Recently I've been thinking about the whole science vs religion argument and pondered if an omnipotent and omniscient being can even be subjected to scientific tests and proven or disproven using the scientifc method. I'll expand on my question:
Is the existence of God a scientific claim?
A. If so, how can science be used to prove or disprove the existence of God?
B. If not, what other method can be used to prove or disprove the existence of God?
Or perhaps, it's impossible for us to prove or disprove the existence of God because such a being likely transcends the physical world.
I can't imagine there being any evidence for a God unless that god actually provides us with evidence, thus making the whole science vs religion debate pointless. I mean, it's not like we can just observe space looking for heaven with a telescope.
To your question---NO!---just like all the other gods of history, and even now with the Hindus, or any other imaginary creatures. It is impossible to prove something doesn't exist---like trying to find a non existent black cat in a dark room. Science can only make a claim about thing with overwhelming evidence backed up by reliable evidence and sound reasoning and critical thinking. This question is not only hypothetical based on assumptions, but rhetorical. :wall: :pai: Solitary
QuoteIs the existence of God a scientific claim?
No.
(http://www.gagbay.com/images/2012/11/bro_do_you_even_science-179746.jpg)
Science is not concerned with the mythical. Science is concerned with the physical.
(http://i37.tinypic.com/2ng8nsl.jpg)
Science doesn't need god, not when we have t-1000s and freakin sharks with freakin lazer beams attached to their heads.
Quote from: JustSomeGuy on April 05, 2015, 05:56:53 PM
I can't imagine there being any evidence for a God unless that god actually provides us with evidence, thus making the whole science vs religion debate pointless. I mean, it's not like we can just observe space looking for heaven with a telescope.
The existence of god is not provable via the scientific method. But that does not make the debate pointless. Why? Because the religious 'prove' that god exists daily--only that proof is not by using the scientific method--or any other method except 'take my word for it' type of proof. And then they act on that proof as though it were true--even The Truth. And all too often that leads to violence and destructive thought and deeds. The more the religious believe, the more stupid become. And the more dangerous. For out world to have a decent chance of becoming a fair and equitable place to live, religion has to be relegated to the nonsense it really is.
Science doesn't deal with the supernatural. It cannot do experiments to test for things that cannot be tested. Not can it test for things that don't exist. Also, the entire scientific community is engaged in a secret conspiracy to piss off theists.
Quote from: JustSomeGuy on April 05, 2015, 05:56:53 PM
Is the existence of Santa a scientific claim?
A. If so, how can science be used to prove or disprove the existence of Santa?
B. If not, what other method can be used to prove or disprove the existence of Santa?
Or perhaps, it's impossible for us to prove or disprove the existence of Santa because such a being likely transcends the physical world.
------------------
Is the existence of Zeus a scientific claim?
A. If so, how can science be used to prove or disprove the existence of Zeus?
B. If not, what other method can be used to prove or disprove the existence of Zeus?
Or perhaps, it's impossible for us to prove or disprove the existence of Zeus because such a being likely transcends the physical world.
------------------
Is the existence of Shiva a scientific claim?
A. If so, how can science be used to prove or disprove the existence of Shiva?
B. If not, what other method can be used to prove or disprove the existence of Shiva?
Or perhaps, it's impossible for us to prove or disprove the existence of Shiva because such a being likely transcends the physical world.
------------------
Is the existence of Flying Spaghetti Monster a scientific claim?
A. If so, how can science be used to prove or disprove the existence of Flying Spaghetti Monster?
B. If not, what other method can be used to prove or disprove the existence of Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Or perhaps, it's impossible for us to prove or disprove the existence of Flying Spaghetti Monster because such a being likely transcends the physical world.
If you would not waste your time on other speculations dreamed up by man's imagination then why give special attention to this particular speculation dreamed up by man? This is essentially mental masturbation - it feels good but isn't the best use of the mind.
It is illogical to try to prove a negative since we are unable to look throughout the entire universe in order to rule out the existence of a something proposed to exist. It is logical to prove a positive, in that evidence is available to justify investigating further the claim that that something exists. In your case, you require evidence to support the plausibility of a claim before you will waste your time on flights of fancy -- except when a particular speculation is something you want to exist - feel that it must exist.
I was about to prove to you that Katie Perry is in fact at this moment giving me a blowjob, but my camera isn't working and she refuses to tell everyone it's true.. See how fucked up this unprovable shit is?
Isn't that right Katie?
Yes darling!
