If God can not be proven in scientific way, is He unscientific?

[Audie]

There are many logical arguments for the existence of a Creator. We could start with the fact of our existence.

It is much easier, in my opinion, to show that the opposite view (atheism) is false; it is an irrational position, arrived at only through logical confusion and muddled thinking.

However (from the Eastern Orthodox perspective, as you likely know), the full, true nature of God is beyond the comprehension of finite minds (though certain attributes can be discerned).

You are right about muddled thinking but you are
too muddled to know to whom it applies.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Holy mother of god, how many times must we say
that science is not capable of proving ANYTHING!!!!!

SORRY!!!!

What is your definition of proof and in what context would you use the word?

Would it be OK to say that some day science might be able to provide us with enough evidence to convince us that a God exists?

 

[Audie]

SORRY!!!!

What is your definition of proof and in what context would you use the word?

Would it be OK to say that some day science might be able to provide us with enough evidence to convince us that a God exists?

I tend not to stray into creative territory in my definition of words.

In law they do "proven beyond a reasonable doubt"
and in science, it is probabilities, which is the same thing
said differently.

Potentially, research could find so much evidence for
a god, that it would not be reasonable to doubt it.

We do of course have unreasonable doubt, widely
practiced by some of our creationists who doubt ToE,
and amusingly feel that they are being ever so
reasonable, concocting one silly objection after another.

So I suppose you could get those who dont think "god"
is beyond reasonable doubt, just as is the case now.

 

[Thief]

To my opinion, the perfect proof can sound something like that:

Thesis: "If a human would know absolutely everything, then he can not be an atheist."

Proof: Indeed, such one is Omniscient one, thus, he would be God. But God is not atheist. "you are Gods", says Bible at least in two verses: in Old Testament and in New Testament.

later in life Albert continued working.....
and when question......on what?

I'm trying to catch God in the act

 

[Thief]

God is the Father of chemistry

 

[Samael_Khan]

I tend not to stray into creative territory in my definition of words.

In law they do "proven beyond a reasonable doubt"
and in science, it is probabilities, which is the same thing
said differently.

Potentially, research could find so much evidence for
a god, that it would not be reasonable to doubt it.

We do of course have unreasonable doubt, widely
practiced by some of our creationists who doubt ToE,
and amusingly feel that they are being ever so
reasonable, concocting one silly objection after another.

So I suppose you could get those who dont think "god"
is beyond reasonable doubt, just as is the case now.

Cool. So when i use the word proof i use it as I do in everyday language which is that the evidence for the existence of something is beyond reasonable doubt.

I dont use it in the sense that something is 100% truth because for all i know I am insane and the world around me is a figment of my imagination, but i refuse to engage in that because i have no way of figuring that out.

So someone trying to prove to me who they are by showing me their ID would be proving they are who they say they are.

Creationists only make claims. Claims alone cannot be accepted because then one might as well believe any claim made. Claims must be based on evidence.

I dunno if I explained the above properly.

 

[Etritonakin]

To my opinion, the perfect proof can sound something like that:

Thesis: "If a human would know absolutely everything, then he can not be an atheist."

Proof: Indeed, such one is Omniscient one, thus, he would be God. But God is not atheist. "you are Gods", says Bible at least in two verses: in Old Testament and in New Testament.

The general history of the universe and Earth have been determined by studying that which now exists and reverse-engineering it.
It should be noted that we were not present for most of the events -and can not readily reproduce them (except by modelling using available data).

The same principles can be applied to determine whether or not self-aware creativity was necessary overall or at any time, but there has not been much serious interest in doing so.

Apart from the many issues relating to the human situation which cloud the basic question, there is the problem of reference.

In order to determine that something was created by man, for example, "nature" is referenced. Man is able to produce things which are not produced by "nature".
The actual thing in question can also be referenced. If man produces something different from what "nature" produces, that thing is often indicative of the nature of its creator (What use would a tree have for a computer, for example [extreme purposeful complexity].)

In order to determine whether the present dynamic natural systems (the universe and all its components and processes -which once did not exist as such) required self-aware creativity, it would be necessary to reference pre-"nature" nature.

This may sound impossible, but the evidence is all around us. That which now exists is that which existed previously -but in a different configuration.
Furthermore, the same BASIC principles will always have applied. Pre-"nature" nature could only produce certain things before self-aware creativity was applied.
It is logical that any thing which is complex is made of more simple components -but also necessarily THE MOST simple components.

It may not seem so -as on our level one thing might be made of wood and not metal, for example, but both of those are made of the same basic components -and those components are made of the same basic components. Everything we are and may experience is logically the same most basic components in different configurations.

