• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Myth of God

S

Syed

Banned
Banned
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Messages
1,357
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
muslim
Myth of God


can science disprove myth of god?
 
Syed said:
Myth of God


can science disprove myth of god?
Click to expand...
Generally, gods are described as supernatural beings.
This is beyond the realm of science to establish one way or another.

What science can do is find explanations for the universe that don't require gods. So we can marginalize and dismiss the myths of divine action being necessary.

We can't disprove gods.
But we can ask ourselves for any sort of rational reason to believe such thing exist?
 
Keith&Co. said:
Syed said:
Myth of God


can science disprove myth of god?
Click to expand...
Generally, gods are described as supernatural beings.
This is beyond the realm of science to establish one way or another.

What science can do is find explanations for the universe that don't require gods.
Click to expand...
what is science position TODAY that god exist or not?
 
Syed said:
what is science position TODAY that god exist or not?
Click to expand...
Science's position today is that science cannot establish whether or not the supernatural exists.
Some scientists believe.
Some don't.
Some people who don't understand science will say it does or does not prove one or more gods.
Some people who don't understand science insist that science is trying really hard to disprove one or more gods. Usually one. They get all het up that THEIR skybuddy is targeted personally by scientists and their precious science. They don't seem to care about science disproving other people's skybuddy.
 
Syed said:
what is your disbelieve position in god is scientific or non scientific ?
Click to expand...
I'm the one telling you that science can't prove or disprove a god, and you cannot extrapolate my answer from that?

- - - Updated - - -

Syed said:
we are not talking about dragons, unicorn, tooth fairy
Click to expand...
Yeah, i don't think anyone's gone to war over the existence of the tooth fairy. Other than that, though....
 
Syed said:
Myth of God


can science disprove myth of god?
Click to expand...

Science doesn't have to. Nor does anyone else.

As there is no evidence to support a justified belief in the existence of any of the many versions of ''God'' or ''gods'' that humankind has believed in over the centuries, including the current versions, it is not justified to hold a belief in the existence of a God, or gods.

If you believe that God exists, your belief is based on faith, so it is a belief that has no foundation. A belief held without the support of evidence.
 
Syed said:
untermensche said:
It is similar to science in that it is a position that demands evidence before belief.
Click to expand...

i am asking your rejection of god (creator of all thing) position based on what science or ignorance?
Click to expand...
Science requires that a claim be falsifiable. Since the Islamic god is unfalsifiable, it must be rejected on scientific grounds.

Science also requires that a claim be supported by evidence. And since there is no evidence for the existence of the Islamic god, it must be rejected.

Refer to Russell's teapot.
 
As far as a non-specific, generic "creator god" goes, no, neither science nor anything else can disprove that.

But once you start to define your god by saying what it is or what it's supposed to do, it can be quite easily disproved. And the easiest to disprove are the ones described in "holy" books, because they give the most material to work with and, being written, usually, by men who didn't know much about the world, most of that material will tend towards disproving it.

My advice: if you want your god to be immune to being disproved, keep it vague. Keep it very vague.
 
Syed said:
Keith&Co. said:
Ask 20 atheists, you'll probably get 30 answers.
Click to expand...

what is your disbelieve position in god is scientific or non scientific ?
Click to expand...

As Keith said, science really can’t say much about notions of supernatural beings.

Science can demonstrate that the theory of Evolution is the best description of how humans came to be.
Science can prove that there was no global flood in the last several hundred thousand years.

I’d say I find the atypical conservative/fundamentalist views of holy books being the inerrant word of that claimed god, to be impossible, by the contradictions sourced from the texts and where these texts contradict known natural and human history.

I find most claimed religions to not be plausible, based on similar reasoning as my previous sentence.

I guess some sort of illusive, indecipherable, hide-and-seek deity could possibly exist. But if so, so what?
 
Syed said:
Myth of God


can science disprove myth of god?
Click to expand...


Science can disprove certain claims about gods. Such as the one that If you believe and pray with all your heart and soul, you can move mountains into the sea. Science can definitely disprove that.

And it can disprove a tale about a global flood.

And it can disprove whether there is physical harm from wearing garments woven of two different fibers.

And it can disprove whether a massive slave colony left Egypt in a day.

Stuff like 'at.
 
Syed, here's the thing you need to face up to.

If you cannot use science to prove your god, what is the point of your god? If it cannot do ANYTHING that is detectable and provable by science, then what is the difference between it existing and it not existing?

In case you didn't follow the link, read this analogy. And tell us the difference between the dragon existing and not existing. The same is true for your god. If you cannot prove your god exists, then it is indistinguishable from something that does not exist.


Sagan described the discussion as follows:
"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage" Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin[3]) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.[4]
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom