Science requires the exploration of falsifiable claims. The existence of God is not a falsifiable claim. Therefore science can say nothing about it.
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:
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Scientific insights can affect particular religious assertions though. For instance, that the world was created 10k years ago is no longer tenable. As long as religions have the courage enough to make specific claims about the physical world they may be falsified.
Fair point, though this seems somewhat indirectly related to the OP, because it is specifically addressing the existence of gods. Claims about the age out our planet are not intrinsically theistic, yes?
Unless the theistic claim is i believe in a god who made the world 1ok years ago,.Fair point, though this seems somewhat indirectly related to the OP, because it is specifically addressing the existence of gods. Claims about the age out our planet are not intrinsically theistic, yes?
Theism doesn't *have* to entail that, no. Christianity doesn't either. But, the historical trend seems to be this. The more we know about the world through science the less religions make specific concrete claims about the world.
It's true that religions, theistic and non-theistic, include statements about reality and its nature in their framework as a matter of course. Most commonly these statements are philosophical or mythological in nature, with a few taking things literally to the point they fall under the domain of empirical methodology. I think it's worth remembering that statements which could be assessed empirically are a fractional component theism, not the entirety of it.
Any specific god defined in enough detail is falsifiable. If you defined a god who will bring about the end of the world on 31st December 2000, it takes some fairly straight forward science to establish that as false. If you define a god who created the entire universe 4000 years ago, that is potentially falsifiable (and there is already plenty of evidence against it and none in favour).
The only really difficult element of god concepts as far as scientific study goes is the claim of omnipotence or being outside existence but even those concepts can be considered, though not unconditionally concluded on. It can certainly be said that there is no clear evidence of such a thing existing.
Science requires the exploration of falsifiable claims.
The existence of God is not a falsifiable claim.
Therefore science can say nothing about it.
That depends on the religion in question. When I was a Christian, my adherence to it depended on the resurrection of Jesus happening as a factual, real event in history. Otherwise I didn't see the point. I still have that approach to Christianity which is why I had to peace out of that religion. Unless God really resurrected Jesus from the dead it all struck me as entirely pointless. That is one example, my guess is though that this isn't the only one. The fact that religions make few 'literal' claims about the natural world I suspect is more a result of the encroachment and success of scientific models than how they would be otherwise.