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

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

But science is a belief system in the end. There is in the strong sense no objective truth. That is how/why we have methodological and not true objective naturalism.

 

[MikeF]

IMO

What you think doesnt matter.

What type of argument is that then?

Its just a direct ad hominem based on a cognitive bias or/and ignorance.

As an ad hominem can be valid in some cases. Are you referring to your cognitive bias or/and ignorance?

You made a claim that Christians can prove the existence of 'God' with philosophical arguments. I disagree and have explained my reasoning as to how philosophy is insufficient to prove the existence of 'God'. You have yet to support your claim in any way, nor really refute my position. I have even obtained some concessions on your part.

How does philosophy discern between what is real and possible and that which is imaginary? How does philosophy mitigate the fallibilities of the philosopher? In what way can philosophy prove the existence of a claimed entity 'God' without physical evidence?

In essence, defend your assertion if you are able or simply concede to my criticism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

IMO



What type of argument is that then?



As an ad hominem can be valid in some cases. Are you referring to your cognitive bias or/and ignorance?

You made a claim that Christians can prove the existence of 'God' with philosophical arguments. I disagree and have explained my reasoning as to how philosophy is insufficient to prove the existence of 'God'. You have yet to support your claim in any way, nor really refute my position. I have even obtained some concessions on your part.

How does philosophy discern between what is real and possible and that which is imaginary? How does philosophy mitigate the fallibilities of the philosopher? In what way can philosophy prove the existence of a claimed entity 'God' without physical evidence?

In essence, defend your assertion if you are able or simply concede to my criticism.

Real is not scientific as it has no objective referent. You do understand the concept of methodological naturalism?

 

[MikeF]

But science is a belief system in the end. There is in the strong sense no objective truth. That is how/why we have methodological and not true objective naturalism.

It all comes down to what works. It is a system of inquiry that slowly builds a core of knowledge and understanding that we can have confidence in. It also properly understands what is at the edge of our understanding and what is simply unknow. Belief in the scientific process, imperfect as it is due to the human element, is a warranted belief. I know of no other viable system of knowledge acquisition. Do you?

 

[syo]

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

''miracles'' and miracles.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It all comes down to what works. It is a system of inquiry that slowly builds a core of knowledge and understanding that we can have confidence in. It also properly understands what is at the edge of our understanding and what is simply unknow. Belief in the scientific process, imperfect as it is due to the human element, is a warranted belief. I know of no other viable system of knowledge acquisition. Do you?

Yes, I am a member of a culture which has more types of knowledge that just your science. To me science is a limited use knowledge. But so are all types of knowledge. And no, I am not religious in any standard dictionary sense.

 

[MikeF]

Real is not scientific as it has no objective referent. You do understand the concept of methodological naturalism?

And here is the problem with philosophy. You throw out terms like methodological naturalism as if they have axiomatic value.

To my mind, the whole goal, from the classical Greek philosophers to today has been to figure out what is real.

 

[MikeF]

Yes, I am a member of a culture which has more types of knowledge that just your science. To me science is a limited use knowledge. But so are all types of knowledge. And no, I am not religious in any standard dictionary sense.

What are some example of knowledge that are outside the realm of scientific inquiry?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And here is the problem with philosophy. You throw out terms like methodological naturalism as if they have axiomatic value.

To my mind, the whole goal, from the classical Greek philosophers to today has been to figure out what is real.

Yeah, that is in your mind. Not mine.
What is axomatic value?

 

[MikeF]

IMO

What is axomatic value?

Something that would have self-evident or unquestionable value.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What are some example of knowledge that are outside the realm of scientific inquiry?

We will start with objective and its different versions:
Definition of OBJECTIVE
1a; 2a both different versions, they are not the same; and 2b.
Now the first thing you notice is that they are not exactly the same and indeed there are cases where something is both not objective and objective depending on which one you use.
It is the same with knowledge. But we will start with objective, because it makes it easier if we can agree on those different version, when we come to knowledge.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

IMO



Something that would have self-evident or unquestionable value.

That is philosophy and I have never come across it in practice. And I have been doing this for close to 30 years now. So you need to expand and actually do and not just claim it.

 

[MikeF]

We will start with objective and its different versions:
Definition of OBJECTIVE
1a; 2a both different versions, they are not the same; and 2b.
Now the first thing you notice is that they are not exactly the same and indeed there are cases where something is both not objective and objective depending on which one you use.
It is the same with knowledge. But we will start with objective, because it makes it easier if we can agree on those different version, when we come to knowledge.

A word is a label for a definition. In language one label can be used on multiple definition, unrelated things even, or, many different labels can all point to the same definition.

In your example above, the word (or label) 'objective' is used in two different ways.

So in communicating, we simply have to make sure that the labels we both use are pointing to the same definition.

How am I doing so far?

 

[firedragon]

What type of argument is that then?

You should understand, that what you or I think about philosophy or established science doesn't matter. If you cant understand that, no point having a single conversation.

As an ad hominem can be valid in some cases. Are you referring to your cognitive bias or/and ignorance?

Nope. Yours.

You just did a no true scotsman fallacy. A genetic fallacy.

Take some time and understand that.

You made a claim that Christians can prove

Strawman. I didnt say "they can prove". You are making things up on the fly. Try to go back to that post, read, think, prior to deciding you are going to just oppose no matter what.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

A word is a label for a definition. In language one label can be used on multiple definition, unrelated things even, or, many different labels can all point to the same definition.

