It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

God is not Science, it's claims are not Scientific

page: 1
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+1 more 
posted on May, 30 2018 @ 02:08 PM
link   
People are often very confused about God and science. Atheists often believe there is a requirement of evidence for the claims God exists and thiests often believe they can refute science with claims of God.

Neither is correct. The topic of God's real or unreal nature, existence, non existence, etc rests entirely in philosophy. There is no conceivable falsifiable test for God unless the parameter is refined to something very specific. Broad open ended questions are not scientific. Asking to prove God's existence is not a scientific question to begin with.

Theists pretending that God answers scientific questions are also incorrect. God does not provide a falsifiable scenario.

Can we please stop the tit for tat debates and understand that the concept of God is philoshical and theosophical. The debate does not belong in science.

Scientists are often also philoshical and speculate what their theories mean. Michio Kaku for instance one of the greatest scientists alive in the field of string theory makes philoshical statements about why he believes Spinoza's God exists. A former of pantheism..and vice versa theists are often scientific as we see with George Lamaitre who formed the theory of the big bang and was a priest.


God is not science.

And that is OK. But the debates about God do not belong in scientific boarders. The premise they do is false. For whoever tries it's false from the start.

If you debate god claims in the future the debates will he far more fruitful to understand this. Reason and logic are used in philosophy. But there is not a requirement for emperical evidence. That isn't how debate in philosophy needs to happen.

The claims of God are philoshical. Not scientific.




posted on May, 30 2018 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

If the claim is that something exists, or that, that thing has some kind of properties, then it is clearly a matter that science can be used to validate or invalidate.

We may not be able to say 100% that it does not exist, but based on what claims are being made, we can evaluate and calculate the probability based on the evidence provided.



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: luthier

If the claim is that something exists, or that, that thing has some kind of properties, then it is clearly a matter that science can be used to validate or invalidate.

We may not be able to say 100% that it does not exist, but based on what claims are being made, we can evaluate and calculate the probability based on the evidence provided.


That is only with specific claims about a specific god.



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

If i claim that magical fire breathing dragons exist, is that a philosophical issue? Or a scientific issue?



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 02:19 PM
link   
God created science



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: luthier

If the claim is that something exists, or that, that thing has some kind of properties, then it is clearly a matter that science can be used to validate or invalidate.

We may not be able to say 100% that it does not exist, but based on what claims are being made, we can evaluate and calculate the probability based on the evidence provided.


That is only with specific claims about a specific god.
If you claim that it exists, then you cannot avoid demonstrating that claim is valid.

Or you are stating that all claims are equally valid.
edit on 30-5-2018 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: luthier

If i claim that magical fire breathing dragons exist, is that a philosophical issue? Or a scientific issue?


If your using the Teapot argument or the flying spegetti monster I would say that is philosophy and also has a sound rebuttal.



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: luthier

If i claim that magical fire breathing dragons exist, is that a philosophical issue? Or a scientific issue?


If your using the Teapot argument or the flying spegetti monster I would say that is philosophy and also has a sound rebuttal.
Did i mention either of those?



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: luthier

If the claim is that something exists, or that, that thing has some kind of properties, then it is clearly a matter that science can be used to validate or invalidate.

We may not be able to say 100% that it does not exist, but based on what claims are being made, we can evaluate and calculate the probability based on the evidence provided.


That is only with specific claims about a specific god.
If you claim that it exists, then you cannot avoid demonstrating that claim is valid.


Which is done in philosophy. You can not classify something in science unverifiable. There is no falsifiability in the claim.



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

You did without knowing them. A dragon is not a creator or designer unless that is what you are getting at.



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

You're right claiming god exists is not science. Claiming there is a lack of evidence for an existence of god is scientific. Because there isn't.

No one is trying to prove god doesn't exist...you don't really have to...the lack of evidence speaks for itself as far as science is concerned. You're right people claiming god exists have nothing but pointless philosphical evidence. Which comes down to...I believe in this...so there...which really isn't much of a grounds for any kind of debate anyway.



