What does science think will disprove God?And what do Christians think will prove God?

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not all scientists are materialists

Not in their private lives, at least.
They put on a "materialist" hat once they step into lab. Actually an atheist hat also.

Arthur Eddington, Warner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrodinger, Eugene Wigner, Anthony Aguirre, John Gribbin are just a few famous names who have argued that Materialism cannot possibly be said to account for the full function of reality, and our human experience of it.

Sure.
Did any of them ever included anything "spiritual" or "supernatural" in any of their scientific papers about anything, ever? Nope.

A christian biologist will also say that life comes from god. Yet in their lab, they don't look for gods or angels or miracles. They don't even come up. Instead, they look at chemical reactions. Which they explain with models of chemistry. Not with supernatural mumbo jumbo. That only happens in their church sermons.

 

[firedragon]

Zeus, Thor, Woden and the Flying Spaghetti Monster also cannot be scientifically disproved

Very true. Finally you have grown up a bit.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, scientific inquiry cannot prove a negative,

Bogus. Scientific inquiry can absolutely prove a negative.

But see, you didnt understand what was said, and you gave a completely irrelevant response. Maybe you have a different argument and wish to steer posts away to suit your already built argument.

This statement is absolutely not true. One can make sound philosophical arguments about imaginary things.

Still, that is the only way. Imaginary or not, that's the only way.

So basically you just wanted to insert the word "Imaginary" into this because you get your happiness that way, and just inserted it somewhere.

Mate. Imaginary or not, the only way for Christians to address it or prove it via philosophical arguments, and as I said.

 

[RestlessSoul]

It may be that they're using a definition of materialism that differs from mine.

If it exists in the world external to the self, nature, then for my purposes, it's material. Wherever physics goes, fields, particles, energy, whatever, the stuff of physics is the stuff of materialism.

Arguably not, with regard to fundamental particles. There is no consensus among physicists, that atoms and their constituent parts, are material objects at all.

Regarding what is meant by the word materialism, well; discussions of this nature generally do come down to semantics at some point. Ultimately, getting any group of people to agree what is real, and what exists, is as easy as herding cats, and these is at least as true of scientists as it is philosophers or theologians.

 

[firedragon]

Science controls for human fallibilities, such as creating artificial constructs of reality that include an imagined 'supernatural', whatever you consider that to be.

So no, not an oxymoron.

Maybe a little more education on what I said would enable you to understand what was said.

 

[RestlessSoul]

What is the actual difference between the non-existant and the non-detectable?

An entity may be unobservable, but not necessarily undetectable.

The ontogical interpretation of empirical data, for example, may form the unobservable element of a scientific a theory.

 

[ppp]

In that specific instance, more research would have to be done before we could tie it to God. The same is true of praying and miracles. They would only be the start of testing the God hypothesis.

Studying "actual" miracles like those mentioned could allow us to develop tools to directly see and measure God's intervention, eventually finding a way to trace that intervention back to him. This could be done in a wide number of ways, depending on how he's intervening.

Most of the examples I can come up with sound like they come from an urban fantasy story like The Salvation War, but it's not inconceivable that we could discover God if we had a way of tracing his interventions.

I don't see how it would be logically possible to reach such a conclusion. What type of research would produce positive evidence confirming that the cause of the healing is a god?

 

[ppp]

Right.

When we withhold judgment on a claim, we say that it's 50% likely and 50% unlikely. Technically, this still means that the claim is not likely to be true and is improbable. It's just not more unlikely than it is likely.

Definitely disagree. Not knowing does not equate to 50% likely and 50% unlikely. We have no idea what the likelihood is, and no way to calculate it.

 

[blü 2]

Arguably not, with regard to fundamental particles. There is no consensus among physicists, that atoms and their constituent parts, are material objects at all.

But as I said, if they're recognized by physics, then they're part of materialism by my definition. The absence of a consensus, or the existence of minority opinions, reflects the fact that there are no absolute statements about reality, since our understanding of it changes with time. Or as Brian Cox put it, a law of physics is a statement about physics that hasn't been falsified yet.

Regarding what is meant by the word materialism, well; discussions of this nature generally do come down to semantics at some point. Ultimately, getting any group of people to agree what is real, and what exists, is as easy as herding cats, and these is at least as true of scientists as it is philosophers or theologians.

