Science can say nothing about existence of God

[leibowde84]

There are all kinds of evidences. Just as you can be sent to death row because of evidence that show beyond a reasonable doubt on forensic tangiable evdience you can also visit old smokey due to an overwhelming amount of circumstancial evdience. Sadly, many atheists etc only allow evdience of their choosing to consider as valid. That is wrong but typical failings of debating in good faith.
MrMr

This thread is on the subject of scientific evidence, though. Evidence cannot be considered scientifically unless it is verifiable. So, circumstancial evidence cannot be considered.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

I guess science can provide a coherent explanation of the natural world, which makes God somewhat redundant.

Spoken like a true unbeliever. I and other beleivers know that the spiritual realm is as 'real' as what we call 'reality'. So science was designed to only explain science and things science says can exist. The fate of theoretical physics and many other science disciplines were sealed when turn of the centuray think tanks like the Vienna Circle quashed the voices for the validity of metaphysical thought and tools of discovery. If only its one theist member Godel had been successful in his efforts, the world might be far more advanced and kind.

So now we have been laden with Logical Positivism for a hundred years or more. Its no wonder that science can only explain and discover the things of science. So how well is our science doing? Can it explain the physical world truthfully? No regretfully not! Our scientists are lost when asked what happens beyond the event horizon of black holes, or various other questions about their scientific fabrications and observations etc. I would even say our Physics are on the verge becoming obsolete. Even hawking agrees. They are aghast because the cosmos is not making sense ie; some distant stars are breaking the light speed barrier, gravity is repulsing rather than attracting I could go on. And lets not forget science only provides an 'coherent explanation of the natural world ' for the day it was writ in many cases. What is science today will be quaint myth in a hundred years. So no I would say that makes science at best a clumsy but necessary tool for discovery and at worst a con man selling snake oil to the ignorant and the naive. Eh?
MrMr

Sorry for the composition grammar of the above etc (((((((((TGIF! )))))))))))))

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You see I feel science only can explain the physical world and even then its lost in when asked about black holes and other natural phenomenon.

Not just the physical world, psychology is also a science. The psychology of belief is a fascinating subject, by the way.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Not just the physical world, psychology is also a science. The psychology of belief is a fascinating subject, by the way.

Taken. However do you beleive the tomorrow will come?

This thread is on the subject of scientific evidence, though. Evidence cannot be considered scientifically unless it is verifiable. So, circumstancial evidence cannot be considered.

I do not play another mans game. Nice try though.

 

[leibowde84]

Taken. However do you beleive the tomorrow will come?



I do not play another mans game. Nice try though.

What do you mean by "not playing another man's game"?

 

[McBell]

I do not play another mans game. Nice try though.

So your point is what then?
to hijack this thread?

 

[McBell]

Spoken like a true unbeliever. I and other beleivers know that the spiritual realm is as 'real' as what we call 'reality'. So science was designed to only explain science and things science says can exist. The fate of theoretical physics and many other science disciplines were sealed when turn of the centuray think tanks like the Vienna Circle quashed the voices for the validity of metaphysical thought and tools of discovery. If only its one theist member Godel had been successful in his efforts, the world might be far more advanced and kind.

So now we have been laden with Logical Positivism for a hundred years or more. Its no wonder that science can only explain and discover the things of science. So how well is our science doing? Can it explain the physical world truthfully? No regretfully not! Our scientists are lost when asked what happens beyond the event horizon of black holes, or various other questions about their scientific fabrications and observations etc. I would even say our Physics are on the verge becoming obsolete. Even hawking agrees. They are aghast because the cosmos is not making sense ie; some distant stars are breaking the light speed barrier, gravity is repulsing rather than attracting I could go on. And lets not forget science only provides an 'coherent explanation of the natural world ' for the day it was writ in many cases. What is science today will be quaint myth in a hundred years. So no I would say that makes science at best a clumsy but necessary tool for discovery and at worst a con man selling snake oil to the ignorant and the naive. Eh?
MrMr

Sorry for the composition grammar of the above etc (((((((((TGIF! )))))))))))))

Nice little rant.
Let me ask you a question...
All the things in your above rant that you whine about science not knowing, are you claiming that there is a way to know, not believe, but know, the answers?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Actually, science could disprove certain concepts of God. Like if it shows that the universe is eternal, the traditional Abrahamic concept of God goes out the window.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Taken. However do you believe the tomorrow will come?

Yes, because I've experienced tomorrow coming first-hand for quite some time. I haven't experienced anything suggestive of "God". Ever.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Then there is no evidence, right?

Are you being purposely obtuse? When it comes to absolute truth, conceptual evidence does not suffice for obvious reasons...the real is not the concept of the mind....non-conceptual reality itself is the only evidence that counts....conceptual representations are the brains neuron firing patterns to help mortals interpret reality for survival purposes...got it?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I guess science can provide a coherent explanation of the natural world, which makes God somewhat redundant.

