|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Aug 10, 2022 18:24:47 GMT
If an idea is not testable, repeatable, observable and falsifiable, it is not considered scientific. www.allaboutscience.org/scientific-method.htmJust to establish what is involved in proof, according to science, for eventual reference in discussions here. Natural laws can be proven (gravity, thermodynamics, etc.) The existence of a god cannot be proven by the scientific method. One can 'believe', 'believe that they know' and speculate all they want to, but if subjected to scientific method, it cannot be proven.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 10, 2022 21:14:33 GMT
Plot twist: The Scientific Method doesn't attempt to prove anything; it attempts to disprove hypotheses. Failing that, hypotheses are promoted to theories. In other words, if it can't be falsified, it remains standing.
Also interesting is this bit from the article linked in the OP:
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 11, 2022 0:03:45 GMT
If an idea is not testable, repeatable, observable and falsifiable, it is not considered scientific. www.allaboutscience.org/scientific-method.htmJust to establish what is involved in proof, according to science, for eventual reference in discussions here. Natural laws can be proven (gravity, thermodynamics, etc.) The existence of a god cannot be proven by the scientific method. One can 'believe', 'believe that they know' and speculate all they want to, but if subjected to scientific method, it cannot be proven. Key word scientific. There is no scientific argument for god, it is all philosophical, in fact the very nature of god (unknowable) means that there cannot be a scientific argument for god. Judaism speaks of ain soph ur, the great unknowable, meaning that all we know or can ever know about god is it's effect on the universe, since god is outside the universe. This essentially makes (of course) god a place holder word, as god could just as easily be the source of the big bang. Are there people who try to prove god scientifically? I would contend they do not understand god or religion
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on Aug 11, 2022 0:44:53 GMT
Science is okay but seems a bit overhyped. It makes some pretty dreadful assumptions.
|
|
|
Post by MCDemuth on Aug 11, 2022 0:58:24 GMT
I think there could be a scientific argument for God, or at least a creator being... As far as I know, THIS has NEVER happened to anyone: And that happening is nowhere near as complex as... our universe being created to include blackholes, galaxies, nebulas, stars, planets, moons, mathematics, physics, life on Earth, Love, (and so on...) by some "random" explosion that happened during what we call the Big Bang. Do the math, What are the odds of some random "explosion" from (What do they say, "Gravity Waves"?) creating our complex universe... and compare those with the stats of laundry folding itself in a dryer. ( I don't know, myself, But...) Folded Laundry seems more likely. I'd settle for seeing just some of the items be folded, when that door is open... And I've never even seen one sock folded ( Usually, a sock will go missing. LOL!). Have You? Believe or Don't Believe... But I think the odds are more likely that there was some kind of an intelligence, God or something else, that got our universe started... or that we all live in the Matrix, and a creator being would have made that too... Until someone can show us that folded laundry... I think we all should at least keep enough of an open mind, to respect others who believe that we've never been alone.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Aug 11, 2022 2:13:02 GMT
Science is the attempt to rationally explain nature. If any god influences or participates in our reality then it is fair game for science. If it doesn't, there is no possible way we could know it exists.
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Aug 11, 2022 10:48:39 GMT
Natural laws can be proven (gravity, thermodynamics, etc.) Not really, certainly not in the same way as mathematical theorems can be proven. In accordance with the scientific method they simply stand until such time as they become falsified and something better comes along. For instance there have been at least three different laws of gravity within the past several hundred years. Who's to know whether or not a better law of gravity might eventually turn up?
Your link doesn't mention the word 'proof' or 'prove' at all.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Aug 11, 2022 14:43:32 GMT
I think there could be a scientific argument for God, or at least a creator being... As far as I know, THIS has NEVER happened to anyone: And that happening is nowhere near as complex as... our universe being created to include blackholes, galaxies, nebulas, stars, planets, moons, mathematics, physics, life on Earth, Love, (and so on...) by some "random" explosion that happened during what we call the Big Bang. Do the math, What are the odds of some random "explosion" from (What do they say, "Gravity Waves"?) creating our complex universe... and compare those with the stats of laundry folding itself in a dryer. ( I don't know, myself, But...) Folded Laundry seems more likely. I'd settle for seeing just some of the items be folded, when that door is open... And I've never even seen one sock folded ( Usually, a sock will go missing. LOL!). Have You? Believe or Don't Believe... But I think the odds are more likely that there was some kind of an intelligence, God or something else, that got our universe started... or that we all live in the Matrix, and a creator being would have made that too... Until someone can show us that folded laundry... I think we all should at least keep enough of an open mind, to respect others who believe that we've never been alone. Life on Earth and, presumably in the rest of the Universe, is subjected to a non random natural process called natural selection.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Aug 11, 2022 16:55:11 GMT
Natural laws can be proven (gravity, thermodynamics, etc.) Not really, certainly not in the same way as mathematical theorems can be proven. In accordance with the scientific method they simply stand until such time as they become falsified and something better comes along. For instance there have been at least three different laws of gravity within the past several hundred years. Who's to know whether or not a better law of gravity might eventually turn up?
Your link doesn't mention the word 'proof' or 'prove' at all.
This was in the link, and addresses my point: Today, however, science -- in the view of an outspoken part of the scientific enterprise -- is the systematic method of gaining knowledge about the universe with reference to purely naturalistic or materialistic causation. Science in this sense automatically rules out the notion of God because supernatural claims -- it is asserted -- cannot be tested and repeated. If an idea is not testable, repeatable, observable and falsifiable, it is not considered scientific.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Aug 11, 2022 17:22:05 GMT
I was taught that natural laws describe observed phenomenon, theories explain the mechanism. Newton developed a mathematical formula that described the effect of gravity, it was wrong but still works really well. Einstein described gravity as a consequence of time, which physicists now say is also wrong but they have no replacement. It is believed that gravity works in the quantum like everything else but I'm not so sure that is true. I don't understand why there "must be" a quantum particle of gravity and why it can't be a consequence of other forces. The idea must be that it is "communicated" across space time via an unknown quantum particle.
Anyway, back to the topic, there is no evidence of a god. Philosophical arguments aren't evidence. The existence of things isn't evidence. The fact that you grew up accepting that it's possible for gods to exist isn't evidence. God is a fable. Take the religion if you must but don't take it literally.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 11, 2022 20:20:51 GMT
I think there could be a scientific argument for God, or at least a creator being... As far as I know, THIS has NEVER happened to anyone: And that happening is nowhere near as complex as... our universe being created to include blackholes, galaxies, nebulas, stars, planets, moons, mathematics, physics, life on Earth, Love, (and so on...) by some "random" explosion that happened during what we call the Big Bang. Do the math, What are the odds of some random "explosion" from (What do they say, "Gravity Waves"?) creating our complex universe... and compare those with the stats of laundry folding itself in a dryer. ( I don't know, myself, But...) Folded Laundry seems more likely. I'd settle for seeing just some of the items be folded, when that door is open... And I've never even seen one sock folded ( Usually, a sock will go missing. LOL!). Have You? Believe or Don't Believe... But I think the odds are more likely that there was some kind of an intelligence, God or something else, that got our universe started... or that we all live in the Matrix, and a creator being would have made that too... Until someone can show us that folded laundry... I think we all should at least keep enough of an open mind, to respect others who believe that we've never been alone. That is the watchmaker argument, and it's flawed for a number of reasons. Mostly, in the way you are presenting it, it's flaw is that there was not just one random event that made the universe what it was, there was a series of events, some let to dead ends, some worked out and slowly but surely we ended up where we are, a better analogy would be if you took your laundry and one day found out a shirt came ot folded in half, so you forced that fold to remain (staples??) and then did the laundry again, two years later a pair of jeans is folded in half, so you staple them too, by the time you are 10 million years old, you have a pile of folded (and stapled) laundry. Just to be clear I choose to interpret the universe as if it was intelligently created, but at the end of the day there is no proof (or even good evidence) either way.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 11, 2022 20:23:00 GMT
Natural laws can be proven (gravity, thermodynamics, etc.) Not really, certainly not in the same way as mathematical theorems can be proven. In accordance with the scientific method they simply stand until such time as they become falsified and something better comes along. For instance there have been at least three different laws of gravity within the past several hundred years. Who's to know whether or not a better law of gravity might eventually turn up?
Your link doesn't mention the word 'proof' or 'prove' at all.
They are not laws of gravity, they are the (current) theory of gravity that follows the currently known and testable laws, this is why scientific theory differs from a theory that my Grandma has the spatula.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Aug 12, 2022 5:37:46 GMT
I think there could be a scientific argument for God, or at least a creator being... As far as I know, THIS has NEVER happened to anyone: And that happening is nowhere near as complex as... our universe being created to include blackholes, galaxies, nebulas, stars, planets, moons, mathematics, physics, life on Earth, Love, (and so on...) by some "random" explosion that happened during what we call the Big Bang. Do the math, What are the odds of some random "explosion" from (What do they say, "Gravity Waves"?) creating our complex universe... and compare those with the stats of laundry folding itself in a dryer. ( I don't know, myself, But...) Folded Laundry seems more likely. Until someone can show us that folded laundry... I think we all should at least keep enough of an open mind, to respect others who believe that we've never been alone. That is the watchmaker argument, and it's flawed for a number of reasons. Mostly, in the way you are presenting it, it's flaw is that there was not just one random event that made the universe what it was, there was a series of events, some let to dead ends, some worked out and slowly but surely we ended up where we are, a better analogy would be if you took your laundry and one day found out a shirt came ot folded in half, so you forced that fold to remain (staples??) and then did the laundry again, two years later a pair of jeans is folded in half, so you staple them too, by the time you are 10 million years old, you have a pile of folded (and stapled) laundry. Just to be clear I choose to interpret the universe as if it was intelligently created, but at the end of the day there is no proof (or even good evidence) either way. In fairness to McDemuth, I think that is how infinite probabilities work although it assumes an infinite universe. In an infinite universe, eventually, the laundry will come out folded. I believe you are both right but using different examples. Your example would apply to evolution, or coin flips. It boils down to in an infinite universe, anything that can happen, does. And I believe infinite in this context is never-ending, not always was. Back in my college days, I was having beers with a physics student and asked something like, what if the universe is nothing but probabilities. What if there is a chance that when you toss a ball in the air it doesn't come down, but the chance is so small that it never happens. He laughed and said that maybe I'm right but how do you prove it. We didn't know what we didn't know. My problem with his post that he uses the argument against science, but not against theism. He asked atheists/agnostics to keep an open mind but his own is closed. You could argue that in an infinite universe, god is eventually created but it creates a burden of proof that it's possible for a god to exist. Second problem is if you are asserting that god created the universe, god has to come first. So now you have an infinite god or one that popped into existence which is what you are arguing against in the first place. The creator becomes an unnecessary complexity and its turtles all the way down. There is no rational argument for a creator.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 12, 2022 6:28:56 GMT
Not really, certainly not in the same way as mathematical theorems can be proven. In accordance with the scientific method they simply stand until such time as they become falsified and something better comes along. For instance there have been at least three different laws of gravity within the past several hundred years. Who's to know whether or not a better law of gravity might eventually turn up? Your link doesn't mention the word 'proof' or 'prove' at all.
This was in the link, and addresses my point: Today, however, science -- in the view of an outspoken part of the scientific enterprise -- is the systematic method of gaining knowledge about the universe with reference to purely naturalistic or materialistic causation. Science in this sense automatically rules out the notion of God because supernatural claims -- it is asserted -- cannot be tested and repeated. If an idea is not testable, repeatable, observable and falsifiable, it is not considered scientific. - String theory. - Infinite regress. - Pop theory. - Alternate/infinite/multi universes. All supernatural claims. None ruled out. js
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,670
Likes: 1,294
|
Post by The Lost One on Aug 12, 2022 8:06:48 GMT
Belief in God is a matter of faith rather than evidence. Even those that do make scientific or logical arguments for God generally believe already and are just seeking to rationalise that belief. I think that's a mistake - accepting that belief is faith-driven rather than evidential or rational allows for more tolerance of other beliefs and non-beliefs. It also acknowledges the primarily emotional nature of theism - believing in God is completely different on an emotional level from belief in, say, dark matter.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Aug 12, 2022 10:46:34 GMT
This was in the link, and addresses my point: Today, however, science -- in the view of an outspoken part of the scientific enterprise -- is the systematic method of gaining knowledge about the universe with reference to purely naturalistic or materialistic causation. Science in this sense automatically rules out the notion of God because supernatural claims -- it is asserted -- cannot be tested and repeated. If an idea is not testable, repeatable, observable and falsifiable, it is not considered scientific.- String theory. - Infinite regress. - Pop theory. - Alternate/infinite/multi universes. All supernatural claims. None ruled out. No, they're not supernatural claims.
|
|
|
Post by mystery on Aug 12, 2022 11:47:27 GMT
Science studies the physical world, not the metaphysical, which is why I prefer to keep them well separate. They're asking different questions and searching for different answers, and when you mix the two, you usually end up missing the point of both.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Aug 12, 2022 16:54:11 GMT
This was in the link, and addresses my point: Today, however, science -- in the view of an outspoken part of the scientific enterprise -- is the systematic method of gaining knowledge about the universe with reference to purely naturalistic or materialistic causation. Science in this sense automatically rules out the notion of God because supernatural claims -- it is asserted -- cannot be tested and repeated. If an idea is not testable, repeatable, observable and falsifiable, it is not considered scientific.- String theory. - Infinite regress. - Pop theory. - Alternate/infinite/multi universes. All supernatural claims. None ruled out. js All of those are theories, that doesn't say they are facts. And who said they weren't ruled out? Link, please. Most people argue that god is a fact, not theory. Rarely do people persecute other people based on their opinions on string theory. My main peeve against religion is that believers are constantly trying to convince those that believe differently, that the other's beliefs are wrong, and that therefore, they get to rule over the society. Christian Nationalism is a case in point. No politicians are basing their campaign on the issue of string theory.
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Aug 12, 2022 17:54:26 GMT
... believers are constantly trying to convince those that believe differently, that the other's beliefs are wrong, and that therefore, they get to rule over the society. Is this another one of your examples of a natural law that can be proven by the scientific method?
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Aug 12, 2022 18:05:20 GMT
... believers are constantly trying to convince those that believe differently, that the other's beliefs are wrong, and that therefore, they get to rule over the society. Is this another one of your examples of a natural law that can be proven by the scientific method? Nothing scientific about this, although it is observable, we have been seeing it for centuries. The Crusades, the Holy Inquisition, how Europeans dominated and subdued the native populations in North America (as we are seeing now in Canada during the Pope's visit). Religious beliefs should not override secular law that applies to all citizens.
|
|