Science can say nothing about existence of God

[paarsurrey]

Ah, well that's simple.
Then I absolutely do not believe in your god.
A god that can't be falsified, or shown, that doesn't interact with the world, yet still created everything without interacting with it?
And cares about what I think and do, even though it had no interaction at all with this world?
Let me guess, it USED to interact in some way, but doesn't anymore?
I'll pass, thanks.

Everything else except the One-True-God has to give proof of its existence before asking proof or evidence of His existence.

Regards

 

[Darkstorn]

Everything else except the One-True-God has to give proof of its existence before asking proof or evidence of His existence.

Regards

No. That is not how science works: It is up to YOU to prove YOUR claims; Not to us. You are not on the defensive: You made the claim. You made the first post. You brought up the issue. You are not on the defensive so it is YOUR place to show us the means of which you are assaulting OUR defences to make your points ring true in our minds.

Right now you're literally saying "the flying spaghetti monster exists and it is up to everyone else to prove his non-existence!"

Oh and: The flying spaghetti monster exists. Because you can't prove his nonexistence.

My post has more logic than yours in it. Yet my point is completely ridiculous... You see the problem of non-falsifiable things now?

And even then: They are non-falsifiable up to a point. We don't know the "ultimate truth" of the universe and science doesn't even atttempt to find such a truth: It knows its unattainable.

But eventually, perhaps some day, the existence of the stereotypical omnipotent Christian-like gods could be proven to be false: By their environments supporting their non-existence. Right now we simply have no means.

But i make the following prediction: Eventually, perhaps thousands of years from now, humanity WILL be able to actually prove the non-existence of omniscient creator beings: By observing everything else but the beings in such a way that proves that they cannot exist.

The existence of gods is not actually non-falsifiable: We just don't have the means yet.

TLDR: We might eventually develop ways to prove non-existence of things by observing the things these non-existent things supposedly interact with. So don't feel so safe...

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Everything else except the One-True-God has to give proof of its existence before asking proof or evidence of His existence.

Regards

Everything else that I believe exists has given suitable evidence of its existence, or potential existence based on the likelihood of its rationality. Everything I believe to exist has met its individual burden of proof, the things that haven't, I either don't believe, or am "on the fence" about

Its your gods turn.

I would think this opportunity would be something you would be glad to have, whereas instead it seems like you, and by extension, the god you're claiming, seem to be stalling.

Also, if that's how you think backing a claim works.. You state something exists, then use excuses and stall tactics..if you think that is acceptable, then I am glad to not share both your god, and your rationality.
You at actually chasing me away from your god, is that your intent?

 

[paarsurrey]

Everything else that I believe exists has given suitable evidence of its existence, or potential existence based on the likelihood of its rationality. Everything I believe to exist has met its individual burden of proof, the things that haven't, I either don't believe, or am "on the fence" about

Do you believe that you exist?
Please give evidences and proofs of your existence.
I don't think you are "on the fence" about it.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

No. That is not how science works:

Yes; there are domains and dimensions where science does not work; it need not.

That is why the forum is named "Science and Religion"; in such domains religion works.

Regards

 

[Darkstorn]

Yes; there are domains and dimensions where science does not work; it need not.

The purpose of this forum is science and religion. Not religion ONLY. Therefore, either you start using science or you should stop posting here. Simple as that.

That is why the forum is named "Science and Religion"; in such domains religion works.

Regards

Except you're assuming religion works and science doesn't... On a forum where both should be treated equal. Stop thinking of us as idiots not deserving honest argument: Be honest to yourself in the process as well.

Stop seeing yourself in everyone else: no one else is exactly like you. Others won't just believe your words "because." You cannot say something is, without showing us why it is when it is general consensus that something ISN'T.

In plain words: If you are trying to convince us to a theory completely opposite not only to our views, but empirical science, then you must do it with good and honest effort. You have an agenda in your heart: You believe yourself to be so right that you believe others see it instantly as if it was a revelation.

I make the proposition that "the one true god" does not exist and is in fact your imagination. You got the idea for this imagination from a book written by humans.

BOTH of these sentences use the EXACT same logic:

The one true god doesn't exist because you cannot prove the existence of it.

The Flying spaghetti monster exists because you cannot prove his non-existence.

 

[paarsurrey]

But science can have and has had an opinion about everything that exists out there. If it can't talk about something at all, it's simply because it's in people's head, and not out there.

Science is designed to know things that are material and physical and does not formally involve outside its domain.

