I think we can make the positive claim that nothing like 'gods' exist

[bilby]

There's nothing convoluted about declaring that a white hole cannot exist inside the center of the earth, waiting lurking. Such is not consistent with the laws of physics.

More philosophizing and evasion. False equivalency.

What science precludes the existence of Yahweh or any god?

Without objective science to call on logic alone can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a god.

From the OP.

Sean Carrol notes "The laws of physics for everyday life are completely understood". This statement is while shocking is not controversial to people who understand physics. And there simply is no room within the gaps of our knowledge for any god-like thing to exist.

Another logical atrgument based on an assumption not provable. The statement is patently false.

p1 All science is known
P2 Al known secience precludes gods
C Therefore gods do not exist.

The last 200 years in physics clearly says we can never know if we know everything. There is no possible reference point for us to know if we know everything.

To say we know all possible science is to imbue science and us humans with god like powers.

Same kind of a respnse I give to theists. Specically what scintic theory precludes existence of any god?

The short answer is none. Science can not and does not address any religious beliefs. Science can be used to refute specific religious claims like Young Earth Creationism.

Nobody said we know everything.

Sean Carrol notes "The laws of physics for everyday life are completely understood"

Everyday life isn’t everything. There’s tonnes of stuff we still don’t know. My everyday life rarely involves colliding black holes, supernovae, or collapsing stars; Nor do I regularly encounter multi-billion lightyear gravitational anomalies, dark matter, or home improvement measurements that require the inclusion of a cosmological constant in my calculations. While I don’t like to make too many assumptions about the lifestyles of others, I am prepared to bet that yours doesn’t have many such phenomena in it either.

But we do know quite a lot. Particularly with regards to medium sized, cool temperature, slow moving stuff, such as human beings, and their planet.

We know that a dropped rock on Earth will fall down. Newton explained how to calculate the rate at which this occurs, and we can use Newton’s equations to get a prediction that’s as good as our ability to measure - in this slow, cool, medium sized domain, Newton is correct.

We also know that Newton is incorrect, when we look at larger, faster, and hotter domains. Einstein explained why Newton’s equations give measurably inaccurate answers in those domains, and gave us new equations that let us predict events in those domains to the limit of our ability to measure.

But very importantly, Einstein’s equations produce the same results as Newton’s (to our ability to measure) at everyday scales. Einstein’s new theories don’t result in rocks that fall upwards; Of necessity, the new physics had to give the same results seen in experiments that matched the old physics.

This is true across the board; The stuff we are already experimentally certain of will never be changed by new physics, and cannot be shown to be theoretically wrong - reality is the final arbiter of the worth of any theoretical claims.

We know that both Quantum Field Theory and Relativity give identical results to experimental observations at everyday scales. We also know that they disagree sharply under extreme conditions. One or both must be “wrong” at the extremes; But regardless of any new physics that might resolve this disagreement, or replace both theories with something completely new, rocks will, with 100% certainty, not begin to fall upwards.

The physics of phenomena larger than molecules and smaller than solar systems are completely understood; Our future physics cannot overturn this, because if it could, we would have already seen the discrepancies between theory and measurement. And as a result, we are able to state (with equal certainty as we can state that rocks won’t start falling upwards) that no new forces or particles capable of interacting non-destructively with humans will ever be discovered. For such a discovery to be possible, Quantum Field Theory would need not only to be wrong (it may well be wrong), but to be spectacularly and obviously wrong in ways that we couldn’t have failed to notice. (It’s not. We checked).

Such as the occasional rock being observed to fall upwards.

We know literally everything about human scale physics. And it precludes any interaction with unknown forces or particles. So that rules out souls, ghosts, effective prayer, and any intervention from a god or gods of any kind in everyday human affairs.

The claim is not that we know everything. It’s that we know enough to be certain of some things; And that the impossibility of gods that interact with humans is one of the things we know. Not because we have any knowledge about the abilities of gods to interact with stuff, but because we have absolute knowledge of the ability of humans to interact with stuff in ways that doesn’t cause them to explode so violently as to make Hiroshima look like a firecracker.

 

[Jarhyn]

There's nothing convoluted about declaring that a white hole cannot exist inside the center of the earth, waiting lurking. Such is not consistent with the laws of physics.

More philosophizing and evasion. False equivalency.

What science precludes the existence of Yahweh or any god?

Without objective science to call on logic alone can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a god.

From the OP.

Sean Carrol notes "The laws of physics for everyday life are completely understood". This statement is while shocking is not controversial to people who understand physics. And there simply is no room within the gaps of our knowledge for any god-like thing to exist.

Another logical atrgument based on an assumption not provable. The statement is patently false.

p1 All science is known
P2 Al known secience precludes gods
C Therefore gods do not exist.

The last 200 years in physics clearly says we can never know if we know everything. There is no possible reference point for us to know if we know everything.

To say we know all possible science is to imbue science and us humans with god like powers.

Same kind of a respnse I give to theists. Specically what scintic theory precludes existence of any god?

The short answer is none. Science can not and does not address any religious beliefs. Science can be used to refute specific religious claims like Young Earth Creationism.

Nobody said we know everything.

Sean Carrol notes "The laws of physics for everyday life are completely understood"

Everyday life isn’t everything. There’s tonnes of stuff we still don’t know. My everyday life rarely involves colliding black holes, supernovae, or collapsing stars; Nor do I regularly encounter multi-billion lightyear gravitational anomalies, dark matter, or home improvement measurements that require the inclusion of a cosmological constant in my calculations. While I don’t like to make too many assumptions about the lifestyles of others, I am prepared to bet that yours doesn’t have many such phenomena in it either.

But we do know quite a lot. Particularly with regards to medium sized, cool temperature, slow moving stuff, such as human beings, and their planet.

We know that a dropped rock on Earth will fall down. Newton explained how to calculate the rate at which this occurs, and we can use Newton’s equations to get a prediction that’s as good as our ability to measure - in this slow, cool, medium sized domain, Newton is correct.

We also know that Newton is incorrect, when we look at larger, faster, and hotter domains. Einstein explained why Newton’s equations give measurably inaccurate answers in those domains, and gave us new equations that let us predict events in those domains to the limit of our ability to measure.

But very importantly, Einstein’s equations produce the same results as Newton’s (to our ability to measure) at everyday scales. Einstein’s new theories don’t result in rocks that fall upwards; Of necessity, the new physics had to give the same results seen in experiments that matched the old physics.

This is true across the board; The stuff we are already experimentally certain of will never be changed by new physics, and cannot be shown to be theoretically wrong - reality is the final arbiter of the worth of any theoretical claims.

We know that both Quantum Field Theory and Relativity give identical results to experimental observations at everyday scales. We also know that they disagree sharply under extreme conditions. One or both must be “wrong” at the extremes; But regardless of any new physics that might resolve this disagreement, or replace both theories with something completely new, rocks will, with 100% certainty, not begin to fall upwards.

The physics of phenomena larger than molecules and smaller than solar systems are completely understood; Our future physics cannot overturn this, because if it could, we would have already seen the discrepancies between theory and measurement. And as a result, we are able to state (with equal certainty as we can state that rocks won’t start falling upwards) that no new forces or particles capable of interacting non-destructively with humans will ever be discovered. For such a discovery to be possible, Quantum Field Theory would need not only to be wrong (it may well be wrong), but to be spectacularly and obviously wrong in ways that we couldn’t have failed to notice. (It’s not. We checked).

Such as the occasional rock being observed to fall upwards.

We know literally everything about human scale physics. And it precludes any interaction with unknown forces or particles. So that rules out souls, ghosts, effective prayer, and any intervention from a god or gods of any kind in everyday human affairs.

The claim is not that we know everything. It’s that we know enough to be certain of some things; And that the impossibility of gods that interact with humans is one of the things we know. Not because we have any knowledge about the abilities of gods to interact with stuff, but because we have absolute knowledge of the ability of humans to interact with stuff in ways that doesn’t cause them to explode so violently as to make Hiroshima look like a firecracker.

More, the impossibility of certain kinds of interaction in normal physics. It essentially means that "creator gods" are neither what we call "particles" or "waves" or "energy" of the form we experience in the same way I am not composed of "bits" in the same way dwarves are.

It doesn't render the interaction senseless, but it does require it to be "superphysical", as the relationship of a host to a simulation.

And so these non-simulating "creator gods" can all be ruled out, as can any tri-omni being, as any eternal and changeless form described as "personal".

It doesn't rule out imperfect, omniscient and omnipotent simulation hosts who mean well and love us, but for whom omniscience and omnipotence are nontrivial to leverage, but the absence of evidence for that deals it a different kind of injury: rather than being nonsense, such is an absurdity, and claims of absurdities without positive evidence are to be discounted without argument!

 

[steve_bank]

There are scientifc theories and experiment that preclude the center of the Erath being filled with peanut butter.
There are no scientifc theories or experiment that preclude existence of gods

 

[Jarhyn]

There are scientifc theories and experiment that preclude the center of the Erath being filled with peanut butter.
There are no scientifc theories or experiment that preclude existence of gods

I think the former rather well precludes the existence of gods who create the earth as filled with peanut butter.

 

[bilby]

There's nothing convoluted about declaring that a white hole cannot exist inside the center of the earth, waiting lurking. Such is not consistent with the laws of physics.

More philosophizing and evasion. False equivalency.

What science precludes the existence of Yahweh or any god?

Without objective science to call on logic alone can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a god.

From the OP.

Sean Carrol notes "The laws of physics for everyday life are completely understood". This statement is while shocking is not controversial to people who understand physics. And there simply is no room within the gaps of our knowledge for any god-like thing to exist.

Another logical atrgument based on an assumption not provable. The statement is patently false.

p1 All science is known
P2 Al known secience precludes gods
C Therefore gods do not exist.

The last 200 years in physics clearly says we can never know if we know everything. There is no possible reference point for us to know if we know everything.

To say we know all possible science is to imbue science and us humans with god like powers.

Same kind of a respnse I give to theists. Specically what scintic theory precludes existence of any god?

The short answer is none. Science can not and does not address any religious beliefs. Science can be used to refute specific religious claims like Young Earth Creationism.

Nobody said we know everything.

Sean Carrol notes "The laws of physics for everyday life are completely understood"

Everyday life isn’t everything. There’s tonnes of stuff we still don’t know. My everyday life rarely involves colliding black holes, supernovae, or collapsing stars; Nor do I regularly encounter multi-billion lightyear gravitational anomalies, dark matter, or home improvement measurements that require the inclusion of a cosmological constant in my calculations. While I don’t like to make too many assumptions about the lifestyles of others, I am prepared to bet that yours doesn’t have many such phenomena in it either.

But we do know quite a lot. Particularly with regards to medium sized, cool temperature, slow moving stuff, such as human beings, and their planet.

We know that a dropped rock on Earth will fall down. Newton explained how to calculate the rate at which this occurs, and we can use Newton’s equations to get a prediction that’s as good as our ability to measure - in this slow, cool, medium sized domain, Newton is correct.

We also know that Newton is incorrect, when we look at larger, faster, and hotter domains. Einstein explained why Newton’s equations give measurably inaccurate answers in those domains, and gave us new equations that let us predict events in those domains to the limit of our ability to measure.

But very importantly, Einstein’s equations produce the same results as Newton’s (to our ability to measure) at everyday scales. Einstein’s new theories don’t result in rocks that fall upwards; Of necessity, the new physics had to give the same results seen in experiments that matched the old physics.

This is true across the board; The stuff we are already experimentally certain of will never be changed by new physics, and cannot be shown to be theoretically wrong - reality is the final arbiter of the worth of any theoretical claims.

We know that both Quantum Field Theory and Relativity give identical results to experimental observations at everyday scales. We also know that they disagree sharply under extreme conditions. One or both must be “wrong” at the extremes; But regardless of any new physics that might resolve this disagreement, or replace both theories with something completely new, rocks will, with 100% certainty, not begin to fall upwards.

The physics of phenomena larger than molecules and smaller than solar systems are completely understood; Our future physics cannot overturn this, because if it could, we would have already seen the discrepancies between theory and measurement. And as a result, we are able to state (with equal certainty as we can state that rocks won’t start falling upwards) that no new forces or particles capable of interacting non-destructively with humans will ever be discovered. For such a discovery to be possible, Quantum Field Theory would need not only to be wrong (it may well be wrong), but to be spectacularly and obviously wrong in ways that we couldn’t have failed to notice. (It’s not. We checked).

Such as the occasional rock being observed to fall upwards.

We know literally everything about human scale physics. And it precludes any interaction with unknown forces or particles. So that rules out souls, ghosts, effective prayer, and any intervention from a god or gods of any kind in everyday human affairs.

The claim is not that we know everything. It’s that we know enough to be certain of some things; And that the impossibility of gods that interact with humans is one of the things we know. Not because we have any knowledge about the abilities of gods to interact with stuff, but because we have absolute knowledge of the ability of humans to interact with stuff in ways that doesn’t cause them to explode so violently as to make Hiroshima look like a firecracker.

More, the impossibility of certain kinds of interaction in normal physics. It essentially means that "creator gods" are neither what we call "particles" or "waves" or "energy" of the form we experience in the same way I am not composed of "bits" in the same way dwarves are.

It doesn't render the interaction senseless, but it does require it to be "superphysical", as the relationship of a host to a simulation.

And so these non-simulating "creator gods" can all be ruled out, as can any tri-omni being, as any eternal and changeless form described as "personal".

It doesn't rule out imperfect, omniscient and omnipotent simulation hosts who mean well and love us, but for whom omniscience and omnipotence are nontrivial to leverage, but the absence of evidence for that deals it a different kind of injury: rather than being nonsense, such is an absurdity, and claims of absurdities without positive evidence are to be discounted without argument!

Such simulation creators are not, however, Gods, for the simple reason that (present company excepted) nobody subscribes to a religion that believes in them, and (as I understand, present company included), nobody worships them or fears them.

Expanding the definition of “God” to include things that religions exclude, has a long and ignoble history of propping up the unreasonable claims of religions by giving support to their central fallacy - the idea that God, as they describe Him, is real.

 

[bilby]

There are scientifc theories and experiment that preclude the center of the Erath being filled with peanut butter.
There are no scientifc theories or experiment that preclude existence of gods

Simply repeating your mistakes ad nauseam doesn’t stop you from being mistaken.

Perhaps you should try to understand the rebuttals of your position, and (if you can) show where they are wrong, rather than just making an even bigger tit of yourself by doubling down.

 

[Jarhyn]

There's nothing convoluted about declaring that a white hole cannot exist inside the center of the earth, waiting lurking. Such is not consistent with the laws of physics.

More philosophizing and evasion. False equivalency.

What science precludes the existence of Yahweh or any god?

Without objective science to call on logic alone can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a god.

From the OP.

Sean Carrol notes "The laws of physics for everyday life are completely understood". This statement is while shocking is not controversial to people who understand physics. And there simply is no room within the gaps of our knowledge for any god-like thing to exist.

Another logical atrgument based on an assumption not provable. The statement is patently false.

p1 All science is known
P2 Al known secience precludes gods
C Therefore gods do not exist.

The last 200 years in physics clearly says we can never know if we know everything. There is no possible reference point for us to know if we know everything.

To say we know all possible science is to imbue science and us humans with god like powers.

Same kind of a respnse I give to theists. Specically what scintic theory precludes existence of any god?

The short answer is none. Science can not and does not address any religious beliefs. Science can be used to refute specific religious claims like Young Earth Creationism.

Nobody said we know everything.

Sean Carrol notes "The laws of physics for everyday life are completely understood"

Everyday life isn’t everything. There’s tonnes of stuff we still don’t know. My everyday life rarely involves colliding black holes, supernovae, or collapsing stars; Nor do I regularly encounter multi-billion lightyear gravitational anomalies, dark matter, or home improvement measurements that require the inclusion of a cosmological constant in my calculations. While I don’t like to make too many assumptions about the lifestyles of others, I am prepared to bet that yours doesn’t have many such phenomena in it either.

