Can science disprove the existence of God?

[Crypto2015]

And, admittedly, the Bible does in fact reference a few historical events.

So we've established that the Bible and the Iliad are "on the same page" in regards to their loose connection to factual History.

Now what?

I think the next logical step is to classify the Bible as a mish-mash collection of Mythological literature, similar to the Iliad. Do you disagree?

I never said that the Iliad and the Bible are in the same page. You are putting words in my mouth.

 

[Crypto2015]

1) An argument from popularity doesn't hold any weight. Millions upon millions of people have also believed in Witchcraft and smoke cleansing... Is it suddenly a legitimate thing?
2) How can you make that claim if you've never spent time studying the ethical lives of the Rhinoceros Men from Atlantis?
3) Yes, please start a thread about the factual, Historical resurrection of Jesus...
4) Logical arguments can be made for almost any ridiculous thing - logical arguments do not make something factually true.

I didn't use these points as arguments for the existence of God (except for the point that mentions Aquinas' work). I was just stating that because of these points, which are undoubtedly true, it is silly to compare God with the Rhinoceros men from Atlantis.

 

[Jumi]

It can't disprove the existence of an active God either.

What do active gods do?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Popper's demarcation of what constitutes science and what constitutes pseudo-science is the best demarcation that has ever been enunciated and it continues to be upheld by nearly everyone that has a proper knowledge of what science is.

To quote myself:
Of course, the one thing that scientists all over the place acknowledge is that they don't promote certain theories out of any anti-religious bias...wait:
"To the hard-line physicist, the multiverse may not be entirely respectable, but it is at least preferable to invoking a Creator. Indeed anthropically inclined physicists like Susskind and Weinberg are attracted to the multiverse precisely because it seems to dispense with God as the explanation of cosmic design"

Ok, so maybe there's a bit of bias, but at least scientists have testable, empirically based theories and would never believe in something just because it "feels" right or for any other religious-like reasons...

"Despite the growing popularity of the multiverse proposal, it must be admitted that many physicists remain deeply uncomfortable with it. The reason is clear: the idea is highly speculative and, from both a cosmological and a particle physics perspective, the reality of a multiverse is currently untestable...For these reasons, some physicists do not regard these ideas as coming under the purvey of science at all. Since our confidence in them is based on faith and aesthetic considerations (for example mathematical beauty) rather than experimental data, they regard them as having more in common with religion than science."

(both quotes are taken from Carr's introductory paper in the volume:
Carr, B. (Ed.). (2007). Universe or multiverse?. Cambridge University Press.)

Or an alternative quote of mine from the same volume (based as it is upon the same conferences)

"Despite the growing popularity of the multiverse proposal, it must be admitted that many physicists remain deeply uncomfortable with it. The reason is clear: the idea is highly speculative and, from both a cosmological and a particle physics perspective, the reality of a multiverse is currently untestable. Indeed, it may always remain so...
For these reasons, some physicists do not regard these ideas as coming under the purvey of science at all. Since our confidence in them is based on faith and aesthetic considerations (for example mathematical beauty) rather than experimental data, they regard them as having more in common with religion than science." (emphasis added)
from the editor's introductory paper to the peer-reviewed volume Universe or Multiverse? (Cambridge University Press; 2007).

Therefore, it is an incontestable truth that science has nothing to say about the existence of God.

Other than that this was basically the nexus for the scientific endeavor and fundamental to the philosophy of science. Kant, Hume, Einstein, Galileo, Newton, Sartre, Nietzsche, Bohr, Kronecker, Euler, Aristotle, and on and on. Humans are not naturally inclined to engage in the reasoning and methods that allowed for the emergence of the sciences. See e.g.,
Cromer, A. (1993). Uncommon Sense: The Heretical Nature of Science. Oxford University Press.
Duchesne, R. (2011). The Uniqueness of Western Civilization (Studies in Critical Social Sciences Vol. 28). Brill.
Gaukroger, S. (2006). The Emergence of a Scientific Culture: Science and the Shaping of Modernity 1210-1685: Science and the Shaping of Modernity 1210-1685. Oxford University Press.
Harrison, P. (2007). The fall of man and the foundations of science. Cambridge University Press.
Henry, J. (2002). The Scientific Revolution and the Origins of Modern Science (2nd Ed.) (Studies in European History). Palgrave.
Huff, T. E. (2003). The rise of early modern science: Islam, China and the West. Cambridge University Press.
Oliver, S. (2006). Philosophy, God and motion. Routledge.

...and on, and on, and on...

It is founded on the thoughts of some of the most brilliant philosophers in the history of mankind.

