Will Science Someday Rule Out the Possibility of God? (mythology, atheist, believe)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, but God will someday eliminate the need for human sciences.
That's what they have been promising us since 1,000 AD. Still hasn't happened. Don't you people even get tired of being wrong or do you have short memories?
^ That is the declaring I mean. I do not see they do any such thing. You appear to be just defining god as being whatever the attributes of the universe say it is.
The attributes can't say anything but their combined characteristics are the classic definition of a God.
Quote:
In other words you are presupposing the existence of this intentional agent and just saying that everything points to it without showing how or that they do.
Again with inserting your favorite bugaboo into the mix. I am presupposing nothing about the EXISTENCE of God . . . that is objectively determined by its known attributes as discovered by science. The "conscious intentional agent" attributes are based on my personal experiences in deep meditation . . . not scientifically verified as you are more than aware. You keep trying to conflate them with the pure existential issues that ARE scientifically determined.
Quote:
Again if there is any kind of sentient, conscious, intelligent agent I am waiting to hear your evidence for claiming there is or are you just going to call everyone "Pathetic" when they ask you for it instead of giving it?
You are not waiting for it because I have given it to you many times . . . this is just more of your repeated attempts to confuse and obfuscate what you cannot intellectually address substantively . . . that is what is pathetic.
^ Which definition are you speaking of. The only "classic" definitions I know of are the ones that suggest "god" is a sentient and conscious agent. I am aware of no attributes of the universe that "point" to there being any such thing. If you do then perhaps you can let us know which ones and how.
You just keep declaring that the existence of god is "objectively determined" by science when it has not been and I do not know any reputable scientists who claim this either. Just you - a non scientist - is claiming it and for no reason you appear willing to share.
Your entire argument from this side of the table appears to reduce to "I am calling all there is "god" therefore there is a "god"".
^ Which definition are you speaking of. The only "classic" definitions I know of are the ones that suggest "god" is a sentient and conscious agent. I am aware of no attributes of the universe that "point" to there being any such thing. If you do then perhaps you can let us know which ones and how.
You just keep declaring that the existence of god is "objectively determined" by science when it has not been and I do not know any reputable scientists who claim this either. Just you - a non scientist - is claiming it and for no reason you appear willing to share.
Your entire argument from this side of the table appears to reduce to "I am calling all there is "god" therefore there is a "god"".
Alas this has been the modus operandi of this user for some time and one that you are very very far from being alone in noticing. I would not tar that user with that brush alone however. There are a large number of users playing that linguistic trickery.
The trick is one of relabeling. We have perfectly workable and serviceable words for things like nature, the universe, existence, consciousness, science and much more. Some people try to just call all of those things "god". By labeling things "god" you therefore can say by definition "god exists".
To me it makes little more sense than labeling cherry pie god and since cherry pie exists therefore so does god.
Basically all that is happening is people are diluting or wholesale changing the definition of "God" most people actually subscribe to into something entirely different and hoping you will buy the new definition too. Whether you do or not however is irrelevant as not only will such twisters of words declare that god exists because they have defined it to be so.... they will engage in egregious side claims on top of all of that. The kind of claims you see in the main religions such as this "god" gave birth to himself in the form of Jesus or this "god" dictated a book to an illiterate pedophile suffering from cynophobia and hiding in a cave or that this "god" imbues magic crackers with pieces of its own spirit.
I think there is a sea change occurring in discourse on god. As science has destroyed the claims previously used for god... such as the argument from design and so forth... the religious have been forced to retreat into other tactics and one of those tactics really is just a dilution and redefinition of words to mean almost nothing at all.
Someone wants to rename all of nature with the label "god" then so be it but be wary of those who then want to claim this nature has a plan for you, or that your subjective awareness survives death and is somehow processed and/or morally judged by this conscious nature at that point. There is no arguments, evidence, data or reasons to lend credence to any of these claims and we are certainly not to be convinced by people claiming they found the evidence inside their own heads.
Will science ever disprove god? That depends on what god you mean and as you quite astutely point out the definition of god subscribed to by the vast majority of our species is generally defined in such a way as to be outside the purview of science. It is a cherry picked definition that deliberately puts itself outside of the realm amenable to science. As such there is very little science CAN do about it.
Creator, Law-giver. controller, maintainer and sustainer of all life and the basis of our entire reality.
All of which assume the "god" in question is conscious and sentient and has a plan and much more. All the things I have asked you about - you have refused to evidence - and have just called me "pathetic" for even asking about.
Your entire argument appears to go something like this "There are scientific laws. The Creator I envision is a giver of scientific laws. So since there are scientific laws therefore the creator I envision must exist because it fits my definition".
That - as I keep pointing out to you - is only half an argument. You are creating a hypothesis to fit what you observe - which is a good thing - but stopping there - which is not.
It assumes no such things. It states what is the current reality, period.
The problem being that you are just assuming that the existence of god is "current reality". I see no reason to think it is. Again this is a thread asking will science some day rule out the possibility of god. I ask you - how could it given most definitions of god are outside the purview of science and the evidence for other definitions - such as your own - is not amenable to reason existing as it does no where except in your own questionable personal subjective experience.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
