Can Science Disprove The Existence Of God?

Aqui

0 Replies

Why would anyone give a rat's ass if "science" could or could not disprove the existence of "god?" For my own purposes, lacking any evidence that any "god" exists, i pursue my own ends without reference to any "god." It appears that you just want to pick a fight in which you think you can make yourself look good.

Why do you restrict this to "the Christian concept of god?" Are other concepts to be considered sufficiently implausible as not to admit of the courtesy of consideration? Are you starting from a premise that only a "christian" concept of "god" is worthy of discussion?

Why should anyone assume that there is a universal "christian" concept of god? Can you assert without fear of contradiction that everyone who identifies him- or herself as a christian has the same concept of god as do you, as do all others who identify themselves as christians?

Bait thread, plain and simple.

0 Replies

Why should baddog be required to defend a position which is not his, Setanta?

0 Replies

I'm glad that Neo showed up, because of something i suspect, which has to do with the absurdity of asserting that there is any christian monolith which can be considered as a uniform body of belief.

If Neo is willing to answer, i have two questions for him.

Neo, are you a christian?

Neo, do you believe that Jesus is divine, to wit, do you believe Jesus is god?

0 Replies

I have not asked Baddog to defend any position which is not "his." I have asked a series of questions in an attempt to learn what he means by a set of terms as ambiguous as "science," "prove," "god," "christian concept."

The point, which i suspect you well know, is to point out that this thread is an exercise in disputing a contentious point, in a circumstance which Baddog thinks he can "win" at the outset.

He begins his thread with this:

Quote:

Can Science Disprove The Existence Of God? (The Christian Concept of God.)

Answer: Nope.

He answers his own question at the outset--why should anyone believe that he wants seriously to explore the question? Is it not apparent that the deck is loaded at the outset, and that he will define his terms and include or exclude arguments on the basis of whether or not they are consonant with the conclusion upon which he has already determined, at the outset?

Then he moves on to this:

Quote:

As some A2K members have reminded me: Science cannot prove or disprove anything. I've also been told that science uses no conclusions - only conjecture. Conjecture does not prove or disprove anything. (BTW: I disagree that science uses no conclusion(s), however that's another story.)

Who has "reminded" him that science cannot prove or disprove anything? (Having followed along in several thead, i actually suspect he is referring to you, and the simplistic drivel you have been posting in any one of several threads.) Who has told him that science uses no conclusions? Why should anyone contemplating such a discussion as he proposes accept at the outset his propositions?

I'm not asking anyone to defend a position which is not "theirs." I'm attempting to establish what position Baddog thinks to maintain, what definitions and assumptions are with which he will underpin his position, and i am pointing out that in an almost embarrassingly obvious manner, he is attempting to pick a fight by arguing a case upon which he has already determined his answer (and given my experience of his "rhetorical method") and from which he will not retreat nor for which he will ever admit a flawed premise.

0 Replies

Hi setanta:

I see you're having a nice day and would be happy to answer your questions.

Setanta wrote:

Why would anyone give a rat's ass if "science" could or could not disprove the existence of "god?"

Informational purposes. Most on here make emotion-laced claims that god cannot be scientifically proven therefore cannot exist. I'm offering an opportunity for them to 'prove' me wrong. Once they do (if they do), I will have learned.

Setanta wrote:

For my own purposes, lacking any evidence that any "god" exists, i pursue my own ends without reference to any "god." It appears that you just want to pick a fight in which you think you can make yourself look good.

No, don't feel the need to do this.

Setanta wrote:

Why do you restrict this to "the Christian concept of god?"

Simplicity and personal preference. You're more than welcome to start another thread - or include any God you wish on this thread.

Setanta wrote:

Are other concepts to be considered sufficiently implausible as not to admit of the courtesy of consideration?

No.

Setanta wrote:

Are you starting from a premise that only a "christian" concept of "god" is worthy of discussion?

No.

Setanta wrote:

Why should anyone assume that there is a universal "christian" concept of god?

I did not make that assertion therefore have no answer for that question.

Setanta wrote:

Can you assert without fear of contradiction that everyone who identifies him- or herself as a christian has the same concept of god as do you, as do all others who identify themselves as christians?

No.

Setanta wrote:

Bait thread, plain and simple.

No - you're wrong about this one.

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

Informational purposes. Most on here make emotion-laced claims that god cannot be scientifically proven therefore cannot exist. I'm offering an opportunity for them to 'prove' me wrong. Once they do (if they do), I will have learned.

Most? Most of whom? Most of the well over 50,000 people who have registered at this site?

You're not offering any one "an opportunity to prove [you to be] wrong." You are asserting that science cannot disprove "god," not offering to discuss whether or not "god" can be scientifically proven. Those are two completely different statements.

Quote:

Simplicity and personal preference. You're more than welcome to start another thread - or include any God you wish on this thread.