While what you say is correct, I think there still remains a deep divide between those who explore reality to see what reality can tell the as-impartial-as-possible observer about itself, and those who wish to attribute supernatural features to reality.

 

[MikeF]

IMO

Bogus. Scientific inquiry can absolutely prove a negative.

Thanks, yes, it was poor wording on my part. I was trying to quickly reference the concept of an argument from ignorance.

But see, you didnt understand what was said, and you gave a completely irrelevant response. Maybe you have a different argument and wish to steer posts away to suit your already built argument.
Still, that is the only way. Imaginary or not, that's the only way.
So basically you just wanted to insert the word "Imaginary" into this because you get your happiness that way, and just inserted it somewhere.
Mate. Imaginary or not, the only way for Christians to address it or prove it via philosophical arguments, and as I said.

You said:

The only way for Christians to prove God exists is via philosophical arguments. They can use science as a part of their deduction.

The phrasing you use suggests that you consider philosophy and science to be two separate disciplines.
What I am suggesting to you is that any philosophy conducted outside of the principles and standards of scientific inquiry cannot prove what is real and existent. Philosophy outside of scientific standards can make sound arguments about imaginary things. This is a problem and a vulnerability of philosophy if the objective is to distinguish between what is real and what is imaginary. The act of trying to prove the existence of an entity labeled 'God' is to specifically show that it is not imaginary. Philosophy cannot do this. Therefore your assertion that Christians can only prove the existence of 'God' with philosophical arguments is false.

 

[Altfish]

Very true. Finally you have grown up a bit.

You do believe in the insult on most of your posts, don't you.
That's a sign of childishness and immaturity

 

[firedragon]

The phrasing you use suggests that you consider philosophy and science to be two separate disciplines.

They are absolutely two different entities.

What I am suggesting to you is that any philosophy conducted outside of the principles and standards of scientific inquiry cannot prove what is real and existent.

Please be kind enough to try and understand philosophy and science and philosophy of science in general.

 

[firedragon]

You do believe in the insult on most of your posts, don't you.
That's a sign of childishness and immaturity

Haha. Got affected?

See, you always, always, ask for scientific evidence for God. Today you have matured enough to accept what others keep telling you everyday. So that's great.

I will keep it at that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

An entity may be unobservable, but not necessarily undetectable.

The ontogical interpretation of empirical data, for example, may form the unobservable element of a scientific a theory.

That's not an answer to the question I asked.

If you mean to say that god(s) is/are detectable, then please share the objective way in which that can be done.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You do believe in the insult on most of your posts, don't you.
That's a sign of childishness and immaturity

The guy is an expert in passive aggressiveness.

 

[MikeF]

IMO

They are absolutely two different entities.

Please be kind enough to try and understand philosophy and science and philosophy of science in general.

And I could certainly ask you to be kind enough to try and understand the point that I am making.

Are you suggesting that philosophy (distinguishable and separate from science) is inerrant? That it is immune to human failings?

 

[firedragon]

Are you suggesting that philosophy (distinguishable and separate from science) is inerrant?

• Philosophy is different to science. Philosophy sits separately. Let me try and explain quickly, although I expect you to try and change philosophy altogether. Science is defined by philosophy, but science works inside a philosophical framework. The scientific method is philosophical discourse, not proven inside a lab. So the scientific framework, is philosophy.

• I never said its inerrant, so that's a strawman.

That it is immune to human failings?

• That too is a strawman.

 

[Altfish]

Haha. Got affected?

See, you always, always, ask for scientific evidence for God. Today you have matured enough to accept what others keep telling you everyday. So that's great.

I will keep it at that.

Even now you have to call me immature...or I was until my previous post. Insults are your forte, please just debate and stop the name calling.

No, when asked why I don't believe in gods I reply along the lines of "There is no evidence for them"; when pushed I refer to science as the best way to assess evidence.
What other evidence is there apart from ancient books written by dessert dwellers?

 

[firedragon]

What other evidence is there apart from ancient books written by dessert dwellers?

Why not open a thread on this exact topic?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why not open a thread on this exact topic?

Why? Do you think anyone would post actual evidence?