God can not be disproven by science

[Squiggy]

Just you

Okay, thanks Audie. I'll make a note of that. Have a nice night.

 

[Firenze]

Just you

Thanx for the well reasoned response I would expect from an 8 year old.

 

[Audie]

Scientific Proof Is A Myth

We can demonstrate, suggest, and convince ourselves that a scientific truth is valid. But proof? That's an impossibility for science.

www.forbes.com

 

[Firenze]

Scientific Proof Is A Myth

We can demonstrate, suggest, and convince ourselves that a scientific truth is valid. But proof? That's an impossibility for science.

www.forbes.com

How hard was that?

 

[Audie]

Richard Feynman Teaches you the Scientific Method

In this short video Physicist, Richard Feynman offers the greatest definition of science and the scientific method that I've ever heard.

fs.blog

 

[vulcanlogician]

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

Yeah. That's one way of saying it. Or another way would be that religion can always find a way to excuse the lack of evidence of God by placing God into a supernatural category... to explain why he is not naturally perceived.

I think it's fine and all to do this. (After all, if God is supernatural, it seems to follow that he would be ABLE to exist beyond our capacities to observe him). But I do sympathize with those who propose that this seems like a cheap tactic. I'm not saying that it is or isn't. As I said before, such an idea is internally consistent.

But I can totally see where people are coming from when they call it cheap.

 

[Audie]

Thanx for the well reasoned response I would expect from an 8 year old.

It was correct.

As 8 yr olds we"d already done this concept,
in Hong Kong.
What isnt easy is to be endlessly
patient and polite with ignorant
people being snarky while displaying
what illiterates they are.

I was vaguely amusing at first. It isnt any more.

 

[Audie]

Yeah. That's one way of saying it. Or another way would be that religion can always find a way to excuse the lack of evidence of God by placing God into a supernatural category... to explain why he is not naturally perceived.

I think it's fine and all to do this. (After all, if God is supernatural, it seems to follow that he would be ABLE to exist beyond our capacities to observe him). But I do sympathize with those who propose that this seems like a cheap tactic. I'm not saying that it is or isn't. As I said before, such an idea is internally consistent.

But I can totally see where people are coming from when they call it cheap.

Its not because " god is outside..."

Nobody knows that. Its made up.

And " god" is so vague. Nobody knows
anything, nobody agrees what they thonk it is.

Its like saying "nobody can disprove blort"

True. But utterly useless.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Its not because " god is outside..."

Nobody knows that. Its made up.

And " god" is so vague. Nobody knows
anything, nobody agrees what they thonk it is.

Its like saying "nobody can disprove blort"

True. But utterly useless.

Sure. If I were speaking to a fellow non-believer, we might agree to that from the outset. But when speaking to a believer, I've found it useful to point out the ambiguities of our knowledge without highlighting such problems. Why? Because there are are points that (valid as they may or may not be) try to shoulder theists out of the debate before the debate begins.

If you wanna have a good debate, you gotta "meet your opponent half way." I personally judge that atheism is so strong that it can have a hand or two tied behind its back and still come out the victor. So that's the approach I like to take.

 

[Squiggy]

Sure. If I were speaking to a fellow non-believer, we might agree to that from the outset. But when speaking to a believer, I've found it useful to point out the ambiguities of our knowledge without highlighting such problems. Why? Because there are are points that (valid as they may or may not be) try to shoulder theists out of the debate before the debate begins.

If you wanna have a good debate, you gotta "meet your opponent half way." I personally judge that atheism is so strong that it can have a hand or two tied behind its back and still come out the victor. So that's the approach I like to take.

So true. The whole point of a fair-minded discussion is to grant the possibility, no matter how small, that there might actually exist an entity commonly referred to as "god." I mean, this is a religious forum, people do talk about god. Apparently, some in here feel merely referencing god, the thing most of us are here to talk about, is "ignorant." I have found from experience that debaters that resort to ad hominem before even offering any argument, at all, is not desiring to discuss, they're perhaps cranky and in need of a nap. Just an opinion.

 

[vulcanlogician]

they're perhaps cranky and in need of a nap.

Ngl. I have been cranky and in need of a nap several times in my adult life. So this condition isn't peculiar to theists.

 

[Sargonski]

Incoherent rambling examples below:


I don't recognize these epithets.

You don't get to determine what someone finds of interest or value.

Nothing incoherent lest one lacks basic understanding of the Bible .. hence why you recognize not the epiphets .. nor find anything of interest or value for a declared polytheist... and no one determined what you find of interest.. but your disinterest is concurrent with your lack of understandin gof the subject matter .. so well done

 

[Audie]

So true. The whole point of a fair-minded discussion is to grant the possibility, no matter how small, that there might actually exist an entity commonly referred to as "god." I mean, this is a religious forum, people do talk about god. Apparently, some in here feel merely referencing god, the thing most of us are here to talk about, is "ignorant." I have found from experience that debaters that resort to ad hominem before even offering any argument, at all, is not desiring to discuss, they're perhaps cranky and in need of a nap. Just an opinion.

