• 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!

Does science support Atheism, positively?

Robert.Evans

Robert.Evans

You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
viole said:
I wonder if you noticed my remark that I can only speak for myself. I like almost everything of Dawkins, with the possible exception of his choice of neckties. But I am not him, so I cannot possibly use science to prove that God, and a multitude of things without evidence, do not exist. I am not even sure he does that, since he is not 100% sure that God or gods do not exist either.

But i can use science and rational analysis to destroy every argument intended to prove that God exists (different from proving that He does not).

So, show me your evidence and let us see what is left after rational analysis.

Ciao

- viole
Click to expand...
Your argument is silly, and I think you know that. You take something metaphysical and try to bring it into the physical world. That will never work. That is why faith is so simple. It does not need anything external (as you do) to convince the person. It is internal. The external is seen after. Very simple. So whereas your argument will seem sound to you, you are using the wrong logic, the logic of the world. Sorry, won't work. Though I have no problem with you thinking it. We all have to get through life somehow.

As for Dawkins, he is a fraud making millions out of a hobby that he can't prove and uses his title as a means to do it.
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
9-10ths_Penguin said:
... so God is not "observable through verifiable testing or evidences"?

Are you saying that anyone who claims something that would contradict this (e.g. miracles, revelation) is necessarily wrong?
Click to expand...
Miracles and revelations are not verifiable, that's all. So, science cannot consider them as evidence.
 
paarsurrey

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
viole said:
I can only speak for myself. Atheists do not use science to claim that God does not exist, they use science to claim that the arguments for the existence of God are not sufficient to prove His existence.
Ciao
- viole
Click to expand...
The Atheists cannot use science as a tool because it does not support them positively, then it is not fair for them to use it against the revealed religion. Right?
Regards
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
leibowde84 said:
Thus far, there have not been any verified miracles. Obviously, anything is possible, but all signs currently point to miracles being unproven.
Click to expand...
But "unproven" and "unprovable" are two different things. "Unverified" does not necessarily imply "unverifiable".
 
gnostic

gnostic

The Lost One
9-10ths_Penguin said:
... so God is not "observable through verifiable testing or evidences"?

Are you saying that anyone who claims something that would contradict this (e.g. miracles, revelation) is necessarily wrong?
Click to expand...
In science, if there are are only "true" and "false", then if you presented to me a "new" hypothesis, (A) then the default position would be that hypothesis is FALSE, even before it is tested. You don't accept it is "true" until you can verify its "true".

(B) So if the hypothesis is shown to be "untestable", then it will remain FALSE. The hypothesis should be discarded because it is unverifiable and unrefutable.

(C) Then when you test it, and it fail repeatedly to meet the requirements of prediction(s) and explanation, then the hypothesis will remain FALSE, and should be discarded because it has unverifiable and has been conclusively REFUTED.

(D) But if repeated tests show that has been "successful" (including testings done through peer review), then, and only then, can the hypothesis has been "verified", therefore it is TRUE.

If we were to put religion, particularly the existence of a deity or the miracles, to similar scenario and procedure as that of science (the scientific method), then it would failed immediately at point B - being "untestable" and "unverifiable" - therefore miracles and theism are FALSE.

So, in my book, yes (to answer your question), religion is FALSE and WRONG, because it is "unverifiable".
 
Noa

Noa

Active Member
To the original post, no science does not support atheism.

Also, it would be beneficial if people would stop using science as if it were a proper noun. It implies something unified, internally homogeneous, and all sorts of other false implications.
 
Robert.Evans

Robert.Evans

You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
leibowde84 said:
No. Of course not. There isn't any evidence pointing to it being a miracle, unless you are attempting to argue from ignorance.
Click to expand...
Why not? It appears to be, in this universe, a one off event. So why not a miracle? Are you saying that all miracles have to be supernatural? and if so, what makes you think that isn't, or conversely, that God isn't natural?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top