God can not be disproven by science

[Nakosis]

..be my guest .. claim away.

Because that would be just as silly as the claim God did it.
Whereas I don't expect anyone to accept that a pink unicorn created the universe without evidence, believers do expect such acceptance when they claimed God did it.

Nonsense!
I wonder why not many people believe that pink unicorns created the universe..

The Abrahamic religion cornered the market when it came to making nonsense claims.

 

[Nakosis]

I don't think so.
Take the weather, for example .. can we predict with any certainty what it will be like tomorrow? No.

Actually, yes, with a certainty of about 90% for five day forecasts. On a daily basis, they report when it is going to start raining and when it is going to stop. I wouldn't call it prediction though but observation. By simply observing the current weather patterns they can rely on past observations to know what will happen next with the weather.

One cannot disprove that G-d might be able to change it .. locally AND globally.

Sure, they can. As soon as you provide the evidence for it. All you are saying is you can't provide the evidence for science to disprove.
While you may think that means something that supports your position, it doesn't other than the fact you have nothing to support your argument.

We don't have to .. you either believe or disbelieve .. end of!
As we can see from this site, many people explain their faith to others until they are "blue in the face",
but if people are obstinate, they continue to argue against.

You have yet to provide anything to argue against and see this as a victory for your position.
Ok,

The only argument really is about whether you have an argument. You don't.
Every post you made so far continues to show this is the case.

 

[Nakosis]

So... just to be clear... you are... not being sarcastic?

I mean... if not... at.... at least you're sort of trying to be consistent in rejection of huge swaths of reality and the human experience?

Yes, I am an amoralist.
While I'm not denying that we use the concept of morality to justify the idea of freewill in our decision making. I see it just as a story we tell ourselves.

There is a lot of scientific evidence that our decisions are made at a subconscious level in an automatic process before we are even conscious aware of the decision being made. We simply create a narrative about how we were consciously involved in the process. We've kept this narrative going for thousands of years so it is part of who we are, part of our literature/religious beliefs.

As I pointed out before, a mirage is an actual experience. It is something we actually perceive/experience. So I'm not denying that we experience the feelings of morality. I'm only saying the experience itself is not what we think it is.

 

[shunyadragon]

God can not be disproven by science. Why?

Easy. Science is limited to the objective verifiable evidence of the "physical" nature of our universe.

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

Yes, and science is justifiably neutral to the many conflicting subjective religious perspectives of God.

 

[shunyadragon]

..sounds like anarchy, to me..
i.e. you don't like authority

Anarchy would be putting an atheist, an Orthodox Jew, Fundamentalist Christian and a Fundamentalist Muslim in a locked room for a month.

The atheist and the Jew would possible get along.

 

[RestlessSoul]

If there exists players off-stage if they cause any influence on the stage, then that influence can be measured.
A lot of things, like gravity can't be directly observed for example however it's effects can.

Science can observe the effects and still falsify theories of the non-observable through the observation of the effects.

The problem here is saying that science cannot verify God. That only that can be true is if God has no effect on the universe.

You can't have it both ways. Either Gods has an effect on the universe, which is all that is required by science for observation or God causes no observable effect on the universe in which case there would be nothing to observe.

Or put another way, either God is everything, or He is nothing.

And if we accept the former proposition, science becomes the study of God in His ever shifting material form. God in His transcendent, immaterial form on the other hand, is not accessible to scientific observation or analysis; yet according to the testimony of mystics down the ages, God transcendent is still occasionally accessible to enlightened human consciousness.

 

[Heyo]

Anarchy would be putting an atheist, an Orthodox Jew, Fundamentalist Christian and a Fundamentalist Muslim in a locked room for a month.

The atheist and the Jew would possible get along.

... as would the fundamentalists, the US evangelicals haven't been called "Christian Taliban" without a reason.

 

[Heyo]

If there exists players off-stage if they cause any influence on the stage, then that influence can be measured.
A lot of things, like gravity can't be directly observed for example however it's effects can.

Science can observe the effects and still falsify theories of the non-observable through the observation of the effects.

The problem here is saying that science cannot verify God. That only that can be true is if God has no effect on the universe.

You can't have it both ways. Either Gods has an effect on the universe, which is all that is required by science for observation or God causes no observable effect on the universe in which case there would be nothing to observe.

Correct but incomplete. Not only would we have to measure an effect on the real world, but we'd also have to attribute that effect unambiguously to "god". I.e. we need a well-defined entity, and we'd have to show the mechanism.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

@TagliatelliMonster said "..Something exists in "no place" and at "no time".... that's pretty consistent with something that doesn't exist.."

..but an alternative universe (as part of a multiverse) does NOT share the same "time and space".
.so can it not exist?

Do you misrepresent what I said on purpose?
I made a follow up post and clarified. Did you miss it? Or just ignore it?

I don't think that this thread is about such presumptions .. more about "is it theoretically possible?".

Self-contradicting things are not possible. Theoretically or otherwise.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What "truth"?

Objective truth.

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 like you are now ignoring the specifics of the examples being talked about.
Sometimes the truth is unpleasant.