But we do know quite a lot. Particularly with regards to medium sized, cool temperature, slow moving stuff, such as human beings, and their planet.

We know that a dropped rock on Earth will fall down. Newton explained how to calculate the rate at which this occurs, and we can use Newton’s equations to get a prediction that’s as good as our ability to measure - in this slow, cool, medium sized domain, Newton is correct.

We also know that Newton is incorrect, when we look at larger, faster, and hotter domains. Einstein explained why Newton’s equations give measurably inaccurate answers in those domains, and gave us new equations that let us predict events in those domains to the limit of our ability to measure.

But very importantly, Einstein’s equations produce the same results as Newton’s (to our ability to measure) at everyday scales. Einstein’s new theories don’t result in rocks that fall upwards; Of necessity, the new physics had to give the same results seen in experiments that matched the old physics.

This is true across the board; The stuff we are already experimentally certain of will never be changed by new physics, and cannot be shown to be theoretically wrong - reality is the final arbiter of the worth of any theoretical claims.

We know that both Quantum Field Theory and Relativity give identical results to experimental observations at everyday scales. We also know that they disagree sharply under extreme conditions. One or both must be “wrong” at the extremes; But regardless of any new physics that might resolve this disagreement, or replace both theories with something completely new, rocks will, with 100% certainty, not begin to fall upwards.

The physics of phenomena larger than molecules and smaller than solar systems are completely understood; Our future physics cannot overturn this, because if it could, we would have already seen the discrepancies between theory and measurement. And as a result, we are able to state (with equal certainty as we can state that rocks won’t start falling upwards) that no new forces or particles capable of interacting non-destructively with humans will ever be discovered. For such a discovery to be possible, Quantum Field Theory would need not only to be wrong (it may well be wrong), but to be spectacularly and obviously wrong in ways that we couldn’t have failed to notice. (It’s not. We checked).

Such as the occasional rock being observed to fall upwards.

We know literally everything about human scale physics. And it precludes any interaction with unknown forces or particles. So that rules out souls, ghosts, effective prayer, and any intervention from a god or gods of any kind in everyday human affairs.

The claim is not that we know everything. It’s that we know enough to be certain of some things; And that the impossibility of gods that interact with humans is one of the things we know. Not because we have any knowledge about the abilities of gods to interact with stuff, but because we have absolute knowledge of the ability of humans to interact with stuff in ways that doesn’t cause them to explode so violently as to make Hiroshima look like a firecracker.

More, the impossibility of certain kinds of interaction in normal physics. It essentially means that "creator gods" are neither what we call "particles" or "waves" or "energy" of the form we experience in the same way I am not composed of "bits" in the same way dwarves are.

It doesn't render the interaction senseless, but it does require it to be "superphysical", as the relationship of a host to a simulation.

And so these non-simulating "creator gods" can all be ruled out, as can any tri-omni being, as any eternal and changeless form described as "personal".

It doesn't rule out imperfect, omniscient and omnipotent simulation hosts who mean well and love us, but for whom omniscience and omnipotence are nontrivial to leverage, but the absence of evidence for that deals it a different kind of injury: rather than being nonsense, such is an absurdity, and claims of absurdities without positive evidence are to be discounted without argument!

Such simulation creators are not, however, Gods, for the simple reason that (present company excepted) nobody subscribes to a religion that believes in them, and (as I understand, present company included), nobody worships them or fears them.

Expanding the definition of “God” to include things that religions exclude, has a long and ignoble history of propping up the unreasonable claims of religions by giving support to their central fallacy - the idea that God, as they describe Him, is real.

Nobody WANTS to subscribe to a religion where their deity is "just a simulation creator" but no religion has beliefs that can be honestly held while rejecting that their beliefs are, in fact, in a simulation creator.

So if the religions exclude simulation creators as gods, they are in the same category as religions whose gods create the world filled with peanut butter.

