• 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!

Is Theology Science?

Skwim

Veteran Member
Nazism
1) write 100 times on the blackboard "God of Theism exists." By this way you get the energy and momentum to go through the proof of God:

A) God is omniscient, so He is the perfect specialist to ask His opinion. His opinion is always true and right.
B) Ask Him, does He exist or not. He will certainly answer "Yes, the God of Theism is existent." Proof ends.

In short: The All-Knowing knows everything, and that the Omniscient exists. Therefore the Omniscient exists. Now, if this proof is not true, then it is not true to the All-Knowing. And if so, the Omniscient exists. "Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil" John 8: 43,44.

Obviously you have an extremely poor understanding of what theology, science, and proof are. My suggestion is to pay careful attention to what's been told to you here.


Actually, I prefer: "Is science theology?" (I wonder if I'll ever get the hang of punctuation when using quotes.)

If any punctuation is called for, only use a colon if a complete sentence introduces the quotation; otherwise, use a comma. In your case here a comma is called for.


.
 
Last edited:

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
1) write 100 times on the blackboard "God of Theism exists." By this way you get the energy and momentum to go through the proof of God:

A) God is omniscient, so He is the perfect specialist to ask His opinion. His opinion is always true and right.
B) Ask Him, does He exist or not. He will certainly answer "Yes, the God of Theism is existent." Proof ends.

In short: The All-Knowing knows everything, and that the Omniscient exists. Therefore the Omniscient exists. Now, if this proof is not true, then it is not true to the All-Knowing. And if so, the Omniscient exists. "Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil" John 8: 43,44.

"The All-Knowing knows everything, and that the Omniscient exists."
Absolutely NO evidence has been presented to support this claim, thus this claim can be discarded since it has not been established to be true. FIRST present evidence that ALL-KNOWING exists or that OMNISCIENT exists. If you can't do that, there's no reason to go any further.
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
No. Just pointing out the logical error. You assume your conclusion. Where is the corruption?
For those who do not understand: The All-knowing (if it turns out that such exists) knows everything, knows that the Omniscient exists. Hence, among all knowledge there is knowledge about the existence of the All-Knowing. Therefore the Omniscient really does exist.
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
1) write 100 times on the blackboard "God of Theism exists." By this way you get the energy and momentum to go through the proof of God:

A) God is omniscient, so He is the perfect specialist to ask His opinion. His opinion is always true and right.
B) Ask Him, does He exist or not. He will certainly answer "Yes, the God of Theism is existent." Proof ends.

In short: The All-Knowing knows everything, and that the Omniscient exists. Therefore the Omniscient exists. Now, if this proof is not true, then it is not true to the All-Knowing. And if so, the Omniscient exists. "Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil" John 8: 43,44.

For those who do not understand: The All-knowing (if it turns out that such exists) knows everything, knows that the Omniscient exists. Hence, among all knowledge there is knowledge about the existence of the All-Knowing. Therefore the Omniscient really does exist.

What it sounds as if you're talking about is self-affirmations in order to have faith. It isn't bad, but there is no "proof" for an invisible omniscient God. It takes a leap of faith in order to see God exists. Thus, your first statement is an assumption used to validate your conclusion and circular.

Mathematics is the study that offers "proofs," but not science.

For example:
"Only a creator can divide by zero. Otherwise it is undefined. There is no infinite in a finite world. Thus, if the infinite exists, then the creator exists."

This sounds circular in terms of logic, but in the first statement, one cannot divide by zero because 12 x 0 does not equal 144. Anything times zero does not equal something. Only a creator can create 144 items to make 12 x 0 equal 144.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
For those who do not understand: The All-knowing (if it turns out that such exists) knows everything, knows that the Omniscient exists. Hence, among all knowledge there is knowledge about the existence of the All-Knowing. Therefore the Omniscient really does exist.
Nope. Circular again. Among all knowledge could be knowledge of the non-existence of an all-knowing.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
In short: The All-Knowing knows everything, and that the Omniscient exists. Therefore the Omniscient exists. Now, if this proof is not true, then it is not true to the All-Knowing. And if so, the Omniscient exists. "Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil" John 8: 43,44.
Again, circular.

