• 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

Heyo

Veteran Member
OK .. if you want to call phenomena that "break the laws of physics" magic, that's up to you.
..but saying that has something to do with logic? NO.
The laws of nature, as far as we understand them, are based on observation of reality and logical inferences from the observations. We conclude what is possible and what is not.
If someone claims that something has happened that defies the laws of nature, they also claim that the logic that led to the laws isn't valid.

If you still don't understand, an example may help. So, please describe a miracle and I will show you how that miracle would break logic if it really happened.
 

muhammad_isa

Well-Known Member
The laws of nature, as far as we understand them, are based on observation of reality and logical inferences from the observations. We conclude what is possible and what is not..
Well, I conclude differently to you..
Why should it be impossible for something to happen that does not normally happen, according to the laws of nature?
It is purely an assumption .. because that is what you expect to happen.

If someone claims that something has happened that defies the laws of nature, they also claim that the logic that led to the laws isn't valid.
No .. it has nothing to do with logic.
It is not logically impossible for a physical law to be broken .. it is just logically unlikely.
i.e. you don't expect it
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Well, I conclude differently to you..
Why should it be impossible for something to happen that does not normally happen, according to the laws of nature?
It is purely an assumption .. because that is what you expect to happen.


No .. it has nothing to do with logic.
It is not logically impossible for a physical law to be broken .. it is just logically unlikely.
i.e. you don't expect it
I think you'll have to repeat logic 101. Let's try ...

Transitivity is a law in logic that, on a continuous scale, if A > B and B > C, then A > C.
I expect that, when I lay A and C side by side, A will be greater than C.

If I observe that C is greater than A, then that is not just that my assumption was wrong - it breaks logic.

Laws of nature are constructed on the same principle of logic. Take Archimedes' Principle.
Any object, wholly or partially immersed in a fluid, is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid displaced by the object
In the above example, we took two measurements, A vs B and B vs C and deduced our expectation what would happen if we measured A vs C.
In this example, we measure weight and volume of the object and the density of the fluid and make a logic inference about the buoyancy of the object. If our expectancy is not met with the observation, we conclude foul play - if we use logic.
In a logical world, people don't walk on liquid water. If you believe in people walking on water, you don't believe in logic. If you don't believe in logic, the debate is over, as no logical argument can convince you.
 

muhammad_isa

Well-Known Member
..Take Archimedes' Principle.

In the above example, we took two measurements, A vs B and B vs C and deduced our expectation what would happen if we measured A vs C.
In this example, we measure weight and volume of the object and the density of the fluid and make a logic inference about the buoyancy of the object. If our expectancy is not met with the observation, we conclude foul play - if we use logic..
Formal logic is interested in deductively valid arguments, for which the truth of their premises ensures the truth of their conclusion. This means that it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false.

There is something wrong with your reasoning .. because it is NOT impossible, for something to
happen beyond the expectations of "natural law" .. but you claim it is (impossible).

If you believe in people walking on water, you don't believe in logic..
I believe in logic .. just how I believe in computers. :)
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Formal logic is interested in deductively valid arguments, for which the truth of their premises ensures the truth of their conclusion. This means that it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false.
Exactly.
There is something wrong with your reasoning .. because it is NOT impossible, for something to
happen beyond the expectations of "natural law" .. but you claim it is (impossible).
If the premises are true (the measurement are correct and Archimedes' Principle is a true law of nature), then it is impossible for something to happen that isn't expected.
If something unexpected does happen, fraud or trickery are involved. (Like an invisible walkway out of plexiglass just below the water's surface.) It is never magic, magic is illogical.
 

Ella S.

*temp banned*
Technically speaking sciences will define and prove god well before any religion.

I agree. If there is a God or gods, then none of the current religions have any reliable information about them. The only way we will ever be able to come to know anything about these beings would be through scientific investigation. Religious tradition is a complete dead-end when it comes to forming any reliable knowledge about the world.

@TagliatelliMonster said "..Something exists in "no place" and at "no time".... that's pretty consistent with something that doesn't exist.."

..but an alternative universe (as part of a multiverse) does NOT share the same "time and space".
.so can it not exist? :)

On the off-chance that anyone else is following along with this thread, I think it's worth mentioning that this is an inaccurate description of the multiverse. The majority of the proposed multiverse theories (and there are more than one) do not propose that other universes would have separate dimensions from ours. In fact, they all propose that they share the same dimensions that we have, and rely heavily on our ability to observe their effects due to our shared spacetime.

Even in something like the MWI, parallel universes exist in a second time dimension that we also have. So they still exist in our same spacetime; they're stacked next to us in a similar manner to papers being stacked on top of one another. Even in M theory, universes which exist in higher dimensions are still composed of spatial and temporal dimensions that our universe itself exists in, too. It's just that M theory proposes that there are many more such dimensions than the 4 we're familiar with.