In your example above, the word (or label) 'objective' is used in two different ways.

So in communicating, we simply have to make sure that the labels we both use are pointing to the same definition.

How am I doing so far?

Good!
The same with knowledge. If you strip away the requirement of observability as the only one and look closer at observability is it about objective. If you then look at the different versions of objective the most general one is this one - "expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations."
How? All perception or experience as in this one - "involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena" - doesn't mean observation as in science. That is these 2 to a varying degree - "of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind."

So let me give you an example of something which is not knowledge in science, but it is knowledge in the soft end of social science as connected to psychology and human science.
How you do act, when as a professional in human general caretaking deal with another human, depends on how you deal with the private, the personal and the professional. But you can't observe this as per natural science. You can only to do it if you learn to be objective in the other variants, because it is not science as it is not of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind.
It is knowledge in the mind about how different mindset works.
And as a professional in this line of work you have to be a human, personal, but you can't be private, and you have to hold that the other person might not be objective, but you have to.
There is more, but generally the joke is that you can be objective about the subjective in a limited sense, if you learn that.

 

[blü 2]

What you are acknowledging here is that symbolism and metaphor form part of the foundation of your world view.

Yes, of course. The human brain has evolved to have language, and by naming things deals constantly and automatically with categories of real things and also with generalizations, abstractions, ideals, imaginary entities and scenarios and so on.

In your case, you say that recognition by physics - by which you presumably mean the current prevailing orthodoxy amongst physicists, where such exists - is your source of validation.

Yes, but perhaps the more complete view comes from the question, "What is truth?".

And the physical sciences and I both think that truth is a quality of statements, and that a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality, the world external to the self.

Which is perhaps as good a method of validating reality as any other, but certainly not the only method. And one may adopt more than one approach to the investigation of the world, in order to form the broadest perspective or most revealing paradigm.

I find that trying to validate reality (nature, the world external to the self) by other methods is prone to yield meaningless results in those terms.

Of course, since we've never found a human culture on earth that doesn't have supernatural beliefs, we can have the strong suspicion that they serve a useful social function, such as being part of tribal identity along with language, culture, stories and beliefs, and thus reinforcing cooperation, a trait very valuable to survival; and also in explaining the otherwise unexplainable like existence, luck, the sun and sky, weather, the seasons, fertility and famine, and also the usual observances of coming of age, pairing, breeding and death.

At the same time, the diversity of those supernatural beliefs indicates that they're a human product, since if they were observing a "real" supernatural world, they'd all be giving the same description of the beings they see there.

 

[Ella S.]

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.

What?

As far as we know, the statistical probability of our universe forming the way it has is 100%. We don't know that it's even possible that the universe could have formed any differently.

 

[Ella S.]

I have heard people say this. But it's absurd. No one knows if God performs these so called "miracles" that you are referring to. You are stemming from the wish-maker's dreams. That means, someone wishes he gets a ton of gold to appear in his room. These statements you make are just apologetics.

And you made a claim that "we have found that God doesn't answer prayers or perform miracles". How did your "we" group who ever you are referring to do that?

Can you provide the study data, sample sizes, sampling methods etc??

Thanks.

Yep, here you go:

Intercessory prayer for the alleviation of ill health - PubMed

You can shift the goalposts and claim that this doesn't prove anything, but any honest and objective reader will agree that this meta-study has provided compelling evidence that prayer doesn't do anything.

 

[Ella S.]

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.

That's the Bayesian approach to withholding belief.

No likelihood that we have is completely accurate. All of our likelihoods have to be changed in accordance with new data.

We begin with a probability of 50% and adapt our probabilities in the face of new data so that we can approximate the genuine probability more with better information.

If you don't assign a probability to begin with, then you can't really calculate probability going forward using most statistical algorithms in use today.

 

[Ella S.]

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?

A great portion of science is dedicated to discovering the causes of our observations. If that cause genuinely was God, then it shouldn't be inconceivable that we could discover that.

I don't see why God has any special properties that would make us unable to discover him, unless we're talking about some sort of divine hiddenness. If he interacts with nature at all, then he's going to leave a wide footprint behind.

In this instance, we could discover that, after the prayers are said, there's some sort of wave or particle that we had no way of measuring before that interacts with the person being prayed for. We could trace that information back to the low-orbit and see a whole Heavenly structure, pearly gates and all, composed out of a material formed from this same substance that was invisible before now. We could trace the origin of the waves through this structure all the way back to some old guy sitting where the celestial throne should be.

For all intents and purposes, that would basically be proving the existence of Elohim. Most of the other ways we could discover God are similarly silly and fantastical sounding, but they aren't necessarily impossible right out the gate.

In this example, it might turn out that God isn't as powerful as popularly understood, or that he's some sort of alien composed of a foreign form of matter that almost never interacts with the matter or forces that we're used to dealing with, or whatever. That doesn't really matter if our model of God is the guy in Heaven described by the Bible who answers our prayers.

There are probably better examples out there of how something like this could theoretically happen, but I question the point of discussing it. The examples don't matter. The point is that there's no good reason to assume that, even if God exists, we would be incapable of finding evidence for him. As far as I'm concerned, he would be indistinguishable from any other natural phenomenon if he's interacting with the natural world.