OK, just because my grandma was a devout Catholic I'm going to confess.. Katie Perry really isn't giving me a blowjob right this moment, but I can't prove it.. :sad:
You've just mentioned your grandmother and bj in the same sentence! Lol
Quote from: hrdlr110 on April 05, 2015, 10:40:02 PM
You've just mentioned your grandmother and bj in the same sentence! Lol
My grandfather was a Catholic too.. I'm forgiven.
YOU on the other hand used Lol improperly.
Short answer: no.
Long answer: Belief in a god is an inherently non-rational decision. It is saying, in essence, "Hey, I don't know how the universe works, and rather than either accept it at face value or go into one of the sciences in order to research the question, I'm just gonna decide that it was made that way by an entity whose existence is defined as being non-provable by all objective measures and most subjective ones."
There's a further complication, too: Clarke's Law applies to the aliens who use advanced technology as well as to the technology itself. If a sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, a sufficiently advanced but strictly biological entity supported by sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from what is commonly called a god.
Quote from: trdsf on April 06, 2015, 12:09:38 AMLong answer: Belief in a god is an inherently non-rational decision. It is saying, in essence, "Hey, I don't know how the universe works, and rather than either accept it at face value or go into one of the sciences in order to research the question, I'm just gonna decide that it was made that way by an entity whose existence is defined as being non-provable by all objective measures and most subjective ones."
It's amazing to me that the whole let's-play-make-believe-and-confuse-it-with-reality thing is so insanely popular yet we also have amazing scientific breakthroughs and high technology. Countries giving out awards for scientific accomplishments at the same time they're hosting stonings or exorcisms. Isn't that just incredibly bizarre and counter-intuitive?
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 06, 2015, 02:39:34 AM
It's amazing to me that the whole let's-play-make-believe-and-confuse-it-with-reality thing is so insanely popular yet we also have amazing scientific breakthroughs and high technology. Countries giving out awards for scientific accomplishments at the same time they're hosting stonings or exorcisms. Isn't that just incredibly bizarre and counter-intuitive?
This question has been looming in my mind for at least a couple of years. It is indeed an astonishing phenomenon. It appears that the society of mankind can be separated into two categories; Those with the curiosity to investigate using science and logic, and those who still reason as stone age cavemen. I've asked myself why does stone age thinking and all of it's imaginary spinning of wheels still exist in the 21st Century, and I think it's because it is simply the state of the art in mankind's evolutionary progress. 6000 years isn't enough time to expect anything but minute changes in man's mental development. Perhaps cognitive ability isn't even necessary as a survival tool.
We look around and see remarkable progress in mankind's achievement, but we owe that to a relatively small group of highly intelligent and industrious thinkers. The rest of society might be wearing designer jeans, but they do so only because of the small group. It's easy to forget these are primitive people with the same genetic make up that existed 10,000 years ago.
Not to say these hangers on don't have the capacity to reason. They do, but thinking is not our default state and it counter intuitive enough to be ignored. Thinking is probably not even the default state of the leadership, but they took the time to consider the merits of organized thought and then acted accordingly. They have broken free of the default state. I do not include politicians in the group of leaders. They are just part of the drone class.
It's also quite common during bloody revolutions of our more recent past that the brightest are near the top of the list to be selected for execution. I suppose some of their genetic material gets past along, but even if their genes do get passed on, each of their subsequent generations needs to relearn the art of organized thinking on their own, and most won't bother to learn how it's done.
So much wishful thinking in religion.
Quote from: SGOS on April 06, 2015, 06:52:30 AM
This question has been looming in my mind for at least a couple of years. It is indeed an astonishing phenomenon. It appears that the society of mankind can be separated into two categories; Those with the curiosity to investigate using science and logic, and those who still reason as stone age cavemen. I've asked myself why does stone age thinking and all of it's imaginary spinning of wheels still exist in the 21st Century, and I think it's because it is simply the state of the art in mankind's evolutionary progress. 6000 years isn't enough time to expect anything but minute changes in man's mental development. Perhaps cognitive ability isn't even necessary as a survival tool.
We look around and see remarkable progress in mankind's achievement, but we owe that to a relatively small group of highly intelligent and industrious thinkers. The rest of society might be wearing designer jeans, but they do so only because of the small group. It's easy to forget these are primitive people with the same genetic make up that existed 10,000 years ago.
Not to say these hangers on don't have the capacity to reason. They do, but thinking is not our default state and it counter intuitive enough to be ignored. Thinking is probably not even the default state of the leadership, but they took the time to consider the merits of organized thought and then acted accordingly. They have broken free of the default state. I do not include politicians in the group of leaders. They are just part of the drone class.