I'm pretty sure even the MCU figured this one out.

As I was reading this, I removed the word "God" and replaced it with some other abstract "made up" human notion that doesn't have any observable existence - morality.

Morality has no observable effect on the universe as morality is not a "thing" with dimensions in time or space. Can't even try to reduce it down to some dumb math equation either, as with gravity.

Thus, we should also reject the existence of morality, as it more or less follows the same pattern here. There's no measurable or observable proofs of anyone's claims about morality. There is overwhelming lack of evidence for morality. It's just made up nonsense.

I would agree that morality doesn't exist at a point in space or time, but most moral theories don't claim that it does, either. This isn't the gotcha that you think it is.

I don't think that morality is invented by humans at all. I think we discovered it the same way we discovered deductive logic, numbers, and circles, but I wouldn't say that numbers exist in this sense, either.

This is why I distinguish between what's "actual" and what "exists," which is a similar distinction made in modal logic. Numbers are actual, even if they don't exist. Morality is actual, even if it's not grounded in anything physical. God not only doesn't exist but isn't actual, in the same way that, say, Sir Lancelot both doesn't exist and isn't actual.

There have been attempts to logically prove God (in the same way we might logically prove a mathematical law) and Leibniz and Frege in particular tried to formalize these proofs, but all efforts to do this have failed rather spectacularly. I'm completely open to new proofs you might have, but I'm fairly confident that I've seen all of the best ones and none of them really come close. Importantly, this wouldn't be a God that interacts with the universe at all, and it would only exist in a formal sense, much like triangles or Fibonnaci numbers.
 
Last edited:

Ella S.

*temp banned*
Time has always existed in a infinite form, but that was outside the cosmos. The finite form of time was created with outer space, and it too must end. God is immortal one, and humans arre mortals, so God can be in love, and still fall in love too.

I think you might be the first person in this thread to propose a model of God that isn't self-contradictory, which I find significant. I appreciate the input.

It's also potentially falsifiable if it can be formalized, which is something, too. It sounds like you're essentially proposing another temporal dimension and at least one additional spatial dimension that exists perpendicular to the ones we know. It also sounds like you're saying that our 4D spacetime emerges from these other two (or more) dimensions.

I'm not entirely sure how that would work, but it's at least conceivable or not obviously false. It's not how the God of classical theism, tri-omni monotheism, or deism is conceived. It's a very unique concept, but it's one that solves a number of severe issues with conventional theology. I applaud your creativity.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
I would agree that morality doesn't exist at a point in space or time, but most moral theories don't claim that it does, either. This isn't the gotcha that you think it is.

It wasn't really intended to be. The existence of gods is so obvious that it takes a special level of weird to deny them. I have little to no patience for it anymore. Gods are that which a people or culture deem worthy of that title. And many of the things that title point to are so obviously and spectacularly existent to all but the most maladaptive skeptical extremist I'm just very done indulging in their denial. I have no problem with others deciding something isn't worthy of deification in their culture, but denying it's a thing for others is just stupid. It's akin to someone introducing their best friend to you and going "nuh uh, that's not your best friend." Dude.
 

Ella S.

*temp banned*

These are fantastic articles. If you're interested in the subject, I would love to have more in-depth conversations about computability, information theory, and Godel's incompleteness theorems. Have you read G.J. Chaitin, Marshall McLuhan, or Douglas R Hofstadter? They could serve as a jumping off point for some discussions about the limitations of logic.

Despite this, I remain a firm epistemic rationalist. I believe that logic is our one and only method for achieving truth and knowledge. Yes, logic does have its limitations. Any decent logician knows this. It's still the only tool we have, in my opinion. When logic fails us, there is no "other way of knowing" that can pick up the slack it leaves behind; the limitations of logic are the limitations of knowledge itself, in my informed opinion.

Jean Baudrillard is a lot more defeatist about that revelation than I am, to the point that he wraps around to arguing for the idea that all we can truly know are logical abstractions and we have no real way of confirming that these abstractions have any relationship with an external world at all. It comes back to the omnipotence problem in epistemology, which is a pervasive issue when we use a correspondence theory of truth. Baudrillard takes it a lot further to borderline epistemic solipsism.

I wouldn't go quite as far as he does, but I do think it represents a deeper understanding of the limitations of human knowledge than most people have. The reality isn't that we can simply assert the existence of magic without a rational basis. No, it's much, much more pessimistic than that. We can barely assert the truth of any statement, and the few statements we can assert are virtually all either tentative or tautological.

I think it's interesting that you seem to think that people taking a skeptical position would be unaware of the limitations of logic, when an awareness of those limitations tends to be why so many skeptics take skeptical positions to begin with.
 

Ella S.

