God is disproven by science? Really?

[Hamilton]

Not agents, but I think causal. This would seem to fall within the orbit of probability theory. Perhaps @Subduction Zone or @Polymath257 could better tell us if randomness can be viewed as causal? My math is too weak to make a definitive statement on that.

In my personal experience, when I see things happen someone or something makes it happen. There is either an active force (agent), or an insensible instrument, and if an instrument, an agent moving that instrument. I have been trying to think of a real-world phenomenon that I cannot attribute to either an agent or an instrument, so far without success. A cursory search has shown me no examples. Since I believe none exists, I won't commit to a further fruitless search.

 

[Hamilton]

You seriously heard someone say
something disproves God? Tell
us who. We atheists don't want idiots in our group.

Audie, I have heard and read people claim that science disproves God since at least high school. Even more in college, including discussions with campus marxists, campus Christians, and professors (of history, philosophy, and political science). Even a few co-workers have asserted this, directly or indirectly.

On-line, especially exmembers of religious groups, people repeatedly say the presence of suffering, the immateriality of God, apparent hypocrisy of religious adherents, alleged imperfections in biology prove that there is no God. Why would you question that someone heard such a thing. Have you never heard claims like this?

 

[Zwing]

In my personal experience, when I see things happen someone or something makes it happen.

To me, agency implies volition, and therefore a mind. Something can be causal without necessarily being an agent, I think.

 

[metis]

Yes, I see. In the pantheistic estimation, is God a being with consciousness, or does God otherwise have consciousness?

Or are we That?

 

[Audie]

Audie, I have heard and read people claim that science disproves God since at least high school. Even more in college, including discussions with campus marxists, campus Christians, and professors (of history, philosophy, and political science). Even a few co-workers have asserted this, directly or indirectly.

On-line, especially exmembers of religious groups, people repeatedly say the presence of suffering, the immateriality of God, apparent hypocrisy of religious adherents, alleged imperfections in biology prove that there is no God. Why would you question that someone heard such a thing. Have you never heard claims like this?

I clearly spend my time in different circles.

More to the point here in rf, tho -

Why debate people nobody knows and are
not present ?

 

[Audie]

Oh, I wasn't debating with those atheists, I was reading the debates they had with theists. Typically my Reddit is used to make polls when I do post and I hardly ever make comments on YouTube videos anymore.

So you bring a non debate with idiots to a debate
forum and submit it for no reason

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How is an event shown to be miraculous? The suggestion that an event is miraculous is a proposition, and verification thereof follows The same course as the proposition that “there is a God which exists”. It is not demonstrable.

I'm not trying to get into a whole thing about how we define "miraculous." My point is that certain things are attributed to God, and therein lie testable claims.

Effectively, God is a cryptid and can be investigated just like chupacabra, Nessie, or any other cryptid.

 

[blü 2]

Yes and the "we" you use is a case of strong objective physical existence independent of all thoughts in any sense of subjective processes in brains.
In fact all the words you use all have objective concrete physical referents.
In fact you are so objective that you don't even have an individual brain and you newer do anything subjective.

Calm down, ol' buddy ...

 

[blü 2]

Well, this one is, at least, subject to rationale. “The chair” refers to a concrete object, while “a chair” refers to an abstraction, a conception.

And we do that without noticing, all day every day. So perhaps that creates a gap in our attention into which a god might fit if someone was raised that way ─ God as a 'real' idea.

 

[Viker]

Audie, I have heard and read people claim that science disproves God since at least high school. Even more in college, including discussions with campus marxists, campus Christians, and professors (of history, philosophy, and political science). Even a few co-workers have asserted this, directly or indirectly.

On-line, especially exmembers of religious groups, people repeatedly say the presence of suffering, the immateriality of God, apparent hypocrisy of religious adherents, alleged imperfections in biology prove that there is no God. Why would you question that someone heard such a thing. Have you never heard claims like this?

If you don't mind me adding. That's not science saying there is no God or disproving God. That's merely individuals who have no personal reason to believe or accept God or any deity exists. There is no actual scientific research into the matter. Therefore there is no scientific consensus, one way or the other. It's really a matter best left for theology, religion and philosophy. None of those being necessarily a scientific field. Everyone's got different jobs to do.

 

[blü 2]

Agreed. Abstractions induced from experience correspond and refer to external referents, and if they can help us accurately determine outcomes in reality, they can be called knowledge and their referents real (existent). Imagination, which is capable of generating all manner of false and unfalsifiable ideas is radically different.

Although I've always felt that ω (the 'lowest infinite ordinal') was up the supernatural end of the scale.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm not sure about that.

It seems to me that establishing that a species is extinct and establishing that a given god does not exist are based on almost exactly the same rationale.

Do you think that we can scientifically establish that a species is extinct?

The two claims or hypothesis are unrelated. Yes we can and do scientifically establish that most, but not all species go extinct.

The existence of God(s) nor other subjective claims of spiritual worlds beyond our physical existence cannot be objectively determined to exist or not exist..

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Calm down, ol' buddy ...

Yeah, your system is in fact a contradiction for how humans work as per objective truth and you always deflect away from that. Your system is as much as a subjective way of dealing with being a human as all other systems including me. But you don't like that, so when I catch you reductio ad absurdum, you never come back with objective truth. You deflect subjectively.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The two claims or hypothesis are unrelated. Yes we can and do scientifically establish that most, but not all species go extinct.

