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

[Audie]

You can suppose anything you like. If such supposition comforts you, I’m happy to have been of service.

Amusingly defensive response but
certainly confirms what i thought.

 

[Audie]

Not quite sure what you mean by magical thinking. If you are referring to mythology, I would argue that a lot of wisdom is contained in myth, when you know how to read with an open and enquiring mind.

Mythology from the lexicons of Homer, The Bible, The Bhagavad Gita and I’m sure countless other sources, contain rich veins of psychological, philosophical and spiritual insight, but you have to know how to mine them.

More than this, I consider artists and poets to be every bit as much the true visionaries of this world, as are physicists and chemists. The likes of Dante Alighieri, John Milton*, William Blake, Keats and Shelley*, Tolstoy and Mikhael Bulgakov have contributed as much to offer in terms of opening our eyes to the world, as have Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Bohr etc.

Sorry that list looks a little Anglo centric. You can add Matsuo Basho, Ryokan and Hokusai to the list of poets and artists. And any number of ancient Chinese philosophers. Both Confucian and Taoist thinking strikes me as having been both more subtle and more selfless than that of Socrates and Aristotle, for example. Though my knowledge here is shallow.

*If you want help interpreting Biblical mythology, read Milton. For Greek, read Keats and Shelley (read those two great rivals in tandem, as they should be read).

If you dont know what magical thinking
is nows a good time to find out.

 

[Clara Tea]

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

Opinions of Clara Tea:

Science isn't trying to "disprove God"--contrary to paranoia, that is not their goal. Truth is their goal, and Christians refuse to learn science, refute learned men, but insist that science is wrong. Refuting the truth means telling lies.

1. Global Warming (destroying the earth, and killing all life). Trump (elected by the Religious Right) declared it to be a hoax. Loss of species. Extreme heat. Extreme storms. W. Bush's lawyers rewrote the nation's environmental report to agree with theists, the head scientist resigned.

2. Evolution (proven by DNA, sufficient proof for a court of law), denied by uneducated theists who refuse to get educated.

3. Condoms could prevent unwanted pregnancies and the spread of AIDS and other Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs). Theists, whose bibles don't mention condoms, says condoms condone sex.

4. Age of universe (theists, 6,000 yrs), (science 13.8 billion yrs). Science also says that time dilates in strong gravity or fast speeds (Special and General Relativity), thus God's time is not our time, so both might be right. Maybe "years" in the bible means "eras." There was no year (rotation of the earth around the sun) before the earth was made.

5. Assertion that theists have no morals, and morals only come from following God?????? That's contrary to the facts. Wars, ignoring the homeless, greed, etc., have all been demonstrated by theists in recent times (and ancient times). Even Putin is a Christian.

 

[MikeF]

That does not mean "avoiding mitigation of human error". You are building a strawman by telling me about something I claimed I never did.

Not admitting to something is not the same thing as not doing it. I find that those who try and create a hard line between philosophy and science do so precisely to maintain a safe space in which to hold ideas that would be found wanting under the principles and standards of scientific investigation.

 

[Clara Tea]

That’s interesting, when did “we” find God does not answer prayers? Because millions of people around the world would assure you that He does and has.

For my own part, I changed from a hopeless drunk obsessed with alcohol, to a person who hardly ever thinks about a drink. I take no personal credit for this miraculous turnaround in my life; all the credit goes to a God of my understanding.

Intoxicated people often credit God with intervention. Pink elephants might have helped.

 

[Clara Tea]

Not admitting to something is not the same thing as not doing it. I find that those who try and create a hard line between philosophy and science do so precisely to maintain a safe space in which to hold ideas that would be found wanting under the principles and standards of scientific investigation.

I agree. However, it is okay if God is imaginary, if we, too, are imaginary.

 

[Clara Tea]

Considerably less improbable than the statistical near-impossibility of our universe developing in just the way it has, to allow galaxies to form and life to emerge in at least one corner thereof.

Opinions of Clara Tea:

Creating life is statistically rare. This is why SETI found radio signals only on earth.