Not Plato. Not Aristotle. Not Kant. Not Hume. Not Sartre. Not Wittgenstein. Not Nietzsche. Not Descartes. Not Newton. Not Leibniz. Not Duhem. Not Aquinas. Not Galileo. Not...well, basically any of the "most brilliant philosophers", as even Popper backed off from this view.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Where do you get your "deconstructions of Aquinas' arguments? From Dawkins?

Nope.

Do you want to discuss them? I can start a thread.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

It is not equally logic to say that God exists and that God doesn't exist. If you believe in what you are saying, why are you a Muslim instead of an agnostic?

As I was introduced into being a muslim it was made explicitly clear to me by my teachter that I would have to choose it from my heart.

To be forced by evidence to a conclusion, or to be forced by some philosophical construct to a conclusion, is not faith.

And I note president George W. Bush of the USA, a Christian, also emphasized that only faith in freedom is real faith, and that forced faith is meaningless. It is standard in religion in general to choose from the heart.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Strange, because what's actually pseudo-science is what atheists like you, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris do when they foist-off their unsupported views about the universe under the guise of being scientific.

I'm not worthy to be compared to Saint Dawkins.

 

[Crypto2015]

What do active gods do?

Miracles.

 

[Jumi]

Miracles.

Such as creating static lifeforms?

 

[paarsurrey]

What I said is not circular. This is circular: "No absolute true can be known". If no absolute true can be known, we already know one absolute true. Regarding why the existence of God is rationally acceptable, there are several reasons for it. For example, the universe cannot be infinite because infinity is just a concept and doesn't exist in the real world. Hence, the universe must have had a beginning. If the universe had a beginning, it must have been created from nothing. However, we know that nothing comes from nothing. Hence, the universe must have had a cause that exists outside of the universe (i.e., that can exist outside of time and space). For this eternal cause to have originated a temporal phenomenon, the cause must be personal and have a will. In other words, impersonal eternal causes can only originate eternal consequences. Since this consequence, the universe, is not eternal, the cause must be personal and able to act at its own will. Hence, the cause is a personal being who is eternal and powerful enough to create the universe from nothing. That sounds a lot like the Biblical God.

Sure it is circular.
Regards

 

[Crypto2015]

As I was introduced into being a muslim it was made explicitly clear to me by my teachter that I would have to choose it from my heart.

To be forced by evidence to a conclusion, or to be forced by some philosophical construct to a conclusion, is not faith.

And I note president George W. Bush of the USA, a Christian, also emphasized that only faith in freedom is real faith, and that forced faith is meaningless. It is standard in religion in general to choose from the heart.

We Christians have a reasonable faith, not in an unreasonable faith. An unreasonable faith (i.e., a faith that is not based in moral, scientific, historical or logical arguments) is silliness. If unreasonable faith were all you need to believe in something, you would believe not only in Allah, but also in Santa Claus, the Spaghetti Monster, Zeus, Thor, etc.

 

[Crypto2015]

Sure it is circular.
Regards

Thanks!

 

[Crypto2015]

Such as creating static lifeforms?

What is a static life form?

 

[viole]

That is just an embellishment. However, the fact remains that the Iliad contains historical events.

Yes, but I hope you agree that the fact that the Illiad contains some historical events is not sufficient to increase the plausibility of things like Poseidon.

For the same reason, the Bible does not increase the plausibility of its own supernatural events just because it might contain some historical events.

Unless we apply special pleading.

Don't you think?

Ciao

- viole

 

[paarsurrey]

That sounds a lot like the Biblical God.

Jesus is not the Biblical G-d, YHWH yes.
Regards

 

[Demonslayer]

the plausibility of things like Poseidon.

Poseidon once impregnated a human woman, and they begat Aquaman. True story.

 

[viole]

We Christians have a reasonable faith, not in an unreasonable faith. An unreasonable faith (i.e., a faith that is not based in moral, scientific, historical or logical arguments) is silliness. If unreasonable faith were all you need to believe in something, you would believe not only in Allah, but also in Santa Claus, the Spaghetti Monster, Zeus, Thor, etc.

Can you make an example of any of those arguments that justify the rationality of your faith?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Desert Snake]

Can you make an example of any of those arguments that justify the rationality of your faith?

Ciao

- viole

what is your position, on a holy book being the word of G-d? As an atheist, do you think that this can occur?

 

[viole]

what is your position, on a holy book being the word of G-d? As an atheist, do you think that this can occur?

Are you telling me that the Bible is rational evidence that God exists, because it is obviously the word of God?

Of course I can accept that. But I need a bit more than your assurance that it is the word of God. Everybody can say that.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Jumi]

What is a static life form?

What I mean by that is creating something out nothing that doesn't allow evolution to occur. Just a creationist example.

You can give your own examples of miracles.