying includes an implicit assumption that God has absolutely nothing to do with the "phenomenal world."
I'm probably good with coming to this conclusion, but starting with that as an axiom strikes me as begging the question.
FYI - it used to be common for wheels to be changed with a hammer. Google "knock-off hubs."
Heyo
Veteran Member
Because there is no "god hypothesis".
Science works by testing predictions with experiments. Make a prediction that is indicative of a god existing, and construct an experiment that tests that prediction. Then god can be disproven by science.
By the way, you know we have special words for "out of time" and "out of space"?
Something that is not in time is "never" and something that is out of space is "nowhere".
So, with the correct vocabular, what you were saying is "god exists nowhere and never".
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
For the same reason science can't disprove fairies and extra-dimensional aliens: they are unfalsifiable.
This means that these things also can't be verified to exist.
Because for something to be verifiable, it needs to be testable. And if it is testable, it is falsifiable.
In turn, this also means that there is no reason at all to believe any of those things actually exist.
That is a non-sensical concept as far as I am concerned.
Not in the least because "to exist" is temporal in nature.
Something exists in "no place" and at "no time".... that's pretty consistent with something that doesn't exist, full stop.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
I think it's the exact opposite.
It was said once (don't remember who it was) that "science isn't in the business of proving things. If anything, it is in the business of disproving things"
The idea is that if you have a hypothesis, you design a test for it. But your test, more often then not, shouldn't be designed to try and confirm the hypothesis. Instead, you design your test such that you try to disprove it. A succesful test then becomes a test that actually fails to disprove it.
For example....
Suppose you have a hypothesis that predicts that if X, then Y.
Your test for that would be to try to find situations where if X, then NOT Y.
Ad if you find such a situation, then you have just disproven the hypothesis.
Failing to find such a situation, would mean that the test supports / is consistent with the hypothesis.
You can never "prove" the hypothesis, because you can never know that there isn't some situation out there where X will not result in Y.
But you CAN disprove it, by in fact finding a situation where X and NOT Y.
The best test you can conduct for any hypothesis, is a test where you actively go out of your way to try and prove it wrong.
Failing to do so is immensly more meaningful in terms of support for the idea, then merely looking for situations where the predictions hold up.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Because truth matters.
Because beliefs inform actions.
Because you have to share a common space with other people, whose actions directly or indirectly affect you.
Off course, it also depends on the exact beliefs and to what extend it actually affects their actions and decisions.
Whose truth?
And some God beliefs inform actions that are quite benevolent for the believer.
Who has control over whether the beliefs of another affect you? You? Or the believer?
Only if those actions and decisions affect you. If a theocracy is creating laws that impose on your fundamental human rights, then yes, it's time to rise to the challenge. If someone believes conversations with God help them to get through the day after the loss of a loved one, does that warrant a challenge?
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
That's fine since I take that to mean we can't interact with God and God can't interact with us as interaction requires both space and time.
You've defined God as nothing anyone needs to concern themselves with.
If you can explain succinctly what space and time are, I might be more inclined to consider your assertion that all interaction must occur within them.
stvdv
Veteran Member
He's untestable, ie, cannot be verified by
any experimentation. Same as other gods.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
Uhh, no.
We might have difficulty in "interacting", as we are effectively trapped in this universe (space-time),
but G-d has no problem as this universe effectively BELONGS to Him.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
No .. you have no problem with the concept of a multiverse, but as soon as G-d is mentioned..