Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No God, No Science?

#11
Zinjanthropos Offline
(Sep 10, 2017 04:30 AM)Syne Wrote: Again, science cannot prove god.

Why would a theist care about that?

I think if an atheist proved God then it would be purely accidental as in not trying. I can't see a theist who would care about that either.. IMHO theists just want it done.  Although I wonder what's more important to them, believing in God, a proof of God or that the proof actually exists?
Reply
#12
Syne Offline
Again, theists don't inherently care about proof of god. You're not likely to hear anything about proving god in a church. It's only when atheists and the like start demanding that they justify their beliefs (in terms the atheist will accept) that they foolishly start talking about proof. Generally, theists don't care about science proving god. It's about belief for most, and about logical justification for the more intellectually rigorous.

Again, science could only ever prove that god was a merely mundane phenomena...you know, not by any definition a god...which would mean science proved nothing, since it cannot prove a negative...like there is no god.
Reply
#13
Zinjanthropos Offline
(Sep 10, 2017 06:02 PM)Syne Wrote: Again, theists don't inherently care about proof of god. 

Not all of them but I would think a majority couldn't care less. There's at least one here on this forum who wants it. 

However I like it when theists go for it. It may indicate a change in religious philosophy depending on the numbers. Usually things change for the better, at least that's been my experience. I'm thinking religion is more FUBAR today than ever before. Hell we have 3 monotheistic Abrahamic religions all of which satisfy the one god requirement but can't agree on naming rights and mission statements.

What about believing in God because it's one of the things science has never detected?
Reply
#14
Syne Offline
Those who desperately want proof seem to be caught up in trying to validate themselves, more so than anything else. They just don't seem to realize that there's no reason to play by the restrictions that atheists and science place on things...since materialism and science cannot explain everything anyway.

Religions are as much historical as they are spiritual. They are snapshots of historical/cultural influence, and that's really all we need to know to explain their differences. Speaking of history, religions have always had resurgences when opposed, so this lull you call FUBAR is likely the calm before a new resurgence. We have ample evidence of the right winning politically around the world...and this is largely a reaction to leftist ideology.

God of the gaps (positing god anywhere science remains mute) is no more effective than science of the gaps (positing some unknown future scientific development anywhere current science remains mute).
Reply
#15
Ostronomos Offline
(Sep 10, 2017 07:20 PM)Syne Wrote: Those who desperately want proof seem to be caught up in trying to validate themselves, more so than anything else. They just don't seem to realize that there's no reason to play by the restrictions that atheists and science place on things...since materialism and science cannot explain everything anyway.

(...)

God of the gaps (positing god anywhere science remains mute) is no more effective than science of the gaps (positing some unknown future scientific development anywhere current science remains mute).

While this may be true, you are not speaking about anything other than the dismissal of scientific proof which would give God a universal acceptance.

The point of the original post is to demonstrate that belief in God remains just that, a belief. While reason and logic directly lead to objective facts. Belief is self-assigned truth which is false. Unauthenticated claims of God's existence from the Bible may inspire wisdom but possess severe limitations which only proof can resolve. Where if one were to recognize evidence for God's existence it would support the proof.

The emphasis is on proof.
Reply
#16
Zinjanthropos Offline
(Sep 12, 2017 03:25 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: The emphasis is on proof.

The emphasis is on proof for a living God. A proof for a dead one would be just as good a find? Proving a dead God would more or less be equal to there being no god, as long as there weren't any more. And if there was one proven alive then how could you be sure there isn't another one with a totally different proof?  Also if God is making it that hard to be proven then it should be quite obvious that He doesn't want to be. So being God, He is I assume, capable of making you think you've succeeded. I'm not convinced you God provers have thought this over much. There's still plenty of things to consider.
Reply
#17
Syne Offline
(Sep 12, 2017 03:25 PM)Ostronomos Wrote:
(Sep 10, 2017 07:20 PM)Syne Wrote: Those who desperately want proof seem to be caught up in trying to validate themselves, more so than anything else. They just don't seem to realize that there's no reason to play by the restrictions that atheists and science place on things...since materialism and science cannot explain everything anyway.

(...)

God of the gaps (positing god anywhere science remains mute) is no more effective than science of the gaps (positing some unknown future scientific development anywhere current science remains mute).

While this may be true, you are not speaking about anything other than the dismissal of scientific proof which would give God a universal acceptance.

The point of the original post is to demonstrate that belief in God remains just that, a belief. While reason and logic directly lead to objective facts. Belief is self-assigned truth which is false. Unauthenticated claims of God's existence from the Bible  may inspire wisdom but possess severe limitations which only proof can resolve. Where if one were to recognize evidence for God's existence it would support the proof.

The emphasis is on proof.

"Proof" is a concept of things like math, logic, and law...not science. So "scientific proof" is self-refuting.

Reason and logic can derive proof (true statements), even while the premises do not correspond to evidence in reality...which is necessary to corroborate objective fact. So reason and logic alone do not directly lead to objective facts. There are many logical arguments that can be proven by their own internal consistency while not agreeing with reality at all.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Science and God Ostronomos 2 101 Mar 13, 2022 02:56 PM
Last Post: Ostronomos
  Einstein's God (philosophy of science) C C 0 498 Dec 4, 2018 07:58 PM
Last Post: C C
  Science versus God and Religion Ostronomos 4 700 Feb 4, 2018 07:38 PM
Last Post: Yazata



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)