That there are possibilities no matter how
small is hard wired into science. Like the
possibility of an exception to a law or theory.

Thats why theres no proof in science.

Theres nothing "ignorant" about belief in god.
Still less in mentioning same.
We doubt anyone makes such silly claims.

Thinking science does proof, though,, is
Ignorant. And the attitude of denying
the fact instead of checking is just how people
stay ignorant.

Same with not studying what an ad hom is leads people
to misuse the term in ignorant ways.

I didnt even say or suggest you were
the ignorant one when i first responded.
I was agreeing with your post.

Wasnt till you went defensive - snarky
that I realized you didnt understand about
science and proof.

 

[Audie]

Sure. If I were speaking to a fellow non-believer, we might agree to that from the outset. But when speaking to a believer, I've found it useful to point out the ambiguities of our knowledge without highlighting such problems. Why? Because there are are points that (valid as they may or may not be) try to shoulder theists out of the debate before the debate begins.

If you wanna have a good debate, you gotta "meet your opponent half way." I personally judge that atheism is so strong that it can have a hand or two tied behind its back and still come out the victor. So that's the approach I like to take.

So like if someone sez water contracts
wh÷n it freezes we meet them half way
or tell them it isnt so ?

 

[The Hammer]

Nothing incoherent lest one lacks basic understanding of the Bible .. hence why you recognize not the epiphets .. nor find anything of interest or value for a declared polytheist... and no one determined what you find of interest.. but your disinterest is concurrent with your lack of understandin gof the subject matter .. so well done

Lol... Okie dokie.

I'm glad you feel that way. Ta-ta

 

[Squiggy]

That there are possibilities no matter how
small is hard wired into science. Like the
possibility of an exception to a law or theory.

Thats why theres no proof in science.

Theres nothing "ignorant" about belief in god.
Still less in mentioning same.
We doubt anyone makes such silly claims.

Thinking science does proof, though,, is
Ignorant. And the attitude of denying
the fact instead of checking is just how people
stay ignorant.

Same with not studying what an ad hom is leads people
to misuse the term in ignorant ways.

I didnt even say or suggest you were
the ignorant one when i first responded.
I was agreeing with your post.

Wasnt till you went defensive - snarky
that I realized you didnt understand about
science and proof.

Okay, in the first place, had you offered this in the beginning instead of calling me "ignorant," we maybe could have had a polite discussion. Now I just feel annoyed and tired.

I merely stated that science cannot prove God, that's consistent with what you're saying. So, I don't know why you got an axe to grind here. But that aside, people in these forums commonly use the term proof loosely as a convenience for discussion. They don't feel obligated to qualify the term when its import, even when used loosely, will suffice. Proof=knowledge of, when discussing god's existence. It is generally accepted that god, if it exists, would lie beyond the realm of science as a supernatural entity. There's rarely a need among us "ignorant" folk to clarify the obvious. Hope that clears it up for you.

 

[Sargonski]

Lol... Okie dokie.

I'm glad you feel that way. Ta-ta

Giggling "Okie dokie" followed by expression of Glee towards my feelings .. on what we are not sure ... followed by "Ta Ta" prancing off the playground.

Well .. Okie dokie Pokie doodle to you as well kind Sir

 

[Audie]

Okay, in the first place, had you offered this in the beginning instead of calling me "ignorant," we maybe could have had a polite discussion. Now I just feel annoyed and tired.

I merely stated that science cannot prove God, that's consistent with what you're saying. So, I don't know why you got an axe to grind here. But that aside, people in these forums commonly use the term proof loosely as a convenience for discussion. They don't feel obligated to qualify the term when its import, even when used loosely, will suffice. Proof=knowledge of, when discussing god's existence. It is generally accepted that god, if it exists, would lie beyond the realm of science as a supernatural entity. There's rarely a need among us "ignorant" folk to clarify the obvious. Hope that clears it up for you.

And i merely stated-in agreement- that its
ignorant to think science does proof.
That isnt remotely calling you ignorant.


' course when you went full snark on me
with that thing about all scientists it was
pretty natural to figure you didnt understand it
either.
I still cant tell for sure.

 

[vulcanlogician]

So like if someone sez water contracts
wh÷n it freezes we meet them half way
or tell them it isnt so ?

Explain to them what the reality of the matter is. If they say it is something else, then, yes. Meet them half way. Is that so scary? Do you feel your position couldn't recover from that? I guarantee, it could.

 

[The Hammer]

Giggling "Okie dokie" followed by expression of Glee towards my feelings .. on what we are not sure ... followed by "Ta Ta" prancing off the playground.

Well .. Okie dokie Pokie doodle to you as well kind Sir

Ok. Have a good night.

Buh bye