Regards

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Do you believe that you exist?
Please give evidences and proofs of your existence.
I don't think you are "on the fence" about it.

Regards

I do believe I exist, my existence has met it's burden of proof to me.
I would gladly share the proof with you, if you'll do the same with honest, matching proof of a god.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Science is designed to know things that are material and physical and does not formally involve outside its domain.

Regards

Now show any bit of proof that that "outside it's domain" exists, or interacts with the material world in any way.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Science is designed to know things that are material and physical and does not formally involve outside its domain.

Regards

So in your view, your god has no material or physical effects?

 

[metis]

Generally speaking, religious beliefs are unfalsifiable.

For example: in our universe there is a multitude of spiritual cosmic Godzillas that actually created our universe, forming planets, stars, and the other bodies through their spit-wad fights. They all told me how to achieve heaven, with the quickest single way being to watch a lot of their Japanese movies, and that one major holiday they say is for us to observe is for us to crawl on our bellies, stick out our tongues, and eat flies.

Try and prove me wrong.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Generally speaking, religious beliefs are unfalsifiable.

For example: in our universe there is a multitude of spiritual cosmic Godzillas that actually created our universe, forming planets, stars, and the other bodies through their spit-wad fights. They all told me how to achieve heaven, with the quickest single way being to watch a lot of their Japanese movies, and that one major holiday they say is for us to observe is for us to crawl on our bellies, stick out our tongues, and eat flies.

Try and prove me wrong.

It's not a matter of proving you wrong; it's a matter of recognizing that your claim is unsupported.

... and every claim is unsupported until support is given.

Saying "religious beliefs are unfalsifiable" is functionally equivalent to saying "religious beliefs are arbitrary and baseless."

 

[Ouroboros]

It's not a matter of proving you wrong; it's a matter of recognizing that your claim is unsupported.

... and every claim is unsupported until support is given.

Saying "religious beliefs are unfalsifiable" is functionally equivalent to saying "religious beliefs are arbitrary and baseless."

I'm not sure you're right.

Having something to be "falsifiable" means that it's possible to create a scenario or test which could prove something to be false. If the test comes up positive, the result would prove something to be false. If the test comes up negative, nothing has been proven. In science, it's preferable if you can setup your hypothesis in such a way that you can create tests that (if they're positive) would prove your hypothesis wrong. This is what it means with "falsifiable". If you can't, then your hypothesis is not falsifiable. Religion is by design not falsifiable. You can't provide a test to prove a belief wrong if the belief is elusive by nature and avoid any kind of test and have "magic box" short cuts. This has nothing to do with a belief being arbitrary or baseless. A belief can have foundations, but that doesn't make it falsifiable. And unfalsifiable is not the same as baseless or arbitrary. They're separate things.

The thing is that not every truth has to be falsifiable. "I like ice cream" isn't falsifiable, but it's still true. It's based on experience and opinion. We can't falsify by taste by setting up a test which (if it was true) would prove that "I like ice cream" is false. (The thing is, I do like ice cream) What test would potentially show that I don't like ice cream? Give me chocolate instead? Well, I like chocolate too, which doesn't invalidate my liking of ice cream.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not sure you're right.

Having something to be "falsifiable" means that it's possible to create a scenario or test which could prove something to be false. If the test comes up positive, the result would prove something to be false. If the test comes up negative, nothing has been proven. In science, it's preferable if you can setup your hypothesis in such a way that you can create tests that (if they're positive) would prove your hypothesis wrong. This is what it means with "falsifiable". If you can't, then your hypothesis is not falsifiable.

Yes, that's right. If something is unfalsifiable, this means you do not have the means to tell whether it's true or false.

... which is pretty much what I said.

Religion is by design not falsifiable. You can't provide a test to prove a belief wrong if the belief is elusive by nature and avoid any kind of test and have "magic box" short cuts.

I disagree. There's nothing inherent about religion that makes it unfalsifiable. Every religion I've ever encountered makes some sort of predictions about how things are.

There's nothing inherently unfalsifiable about, say, the existence of souls, life after death, or many other basic religious ideas.

This has nothing to do with a belief being arbitrary or baseless. A belief can have foundations, but that doesn't make it falsifiable. And unfalsifiable is not the same as baseless or arbitrary. They're separate things.

Well, yes. They are. If a belief has a rational basis, then that basis provides a way to confirm that it's true or false. IOW, if it's rational, it's falsifiable.