It's also quite common during bloody revolutions of our more recent past that the brightest are near the top of the list to be selected for execution. I suppose some of their genetic material gets past along, but even if their genes do get passed on, each of their subsequent generations needs to relearn the art of organized thinking on their own, and most won't bother to learn how it's done.
I've been thinking about this subject for quite some time. It is highly frustrating for me. I do like what you have to say about it, especially the angle that I had not thought about yet--that we have not, as a group, evolved long enough yet. That makes sense. I had tended to see the wishful thinking of religion as an easy out for the hard questions surrounding the 'why' are we here, or the grand purpose of it all. It is simply easier to not dwell on that question for any length of time and just accept the easiness of religion's answers. But I think you are right, that thinking is not our species default position and it may be harder than I think it is. And that would explain our anti-intellectual stance in this country as well.
The existence of a thinking being who created the universe and exists in some extra dimension(s) (immaterial?!?!) is not a scientific claim because--as was pointed out multiple times on these boards--you can't differentiate between god and Q from the Q continuum. In other words, the claim isn't falsifiable, and until Q (or god) shows up and starts doing stuff, the claim is useless because it has no predictive powers. But science vs religion is still valid because religious claims aren't all about the existence of god. They make claims about the age of the earth for example.
Furthermore, they make claims about the afterlife and whether or not it's ok for you to eat shrimp and/or have butt sex with other people. Even if the claims aren't scientific, we should still point and laugh whenever applicable. Obviously, if you live in a country where apostasy is a death sentence, or if religion gives comfort to some terminally ill or very old relative of yours, then pointing and laughing aren't applicable or desired.
Quote from: JustSomeGuy on April 05, 2015, 05:56:53 PM
... because such a being likely transcends the physical world.
What the hell does that mean?
Quote from: the_antithesis on April 06, 2015, 03:42:39 PM
What the hell does that mean?
It means "I refuse to make a scientific argument. Mostly because I can't, but at least partially because I know what the result would be and I'm not emotionally ready to admit that my religion is holding me back from reality."
Pretty much verbatim.
Quote from: JustSomeGuy on April 05, 2015, 05:56:53 PM
Recently I've been thinking about the whole science vs religion argument and pondered if an omnipotent and omniscient being can even be subjected to scientific tests and proven or disproven using the scientifc method. I'll expand on my question:
Is the existence of God a scientific claim?
A. If so, how can science be used to prove or disprove the existence of God?
B. If not, what other method can be used to prove or disprove the existence of God?
Or perhaps, it's impossible for us to prove or disprove the existence of God because such a being likely transcends the physical world.
I can't imagine there being any evidence for a God unless that god actually provides us with evidence, thus making the whole science vs religion debate pointless. I mean, it's not like we can just observe space looking for heaven with a telescope.
If supernatural qualities are a requirement for being God then science can't prove or disprove the existence of God. If supernatural qualities are not a requirement, such as defining God as that which created man and all life on Earth, then I think the Sun could qualify as God.
Quote from: SGOS on April 06, 2015, 06:52:30 AM
This question has been looming in my mind for at least a couple of years. It is indeed an astonishing phenomenon. It appears that the society of mankind can be separated into two categories; Those with the curiosity to investigate using science and logic, and those who still reason as stone age cavemen. I've asked myself why does stone age thinking and all of it's imaginary spinning of wheels still exist in the 21st Century, and I think it's because it is simply the state of the art in mankind's evolutionary progress. 6000 years isn't enough time to expect anything but minute changes in man's mental development. Perhaps cognitive ability isn't even necessary as a survival tool.
Ironically, we may have reached a point where cognitive ability is a detriment to our survival -- it certainly was during the peak of the Cold War. We have reached a level of intelligence where it is possible that we can engineer our own total destruction as a species, either through direct action (total nuclear exchange), failure to deal with the consequences of our technology (global climate change), or failure to deal with natural existential threats (there's still no contingency plan for dealing with an asteroid on an impact trajectory).
The last two, I think, are the fault of religion in some small regard, specifically in the idea that there's another world after this one.
First you have the small extremist percent who actually believe the end of the world is a good thing. They're noisy, but safe to ignore so long as no one adhering to that view ascends to power in a nuclear state... which possibility I really wish I could rule out, but I can't. Related to this is the group that don't worry about such things because their god won't let anything bad happen to the planet -- I have genuinely talked to people who believed NASA should be shut down because "god won't let an asteroid hit us". When I pointed out that didn't seem to help Chelyabinsk, the answers I got were along the lines of "they weren't sufficiently god-fearing" and "but it didn't hit
us" (
i.e., anywhere in the US). Sometimes all you can do is roll your eyes and walk away.
