-
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!
God can not be disproven by science
- Thread starter Starlight
- Start date
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
Sure, but it has yet to give good evidence it exists.
When you say that God exists outside of time and space: how do you know?
Science does not deal with that that cannot be evidenced
In your opinion. My opinion is god(s) don't exist but are a product of human imagination. Considering humans didn't evolved for 13.7 billion years after the universe began, i find the claim that human imagination created space and time to be a little far fetched
It doesn't really make sense to speak of proof of such a vague, often intentionally contradictory idea as the Abrahamic gods.
Russell's Teapot is a very useful idea indeed here when discussing this matter.
It may be impossible to prove or disprove, but that is about as meaningless as anything might be - and shows that the duty of showing some form of evidence is squarely on the believer's camp.
There is an additional, very significant problem with the OP's claim: it is either confused about the role of science or abusing it something fierce. Science isn't some sort of sieve to decide whether things exist.
Claiming that god can't be disproven isn't an indication that god "might exist"; it is an indication that the idea of god is suspect and that it is dangerous to rely on its correspondence to anything that might exist. To paraphrase: it is not a feature, it is a very big flaw.
Russell's Teapot is a very useful idea indeed here when discussing this matter.
It may be impossible to prove or disprove, but that is about as meaningless as anything might be - and shows that the duty of showing some form of evidence is squarely on the believer's camp.
There is an additional, very significant problem with the OP's claim: it is either confused about the role of science or abusing it something fierce. Science isn't some sort of sieve to decide whether things exist.
Claiming that god can't be disproven isn't an indication that god "might exist"; it is an indication that the idea of god is suspect and that it is dangerous to rely on its correspondence to anything that might exist. To paraphrase: it is not a feature, it is a very big flaw.
Last edited:
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Then how do you know about it?
Nah, if you're talking about the god of the Bible, that god lies outside the auspices of science for other reasons - namely, the inherent limits of science as a mode of acquiring knowledge. That god is, by definition, non-empirical (non-observable) and thus its existence is understood primarily through logic and reason rather than by experience or observation.
It seems to me that this argument violates its own assumptions. There are many times when Bible-God is observed and many others when Bible-God is clearly inferred from empirical observation.
(If we take it as given that the story is true, of course)
Science does prove or disprove that things exist - bacteria, cosmic strings, time dialation, black holes and so forth.
Capital G indicates the Abrahamic God.
Sorry, you are mistaken.
It is impossible to disprove anything with science, except perhaps by exclusion of all logical alternatives.
And even proving existence is at best a bit of a simplification.
Yes, which is why I said primarily through, not exclusively through. The theological justifications for God as articulated by theologians are primarily logical and rational arguments, rather than arguments that hinge on empirical (scientific) observation or experience. I can't say I've made much study of it - not my wheelhouse - but I got enough of a crash course in it during college that I'm aware of this. Plus, it comes up when you study philosophy more generally as the timeless question of "how do we know things" pertains.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Science can at least prove the complete inability for people to ever prove there is a God or God's.
The purpose of religion and spirituality is to explain "God."
The purpose of science is to explain the phenomenal world.
Any claims or arguments that science should prove or disprove "God" or that religion should prove or disprove string theory are simply asinine. It's like trying to change a wheel with a hammer and saw or trying to frame a house with a impact wrench and jack.
The purpose of science is to explain the phenomenal world.
Any claims or arguments that science should prove or disprove "God" or that religion should prove or disprove string theory are simply asinine. It's like trying to change a wheel with a hammer and saw or trying to frame a house with a impact wrench and jack.
Nor can mermaids or, for that matter, white ravens.
That's fine since I take that to mean we can't interact with God and God can't interact with us as interaction requires both space and time.
You've defined God as nothing anyone needs to concern themselves with.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Well the fact that a fair number of people are saying God affects the physical world should be called out on it.
It's probably why the late Amazing Randy offered challenges on people trying to prove the supernatural.
Why? How does their saying this affect you?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Well seen it doesn't affect me personally, but I think when people make claims they should always be challenged to demonstrate that claim to see if its true or not.