God can not be disproven by science

[ChristineM]

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.

In your opinion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Assumption.

 

[LuisDantas]

Many people seem to neglect the importance of epistemological rigour.

It is not harmless to believe "just because" or "because it can't be disproven".

All the more so because there are political consequences to that carelessness, and all of us pay the price.

 

[LuisDantas]

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.

You have to either present your case or accept that people will gladly reject your premises - and should.

 

[LuisDantas]

No .. you have no problem with the concept of a multiverse, but as soon as G-d is mentioned..

I don't know about him, but I sure have a problem with those claims. Not due to anything to do with a multiverse, but simply because it is wrong and dangerous to simply presume an Abrahamic god, even if one does no lend much significance to that god.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No .. you have no problem with the concept of a multiverse, but as soon as G-d is mentioned..

Contrary to gods, the concept of a multi-verse is actually well-motivated, as it is predicted by various theories (like inflation theory) that in themselves are also well-motivated by evidence.

Nevertheless, at present there is no way to test the multi-verse concept and likely there never will be.
So I'm content with saying "I don't know".


But again, the difference between a multi-verse and god, is that there is actual empircal reason to suggest a multi-verse exists (as a prediction of empirical theories), while there is no such thing for gods at all.

And btw, the multi-verse as predicted by inflation, is itself an expanding space-time, governed by laws.
The way a god's existence is described in the post I was responding to, that description is completely consistent with a thing that doesn't exist.
That is not how a multi-verse is said to exist (if it exists).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Whose truth?

Truth regardless of opinion.

And some God beliefs inform actions that are quite benevolent for the believer.

And quite detrimental to everyone else.
And sometimes also detrimental to the believer while the believer considers it a good thing.

Like when a Jehova Witness refuses certain types of medical aid.
Or when a fundie christian denies himself his sexual orientation and forces himself to effectively live someone else's life.
Or when a fundie muslim blows himself up in a crowded market, thinking he's actually doing a good thing.
And many more such examples.

I have yet to encounter an action or decision that is moral / for the greater good, that can ONLY be done by motivation of a religious belief and not for purely secular rational reasons. Yet it is extremely trivial to find examples of the opposite. But I guess that's another topic altogether.

Who has control over whether the beliefs of another affect you? You? Or the believer?

Me, the believer, the government and / or other people in seats of power,...
Depends on the beliefs and the actions and how they can or will potentially affect others.

Only if those actions and decisions affect you.

Almost everything anyone does affects someone else one way or the other.

If a theocracy is creating laws that impose on your fundamental human rights, then yes, it's time to rise to the challenge.

Not just a theocracy. Go look in western secular countries and check out the actual motivations behind things like abortion laws, (gay) marriage laws, stem cell research, etc.

The idea that only in a theocracy one is affected by the religious rules of another, is a great misconception.

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?

No.

Just like using homeopathy or any other quack "alternative" medicine doesn't warrant a challenge if it merely takes on the role of a placebo.
However, when that quack "alternative" medicine is suddenly proposed as a treatment for cancer, then that quickly changes.

Now, if no specifics are mentioned and someone just comes out saying "homeopathy works", then that person will - and should - be challenged as well.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Truth regardless of opinion.

Theistic positions are opinion. There is no objective truth when it comes to the existence (or non-existence) of God.

Like when a Jehova Witness refuses certain types of medical aid.

How is this detrimental to you?

Or when a fundie christian denies himself his sexual orientation and forces himself to effectively live someone else's life.

How is this detrimental to you?

Or when a fundie muslim blows himself up in a crowded market, thinking he's actually doing a good thing.

Yes, this is a case where it is detrimental to others. And yes, such beliefs that such actions should rightly be challenged...because they impact the lives of others.

I have yet to encounter an action or decision that is moral / for the greater good, that can ONLY be done by motivation of a religious belief and not for purely secular rational reasons. Yet it is extremely trivial to find examples of the opposite. But I guess that's another topic altogether.

So any action or decision that is not done for the greater good should be challenged? I love a cheese, mushroom, and black olive deep dish pizza. My eating it does nothing for the greater good, but pleases my taste buds. Should that be challenged?

Almost everything anyone does affects someone else one way or the other.

How does my eating a cheese, mushroom, and black olive deep dish pizza affect anyone else? A paycheck to the cook? A profit for the company? Yes, you're right. It does have an impact. An not a negative one to anyone, except perhaps me. Should my eating the pizza be challenged?

Not just a theocracy. Go look in western secular countries and check out the actual motivations behind things like abortion laws, (gay) marriage laws, stem cell research, etc.

The idea that only in a theocracy one is affected by the religious rules of another, is a great misconception.

It was an example to illustrate my point. I never implied that a theocracy has exclusivity in affecting fundamental human rights.

Now, if no specifics are mentioned and someone just comes out saying "homeopathy works", then that person will - and should - be challenged as well.

Why? How does someone saying homeopathy works affect you? Is there a concern that you might believe it?

The mind controls the body. The placebo effect is a thing. If homeopathy worked for that person, it's possible it can work for someone else. Does your challenge help the person that it might have worked for?

 

[Nakosis]

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.

Interaction requires time and separation from the object you are interacting with.
The point being saying God is outside of space and time itself is silly?

Unless God can actually function in space and time to interact with us, there not much point to God being part of anyone's life.
If God can function in space and time, even temporarily then God is at that point as least observable/empirical which means scientifically falsifiable.

Ownership of the universe is not a relevant point.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

Time = change. For something to occur, something has to change. No change/time = no occurrence.
Space is simple separation. For you to interact with something other than yourself it must be separate from you. No space, no separation, nothing to interact with.

