• 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

Ella S.

*temp banned*
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.

To me, this sounds kind of like when two schoolgirls say that they're married to each other. The marriage isn't actually valid. It's not recognized legally or religiously. So they aren't really married. In the same way, people who consider an object their god, I don't think it's "really" their god because the relationship itself is just as illegitimate.

They can believe that they have such a relationship, but I think they're wrong. After all, I don't think the object they deify is worthy of deification, so I don't give any legitimacy to their doing so. Their god, therefore, doesn't exist or, at least, isn't actually their "god" in the same way that Alice was never actually my "wife."
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
To me, this sounds kind of like when two schoolgirls say that they're married to each other. The marriage isn't actually valid. It's not recognized legally or religiously. So they aren't really married. In the same way, people who consider an object their god, I don't think it's "really" their god because the relationship itself is just as illegitimate.

They can believe that they have such a relationship, but I think they're wrong. After all, I don't think the object they deify is worthy of deification, so I don't give any legitimacy to their doing so. Their god, therefore, doesn't exist or, at least, isn't actually their "god" in the same way that Alice was never actually my "wife."
This begs a few questions - is this about controlling others, then?

By refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of others cultural/personal perspectives and ways of life, isn't that basically a form of social control? A form of intolerance? This is the sort of thinking subcultures have used to cast homosexual marriages as not "legitimate" or that fans of one game use to cast fans of another game as not "legitimate" or "true" fans of the genre. It's a purity test, constructed by those imposing the rules to control others - they define themselves to be in a privileged "legitimate" position while oppressing and denigrating others. Or did you mean something else entirely by "giving legitimacy" to something?
 

Ella S.

*temp banned*
This begs a few questions - is this about controlling others, then?

By refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of others cultural/personal perspectives and ways of life, isn't that basically a form of social control? A form of intolerance? This is the sort of thinking subcultures have used to cast homosexual marriages as not "legitimate" or that fans of one game use to cast fans of another game as not "legitimate" or "true" fans of the genre. It's a purity test, constructed by those imposing the rules to control others - they define themselves to be in a privileged "legitimate" position while oppressing and denigrating others. Or did you mean something else entirely by "giving legitimacy" to something?

Recognizing reality isn't a form of control, even if some are so out of touch that they find reality to be oppressive.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
That is your belief.
I wouldn't call that a belief. It's a world view that is compatible with the axioms of science and with logic.
That the "natural laws" are somehow in control of everything,
and that this reality (universe) has no author.
That doesn't require belief, it's just following logic and observations.

That somehow, sometimes, the rules of nature and logic are suspended, that requires belief, as it contradicts observation and logic.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Logic depends on a statement of a premise or premises which are then used in a defined process to reach a conclusion. A premise can start with either "God exists" or "there are no gods". There is no necessary chain of logic that includes observation.
 

muhammad_isa

Well-Known Member
That doesn't require belief, it's just following logic and observations.
Of COURSE it does!
It is only an assumption, that "natural laws" are absolute, and that they can't be violated.

You can do an experiment, and find that it has the same results time and again, but it's
only an assumption that it will NEVER give you different results.

Holding "natural laws" in such high regard, is because you cannot appreciate that there
is a reason for their existence.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
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
That's not a problem for the empiricist. He doesn't need to disprove the existence of gods to disregard the notions and claims made about them. The opposite is the case. The existence of a god needs to be demonstrated, which of course means to affect our reality in a way that announces its presence.

Also, the idea of existing outside of time is self-contradictory (incoherent). To exist means to occupy someplace at some time and be capable of interacting with other things also somewhere somewhen. You're describing the nonexistent - the things that can never be found at any time or at any place, which is to say, are undetectable.

The idea of something being indistinguishable from the nonexistent yet existing anyway is as incoherent as the phrase existing outside of time.

The idea of creating something without being in time is also incoherent. Or thinking outside of time. Thinking, acting, and just existing all imply before and after states, as the past evolves into the future. Does this god think, act, and exist? If so, it does it in time.
 

muhammad_isa

Well-Known Member
..the idea of existing outside of time is self-contradictory (incoherent)..
Language is used to try to explain a concept to others.

"existing outside of time" in this context, refers to not being SUBJECT to time, as time is
only a perception .. albeit, as Einstein said, a very convincing one. :)

The idea of creating something without being in time is also incoherent..
..think "time in a bottle" .. as you can envisage space in a bottle.
 

Bthoth

*banned*
Language is used to try to explain a concept to others.
Exactly. That's why each culture must participate in conveying.
"existing outside of time" in this context, refers to not being SUBJECT to time, as time is
only a perception .. albeit, as Einstein said, a very convincing one. :)


..think "time in a bottle" .. as you can envisage space in a bottle.
Absolutely. Human perspective on time, is based on the here and now. The most current universal time sets the tone for accepted and existing measurements.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
the idea of existing outside of time is self-contradictory (incoherent).
If time is an emergent and not fundamental property as some physicists have asserted I'm not so sure: Is Time an Illusion? and The Illusion of Time: What's Real? (quoted below)

The idea that time is not real is counterintuitive. But many ideas about how the world works that humanity had taken for granted have required a complete rethink. As Tegmark puts it, "There've been so many things in physics that we thought were fundamental that turned out to be mere illusions, that we're questioning everything — even time."

What reality is depends on what time is. Is time irreducible, fundamental, an ultimate descriptor of bedrock reality? Or is our subjective sense of flowing time, generated by our brains that evolved for other purposes, an illusion?

Opinion is divided, but many physicists and philosophers now suspect that time is not fundamental; rather, time emerges out of something more fundamental — something nontemporal, something altogether different (perhaps something discreet, quantized, not continuous, smooth).

Quoting Google Gemini chatbot:

You're right, some physicists are indeed exploring the possibility of time not being fundamental. While these are still theoretical ideas, they point to the possibility of something existing outside of our usual understanding of time. Here are some points to consider, along with references:
Theories questioning time's fundamentality:

  • Loop Quantum Gravity: This theory posits that spacetime isn't smooth but made of tiny, discrete "loops." In this framework, time emerges from the dynamics of these loops, meaning it isn't a fundamental aspect but arises from something deeper. (Reference: Carlo Rovelli's "Reality is not What It Seems.")
  • String Theory: While string theory currently incorporates time as a dimension, some interpretations suggest it might be "emergent" from more fundamental structures, akin to how temperature emerges from the motion of individual molecules. (Reference: Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe.")
  • Block Universe: This interpretation of quantum mechanics sees all moments in time as equally real, existing in a "block universe." Here, there's no objective flow of time, just different perspectives on a static reality. (Reference: Julian Barbour's "The End of Time.")
What could lie outside time?
  • Beyond Spacetime: If time isn't fundamental, what underlies it? Theories like String Theory explore higher-dimensional realities beyond our four-dimensional spacetime. These may contain structures or processes unrelated to our temporal experience.
  • Information and Change: Some physicists suggest that information, not spacetime, might be the fundamental reality. If so, the "outside" of time could be a realm of pure information, potentially containing the blueprint for the universe's evolution. (Reference: Seth Lloyd's "Programming the Universe.")
  • Unknowable Beyond: It's possible that whatever lies outside our current understanding of time is fundamentally unknowable or beyond our present conceptual framework. The human mind, after all, evolved within a time-bound reality, so attempting to grasp something truly timeless might be like describing colors to a blind person.
Important Caveats:
  • These are speculative ideas, not established scientific facts. There's no consensus among physicists, and much remains unknown.
  • Even if time isn't fundamental, it still has profound implications for our experience and understanding of the universe.
 

Sargonski

Well-Known Member
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)
OK .. a number of problems here

1) God is by definition, non-empiracal " No - as there are many definitions of God - which one of the most important questions in such discussions .. How are we defining God or what definition is being used.

2) NO - this not the definition of any of the Gods in the Bible That there is just one an assumed premise fallacy and simply false but this matters not because none of the Gods in the Bible are described as non-empiracle .. certainly not in the OT .. where all the Gods discussed are anthropomorphic

- when we get into the God of the NT we get into a grey zone but, this is resolved as soon as you state the name of the God that Jesus is referring to as "The Father" - the one to pray to "Hallowed Be Thy Name". For example YHWH, which is the wrong answer but resolves the greyzone problem as YHWH is described as anthropomorphic - not only "Like US" in image and form .. but complete with the most nasty and petty of human character flows .. making mistakes .. losing temper .. What on earth does the God Jealousy have to be Jealous of ? ... leave that question the ancient sages on the table for pondering purpose.

If God is "All Knowing" -- able to see the future and the past -- they why did God go through with the plan to create humans (1) knowing the plan was going to fail (2) ?

But given 1 and 2 --- knowing the plan was going to fail -- why on earth would God regret this failure (3) ?? which makes no sense .. even if sense can be made of 1 and 2.

An Omniscient - All knowing God -- who has gone crazy is about the only salvation for our cause at this point ... the giggle test having failed long ago. This God named himself Jealousy -- turned into a Flip Flopping god and genocidal maniac .. with the most petty and nasty of human weaknesses is the definiton of YHWH .. to a (T) ... one day commanding that innocent children and babies and fetus's be put to death for the sin of the Father .. the next day - in one of her Jeckyl and Hide moments ... Children and babies are not to be punished for sin of the Father -- each to for his own sin - a Rule of Law Principle so good on God for that one -- but, which command should we follow in order to be on the right side of The Supreme One .. and why is this Trickster Loki-like God doing this.

Like when Adam and Eve are put into the ring against the Great deceiver God (in the ring against YHWH essentially if we are to compare attribute - but let us call this other God Satan for the moment (another incorrect assumption as was the assumption of only one God in the Bible .. but we will go with it) A God of the Bible .. Son of God as well .. who does not operate outside the parameters of God's will .. is ruler of the Earth .. and has great Godly powers.

That God .. in the Ring against humans who are so innocent they know naught of Good nor Evil .. Yet .. when these two humans .. who God knew had Zero Chance of Success .. gets really pissed .. and punishes this creation who he goes on to call worthless .. and a big mistake that he regrets.

Really ? --- an all knowing God that is this stupid .. petty .. and idiotic ? how does that work into one's definition of God .. ?

and the Question of Science .. in addition to completely failing at saying anything about something we have defined as undefinable .. Science can not prove that you exist .. never mind disprove God's existence .. Row Row Row the boat .. and prove to me that life is not but a dream .. with Science :)
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Of COURSE it does!
It is only an assumption, that "natural laws" are absolute, and that they can't be violated.

You can do an experiment, and find that it has the same results time and again, but it's
only an assumption that it will NEVER give you different results.

Holding "natural laws" in such high regard, is because you cannot appreciate that there
is a reason for their existence.

"Natural laws" are descriptive. It isn't that there's an assumption that they can never be violated; it's that "violating natural laws" is an incoherent concept.

Natural laws are inferred from what we observe happening. Your god is "outside natural laws" only because we've never observed anything that suggests that it's real. That's it.

If we had good reason to believe that your god existed, the naturalists would accept that it exists and call your god part of the natural universe.

You're trying to make this out to be an issue of worldview, but it's not. It's an issue of standards of evidence.
 

muhammad_isa

Well-Known Member
You're trying to make this out to be an issue of worldview, but it's not. It's an issue of standards of evidence.
Well, naturally, you want to make it all about "evidence".
..but that is not the issue here .. the issue is one of, quote: "the idea of existing outside of time is self-contradictory (incoherent)"

That has little to do with evidence, and more about understanding the concepts involved.
i.e. God or gods does not come into it
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Well, naturally, you want to make it all about "evidence".
..but that is not the issue here ..

It's the whole issue.

the issue is one of, quote: "the idea of existing outside of time is self-contradictory (incoherent)"

I went back through the reply thread here and I couldn't find that specific quote.

That has little to do with evidence, and more about understanding the concepts involved.
i.e. God or gods does not come into it

Which concepts do you think are invokved that don't just end up coming down to evidence?
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
If time is an emergent and not fundamental property as some physicists have asserted I'm not so sure
OK, but does this rebut the assertion that referring to a god or anything else as existing outside of time is incoherent? I think it simply restates the suggestion that something can exist absent time.
 
Top