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Woodcarver

You did without knowing them. A dragon is not a creator or designer unless that is what you are getting at.
The teapot argument is used to show that some claims are unverifiable. People in these threads claim that gods are verifiable. Through their personal experiences and feelings.
edit on 30-5-2018 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: dug88
a reply to: luthier

You're right claiming god exists is not science. Claiming there is a lack of evidence for an existence of god is scientific. Because there isn't.

No one is trying to prove god doesn't exist...you don't really have to...the lack of evidence speaks for itself as far as science is concerned. You're right people claiming god exists have nothing but pointless philosphical evidence. Which comes down to...I believe in this...so there...which really isn't much of a grounds for any kind of debate anyway.


This is not correct all of the time. The debate for and against God has a rational history. Unfortunately most people aren't aware of it or choose to not think through it.

Which is fine. It's also why apologists can tear people up with logic. Which really sucks. It's happened to me in a formal debate in college. Once there are rules and a moderaror you can't just assume you won. Which is another thing people don't understand much..



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Woodcarver

You did without knowing them. A dragon is not a creator or designer unless that is what you are getting at.
The teapot argument is used to show that some claims are unverifiable. People in these threads claim that gods are verifiable. Through their personal experiences and feelings.


They are real. To them. But the claim they are real to everyone is false. It's a falacy. Which is what my op says.

It's also false to say a dragon is the same as a designer. Cosmology gets a bit dodgy and requires philosphical inputhe for broader questions. This why say Kaku works with philosphers of time and space in string theory. When you chart new ground there is usually philosphical.reason used to "falsify" some hypothesis.

Now saying god made the earth in 6 days is moat likely falsifiable. You would have to use the argument we are in a simulation or possibly the 10th dimesion etc which of course would refute the bible is real and be counterproductive to a theist.



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: dug88
a reply to: luthier

You're right claiming god exists is not science. Claiming there is a lack of evidence for an existence of god is scientific. Because there isn't.

No one is trying to prove god doesn't exist...you don't really have to...the lack of evidence speaks for itself as far as science is concerned. You're right people claiming god exists have nothing but pointless philosphical evidence. Which comes down to...I believe in this...so there...which really isn't much of a grounds for any kind of debate anyway.


This is not correct all of the time. The debate for and against God has a rational history. Unfortunately most people aren't aware of it or choose to not think through it.

Which is fine. It's also why apologists can tear people up with logic. Which really sucks. It's happened to me in a formal debate in college. Once there are rules and a moderaror you can't just assume you won. Which is another thing people don't understand much..
If you get tore up by christian apologists then you aren’t a very good debater. The point is that you can use those same arguments to give any claim a sense that it is possible. But possible isn’t the right question. It is about probability.



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Woodcarver

You did without knowing them. A dragon is not a creator or designer unless that is what you are getting at.
The teapot argument is used to show that some claims are unverifiable. People in these threads claim that gods are verifiable. Through their personal experiences and feelings.


They are real. To them. But the claim they are real to everyone is false. It's a falacy. Which is what my op says.

It's also false to say a dragon is the same as a designer. Cosmology gets a bit dodgy and requires philosphical inputhe for broader questions. This why say Kaku works with philosphers of time and space in string theory. When you chart new ground there is usually philosphical.reason used to "falsify" some hypothesis.

Now saying god made the earth in 6 days is moat likely falsifiable. You would have to use the argument we are in a simulation or possibly the 10th dimesion etc which of course would refute the bible is real and be counterproductive to a theist.
I can make any claim i want about my dragon. I can say he breathed out the universe in a single hiccup. It makes no difference how absurd the claim is

I know a guy that thinks he’s JFK. I don’t Think of that in terms that it is true to him. It is still a delusion of his
edit on 30-5-2018 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: dug88
a reply to: luthier

You're right claiming god exists is not science. Claiming there is a lack of evidence for an existence of god is scientific. Because there isn't.