Which is one of the reasons I tend to give religion short shrift.

I don't worship, nor fear, nor even believe in their existence. Though I also do not hate them, nor would I at this point, at least not any more than I love or hate my sister (someone who I hate, and also love)

I do, however, forgive such entities even though they need not exist at all, and wouldn't reject getting to know them seriously and directly as a peer and friend.

The things I do "worship" and "seek understanding of" are also eternal, metaphysical, unchanging truths, but those truths are mathematical and logical in nature. I could call that "god" all the same but it's not really what most people mean by it.

As has been pointed out in different threads, both of these things are in fact described as elements within the Gnostic Christian sects as well as in the earlier traditions of Jewish mysticism.

 

[skepticalbip]

There are no scientifc theories or experiment that preclude existence of gods

That statement is meaningless until you define what you mean by 'god'. Once defined, science can address the claim. If the definition of god offered is self contradictory then that god can't exist.

 

[steve_bank]

There are scientifc theories and experiment that preclude the center of the Erath being filled with peanut butter.
There are no scientifc theories or experiment that preclude existence of gods

I think the former rather well precludes the existence of gods who create the earth as filled with peanut butter.

Atheist can be as 'theological' as the religious.

That the center of the Earth is molten metal is constituent with scientific theory that explains the Earth's magnetic field.

Earth's inner core - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Earth's inner core is the innermost geologic layer of planet Earth. It is primarily a solid ball with a radius of about 1,220 km (760 mi), which is about 20% of Earth's radius or 70% of the Moon's radius.[1][2]

There are no samples of Earth's core accessible for direct measurement, as there are for Earth's mantle.[3] Information about Earth's core mostly comes from analysis of seismic waves and Earth's magnetic field.[4] The inner core is believed to be composed of an iron–nickel alloy with some other elements. The temperature at the inner core's surface is estimated to be approximately 5,700 K (5,430 °C; 9,800 °F), which is about the temperature at the surface of the

What specific scientific theory precludes a god? We challenge theists on the bible and science. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Theist are atheist scientifically unsubstantiated claims are scientifically unsubstantiated claims.

Being atheist does mean you get to make claims without support because you oppose relgion.

 

[Jarhyn]

There are scientifc theories and experiment that preclude the center of the Erath being filled with peanut butter.
There are no scientifc theories or experiment that preclude existence of gods

I think the former rather well precludes the existence of gods who create the earth as filled with peanut butter.

Atheist can be as 'theological' as the religious.

That the center of the Earth is molten metal is constituent with scientific theory that explains the Earth's magnetic field.

Earth's inner core - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Earth's inner core is the innermost geologic layer of planet Earth. It is primarily a solid ball with a radius of about 1,220 km (760 mi), which is about 20% of Earth's radius or 70% of the Moon's radius.[1][2]

There are no samples of Earth's core accessible for direct measurement, as there are for Earth's mantle.[3] Information about Earth's core mostly comes from analysis of seismic waves and Earth's magnetic field.[4] The inner core is believed to be composed of an iron–nickel alloy with some other elements. The temperature at the inner core's surface is estimated to be approximately 5,700 K (5,430 °C; 9,800 °F), which is about the temperature at the surface of the

What specific scientific theory precludes a god? We challenge theists on the bible and science. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Theist are atheist scientifically unsubstantiated claims are scientifically unsubstantiated claims.

Being atheist does mean you get to make claims without support because you oppose relgion.

As we keep pointing out, science precludes gods which are said to have done things which preclude the truth of scientific facts.

Just like I can say unequivocally that thus far, scientific facts preclude the possibility of a God who cares to fix your eyesight.

 

[Jarhyn]

To exemplify this, let's examine a nonsense god, a god who cannot possible exist, Skippia the Infinite Nutter.

Skippia is said to have created the world a billion years ago, by first creating a massive peanut, eating it, and then shitting it out again, but Skippia only digested the outer bit of it. Then he threw the moon at it and it became buttery on the inside and made of soil and rock, the bits of the peanut that became pooie on the outside.

