Being science can neither prove or disprove a God existing..

[We Never Know]

Being science can neither prove or disprove the existence of a God.. When two opposing people argue about a God existing, aren't they simply arguing on their belief about a God existing?
Neither is arguing with support of science or scientific evidence.

My post isn't about the bible, a flood, prophecies, abiogenisis, evolution, the big bang, etc. Its simply and strictly about "a" God existing or not existing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Being science can neither prove or disprove the existence of a God.. When two opposing people argue about a God existing, aren't they simply arguing on their belief about a God existing?
Neither is arguing with support of science or scientific evidence.

My post isn't about the bible, a flood, prophecies, abiogenisis, evolution, the big bang, etc. Its simply and strictly about "a" God existing or not existing.

That is why most atheists state that they do not believe in a god. They do not claim that a god does not exist, though there are some of those. It is the theists that tend to make the mistake of claiming that they "know". That is when evidence etc. is demanded of them since if they actually knew they could demonstrate their beliefs. The inability of theists to provide evidence does not refute their god, though some versions of god can be refuted, it only refutes their claim to know.

I would not object to some theists so much if they simply admitted that they only believed. But they are the ones that want to claim to know for the most part.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Being science can neither prove or disprove the existence of a God.. When two opposing people argue about a God existing, aren't they simply arguing on their belief about a God existing?
Neither is arguing with support of science or scientific evidence.

My post isn't about the bible, a flood, prophecies, abiogenisis, evolution, the big bang, etc. Its simply and strictly about "a" God existing or not existing.

How can you prove something that isn't there?

I'd say science had the upper hand anyways right from the start, since there is nothing there to begin with.

 

[sun rise]

Neither is arguing with support of science or scientific evidence.

In Popper terms, the theory that there is a God cannot be falsified. Every statement of "if there is a God" can be defeated by that is not God's nature. And visa versa.

 

[MonkeyFire]

If that were so then God can easily just be omniscient, and science is pointless in Heaven, except to support a nature of its own.

 

[Altfish]

Being science can neither prove or disprove the existence of a God.. When two opposing people argue about a God existing, aren't they simply arguing on their belief about a God existing?
Neither is arguing with support of science or scientific evidence.

My post isn't about the bible, a flood, prophecies, abiogenisis, evolution, the big bang, etc. Its simply and strictly about "a" God existing or not existing.

It is very difficult to prove a negative.
Can we disprove The Loch Ness Monster or Big Foot?
What about Russell's Teapot?
It is the same with god(s) - there is no evidence that they exist but that doesn't mean they don't exist however unlikely.

 

[Kooky]

If that were so then God can easily just be omniscient, and science is pointless in Heaven, except to support a nature of its own.

Argueing scientific support is indeed largely pointless when argueing about something that can't be observed by science to begin with.

 

[Heyo]

My post isn't about the bible, a flood, prophecies, abiogenisis, evolution, the big bang, etc. Its simply and strictly about "a" God existing or not existing.

Which is already a step ahead of the real problem: what is a god? Without a clear answer to that question you are never going to find an answer to the question of a god existing.

 

[exchemist]

Being science can neither prove or disprove the existence of a God.. When two opposing people argue about a God existing, aren't they simply arguing on their belief about a God existing?
Neither is arguing with support of science or scientific evidence.

My post isn't about the bible, a flood, prophecies, abiogenisis, evolution, the big bang, etc. Its simply and strictly about "a" God existing or not existing.

Yes of course. Science can't have anything to say about God, since nobody can agree on what observable properties or consequences, if any, there should be, if there is a God. (Post 8 refers)

Belief or otherwise in God is a matter of a person's worldview, which is a question of metaphysics rather than science. On one side you have the physicalists, who extend the principle of scientific scepticism to take the view that only things for which there is reproducible evidence should be taken as real. This seems to be more or less the position of the "New Atheists": people such as Dawkins, Dennett and Peter Atkins. On the other side you have those that think there is, or may be, more to the world than that, even if the the only "evidence" for it is vague feelings that are subjective and personal.

Either way, "proof" is out of the question.

And, by the way, as science does not deal in proof in the first place, science is always going to be the wrong tool to use in any attempt at proof.

 

[ChristineM]

Being science can neither prove or disprove the existence of a God.. When two opposing people argue about a God existing, aren't they simply arguing on their belief about a God existing?
Neither is arguing with support of science or scientific evidence.

My post isn't about the bible, a flood, prophecies, abiogenisis, evolution, the big bang, etc. Its simply and strictly about "a" God existing or not existing.

Whether god exists or not is not a science question.

So yes, such arguments are down to belief. Speaking personally, i believe no omni creator god would create childhood leukaemia, that, among several other reasons is why i dont believe gods exist. Other people have a different view and are welcome to their view.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How can you prove something that isn't there?

I'd say science had the upper hand anyways right from the start, since there is nothing there to begin with.

Can you phrase that differently?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Which is already a step ahead of the real problem: what is a god? Without a clear answer to that question you are never going to find an answer to the question of a god existing.

You can indeed make an operational definition of a God and using that such a God is unknowable, but that is not particular to such a God. That is general so for all cases of metaphysics/ontology.

 

[Heyo]

You can indeed make an operational definition of a God and using that such a God is unknowable, but that is not particular to such a God. That is general so for all cases of metaphysics/ontology.

Yes, and for the question if science can make a statement about such a god the operational definition doesn't even have to be comprehensive. It just has to define if that god is real. But you have believe in reality first.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Can you phrase that differently?

Not really because that's what is actually happening. Nothing.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not really because that's what is actually happening. Nothing.

Ah, now I get you. There is no evidence for a God, therefore there are no religion, right?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Ah, now I get you. There is no evidence for a God, therefore there are no religion, right?

People simply cannot invoke any God no matter how hard they try. That means with certainty there is nothing going on whatsoever outside ones imagination in that regard.

A person can believe all they want. Nothing will ever come of it and the universe will continue as it always has. To say different is just playing brain games with oneself.

I can definitely prove there is nothing out there because nothing has ever manifested in real life to suggest otherwise along those lines.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

People simply cannot invoke any God no matter how hard they try. That means with certainty there is nothing going on whatsoever outside ones imagination in that regard.

A person can believe all they want. Nothing will ever come of it and the universe will continue as it always has. To say different is just playing brain games with oneself.

I can definitely prove there is nothing out there because nothing has ever manifested in real life to suggest otherwise along those lines.

You really don't understand how beliefs work in practice.
Here is an example form history and even today. Witches. They are without evidence, yet people continue to be killed for being witches and as far as I can tell that takes place in the universe.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Argueing scientific support is indeed largely pointless when argueing about something that can't be observed by science to begin with.

Science can study what God is supposed to have done, like birth of Adam and Eve, mud and ribs.

I can definitely prove there is nothing out there because nothing has ever manifested in real life to suggest otherwise along those lines.

God's ways are mysterious.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Being science can neither prove or disprove the existence of a God.. When two opposing people argue about a God existing, aren't they simply arguing on their belief about a God existing?
Neither is arguing with support of science or scientific evidence.

My post isn't about the bible, a flood, prophecies, abiogenisis, evolution, the big bang, etc. Its simply and strictly about "a" God existing or not existing.

If what you're saying were true, then it would imply that:

- God, if he exists, is indistinguishable from not God at all.
- every "revealed" religion is necessarily false.
- every theist who thinks their belief in God is justified is wrong.

At the end of the day, I don't really care about the difference between "there's no rational justification for theism and God doesn't exist" and "there's no rational justification for theism, but God coincidentally exists but is irrelevant."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In Popper terms, the theory that there is a God cannot be falsified. Every statement of "if there is a God" can be defeated by that is not God's nature. And visa versa.

"In Popper terms" an unfalsifiable claim cannot be justified.

Is arguing that your beliefs are irrational to defend against people saying that they're necessarily false really an improvement for you?