Science can say nothing about existence of God

[Darkstorn]

Actually, by definition, a proposed scientific theory isn't a guess. It might be wrong: But it is based on data, and usually the scientific method. Perhaps data arrived upon by confirmation bias even. But it's still not truly a guess. At worst it's an illinformed decision based on either faulty data or faulty reasoning. But never a guess.

Guess is basically "i think blah blah blah because blah blah blah". An entirely mental construct. Like Intelligent Design.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Actually, by definition, a proposed scientific theory isn't a guess. It might be wrong: But it is based on data, and usually the scientific method. Perhaps data arrived upon by confirmation bias even. But it's still not truly a guess. At worst it's an illinformed decision based on either faulty data or faulty reasoning. But never a guess.

Guess is basically "i think blah blah blah because blah blah blah". An entirely mental construct. Like Intelligent Design.

Ok...I understand what you mean and don't want to be pedantic about it....let's just call it a hypothesis that may or may not be correct..... But calling Richard Feynman wrong is a bit cheeky..

 

[Darkstorn]

The theory of evolution is definitely not a hypothesis if you mean that... It's a theory...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The theory of evolution is definitely not a hypothesis if you mean that... It's a theory...

But it started as a hypothesis...an intuitive guess if you like...

And if a theory is falsified at any point in time.....the theory is withdrawn.. So you believe life and awareness has its genesis in material form?

 

[Darkstorn]

So you believe life and awareness has its genesis in material form?

First of all, material and energy are the same thing if you understand physics at all. And secondly, neither of those things are the "ultimate" thing the universe consists of: Currently the smallest thing we know are particles. Currently, life and awareness has its genesis in them. That is neither material nor energy. But it's also not magic like you would like to believe...

There's no new age hippie cosmic force that unites us beyond that: Particles. The new age journals weren't right. Deal with it 8)

 

[Ben Dhyan]

First of all, material and energy are the same thing if you understand physics at all. And secondly, neither of those things are the "ultimate" thing the universe consists of: Currently the smallest thing we know are particles. Currentlyare wareness has its genesis in them. That is neither material nor energy. But it's also not magic like you would like to believe...

There's no new age hippie cosmic force that unites us beyond that: Particles. The new age journals weren't right. Deal with it 8)

My you are a defensive soul.....and who said anything about magic, and hippie cosmic force.. If you want to question something I've said...in future will you please quote me so I know the know the relevance or not of your comment....but to your answer to my question....

So you say that life and awareness has its genesis in particles...yes?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

There's no new age hippie cosmic force that unites us beyond that: Particles.

So Deepak Chopra was wrong about "Cosmic Consciousness"?

 

[Ouroboros]

First of all, material and energy are the same thing if you understand physics at all.

Not quite the same thing. If they were, then there wouldn't be any reason to why they are different, so they're obviously not exactly the same.

And secondly, neither of those things are the "ultimate" thing the universe consists of: Currently the smallest thing we know are particles.

Or quarks. Some particles, like protons consists of quarks, if I remember right.

Currently, life and awareness has its genesis in them. That is neither material nor energy. But it's also not magic like you would like to believe...

Yup. It's all natural or part of nature.

Or we could say that everything is a kind'a magical.

There's no new age hippie cosmic force that unites us beyond that: Particles. The new age journals weren't right. Deal with it 8)

Well, now we know that the Higgs field exists, which could be considered beyond particles. If there's a "new age hippie cosmic force" that exists, then perhaps it's just as natural as all the other strange ideas like superstrings and branes.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

As an atheist I sometimes like to draw more particular attention to this statement: 'science cannot say anything about the existence of god'.

The theist may like to point to this statement and feel that their worldview has been 'let off' in a sense. I look at it a different way. Science is what enables us to look at things and validate their attributes, so that we can speak of things that are. If science cannot speak of god, shouldn't this rather be seen as a heavy blow against god's existence? Science can detect all kinds of things the human eye cannot see. It has mapped the cosmos and charted star systems. It cannot find god- why?

 

[paarsurrey]

As an atheist I sometimes like to draw more particular attention to this statement: 'science cannot say anything about the existence of god'.
The theist may like to point to this statement and feel that their worldview has been 'let off' in a sense. I look at it a different way. Science is what enables us to look at things and validate their attributes, so that we can speak of things that are. If science cannot speak of god, shouldn't this rather be seen as a heavy blow against god's existence? Science can detect all kinds of things the human eye cannot see. It has mapped the cosmos and charted star systems. It cannot find god- why?