So please provide us with what you think is the coherent explanation of the natural world....I was not aware that there was a scientific consensus on this?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I haven't experienced anything suggestive of "God". Ever.

One fish says to another fish.......where is this "ocean" everyone talks about?

 

[paarsurrey]

I guess science can provide a coherent explanation of the natural world, which makes God somewhat redundant.

So your thinking is anything but scientific? You think without any "empirical evidence" for it. Right?
Regards

 

[gnostic]

Science can say nothing about existence of God

That's because god of yours fall under the realm of myth and superstition; religions fall under the category of wishful thinking and ignorance.

Science deal with reality and nature, not some invisible magic beings, who is supposedly all-powerful and all-knowing.

 

[bravoandi]

Spoken like a true unbeliever. I and other beleivers know that the spiritual realm is as 'real' as what we call 'reality'. So science was designed to only explain science and things science says can exist. The fate of theoretical physics and many other science disciplines were sealed when turn of the centuray think tanks like the Vienna Circle quashed the voices for the validity of metaphysical thought and tools of discovery. If only its one theist member Godel had been successful in his efforts, the world might be far more advanced and kind.

So now we have been laden with Logical Positivism for a hundred years or more. Its no wonder that science can only explain and discover the things of science. So how well is our science doing? Can it explain the physical world truthfully? No regretfully not! Our scientists are lost when asked what happens beyond the event horizon of black holes, or various other questions about their scientific fabrications and observations etc. I would even say our Physics are on the verge becoming obsolete. Even hawking agrees. They are aghast because the cosmos is not making sense ie; some distant stars are breaking the light speed barrier, gravity is repulsing rather than attracting I could go on. And lets not forget science only provides an 'coherent explanation of the natural world ' for the day it was writ in many cases. What is science today will be quaint myth in a hundred years. So no I would say that makes science at best a clumsy but necessary tool for discovery and at worst a con man selling snake oil to the ignorant and the naive. Eh?
MrMr

Sorry for the composition grammar of the above etc (((((((((TGIF! )))))))))))))

Science cannot prove there is no god, nor is that science's job. Science examines reality. Stephen Hawking said, "I have disproved there is a god. I have only shown that a god is not necessary for the creation of the cosmos."

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Actually, science could disprove certain concepts of God. Like if it shows that the universe is eternal, the traditional Abrahamic concept of God goes out the window.

Correct, God has always been entirely falsifiable.

That was the whole idea behind static, eternal, steady state, big crunch: no creation = no creator

All were debunked and the only thing we're left with that we can actually verify is a very specific creation event.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Science cannot prove there is no god, nor is that science's job. Science examines reality. Stephen Hawking said, "I have disproved there is a god. I have only shown that a god is not necessary for the creation of the cosmos."

He originally said that about his 'Big Crunch' theory, which was debunked by supernova measurements.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So science was designed to only explain science and things science says can exist.

Actually it was "designed" (I would say developed) to explain God. It originated in an intellectual period and location in which
1) There existed a widespread belief that the cosmos wasn't just created by God, but that creation was teleological
2) That in order to understand the Creator, it was necessary and desirable to understand the Creation
That's why Galileo was Catholic, Newton spent more time on biblical studies than science, and the founders of science were closer to theologians than modern scientists.

The fate of theoretical physics and many other science disciplines were sealed when turn of the centuray think tanks like the Vienna Circle quashed the voices for the validity of metaphysical thought and tools of discovery.

The Vienna circle largely failed, never intended to quash metaphysics, and contributed to both metaphysics and the philosophy of science in ways that continue today by those fundamentally opposed to logical positivism.
If only its one theist member Godel had been successful in his efforts, the world might be far more advanced and kind.

Its no wonder that science can only explain and discover the things of science.

It's no wonder that language can only be expressed linguistically! Tautology, anyone?

So how well is our science doing?

You're contributing to a realm (the internet) made possible only by it using technology that would not be possible without it and referring to intellectual history and sources that you would not know of without it.

Our scientists are lost when asked what happens beyond the event horizon of black holes

This is a tacit admission to the power of the scientific endeavor. It is an admission of the existence of black holes, which are were discovered by scientific inquiry and COULD NOT be discovered otherwise, thereby acknowledging that no other framework could discover truths about that which is real better than science.

 

[McBell]

... we can actually verify is a very specific creation event.

You keep repeating this claim and then refusing to support it.
Even when flat out asked.

How many times does this pattern have to emerge before you are just flat out lying when you make the claim?

 

[allfoak]

You keep repeating this claim and then refusing to support it.
Even when flat out asked.

How many times does this pattern have to emerge before you are just flat out lying when you make the claim?

Maybe he is just trying to start discussions about things he deems important for people to understand.

I suspect he has the answers already.
Wouldn't do much good to ask someone a question and then answer it for them now would it?