-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can Science Rule Out God
- Thread starter IndigoChild5559
- Start date
Audie
Veteran Member
And let us hope that no more will be said.
Nor can science rule out love, poetry, art, justice, unicorns, “coolness”, beauty nor a host of other things, some of which are genuinely true and some false. In other words, science can’t prove nor disprove G-d. Because G-d is not beholden to, not subordinate to science. Science can only “rule out” things subject to its domain.
Yes, it is about time that people stop trying to say that science has anything to say about the validity of G-d.
randix
Member
Of course. Neither science nor faith can rule out the existence of the Sun for example, because its existence and many of its characteristics have been proven by evidence.
Both domains (science and religion) are subject to question and to evidence. If a god exists, evidence of some type for that god must also exist somewhere within reality, whether we are aware of it or not. But until we are aware of the evidence, the question remains open: faith cannot close nor answer the question.
Last edited:
Audie
Veteran Member
Oh now wait up a secs there bud. Science has a lot to say about the
validity of lo and many a claim about "god".
There is zero (0) (none, nada) actual physical evidence, nor
yet mathematical or solid philosophical evidence for this
supposed or any other "god".
The only known existence is in people's stories
about "it".
We now know better (some of us) than to think
stories like god throwing lightning or sending a
flood are true.
"God" has fairy tales, science has facts.
You got it kind of backwards.
"God" believers have nothing to say about the
validity of science v their fairy tales, as much
as they may rant about how they do have the
final word on what is so.
"Man says, God says" You know?
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
...other than there is no evidence of him in this domain.
Audie
Veteran Member
And that fairy tales about it often can be proved to be
nothing but fairy tales.
No “prove a negative” is required. No scientific proving of G-d at all is required. G-d is not subject to science. Ergo no scientific validation of G-d is needed. Acceptance, or not, of G-d is strictly a matter of faith. But logically accepting that G-d is not subject to science is useful and efficacious.
What part of G-d is not subject to science ergo not evidence is needed don’t you understand? There is no scientific basis for requiring evidence for G-d.
Audie
Veteran Member
So you find news of the obvious useful. Terrif.
What I find useful is a logical rebuttal to demands for scientific evidence for G-d, to wit, none is needed.
MonkeyFire
Well-Known Member
Then faith rules out science and there is holy war. You wouldn't want to risk a holy war, would ya?!
Last edited:
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Well, if we cannot ever detect the presence of a god, then why would the god matter to us at all? Even if it was doing something undetectable, we could simply ignore it. It would not be important to us.
But to get back to the topic of the thread....science has ruled out all sorts of gods in the past, and I think it possible can or has ruled out any of the currently proposed ones.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
You originally made a silly claim and you've been dancing around ever since. Be more careful next time.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
A human being is living, as a self, after the life of an animal.
Science says as a human, my life is owned as a self, separate, just all multi animal life is, diverse, and I am living as a human self.
Where is God in that circumstance?
Science said we were standing on God.....a planet and a stone....a different body by his science thinking research and said our planet is different.
And in thinking I also said, and the thin cold gases that we live within once was hot and dense and owned more space.
So after they evolved and cooled in a spatial body that a scientist compared to self life, human, a womb.....said that I will name space as space. I will knowingly say that space is cold and pressure and both of those states allowed a planet to exist and for cooling to be exerted upon a hot creating history.
What a male human said and called it science.
So did science disprove God?
Ask a male what sort of thoughts do you personally own today?
A male said I think that human thought science tried to disprove God and have God removed by his science.
For what reason male scientist?
Because I did not want to be a human, I wanted to be a spirit, where I knowingly came from.
Why most humans believe in spirit.
Did God prove to you that it was original?
Yes, said a male, I taught self that God came from spirit, and the spirit that had released God and allowed space to exist proved itself...for it proved to me that God was original, for my own conscious higher state....in an evolved cold gas less space history could not remove its physical form, what I name in theory as de materialization of its MASS O removal by numbers, calculating light and time.
So I was proven wrong about God.
When a male says in science, as a male human owned invention that in science history he destroyed all life on Earth by trying to have God O physical mass removed.
Says in modern time, I remember that science as a pyramid is like my collider theme and I want to re invent it....and says string as spatial history. Earth gases in natural history owned a higher mass in space...and took up more space by being dense.
So we called that Scientist male human brotherhood Satan and said he burnt us all to death....and why Stephen Hawking who claimed that spatial formation in definition was actually Hell, was correct in his statements.
When a male says as a human, I am natural.
When a male says as a human, God is natural then that male will be telling the only truth that a human mind can tell. Talking only where he exists.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
I don't know about "rule out."
Perhaps 'not consider'?
Generally speaking, absence of evidence it not necessarily evidence of absence.
However, when one can find none of the evidence that should exist for a given phenomenon, were it to be considered real, I think it is the safe bet that it does not deserve consideration.
Perhaps 'not consider'?
Generally speaking, absence of evidence it not necessarily evidence of absence.
However, when one can find none of the evidence that should exist for a given phenomenon, were it to be considered real, I think it is the safe bet that it does not deserve consideration.