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.

[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.

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.

What about "subnatural", you think that was an honest mistake too, I suppose?

[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.

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.

Wow, I dropped this thread a while ago and didn't realize the hot debate!

1. I use "Xian" because its much easier to type. I realize it has been used by Xians for ages. I have also used "X'n's" and "X's". I'm sorry if it plays with your head, but them's the facts.

2. I use "Subnatural" to make a point. The term Supernatural has been bandied about as if it really means something specific, as if there are atomic weights, or actual discoveries of supernatural elements. By using "Subnatural" I am throwing it back as a comment as if to say "if you say "supernatural" it is as meaningful as "subnatural". Until you can provide some account for what "supernatural" ACTUALLY is "subnatural" is just as accurate. If you can't tell the difference between the two, it is not my problem."

I could use "Hypernatural" or "Maxonatural" or "SuperDuperNatural" if you prefer. They all mean EXACTLY the same thing: Supernatural.

3. "Spoor": I must single-handedly take credit for this. My father was an Oceanographer and Scientist. In order to discover the existence of an animal in an area, you track its spoor. You must know what animal leaves what kind of spoor. It is an apt comparison and I am glad the Mod agrees. After all, detecting anything that you can't see personally requires recognizing what it leaves behind, either on purpose, or incedently. The challange, as I see it, is accurately describing what a god would leave behind as evidence: same say the Bible (and Genesis) others say Evolution is His trail. I'd like to know how either one of them know.
Spoor is a scientific term. "Imbued with the Spirit of your Creator" is a religious one. I will never contact the Mod's if a Religionist uses Religious language.
Forgive me.

[jergarmar]

Anything that either exists or doesn't exist, like god, is the province of science.

Sorry if I'm a bit late to this topic, but I read through this and didn't find anyone who brought this up: how is "exists or doesn't exist" the province of science? I mean, the book Moby Dick exists, and Stoicism exists, and logic exists -- none of which is usually described as the "province of science".

The usual definition of science is something repeatable and testable, right? Like the scientific method. I mean, that very question about "existence" is usually defined as the classic question of philosophy. Do you mean "exist" like a baseball or "exist" like a physical law or "exist" like a moral law or "exist" like a historical event? I could make similar distinctions with the word "prove"; i.e. "proving" a physical law or "proving" that Lincoln was shot.

For the one who says "I believe there is a God", that is just part of an entire theistic worldview, describing who made the world, what is the duty of man, and so forth. Now the theist/Christian must answer good questions like "Why is there evil?" and "How/why does God reveal himself?" The scientist must answer his own questions, like "How do you know that the physical world is consistent?" or "How can you trust your interpretation of your tests?" The quantum theories of physics have loads to say about the way that the observer inevitably changes what he measures.

The long and short of it is that the theist must be consistent when describing his worldview -- the scientist must do the same. Then you can see if there are fundamental conflicts between the two... OR fundamental inconsistencies WITHIN each worldview.

[The Duke of Vandals]

Sorry if I'm a bit late to this topic, but I read through this and didn't find anyone who brought this up: how is "exists or doesn't exist" the province of science?

Because we can use science to determine what exists. Also, there is no other self-correcting system of inquiry based on logic and evidence.

The usual definition of science is something repeatable and testable, right? Like the scientific method. I mean, that very question about "existence" is usually defined as the classic question of philosophy. Do you mean "exist" like a baseball or "exist" like a physical law or "exist" like a moral law or "exist" like a historical event?

Yes.

All of the things you listed either exist or don't exist. Even the moral law.

I could make similar distinctions with the word "prove"; i.e. "proving" a physical law or "proving" that Lincoln was shot.

I fail to see where you're going here. What possible alternative are you offering?

For the one who says "I believe there is a God", that is just part of an entire theistic worldview, describing who made the world, what is the duty of man, and so forth.

I find this disingenuous. Here's why.

I can state, "I like the lessons Santa Claus teaches children" without implying that Santa is a real person. This is a tenable position. Stating, "I believe in Santa" could be taken to mean the same thing, but carries with it an implication that the speaker believes in a literal Santa. i.e. "I believe in Santa" is like stating "There is a Santa."

The same is true for "I believe there is a god." It's the same as stating "there is a god" which is demonstrably false using science.

Point being that theists try to treat the objective question of god's existence as subjective. It's not.

"God exists and created the universe" is a scientific hypothesis... a terrible one, but a scientific one.

Now the theist/Christian must answer good questions like "Why is there evil?" and "How/why does God reveal himself?" The scientist must answer his own questions, like "How do you know that the physical world is consistent?" or "How can you trust your interpretation of your tests?" The quantum theories of physics have loads to say about the way that the observer inevitably changes what he measures.

And? How are the bolded questions not scientific questions?

The long and short of it is that the theist must be consistent when describing his worldview -- the scientist must do the same. Then you can see if there are fundamental conflicts between the two... OR fundamental inconsistencies WITHIN each worldview.

A) This hardly addresses the op.

B) Theists make scientific claims about the universe and then try to treat them subjectively. They're not. They're scientific questions.

[BeHereNow]

jergarmar

You are new to this board, and I realize you have not had prior discussions with young Duke, so you are probably not aware the the poor fellow has been shown to make irrational and illogical statements from time to time. I would not want to hurt his feeling, so please do not tell him I said anything to you.

I’m afraid he’s at it again.

When it comes to truth and his beloved science, I’m afraid he is rather myopic.
He is under the delusion that science answers all questions. Some of us have tried to help him, and pointed out his gross blunders, but he becomes dumbfounded, struck quite silent.

I have heard he has told you that existence, what is or is not real, is the province of science. Such a notion. What are they teaching the youth today.

I myself have a great deal of respect for science. As with all things, it has its place. When it is needed, it can be invaluable. And when it is not needed, it can be quite a nusance.

You see it is that branch of philosophy known as metaphysics that investigates the nature of reality, and what is real.
If we want to know what can be known, if we want to identify knowledge, we might turn to the sister branch of epistemology.

These things that poor, deluded Duke believes are the domain of science, are truly the domain of philosophy.

I would tell him such, but fear he might go into depression. He seems to have taken a shine to you, so maybe you can break it to him gently.

He puts so much faith in his science, he is often blinded to the truth.

I do not blame the poor lad, clearly it is his teachers who have led him astray.
Please disregard the rubbish he has told you.

[jergarmar]

Sorry if I'm a bit late to this topic, but I read through this and didn't find anyone who brought this up: how is "exists or doesn't exist" the province of science?

Because we can use science to determine what exists. Also, there is no other self-correcting system of inquiry based on logic and evidence.

The usual definition of science is something repeatable and testable, right? Like the scientific method. I mean, that very question about "existence" is usually defined as the classic question of philosophy. Do you mean "exist" like a baseball or "exist" like a physical law or "exist" like a moral law or "exist" like a historical event?

Yes.

All of the things you listed either exist or don't exist. Even the moral law.

That's fair. I agree that these things "exist" or "don't exist", and that we often use scientific principles to determine the existence of things like quarks or whatever. But if ALL these things fall under science, are you saying that ALL disciplines -- philosophy, history, logic, literature, languages, etc -- are all just part of science? I mean, it would be unusual if, while we were debating, for someone to walk up to us and say, "Oh! I see you two are scientists." Or if you told all the English majors and History majors and Philosophy majors that they were all really part of the science deparment.

You did give what might be considered a definition of what you mean (if I'm wrong, please tell me). You said that science was a "self-correcting system of inquiry based on logic and evidence". That's a pretty broad definition. I mean, I could even define Christianity itself that way. That is, over time we correct our excesses (usually by having excesses in the other direction!), we inquire into how God has revealed himself, based on the evidence of Scriptures and logic to reason it out. Voila! Christianity is science!

I'm not trying to be flippant. I just think I need a more specific definition of "science".

[byofrcs]

........
I have heard he has told you that existence, what is or is not real, is the province of science. Such a notion. What are they teaching the youth today.

I myself have a great deal of respect for science. As with all things, it has its place. When it is needed, it can be invaluable. And when it is not needed, it can be quite a nusance.

You see it is that branch of philosophy known as metaphysics that investigates the nature of reality, and what is real.
If we want to know what can be known, if we want to identify knowledge, we might turn to the sister branch of epistemology.

These things that poor, deluded Duke believes are the domain of science, are truly the domain of philosophy.

I would tell him such, but fear he might go into depression. He seems to have taken a shine to you, so maybe you can break it to him gently.

He puts so much faith in his science, he is often blinded to the truth.

I do not blame the poor lad, clearly it is his teachers who have led him astray.
Please disregard the rubbish he has told you.

There can't be truth in something that can not be falsified.

When the OP said "science" I extend this to anything that discusses that which is natural and can be falsified and this includes any of mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, philosophy, engineering, statistics..... I'm quite broad in the scope and I'll explain why later.

To me the realm of the "sciences" is to gather knowledge on anything natural. Whilst God is claimed to be the creator of the Universe then it is a natural phenomena and can be proven or dis-proven. Given the certainty of the religious to their belief it is true I would have thought that Religion would support science in this effort. It is worrying that many religions see a dichotomy instead.

The supernatural cannot be investigated but the supernature to me is anything outside of our universe. God, as the creator of the universe has touched the universe and has so has stepped into our natural world (so it is claimed). That is not fully supernatural but is now in part natural.

This we can investigate.

No religion I know of makes claims about God which do not involve a creation myth or in which God doesn't leave some clue or fingerprint in this Universe. Maybe some Deists do but they are far and few between.

Religion is primarily a political force not a science as it focuses on telling people how to live their lives. It is also not a balance or mirror to science. Science gathers knowledge. The balance or mirror to gathering knowledge is to lose or defeat knowledge.

[BeHereNow]

byfrcs There can't be truth in something that can not be falsified.

When the OP said "science" I extend this to anything that discusses that which is natural and can be falsified and this includes any of mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, philosophy, engineering, statistics..... I'm quite broad in the scope and I'll explain why later.

To me the realm of the "sciences" is to gather knowledge on anything natural. Whilst God is claimed to be the creator of the Universe then it is a natural phenomena and can be proven or dis-proven. Given the certainty of the religious to their belief it is true I would have thought that Religion would support science in this effort. It is worrying that many religions see a dichotomy instead.

The supernatural cannot be investigated but the supernature to me is anything outside of our universe. God, as the creator of the universe has touched the universe and has so has stepped into our natural world (so it is claimed). That is not fully supernatural but is now in part natural.

This we can investigate.

No religion I know of makes claims about God which do not involve a creation myth or in which God doesn't leave some clue or fingerprint in this Universe. Maybe some Deists do but they are far and few between.

Religion is primarily a political force not a science as it focuses on telling people how to live their lives. It is also not a balance or mirror to science. Science gathers knowledge. The balance or mirror to gathering knowledge is to lose or defeat knowledge.

We agree.
I would add that mankind is relatively young compared to their total existence, and we will continue to increase our knowledge of the natural cosmos for most of that time.
Religions (which exclude Buddhism and Deism) spend a lot of time adapting to the advancement of mankind, which I would say is the political force you refer to.