*temp banned*
It wasn't really intended to be. The existence of gods is so obvious that it takes a special level of weird to deny them. I have little to no patience for it anymore. Gods are that which a people or culture deem worthy of that title. And many of the things that title point to are so obviously and spectacularly existent to all but the most maladaptive skeptical extremist I'm just very done indulging in their denial. I have no problem with others deciding something isn't worthy of deification in their culture, but denying it's a thing for others is just stupid. It's akin to someone introducing their best friend to you and going "nuh uh, that's not your best friend." Dude.

I think that's fair.

That said, I also kind of disagree. I don't think that you can honestly say that a deified object is a god if you believe it isn't worthy of deification. For something to be a god, it has to be deified. If you don't deify it, then you can't say it's a god.
 

MonkeyFire

Well-Known Member
I think you might be the first person in this thread to propose a model of God that isn't self-contradictory, which I find significant. I appreciate the input.

It's also potentially falsifiable if it can be formalized, which is something, too. It sounds like you're essentially proposing another temporal dimension and at least one additional spatial dimension that exists perpendicular to the ones we know. It also sounds like you're saying that our 4D spacetime emerges from these other two (or more) dimensions.

I'm not entirely sure how that would work, but it's at least conceivable or not obviously false. It's not how the God of classical theism, tri-omni monotheism, or deism is conceived. It's a very unique concept, but it's one that solves a number of severe issues with conventional theology. I applaud your creativity.

A single man in a endless universe can’t become God based on odds alone. There can be a single man in a endless ocean, but you must be considerate of endless people, so it would be impossible to choose. To be God you must be one of endless avatars, each avatar having a segregated multiverse, filled with a limited portion of endless people to rule over. The endless avatars become one being called God once He/they beat the odds of infinity first. God witnesses His own creation and no longer requires odds to rule over all things.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
It wasn't really intended to be. The existence of gods is so obvious that it takes a special level of weird to deny them. I have little to no patience for it anymore. Gods are that which a people or culture deem worthy of that title. And many of the things that title point to are so obviously and spectacularly existent to all but the most maladaptive skeptical extremist I'm just very done indulging in their denial. I have no problem with others deciding something isn't worthy of deification in their culture, but denying it's a thing for others is just stupid. It's akin to someone introducing their best friend to you and going "nuh uh, that's not your best friend." Dude.
That's easy for you to say, who deifies objects or living entities. Of course, they are existent.
But are they gods? Most other believers would, at most, call them idols.
(I have no personal opinion about that. I'll accept any definition that has a wide consensus among the believers.)

The upside of idols is that they do objectively exist. They can be examined with the scientific method. Most other gods are entirely unscientific.
Science begins with phenomenology, the observation that there is something. That something can then be further investigated.
Most gods don't start out as phenomena, they start as claims that there must be something. Then believers try to find phenomena to link to the idea.

scientific method.png
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
God can not be disproven by science. Why?

Because God exist outside of time and space. God created space and time, but are itself beyond it
This is a response of a dualist who defines god as some otherness.

When in fact the bible doesn't say that. It says the opposite.

Jeremiah 23:24

time and space are infinite but not missing/absent for something labeled god

otherwise the term eternal is irrelevant to those living as carnal or as earthly forms in the present. eternal doesn't have a beginning/end.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
I think that's fair.

That said, I also kind of disagree. I don't think that you can honestly say that a deified object is a god if you believe it isn't worthy of deification. For something to be a god, it has to be deified. If you don't deify it, then you can't say it's a god.
Yes, that's more or less exactly how it works in my view - any endowed title or relationship holds meaning for those who perform the endowment or are actually in that relationship. It's a personal and/or cultural thing. This isn't true just for deification, but for basically any other type of title or relationship. That one person has a particular relationship with something doesn't mean everyone does (in fact, it'd be downright weird if that was the case). I'm definitely not a supporter of folks creating false gods for themselves - aka calling something a god that they don't feel is worthy. But I am a big supporter of folks respecting what others deify. I don't agree theologically with Abrahamic religions but you'll never see me telling them that their god is not a god. Their god is their god, full stop. Not my place to tell them what they think and what they do in their culture.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
That's easy for you to say, who deifies objects or living entities. Of course, they are existent.
But are they gods? Most other believers would, at most, call them idols.
Yes, they're gods.

"Other believers" don't get to dictate what the gods are for anyone other than themselves.

Also, deification is not limited "objects" and "living entities." I do not restrict deification to such narrow parameters myself. I also don't deny that things outside of "objects" and "living entities" exist, because that's dumb. Learning is neither an object nor living entity but quite obviously is a process or principle that exists. So too is the concept of mystery, first or final cause, which is what the Abrahamic god is often understood to be. I don't personally deify that sort of thing, but it's also not my thing to go telling Abrahamics that their god isn't god. Their god is their god, full stop.
 
Top