YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
In context though, in this case, the descriptions are also claims. Do you know much about the reasoning behind the 99 names of Allah?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Science can say nothing about existence of God
- Thread starter paarsurrey
- Start date
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Yes paarsurrey, I understand this...and agree the basic premise of absoluteness of God can't be directly falsified by the scientific method because God, the source of creation is unknowable. But my point it is, that the basic premise of the scientific explanation of existence, the big bang theory, also can't be directly falsified by the scientific method....
Here is the basic premise of big bang creation....In the beginning, there was no space....no time...no matter...nothing and unknowable.......and from this unknowable nothing source, came everything that exists.
So creation, either by God or nothing, is still based on an unknowable beginning....and neither therefore can be directly falsified by the scientific method...
on edit...at least the concept of God being unfalsifiable by scientific method is reasonable...but to put forward the big bang theory as science is not reasonable...
Last edited:
Marisa
Well-Known Member
You mean like how lightening was once thought to be god's anger? Or how it was once thought that god makes it rain? I'm not certain you understood what I was saying. But I am positive I dunno what you mean by "Whatever science says about nature that could be accepted if truthful".
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Science cannot say anything about the Easter Bunny either, why would they wast their time ?.
Each of the descriptions can be reworked into a claim, however, in context, they were just descriptions. This means that.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
I disagree. These are descriptions of an alleged being of which there is very little evidence that said being exists... the descriptions do not need to be reworked. They are simply claims.
I disagree... I have enough evidence that I exist.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Then they can be dismissed out of hand.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Impressive. I didn't know that I was dealing with the deity known as Allah. Who knew?
Sure. Unless your intent is to understand.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
I automatically understand unsubstantiated claims. You just accept them at face value.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Actually, it can, and does. A bipedal bunny that lays eggs, who is as tall as a human, and who is capable of running at extremely high speeds to cover the Christian world in just one night to hide all those eggs is not something science supports. Science also says Santa Clause is impossible because the speeds that he would be required to travel at would cause so much friction that he and the reindeer would all burst into flames.
Even if science does not directly state these two entities are not possible, it is strongly implied that if they were real some lucky person would have plenty of rabbit for stew for a state's homeless, and more than enough reindeer to provide an all-you-can-eat buffet for a hearty community Christmas dinner.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Well that's one way of looking at it, mmmm, rabbit stew sounds good, and maybe one od Santa's reindeer would make a good stew also.
Aly Millard
Member
I agree. I'm an atheist though and will remain one until God pops down to Earth and shows he exists. I suppose him showing himself is scientific evidence so, according to you thinking science has no place with religion, means that he wouldn't exist. Please, before you make a thread, think about what you say. Science belongs with everything
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
No....science deals with the physical universe....it does not, and can not yet detect that which in beyond the physical domain....
Deathbydefault
Apistevist Asexual Atheist
It can say that it is more logically sound if nothing else.
But it can't say it's more logically sound than nothing else.
Deathbydefault
Apistevist Asexual Atheist
Technically it can't say anything at all ._.
Aly Millard
Member
Sorry, as an atheist, science belongs with everything... You don't have the luxury to say,' Oh, I trust science when it is talking about this, but when something cannot be proven or disproved, science has no place...'
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
But it is science that restricts itself to the physical universe research....there is no research done on anything else...