Guest Catholic Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 Does Science disprove God? i dont mean per se the Christian God but does Science disprove a higher power if so how? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 No, science doesn't disprove or prove God. It only proves how the world works, the processes and components to makes things tick. But it can be used in arguments against a specific religion that claims a certain specific way how this supposed God make the world or make the things work. Once people believe the gods made it rain and storm. Now we have meteorology. Once people believed the gods created humans and animals, now we have evolution. Once people believed the sun revolved around earth based on religious ideas, now we know through science it is not so. Science only furthers our understanding of what we can test, experience and see around us. Not what can not be seen or tested. God can't be tested, so says your holy book, so he by definition can't be a scientific topic. We have to start with a hypothesis, and then establish the tests to prove our hypothesis, but since your religion claims God can not and should not be tested. Then we can't take him into a scientific study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quicksand Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 Does Science disprove God? i dont mean per se the Christian God but does Science disprove a higher power if so how? Well, you'll need a supernatural science to prove god, since god is asserted to be supernatural. Science only deals with the natural world. Simply, our science doesn't bother itself with supernaturalism. It's beyond science's providence. And if you discover something about god using science, you have only discovered a natural law that even this god or higher power must bow a knee too – so to speak. In any case, you've describe a physical reality, not the supernatural. Also, what do you mean by a higher power? I hear this phrase by many many many theists and they have no clear definition as to what this is. Accordingly, with no clear definition (so that we may know a god-like thing from a dog as we walk down the street and just what we are trying to prove) and no clear application of a supernatural science, (or what even that means) the proving (or disproving) of god is a hopeless incoherent exercise. You have your faith after all, but faith without evidence is simply irrational. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artur Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 * Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 I have a little illustration of how different science and religion view things. There's this house with infinite number of rooms, and each room have doors to other rooms. So you have to walk from room to room. Now, there's two guys in there, one is a firm believer that one of the rooms contain a pot of gold, and the other one say there is not. They walk from room to room, and can't find the pot. Now the question is, can we prove there is a pot of gold or not a pot in this infinite house? No we can't. Both have the right to "believe" there is a pot or not. But who has the most rational view? Consider this, we introduce a third person, he believes there is a dragon in one of the rooms, so he tell the other two to be careful, because once they go into the dragon room, they will instantly be killed. Now, the scientific guy (or should I call him skeptic guy), that assume the pot doesn't exist, he won't assume the dragon exists either, but he can open the door a little first before he steps in. The "pot of gold" believer guy, he will of course claim that the "dragon" believer is false and wrong and all sorts of stuff. They might even end up killing each other over who's right. This is how religion vs skepticism works. You can only build your opinions and facts of life, after you have truly doubted and investigated everything you ever believed in first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Catholic Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 I have a little illustration of how different science and religion view things. There's this house with infinite number of rooms, and each room have doors to other rooms. So you have to walk from room to room. Now, there's two guys in there, one is a firm believer that one of the rooms contain a pot of gold, and the other one say there is not. They walk from room to room, and can't find the pot. Now the question is, can we prove there is a pot of gold or not a pot in this infinite house? No we can't. Both have the right to "believe" there is a pot or not. But who has the most rational view? Consider this, we introduce a third person, he believes there is a dragon in one of the rooms, so he tell the other two to be careful, because once they go into the dragon room, they will instantly be killed. Now, the scientific guy (or should I call him skeptic guy), that assume the pot doesn't exist, he won't assume the dragon exists either, but he can open the door a little first before he steps in. The "pot of gold" believer guy, he will of course claim that the "dragon" believer is false and wrong and all sorts of stuff. They might even end up killing each other over who's right. This is how religion vs skepticism works. You can only build your opinions and facts of life, after you have truly doubted and investigated everything you ever believed in first. Very good story you should consider writing books. no serious i laughed it was good and funny. but i dont agree with what you said about the pot of gold guy what is to say that he might not believe there is a dragon, some might make the argument that he is more inclined to belive (though i dont see how just becuase he believes there is a pot of gold he would be more inclined to believe either) if