God is disproven by science? Really?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

And when you go out looking for passenger pigeons/chupacabras/gods/whatever, look thoroughly enough, but don't find any sign of them (either directly or indirectly), you have objective verifiable evidence that the thing you looked for does not exist.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Many people mostly atheists believe that God has been disproven or has being shown to be non-existent.

..only in countries in which it is official state propaganda. Everywhere else people usually know that science cannot address phkilosophy and untestable claims.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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?

...

Yeah, but you are not the only human. You claim that the world is you and the rest as objective to you as the objective external world. That is false, because it means there are no other humans in it as subjective.

 

[Zwing]

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.

I has just now occurred to me, that within the English language (as well as other languages for which the words “God” and “a god” are homonymic…Spanish, French, I think…) it is by a similar (though inverse) rationale that the idea of our Omni-deity has been specificized…particularized. For those languages which inherited the Hebrew conception of God, and wherein that Omni-God does not have a particular name, the name of that God simply became a specification of the word for “deity”. Even so, in the Romance languages there is an additional layer of confusion, as the name for a deity in those languages is simply a restatement of the original name of the old IE sky god “Dyeus Pater”. It seems no wonder, then, if Jews might think that Christians are a confused bunch, simply for how they refer to the “God of the Universe”, for they call the Deity by the name of another deity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

..only in countries in which it is official state propaganda. Everywhere else people usually know that science cannot address phkilosophy and untestable claims.

Since when is God an untestable claim?

I mean, if I asked a random group of theists whether they agree with the statement "if God were not to exist, nobody would notice," I think most would say "no."

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I has just now occurred to me, that within the English language (as well as other languages for which the words “God” and “a god” are homonymic…Spanish, French, I think…) it is by a similar (though inverse) rationale that the idea of our Omni-deity has been specificized…particularized. For those languages which inherited the Hebrew conception of God, and wherein that Omni-God does not have a particular name, the name of that God simply became a specification of the word for “deity”. Even so, in the Romance languages there is an additional layer of confusion, as the name for a deity in those languages is simply a restatement of the original name of the old IE sky god “Dyeus Pater”. It seems no wonder, then, if Jews might think that Christians are a confused bunch, simply for how they refer to the “God of the Universe”, for they call the Deity by the name of another deity.

There is also an added layer of confusion. In effect you have personal and non-personal gods, as well as gods as interacting and not interacting and in the end as theological versus philosophical ones.
So as weird as it is, you can effect have a natural God in a non-classical supernatural sense.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Since when is God an untestable claim?

I mean, if I asked a random group of theists whether they agree with the statement "if God were not to exist, nobody would notice," I think most would say "no."

I suppose that by 'Random' you are not referring to the argumentative volunteers you bait on the internet but to a Pew study or some other random selection. That is an interesting thought thanks.

 

[shunyadragon]

"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."

To add a good reference:

Why Methodological Naturalism?

Science does not search for all sorts of Truth. Rather, science is limited effort to explain the world on its own terms, without invoking God.

peacefulscience.org

Mainstream science seeks “our best explanation of the world, without considering God.” This limiting clause, “without considering God,” is the rule of Methodological Naturalism (MN).

Currently, science does not search for all sorts of Truth. Rather, science is limited effort to explain the world on its own terms, without invoking God, His action, or intelligent design. There is a “line in the sand” in science, where consideration of God is explicitly disallowed by MN. Far from denying God’s existence, this way of doing science is strongly motivated by theism.

For those that doubt that MN is the current rule in science, and that it is applied to exclude ID, the William Dembski edited volume The Nature of Nature asks the right question on its back cover…

The culture war over theism versus atheism, traditional values versus secular progressivism, and transcendent versus material reality has focused on science as the prize. Who gets to define science?

The answer is simple. For the foreseeable future, scientists get to define science. Partly to stay out of the culture wars, scientists have defined science to include MN. This rule is a “line in the sand” that excludes both claims of both creationism and atheism from science itself. This does not exclude consideration of God in science-engaged philosophy and theology. Scientists can consider God in their philosophy and theology too, but in this must be clearly separated from their “science.”