Seems to me telling others what they should do by your moral standards assumes that yours are more correct than theirs.

Well, in some cases they are. When someone refuses medical aid for irrational reason, I consider that immoral. Even if they do it to themselves only.

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.

Not what I said. I was merely giving an example that things don't have to necessarily affect me personally or people close to me for me to care about it.
The fact that something bad affects *anyone* is good enough for me to try and help out, if I am able to. And that might include challenging irrational beliefs.

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

No, it's not a result of the homeopathy. It's a result of the psychological belief that the person did something that will help, while in actuality it doesn't.
This is fine for trivial things that primarily only exist in someone's head. It is not fine for actual medical problems.

Furthermore, I have ethical issues with the entire idea.
Should a doctor knowingly prescribe you with placebo's? He'ld essentially by lying to you. He'ld be giving you a pill or whatever, claiming there is an active substance in it that will tackle your problems while that isn't true at all.

I think it would be better to dig for the route cause of why the placebo effect actually works (like stress relief) and exploit that without lying to patients. I'm just not that comfortable with being "tricked" or being lied to, even if the outcome means more comfort.

I'm very aware you can make a solid case for both sides though.
I just have ethical problems with the lying part. It doesn't sit well with me.

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.

In most every one of those cases, you will note that it never concerns actual deseases caused by virusses, cancer, etc.
It almost always concerns things in the brain: depression, pain, etc

Things that are / can be dealt with by general stress relief. Or things that are aggravated by stress.
This is what placebo's exploit.

The placebo effect will not cure any serious illness. In case of serious illness, at best it will make symptoms, like pain, more copeable. But the illness remains.
This is when it becomes dangerous.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nonsense!

Not at all. Both are equally untestable claims.

I wonder why not many people believe that pink unicorns created the universe..

The short answer to that is "anthropomorphism"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

..sounds like anarchy, to me..
i.e. you don't like authority

Those who point to authority as a foundation for morality, are generally called psychopaths.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Objective truth.

Which is not relevant when it comes to belief in God(s).

Seems like you are now ignoring the specifics of the examples being talked about.

Absolutely not. I'm addressing them as a whole. In removing God, you are simply imposing your worldview onto others.

Sometimes the truth is unpleasant.

There you go with "truth" again. See my first statement in this post. You're conflating your personal truth with objective truth.

Well, in some cases they are. When someone refuses medical aid for irrational reason, I consider that immoral. Even if they do it to themselves only.

Thank you for phrasing this from a position of personal moral standards.

Conversely, another could consider your seeing the same medical aid immoral based on their moral standards.

If someone has a DNR, and their life could be saved through CPR or life support, do you have the right to perform CPR or administer life support because it is in line with your own moral standards?

Not what I said. I was merely giving an example that things don't have to necessarily affect me personally or people close to me for me to care about it.
The fact that something bad affects *anyone* is good enough for me to try and help out, if I am able to. And that might include challenging irrational beliefs.

You can care about such things. I can care about such things. But it's not my place to judge others and their rights to do what they will with their own bodies. Interfering by imposing our own moral and ethical standards might save the body, but it could very well destroy the person.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As I was reading this, I removed the word "God" and replaced it with some other abstract "made up" human notion that doesn't have any observable existence - morality.

Morality has no observable effect on the universe as morality is not a "thing" with dimensions in time or space. Can't even try to reduce it down to some dumb math equation either, as with gravity.

Thus, we should also reject the existence of morality, as it more or less follows the same pattern here. There's no measurable or observable proofs of anyone's claims about morality. There is overwhelming lack of evidence for morality. It's just made up nonsense.

You don't think morality has observable effects? Morality informs human behaviour. We can infer a person's morality - and therefore the existence of morality - from their actions.

 

[Nakosis]

Correct but incomplete. Not only would we have to measure an effect on the real world, but we'd also have to attribute that effect unambiguously to "god". I.e. we need a well-defined entity, and we'd have to show the mechanism.

I'm fine with letting people define their own God in this discussion as they usually defining a "God" that couldn't possible exist.
Although you are right if we wanted to do this for real we'd have to have to define those attributes along with a working theory for the mechanics which could be tested.

 

[Ella S.]

Usually, when I talk about whether something exists or not, I mean in actual physical spacetime. Therefore, if God is outside of spacetime, I can accurately describe that God as not existing - at least in the traditional sense of existence that implies a point in space and time to exist in.

However, you could say that God exists in a parallel universe, which would merely require an extra spatial or temporal dimension.

But if you define God as spaceless and timeless, then I would say that it's nomologically impossible for God to exist, and thus I can say that I am 100% certain that there is no such God. I think the only tenable way around this is to redefine God or his properties.

Unfortunately, classical theism does assert that God is spaceless and timeless. Even Deism implies that God has to somehow exist outside of spacetime in order to have created it.

This is the hard problem that theology has been put into. Originally, in the Western tradition, God was our explanation for why life had an appearance of design. Now, we call these appearances "adaptations" and understand how they can arise from millions of years of naturally selected mutations. This more or less disproved the existence of God; we now know that life was not designed by some creator and is instead a product of unguided natural forces.

