Yes, abstractions are known by their effects, if by nothing else. Imaginary objects are not, though a connection to phenomena can certainly be imagined, alongside.
-
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 is disproven by science? Really?
- Thread starter MrIntelligentDesign
- Start date
Exaltist Ethan
Bridging the Gap Between Believers and Skeptics
As I understand God there is no separation of It to reality, and science doesn't disprove this but rather science is the study of God. As far as the God most people understand, monotheism over pantheism, many monotheists will say that the conditions science lays out before the Big Bang is also an explanation of God. It is still a mystery what really caused it, some people saying it was nothing, others saying it was quantum fluctuations, and others still believing it was God that caused the Big Bang. I've heard from monotheists the Big Bang proves the existence of God, whereas I've heard from atheists that it disproves this very same existence. The truth of the matter is probably somewhere between these extremes. Maybe it could be that God is not the quantum fluctuations but was the initial cause for these fluctuations to exist, taking a panentheistic approach to this mystery.
I think it’s safe to say that it was either chance as determined by randomness, or God (a deity).
Exaltist Ethan
Bridging the Gap Between Believers and Skeptics
I would argue that it's both of these things because before I do not place omniscience to God at that point. In fact, I still don't place omniscience to God at this point, although I would say with how fast humans and their technology are growing I wouldn't be surprised that in the next several hundred years God becomes omniscience because of humans. I do not believe humans were the only intention of God, yet our very existence makes God much more divine than it had been in the past. Omniscience and sagacity are concepts that humans developed to understand themselves, not God, yet by becoming wiser humans are in effect making God wiser at the same time. The ultimate goal for us is to manipulate this God to produce and become the domain of as many lifeforms and animals as possible. Although I do not know how this will occur, I believe this is what makes humans divine.
Yes, I see. In the pantheistic estimation, is God a being with consciousness, or does God otherwise have consciousness?
Audie
Veteran Member
You seriously heard someone say
something disproves God? Tell
us who. We atheists don't want idiots in our group.
Exaltist Ethan
Bridging the Gap Between Believers and Skeptics
In the beginning there was no consciousness, but by having planets with consciousness, God is becoming conscious. Life in fact is proof of this.
Stupid YouTube and Reddit posts. I understand that disproving something is different from disbelieving in the exact same thing. I think most atheists would argue that it is impossible to disprove a negative, as such with our understanding of nature so far.
I think that many anti-theists who have a scientific background without a corresponding philosophical (ontological and logical) understanding, such as Richard Dawkins and Steven Gould, seem to suppose (I don’t want to put words into anyone’s mouth) that science, indeed, disproves the existence of deity. Surprisingly, Dennett appears to as well, which is incomprehensible to me, though I might misunderstand his position. You are right in asserting that it does not…can not.
This is interesting; life as God, or perhaps, mind as God.
Hamilton
Member
Except that chance and randomness are not causal agents. They neither create nor affect.
They describe a potential future ("There is a 90% chance it will rain in April." Following which there is no rain for 9 days, but rain on the 10th day. "Inevitable", a forecaster might say.) or a probability ("A hundred rolls of a pair of dice will probably result in '7' more often than snake-eyes." So a gambler who has rolled ten snake-eyes in a row is justifiably confident that a '7' will inevitably show. And conversely).
So the Cause of the beginning if existence is either that which is commonly called God or something else. If it is something else, I believe it would be more fundamental than a creating God. Like the difference between Brahma and Hiranyagarbha in the view of some Hindus (such as Nikhilananda).
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I would like to see quotes. Refuting particular versions of God is not refuting God. An example that many can understand is that showing that the Earth is a globe refutes the God of Flat Earth believers. All of the sciences refute the God of YEC's. One could go on, but as to the general idea of a God that has not been refuted.
Exaltist Ethan
Bridging the Gap Between Believers and Skeptics
I just want to note however, that this belief isn't technically pantheism. Scientific pantheists believe that God has no consciousness, spiritual pantheists believe that God does. What I'm describing is not pantheism but process theology instead. My theology is both influenced by pantheism and process theology.
If the miracle claims of religions are correct, the God is perceptible indirectly... much like we might use the presence or absence of tracks or scat to determine whether a species is extinct.
Oh, yes…of course. Yet, the concept of deity in general is not refuted scientifically, or by any other means. The most one can say, as do I, is that “I have no evidence for deity”.
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.
Last edited:
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.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yep, but an amazingly high percentage of the time when one refutes a particular version of God I have seen the believers in that version claim that "You are trying to refute God". They conflate their version of God with all possible versions of God. I myself have never claimed to have refuted God, only very specific versions of "God".
Audie
Veteran Member
So you never actually saw the assertion.
I feel like debating person not present and
quite likely nonexistent, idiots if they do
exist, is pointless.
Audie
Veteran Member
As noted elsewhere debate with absentee idiots is
note really worthwhile
Exaltist Ethan
Bridging the Gap Between Believers and Skeptics
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.