he were a rational fellow then he would do like the guy who doesnt believe in the pot of gold and be caution. given the Choice i would be the pot of gold guy, both make their belief on Faith (believe what is unseen or unknown), but in the case of the dragon i would use pascals wager. it is better to believe than to not *dragon shoots flames* now of coure this doesnt mean that i am going to start believing in dragons, it just means im more optomistic about what i believe. Science and Reason tell me there are no dragons, but this doesnt mean i couldnt be wrong. Quicksand to answer your question of what we (or atleast I) mean by "Higher Power" it is quite simple. it is my way to emphasize that there could be a higher being out there but not necessarly the Christian God. Logic tells me that there is a Higher Being, the evidence says that being is the Christian God, if someone can show me otherwise then i will leave Christianity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 Of course. The "pot of gold" believer could have believed the "dragon" too. I used it as an illustration of different (or conflicting) theologies, or maybe even different religions. I have more illustrations, but I save them for later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 Logic tells me that there is a Higher Being, What? the evidence says that being is the Christian God What? if someone can show me otherwise then i will leave Christianity. Liar. You are not sincere. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quicksand Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 Quicksand to answer your question of what we (or atleast I) mean by "Higher Power" it is quite simple. it is my way to emphasize that there could be a higher being out there but not necessarly the Christian God. Logic tells me that there is a Higher Being, the evidence says that being is the Christian God, if someone can show me otherwise then i will leave Christianity. What evidence? There is no evidence. Go ahead and offer some kind of evidence, but don't beg material science, otherwise you will be refering to nature and not this "Higher Power." Also, you still need to offer some defining characteristics of what this "Higher Power" is, otherwise we still have no idea of what this alledged god-like thing is. We know what a cat is, and what a dog is by their defining characteristics. What can you offer so that we can make a similar distinction between what a god and dog is? But then again, you can't use science or any of your senses as they are lodged and predicated within this material world of physics and laws - so you have no way to even offer objective observations on what this "Higher Power" possibly is. So, until you do that Catholic, you just making one blind assertion after another, and at this point, one good assertion is, as good as another, and you leave yourself open to all sorts of extraordinary claims that you must necessarily believe in. (Like Flying Spaghetti Monsters for one.) Otherwise, you'll make ad hoc arguments why your "Higher Power" is the correct one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quicksand Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 Very good story you should consider writing books. no serious i laughed it was good and funny. but i dont agree with what you said about the pot of gold guy what is to say that he might not believe there is a dragon, some might make the argument that he is more inclined to belive (though i dont see how just becuase he believes there is a pot of gold he would be more inclined to believe either) if he were a rational fellow then he would do like the guy who doesnt believe in the pot of gold and be caution. given the Choice i would be the pot of gold guy, both make their belief on Faith (believe what is unseen or unknown), but in the case of the dragon i would use pascals wager. it is better to believe than to not *dragon shoots flames* now of coure this doesnt mean that i am going to start believing in dragons, it just means im more optomistic about what i believe. Science and Reason tell me there are no dragons, but this doesnt mean i couldnt be wrong. I want to deal with this one separately now, even if it is in response to Han. (Han, hope you don't mind?) Catholic you state that each "both make their belief on Faith." I couldn't disagree more. At least the skeptic and the gold-pot guy (GPG) can go looking for the fabled pot of gold if so inclined. If his faith was, as you said, entirely justified in belief in things not seen, then GPG would not even bother with this search. His faith should be enough to sustain him and evidence to the contrary, would in fact, destroy his unfounded belief. In this case, not having located a pot-o-gold, GPG and skeptic guy (SG) can make a reasonable conclusion about this alleged pot of gold. (Of course sample size would play into this too.) More importantly tho, we know what a pot of gold should look like, much less a dragon. We can't do this with a god or higher-power being can we? You've also stated that given the choice, you would be more like the GPG. In fact you are more like the dragon-believer guy (DBG). A strong similarity between GPG and DBG is that each make a truth claim. The significant difference, however, between them is the level of skepticism involved. For DBG to satisfy the truthiness of his claim, he better be willing to offer some evidence, indirect or not. (Read: Invisible Pink Unicorns & Invisible Garage Dragons) Until then, we can dismiss his claim. Similarly with a god, or higher-power being-like thing (despite the fact when we assert such things we have no idea what are talking about) even greater skepticism is required. Your analogies are only as good as what they analogous to of course. And as I have pointed out before in my post above, you can only