Reply Fri 20 May, 2011 05:58 am
I have shown Edit [Moderator]: Link removed that it is demonstrably fallacious that one can argue by any form of mathematical induction that science explains all, and hence God probably doesn't exist. In fact it is not logically permissible to use any scientific argument to cast doubt over God's existence.

Science is based on determinism. Without assuming a deterministic universe the conclusions of science are falsified. As pointed out by Stephen Hawking in his latest book, however, determinism and an intervening God cannot co-exist. It is one, or the other! Hence, to use science to disprove God's existence, is to prove thus by assuming determinism. Hence one is inherently assuming God does not exist to prove the same. Such a circle argument is shown to be fallacious by Godel. Put more simply, science cannot disprove that which it already assumes to be false.

What are your thoughts?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 3 • Views: 1,928 • Replies: 14
No top replies

 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2011 06:02 am
@mrobards,
Too bad, isn't it, that behind belief in God and Belief in science lies still more belief???
Here is the reason for the success of science... Reliability... You can count on science in this world; but God is always on vactation when you call... Who cares what proof lies behind either when the object is to get through this day in one piece???
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2011 06:03 am
My thoughts are a cup of coffee and a sammich . . .
0 Replies
 
bosonoso
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jun, 2011 05:17 am
@mrobards,
i think that determinism works. but sometimes people couldn't explain the cause of something, so they imagined intervening god
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jun, 2011 09:49 am
@bosonoso,
bosonoso wrote:

i think that determinism works. but sometimes people couldn't explain the cause of something, so they imagined intervening god
And sometimes they are just lonely, and sometimes the prospect of a life that ends with nothing, complete and unending nothing frightens the reason right out of them...
0 Replies
 
JPhil
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jun, 2011 05:56 am
@mrobards,
Interesting, I have never thought of that argument before. Though I would like an explanation. Why can't both co-exist?
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jun, 2011 02:29 am
@mrobards,
Four rats in a cage are discussing why their food arrives everyday in its container.

"There must be a a Daddy Rat who is looking after us". says one.
" He can't be a rat" says another, "because he is not in a cage - he builds cages ".
" Such an insane occupation seems to indicate that He might need looking after", says the third.
"Isn't scientific extrapolation wonderful !" says, the fourth.
Fido
 
  2  
Reply Sun 19 Jun, 2011 06:00 am
@fresco,
You know; the rich cannot build a cage big enough for all of us, so they cage themselves in which they believe cages us out... But they cage us out of goverment and education too, and sooner or later when these institutions work too much against us we will find the value of their cages...
0 Replies
 
heretic-1
 
  0  
Reply Sat 9 Jul, 2011 07:22 pm
@mrobards,
oh no i fear it's far worse than that i fear that there is an "all knowing" "god" who has fell into this trap called science and is falling deaper into this lie as aforementioned "god" complexes their knowledge on this trap called science it falls deeper into the trap.
0 Replies
 
thomas-b
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2011 07:26 am
@mrobards,
Quote:
Put more simply, science cannot disprove that which it already assumes to be false.

I agree. I think that science should be rigorous in analyzing natural phenomena and looking for natural causes, but like Newtonian physics, acknowledge that there might be a point where the process is not qualified to answer ultimate questions about reality.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2011 07:35 am
@thomas-b,
thomas-b wrote:

Quote:
Put more simply, science cannot disprove that which it already assumes to be false.

I agree. I think that science should be rigorous in analyzing natural phenomena and looking for natural causes, but like Newtonian physics, acknowledge that there might be a point where the process is not qualified to answer ultimate questions about reality.
Science never was intended for the purpose of ultimate questions... It was in the answering of small questions that larger questions of existence and God where brought into doubt... Science must frame the question to get the answer, and the answer of small questions, knowledge is reflected in more sensitive means to measure, which in turn allows other questions to be asked... Knowing what question to ask is half, at least, of any answer...
0 Replies
 
Tenebroso
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Oct, 2011 07:41 pm
@Fido,
I'm curious then;

About the reliability of science - has science ever been able to create a human? From scratch? I don't exactly think so. Correct me if i'm wrong though.

Can they fully explain HOW the human body was created with its intricacies? And lastly, can science create DNA - without starting off with DNA? Again, i don't think so. Every time a scientist tries to create DNA, they have to start with DNA to get DNA. So then, how would scientists explain the creation of us?

I'm not going to bother denying that yeah, sometimes it seems that God isn't there - but that you can count on science 24/7, 365 days a year for every single waking day of my life? That i don't agree with. Science can't explain everything, nor can it do everything. Sometimes, you just need faith.

But maybe that's just me and my childish mind.

--and i just read your last sentence. "Who cares what proof lies behind either when the objective is to get through each day in one piece?" or something along those lines.

Again i'm kind've curious. What are your thoughts then, on after you die?

Geh, since it's been three months or so since the last post...ah well.
0 Replies
 
Lovee-4ever
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Oct, 2011 08:19 pm
@mrobards,
God and science do both co-exist. Want to know why? Because God created every scienific finding. He created our cells, the elements on the periodic table, our organs, the moon, stars, and sun. He knew about them millions and millions of years before we even knew how to speak english! The difference between them, however, is science is evidence, God is faith. It takes someone with spirit and strength to understand His existence.
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Sun 23 Oct, 2011 01:05 am
@Lovee-4ever,
No, it takes a dreamer !

Kindly have the courtesy to read through the whole thread before making your simplistic comments. The catch-all hypothesis that "God made everything" is exceptionally ill chosen for this level of debate.
0 Replies
 
sgregorythegreat
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2012 04:35 pm
@mrobards,
Not all science is determinism, as I understand the word.

But that which only deals with effects cannot have the cause as its subject. God is beyond science insofar as he is the cause, not the effect.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Science vs. God
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/19/2019 at 08:31:10