• 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!

Is Atheism science?

Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
ChurchofPhysics said:
Two possible tests that would weaken "The God Theory" would be if one could a universe or create life.
Click to expand...
Nope, believing that a god is necessary for life is merely a God of the Gaps argument. A god could have created a universe where life arose naturally. Many creationists make the error that you just made.

If a god exists it is probably not your personal version of "God" that does not mean that no gods exist.
 
Valjean

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
ChurchofPhysics said:
It cannot be an observation unless you have or can "observe" it. We cannot "observe" that "No God is needed", we can make a hypothesis or theory that universe does not need a God to come into existence.
The example such as the "A Universe from Nothing" book I mentioned saying "No God is needed" is a physics theory about origin of universe.
Click to expand...
OK, how about a deduction?
ChurchofPhysics said:
The theist claim is that the existence of the universe needs an explanation with God being a possible explanation.
Click to expand...
Goddidit was never an "explanation." It didn't posit any creative mechanism, it simply asserted an agent.
That is The God Theory and it is a science theory since it provides an explanation for the cause and existence of the observed universe.
Click to expand...
No, it only asserts an agent. Presumably the "explanation" would be magic -- which explains nothing.
A scientific "theory" is more than a speculative explanation. This God Theory doesn't even qualify as a theorum. It's just wishful thinking.
 
C

ChurchofPhysics

Member
Subduction Zone said:
Nope, believing that a god is necessary for life is merely a God of the Gaps argument. A god could have created a universe where life arose naturally. Many creationists make the error that you just made.

If a god exists it is probably not your personal version of "God" that does not mean that no gods exist.
Click to expand...
I said that it would "weaken" "The God Theory" if life could be created.
 
C

ChurchofPhysics

Member
Valjean said:
OK, how about a deduction?
Goddidit was never an "explanation." It didn't posit any creative mechanism, it simply asserted an agent. No, it only asserts an agent. Presumably the "explanation" would be magic -- which explains nothing.
Click to expand...
If the universe is magic, then one could argue that magic needs a magician -- so there is a magician.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
ChurchofPhysics said:
I said that it would "weaken" "The God Theory" if life could be created.
Click to expand...


Pointing out an incorrect idea does not weaken a theory. Done properly it makes a theory stronger. Scientists are constantly improving theories by eliminating the "wrong".

Of course you still don't have a theory.
 
C

ChurchofPhysics

Member
Subduction Zone said:
Pointing out an incorrect idea does not weaken a theory. Done properly it makes a theory stronger.
Click to expand...
Modifying a theory after a prediction fails is not good news for the theory.

Subduction Zone said:
Scientists are constantly improving theories by eliminating the "wrong".
Click to expand...
"The God Theory" is pretty stable and would be dramatically weakened if one could a universe or create life. Giving up these two pillars of the theory would be a dramatic defeat and would obviate the need for God.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
ChurchofPhysics said:
Modifying a theory after a prediction fails is not good news for the theory.
Click to expand...

You could not be more wrong. Where did you get that idea from? Scientists do not make the same error that you seem to have made
"The God Theory" is pretty stable and would be dramatically weakened if one could a universe or create life. Giving up these two pillars of the theory would be a dramatic defeat and would obviate the need for God.
Click to expand...
Since there is no "God Theory" this claim of yours is just pure nonsense.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
ChurchofPhysics said:
Modifying a theory after a prediction fails is not good news for the theory.
Click to expand...

You could not be more wrong. Where did you get that idea from? Scientists do not make the same error that you seem to have made
"The God Theory" is pretty stable and would be dramatically weakened if one could a universe or create life. Giving up these two pillars of the theory would be a dramatic defeat and would obviate the need for God.
Click to expand...
Since there is no "God Theory" this claim of yours is just pure nonsense.
 
LuisDantas

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
ChurchofPhysics said:
Modifying a theory after a prediction fails is not good news for the theory.


"The God Theory" is pretty stable and would be dramatically weakened if one could a universe or create life. Giving up these two pillars of the theory would be a dramatic defeat and would obviate the need for God.
Click to expand...
Uh, do you think that you are talking about science?

Because despite your use of the word, the subject matter does not seem to conform to the use and meaning of the word "theory" in science.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top