Will Science Someday Rule Out the Possibility of God? (service, exist, Jesus)
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 we discover more about the universe every day. I have seen no science papers finding a single thing out about "god" let alone "more and more" about "god". Unless you are simply trying to play the linguistic trick of making "god" a synonym for "universe" I simply see no truth to the assertion above.
It is no linguistic trick just because YOU think the ONLY attributes that qualify as God are the ones in addition to those adequately established by science that I propose and you dispute.
It is no linguistic trick just because YOU think the ONLY attributes that qualify as God are the ones in addition to those adequately established by science that I propose and you dispute.
Again the science papers only make discoveries about the Universe. I have seen none claiming to have discovered anything about god. So you might try to switch "god" for "universe" or some other trick but really no one in science is claiming to have discovered anything about god. You are just taking science and declaring it has.
Again the science papers only make discoveries about the Universe. I have seen none claiming to have discovered anything about god. So you might try to switch "god" for "universe" or some other trick but really no one in science is claiming to have discovered anything about god. You are just taking science and declaring it has.
We are not talking about the biases and preferences of science about terminology. The existential and philosophical foundations are determinate . . . not the extant preferred jargon that has no supporting rationale for pretending it replaces God as the Source.
Another attempt to make "god" a synonym for something it is not. We have no idea what the "source" of our universe is. We are working on it and it is an open question in science. Whatever it is, simply labeling it "God" and therefore declaring "god" exists is a pointless linguistic trick - even IF the person doing so stopped there. Alas people doing so rarely stop there and then start pretending thsi "source" is not only conscious but can manifest itself in human form and more.
The question on the thread is will science rule out the possibility of god. I think not because whatever science discovers - theists simply react by redefining god to be beyond it. They keep their definition of god unfalsifiable and thus outside the purview of science.
What science is doing however - and has been doing for a long long time - is negating the many arguments and ideas people had about god. From evolution showing that a designer was not required to create the diversity of life we see today - or aspects of it like the eye or the heart - to germ theory showing that diseases and faults like epilepsy do not require demonic posession - to much more. The discussion space religion historically had to operate in is being eroded and the reasons for thinking there is a god - let alone that one was necessary - along with it.
For some it will for others it won't and I fall into the latter group, it makes no differance to me what Science says I believe in God and have since I was introduced to God and no amount of Science is going to change my mind.
Another attempt to make "god" a synonym for something it is not. We have no idea what the "source" of our universe is.
There has been no change in my position so there is no "other attempt" to do anything. The issue is NOT the source of our universe . . . we do not know WHAT it IS, period . . . because it IS everything that exists AND the Source of everything that exists. That is what we mere mortal humans call God.
Quote:
The question on the thread is will science rule out the possibility of god. I think not because whatever science discovers - theists simply react by redefining god to be beyond it. They keep their definition of god unfalsifiable and thus outside the purview of science.
I have NOT.
Quote:
What science is doing however - and has been doing for a long long time - is negating the many arguments and ideas people had about god. From evolution showing that a designer was not required to create the diversity of life we see today - or aspects of it like the eye or the heart - to germ theory showing that diseases and faults like epilepsy do not require demonic posession - to much more. The discussion space religion historically had to operate in is being eroded and the reasons for thinking there is a god - let alone that one was necessary - along with it.
We are not talking about religions nor their BELIEFS about God . . . we are strictly dealing with the EXISTENCE issue . . . and it is solidly established by your own science based entirely upon the attributes they have discovered . . . not the religious ones.
Last edited by MysticPhD; 09-19-2012 at 03:40 AM..
There has been no change in my position so there is no "other attempt" to do anything.
I said another not other. Another example of the same thing, not an other example of something different. Please do try to keep up. It is hard enough to continue discourse on subjects such as these when the other person actually can keep up - without having to remind them what was said and what words mean along the way too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
The issue is the source of ur universe . . . we do not know WHAT it IS, period
Agreed. We have a lot still to find out and learn about what it is and science and scientists are working on that very issue. What does not help is people wandering in and declaring there is a god - or that the universe is god - or that this universe is itself conscious or sentient - all based on nothing more than a warm tingly feeling they got while sitting at home doing nothing one day.
It is a massively interesting line of inquiry and I follow it daily with interest from the theorists at desks to the applied scientists in places like CERN. They too realise they do not know the answer and are seeking to find it. What they are not doing is pretending they know the answers already and are just seeking to confirm it to themselves.
It is important to try and keep threads such as this on topic. The question is will Science ever discount the possibility of god. I think by definition it can not because the definition is intentionally unfalsifiable and thus outside the realm of science. As another user pointed out though there is often folly in trying to predict the future of what science will reveal to us as it has suprised us in the past.
What science certainly is doing however is leaving such a god nothing to actually do.
There has been no change in my position so there is no "other attempt" to do anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus
I said another not other. Another example of the same thing, not an other example of something different.
Glad we agree.
Quote:
The issue is NOT the source of our universe . . . we do not know WHAT it IS, period . . . because it IS everything that exists AND the Source of everything that exists. That is what we mere mortal humans call God.
Quote:
Agreed. We have a lot still to find out and learn about what it is and science and scientists are working on that very issue. What does not help is people wandering in and declaring there is a god - or that the universe is god
No one is declaring it . . . the known attributes themselves declare it.
Quote:
- or that this universe is itself conscious or sentient - all based on nothing more than a warm tingly feeling they got while sitting at home doing nothing one day.
You always try to insert your main bugaboo . . . conscious or sentient . . . into the string of attributes all so you can repeat your favorite mantra about no evidence. Pathetic.
Quote:
It is important to try and keep threads such as this on topic. The question is will Science ever discount the possibility of god. I think by definition it can not because the definition is intentionally unfalsifiable and thus outside the realm of science. As another user pointed out though there is often folly in trying to predict the future of what science will reveal to us as it has suprised us in the past.
We agree that science will not . . . but for very different reasons.
Quote:
What science certainly is doing however is leaving such a god nothing to actually do.
Au contraire . . . it is finding out more and more about what God IS doing.
^ 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. 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 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?
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.