Well, it disproved God in conjunction with us realizing that the "heavens" (i.e., the planets and sky) and the earth were also a product of natural forces. And the matter composing it all was, too. So God, the creator of the heavens and the earth and the intelligent designer of life, clearly didn't exist because those things aren't created.

Well, if God didn't directly create our planet and the life on it, we could still shift the goalposts and claim that he "indirectly" created all of it, right? We could say he created the natural forces, knowingly, in such a way that our planet and the life on it would arise. By reframing scientific discoveries like this, we aren't disproving God at all, we're just "explaining how he created" everything!

Even though, you know, this new model of God that's supposed to be more difficult to disprove is... impossible. That doesn't matter, though, right? We can just ignore nomology and say that such a God isn't logically contradictory in the very narrowest sense, so isn't technically (logically) impossible. That means he could maybe exist possibly still.

It's just confirmation bias. That's all answered prayers are, too, and we actually have proven that one in prayer studies.

The truth is that we ruled out the God hypothesis a long time ago. God's not real. We know God's not real the same way that we know aether isn't real. He's been replaced by better models.

 

[Nakosis]

Or put another way, either God is everything, or He is nothing.

And if we accept the former proposition, science becomes the study of God in His ever shifting material form. God in His transcendent, immaterial form on the other hand, is not accessible to scientific observation or analysis; yet according to the testimony of mystics down the ages, God transcendent is still occasionally accessible to enlightened human consciousness.

Sure, you can define God as everything. God is the physical universe.
In which case we only need to worry about physics and science.
And while you go about calling the universe God, I will simply continue to call it the universe.
Since you've equated the universe with God I'll assume any claims you make about God in the future you'll be able to support with physics, logic and science.

 

[Heyo]

Usually, when I talk about whether something exists or not, I mean in actual physical spacetime. Therefore, if God is outside of spacetime, I can accurately describe that God as not existing - at least in the traditional sense of existence that implies a point in space and time to exist in.

How I use "real" and "existing" here: 5 Planes of Existence

However, you could say that God exists in a parallel universe, which would merely require an extra spatial or temporal dimension.

But if you define God as spaceless and timeless, then I would say that it's nomologically impossible for God to exist, and thus I can say that I am 100% certain that there is no such God. I think the only tenable way around this is to redefine God or his properties.

Unfortunately, classical theism does assert that God is spaceless and timeless. Even Deism implies that God has to somehow exist outside of spacetime in order to have created it.

There is a way to have a timeless and spaceless entity: being a Platonic ideal. Numbers don't depend on or interact with time or space. 2 + 2 were 4 before this universe started, and they will be after it has ended.
The catch is that Platonic ideals can't act in time, so, a Platonic god would have to have quite different attributes than anything we have thought of as gods up till now.

This is the hard problem that theology has been put into. Originally, in the Western tradition, God was our explanation for why life had an appearance of design. Now, we call these appearances "adaptations" and understand how they can arise from millions of years of naturally selected mutations. This more or less disproved the existence of God; we now know that life was not designed by some creator and is instead a product of unguided natural forces.

Well, it disproved God in conjunction with us realizing that the "heavens" (i.e., the planets and sky) and the earth were also a product of natural forces. And the matter composing it all was, too. So God, the creator of the heavens and the earth and the intelligent designer of life, clearly didn't exist because those things aren't created.

Well, if God didn't directly create our planet and the life on it, we could still shift the goalposts and claim that he "indirectly" created all of it, right? We could say he created the natural forces, knowingly, in such a way that our planet and the life on it would arise. By reframing scientific discoveries like this, we aren't disproving God at all, we're just "explaining how he created" everything!

Even though, you know, this new model of God that's supposed to be more difficult to disprove is... impossible. That doesn't matter, though, right? We can just ignore nomology and say that such a God isn't logically contradictory in the very narrowest sense, so isn't technically (logically) impossible. That means he could maybe exist possibly still.

It's just confirmation bias. That's all answered prayers are, too, and we actually have proven that one in prayer studies.

The truth is that we ruled out the God hypothesis a long time ago. God's not real. We know God's not real the same way that we know aether isn't real. He's been replaced by better models.

We have ruled out a big number of god hypotheses, but the believers refuse to realize it. They aren't very creative in adapting the hypotheses, but every once in a while someone has a useful new idea.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Sure, you can define God as everything. God is the physical universe.
In which case we only need to worry about physics and science.
And while you go about calling the universe God, I will simply continue to call it the universe.
Since you've equated the universe with God I'll assume any claims you make about God in the future you'll be able to support with physics, logic and science.

You can make as many assumptions as you like, it won't change anything beyond your own perceptions. But then without a belief in something greater, our own perceptions are pretty much all we have, are they not?

 

[Nakosis]

You can make as many assumptions as you like, it won't change anything beyond your own perceptions.

You are certainly free to clarify it if you wish, but that to me at least seemed to be what you are saying.

But then without a belief in something greater, our own perceptions are pretty much all we have, are they not?

You're the one wanting to equate God to everything.
Now you want to add something to that because you are really not happy with the idea of God being everything.
Perhaps you should reevaluate what you are saying.