Of course, Skippia cannot possibly exist because all of those claims of Skippia are absolutely and utterly at odds with everything we know of particle physics, the history of the universe geology, and astronomy.

 

[atrib]

There are scientifc theories and experiment that preclude the center of the Erath being filled with peanut butter.
There are no scientifc theories or experiment that preclude existence of gods

In this post at the top of this page, Bilby explains why it is reasonable to believe, beyond any reasonable degree of certainty, that gods that interact with humans don't exist. Did you bother to read it? Did you do any research to find out what Sean Carroll has to say on the subject, other than just grabbing the headline? Did you try to understand how you were misrepresenting Carroll's position? No, you did none of those things. What you did was choose to use your ignorance as a shield.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

 

[atrib]

There's nothing convoluted about declaring that a white hole cannot exist inside the center of the earth, waiting lurking. Such is not consistent with the laws of physics.

More philosophizing and evasion. False equivalency.

What science precludes the existence of Yahweh or any god?

Without objective science to call on logic alone can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a god.

From the OP.

You are wrong. See Bilby's post here.

Sean Carrol notes "The laws of physics for everyday life are completely understood". This statement is while shocking is not controversial to people who understand physics. And there simply is no room within the gaps of our knowledge for any god-like thing to exist.

Another logical atrgument based on an assumption not provable. The statement is patently false.

p1 All science is known
P2 Al known secience precludes gods
C Therefore gods do not exist.

You missed the part where Carroll says "for everyday life". What does that mean? You would actually have to read Carroll's book or watch a couple of Youtube videos where Carroll explains what he means. Or at a very minimum, you could read Bilby's post.

The last 200 years in physics clearly says we can never know if we know everything. There is no possible reference point for us to know if we know everything.

To say we know all possible science is to imbue science and us humans with god like powers.

You are arguing a strawman. Nobody is making those claims. They exist only in your head.

Same kind of a respnse I give to theists. Specically what scintic theory precludes existence of any god?

The short answer is none. Science can not and does not address any religious beliefs. Science can be used to refute specific religious claims like Young Earth Creationism.

See above.

 

[bilby]

What specific scientific theory precludes a god?

Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity

 

[Kylie]

You comment doesn't seem to have anything to do with the subject at hand.

How so? I'm pointing out that the categories for gods you are proposing are very vague, and thus of little use. They tell us virtually nothing about what they contain.

You haven't offered anything new.

The categories for gods that don't exist

1. incoherently defined or have contradictory characteristics (Abrahamic gods)

2. Gods which are just a redefinition of words. (God is love/nature/cosmos)

3. Gods which indistinguishable from non-existence (deistic gods)

Can you think of another category of god which doesn't exist?

You've missed my point.

What you are doing is like saying, "There are two different types of objects in the universe. Things which are spherical (or fairly close to being spherical), and things which are not spherical at all."

These two categories do contain all objects that can possibly exist, but the categories are vague and thus tell us very little about what is in them.

 

[Jarhyn]

What specific scientific theory precludes a god?

Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity

As I point out, those things preclude a great many entity classes (like invisible pink unicorns and our friend Skippia), but they don't preclude, for example, Some asshole playing "Universe, Slaves to Allah or whatever"

Those are bleeding out by Occam's razor, rather than cut down by the sword of "Nonsense!".

 

[bilby]

they don't preclude, for example, Some asshole playing "Universe, Slaves to Allah or whatever"

As this is not the belief of any major religion, it doesn’t have any real impact as a counter argument to the claim that the gods of those religions don’t exist.

Every sect of Christians, Muslims and Jews are unequivocally wrong. All the Romans, Norsemen, and Greeks were wrong too. The Animists, Wiccans, and New Age Hippies are wrong. The weird ‘Law of Attraction’ people, the Scientologists, the Mormons, Sikhs, Hindus, and Shinto are unquestionably wrong in every single claim they make about gods, souls, reincarnation, afterlife, karma, fate, and every other influence they believe affects human beings.

That a tiny number of people who mistakenly consider it possible that we are a simulation are wrong, but are not yet provably spouting nonsense, only absurdity, doesn’t worry me one bit.

