Prove that science can't prove god

[The Duke of Vandals]

Science is capable of investigating any unknown that isn't a subjective question. Anything that's not like, "Was that a good ballgame?" or "Is this a nice day?" is a scientific question. Anything that either exists or doesn't exist, like god, is the province of science.

Now, we've all read over and over that theists believe science can't prove or disprove god. This is false. "God exists and created the universe" is a scientific hypothesis (a false one).

Issue for debate: If you are a theist who claims science cannot be used to prove god, then prove it. Prove that science cannot prove god.

Be sure you don't confuse a shortcoming of technology with a shortcoming of science.

[BeHereNow]

Daebalus 2.0 Deism provides its own challenges, IMO.

Yes, more than most, less than some.

~ ~ ~ ~

Cathar1950 What is this "Plenty of evidence...just being ignored"?

I believe it is clear from my previous statement in this thread that I am playing the devil’s advocate here. I would rather others present their own views, but surely we know Christians claim there is much evidence, and that some others ignore it, or are not able to discern it. We know that these others would say they do not ignore it, and are not able to discern it because it does not exist.
Surely you are not suggesting this is a novel idea to you.

~ ~ ~ ~

daedalus 2.0 Its hard enough with a real animal, but with one that is from a Subnatural realm!

Subnatural? I’m afraid I do not know the meaning of that term. I do know some meanings of “natural”, and some meanings of “sub”. Combining the two I get “less than natural”, or “under the natural”. I’m at a loss to understand your meaning.

That is a special gift indeed!

No gift.
Gifts are given freely, one to another.
Ability might be better, but not by much.
Awareness. I like that better. We all have some special awareness, or so I would say. These do not come lightly, like gifts,or a priori understandings. They are developed within the individual.
Many artists have a special awareness of certain things.

I am sure daebalus 2.0 and Cather1950, that you have some awareness that I am not capable of grasping.

There are some truths that I believe are important, and need to be communicated to all who will listen.
Others are personal beliefs and it matters not to me if I am a minority of one.

[daedalus 2.0]

daedalus 2.0 Its hard enough with a real animal, but with one that is from a Subnatural realm!

Subnatural? I’m afraid I do not know the meaning of that term. I do know some meanings of “natural”, and some meanings of “sub”. Combining the two I get “less than natural”, or “under the natural”. I’m at a loss to understand your meaning.[/quote]I get Supernatural and Subnatural mixed up.

What is the difference between the two, again?

[BeHereNow]

daedalus 2.0

I'm afraid if you do not know the meaning of your own terms, I am of little help.
I take "supernatural" to mean "unnatural".
I know of no actual unnatural things, except in stories of course.

[Cathar1950]

Cathar1950 What is this "Plenty of evidence...just being ignored"?

I believe it is clear from my previous statement in this thread that I am playing the devil’s advocate here. I would rather others present their own views, but surely we know Christians claim there is much evidence, and that some others ignore it, or are not able to discern it. We know that these others would say they do not ignore it, and are not able to discern it because it does not exist.
Surely you are not suggesting this is a novel idea to you..

If your going to put it that way, I guess not.
I might have jumped the gun and even over reacted.
It might have something to do with hearing things like "Jesus is God(many scriptures)" or "You need to be spiritual to understand spiritual things" where non-spiritual could mean anything you disagee with. I have no objection to you " playing the devil’s advocate here", God knows he gets blamed for enough as it is.
You are correct, it is hardly new.
As a Panentheist of sorts I really don't have proofs or evidence of God or gods but go on a gut feeling that the universe is inter-related and it is all just one big soul.
Soul here being more of the expression of the whole and not some imaginary aspect seperate from the rest. Please forgive my haste.

I am sure daebalus 2.0 and Cather1950, that you have some awareness that I am not capable of grasping.

I suppose but I hope you are wrong.
But given others have made the claim about their own "spiritual" understanding and the lack in others, it isn't beyond the realm of possiblity for some.

[BeHereNow]

BeHereNow wrote:

I am sure daebalus 2.0 and Cathar1950, that you have some awareness that I am not capable of grasping.

cathar1950I suppose but I hope you are wrong.

