firedragon
Veteran Member
I'll tell you what. I'll do the googling for your sake using your own question "" philosopher of scirnce" being what? Who?"
First result. "Click".
-
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
First result. "Click".
What did I say that was wrong in that post?
Santa Clause can't be disproved by science either.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
God can not be disproven by science
paarsurrey said:
It is beyond the limits of Science as per Scientific Method, please, right?
These rhetorics prove that the Western Atheism (et al) is flip side of the Christianity aka Paulism, right, please?
Regards
paarsurrey said:
It is beyond the limits of Science as per Scientific Method, please, right?
I know it is a rhetoric among many of the Atheists (et al), and then they deny that theirs is no ianity and or ism.
These rhetorics prove that the Western Atheism (et al) is flip side of the Christianity aka Paulism, right, please?
Regards
Audie
Veteran Member
Start with you knowing more than any
researcher.
I have no idea what you're talking about here, I'm just saying science is not in the business of disproving things not claimed to be supported by science. The existence of God and Santa Clause are not claimed to be supported by science; so of course they aren't disproved by science
AppieB
Active Member
If you define your god in a way that it is unfalsifiable then indeed god can't be disproven by science.
It also makes your belief irrational
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, it is a fact that some people hold irrational beliefs. Now as a skeptic I doubt that any human holds only rational beliefs, but that is me.
AppieB
Active Member
I don’t disagree. I’m just pointing out fallacious reasoning and irrational beliefs.
I hope somebody else would extend me the same courtesy.
Last edited:
I didn't claim that.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Do you really believe empiricism or scientism is rationalism? Why don't atheist evangelists do some research prior to making this kind of statements? Where is your epistemic responsibility?
How so?
firedragon
Veteran Member
So you agree with the OP.
It's more that science doesn't deal in "proof."
The scientific method has no issue with demonstrating to a reasonable level of certainty that a thing does not exist or a premise is not correct.
We do this all the time: determining that species are extinct, refuting false ideas about how things work, etc.
IMO, the existence of God (excluding the vaguely-defined "not even wrong" versions of God) has been refuted to a similar degree to, say, the existence of phlogiston.
McBell
Unbound
For the exact same reason that the Loch Ness Monster can not be disproven by science.
There is a long list of things that can not be disproven by science:
Unicorns
Chupacabra
Jersey Devil
Santa Claus
Fairies
Gnomes
elves
leprechauns
Souls
ghosts
zombies
Big foot
Well there you go.
Every thing that can not be disproven by science simply exist outside of time and space.
So what is it you wanted to debate?
No. the OP assumes God exists, but science is unable to prove the existence of this entity that does exist. I'm saying there are lots of things that don't exist that science does not waste it's time disproving. Most concepts of God will fit into this category.
How are you defining time and space, and how is it possible to exist outside of it?
firedragon
Veteran Member
In that case, why are you even engaging with science in mind? Ir'a absurd. And you are in fact agreeing with the OP. "
God can not be disproven by science"
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
Time and space are defined as physical quantities, whereas G-d is not defined of
physical matter.
Some people do not believe in the existence of anything but that of the physical.
However, that is irrelevant .. it can't be proved one way or the other by physical means.
It's easier to check for the existence of 'spaghetti monsters', because they would
be made of spaghetti.
I don't. I don't engage religion with science unless (like this case) the conversation at hand is about science and religion; then I have no choice but to. But I understand religion is about what is believed to be true, and science is about what can be demonstrated as true.
Last edited: