Frank Goad
Well-Known Member
What does science think will disprove God?And what do Christians think will prove God?Just curious.
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!
Science cannot say anything about the supernatural; it only observes the natural world.What does science think will disprove God?And what do Christians think will prove God?Just curious.
What does science think will disprove God?And what do Christians think will prove God?Just curious.
What does science think will disprove God?And what do Christians think will prove God?Just curious.
1 nothingWhat does science think will disprove God?And what do Christians think will prove God?Just curious.
Science is not remotely interested in this issue.What does science think will disprove God?And what do Christians think will prove God?Just curious.
Science cannot say anything about the supernatural; it only observes the natural world.
Yet again, science in an abstract concept so doesn't think anything. Science is a set of structured methods and principles which can be used to assess hypotheses.What does science think will disprove God?And what do Christians think will prove God?Just curious.
Yet again, science in an abstract concept so doesn't think anything. Science is a set of structured methods and principles which can be used to assess hypotheses.
Science can't be used to assess the any proposed god or gods unless they're clearly and consistently defined as a formal hypothesis. I would argue that this has never been done for any proposed god.
I know, one can tell how little a creationist understands when they try to use the fact that spontaneous generation has been refuted as refuting abiogenesis. Spontaneous generation is a creationist concept. Just as a "change of kind" is.I think that Spontaneous Generation and Young-Earth Creationism could have given us some amount of evidence for a Creator God if they weren't disproven.
I do find it ironic that these "models" are the closest we've come to a testable definition of God and yet most theists want nothing to do with them. To me, it seems like they know that his existence would be quickly disproven as soon as he's falsifiable.
Science has no interest at all in God, since science cannot observe God. If God makes Himself manifest in this world, science will instantly sit up and take a huge interest.What does science think will disprove God?And what do Christians think will prove God?Just curious.
But how could science ever establish that God is the cause? If a guy could grow back people's amputated limbs every time he touched them and prayed to God, there would be no way to establish that God was the cause of the regeneration.I don't think that's quite accurate.
"Methodological naturalism" doesn't mean that science can't one day prove the existence of ghosts, reincarnation, psychic powers, an afterlife, etc. It just means that it focuses on what is observable and measurable.
If God affects the natural world in any way, such as answering prayers or performing miracles, we can test that. And we have. And we have found that God doesn't answer prayers or perform miracles.
Nope. The deficit is still on the people making a claim about the existence of God. The Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc.Its a tie, no proof either way
Scientific investigation can express degrees of confidence about the existence of, and properties of, observed phenomena. If a proposed phenomena cannot be observed in some way while adhering to the principles and standards of scientific investigation, the scientific process will conclude that there is little or no confidence in the existence of the hypothetical or proposed phenomena. Science cannot prove that imagined things do not exist because the field of Science doesn't know what it doesn't know. It would be a logical fallacy, an argument from ignorance. Without evidence Science can at a minimum say that it is unknow, and depending on the properties ascribed to hypothetical or proposed phenomena, may conclude existence unlikely based on what is known. For example, a 300 lbs flying pig with 1 inch wings would be deemed unlikely based on what we know about the laws of physics.What does science think will disprove God?And what do Christians think will prove God?Just curious.
I honestly don't think science cares to much about God and far less interested in disproving him. But I think a lot of the issues between science and the idea of God, is because religions in many cases try to have a go at science whenever it announces something which doesn't seem to fit to well with what these religions say. A good example is evolution, it was never meant as an attack on religion, but obviously have turned into that for many people, because they simply can't accept it. But scientists and science will fight back, if "threaten".What does science think will disprove God?And what do Christians think will prove God?Just curious.
But how could science ever establish that God is the cause? If a guy could grow back people's amputated limbs every time he touched them and prayed to God, there would be no way to establish that God was the cause of the regeneration.
Nope. The deficit is still on the people making a claim about the existence of God. The Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc.
I don't think that's quite accurate.
"Methodological naturalism" doesn't mean that science can't one day prove the existence of ghosts, reincarnation, psychic powers, an afterlife, etc. It just means that it focuses on what is observable and measurable.
If God affects the natural world in any way, such as answering prayers or performing miracles, we can test that. And we have. And we have found that God doesn't answer prayers or perform miracles.