Science can say nothing about existence of God

[Ben Dhyan]

So do you now accept that this "reality" is accessible to non-theists as well as theists, and that in fact such experiences are nothing to with belief in God?

It is the destiny of all souls to realize this "reality"....but anyone who lives predominately according to their lower dualistic nature, as most atheists and theists do...are not near to the realization....

 

[Rick O'Shez]

....but anyone who lives predominately according to their lower dualistic nature, as most atheists and theists do...are not near to the realization....

I assume you don't include yourself in this group of unfortunates?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You need to go back and reread the thread....my posting of the Feynman clip was not directly in the context of evolution...if you doubt me...please go back to my original post and quote me precisely and provide context and post # number if possible..

You need to:

So are you are implying Feynman's understanding is in error....that Darwin bypassed the intuitive phase and the theory of evolution was born without the need for any scientific review of a hypothesis?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I assume you don't include yourself in this group of unfortunates?

There are always those more 'advanced' and those less....our job is to be each responsible for realizing our goal...however apparently modest or esteemed..

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You need to:

Well that is not my original post of the Feynman clip which was not in the context of the evolution. However in the context of our own exchange....I ask you...do you think Darwin's theory of evolution came to him without the need of a hypothesis?

 

[paarsurrey]

Science can say nothing about existence of God

It is neither reasonable nor rational for science to say anything about G-d. It is not so designed. Right? Please
One knows about G-d from Revelation. Right? Please
Regards

 

[Milton Platt]

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

Not strictly speaking. It could not determine that a specific god existed. But if there is a supernatural entity (aka "god") that directly affects the natural world, then those interactions concievably could be observed and measured. Unfortunately for the supposed god, there have been no observable phenomena which could not have been produced by natural processes.

But even if that sort of thing was detected and confirmed, it would not point to a god, but rather simply to an hitherto unknown force. You don't get to the god label that way.

 

[Milton Platt]

Science can say nothing about existence of God

It is neither reasonable nor rational for science to say anything about G-d. It is not so designed. Right? Please
One knows about G-d from Revelation. Right? Please
Regards

How can you claim to know anything by revelation? There is no evidence to support what you think you know. You could think you had a revelation and BELIEVE something from that, but cannot KNOW it.

 

[paarsurrey]

Not strictly speaking. It could not determine that a specific god existed. But if there is a supernatural entity (aka "god") that directly affects the natural world, then those interactions concievably could be observed and measured. Unfortunately for the supposed god, there have been no observable phenomena which could not have been produced by natural processes.
But even if that sort of thing was detected and confirmed, it would not point to a god, but rather simply to an hitherto unknown force. You don't get to the god label that way.

What data of attributes of G-d and how these reflect in everything ethical, moral or spiritual has one got to conclude so? Please
Regards

 

[Milton Platt]

What data of attributes of G-d and how these reflect in everything ethical, moral or spiritual has one got to conclude so? Please
Regards

Don't know what you mean. This does not seem to apply to my post. I said you could only observe events caused that could not be explained witth the laws of nature and draw a tenative conclusion that something supernatural (outside nature) may have caused them. You cannot show that it was a god. Why sre you asking me about the aattributes of a god? Which god? There are thousands to date and they are all silent.

 

[Thief]

attributes of God....
bigger, faster, stronger, more intelligent and greatly experienced

coupled with the power of creation.......the Almighty

 

[Milton Platt]

attributes of God....
bigger, faster, stronger, more intelligent and greatly experienced

coupled with the power of creation.......the Almighty

"Bigger, faster, more intelligent" than what? Sounds like the description of a pro ball player.....
Which god are you referencing? And why does it matter in regard to my post, which does not address any "god attributes'?

 

[Thief]

"Bigger, faster, more intelligent" than what? Sounds like the description of a pro ball player.....
Which god are you referencing? And why does it matter in regard to my post, which does not address any "god attributes'?

superlatives.....think....superlatives

for every atribute .....Someone....is top of the line in all manner
and the ability of creation.....the Almighty

 

[Vorkosigan]

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

Exactly, it’s like the existence of unicorns or anything else that you can imagine but can never prove doesn’t exist.
That’s why science doesn't care about god and doesn’t need it to reveal the nature of the cosmos.

 

[Acim]

If existence is (ever) contextual, science could conceivably falsify God. Might not be easy, but is possible.
If existence is purely conceptual, then falsifiability would not be appropriate.
Can science falsify the existence of the scientific method (if sticking with mere conceptualization)?
I would say no.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Exactly, it’s like the existence of unicorns or anything else that you can imagine but can never prove doesn’t exist.
That’s why science doesn't care about god and doesn’t need it to reveal the nature of the cosmos.

It depends on the definition of God....as a pantheist...the concept of God represents all that is...known and unknown....but it matters not what scientists actually believe about religion...so long as their science is well founded wrt revealing the true nature of the manifested universe...

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

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

Yup. Now what?

The OP is correct as far as it goes, keeping in mind that the non-existence of God is not a falsifiable claim either, But the proposition that the universe was or was not created by a super spirit being are falsifiable propositions. The problem is there's no evidence for or against either proposition. So here we are, stuck in agnostic limbo, unable to declare anything about either one--and there looks to be no foreseeable change is that status. Whatsay we learn to live with the unknown.

 

[paarsurrey]

The OP is correct as far as it goes, keeping in mind that the non-existence of God is not a falsifiable claim either, But the proposition that the universe was or was not created by a super spirit being are falsifiable propositions. The problem is there's no evidence for or against either proposition. So here we are, stuck in agnostic limbo, unable to declare anything about either one--and there looks to be no foreseeable change is that status. Whatsay we learn to live with the unknown.

One is simply wrong.
There exists no limbo of Agnosticism here, it simply is not in the realm of science. We are misusing the tool of science by applying the scientific method where it has no relevance at all. Right? Please
When man uses/misused science where it should not be used, science becomes gibberish and gives no proper answer. Please
Regards

 

[McBell]

The OP is correct as far as it goes, keeping in mind that the non-existence of God is not a falsifiable claim either, But the proposition that the universe was or was not created by a super spirit being are falsifiable propositions. The problem is there's no evidence for or against either proposition. So here we are, stuck in agnostic limbo, unable to declare anything about either one--and there looks to be no foreseeable change is that status. Whatsay we learn to live with the unknown.

Unable to make declarations?
How does that work seeing it is in and of itself a declaration?

What does evidence have to do with making declarations?
This here forum is plum full of declarations made with little to no evidence.....

 

[paarsurrey]

How can you claim to know anything by revelation? There is no evidence to support what you think you know. You could think you had a revelation and BELIEVE something from that, but cannot KNOW it.

If one communicates with me, I do know that somebody is communication with me. Is it difficult to know? Please
The same way when G-d converses with a man, he does know that G-d has communicate with him. Please

Regards