If the all-knowing exists, knowledge of that existence is part of all knowledge.

But if an all-knowing doesn't exist, knowledge of that non-existent is part of all knowledge.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
For those who do not understand: The All-knowing (if it turns out that such exists) knows everything, knows that the Omniscient exists. Hence, among all knowledge there is knowledge about the existence of the All-Knowing. Therefore the Omniscient really does exist.
Adding to what Poly said.....
Not all claimed knowledge is correct (or even knowledge at all).
Any claim must be verifiable by the one to be convinced by the argument.
If not independently verifiable, then it's "not even wrong".

Example:
Bob claims knowledge that there are no gods.
This is 'info' isn't verifiable, nor is it disprovable.
So if it's not even wrong, then neither is it correct.
Thus, it's not in the realm of science.
 
Last edited:

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
Again, circular.

If the all-knowing exists, knowledge of that existence is part of all knowledge.

But if an all-knowing doesn't exist, knowledge of that non-existent is part of all knowledge.
You must understand how Gulliver felt, especially having dealt with intellectual Lilliputians. :)
 
Last edited:

`mud

Just old
Premium Member
This thread isn't really circular....maybe a spiral with no visible vortex.
And in-audible sound when it speaks words of transparant meaning.
Ahhhh....the transparant image of invinsability, whispering nothing.
Cheeeeees.......
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
No, not by today's standards of sciences. It is an academic study and contains a huge amount of history, language arts, archaeology and social studies. But not "hard sciences."
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Theology is a non-scientific study on the nature of god(s) and on the nature of religion’s scriptures.

As to your claims in your posts, they are merely irrational assertions, not proofs, and not evidences

And you don’t understand what proof is.

Proof is a mathematical statement, like an equation. Mathematicians relied on proofs (eg mathematical equations), not on evidences.

Proof isn’t evidence.

Scientists relied on verifiable evidences, through detection or experimentations.

A scientist will attempt explain phenomena, analyse the mechanism, and predict how it work. This is “formulation of the hypothesis” part of Scientific Method.

The other part of Scientific Method, is testing the explanation and predictions, to see if it is true or not. The test relied on observation, (A) either through repeated experiments, (B) or finding a number of evidences.

The higher the number of “successful” experiments, the higher the probability that the hypothesis is true and probable. Which mean the hypothesis have a chance of becoming a “scientific theory”.

The higher the number of “unsuccessful” experiments, the higher is improbability of the hypothesis. Which mean the hypothesis (explanation and predictions) has been debunked.

Debunked or refuted hypothesis should be discarded.

Theology don’t rely on or use mathematics (proofs) or science (evidences).

Your statements and your claims, questfortruth, are neither proofs (thus, not mathematics), nor evidences (thus, not science). They are merely your personal opinions that relied on biased circular reasoning, and false equivalence.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The All-knowing (if it turns out that such exists) knows everything, knows that the Omniscient exists. Hence, among all knowledge there is knowledge about the existence of the All-Knowing. Therefore the Omniscient really does exist.
You know there's a Fundamental Theorem of Algebra. Well, there's also a Fundamental Theorem of Theology, and all arguments for the existence of a real god boil down to this, your argument being no exception:

1: Assume the term 'god' refers to a being with objective existence.
2: Therefore the term 'god' refers to a being with objective existence.
 

Sha'irullah

رسول الآلهة
Theology requires science but quite frankly theology is no different than philosophy in that I would place it in a similar category or perhaps a soft science like history. The whole push for theology to mesh with sciences has always existed which is why you find bad science in old theology because religion always incorporated science to begin with, it was just never modern sciences. In an age of modern science it should spring a modern theology but religion is just uninterested in this pursuit out of fear of rejection or fear of errancy.

If you ask me this just give theology a better framework and no competition should arise out of it.
 

`mud

Just old
Premium Member
Could there be a `god` that does not know that `it` is not omnisient !
What could teach this `god` what `it` knows ?
What `omnisient` entity would be in existance to know that it was omnisient also ?
What would `it` compare `itself's` omisience to what else ?
I'm really getting lost in this thread......please help me !!!
 
Top