Know why science doesn't disprove God all together?
Because real scientists have theories, solve for probability... Real scientists don't waste their time trying to disprove or prove a God in these petty arguments. Any evidence for or against that is professional, and highly praised isn't one sided and for your use for your childish, primitive, arguments either.
True science does not deal with bias so how can you prove or disprove a God? There is no definitive, measurable answer.
True science doesn't try to disprove a God, nor is it used as a argument for anything. Even gravity is a theory because when you get deep enough into the mechanics of the universe it is but just a theory to entertain our minds...There's extremely complexity beyond anything we've ever tried to define, quantify, measure. Lot's of it isn't even multidimensional structured in thought...
This isn't a black and white issue, it's transparent and you can't just see it one way or the other.
True science does not deal with bias so how can you prove or disprove a God? There is no definitive, measurable answer.
True science doesn't try to disprove a God, nor is it used as a argument for anything. Even gravity is a theory because when you get deep enough into the mechanics of the universe it is but just a theory to entertain our minds...There's extremely complexity beyond anything we've ever tried to define, quantify, measure. Lot's of it isn't even multidimensional structured in thought...
This isn't a black and white issue, it's transparent and you can't just see it one way or the other.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Well, that's kind of true. Gravity isn't "just a theory" in the way you think it is, though. There are two different definitions of theory. One is a hypothetical theory, as in "I have a theory that if I do X, Y will happen", and the other is a scientific theory, as in "There is enough data to consider my hypothesis fact". Gravity is a scientific theory, along with the theory of relativity, the theory of evolution, etc.
However, you're right to take an agnostic approach. While we can gather enough data and research to say that a hypothesis is factual, we must also realise that there's a chance, no matter how small, that our hypothesis is wrong. In the case of science as a discipline, however, when these chances become too small, we can safely ignore them and assume that we are correct. As you said, there is no bias in science; scientists are biased only towards the truth.
On the subject of God, there are two main reasons that no significant research has been carried out to determine his existence:
1. The burden of proof. The burden of proof is the idea that when one asserts something, it is their responsibility to prove it right as opposed to it being the responsibility of their opponent to prove it wrong (i.e., the burden of proof is on the person who has made the assertion).
For this reason, if somebody claims, for example, that every brick has a soft, creamy centre and another person disagrees, it is up to the person who believes in the creamy centre to prove its existence. Until they have offered evidence or proof, the claim isn't taken seriously and is dismissed as false.
2. Definitions. There is no definition of God. In order to carry out scientific research into something, you must first develop a hypothesis and an aim. "To test whether God exists" isn't good enough because nobody can agree on what God is. You must, therefore, have an aim along the lines of "To test whether there is an organism in existence which can alter things on a molecular level". However, this is also too vague. It would be impossible to even begin to test the truth of this claim because it is still too poorly defined ("whether there is an organism in existence"). For this reason, it is literally impossible to research God in any capacity and address a large number of people while doing so; the hypothesis' definition of God may be wildly different to that of some other religious believer somewhere.
That's all I'm posting on this topic because I just want to talk about games on these forums.:p
Science can't disprove God because God is a metaphysical construct (literally: beyond the physical world).
Science also can't disprove that the universe is inherently irrational and without consistent "laws" that govern it. The Scientific Method depends on a universe that has consistent properties that can be studied through testing hypotheses. If the universe is unpredictable, then science cannot be used to study it.
However, the preponderance of evidence is in favor of the universe having consistent, or at least predictable, physical laws that can be studied with rational thinking. All this apparent consistency could just be a fluke in the midst of randomness, but while that is possible, it's not very likely compared to alternatives. So, science is based on an inherently untestable assumption, and that's not a problem if we acknowledge it.
The same can be said of God. The existence of God cannot be proven, but the preponderance of evidence is in favor of Jesus Christ being exactly who He claimed to be. It's not something that can be proven or disproven via the scientific method, but it is something that can be examined rationally, and historical evidence weighed against the alternatives. Just as it is reasonable to make the unprovable, but not unfounded, assumption that the universe can in fact be studied successfully by the scientific method, I find it very reasonable to hold the unprovable (scientifically speaking), but far from unfounded, belief in Jesus Christ as my savior.
Your logic is sound to a point, but where do you get the notion that biased testimony and anecdotal evidence is good enough to consider anything as fact on its own?
If somebody were to find a text from thousands of years ago that said, for example, "I have a dog named Ralph," then it'd would be logically reasonable to accept this as fact unless there's any significant challenge to it. However, if that text went on to say, "Ralph is the town's best piano player," then the absurdity of the claim should cast enough doubt on it to warrant other sources of evidence. If we were then to find other texts dating from the same period that seem unrelated, but also say "There's a dog called Ralph who can play the piano really well", we would still have to assume the claims to be false because they are so absurd.
You might argue that it can't possibly be coincidence that all of these completely separate texts are false, and that the writers have no reason for lying. This is perfectly true, but the only thing that this proves is that the people who wrote the texts believed in their own testimony. Scientifically speaking, there is no compelling reason to believe their claims.