No one is trying to prove god doesn't exist...you don't really have to...the lack of evidence speaks for itself as far as science is concerned. You're right people claiming god exists have nothing but pointless philosphical evidence. Which comes down to...I believe in this...so there...which really isn't much of a grounds for any kind of debate anyway.


This is not correct all of the time. The debate for and against God has a rational history. Unfortunately most people aren't aware of it or choose to not think through it.

Which is fine. It's also why apologists can tear people up with logic. Which really sucks. It's happened to me in a formal debate in college. Once there are rules and a moderaror you can't just assume you won. Which is another thing people don't understand much..
If you get tore up by christian apologists then you aren’t a very good debater. The point is that you can use those same arguments to give any claim a sense that it is possible. But possible isn’t the right question. It is about probability.


Again this is false. Christian apologists are trained to debate for god. Hitchens himself lost a debate to Craig. It's not about what you think is right. Similar to science it's about limiting falacy, staying on topic, and debating the claims.

I gurantee you would loose a formal debate without serious study and preparation..in fact you may not even understand philosphical debate if you are making the claim I must be a bad debator. For one your dragon would have been dinged by an atheist moderator. Trust me I used the teapot.



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Woodcarver

You did without knowing them. A dragon is not a creator or designer unless that is what you are getting at.
The teapot argument is used to show that some claims are unverifiable. People in these threads claim that gods are verifiable. Through their personal experiences and feelings.


They are real. To them. But the claim they are real to everyone is false. It's a falacy. Which is what my op says.

It's also false to say a dragon is the same as a designer. Cosmology gets a bit dodgy and requires philosphical inputhe for broader questions. This why say Kaku works with philosphers of time and space in string theory. When you chart new ground there is usually philosphical.reason used to "falsify" some hypothesis.

Now saying god made the earth in 6 days is moat likely falsifiable. You would have to use the argument we are in a simulation or possibly the 10th dimesion etc which of course would refute the bible is real and be counterproductive to a theist.
I can make any claim i want about my dragon. I can say he breathed out the universe in a single hiccup.


You could but then you would have to answer to the big bang evidence.



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

LMAO, only because your degree is in philosophy, mine is BSc Chemistry, of course I'll demand testable, repeatable evidence when you jabber on with your speculative philosophical reasoning.


...and tit for tat threads? Welcome to the club fella, you are doing exactly the same.



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: dug88
a reply to: luthier

You're right claiming god exists is not science. Claiming there is a lack of evidence for an existence of god is scientific. Because there isn't.

No one is trying to prove god doesn't exist...you don't really have to...the lack of evidence speaks for itself as far as science is concerned. You're right people claiming god exists have nothing but pointless philosphical evidence. Which comes down to...I believe in this...so there...which really isn't much of a grounds for any kind of debate anyway.


This is not correct all of the time. The debate for and against God has a rational history. Unfortunately most people aren't aware of it or choose to not think through it.

Which is fine. It's also why apologists can tear people up with logic. Which really sucks. It's happened to me in a formal debate in college. Once there are rules and a moderaror you can't just assume you won. Which is another thing people don't understand much..
If you get tore up by christian apologists then you aren’t a very good debater. The point is that you can use those same arguments to give any claim a sense that it is possible. But possible isn’t the right question. It is about probability.


Again this is false. Christian apologists are trained to debate for god. Hitchens himself lost a debate to Craig. It's not about what you think is right. Similar to science it's about limiting falacy, staying on topic, and debating the claims.

I gurantee you would loose a formal debate without serious study and preparation..in fact you may not even understand philosphical debate if you are making the claim I must be a bad debator. For one your dragon would have been dinged by an atheist moderator. Trust me I used the teapot.
My dragon is not a god.







 
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join