God is disproven by science? Really?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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

If they exist and make a discernible impact on reality, that can be determined empirically. That which it is said cannot impact reality can be disregarded ("not even wrong").

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."

And then when asked what would be different to tip them off, they have no answer. This is the problem people who claim that their god modifies reality yet is undetectable have created for themselves.

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?

I think saying that a missing species is indistinguishable from extinct is better until and unless that is no longer true (one is discovered, say a coelacanth), in which case we change our position consistent with the new information. We go from being agnostic acoelacanthists to coelocanthists making us correct both before and after such a discovery.

The same method works for missing gods, that is, gods making no discernible impact on reality. They are treated as nonexistent until and unless that changes.

The difference, of course, is that unlike the coelacanth, whose nonexistence was falsifiable and falsified, the god claim is unfalsifiable if one also insists that the god, even if it exists, is not detectible.

Of course, it's incoherent to claim that one discerns the existence of something like a god or spirit that he also claims is undetectable. He's telling us that his neural apparatus has detected and revealed to him this truth about reality, but that we needn't bother looking because what he has detected is undetectable to others looking for it including scientists also using a human nervous system.

So right off the bat, claiming to know something he claims is not knowable experientially (empirically) is a problem for the believer. He's saying that methodological naturalism can't detect what he does but gives no reason for that - special pleading. The empiricist, who may have had similar spiritual experiences - an unfortunate name, since we should confuse them with sensing spirits - but not understood them to imply the existence of god, concludes that the believer is experiencing the product of his own mind and misunderstanding its significance.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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

Out of curiosity, would you admit that the God you reference is very Western one?

 

[Zwing]

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

The province of science is the natural, physical world. Science “searches for the truth” of the natural world. The truth of other domains is of no interest to science, lying outside of its capabilities.

 

[Audie]

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.

" view that gods exist"

 

[Zwing]

Out of curiosity, would you admit that the God you reference is very Western one?

Will you expound a bit upon your question? I’m not sure of the thrust.

 

[shunyadragon]

" view that gods exist"

Incomplete.

 

[Altfish]

Many people mostly atheists believe that God has been disproven or has being shown to be non-existent. But if you knew the definition and explanation of intelligence, or its variants, or synonyms, you will never claim such illogical claim. Thus, intelligence protects the existence of God from those non-intelligent persons.

I hope that before those who claim that God does not exist, let them define "intelligence" first in the usage of God = Intelligent Creator or Intelligent Designer.

No!
Science has not disproven God; it has just failed to find any evidence to support her existence.

 

[shunyadragon]

Out of curiosity, would you admit that the God you reference is very Western one?

More likely the anthropomorphic Abrahamic view of God in the ancient scripture.

 

[Zwing]

Will you expound a bit upon your question? I’m not sure of the thrust.

It is the “God” of the Bible, “Hashem” to the Jews (YHVH), to which I refer, which Christians have conflated and confused with the old IE deity, and by all sorts of theological machinations. I don’t know whether this can be called a “western God” or an “eastern God”, though.

 

[Audie]

Incomplete.

So is your sentence, ya grammar naz.

 

[Audie]

No!
Science has not disproven God; it has just failed to find any evidence to support her existence.

Not "just". The OT God who did flood
is proved non existent.

 

[shunyadragon]

If they exist and make a discernible impact on reality, that can be determined empirically. That which it is said cannot impact reality can be disregarded ("not even wrong").

Wrong? or disregarded? Simply ancient views of God and supernatural events should be considered in context of the ancient culture which they were written., and not considered factual today.

 

[Zwing]

Not "just". The OT God who did flood
is proved non existent.

How so?

 

[shunyadragon]

So is your sentence, ya grammar naz.

Huh?!?!!? Anal grammar lessens are not productive. Some of your responses even miss the point of citations; ie concerning the issue of 'Truth' in science.

 

[shunyadragon]

How so?

I am a geologist with over 50 years experience, traveled the world, and there is absolutely no evidence of such a Noah flood.

 

[Zwing]

I am a geologist with over 50 years experience, traveled the world, and there is absolutely no evidence of such a Noah flood.

Sure, this provides circumstantial evidence that the “great flooding” never occurred , but not evidence that YHVH does not exist. There is rational evidence as well, for there is simply not enough water within the biosphere to flood the entire earth to the level of the highest peaks. The only solution to this problem available to the theist is to ascribe a supernatural etiology to a natural event, which results in ontological discontinuity.

The difference between a flood and a “spiritual entity” lies in the fact that a flood is a natural, physical phenomenon, while a spiritual entity is non-physical and supernatural. Such a supernatural entity or phenomenon is, by definition, not testable by human methods. This is the singular genius of the Israelite conception of deity…it’s untestability, for while the other ancient deities such as Zeus, being conceived of as entities with a corporeal aspect, were ultimately proven testable, YHVH was and remains not.

 

[wellwisher]

Gods are poorly defined and badly described by theists. Even many theists don't know what anyone means when God is referenced.

Science is indifferent to any of the thousands of god concepts in human history. If anything science has progressed in a way that invalidates the many assumptions and beliefs of certain theists, like creationists. Creationism not only has no basis in fact, the facts invalidate many creationist claims.

Since creationist ideas are religious, and religion is not fact-based, and only justified by faith, the creationist has a poor thinking process in why they think it's true. They reject science for religious reasons and they adopt creationism for religious reasons, and all via faith. As we know faith is notoriously unreliable as a means to decide anything.

If you look at evolution and the theory of natural selection, theoretically the concepts of God(s) and religion has had an impact on human selection and therefore on human evolution. For example, after Christianity merged with Rome and as Christianity gradually took over power; Catholic Church, social selection in Europe was defined by Religion. According to the theory of evolution, this selection process and pressure should have been added to the DNA and brain since it lasted 1000 plus years. Religion has impacted billions of people since civilization started; selective religious based pressures.

This is a very unique type of selection process, if you consider that God is not material or does not come into our brain from the five senses; not part of sensory reality. This unique type of selection process was driven by internal neural processes; imagination, evolving itself, impacting outward social selection, so this internally driven evolution could be engraved into material DNA.

It not coincidence that the many Christian nations, under the Holy Roman Empire, would all internally evolve together; common religious selection, leading to them leading parts of the world into the future; age of exploration and trade. They applied world wide social selection pressures.

The term natural selection may only apply to sensory based reality and instincts. This is why religion is often differentiated as divine selection, added to evolution; from the inside; Adam. The theory of Creation added selective pressure to human evolution for over 6000 years. This may be why we can use will power to leave religion; Atheism, but a religion template may be engrained in our DNA. One can take people out of religion but not religion out of the people; same urge but changes form.

 

[Audie]

Huh?!?!!? Anal grammar lessens are not productive. Some of your responses even miss the point of citations; ie concerning the issue of 'Truth' in science.

Not at all.

TRUTH is not a topic in science. But you
post something to the contrary.

That's your out of touch inept and inapt, not mine.

 

[Zwing]

If you look at evolution and the theory of natural selection, theoretically the concepts of God(s) and religion has had an impact on human selection and therefore on human evolution.

Good point.

 

[blü 2]

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.

As far as I'm concerned, you're part of objective reality, and (I trust) as far you're concerned I'm part of objective reality. That's always been the case. Pay attention, class!