I'm trying not to be disrespectful of your beliefs, but I believe that for you to promote faulty logic (even though accidental) is morally wrong. Since your post contains a lot of sound logic, this might lead some to believe that your conclusion is also logical, and I want to provide them with the opposite viewpoint that it's very illogical because I strongly believe that to be the case.
You could say the same thing about pretty much anything. Science doesn't set out to prove or disprove a pre-conceived idea, like God, evolution, or a cosmic teapot; it takes what evidence it has, explores what it says, refines or re-imagines its theories, and looks for more evidence. Since we can't measure, feel, compare, or indeed even detect traces of God, he doesn't exist in the realms of science. It's fine for you to be religious in your daily life, but when in Science Mode you have to be agnostic and skeptical. Therefore, the idea that we're floating in an eternal void of randomness is far more likely, in science, than God. Evidence suggests one idea, but not the other.
Similarly, if we see a phenomenon we can't explain - say, for example, the question as to why does the zero-point energy of the vacuum not cause a large cosmological constant - we can't say, "Because God willed it so." As far as Science knows, God doesn't exist.
I'm not commenting on whether or not God exists, of course, and you can have your faith (it wouldn't be faith if it were backed-up by evidence), but to say that the world was created by some intelligent being isn't something that you can prove by science, right now, because we have no evidence of that intelligent being.
Absolutely not true. The very basis of the scientific method was a belief in God. It was the belief that God made an ordered and rational universe that allowed for the systematic study of the universe through the scientific method. Before that alchemy and Platonism and other methods of study ruled, and they held that knowledge about the world came by unteachable means. The very first scientists were theists (most often Christians and Muslims) and saw no reason to separate a belief in God from their study of the natural world.
EDIT:
You know what, I came to these forums to talk about games and other leisure activities. As much as I like to talk theology and science, I don't think this is a good venue for it.
you guys
we've done this 3 times
it has never gone out well
so why
That's not entirely true from my part of the world (Arab here), and science changed humans' worldview but it doesn't matter. You sort of misunderstood my point, anyways.
Yep. Hopefully, you didn't misinterpret anything I said as being aggressive in nature, because that wasn't the intention.
SO. Video games.
Shame, since they always start out so civilized...
All we are is dust in the wind.
Here are 17 replies from Y/A
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101009092629AAH1wo9&r=w
As per Arthur C. Clarke "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Jesus of Nazareth performed "miracles." these are the basis for his claim to being a God. However, how do we know that "Jesus" wasn't really an alien with technology far beyond our own who was bored and decided to have some fun with the "primitive" races of Earth? Even with today's technology, if you went back to that time period you could easily pull off claims of Magic or Godly powers. So How can we be sure that Jesus wasn't really an alien, bending the laws of physics through technology that acted on a level we have yet to master, for his own amusement. (Or if you want to see it in a more benevolent light, perhaps he was trying to help out our world and things went south, so he decided it was better to wait and/or let someone else try to help us)
Show me the proof that my theory is wrong! ...you cant? Well, I cant show you any proof that my theory is true either. --- this is one of the problems with studying people who are long dead and dissapeared without a trace.
It's hard for science to study _anything_ that is not a constant, or that cant be produced consistently. I have yet to hear of anyone producing a God synthetically, so I don't think this will be an option...
Whan @$$holes like me stop being amused by it.
coolfax: scientific theories aren't random guesses for the sake of argument.
just wanted to get that out of the way real quick.
Acctually it's a very popular theory... among the people who believe aliens built the pyramids...
Again, a scientific theory isn't a random guess thrown together for the sake of argument.
Jesus is Ziggy Stardust.
Now THAT would have been awesome!
Jesus played guitar... Jamming good, with Joe and Judas! And Disciples from Mars!
/thread
Jesus really sang, screwed up robes and screwed down sandals
Like some cat from Canaan, he could raise the dead by smiling,
He could leave 'em to hang
Came on so holy man, Hebrew and an awesome beard!
So where were Disciples... while Judas tried to sell our Lord?
Just some water wine to guide us
So we bitched about the Romans and should we crush his sweet hands?
Jesus played for time, jiving us that we was voodoo
The kids was just crass. He was the nazz...arine
With God given ass
He took it all too far, but boy could he play guitar
Making love with his ego, Jesus sucked up into his cave
Like a leper messiah
When the Romans had killed the Man I had to break up the band
Jesus Plaaaaaayed Guitaaaaaaaaar!
In a rare move of self-censorship, I have decided to shield this from our Christian forum mates so as to avoid BAAAWWW-ing and possible banning. I just had to share this, because you guys got me started on it. I redid the whole song. Um... I can't get banned if you have to actively click it to read it, right? Right?
Anyway, I'm shocked at how little that needed changing. Either I'm lazy or Bowie had a thing for messianic imagery. Also, good thing there's not a hell or I would totally have a reserved table in the VIP section for this.
The "Prophet" Muhammed is Major Tom.