Even on earth, mankind is rapidly making itself extinct (Global Warming, pollution, wars (nukes), etc).

 

[Clara Tea]

Nor capable of saying anything about the supernatural versions.

Dr. Jessica Utts (currently at UC Irvine) tested ESP and found that it exists.

 

[Clara Tea]

IMO

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 the scientists were like Ronald Reagan (a psychic guiding their every thought).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I bet. My creationist friend has his own version, too.

Ciao

- viole

Yet, but we are both non-religious.

 

[Clara Tea]

A

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



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.

Aren't theists afraid to look in a microscope, fearing that God might be looking back?

 

[Clara Tea]

IMO



When I asked whether you considered your concept of philosophy to be inerrant and immune to human failing, I am not making a strawman argument, I am simply asking for information. And it is now my understanding that you do not consider philosophy inerrant and immune to human failing.

The words 'philosophy' and 'science' are simply labels. The term philosophy, from the Greek philosophia "love of widsom", at its core simply means the study of fundamental questions about how the world works and why. The labels do not matter. What matters is that during the Enlightenment period, a sub-category of philosophy began to acknowledge that the human observer of the world was not a reliable observer. When this sub-category of philosophy began to create principles and standards to compensate and mitigate for the errors caused by the unreliable, imperfect human investigator, that branch of philosophy began to make great strides in answering the questions it set before itself.

Therefore, if all philosophy (questions about how the world works and why) is conducted by human beings, and human beings are fallible and imperfect, should not all philosophy be conducted in such a manner as to mitigate and compensate for the imperfect human investigator? The answer is yes.

If you are investigating questions about how the world works and why and making a concerted effort to mitigate human error, then that is science. If you are investigating those same questions and expressly avoiding any attempt to mitigate human error, you are disingenuous in your pursuits.

When I was in Philosophy grad school, I learned Existentialism (do we exist). It's okay that God is imaginary, if we are also imaginary.

 

[viole]

Yet, but we are both non-religious.

You mean you and my creationist friend?
Or do you mean me?

A few posts ago you said I am religious, for being a philosophical naturalist. So, you got me all confused now.

Am I , or aren't I religious?

In case you really meant me, I think you are developing a habit to contradict yourself in the neighbourhood of just a few posts.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Clara Tea]

Amusingly defensive response but
certainly confirms what i thought.

Maude said "God will get you for that one, Walter."

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You mean you and my creationist friend?
Or do you mean me?

A few posts ago you said I am religious, for being a philosophical naturalist. So, you got me all confused now.

Am I , or aren't I religious?

Ciao

- viole

You got me there. RL calls.

 

[Clara Tea]

You mean you and my creationist friend?
Or do you mean me?

A few posts ago you said I am religious, for being a philosophical naturalist. So, you got me all confused now.

Am I , or aren't I religious?

Ciao

- viole

Pray to God for an end to your confusion about your atheism.

I'm confused, too, because I have dyslexia (read words backwards). I once spent the entire month of Yam praying to Dog for a cure. The schauser cocked his head and looked puzzled.

 

[Clara Tea]

Its a tie, no proof either way

True, we can't prove nor disprove existence of God.

But, we can't prove or disprove existence of Santa, Fred Flintstone (cartoon character), the tooth fairy, and a host of others.

We have a choice to believe in all fantasies, or refuse to believe in any until we see proof.

Existentialism in philosophy ponders if we are real.

Would it be so terrible that God doesn't exist if we don't exist either?

 

[MikeF]

When I was in Philosophy grad school, I learned Existentialism (do we exist). It's okay that God is imaginary, if we are also imaginary.

And yet, we are not imaginary. So where does that leave things?

 

[pearl]

Would it be so terrible that God doesn't exist if we don't exist either?

If God did not exist, neither would we. Would it be so terrible, how would one know?

 

[firedragon]

Not admitting to something is not the same thing as not doing it. I find that those who try and create a hard line between philosophy and science do so precisely to maintain a safe space in which to hold ideas that would be found wanting under the principles and standards of scientific investigation.

What you think doesnt matter. Its just a direct ad hominem based on a cognitive bias or/and ignorance.