paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Still it is a non-believers way of putting the things.
Regards
-
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!
Theology is Falsifiable, thus, - Scientific.
- Thread starter questfortruth
- Start date
Regards
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Not always.
In fact, the phrase was coined by a theist.
Science is a discipline, somewhat like sword fighting or Math. Religion is a practice like Law or like medicine.
Samantha Rinne
Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
I'm not sure you mean the right thing when you say "falsifiable."
Also, this is not one of the names of God. This is what atheists call God to explain what they see as God as a blanket explanation for things that don't make sense. Personally, I think that's extremely offensive horsestuff, but let's go back to what they mean by falsifiability.
The key point of falsifiability is not whether it can be claimed false, but whether or not something can be observed.
That is to say, "Can it be tested whether God can or cannot exists?" Not can people say it's false (or something). In order for the falsifiability to work, we have to have an experiment. We have to have a control group. We have to have an experimental group. We have to have repeated tests, under different conditions. Since God is effectively invisible, in order to even begin to make such a test, one must work out how to prove something that you can't see or measure.
This is not to say that you couldn't otherwise prove that God exists. I believe in God. But I also feel like arranging an experiment would have serious difficulty. Particularly since the people who would probably be best scientists would have the least interest in proving this.
Shad
Veteran Member
God is not proposed as a hypothesis thus fails to meet the standard for Popper's view. Neither religion nor theology are God or a hypothesis. Religion and theology contain axioms thus treat a specific idea of God and other views as fact.. Toss in your are using a definition of God as hidden premise. Define God and show your evidence for God.
No. Science just holds standards that many people's claims fail to meet be it religion, crime, witness testimony, etc. It is a tool to evaluate ideas and claims. Religion just happens to make grand claims and is followed by most of humanity thus emotionally is seen as a target by the believer.
Individuals can use science to discredit a religion or any claim for that matter. Individuals may or may not have a bias the claim they are challenging. That is on them be it misusing a tool or have motive outside of objectivity. Likewise people will use science to argue for God thus have their own bias. Bias in general is normal on some level as bias drives interest.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
I think that you don't know what the term "God of the Gaps' refers to.
It means that God only exists without the gaps in our current scientific knowledge. When our knowledge of how the natural world functions is limited, then God is very large. When a volcano erupts, it's because God is angry. When lightening occurs during a storm, it's because God is hurling down lightening bolts. But as our knowledge increases and we discover that volcanoes erupting and lightening bolts are all explained by natural occurrences, then God gets much smaller.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Science never sought any truth.
Males as a brotherhood is the theme for living self superior males...for you cannot argue that comment. For all males in memory know that their original male self was superior to self today, sacrificed and converted.
Thought thoughts. Thoughts are real, but what they sought was not real. They were looking/researching an old Earth vision, how to convert and remove God mass stone by UFO radiation mass.
Males think as a contradiction.
Thoughts are real and thoughts can really think, but thoughts are not reality.
Yet the scientist first group said mind is over matter, for I can have matter removed.
So what truth did science own? None.
pi O and Phi O were first concepts of thoughts, did not exist as any state pi or phi.....and he attacked life, sacrificed it, then introduced science as PHI by pi O.
Life was original to self, did not live first sacrificed, so religion and science as the same context lied to self, by group coercive control and manipulation.
They are the same group, just split their ideals about want to re practice science, or to remain spiritually obliged to teach about what science caused to self life.
Always was the same group.
If science says it understands the big bang, he would be lying. For we do not live before the big bang safe. Any big bangs in the universe is a conversion of something else.
Males as a brotherhood is the theme for living self superior males...for you cannot argue that comment. For all males in memory know that their original male self was superior to self today, sacrificed and converted.
Thought thoughts. Thoughts are real, but what they sought was not real. They were looking/researching an old Earth vision, how to convert and remove God mass stone by UFO radiation mass.
Males think as a contradiction.
Thoughts are real and thoughts can really think, but thoughts are not reality.
Yet the scientist first group said mind is over matter, for I can have matter removed.
So what truth did science own? None.
pi O and Phi O were first concepts of thoughts, did not exist as any state pi or phi.....and he attacked life, sacrificed it, then introduced science as PHI by pi O.
Life was original to self, did not live first sacrificed, so religion and science as the same context lied to self, by group coercive control and manipulation.
They are the same group, just split their ideals about want to re practice science, or to remain spiritually obliged to teach about what science caused to self life.
Always was the same group.
If science says it understands the big bang, he would be lying. For we do not live before the big bang safe. Any big bangs in the universe is a conversion of something else.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
There is Astronomy, there are no repeating of tests in Astronomy - we can not repeat Big Bang.
Samantha Rinne
Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
Hahahaha!
Hold my beer, I'm gonna do it.
But seriously, there are some scientists that say the universe does Big Bang/Big Crunch cycles. That and a Futurama episode.
Skwim
Veteran Member
In as much as theology is merely a study, "the study of the nature of God and religious belief," how would it be falsified? How does one falsify an undertaking, be it good or bad? .. It's like falsifying a war or a muffler repair.
What is the theory of the rules of grammar?
.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
The general idea of God is not falsifiable, since for any possible test, there is a way to explain any negative results.
However, I think that for any specific interpretation of God, such as the one presented in the Bible, falsification is possible.
For example, the Bible says that believers can handle poisonous snakes without dying, they can drink poison and survive and they can pray and mountains will literally move. These are all testable claims, and if we test them and they fail, they will show that the Biblical version of God is false.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
We can repeat the observations. We can repeat the modelling.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
I think it all depends on religious/mythical interpretation and on standing cosmological theories - of which some are not conclusive and final.
Never mind the question of "a god" for now. The terms of "Gaps", "Voids" and "Abyss" occurs in several ancient myths of creation as cited here - Chaos (cosmogony) - Wikipedia
If taking these stories of a pre-existing gap or void before creation seriously, the ancient perception of creation really goes against the very idea of a Big Bang. If so the ancient perception really falsify modern cosmology and not the other way around. Or at least tell of a stage before the creation compared to a Big Bang which cannot be explained causally.
Last edited:
exchemist
Veteran Member
No, completely wrong. Read what I said.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
I´ve referred to this in post #34
It all depends of defining "god". A pre-existing stage in the gaps of the creation is religiously/mythically described as a "primordial stage of creation" where all cosmic elements are "at rest". This was also mentioned in ancient myths as the "Cosmic Sea, Ocean or Waters". The modern perception of this could be the "Cosmic Microwave Background".
Last edited:
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
The phrase has got nothing to do with the truthful religion.
Regards
Disagree. Religion is a little too subjective to be compared to Law and medicine.
What is the precise statement that has been falsified?
Is it simply, "If science can explain the universe then God does not exist"?
That sounds like a non sequitur, no?
I think the real problem is that "God" is not defined in terms appropriate to a real being. To take my usual example, there's no coherent definition, no test, that will let me determine whether my keyboard, the one I'm using to type this, is God or not. I can determine that it's not an elephant, a glass of ouzo, a bee, even a unicorn; but I can't determine whether or not it's God.
And that problem applies generally, not simply in the science context.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Amen!