 

[Audie]

God can not be disproven by science. Why?

Because God exist outside of time and space. God created space and time, but are itself beyond it

A. The god described in the bible is readily disproved.
B. Defining something to fit the requiremrnts is circular illogic

 

[Audie]

You have to either present your case or accept that people will gladly reject your premises - and should.

Or even just not qive them even a glance

 

[Colt]

God can not be disproven by science. Why?

Because God exist outside of time and space. God created space and time, but are itself beyond it

True! God is so obvious that its blinding! Science is really just the observation and study of the energy or physical aspects of God.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Theistic positions are opinion.

I'm talking about truth. Not "theistic positions" or "beliefs".

There is no objective truth when it comes to the existence (or non-existence) of God.

Correct. Seems like a very good reason to not call it "truth".

How is this detrimental to you?


How is this detrimental to you?

It's detrimental to him/her-self and his/her family. It might be my family. It might be a friend, a collegue, an acquintance.
If none of the above, it's still a human being and fellow citizen (either of the country or of planet earth) and unnecessary suffering.
I think people should care about unnecessary suffering of humans, regardless if they belong to your inner circle or not.
It's why I donate to charities that bring food to the hungry in Africa, eventhough strictly speaking I am "unaffected" if some kid there dies of hunger or not.

Yes, this is a case where it is detrimental to others. And yes, such beliefs that such actions should rightly be challenged...because they impact the lives of others.

So do the previous examples. Those people have friends, family and fellow citizens.
They are someone's parent, brother, sister, daughter, son, cousin, friend, neighbour,...

So any action or decision that is not done for the greater good should be challenged? I love a cheese, mushroom, and black olive deep dish pizza. My eating it does nothing for the greater good, but pleases my taste buds. Should that be challenged?

Not what I said.

It was an example to illustrate my point. I never implied that a theocracy has exclusivity in affecting fundamental human rights.

That wasn't clear. The explicit mention of theocracy seemed to imply that it's not an issue non-theocratic countries.

Why? How does someone saying homeopathy works affect you? Is there a concern that you might believe it?

People I care about might believe it.
There is a concern that anyone might believe it. See I actually care about other people. Even if they don't belong to my inner circle.
And I also don't want to live in a society where quack medics are treated on equal footing as actual medics.

Having said that, I think that anything should be challengeable.
An educated and informed populace, benefits all.

The mind controls the body.

Not really.

The placebo effect is a thing.

Not that big of a thing.

If homeopathy worked for that person, it's possible it can work for someone else.

It's not the homeopathy that worked. It's the placebo effect.

Does your challenge help the person that it might have worked for?

Well, as a matter of fact, in the past there was an instance of exactly that.
A friend with actual complaints saw a quack who gave him homeopathy.
I felt the symptoms were serious enough to go see an actual doctor.
He maintained "no, I'm feeling better now with the meds" - which were just homeopathy things.

I insisted and asked him to then just do it as a favor for me.
Turns out he required surgery and him "feeling" better was simply a placebo effect. He wasn't actually better at all.
A placebo merely makes you feel better without actually being better.

 

[Bthoth]

God can not be disproven by science. Why?

Because God exist outside of time and space. God created space and time, but are itself beyond it

Where did bible suggest that science is to disprove any god? What to disprove is that religious adherents are being honest about god.

That list line that you wrote is no anecdote as none of those terms could be used without science to define the terms.

The question is does guilt cause believers to fear the loss of god because of science?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

So empirical evidence for God ought to exist?

 

[SalixIncendium]

I'm talking about truth. Not "theistic positions" or "beliefs".

What "truth"?

It's detrimental to him/her-self and his/her family. It might be my family. It might be a friend, a collegue, an acquintance.
If none of the above, it's still a human being and fellow citizen (either of the country or of planet earth) and unnecessary suffering.
I think people should care about unnecessary suffering of humans, regardless if they belong to your inner circle or not.

It's possible that you can be harming them rather than helping them. Removing God from someone's life or a family's life can also affect unnecessary suffering. Seems to me telling others what they should do by your moral standards assumes that yours are more correct than theirs.

It's why I donate to charities that bring food to the hungry in Africa, eventhough strictly speaking I am "unaffected" if some kid there dies of hunger or not.

Does hunger in Africa exist because someone believes in God? If not, this isn't relevant to the discussion.

As an aside, doing this is quite admirable. Thank you.

It's not the homeopathy that worked. It's the placebo effect.

And the placebo effect was a result of the homeopathy. It worked. You just don't like how it worked.

Well, as a matter of fact, in the past there was an instance of exactly that.
A friend with actual complaints saw a quack who gave him homeopathy.
I felt the symptoms were serious enough to go see an actual doctor.
He maintained "no, I'm feeling better now with the meds" - which were just homeopathy things.

I insisted and asked him to then just do it as a favor for me.
Turns out he required surgery and him "feeling" better was simply a placebo effect. He wasn't actually better at all.
A placebo merely makes you feel better without actually being better.

Thanks for sharing this. It's an interesting case.

But this one case doesn't mean that placebos only make someone feel better. There are studies where placebos have done a bit more than that.

 

[Firenze]

Happily, I've never wasted energy trying to prove a god does not exist. It's much simpler to simply assume a god exists and then show that it is completely lacking in competence, morality, and sanity.

 

[Firenze]

Does hunger in Africa exist because someone believes in God?

Arguably, yes. In places where mysticism and religion is valued over education, the inability to develop a rational and workable system to provide food is not much of a surprise.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Arguably, yes. In places where mysticism and religion is valued over education, the inability to develop a rational and workable system to provide food is not much of a surprise.

Would you happen to have any resources to support this claim?