That's revealing. That suggests that the "christian concept" of god is of a different "god" than any conceived of by those who are not christian. Therefore, one must assume either that you admit of the possibility of more than one god being existent, or (and more likely) that you express yourself very poorly.

Quote:

Setanta wrote:
Are other concepts to be considered sufficiently implausible as not to admit of the courtesy of consideration?

No.

Setanta wrote:
Are you starting from a premise that only a "christian" concept of "god" is worthy of discussion?

No.

Setanta wrote:
Why should anyone assume that there is a universal "christian" concept of god?

I did not make that assertion therefore have no answer for that question.

Your use of the expression "christian concept of god" implicitly contends that there is a single, universal christian concept of god--therefore, yes, you did in fact say that. Once again, care in how you express things would have spared you the embarrassment of having said that when it now appears that it was not what you meant to say.

Quote:

Setanta wrote:
Can you assert without fear of contradiction that everyone who identifies him- or herself as a christian has the same concept of god as do you, as do all others who identify themselves as christians?

No.

I refer you once again to the implicit statement entailed in your use of a term such as "christian concept of god." Without further qualification or explanation, it entails a contention that there is a single, universal christian concept of god. Therefore, your reply of "no" is rather dull-witted, just as the original language employed was ill-considered.

Quote:

Setanta wrote:
Bait thread, plain and simple.

No - you're wrong about this one.

I frankly don't believe you. It looks very much like you're shooting from the hip, and had a blinding flash of inspiration (or so you thought) that you had an unassailable argument to offer.

This article at "all about creataion-dot-org" seems both to contradict and to agree with you. It contradicts you to the extent that is patently does not agree with your claim that science cannot prove or disprove anything. However, it seems to agree to the extent that it redefines "scientific proof" to avoid the burden of a naturalistic proof. It also contradicts a statement made by "real life" in another thread when it states: The kind of evidence we need to consider is the same type that would be admissible in a court of law.

These folks are stumbling along rather pathetically, relying to a large extent upon statements from authority for which no support is adduced. But compared to your exercise here, they look pretty slick--and their material reads like a Sunday School lesson for not particularly bright adolescents.

I am more convinced than ever that this is a bait thread.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

...Is it not apparent that the deck is loaded at the outset, and that he will define his terms and include or exclude arguments on the basis of whether or not they are consonant with the conclusion upon which he has already determined, at the outset?

I typically use Merriam Websters, but remain open to other dictionary sources.

Setanta wrote:

Who has "reminded" him that science cannot prove or disprove anything? (Having followed along in several thead, i actually suspect he is referring to you, and the simplistic drivel you have been posting in any one of several threads.) Who has told him that science uses no conclusions? Why should anyone contemplating such a discussion as he proposes accept at the outset his propositions?

Are these rhetorical question or do you actually desire to know? (Hint: Your suspicion is incorrect.)

0 Replies

By the way, "real life" was sneering at other members in another thread for failing to understand just what science is, and doing it a disservice by implicitly making claims about what it can or cannot prove. Your exercise here is as witless as "real life" contends the statements of others to be.

There is no reason for "science" to disprove the existence of "god." If you offer a contention which is based upon a premise that a "god" exists, use of the scientific method would require you to prove that your "god" exists at the outset, and would not otherwise entertain your claim, because if entails an untested and undemonstrated proposition. Of anyone here, your idea for this thread is the most ludicrous characterization of science that i've seen.

0 Replies

In that case, it should be a simple matter for you to use "Merriam Websters" to define your terms, and demonstate at the outset that science cannot prove or disprove anything. That, of course, would be an exercise in begging the titular question, and beggaring the notion that this thread intends any honest debate.

If my suspicion is incorrect, surely you wouldn't mind telling us who has "reminded" you that science uses no conclusions, but only conjecture, so that the matter of authority for such a statement can be cleared up. Why don't you invite that individual to this thread?

By the way, the use of the verb "to remind" implicitly states the truth of the proposition that science uses no conclusions, only conjecture, which is another embarrassingly obvious case of begging the question.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Most? Most of whom? Most of the well over 50,000 people who have registered at this site?

No, sorry - should've been more literal. Those on the S&R thread.

Setanta wrote:

You're not offering any one "an opportunity to prove [you to be] wrong."

I am certainly offering anyone to prove me wrong. Scientific-proof is the main choice around here and that is what I'm asking for. I will also welcome any other proof, and prefer it to be the same sort of 'proof' that non-believers use to dispel the existence of God.

Setanta wrote:

You are asserting that science cannot disprove "god," not offering to discuss whether or not "god" can be scientifically proven. Those are two completely different statements.

There are plenty of threads related to whether God can be scientifically proven - why should I repeat? Like you said - this thread is different.

Setanta wrote:

That's revealing. That suggests that the "christian concept" of god is of a different "god" than any conceived of by those who are not christian. Therefore, one must assume either that you admit of the possibility of more than one god being existent, or (and more likely) that you express yourself very poorly.

