User Avatar Image

Know why science doesn't disprove God all together?

posted by doodo! on - last edited - Viewed by 501 users

Because real scientists have theories, solve for probability... Real scientists don't waste their time trying to disprove or prove a God in these petty arguments. Any evidence for or against that is professional, and highly praised isn't one sided and for your use for your childish, primitive, arguments either.

True science does not deal with bias so how can you prove or disprove a God? There is no definitive, measurable answer.

True science doesn't try to disprove a God, nor is it used as a argument for anything. Even gravity is a theory because when you get deep enough into the mechanics of the universe it is but just a theory to entertain our minds...There's extremely complexity beyond anything we've ever tried to define, quantify, measure. Lot's of it isn't even multidimensional structured in thought...

This isn't a black and white issue, it's transparent and you can't just see it one way or the other.

34 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • @doodo! said: True science doesn't try to disprove a God, nor is it used as a argument for anything. Even gravity is a theory because when you get deep enough into the mechanics of the universe it is but just a theory to entertain our minds...There's extremely complexity beyond anything we've ever tried to define, quantify, measure. Lot's of it isn't even multidimensional structured in thought...

    Well, that's kind of true. Gravity isn't "just a theory" in the way you think it is, though. There are two different definitions of theory. One is a hypothetical theory, as in "I have a theory that if I do X, Y will happen", and the other is a scientific theory, as in "There is enough data to consider my hypothesis fact". Gravity is a scientific theory, along with the theory of relativity, the theory of evolution, etc.

    However, you're right to take an agnostic approach. While we can gather enough data and research to say that a hypothesis is factual, we must also realise that there's a chance, no matter how small, that our hypothesis is wrong. In the case of science as a discipline, however, when these chances become too small, we can safely ignore them and assume that we are correct. As you said, there is no bias in science; scientists are biased only towards the truth.

    On the subject of God, there are two main reasons that no significant research has been carried out to determine his existence:

    1. The burden of proof. The burden of proof is the idea that when one asserts something, it is their responsibility to prove it right as opposed to it being the responsibility of their opponent to prove it wrong (i.e., the burden of proof is on the person who has made the assertion).
    For this reason, if somebody claims, for example, that every brick has a soft, creamy centre and another person disagrees, it is up to the person who believes in the creamy centre to prove its existence. Until they have offered evidence or proof, the claim isn't taken seriously and is dismissed as false.

    2. Definitions. There is no definition of God. In order to carry out scientific research into something, you must first develop a hypothesis and an aim. "To test whether God exists" isn't good enough because nobody can agree on what God is. You must, therefore, have an aim along the lines of "To test whether there is an organism in existence which can alter things on a molecular level". However, this is also too vague. It would be impossible to even begin to test the truth of this claim because it is still too poorly defined ("whether there is an organism in existence"). For this reason, it is literally impossible to research God in any capacity and address a large number of people while doing so; the hypothesis' definition of God may be wildly different to that of some other religious believer somewhere.

  • I agree to an extent with doodo!'s statement. Also, there are many definitions as to what/who God exactly is defined as. Something/someone of that magnitude certainly couldn't be measured by our limited studies. Let us first venture to the bottom of our own ocean, crack the human genome and figure out what dark matter is; then perhaps we can begin to comprehend. God simply cannot be measured with what we're working with.

    That's all I'm posting on this topic because I just want to talk about games on these forums.:p

  • Wow, talk about a complete lack of understanding about science (and of God).

    Science can't disprove God because God is a metaphysical construct (literally: beyond the physical world).

    Science also can't disprove that the universe is inherently irrational and without consistent "laws" that govern it. The Scientific Method depends on a universe that has consistent properties that can be studied through testing hypotheses. If the universe is unpredictable, then science cannot be used to study it.

    However, the preponderance of evidence is in favor of the universe having consistent, or at least predictable, physical laws that can be studied with rational thinking. All this apparent consistency could just be a fluke in the midst of randomness, but while that is possible, it's not very likely compared to alternatives. So, science is based on an inherently untestable assumption, and that's not a problem if we acknowledge it.

    The same can be said of God. The existence of God cannot be proven, but the preponderance of evidence is in favor of Jesus Christ being exactly who He claimed to be. It's not something that can be proven or disproven via the scientific method, but it is something that can be examined rationally, and historical evidence weighed against the alternatives. Just as it is reasonable to make the unprovable, but not unfounded, assumption that the universe can in fact be studied successfully by the scientific method, I find it very reasonable to hold the unprovable (scientifically speaking), but far from unfounded, belief in Jesus Christ as my savior.