​

 

[shunyadragon]

Since when is God an untestable claim?

I mean, if I asked a random group of theists whether they agree with the statement "if God were not to exist, nobody would notice," I think most would say "no."

See post #988

 

[Audie]

To add a good reference:

Why Methodological Naturalism?

Science does not search for all sorts of Truth. Rather, science is limited effort to explain the world on its own terms, without invoking God.

peacefulscience.org

Mainstream science seeks “our best explanation of the world, without considering God.” This limiting clause, “without considering God,” is the rule of Methodological Naturalism (MN).

Currently, science does not search for all sorts of Truth. Rather, science is limited effort to explain the world on its own terms, without invoking God, His action, or intelligent design. There is a “line in the sand” in science, where consideration of God is explicitly disallowed by MN. Far from denying God’s existence, this way of doing science is strongly motivated by theism.

For those that doubt that MN is the current rule in science, and that it is applied to exclude ID, the William Dembski edited volume The Nature of Nature asks the right question on its back cover…



The answer is simple. For the foreseeable future, scientists get to define science. Partly to stay out of the culture wars, scientists have defined science to include MN. This rule is a “line in the sand” that excludes both claims of both creationism and atheism from science itself. This does not exclude consideration of God in science-engaged philosophy and theology. Scientists can consider God in their philosophy and theology too, but in this must be clearly separated from their “science.”

​

When did science become a quest for " Truth"?

 

[shunyadragon]

When did science become a quest for " Truth"?

I believe the reference is clear on the limits of science without selective picking frog hairs over terminology.

Note what the source stated that science does not do: Currently, science does not search for all sorts of Truth.

Well . . . to be clear, science DOES NOT 'search for truth.'

 

[Zwing]

Since when is God an untestable claim?

I mean, if I asked a random group of theists whether they agree with the statement "if God were not to exist, nobody would notice," I think most would say "no."

Haha, such a question does not test the “pro deo” proposition, but merely the credulity of theists.

 

[Zwing]

…without selective picking frog hairs over terminology.

“Picking frog hairs”…must put that one into my bag of verbal tricks!

 

[shunyadragon]

Haha, such a question does not test the “pro deum” proposition, but merely the credulity of theists.

Actually the argument is nonsense from the perspective of science and does not question the credibility of anyone.

 

[Zwing]

Actually the argument is nonsense from the perspective of science and does not question the credibility of anyone.

No…I said credulity not credibility…

 

[shunyadragon]

No…I said credulity not credibility…

OK

 

[shunyadragon]

What I do consider as a logical and reasonable argument is that based on history and science the likely hood of the ancient tribal ;hands on' Gods of ancient scripture most likely do not exist, There is no evidence of such a 'hands on' God involved directly in human affairs, and supernatural activity of the past.

What is described in ancient scriptures is a fallible human view of God and supernatural events like Noah's flood in the context of the culture and time the text was written.

 

[Zwing]

OK

Well, ol’ G, it’s past time for my visit to the optometrist as well. Problem is, I’m obstinate in the extreme in my denial of reality.

 

[Zwing]

What I do consider as a logical and reasonable argument is that based on history and science the likely hood of the ancient tribal ;hands on' Gods of ancient scripture most likely do not exist, There is no evidence of such a 'hands on' God involved directly in human affairs, and supernatural activity of the past.

Yes, this is a central conundrum for the theist. Why were God and his workings once so very apparent, while now they are not?

 

[Audie]

I believe the reference is clear on the limits of science without selective picking frog hairs over terminology.

Note what the source stated that science does not do: Currently, science does not search for all sorts of Truth.

Well . . . to be clear, science DOES NOT 'search for truth.'

Not "all sorts" clearly implies it seeks some but not others.

The proper noun " Truth" isn't accidental either.