I think you've misunderstood what I'm saying. I'm not taking about the idea that species go extinct eventually; I'm talking about how we determine whether a species is extinct right now: we go looking for it. If we look thoroughly enough and find no sign of it, then we conclude that the species is extinct.

Why wouldn't this method also work for gods?

The existence of God(s) nor other subjective claims of spiritual worlds beyond our physical existence cannot be objectively determined to exist or not exist..

... you assert without justification.

The claim that some gods exist isn't "a claim of spiritual worlds beyond our physical existence."

Now... if you want to argue that the reason we can't find some god is because it's hiding in a "spiritual world," that's a different matter. We already have the term "extinct in the wild" for animals that can only be found in zoos; maybe we could use the term "nonexistent in our reality" for gods and whatnot that are only (supposedly) present in "spiritual worlds."

 

[shunyadragon]

I think you've misunderstood what I'm saying. I'm not taking about the idea that species go extinct eventually; I'm talking about how we determine whether a species is extinct right now: we go looking for it. If we look thoroughly enough and find no sign of it, then we conclude that the species is extinct.

Why wouldn't this method also work for gods?

The objective methods for searching for possible extinction of species is a physical objective process looking for physical life forms and complies with the standards of Methodological Naturalism.

By the specific and logical standards of Methodological Naturalism beliefs in God(s), things or realms beyond the physical cannot be fallsified because of the lack of physical objective verifiable evidence. Such beliefs are of the mind only, therefor subjective.

... you assert without justification.

The claim that some gods exist isn't "a claim of spiritual worlds beyond our physical existence."

Yes it is, regardless God(a) and spiritual worlds remain subjective beliefs and not subject to falsification by the specific standards of Methodological Naturalism.

Now... if you want to argue that the reason we can't find some god is because it's hiding in a "spiritual world," that's a different matter. We already have the term "extinct in the wild" for animals that can only be found in zoos; maybe we could use the term "nonexistent in our reality" for gods and whatnot that are only (supposedly) present in "spiritual worlds."

No, by reasons described above.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The objective methods for searching for possible extinction of species is a physical objective process looking for physical life forms and complies with the standards of Methodological Naturalism.

By the specific and logical standards of Methodological Naturalism beliefs in God(s), things or realms beyond the physical cannot be fallsified because of the lack of physical objective verifiable evidence. Such beliefs are of the mind only, therefor subjective.

Why wouldn't methodological naturalism apply to God? All it is is just applying a bit of rigor to the investigation.

And yes, there's no objective verifiable evidence. The rational thing to do when we acknowledge this is to conclude that, at a practical degree of certainty, the thing does not exist.

Your argument seems to be just that we should abandon rational investigation because if let ourselves be constrained by reason, we won't get to tbe conclusion you want.

Yes it is, regardless God(a) and spiritual worlds remain subjective beliefs and not subject to falsification by the specific standards of Methodological Naturalism.

Why not?

No, by reasons described above.

You didn't give any reasons above.

 

[shunyadragon]

Why wouldn't methodological naturalism apply to God? All it is is just applying a bit of rigor to the investigation.

By the specific standards of Methodological Naturalism as described previously

And yes, there's no objective verifiable evidence. The rational thing to do when we acknowledge this is to conclude that, at a practical degree of certainty, the thing does not exist.

False as previously described. Science simply does not work that way. This also applies to elves, orcs, and unicorns.

Your argument seems to be just that we should abandon rational investigation because if let ourselves be constrained by reason, we won't get to tbe conclusion you want.

Seems to be has no relevance to the subject.

Why not?

You didn't give any reasons above.

Yes I did, it is very basic fundamental Methodological Naturalism, which must have quantitative and qualitative of physical objective verifiable evidence ONLY.

Try publishing a paper on the existence of unicorns, orcs or elves in a scientific journal.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

By the specific standards of Methodological Naturalism as described previously


False as previously described. Science simply does not work that way. This also applies to elves, orcs, and unicorns.



Seems to be has no relevance to the subject.


Yes I did, it is very basic fundamental Methodological Naturalism.

"Don't use methodological naturalism to decide whether God exists, because it will suggest that he doesn't."

"Don't look at my bank account to decide how much money I have, because it will suggest that I'm broke."

 

[blü 2]

Yeah, your system is in fact a contradiction for how humans work as per objective truth

My system? You mean I admit I assume a world exists external to me, that my senses can inform me of that world, and that reason is a valid tool?

What do you say those admissions contradict?

As to my definition of 'truth', it's simply as objective as we can make it. I don't pretend it's perfect, I simply observe that it seeks to maximize objectivity, and that means claims of truth about reality can be tested. You apparently don't like that, don't like to be pinned down about what's true.

and you always deflect away from that.

If that's your impression, I'd guess you haven't been paying attention.

Your system is as much as a subjective way of dealing with being a human as all other systems including me.

Really?

How do you define 'truth?

What test for truth does your definition apply?

 

[shunyadragon]

"Don't use methodological naturalism to decide whether God exists, because it will suggest that he doesn't."

Science does not function on the illogical and irrational 'arguing from ignorance' without objective verifiable evidence.