Religion is over. Stick a fork in it; It’s done. We know it for a fact, in the same way and with the same confidence that we know rocks won’t start falling upwards.

That a handful of smartarse navel gazers are able to find a way around the reasoning, one which has never been a part of the philosophy of any religion and which wasn’t even proposed until last Tuesday, is not the idea killing masterstroke you seem to imagine it to be.

As the defending lawyer for religion, I congratulate you on having created a loophole; But your client isn’t going to benefit one iota from it.

 

[Jarhyn]

they don't preclude, for example, Some asshole playing "Universe, Slaves to Allah or whatever"

As this is not the belief of any major religion, it doesn’t have any real impact as a counter argument to the claim that the gods of those religions don’t exist.

Every sect of Christians, Muslims and Jews are unequivocally wrong. All the Romans, Norsemen, and Greeks were wrong too. The Animists, Wiccans, and New Age Hippies are wrong. The weird ‘Law of Attraction’ people, the Scientologists, the Mormons, Sikhs, Hindus, and Shinto are unquestionably wrong in every single claim they make about gods, souls, reincarnation, afterlife, karma, fate, and every other influence they believe affects human beings.

That a tiny number of people who mistakenly consider it possible that we are a simulation are wrong, but are not yet provably spouting nonsense, only absurdity, doesn’t worry me one bit.

Religion is over. Stick a fork in it; It’s done. We know it for a fact, in the same way and with the same confidence that we know rocks won’t start falling upwards.

That a handful of smartarse navel gazers are able to find a way around the reasoning, one which has never been a part of the philosophy of any religion and which wasn’t even proposed until last Tuesday, is not the idea killing masterstroke you seem to imagine it to be.

As the defending lawyer for religion, I congratulate you on having created a loophole; But your client isn’t going to benefit one iota from it.

I'm not their lawyer, and I'm not defending them. In large part, I'm marking them even more silly, that they would be capable of worshipping such...

My point is to in fact observe this last bolded piece explicitly. It breaks the back of all organized religion and worship of creator gods, not just of the ones proposed but every single future one as well.

It provides a neat formula by which we can observe "whatever you propose could very easily be the avatar face of a ethically devoid 19 year old equivalent manbaby, complete with diaper, marinating in his own shit while playing 'a stupid video game'."

And this is true no matter what they propose.

It creates a complete detachment of philosophical ethics from creator entities: they cannot deliver "the truth" because there is no expectation that they would actually know "the truth" even if they could deliver the operational theory of our physics.

 

[bilby]

I'm not their lawyer, and I'm not defending them.

I bet the inaptly named ‘Learner’ and his ilk don’t agree with you.

 

[Politesse]

they don't preclude, for example, Some asshole playing "Universe, Slaves to Allah or whatever"

As this is not the belief of any major religion, it doesn’t have any real impact as a counter argument to the claim that the gods of those religions don’t exist.

Every sect of Christians, Muslims and Jews are unequivocally wrong. All the Romans, Norsemen, and Greeks were wrong too. The Animists, Wiccans, and New Age Hippies are wrong. The weird ‘Law of Attraction’ people, the Scientologists, the Mormons, Sikhs, Hindus, and Shinto are unquestionably wrong in every single claim they make about gods, souls, reincarnation, afterlife, karma, fate, and every other influence they believe affects human beings.

That a tiny number of people who mistakenly consider it possible that we are a simulation are wrong, but are not yet provably spouting nonsense, only absurdity, doesn’t worry me one bit.

Religion is over. Stick a fork in it; It’s done. We know it for a fact, in the same way and with the same confidence that we know rocks won’t start falling upwards.

That a handful of smartarse navel gazers are able to find a way around the reasoning, one which has never been a part of the philosophy of any religion and which wasn’t even proposed until last Tuesday, is not the idea killing masterstroke you seem to imagine it to be.

As the defending lawyer for religion, I congratulate you on having created a loophole; But your client isn’t going to benefit one iota from it.

Ignorance of evidence is not evidence of ignorance.