Second, there's the idea that if anything happens to this world, we get to continue on in another one. This is really the most dangerous, because it lets people think that we have a fallback if we really screw this planet up.
And the simple fact is, this planet is not disposable. We can't pack up and move to Mars or Venus, not without hundreds (probably thousands) of years of terraforming. In an emergency (and assuming some years lead time, like a large asteroid on a collision course detected well in advance), we could send a microscopic percentage of the Earth's population to hastily-constructed bases on the Moon and Mars, probably too small a sample to ensure the survival of the species long-term... never mind the epic problem of how to decide who goes.
Even if we were spacefaring, the odds of finding another planet that's already hospitable to our form of life are miniscule, and I expect that the odds of finding another planet that's already hospitable to our form of life and not already host to life (intelligent or otherwise) are zero.
And the very idea of an afterlife allows people to think "Oh well, if anything happens here, we have somewhere else to go."
And. We.
Don't. The raw, painful fact that they don't care to admit, that they need their belief for, is that the universe doesn't give half a fuck about us. We're not the
point of the universe, we're just a
product of it. Personally, I find that fact sufficiently awe inspiring, but some people can't enjoy a garden without imagining it has fairies in it too. If we were wiped out tomorrow, all that will be left of us are a few unimaginably small and slow-moving specks of technology heading in no particular direction and will probably never be found by anyone, and a thin bubble of electromagnetic radiation that will attenuate into undetectability. No one is going to save us, no one is going to protect us, and we don't have anywhere else to be, and we can only blame our own stupidity, our own indifference, and/or a statistically unlikely but not impossible event.
Huh. That wandered a bit from the comment I wanted to make. Anyway, yes, you're right, biological evolution is incapable of keeping up with technological advance once technology gets started -- does anyone know if evolution is an essentially linear process, that changes accumulate in a linear rather than exponential manner? -- and we aren't biophysically or biochemically that much different from our prehistoric ancestors.
I can really do no better here than to link to Fredric Brown's great short story, The Weapon (https://writenowisgood.wordpress.com/the-weapon-questions/).
Quote from: trdsf on April 07, 2015, 07:10:58 AM
And the very idea of an afterlife allows people to think "Oh well, if anything happens here, we have somewhere else to go."
The very idea there is not an afterlife means I don't have to care.
Why should I concern myself with global climate change or the fate of mankind if, from my perspective, everything ends forever when I die? I have no offspring to provide for, no genetic legacy, so isn't the most reasonable course of action to make sure I live as well as I can for as long as I can? There is no God to judge me and from my perspective the party ends when I leave. Why should I inconvenience myself for the sake of a future I'm not a part of?
Quote from: GSOgymrat on April 07, 2015, 09:21:29 AM
The very idea there is not an afterlife means I don't have to care.
Why should I concern myself with global climate change or the fate of mankind if, from my perspective, everything ends forever when I die? I have no offspring to provide for, no genetic legacy, so isn't the most reasonable course of action to make sure I live as well as I can for as long as I can? There is no God to judge me and from my perspective the party ends when I leave. Why should I inconvenience myself for the sake of a future I'm not a part of?
Hey, you can believe anything you want to. But your mean-spirited question, your confession that your evil is only contained by a fictitious god, that you lack self control without some outside fear acting upon you, that you can't be fully human without the fear of a boggy man getting you if you act badly, makes me slightly sick and pretty much afraid of you.
I want to leave the world a better place than the one I entered. Why? Why not????? I guess because when it all gets boiled down, I like people. I like this planet. And I love my family and hope they prosper like hell after I'm gone and forgotten. And I hope you and yours prospers to? Why not???? There is enough to go around, so why not share. I really do become puzzled by the attitude of the religious when they ask questions like that. I hope you do get cured from your insanity some day.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 07, 2015, 10:27:58 AM
Hey, you can believe anything you want to. But your mean-spirited question, your confession that your evil is only contained by a fictitious god, that you lack self control without some outside fear acting upon you, that you can't be fully human without the fear of a boggy man getting you if you act badly, makes me slightly sick and pretty much afraid of you.
I want to leave the world a better place than the one I entered. Why? Why not????? I guess because when it all gets boiled down, I like people. I like this planet. And I love my family and hope they prosper like hell after I'm gone and forgotten. And I hope you and yours prospers to? Why not???? There is enough to go around, so why not share. I really do become puzzled by the attitude of the religious when they ask questions like that. I hope you do get cured from your insanity some day.
Exactly.
My point is that one can't just assume that because someone believes in an afterlife that they care less for this life, just as not believing in an afterlife doesn't necessarily mean you don't care about anything that comes later.
GSO--I really did not pay attention to who posted what I ranted about . Sorry. Easter was a day full of family--mostly catholic, and I spent the day holding my mouth clamped shut. :)) I guess I just had my chained pulled a little too quickly. You and I agree on almost all points. So, that rant would not have happened if I had only payed a little more attention. Anyway, the content of that rant stands--that attitude really does puzzle me. Always has.
I'm glad for your response. When I posted I kinda feared someone would reply "Oh, I agree completely."
Yeah, it's kind of like when childless couples tell me they are not voting the schools any money because they are not going to benefit from that money. ?????
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 07, 2015, 12:04:30 PM
Yeah, it's kind of like when childless couples tell me they are not voting the schools any money because they are not going to benefit from that money. ?????
As someone who is childless, I actually wouldn't mind if I was paying
more for schools than people who have children. I believe education is vital and I also feel that parents need all the help they can get. Raising children is really expensive and, frankly, parents are fulfilling a social necessity that I don't want to do.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on April 07, 2015, 10:46:36 AM
Exactly.
My point is that one can't just assume that because someone believes in an afterlife that they care less for this life, just as not believing in an afterlife doesn't necessarily mean you don't care about anything that comes later.
All I said was that I think it's a contributing factor. It's not a conscious one; I doubt anyone actually mentally walks through telling themselves that they don't have to care for this life because they have another one coming.
And I really
do think we'd do a better job of taking care of this world if more people understood that this is the only one we get.
Quote from: JustSomeGuy on April 05, 2015, 05:56:53 PM
Recently I've been thinking about the whole science vs religion argument and pondered if an omnipotent and omniscient being can even be subjected to scientific tests and proven or disproven using the scientifc method. I'll expand on my question:
Is the existence of God a scientific claim?
A. If so, how can science be used to prove or disprove the existence of God?
B. If not, what other method can be used to prove or disprove the existence of God?
Or perhaps, it's impossible for us to prove or disprove the existence of God because such a being likely transcends the physical world.
I can't imagine there being any evidence for a God unless that god actually provides us with evidence, thus making the whole science vs religion debate pointless. I mean, it's not like we can just observe space looking for heaven with a telescope.
Since you capitalized the word "God" I'll assume you're refering to the theistic, omnimax God of the People of the Book: Yahweh, Jehovah, or Allah, whatever.
This God cannot exist, due to the many contradictory attributes (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/incompatible.html) it is believed to possess. If it cannot exist, then it does not exist. This should not be too difficult to understand. Proving a negative is easy if the thing for which proof is being sought can't logically exist.
For starters, everything is subject to scientific scrutiny. Nothing is outside of its purview. Science is not just a tool in our box, but the box full of tools. If anything turned out to produce similarly reliable results, it would go into the box.
Now, to prove god exists, it would be nice if you first defined what you're talking about. God has no definition, so it could be anything and is therefore nothing.
Furthermore, even if you fail in that, there is something we can examine to test to see if it is god or not. People believe in god for a reason. Those reasons can be examined scientifically.
Believers generally shy away from that because unexamined belief is as solid as a rock. Examine it and that belief needs to stand of its own merits and they don't want to take the chance to see that they have none.
Quote from: the_antithesis on April 11, 2015, 11:31:22 AM
Furthermore, even if you fail in that, there is something we can examine to test to see if it is god or not. People believe in god for a reason. Those reasons can be examined scientifically.
My favorite was the test to see if prayer assists recovery for people in the hospital. Apparently it does -- but only if you know someone is praying for you. People who didn't know they were being prayed for recovered at the same rate as the control group.
One wonders what might've happened if they'd had a third group that was told no one was praying for them...
Quote from: trdsf on April 11, 2015, 07:16:49 PM
My favorite was the test to see if prayer assists recovery for people in the hospital. Apparently it does -- but only if you know someone is praying for you.
Yes. It effects you
negatively. Power of prayer.
Quote from: the_antithesis on April 12, 2015, 08:05:20 PM
Yes. It effects you negatively. Power of prayer.
I'm also fond of the implication that the idea of god is basically a placebo, something to trick ourselves, but not actually anything in and of itself.
to ask the question "is there a God?", first of all, almost assures that whatever research is used presupposes there is a God and therefore all resources will be used to "prove" that premise even if the persons reasoning is unconscious.
It seems to me the only way is to not presuppose the assumption and try to figure out where the, so called, big bang came from. Then, maybe, but my own feeling it won't, that leads to a "first cause". Still that wouldn't account for the many qualities assigned to God.
I am an unrepentant atheist who believes there is no sole and at death the only afterlife lies in the memories of other people I've known.
Robert