Do you mean before the formal inauguration of science human were a simply ignorant species (including the Atheism people) and could not look at the things and their attributes? Science just commenced out of the blue and only then this species got the eyes?
It is rather a blow on science.
Science cannot even define itself and its attributes without languages that human already had from G-d. Science is just a tool in the hands of the human beings. Of itself science is deaf ,dumb and blind like any-other tool.
Regards

 

[Ben Dhyan]

As an atheist I sometimes like to draw more particular attention to this statement: 'science cannot say anything about the existence of god'.

The theist may like to point to this statement and feel that their worldview has been 'let off' in a sense. I look at it a different way. Science is what enables us to look at things and validate their attributes, so that we can speak of things that are. If science cannot speak of god, shouldn't this rather be seen as a heavy blow against god's existence? Science can detect all kinds of things the human eye cannot see. It has mapped the cosmos and charted star systems. It cannot find god- why?

Because as has been pointed out so many times on this thread....all is God....the seen and the unseen....and because the seen is only an insignificant part of the whole,,,God is beyond description, beyond knowledge, beyond finite space and beyond time...

 

[Ex Muslim]

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

This might already have been said but I'll say it again anyway.

Science might not be able to rule out the existence of a God such as Spinozas God, however, science has done a great job of ruling out Zeus, Thor, Yahweh, Allah and many other "Gods", and for this I'll be forever grateful to science and the great scientists (and philosophers) who helped the human race get to this level of understanding that we have.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Do you mean before the formal inauguration of science human were a simply ignorant species (including the Atheism people) and could not look at the things and their attributes? Science just commenced out of the blue and only then this species got the eyes?
It is rather a blow on science.
Science cannot even define itself and its attributes without languages that human already had from G-d. Science is just a tool in the hands of the human beings. Of itself science is deaf ,dumb and blind like any-other tool.
Regards

Our ability to validate the attributes of things was extremely limited prior to the methods science has since developed. Philosophers often made good strides toward doing so, but philosophy as concerns rhetoric has one serious limitation: arguments cannot validate beyond coming up against an argument of equal weight.

For example: one will never be able to claim the argument for Yahweh, or for Zeus is a superior or inferior argument, merely on contrasting the arguments alone.

Reason only takes us so far. Most modern philosophers would acknowledge this limitation of rhetoric.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Because as has been pointed out so many times on this thread....all is God....the seen and the unseen....and because the seen is only an insignificant part of the whole,,,God is beyond description, beyond knowledge, beyond finite space and beyond time...

If God is so transcendent, how do people speak of it at all? Why speak of it? Why lay out any attributes for people to have faith in? Either God is within human ability to understand and talk about or is not. If God is within that ability, the attributes can be tested and found wrong by science.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If God is so transcendent, how do people speak of it at all? Why speak of it? Why lay out any attributes for people to have faith in? Either God is within human ability to understand and talk about or is not. If God is within that ability, the attributes can be tested and found wrong by science.

God is immanent in all creation... God is beyond human understanding....but not beyond being realized if one is prepared to devote oneself to the goal. The first task of the disciple is not to try and discover the reality represented by the concept of God...but humbly find out what and who they really are in the context of cosmos....the rest follows...

 

[Rainbow Mage]

God is immanent in all creation... God is beyond human understanding....but not beyond being realized if one is prepared to devote oneself to the goal. The first task of the disciple is not to try and discover the reality represented by the concept of God...but humbly find out what and who they really are in the context of cosmos....the rest follows...

Did you note the contradiction in what you said?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Did you note the contradiction in what you said?

Nupe....if you can find one...please quote my precise words?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

//God is beyond human understanding....but not beyond being realized if one is prepared to devote oneself to the goal.//<<<

 

[Ben Dhyan]

//God is beyond human understanding....but not beyond being realized if one is prepared to devote oneself to the goal.//<<<

Ok...you being an atheist, I can understand why you do not understand what is being said here....understanding is not what is meant by realizing Divinity....one implies duality...the understander and the understood.....but realizing in this context means to become one with the real.....non-duality.. the one that is all...

 

[leibowde84]

//God is beyond human understanding....but not beyond being realized if one is prepared to devote oneself to the goal.//<<<

Then you must agree that God should not be considered by science, right?