Therefore, our reference would be the most simple states which could produce the present states. It is logical to begin with the most simple components which can be modeled. We may not have identified them directly, but we do have the basic languages of reality with which to work -math, logic, etc.

 

[Maximus]

You are right about muddled thinking but you are
too muddled to know to whom it applies.

A typical reaction from an atheist - no logical arguments, just ad hominem attacks.

 

[Polymath257]

A typical reaction from an atheist - no logical arguments, just ad hominem attacks.

I've yet to see a convincing logical argument from a theist concerning the existence of a deity.

 

[Audie]

A typical reaction from an atheist - no logical arguments, just ad hominem attacks.

Too funny, you dont know what an 'ad hom"
even is, except how to put it into practice with your
"typical atheist".

 

[Audie]

I've yet to see a convincing logical argument from a theist concerning the existence of a deity.

Well, yeah, I didnt want to crowd my post listing all the
funny things there.

 

[Windwalker]

Basically, yes. God cannot be a scientific hypothesis. Doesn't mean God doesn't exist, or that there cannot be good evidence or argument for God, merely that science precludes non-naturalistic explanations pretty much by default.

I think a little more precise language would be to say that the empiric sciences only deal with the physical or material domain. It does not deal with things like truth and meaning in human relationships, for instance, which are part of the mental domain. Navigating the mental domain is an interpretive, or hermeneutic process, as opposed to pure measurement and observation.

Then one step further, when dealing with the spiritual aspects of human life, that becomes yet another domain that the empric sciences, with its view of the physical domain are the incorrect tool to use. Likewise, the toolset appropriate for navigating the mental domain, find themselves ill suited for navigating the spiritual domain.

There are multiple ways of knowing reality in the human experience. It is not limited to what the eye of the physical (the eye of flesh or the senses) reveals to us. There is also the eye of mind. There is also the eye of spirit.

One does not use the eye of spirit to do science. And one does not use the eye of science to examine spirit. You use the eye of spirit for that. That does not mean some things can't be understood moving across domains, but that never really occurs in pure isolation.

 

[questfortruth]

Omniscience doesn't automatically preclude atheism.

An omniscient being that didn't believe in any other gods could still be an atheist if they also didn't consider themselves to be a god.

Well, I need then to add to the proof the definition of word "God": Any Omniscient Being is God.

 

[questfortruth]

Do you believe a human can know absolutely everything? If not, your argument for the existence of God fails.

I believe, that there is bottle, inside which is all knowledge of reality: "in vina veritas" (the Greeks have said). If people would drink out that bottle, they can not be atheists ever again.

 

[ProtonLander]

Science means knowledge,specifically mans knowledge,I don't believe God can be proven by man's logic as he wants man to have faith and also he wants those who in their heart want to reject him, to reject him.

 

[questfortruth]

Science means knowledge,specifically mans knowledge,I don't believe God can be proven by man's logic as he wants man to have faith and also he wants those who in their heart want to reject him, to reject him.

The God of Love and Judgement Day sees difference between Theism and Atheism. The God is the axiom in Theism, moreover, Theists know their God.

 

[Erebus]

Well, I need then to add to the proof the definition of word "God": Any Omniscient Being is God.

You're certainly welcome to view it that way if you wish. However, it doesn't necessarily mean that an omniscient being would agree with you. You may view them as a god but they may not see themselves as a god.

 

[questfortruth]

You're certainly welcome to view it that way if you wish. However, it doesn't necessarily mean that an omniscient being would agree with you. You may view them as a god but they may not see themselves as a god.

It is not needed, and it is wrong, to ask me to prove my definitions. Definitions are things for theorems, they are not subject to be proven, the theorems are to be proven, not their definitions.

 

[Erebus]

It is not needed, and it is wrong, to ask me to prove my definitions. Definitions are things for theorems, they are not subject to be proven, the theorems are to be proven, not their definitions.

I'm not asking you to prove your definition. How you choose to define God is entirely your call.

I'm saying that your definition is not universal and that an omniscient being may not necessarily use it.

 

[questfortruth]

I'm not asking you to prove your definition. How you choose to define God is entirely your call.

I'm saying that your definition is not universal and that an omniscient being may not necessarily use it.

If He can read my proof, then He must accept my definitions. One can not argue with my definitions. Why? Because they are not subject to be proven. And they are beutiful, e.g., the definition of atheism. Such definition includes the satan into atheists as the source of all kinds of rebellion against Almighty One.