I believe we are in agreement here. I am suggesting there are personal things, such as relationships with friends and families, that I cannot fully share. I may have similar relationships with people in my life, and can think to myself that we must have mutual awareness of relationships and bonds, and yet I cannot know for sure your bonds (awarness of relationships) are the same as mine.

[daedalus 2.0]

daedalus 2.0

I'm afraid if you do not know the meaning of your own terms, I am of little help.
I take "supernatural" to mean "unnatural".
I know of no actual unnatural things, except in stories of course.

Then we agree.

[Cathar1950]

daedalus 2.0

I'm afraid if you do not know the meaning of your own terms, I am of little help.
I take "supernatural" to mean "unnatural".
I know of no actual unnatural things, except in stories of course.

Then we agree.

As a non-dualist we might all agree.
So when someone says that homosexuality is unnatural they mean it is supernatural?
Sorry I didn't mean to homophobe the thread but it came as a funny thought.

[daedalus 2.0]

daedalus 2.0

I'm afraid if you do not know the meaning of your own terms, I am of little help.
I take "supernatural" to mean "unnatural".
I know of no actual unnatural things, except in stories of course.

Then we agree.

As a non-dualist we might all agree.
So when someone says that homosexuality is unatural they mean it is supernatural?
Sorry I didn't mean to homophobe the thread but it came as a funny thought.

I suppose it would be as rational!

[chibiq]

daedalus 2.0 Its hard enough with a real animal, but with one that is from a Subnatural realm!

Subnatural? I’m afraid I do not know the meaning of that term. I do know some meanings of “natural”, and some meanings of “sub”. Combining the two I get “less than natural”, or “under the natural”. I’m at a loss to understand your meaning.

I get Supernatural and Subnatural mixed up.

What is the difference between the two, again?

Just replying to point out the condescending nature of daedalus 2.0. "SUB" natural as opposed to "SUPER" natural, "XTIANS" instead of "Christians" (although it does mean Christians, it's obvious that he's trying to use it in a derogatory way), "The odd thing is that Non-Theist's have only human ingenuity and discovery at their disposal" as opposed to theists having no ingenuity and discovery (what were those scrolls found by the dead sea for again?), saying you could detect God by his "droppings".

1. No personal attacks of any sort are allowed. Comments about another poster that are negative, condescending, frivolous or indicate in any way a lack of respect are not allowed.

7. Do not post frivolous, flame bait, or inflammatory messages.

14. In general, all members are to be civil and respectful.

[byofrcs]

daedalus 2.0 Its hard enough with a real animal, but with one that is from a Subnatural realm!

Subnatural? I’m afraid I do not know the meaning of that term. I do know some meanings of “natural”, and some meanings of “sub”. Combining the two I get “less than natural”, or “under the natural”. I’m at a loss to understand your meaning.

I get Supernatural and Subnatural mixed up.

What is the difference between the two, again?

Just replying to point out the condescending nature of daedalus 2.0. "SUB" natural as opposed to "SUPER" natural, "XTIANS" instead of "Christians" (although it does mean Christians, it's obvious that he's trying to use it in a derogatory way), "The odd thing is that Non-Theist's have only human ingenuity and discovery at their disposal" as opposed to theists having no ingenuity and discovery (what were those scrolls found by the dead sea for again?), saying you could detect God by his "droppings".

1. No personal attacks of any sort are allowed. Comments about another poster that are negative, condescending, frivolous or indicate in any way a lack of respect are not allowed.

7. Do not post frivolous, flame bait, or inflammatory messages.

14. In general, all members are to be civil and respectful.

There was no personal attack. A personal attack must target one person not just a class of people.

Was it frivolous etc ? The idea that there is "spoor" which was the word used rather than "droppings" which is what you have used is topical to the title of this OP i.e. "Prove that science can't prove god". I would say that the analogy of only the faithful seeing the "spoor of God" and calling that evidence is an interesting idea. It advances the debate in my opinion.

There is little that is uncivil or disrespectful any more than the usual. If we equate use of Xtian with use of words like "Evolutionists" or even "Darwinism" then this forum is disrespectful across the board.