The thing is that not every truth has to be falsifiable. "I like ice cream" isn't falsifiable, but it's still true. It's based on experience and opinion. We can't falsify by taste by setting up a test which (if it was true) would prove that "I like ice cream" is false. (The thing is, I do like ice cream) What test would potentially show that I don't like ice cream? Give me chocolate instead? Well, I like chocolate too, which doesn't invalidate my liking of ice cream.

Economists have come up with all sorts of ways to measure people's preferences. If you like ice cream, then you'll probably expend resources to get it, right?

Also, you can falsify the claim that you like ice cream. You can do it very easily: just try some ice cream and see if you like it.

Edit: also, there's a categorical difference between claims about your aesthetic preferences - which might not manifest outside your own head - and claims about the outside world, such as religious claims.

 

[Ouroboros]

Yes, that's right. If something is unfalsifiable, this means you do not have the means to tell whether it's true or false.

No. It means that you can't set up a test to prove that it is false. That's not the same as you can't know if it's true.

... which is pretty much what I said.


I disagree. There's nothing inherent about religion that makes it unfalsifiable. Every religion I've ever encountered makes some sort of predictions about how things are.

So that means there's a falsifiable test we can do on religion. Do you have an example of such a test?

There's nothing inherently unfalsifiable about, say, the existence of souls, life after death, or many other basic religious ideas.

So there's a test you can do that if it was proven true it would prove these things false?

Well, yes. They are. If a belief has a rational basis, then that basis provides a way to confirm that it's true or false. IOW, if it's rational, it's falsifiable.

Rational isn't the same is falsifiable. Something being rational doesn't make it falsifiable.

Wiki defines falsifiable as: "Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false. In this sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaning not "to commit fraud" but "show to be false". Some philosophers argue that science must be falsifiable.[1]"

Economists have come up with all sorts of ways to measure people's preferences. If you like ice cream, then you'll probably expend resources to get it, right?

How is that falsifiable? Can you come up with a test that could prove that I don't like ice cream?

Also, you can falsify the claim that you like ice cream. You can do it very easily: just try some ice cream and see if you like it.

It has to be an objective test, or it's not considered a falsifiable test.

I tried some ice cream. I liked it.

So I didn't falsify it. It wasn't a falsifiable test. The test must be in the opposite. It has to be a test that comes out true to make the overall claim false, but if the test comes out false, it doesn't imply the overall claim is automatically true.

Edit: also, there's a categorical difference between claims about your aesthetic preferences - which might not manifest outside your own head - and claims about the outside world, such as religious claims.

That doesn't matter. A true claim is a true claim. A claim is a claim. Falsifiability is a matter of being able to create a test which would prove the claim false if the test is positive.

"God exists" is not a falsifiable claim. You can't create a test that if the test comes out positive it would prove God's non-existence. That test doesn't exist. It's the same for belief. Belief in something cannot be falsified. It's a subjective experience and a subjective idea.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

I'm not sure you're right.

Having something to be "falsifiable" means that it's possible to create a scenario or test which could prove something to be false. If the test comes up positive, the result would prove something to be false. If the test comes up negative, nothing has been proven. In science, it's preferable if you can setup your hypothesis in such a way that you can create tests that (if they're positive) would prove your hypothesis wrong. This is what it means with "falsifiable". If you can't, then your hypothesis is not falsifiable. Religion is by design not falsifiable. You can't provide a test to prove a belief wrong if the belief is elusive by nature and avoid any kind of test and have "magic box" short cuts. This has nothing to do with a belief being arbitrary or baseless. A belief can have foundations, but that doesn't make it falsifiable. And unfalsifiable is not the same as baseless or arbitrary. They're separate things.

The thing is that not every truth has to be falsifiable. "I like ice cream" isn't falsifiable, but it's still true. It's based on experience and opinion. We can't falsify by taste by setting up a test which (if it was true) would prove that "I like ice cream" is false. (The thing is, I do like ice cream) What test would potentially show that I don't like ice cream? Give me chocolate instead? Well, I like chocolate too, which doesn't invalidate my liking of ice cream.

the difference here is fact vs opinion.
"I like ice cream" is an opinion.... It can be a true opinion, or you could be lying about it, but it is a decision based off personal feelings.
"I am allergic to ice cream" would be a fact, it is falsifiable.

If someone is saying "God exists" then if that's an opinion, fine... it's an opinion, therefore, don't force others to follow laws, or lifestyle changes based on your opinion, that would be the same as making laws based on the opinion that you do or don't like ice cream.
But when people do talk about god, they generally aren't doing it as an opinion. stating "god exists" is making a claim about the existent universe.
That is a fact claim.
I can't claim "there is a chair in my room" when there's not, because that's my "opinion" unless I can back that up with something surprising..

