Science can say nothing about existence of God

[Ouroboros]

IMO, if you can't give a clear answer to the question "exactly what are you claiming?", then I'm not going to treat what you're saying as a claim... not even if you're using words that are normally found in claims.

A claim is a form of declaration, supported or unsupported. That's just what it is.

Well, I don't think we can get any further on this topic anyway. I'll just leave it as it stands for now.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A claim is a form of declaration, supported or unsupported. That's just what it is.

A claim is a declaration that something is the case. No "something", no claim. If the words you're using aren't meaningful, then there's no claim even if your grammar and syntax are correct.

Well, I don't think we can get any further on this topic anyway. I'll just leave it as it stands for now.

Fair enough.

 

[paarsurrey]

So science can say nothing about existence of God.

The One-True-God being neither material/physical nor spiritual; He is only attributive so in this sense He is outside the domain of science.

His attributes are in absolute terms and affect the domains we can perceive at His absolute discretion to the level He wills yet we cannot perceive Him.

Regards

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So science can say nothing about existence of God.

The One-True-God being neither material/physical nor spiritual; He is only attributive so in this sense He is outside the domain of science.

His attributes are in absolute terms and affect the domains we can perceive at His absolute discretion to the level He wills yet we cannot perceive Him.

Regards

Wow. Good job ignoring 13 pages of discussion.

It's irrelevant whether God is "material/physical or spiritual." If God has physical effects, then God can be investigated by science.

And if God doesn't have physical effects, then he's an irrelevant God that you had no way of knowing about in the first place.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

So science can say nothing about existence of God.

The One-True-God being neither material/physical nor spiritual; He is only attributive so in this sense He is outside the domain of science.

His attributes are in absolute terms and affect the domains we can perceive at His absolute discretion to the level He wills yet we cannot perceive Him.

Regards

*sigh*
Ok, lets sum up the whole thread.
Science can say nothing about god, UNLESS god affects the material world, in which case science CAN..
..so, take you pick.
God is absolute and immaterial and doesn't affect the world, and science says nothing

or

god affects the world, and these changes absolutely fall into the realm of science

 

[outhouse]

So science can say nothing about existence of God.

They can make the statement. "Man created deities using mythology".


There is nothing to test for, so god does not exist scientifically.

 

[Estro Felino]

Well, Science can prove that a material God doesn't exist

But since God is immaterial, science can't prove that he doesn't exist, because science cannot verify the immaterial world

so you are absolutely right

 

[Sunstone]

Science can and often does have a great deal to say about what people say about deity.

 

[outhouse]

But since God is immaterial, science can't prove that he doesn't exist,

That is not true.

Science can show that only man has created deities, and only man has wrote about deities.

So now it depends on which god your talking about, as to how the concept was created.


Secondly, who are you to make said statement that a god is indeed immaterial???? My yellow ducky is immaterial but he exist and he created your god in his imagination, and you cannot prove my yellow ducky does not exist.!!!!!!

As you see that methodology your using simply does not work.

And if he was immaterial, he has no effect on the material world without evidence to support said position.


Care to try again?

 

[paarsurrey]

Science can say nothing about existence of God

Science has never established any discipline for study of existence of G-d. It is an admission that they don't have to probe into it as a subject of science.
Am I right?

Regards

 

[Willamena]

Science can say nothing about existence of God

Science has never established any discipline for study of existence of G-d. It is an admission that they don't have to probe into it as a subject of science.
Am I right?

Regards

I think so, yes. Science examines and models how the world works.

 

[Ouroboros]

Science can say nothing about existence of God

Science has never established any discipline for study of existence of G-d. It is an admission that they don't have to probe into it as a subject of science.
Am I right?

I agree. I don't know if it's an "admission" per-se, but the stance of natural science is to probe, test, study, experiment, and provide theories relating to nature as such, not God.

This is one of the reasons I dislike most arguments that try to prove God's existence, like First Cause, because they're using methods of deconstructing just like science. In other words, most arguments for God's existence try to make the existence of God a topic of scientific study.

 

[paarsurrey]

In other words, most arguments for God's existence try to make the existence of God a topic of scientific study.

I don't do it.
I believe in G-d very naturally. It is in nature of man to believe in G-d.
Am I right?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

relating to nature

It is in nature of man to believe in G-d; then why does science has no specific discipline to do that.
It shows that science is deficient and imperfect and human should not expect that science would guide one in all matters of life.

Regards

 

[Ouroboros]

I don't do it.

Good.

I believe in G-d very naturally. It is in nature of man to believe in G-d.
Am I right?

Don't know. I've met people who naturally never had belief in God or even cared for discussing it. Basically, areligious or default atheists. People who really never even cared about discussing or thinking about it, and they didn't believe in God at all either. It was just not part of their mind.

 

[Ouroboros]

It is in nature of man to believe in G-d; then why does science has no specific discipline to do that.

Because it can't. It's not nature of man for everyone (as I pointed out in the post above, I've met people who doesn't have the nature to believe in God).

If God was a scientific field, then God must by necessity be something we can study, like the natural things, which means that God must be part of nature. (Which means pantheism would have to be true.)

It shows that science is deficient and imperfect and human should not expect that science would guide one in all matters of life.

science is not deficient or imperfect, it's just a specific thing for something specific regarding our reality.

Cooking food is just as deficient and imperfect since cooking can't explain how to pain with pastels. (I cook, paint with pastels, etc, so I know, they're different fields of study).

Science focuses on nature and the things we can test, study, research, experiment on, recheck, etc. If you consider God to be part of that field, that God can be studied, probed, examined, tested, then you would be a pantheist. I never got the impression that you were?

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Science requires the exploration of falsifiable claims.

can you provide a reference to this (false) assumpiotn of science? No I'm no interested in any particular bastardization of the scientific method! I'd like you to provide a clear reference to this claim from the scientific methodology, if you can?

The existence of God is not a falsifiable claim. Therefore science can say nothing about it.

 

[Bunyip]

Science can say nothing about existence of God

Science has never established any discipline for study of existence of G-d. It is an admission that they don't have to probe into it as a subject of science.
Am I right?

Regards

No. You are assuming that establishing the existence of a god would require a different methodology. The only reason you assume that is because the existing methodology has provided no evidence.

So there are two possible ways to interpret that; 1. There is no god. 2. The scientific method which has proven it's effectiveness for some reason is not sufficient.

I'd go with 1.

 

[Bunyip]

The existence of God is indeed not a falsifyable claim - but the non-existence of God sure is falsifyable.

 

[paarsurrey]

The existence of God is indeed not a falsifyable claim - but the non-existence of God sure is falsifyable.

Which discipline of science deals it? Please
Regards