make ad hoc arguments (assertions really) so go ahead and believe in dragons – your reasoning allows and even demands of your faith in it. You know this is ridiculous of course. Anyway, all you have done is retreated to an agnostic position, and agnostic positions are incoherent as they are self-refuting. And I find it quite odd that you would use Pascal's Wagar as a valid argument. You must be pretty new to apologetics here. Belief by extortion will not make one believe. If I put a gun to your head and demand that you believe I am mega-rich and that Kristen Bell (named PETA's World's sexiest vegetarian) is my wife, would you summarily believe it? Why not? I have Pascal's Wager on my side and the claim itself requires far less faith than even the GPG, much less than DBG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 Quicksand to answer your question of what we (or atleast I) mean by "Higher Power" it is quite simple. it is my way to emphasize that there could be a higher being out there but not necessarly the Christian God. Logic tells me that there is a Higher Being, the evidence says that being is the Christian God, if someone can show me otherwise then i will leave Christianity. What would convince you otherwise? That is what line of reasoning would keep you from pulling faith as a trump card? The problem of evil certainly disproves ChristianGod, even if it does not disprove god in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedPillAddict Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 I, for one, think that science is stupid. Why can't all of these arrogant scientists just be honest with themselves and admit that: 1. The earth is flat, and that heaven rests on pillars above it. 2. The sun revolves around the earth, along with everything else. 3. God causes all weather and every major disaster. 4. The entire universe was created for man...even though man has only been around for a very short time and probably wont be around too much longer. Wake up you ignorant science heretics. Wake up. For the Lord is coming. You will bow before him one day, and he shall show you the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick5 Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 the evidence says that being is the Christian God Actually, all the evidence points to the non-existance of the christian god. It's a well known fact among well informed people, that christianity's deities are mere copies of older pagan gods, and that every single story, symbol, and situation contained in the bible (both old and new T) can be traced back to it's pagan origins. if someone can show me otherwise then i will leave Christianity. You and I both know that's a huge, horrible lie. Which makes you a hypocrite, because your religion tells you not to lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuroikaze Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 Hey now, everyone play nice, remember we were all once believers too, so it is posible for this person to leave christianity as well. We of all people should know that is posible. As far as your statments catholic, I would agree with you in that I certainly don't think believing in A god is totally irrational. Though if there is no real definition given to the word god, (namely, god is beyond human comprehension) then its not totally rational either. I would say, however, that I can not see any of this so called evidence you claim you have for the chrsitian god. Where is it? I would really like to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
julian Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 "Very good story you should consider writing books. no serious i laughed it was good and funny. but i dont agree with what you said about the pot of gold guy what is to say that he might not believe there is a dragon, some might make the argument that he is more inclined to belive (though i dont see how just becuase he believes there is a pot of gold he would be more inclined to believe either) if he were a rational fellow then he would do like the guy who doesnt believe in the pot of gold and be caution. given the Choice i would be the pot of gold guy, both make their belief on Faith (believe what is unseen or unknown), but in the case of the dragon i would use pascals wager. it is better to believe than to not *dragon shoots flames* now of coure this doesnt mean that i am going to start believing in dragons, it just means im more optomistic about what i believe. Science and Reason tell me there are no dragons, but this doesnt mean i couldnt be wrong. Quicksand to answer your question of what we (or atleast I) mean by "Higher Power" it is quite simple. it is my way to emphasize that there could be a higher being out there but not necessarly the Christian God. Logic tells me that there is a Higher Being, the evidence says that being is the Christian God, if someone can show me otherwise then i will leave Christianity." --------------------------------- I would like to ask one thing: what evidence is there of the Christian God? IMO, there is actually evidence which shows the opposite. First, there is little to no evidence that Jesus existed in the way he is regarded. Now, let's just put aside the whole virgin-birth-is-a-sketchy-premise thing for now (to mention nothing of the ressurection or the physical ascension!). The point is that many of the stories of Jesus were clearly added later, changed and more. In fact, Celsus, who was writing in the 2nd century, claims that Christians constantly rewrote the gospels even then. I would also add critiques of the Christian mindset itself (a separate, removed god; heaven and hell...), but that is perhaps for another discussion (or is it?). Seriously, what do you see as evidence of the Christian mindset? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts