Science can say nothing about existence of God

[paarsurrey]

Science requires the exploration of falsifiable claims. The existence of God is not a falsifiable claim. Therefore science can say nothing about it.

 

[Skwim]

Yup. Now what?

 

[Quintessence]

Whether or not the gods are falsifiable depends on what your gods are and what they are alleged to do or be like. What is not so much falsifiable is the decision to label those things gods.

 

[brokensymmetry]

Scientific insights can affect particular religious assertions though. For instance, that the world was created 10k years ago is no longer tenable. As long as religions have the courage enough to make specific claims about the physical world they may be falsified.

 

[Quintessence]

Scientific insights can affect particular religious assertions though. For instance, that the world was created 10k years ago is no longer tenable. As long as religions have the courage enough to make specific claims about the physical world they may be falsified.

Fair point, though this seems somewhat indirectly related to the OP, because it is specifically addressing the existence of gods. Claims about the age out our planet are not intrinsically theistic, yes?

 

[brokensymmetry]

Fair point, though this seems somewhat indirectly related to the OP, because it is specifically addressing the existence of gods. Claims about the age out our planet are not intrinsically theistic, yes?

Theism doesn't *have* to entail that, no. Christianity doesn't either. But, the historical trend seems to be this. The more we know about the world through science the less religions make specific concrete claims about the world.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Science requires the exploration of falsifiable claims. The existence of God is not a falsifiable claim. Therefore science can say nothing about it.

Quick question: why is God not a falsifiable concept? And why is that held in high regard by yourself?

 

[Iti oj]

Fair point, though this seems somewhat indirectly related to the OP, because it is specifically addressing the existence of gods. Claims about the age out our planet are not intrinsically theistic, yes?

Unless the theistic claim is i believe in a god who made the world 1ok years ago,.

 

[Quintessence]

Theism doesn't *have* to entail that, no. Christianity doesn't either. But, the historical trend seems to be this. The more we know about the world through science the less religions make specific concrete claims about the world.

It's true that religions, theistic and non-theistic, include statements about reality and its nature in their framework as a matter of course. Most commonly these statements are philosophical or mythological in nature, with a few taking things literally to the point they fall under the domain of empirical methodology. I think it's worth remembering that statements which could be assessed empirically are a fractional component theism, not the entirety of it.

 

[brokensymmetry]

It's true that religions, theistic and non-theistic, include statements about reality and its nature in their framework as a matter of course. Most commonly these statements are philosophical or mythological in nature, with a few taking things literally to the point they fall under the domain of empirical methodology. I think it's worth remembering that statements which could be assessed empirically are a fractional component theism, not the entirety of it.

That depends on the religion in question. When I was a Christian, my adherence to it depended on the resurrection of Jesus happening as a factual, real event in history. Otherwise I didn't see the point. I still have that approach to Christianity which is why I had to peace out of that religion. Unless God really resurrected Jesus from the dead it all struck me as entirely pointless. That is one example, my guess is though that this isn't the only one. The fact that religions make few 'literal' claims about the natural world I suspect is more a result of the encroachment and success of scientific models than how they would be otherwise.

 

[HonestJoe]

Science requires the exploration of falsifiable claims. The existence of God is not a falsifiable claim. Therefore science can say nothing about it.

Any specific god defined in enough detail is falsifiable. If you defined a god who will bring about the end of the world on 31st December 2000, it takes some fairly straight forward science to establish that as false. If you define a god who created the entire universe 4000 years ago, that is potentially falsifiable (and there is already plenty of evidence against it and none in favour).

The only really difficult element of god concepts as far as scientific study goes is the claim of omnipotence or being “outside existence” but even those concepts can be considered, though not unconditionally concluded on. It can certainly be said that there is no clear evidence of such a thing existing.

Of course if you’re proposing that nature of god, you can claim literally anything as not falsifiable, which makes it pretty much meaningless as far as I can tell. [FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[viole]

The only really difficult element of god concepts as far as scientific study goes is the claim of omnipotence or being “outside existence” but even those concepts can be considered, though not unconditionally concluded on. It can certainly be said that there is no clear evidence of such a thing existing.

I have no problem in believing Him to be "outside existence". Lol.

Ciao

- viole

 

[McBell]

Science requires the exploration of falsifiable claims. The existence of God is not a falsifiable claim. Therefore science can say nothing about it.

And?

I mean, surely you are not claiming that lack of falsifiability makes that which cannot be falsified true?

 

[Sir Doom]

Science requires the exploration of falsifiable claims.

It doesn't actually. It's just preferred because it eliminates variables. Makes it easier to prove a hypothesis if its put in falsifiable terms.

The existence of God is not a falsifiable claim.

That's right. Worded as such, it is not a claim at all. Falsifiable or otherwise.

Therefore science can say nothing about it.

Ridiculous. Science is not a cabal of lab-coated megalomaniacs dictating reality. It is a process by which humans learn about their environment. To put it simply, the scientific method is nothing more than a formalized version of typical human perception designed to eliminate bias. To say science can say nothing about it, is to say humans can say nothing about it. Which is obviously false since we are the ONLY ones who say anything about it.

You seem to be aiming for some kind of block on scientific consideration of God, which is absolutely backwards if you ask me. Not that you did.

 

[Gordian Knot]

Science requires the exploration of falsifiable claims. The existence of God is not a falsifiable claim. Therefore science can say nothing about it.

I quite agree. Science can neither prove, nor disprove the existence of God(s). Mostly it is not the scientists who are attempting to do so, however. It is mostly religious folk who are trying to use science to prove their deities. Or give them some scientific validity. Though why one would want to do this is beyond my understanding.

God(s) stand or fall on faith. And that is how it should be!

 

[Ouroboros]

Science requires the exploration of falsifiable claims. The existence of God is not a falsifiable claim. Therefore science can say nothing about it.

Agree.

That's why God can't be part of Science curriculum. They're separate fields of investigation and experience. That doesn't mean that a person can have a worldview which merges both fields into one coherent view. But it can't be presented in a classroom since a "merge" would have to be personal (which it is--always).

 

[starless]

Science requires the exploration of falsifiable claims. The existence of God is not a falsifiable claim. Therefore science can say nothing about it.

Science can say a lot about the validity of most religious claims, which would in turn question the truthfulness of the whole religion and their holy texts.

For example: creation of the universe and life, miracles, resurrections, virgin birth, global floods, etc (if we take the Christian myths). Once those contradictions are apparent, it follows that the god claimed in the rest of the book is most probably made up as well.

 

[Quintessence]

That depends on the religion in question. When I was a Christian, my adherence to it depended on the resurrection of Jesus happening as a factual, real event in history. Otherwise I didn't see the point. I still have that approach to Christianity which is why I had to peace out of that religion. Unless God really resurrected Jesus from the dead it all struck me as entirely pointless. That is one example, my guess is though that this isn't the only one. The fact that religions make few 'literal' claims about the natural world I suspect is more a result of the encroachment and success of scientific models than how they would be otherwise.

That's fair. My experience with Christianity has been much different than that. Mythological literalism was not a mainstay of my brief tenure in that religion as a child, and only a very small fraction of Christians I have interacted with have been mythological literalists. Historicity was irrelevant in the face of being Christ-like or upholding virtues appropriate as a follower of Jesus.

 

[Skwim]

And?

I mean, surely you are not claiming that lack of falsifiability makes that which cannot be falsified true?

 

[DawudTalut]

Science requires the exploration of falsifiable claims. The existence of God is not a falsifiable claim. Therefore science can say nothing about it.

Peace be on you....How about guided evolution?