No. I purposely used the 'christian concept of God' so as not to spend time determining 'which' God is best, worst, etc. (Which is a topic of it's own). If those thoughts interest you - start a thread and I will participate if I choose to.

Setanta wrote:

I frankly don't believe you. It looks very much like you're shooting from the hip, and had a blinding flash of inspiration (or so you thought) that you had an unassailable argument to offer.

You're entitled to those thoughts. I've adequately explained my intent.

0 Replies

And i think you were lying when you explained your intent.

By the way, explain to me how you determined how many people there are who participate in the S & R forum (there sure as hell is more than one thread), and how, therefore, you can assert that most of them make such a claim. How many is most? What proportion of all participants in the S & R forum do they represent?

Bait thread.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

In that case, it should be a simple matter for you to use "Merriam Websters" to define your terms, and demonstate at the outset that science cannot prove or disprove anything.

Please choose those of "my" terms you wish to be defined and post the definitions. You may want to re-read the original post prior to doing so though.

Setanta wrote:

If my suspicion is incorrect, surely you wouldn't mind telling us who has "reminded" you that science uses no conclusions, but only conjecture, so that the matter of authority for such a statement can be cleared up. Why don't you invite that individual to this thread?

Here is a quick one. I must attend to other issues right now, but will return ASAP.

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=92687&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=240

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

Most on here make emotion-laced claims that god cannot be scientifically proven therefore cannot exist.

Setanta wrote:

Most? Most of whom? Most of the well over 50,000 people who have registered at this site?

baddog1 wrote:

No, sorry - should've been more literal. Those on the S&R thread.

What a load of manure you peddle baddog. I would be amazed if you could find more than a couple of quotes to back up such a claim if in fact you could find any at all.

0 Replies

Your link takes me to page 25 of a thread on the existence of god, BD. If you have specific posts in mind, link them. Otherwise, you are just dodging the question of who it was who "reminded" you that science uses no conclusions but only conjectures.

The terms to which i refer are obvious--"god," "science" and "proof." You are making the assertion to the effect that science cannot disprove the existence of god. You therefore assume the obligation of offering your evidence. You offer none, simply feeble-minded statements from authority.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Your link takes me to page 25 of a thread on the existence of god, BD. If you have specific posts in mind, link them. Otherwise, you are just dodging the question of who it was who "reminded" you that science uses no conclusions but only conjectures.

The terms to which i refer are obvious--"god," "science" and "proof." You are making the assertion to the effect that science cannot disprove the existence of god. You therefore assume the obligation of offering your evidence. You offer none, simply feeble-minded statements from authority.

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2884118#2884118

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2884227#2884227

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2885474#2885474

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2885631#2885631

0 Replies

In the first post you have linked, TheCorrectResponse writes: Science from an epistemological position can NEVER make the type of conclusions you are talking about.. That is not at all the same as saying to science uses no conclusions. I know of no reason to consider TCR as an authority on the epistemological nature of science, but whether or not he has a point, it is clear that his statement does not support your contention that science uses no conclusions.

Next, you link another post by TCR, in which he writes: For the upteenth time science NEVER proves ANYTHING or comes to any CONCLUSIONS in the way use use the terms proof and conclusion. On an assumption that he meant to write: " . . . in the way you use the terms proof and conslusion," there is no reason for you to assert that TCR has claimed that science uses no concluions, but only conjectures.

Next you quote a post by Steve, which is undoubtedly facetious. It does not address at all the subject of whether or not science uses conclusions, or only conjectures.

Finally, you quote Xingu, who makes absolutely no comment on the subject of science as regards conclusions or conjectures.

You have completely failed to support a contention that anyone "reminded" you that science uses no conclusions but only conjectures.

You're not very good a this, are you?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I'm glad that Neo showed up, because of something i suspect, which has to do with the absurdity of asserting that there is any christian monolith which can be considered as a uniform body of belief.

If Neo is willing to answer, i have two questions for him.

Neo, are you a christian?

Neo, do you believe that Jesus is divine, to wit, do you believe Jesus is god?

I'm a Christian.

I believe that Jesus is divine, but not equal to his father.

My first impression of this thread was that it is a fruitless pursuit.

If we take literally the definition of the Hebrew word commonly pronounced in English, Jehovah; it means "He who causes to become." The claim implied by his name is that he is author and director of natural laws. That would include those we know of, those we have yet to discover, and those we may never discover. If all this is true, it would make his existence impossible to prove or disprove according to our limited scientific and technological skills.

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

Informational purposes. Most on here make emotion-laced claims that god cannot be scientifically proven therefore cannot exist.

Many people agree that god cannot be scientifically proven. But none that I have seen (on S&R forum or others), follow that observation with the conclusion that god cannot exist.

Who in particular makes the claim that "god cannot be scientifically proven therefore cannot exist"?

0 Replies

Can Science Disprove The Existence Of God?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know