Reasons to not believe in God? Discuss....

[Awkward Fingers]

It could graduate to 'proof'.

Theory is speculation....belief.

Proof render the discussion dead.
There can be no further objection.

When it comes to science, and definition of science terms, that is simply..
Factually incorrect.
That is just not how it works at all..

Which may explain some confusion.
When we talk about theory, and you talk about theory, we are literally discussing two different things.

 

[Thief]

When it comes to science, and definition of science terms, that is simply..
Factually incorrect.
That is just not how it works at all..

Which may explain some confusion.
When we talk about theory, and you talk about theory, we are literally discussing two different things.

Here at the forum there does seem a double standard.

It's just a theory til someone drops 'proof' on top of it.

 

[Thief]

Whatever you are talking about, it ain't science.

Try some definition sites.

 

[LuisDantas]

Try some definition sites.

You first. I'm serious, pal. I would appreciate the same courtesy.

 

[Thief]

You first. I'm serious, pal. I would appreciate the same courtesy.

I did.....it was easy.
Your turn.

No need to post what you find.

 

[LuisDantas]

Here at the forum there does seem a double standard.

It's just a theory til someone drops 'proof' on top of it.

The science that I know of simply does not do such a thing. It does not have "proofs" as such.

 

[LuisDantas]

I did.....it was easy.
Your turn.

No need to post what you find.

Better luck next time, then.

 

[Thief]

Better luck next time, then.

Let's try skill one more time.....and your 'reasons' not to believe are what?

 

[LuisDantas]

Thief, read what I wrote and you will know all I have to tell you.

 

[Thief]

Better luck next time!

 

[LuisDantas]

You have no idea, do you?

 

[Truth_Faith13]

True. But we are talking proper scientific terminology here. By that yardstick, nothing can be "truer" than a theory.




It depends on which tools one has access to, and to a degree on how much one trusts available info.




I don't know what that would be, so I guess not.




More like God is not of interest to science, nor truly within its scope from an epistemological perspective. The concept itself is of course of enormous anthropological interest.

Actually something can be truer than a theory, a scientific theory is where there isnt a definitive conclusion, but quite a bit of evidence which points in favour of a particular theory eg evolution and which is therefore accepted as fact by the science community and the general population (mostly). However, just because something is accepted based on strong evidence, doesn't mean that there cant be something "truer" ie fact (actual fact eg humans walk on two legs)

 

[Truth_Faith13]

It could graduate to 'proof'.

Theory is speculation....belief.

Proof renders the discussion dead.
There can be no further objection.

Hmmm no its not, Im talking about scientific theory which is generally accepted as factual on the answer to a particular question based on strong evidence. However for whatever reason, cant be proven conclusively.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

... based on evidence. An unfalsifiable hypothesis can't be tested, so that conclusion can never be made.


I may have assumed badly - when you said "God is neither provable nor disprovable", I took this to mean "God can never be proven or disproven"; was this what you meant?


In science, "theory" doesn't mean something like "tentative conclusion"; it means something more like "an explanation that is well-supported by evidence and is useful for making predictions." There are many theories (including the theory of evolution) that are so well-supported that their core ideas can be taken as fact for all practical purposes.

I meant that at this moment in time, God can neither be proven nor disproved. You cant say something will NEVER be proven or disproved as that is unscientific, there is always possibility for further findings in the future. Even things which are supposedly proven, get changed around from time to time as more evidence/findings/research is carried out.

 

[LuisDantas]

Actually something can be truer than a theory, a scientific theory is where there isnt a definitive conclusion, but quite a bit of evidence which points in favour of a particular theory eg evolution and which is therefore accepted as fact by the science community and the general population (mostly). However, just because something is accepted based on strong evidence, doesn't mean that there cant be something "truer" ie fact (actual fact eg humans walk on two legs)

Do you have any sources? I don't think that is quite true.

 

[LuisDantas]

I meant that at this moment in time, God can neither be proven nor disproved.

Of course, and it will always be so. By its very nature, the concept of God is beyond proof one way or another.

You cant say something will NEVER be proven or disproved as that is unscientific, there is always possibility for further findings in the future.

God is outside the scope of science in the fist place, so yes, we can say so.

Even things which are supposedly proven, get changed around from time to time as more evidence/findings/research is carried out.

But science is not all-encompassing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Actually something can be truer than a theory, a scientific theory is where there isnt a definitive conclusion, but quite a bit of evidence which points in favour of a particular theory eg evolution and which is therefore accepted as fact by the science community and the general population (mostly). However, just because something is accepted based on strong evidence, doesn't mean that there cant be something "truer" ie fact (actual fact eg humans walk on two legs)

The theory of evolution contains many facts and laws. The term "theory" only refers to the fact that it's reliable for making predictions. It doesn't imply in any way that the conclusions of evolutionary science are tentative or "not as true" as they could be.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The theory of evolution contains many facts and laws. The term "theory" only refers to the fact that it's reliable for making predictions. It doesn't imply in any way that the conclusions of evolutionary science are tentative or "not as true" as they could be.

We should change its name to the Law of Evolution... so people who need laws will stop worrying that it's only a theory.

 

[LuisDantas]

We should change its name to the Law of Evolution... so people who need laws will stop worrying that it's only a theory.

That would reinforce the lack of knowledge, though; laws are in fact "weaker" than theories, far as explanative power goes. It would also be somewhat needlessly dogmatic to make a law out of the theory of evolution.

Scientific Laws and Theories

Scientific law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hypothesis, Theory, or Law?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

That would reinforce the lack of knowledge, though; laws are in fact "weaker" than theories, far as explanative power goes. It would also be somewhat needlessly dogmatic to make a law out of the theory of evolution.

Yes, I know all that. But we could call it a law just long enough to make it more palatable. You know, like the carp which they're now putting on menus as the 'silverfin.'

It's just a matter of proper marketing, for the masses.