God can not be disproven by science

[AppieB]

Correct I believe that subjectively as a self.

Based on observable evidence, right?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The goal of which version is to limit the subjective nature of one's self?

All the ones that only accept objective in effect. But there are more than one.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Based on observable evidence, right?

Yes, if makes you feel better the world is in effect objective and subjective relative to context of what is going on.
So yes, a part of the world is objective and observable evidence as per methodological naturalism apply.

 

[AppieB]

Yes, if makes you feel better the world is in effect objective and subjective relative to context of what is going on.
So yes, a part of the world is objective and observable evidence as per methodological naturalism apply.

Then why did you react on the original comment of Blü 2:

The justification for scientific method is not that it's infallible or can produce absolute statements, but that it works far better than any other system of enquiry into objective reality, the world external to the self.

with the following statement:

There is no evidence of the bold one.

when you admit that you believe the statement to be true based on evidence?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Then why did you react on the original comment of Blü 2:

with the following statement:

when you admit that you believe this to be true based on evidence?

Then i misunderstood you and were in fact wrong. I still stand by the the word best has no objective referent as per objective here:
- of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers
-expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

Definition of OBJECTIVE

expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations; limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

So you just answer as per sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers. And it is all over!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's childish .. a person with a degree in theology can explain why.

I find it interesting when pixies and Zeus are used for the analogy, since these are characters from actual religions that were once mainstream beliefs of whome societies.

Seeing members of currently popular religions balk at these comparisons just underscores for me that, even for devoutly religious people, nothing is as ridiculous as someone else's religion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am not aware that anybody has a degree in the subject of magical pixies, or spaghetti monsters,
so I hardly think that they are particularly relevant.

Counter-examples and test cases are always relevant for examination of a general principle.

It's like software quality control: to make sure that your software is working as intended and without bugs, you throw all sorts of inputs into it. If an entry field is meant for date input, what happens when you throw a text string into it? What happens when you give it a date that doesn't exist (e.g. February 67th)? Can the software handle weirdness?

Same thing for, say, the principle that's being argued in this thread: that belief in a disproven (unfalsifiable?) premise is justified. To test this, we can throw some edge cases at it (e.g. clearly made-up but unfalsifiable entities like the FSM).

 

[Nakosis]

All the ones that only accept objective in effect. But there are more than one.

Well then maybe I should have ask in which version is this not a goal?

 

[AppieB]

Then i misunderstood you and were in fact wrong.

I appreciate that.

I still stand by the the word best has no objective referent as per objective here:
- of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers
-expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

Definition of OBJECTIVE

expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations; limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

So you just answer as per sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers. And it is all over!

I honestly don't understand why you make it so difficult for others and yourself. Do we really need to put every word under a semantic magnifying glass? If someone says that science works best for obtaining knowledge about objective reality, do we really need to focus on the word "best" to understand what is meant by the statement? You knew what was meant by it and you even agreed to it (in the end). So what's the point in all of this? I don't get it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well then maybe I should have ask in which version is this not a goal?

The version(s) that in e.g. Denmark include human science and allows for some sort of subjectivity.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I appreciate that.

I honestly don't understand why you make it so difficult for others and yourself. Do we really need to put every word under a semantic magnifying glass? If someone says that science works best for obtaining knowledge about objective reality, do we really need to focus on the word "best" to understand what is meant by the statement? You knew what was meant by it and you even agreed to it (in the end). So what's the point in all of this? I don't get it.

Because of epistemological honesty. It is that simple. You make an universal demand for in effect using evidence. I then accept that and explain how it works for best. I.e. there is no evidence.

 

[firedragon]

Prove it - show how it is whataboutism.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

Ok, that's a good place to start; it is important to define or know the definitions of the words involved, cite their definitions, etc. Please continue with proving that it's whataboutism - I'm eager to see what you've got.

By definition, it's whataboutism. The post addresses the OP but without saying the word "what about", without responding to the OP with analysis and a proper answer, the post speaks of a famous mantra a lot of atheists use, the spaghetti monster.

That's whataboutism.

 

[anotherneil]

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

By definition, it's whataboutism. The post addresses the OP but without saying the word "what about", without responding to the OP with analysis and a proper answer, the post speaks of a famous mantra a lot of atheists use, the spaghetti monster.

That's whataboutism.

That's not the same as the definition you cite, and my post about the flying spaghetti monster (FSM) serves as a reductio ad absurdum type of argument and an analogical reasoning argument demonstrating that the inability of science to disprove God is just as valid and beneficial for making any point as the inability of science to disprove the flying spaghetti monster.

It's a complementary to the statement that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - the inability of science to disprove God/FSM does not prove that God/FSM exists

 

[firedragon]

That's not the same as the definition you cite, and my post about the flying spaghetti monster (FSM) serves as a reductio ad absurdum type of argument and an analogical reasoning argument demonstrating that the inability of science to disprove God is just as valid and beneficial for making any point as the inability of science to disprove the flying spaghetti monster.

It's a complementary to the statement that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - the inability of science to disprove God/FSM does not prove that God/FSM exists

Ciao.

 

[firedragon]

It's a complementary to the statement that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - the inability of science to disprove God/FSM does not prove that God/FSM exists

This is a strawman by the way. The OP does not make the claim that "since science does not disprove God, God exists".

 

[muhammad_isa]

The fact that X (whatever X is) can not be disproven by science is not evidence or an argument for the existence of X.

That's obvious.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..the inability of science to disprove God is just as valid and beneficial for making any point as the inability of science to disprove the flying spaghetti monster..

What 'point' would that be?

 

[anotherneil]

This is a strawman by the way. The OP does not make the claim that "since science does not disprove God, God exists".

I appreciate your point of contention, here, but the OP essentially did explicitly make the claim that God exists, and the point is that if the OP is trying to imply or make the claim that "since science does not disprove God, God exists" then it is false.

This thread is in the "Religious Debates" section of the forum, which suggests that the OP would be making an argument.

There is no argument explicitly being made, in which case you could argue that this is a strawman.

The argument implied seems to be that "since science does not disprove God, God exists", but if this is a strawman, then that would mean that the OP is not implying that, and all that's left is some claims with no argument, thus nothing being debated, or proposed to debate, by the OP.

I can't come up with a good explanation for what the situation is with the OP, other than this, but I'd be interested in hearing about other possibilities.

 

[firedragon]

the flying spaghetti monster

Hmm. So is spaghetti physical?

 

[firedragon]

I appreciate your point of contention, here, but the OP essentially did explicitly make the claim that God exists, and the point is that if the OP is trying to imply or make the claim that "since science does not disprove God, God exists" then it is false.

This thread is in the "Religious Debates" section of the forum, which suggests that the OP would be making an argument.

There is no argument explicitly being made, in which case you could argue that this is a strawman.

The argument implied seems to be that "since science does not disprove God, God exists", but if this is a strawman, then that would mean that the OP is not implying that, and all that's left is some claims with no argument, thus nothing being debated, or proposed to debate, by the OP.

I can't come up with a good explanation for what the situation is with the OP, other than this, but I'd be interested in hearing about other possibilities.

No point building a strawman and then going on and on about it. Just leave it.