So, I'll agre with you, if your base claim is "religion is an opinion, that shouldn't be used to guide others lives, shouldn't be made into laws, and should never ever trump facts"
if your claim is more along the lines of "religion can't be falsifiable, because of what it is, but it's still right, because.. stuff" then I have to disagree.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No. It means that you can't set up a test to prove that it is false. That's not the same as you can't know if it's true.

It is, actually.

When a claim is falsifiable, this means that its truth would have implications or predictions we can test or observe.

Testing the predictions of a claim is also the way we figure out whether something's true.

So that means there's a falsifiable test we can do on religion. Do you have an example of such a test?

Sure. The religious claim that the Earth is only 6,000 years old is falsifiable in a number of ways (dendochronology, for instance). Faith healing claims can be falsified by carefully testing the person being "healed" before and after the "healing" to confirm that they really did have the ailment beforehand and didn't have it after.

So there's a test you can do that if it was proven true it would prove these things false?

Not right this minute, but neurology has things to say about the ideas of "mind" and "soul".

The claim that souls exist implies that there is something that is genuinely "me" apart from the actions of the brain. If the mind - i.e. me - is just "what the brain does" as modern neurology is strongly suggesting, then there's no room for a soul.

Rational isn't the same is falsifiable. Something being rational doesn't make it falsifiable.

Wiki defines falsifiable as: "Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false. In this sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaning not "to commit fraud" but "show to be false". Some philosophers argue that science must be falsifiable.[1]"

Right. So if a conclusion is derived from evidence - which I would say is one element of it being rational - then it's falsifiable.

How is that falsifiable? Can you come up with a test that could prove that I don't like ice cream?

I'm an engineer, not a behavioural economist. I'm not sure I'd be able to design an iron-clad test, but I have confidence that someone who could measure health care and risk preferences or the relative importance of housing prices versus non-monetary factors in school preferences could figure out a way to test your food preferences.

It has to be an objective test, or it's not considered a falsifiable test.

Now you're just making stuff up. It's definitely falsifiable to you.

I tried some ice cream. I liked it.

Sounds like your claim is reasonable, then.

So I didn't falsify it. It wasn't a falsifiable test. The test must be in the opposite. It has to be a test that comes out true to make the overall claim false, but if the test comes out false, it doesn't imply the overall claim is automatically true.

If you taste the ice cream and realize it tastes awful to you, then the claim that you like ice cream would be falsified.

That doesn't matter. A true claim is a true claim. A claim is a claim. Falsifiability is a matter of being able to create a test which would prove the claim false if the test is positive.

"God exists" is not a falsifiable claim. You can't create a test that if the test comes out positive it would prove God's non-existence. That test doesn't exist. It's the same for belief. Belief in something cannot be falsified. It's a subjective experience and a subjective idea.

"God exists" is also not the sum total of any believer's beliefs. For anyone who has a real religious belief, their belief system includes claims like "God exists and has attributes X, Y, and Z", or "God exists, and he's done A, B, and C."

At the very least, a believer's answer to the question "why do you believe in God?" either points to a testable claim or to the fact that the belief is improperly founded.

 

[Ouroboros]

So, I'll agre with you, if your base claim is "religion is an opinion, that shouldn't be used to guide others lives, shouldn't be made into laws, and should never ever trump facts"
if your claim is more along the lines of "religion can't be falsifiable, because of what it is, but it's still right, because.. stuff" then I have to disagree.

I'm not saying religion is right... or wrong... or halfway between or green or vanilla flavored.

If religion is falsifiable (I assume we're talking about the experiential falsification according to Popper's theories), then it should be easy to prove me wrong.

What would be the falsifiable experiment for religion or God's existence?

The only one I can come up with is "when I die, if I don't see God, then it's obvious that God does not exist." That's a test that would theoretically prove religion wrong. So it's a hypothetical or theoretical test, but is it practical?

 

[Ouroboros]

It is, actually.

When a claim is falsifiable, this means that its truth would have implications or predictions we can test or observe.

Then I don't think we're talking about the same Popper's experiential falsification, are we? What you're talking about there is "verification", not "falsification."

Can you provide a falsifiable test for religion? I'm curious of what test you would consider a falsifiable one.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What would be the falsifiable experiment for religion or God's existence?

What good reason is there to accept religion or God's existence right now?

The answer to this question is going to point to the answer to yours.