Can Science be Used to say.?....God is NOT Life

[mikkel_the_dane]

Science works in the natural world, not the world of supernatural or woo

The natural world is a belief.

 

[Subduction Zone]

well if you can't define life.....how then to define the Source?

Now you made a huge jump. If you want to claim that God is that source of life you put a huge burden of proof upon yourself, one that no theist has been ever to satisfy, You would need to prove that there is a God in the first place.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Please explain.

"God" has nothing to do with science.

Its only discussed when someone tries
to inject "god" or magic of any sort into
science.

Likewise with politics, which people
also try to involve in science.

Well, yes:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, yes:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

That does not say or even imply that God has anything to do with science.

 

[Audie]

Now you made a huge jump. If you want to claim that God is that source of life you put a huge burden of proof upon yourself, one that no theist has been ever to satisfy, You would need to prove that there is a God in the first place.

Heck, who has to have proof?
How about at least one datum point?

 

[ChristineM]

science only explains....HOW.....God did it

No, science fills in the gaps that used to be (and still are in some people) that said "d'oh, we don't know so god musta dun it"

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Science can explain how but the "God did it" is a baseless and all but meaningless assertion.

No, science can't explain anything other than as a belief system that apparently works.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Heck, who has to have proof?
How about at least one datum point?

Of course "burden of proof" is a bit of a figure of speech. It actually means what you requested that they provide evidence for their claim, though to be fair it does go quite a bit past just one datum point. Too many theists can only assume that their god exists. Worse yet when others do have evidence they either lie or demonstrate that they do not understand the concept of evidence when they deny that the other side does not have any evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That does not say or even imply that God has anything to do with science.

No, it just show the limits of science including metaphysics in the end.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Of course "burden of proof" is a bit of a figure of speech. It actually means what you requested that they provide evidence for their claim, though to be fair it does go quite a bit past just one datum point. Too many theists can only assume that their god exists. Worse yet when others do have evidence they either lie or demonstrate that they do not understand the concept of evidence when they deny that the other side does not have any evidence.

You have no evidence for what objective reality is as independent of your mind. Science as naturalism in effect is a belief system like religion.

 

[Audie]

No, science fills in the gaps that used to be (and still are in some people) that said "d'oh, we don't know so god musta dun it"

Even the most deranged among the godists
have given up on God throwing lightning.

Except when it like hits someone.

 

[Audie]

Of course "burden of proof" is a bit of a figure of speech. It actually means what you requested that they provide evidence for their claim, though to be fair it does go quite a bit past just one datum point. Too many theists can only assume that their god exists. Worse yet when others do have evidence they either lie or demonstrate that they do not understand the concept of evidence when they deny that the other side does not have any evidence.

Intellectual bankruptcy

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, science fills in the gaps that used to be (and still are in some people) that said "d'oh, we don't know so god musta dun it"

Science is not knowledge. It is a belief system, which apparently in practice works. You still haven't solved epistemological solipsism. You are a believer like the rest of us, including me

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have no evidence for what objective reality is as independent of your mind. Science as naturalism in effect is a belief system like religion.

Sorry, but you, like creationists do not appear to understand the concept of evidence. You claim to be a skeptic but instead you appear to be a mere denier.

If you want me to take you seriously you need to up your game a bit.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science is not knowledge. It is a belief system, which apparently in practice works. You still haven't solved epistemological solipsism. You are a believer like the rest of us, including me

Epistemological solipsism is a belief that is best solved in person. It is a rare example of a debate that can be solved by a healthy slap to the face. On the internet one can only treat such people as the trolls that they claim to be.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sorry, but you, like creationists do not appear to understand the concept of evidence. You claim to be a skeptic but instead you appear to be a mere denier.

If you want me to take you seriously you need to up your game a bit.

Okay, Philosophical skepticism - Wikipedia

That one goes back all the way to the old Greeks.
So here is the joke. I deny knowledge or evidence. I have apparently just done so and nothing happened. So it apparently works in practice.

Here is an example from religion. A lot of religious believers claim knowledge or evidence about different gods for which some of it can't be knowledge or evidence. Yet they are still here without knowledge or evidence.
So I check and found out that I don't have to believe in knowledge or evidence. I just have to have beliefs, which apparently seems to work. That is all.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Epistemological solipsism is a belief that is best solved in person. It is a rare example of a debate that can be solved by a healthy slap to the face. On the internet one can only treat such people as the trolls that they claim to be.

So you have solved solipsism. Write an article and get published. You have don't something nobody have done in the recorded history of mankind.

 

[Audie]

Sorry, but you, like creationists do not appear to understand the concept of evidence. You claim to be a skeptic but instead you appear to be a mere denier.

If you want me to take you seriously you need to up your game a bit.

Ha. I took the cure long ago.

 

[exchemist]

I think science is limited to acknowledging that God is not necessary for life, otherwise science strays into the field of theology.

I'm not sure science can even say that, because there is no definition of God that can be agreed on. All it takes is for some religion to decide "God is the laws of nature" or something, and then science would have to say, well in that case, "God", if that is how you want to define it, obviously is necessary for life. (This seems actually to have been Spinoza's and Einstein's idea of God, more or less.)

We could, for the sake of argument, restrict ourselves to, say, the Christian idea of God. But if we do that, then since that idea of God is of something intangible and outside the laws of nature, there is nothing physical about God that science can get hold of: no detectable or measurable properties, no phenomena that could be reproducibly observed. So science has nothing to say about such a God.

 

[Audie]

Epistemological solipsism is a belief that is best solved in person. It is a rare example of a debate that can be solved by a healthy slap to the face. On the internet one can only treat such people as the trolls that they claim to be.

So take the cure, its only a click away.