  • @figmentPez said: The same can be said of God. The existence of God cannot be proven, but the preponderance of evidence is in favor of Jesus Christ being exactly who He claimed to be. It's not something that can be proven or disproven via the scientific method, but it is something that can be examined rationally, and historical evidence weighed against the alternatives. Just as it is reasonable to make the unprovable, but not unfounded, assumption that the universe can in fact be studied successfully by the scientific method, I find it very reasonable to hold the unprovable (scientifically speaking), but far from unfounded, belief in Jesus Christ as my savior.

    Your logic is sound to a point, but where do you get the notion that biased testimony and anecdotal evidence is good enough to consider anything as fact on its own?

    If somebody were to find a text from thousands of years ago that said, for example, "I have a dog named Ralph," then it'd would be logically reasonable to accept this as fact unless there's any significant challenge to it. However, if that text went on to say, "Ralph is the town's best piano player," then the absurdity of the claim should cast enough doubt on it to warrant other sources of evidence. If we were then to find other texts dating from the same period that seem unrelated, but also say "There's a dog called Ralph who can play the piano really well", we would still have to assume the claims to be false because they are so absurd.

    You might argue that it can't possibly be coincidence that all of these completely separate texts are false, and that the writers have no reason for lying. This is perfectly true, but the only thing that this proves is that the people who wrote the texts believed in their own testimony. Scientifically speaking, there is no compelling reason to believe their claims.

    I'm trying not to be disrespectful of your beliefs, but I believe that for you to promote faulty logic (even though accidental) is morally wrong. Since your post contains a lot of sound logic, this might lead some to believe that your conclusion is also logical, and I want to provide them with the opposite viewpoint that it's very illogical because I strongly believe that to be the case.

  • @figmentPez said: The same can be said of God. The existence of God cannot be proven, but the preponderance of evidence is in favor of Jesus Christ being exactly who He claimed to be.

    What is this preponderance of evidence you speak of? What evidence is there that isn't counterbalanced by similar claims from other religions? Indeed, what evidence is there that a person properly referred to as Jesus made such claims at all?

  • @figmentPez said:
    All this apparent consistency could just be a fluke in the midst of randomness, but while that is possible, it's not very likely compared to alternatives.

    You could say the same thing about pretty much anything. Science doesn't set out to prove or disprove a pre-conceived idea, like God, evolution, or a cosmic teapot; it takes what evidence it has, explores what it says, refines or re-imagines its theories, and looks for more evidence. Since we can't measure, feel, compare, or indeed even detect traces of God, he doesn't exist in the realms of science. It's fine for you to be religious in your daily life, but when in Science Mode you have to be agnostic and skeptical. Therefore, the idea that we're floating in an eternal void of randomness is far more likely, in science, than God. Evidence suggests one idea, but not the other.

    Similarly, if we see a phenomenon we can't explain - say, for example, the question as to why does the zero-point energy of the vacuum not cause a large cosmological constant - we can't say, "Because God willed it so." As far as Science knows, God doesn't exist.

    I'm not commenting on whether or not God exists, of course, and you can have your faith (it wouldn't be faith if it were backed-up by evidence), but to say that the world was created by some intelligent being isn't something that you can prove by science, right now, because we have no evidence of that intelligent being.

  • @Kroms said: It's fine for you to be religious in your daily life, but when in Science Mode you have to be agnostic and skeptical.

    Absolutely not true. The very basis of the scientific method was a belief in God. It was the belief that God made an ordered and rational universe that allowed for the systematic study of the universe through the scientific method. Before that alchemy and Platonism and other methods of study ruled, and they held that knowledge about the world came by unteachable means. The very first scientists were theists (most often Christians and Muslims) and saw no reason to separate a belief in God from their study of the natural world.

    EDIT:
    You know what, I came to these forums to talk about games and other leisure activities. As much as I like to talk theology and science, I don't think this is a good venue for it.

  • itt:... ah you know whatever fuck it.

    you guys

    we've done this 3 times

    it has never gone out well

    so why

  • I agree. Haven't we had enough locked religion threads to last us for awhile?

This discussion has been closed.