Can Science Rule Out God

[Milton Platt]

No, because science deals with the physical world and God is the metaphysical.

So whatever god we are talking about has no effect on the reality in which we live? Because if it does, then we can test for that.

 

[syo]

Can Science Rule Out God?

Which God?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So whatever god we are talking about has no effect on the reality in which we live? Because if it does, then we can test for that.

That statement falls under the category "too clever by half." How would you propose to test for an intervention that is by your standards effectively arbitrary?

 

[Shaul]

Rambam was a Jewish scholar in Muslims Spain. He conceded that science trumped scripture. You know. Critical thinkers can question scripture without faith falling apart.

The Guide for the Perplexed - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guide_for_the_Perplexed

The Guide for the Perplexed (Hebrew: מורה נבוכים, Moreh Nevukhim; Arabic: دلالة الحائرين‎, dalālat al-ḥā’irīn, דלאל̈ת אלחאירין) is one of the three major works of Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, primarily known either as Maimonides or RaMBaM (Hebrew: רמב"ם‎).

You are misrepresenting what RaMBaM wrote. He did not conclude that science trumps scripture.

 

[Shaul]

G-d is all powerful. Science is not. To suggest the all powerful can be disproved by a limited powerful is illogical.

 

[Audie]

G-d is all powerful. Science is not. To suggest the all powerful can be disproved by a limited powerful is illogical.

"God" is no more real than Mickry Mouse.

The rest of your "logic" is just silly, news of the tautological.

 

[Audie]

You are misrepresenting what RaMBaM wrote. He did not conclude that science trumps scripture.

Science did fine disproving the flood stoty. Have you
heard about that?

 

[Earthtank]

This seems to be a more damning dismissal of God than you'll hear from most atheists.

As far as science is concerned, if a thing has physical effects, it can be tested.

On the contrary, it's simply amplifying and explaining the difference between the 2. In no way should it be taken as a jab at either (God or Science) unless, one wishes to do so for personal motives.

 

[Earthtank]

So whatever god we are talking about has no effect on the reality in which we live? Because if it does, then we can test for that.

You reply has absolutely nothing to do with what i said and is intentionally trying to take things out of context.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

On the contrary, it's simply amplifying and explaining the difference between the 2. In no way should it be taken as a jab at either (God or Science) unless, one wishes to do so for personal motives.

You've effectively said that God has no physical effects. This implies that all physical evidence for God and the miracle claims of every religion that makes them are necessarily false. Not just unsupported, but false.

Like I said, this is pretty damning.

 

[Earthtank]

You've effectively said that God has no physical effects. This implies that all physical evidence for God and the miracle claims of every religion that makes them are necessarily false. Not just unsupported, but false.

Like I said, this is pretty damning.

Twist my words to reach your own conclusion for your own personal motives if you wish. I wont waste my time arguing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Twist my words to reach your own conclusion for your own personal motives if you wish. I wont waste my time arguing.

If I've misunderstood you, you could always just explain what you mean.

 

[Earthtank]

If I've misunderstood you, you could always just explain what you mean.

Seems you have already made up your mind as how you will interpret and twist my words for your own personal motives from my first post. I honestly think its a LOT hard to misunderstand what I said rather then simply understand what I said and take it at face value rather than trying to find sneaky ways to project your own personal view.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Seems you have already made up your mind as how you will interpret and twist my words for your own personal motives from my first post. I honestly think its a LOT hard to misunderstand what I said rather then simply understand what I said and take it at face value rather than trying to find sneaky ways to project your own personal view.

You told me that God is metaphysical as opposed to physical. What did I twist?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

G-d is all powerful. Science is not. To suggest the all powerful can be disproved by a limited powerful is illogical.

I don't follow that. I can disprove the existence of the god of the Tanakh / Christian Bible, who is said to be all-powerful, to anybody that agrees that an entity described as possessing mutually exclusive characteristics at the same time is a logical impossibility.

The claim of omnipotence is irrelevant to the possibility of proof or disproof, but it seems that you would have us back off from the issue because of the unevidenced claim of this existing and being all-powerful.

But more importantly, no god claims need be disproved. An entity said to be undetectable even in principle is indistinguishable from the nonexistent, and can be treated the same until contradictory evidence surfaces.

"The invisible and the nonexistent look very much alike" - Delos B. McKown

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." - Douglas Adams

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

G-d is all powerful. Science is not. To suggest the all powerful can be disproved by a limited powerful is illogical.

Your claims about "the all-powerful" are completely fair game, though.

 

[Shaul]

"God" is no more real than Mickry Mouse.

The rest of your "logic" is just silly, news of the tautological.

My logic is quite fine. If they axiom that there is an all powerful G-d is given then the rest of my tautology is correct. If someone doesn’t accept there is such a G-d then there is basis for arguing whether science is more powerful than a G-d you a priori say doesn’t exist.

 

[Shaul]

Your claims about "the all-powerful" are completely fair game, though.

Not really. That is the definition of G-d for the purposes of the argument. Any other definition is a straw man. Further it would only apply to a limited powerful god. Such an argument would have no bearing against an all powerful G-d.

 

[McBell]

Seems you have already made up your mind as how you will interpret and twist my words for your own personal motives from my first post. I honestly think its a LOT hard to misunderstand what I said rather then simply understand what I said and take it at face value rather than trying to find sneaky ways to project your own personal view.

So basically what you are saying is that it is the Penguins fault that your poorly worded post was misunderstood and instead of clarifying what you actually meant you would rather whine about it?

 

[Shaul]

I don't follow that. I can disprove the existence of the god of the Tanakh / Christian Bible, who is said to be all-powerful, to anybody that agrees that an entity described as possessing mutually exclusive characteristics at the same time is a logical impossibility.

The claim of omnipotence is irrelevant to the possibility of proof or disproof, but it seems that you would have us back off from the issue because of the unevidenced claim of this existing and being all-powerful.

But more importantly, no god claims need be disproved. An entity said to be undetectable even in principle is indistinguishable from the nonexistent, and can be treated the same until contradictory evidence surfaces.

"The invisible and the nonexistent look very much alike" - Delos B. McKown

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." - Douglas Adams

Irrelevant to the argument. The argument is that any all powerful G-d is not bound by science which is of limited power. Note the argument is for the entire class of all such all powerful gods. It is not specific to the Judeo-Christian G-d. Therefore, any purported disproving the the G-d of the TaNaKh doesn’t exist is irrelevant to the argument.

The argument is, if an all powerful G-d exists, then He is not bound to limited power, including that of science.