Discussion in 'Religion' started by TheFrogger, Dec 7, 2018.
Define the word "God".
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I asked somewhat the same sort of question somewhere
Scientists spent billions building CERN looking for their god particle
I'm going for the Vatican here who use their billions to buy real estate to rent to their subjects acting as slum landlords
Where is the Vatican's god detector? The shortsighted bishop down in the catacombs looking in dusty tombs and tomes
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Your question presupposes that confidence in an explanation requires science, not priests. So if anyone discovers it in a way that can be believed, it will be scientists.
Anyone who says "Science will prove ..." is being political. Post dated cheques serve the empirical model like bicycles serve goldfish.
As others have asked; what do you mean by "God"? There have been studies of the effects of meditation and prayers on the brain. No matter which "faith" has been studied the effects on the brain are similar.
(not the best link but the research is well documented)
This is not proof of a God per say. On one hand it could be an insight into the physical effects that "faith" has on our brains. On the other hand it could be insight into self delusion.
I can not say if science will ever prove a "God" exist (not being sure what you mean by "God"). All I can say is the belief in a "higher power" can be measured via neurology. What that information shows us is any bodies guess.
This made me belly laugh heh
Zero can be either positive or negative, as can any number. The question is, can infinity be negative, or is there a beginning?
-0 e.g 1-0
This has nothing to do with your opening post but, .... How many numbers are there between 1 and 2 (positive or negative). 1.1, 1.01, 1.001, 1.0001, 1.00001 ..... infinite. Or better yet, divide 1 in half (.500), then divide it again (.250) and again (.125)..again..again..... If you keep going; how long will it take you to get to zero?
To touch on your opening post. Science is not designed to "prove" anything is correct. Modern Science is designed to "prove" things wrong. One can never "prove" a theory to be correct. One can only "falsify" a theory. All experiments done are ment to test the predictions of a theory under various conditions in the hopes of finding inconsistencies that will lead to a better understanding beyond the current leading model.
Science showed Newtons theory was incomplete. It took General Relativity to correct the errors in Newtons Theory. Science now shows that General Relativity is incomplete. We are currently waiting for a better model to come along to correct these errors. Until that happens we continue to use an incomplete model but, it is the best model we have at the moment. One Science keeps poking and prodding in the hopes for a clue to something beyond our current theory.
So, technically, no. Science is not able to "prove" if God exists. Science can only test predictions of a model. As of now, there is no scientific evidence for or against the existence of God.
The Frogger will be taking break from sciforums. Having been warned several times for posting mathematical nonsense to our forums, he has now passed the threshold for automatic bans to start. This one is for 3 days.
I could bet my life that God doesn't exist and that we're just chemistry.
Ask yourself this: If God really exist then why is the world such a cruel place and why do good people suffer so much in this world?
In my opinion human existence is completely pointless because God doesn't exist and we are all going to die one day.
I believe that human existence is completely and utterly pointless.
Science might discover some day why (some) people feel a need to invent gods.
I agree that science and technology are "seen" that way by much of the public. In fact a dimmer sort of atheist argues vociferously to that effect and a dimmer sort of theist rejects science for the same reason. But it isn't necessarily historically accurate.
One of science's defining characteristics might arguably be methodological naturalism. When presented with a problem here in the physical world, science goes looking for an explanation in the natural world. As a result, we see physics developing a mathematical apparatus that relates different kinds of natural events in formal ways.
God is supposed to be supernatural, not part of the inventory of objects and states in our natural world. So science isn't likely to ever arrive at God as an explanation of or conclusion to anything, simply because that's not something that science does.
Of course, God (assuming that such a thing exists) being outside the scope of science isn't really an argument against the reality of God. (Belief that nothing outside the scope of science can possibly exist is metaphysical naturalism, a more difficult idea to defend.)
So the bottom line is that science doesn't really have anything to directly say about the matter one way or the other.
Of course, it's more complicated than that (it always is). Science has historically undercut belief in God by providing naturalistic explanations for things that were previously believed to natural world evidences of God's activities. For example, evolution by natural selection pretty effectively subverted the design argument for biological life in the mid 1800's. That doesn't disprove the existence of God, but it does threaten one of the seemingly stronger arguments for God's existence that many people had made previously.
It's faith in science, and faithlessness in religion. But some religious people will use the legitimacy of empiricism to lend credibility to claims they realize are not credible.
All early hominids like Homo Erectus are extinct.
but even earlier ]quote]Ardi, short for Ardipithecus ramidus, is now the region’s best-known fossil, having made news worldwide this past fall when White and others published a series of papers detailing her skeleton and ancient environment. She is not the oldest member of the extended human family, but she is by far the most complete of the early hominids; most of her skull and teeth as well as extremely rare bones of her pelvis, hands, arms, legs and feet have so far been found.[/quote] Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-human-familys-earliest-ancestors-7372974/
Early Humans, which became extinct! There is no guarantee that modern humans will not go extinct.
It is... except to other humans.
That's (your) politics.
I am faithless, but my trust in science is necessarily provisional. I'm more pointing out the hypocrisy of the religious who have no issues with the science that seems to support their claims, but suddenly become skeptics when it doesn't.
If you are trying to default science as a platform for atheism, you are no different.
IOW you have a political agenda that requires science to be viewed in a particular manner that is inherently non-scientific.
So regardless of the camp one chooses, it is the politics and not the science that is first and foremost.
I don't think science is required for atheism, but I do think that both science and atheism arise from the same source, which is the need to justify a belief with evidence. Maybe you can point out where atheists need to ignore science in order to justify their lack of belief in god?
Also, I have no choice in the matter. The evidence simply isn't there. If it were, I would also have no choice but to be a theist.
Yes, because if he is a personal God, then he must be bound by the same universal laws as us.
Separate names with a comma.