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

Myth of God

Keith&Co. said:
Juma said:
To there be gods it must be possible to have powers thatviolates the known laws of nature. Thus we can disprove gods.
Click to expand...
Exactly what sort of scientific experiment would you conduct to establish that an entity cannot have powers that violate the known laws?
Click to expand...

Think again of what you really are asking.
Exactly what sort of scientific experiment would you conduct to establish that no stone will not drop to the ground?
 
Juma said:
Think again of what you really are asking.
Exactly what sort of scientific experiment would you conduct to establish that no stone will not drop to the ground?
Click to expand...
the general description of stones is not that they have supernatural powers, though. Supernatural beings, events and powers are by definition beyond the realm of natural laws established through scientific research and observation.
If we assume that gods are subject to the natural laws, we're redefining gods in order to disprove gods. So if we can disprove a non-supernatural god, what have we really accomplished?
 
Keith&Co. said:
Juma said:
Think again of what you really are asking.
Exactly what sort of scientific experiment would you conduct to establish that no stone will not drop to the ground?
Click to expand...
the general description of stones is not that they have supernatural powers, though. Supernatural beings, events and powers are by definition beyond the realm of natural laws established through scientific research and observation.
If we assume that gods are subject to the natural laws, we're redefining gods in order to disprove gods. So if we can disprove a non-supernatural god, what have we really accomplished?
Click to expand...

Have we accomplished proof that the god can only act in ways that are undetectable to us and hence s/he/it functionally does not exist to us?
 
Keith&Co. said:
Juma said:
Think again of what you really are asking.
Exactly what sort of scientific experiment would you conduct to establish that no stone will not drop to the ground?
Click to expand...
the general description of stones is not that they have supernatural powers, though. Supernatural beings, events and powers are by definition beyond the realm of natural laws established through scientific research and observation.
If we assume that gods are subject to the natural laws, we're redefining gods in order to disprove gods. So if we can disprove a non-supernatural god, what have we really accomplished?
Click to expand...

Everything that exist are subject to the natural laws.
 
Juma said:
Everything that exist are subject to the natural laws.
Click to expand...
How would you begin to establish this in the context of disproving that there are beings who can exclude themselves from the effects of natural laws, either singularly or sweepingly?

- - - Updated - - -

Rhea said:
Have we accomplished proof that the god can only act in ways that are undetectable to us and hence s/he/it functionally does not exist to us?
Click to expand...
No, but every third apologist seems to end up painting themselves into a corner with assertions that functionally assert that.
 
Keith&Co. said:
How would you begin to establish this in the context of disproving that there are beings who can exclude themselves from the effects of natural laws, either singularly or sweepingly?
Click to expand...
how do we know anything the real world?
Asserting properties out of the blue is not a valid way to knowledge...
 
Juma said:
Keith&Co. said:
How would you begin to establish this in the context of disproving that there are beings who can exclude themselves from the effects of natural laws, either singularly or sweepingly?
Click to expand...
how do we know anything the real world?
Asserting properties out of the blue is not a valid way to knowledge...
Click to expand...
Then how do you assert that putative supernatural beings are subject to natural laws?
 
Keith&Co. said:
How would you begin to establish this in the context of disproving that there are beings who can exclude themselves from the effects of natural laws, either singularly or sweepingly?
Click to expand...

Well, if they exclude themselves from natural laws, they would do so naturally and what we currently call supernatural would just be us mis-naming a natural law that we're not currently aware of.

It would be like the 2D guy thinking that the 3D guy is supernatural when he vanishes and appears on the other side of him. All the 3D guy did was jump. The 2D guy not being aware of what jumping is or how it works doesn't mean that moving through the height dimension is somehow magical.
 
Juma said:
Keith&Co. said:
Then how do you assert that putative supernatural beings are subject to natural laws?
Click to expand...

What? How do you assert that putative transparent pigs cannot do calculus?
Click to expand...

i don't assert that. I have no experience with transparent pigs.

The natural laws we've developed come from observation. The traits and capabilities of pigs have come from observation.
You're making positive claims about the abilities of gods whom/which you have not observed.

If someone's going to claim that their god can fly, i feel like it's pretty natural to ask, 'How do you know that?' or 'What have you done to establish that?' For the most part, their answers are about as credible as 'i saw it on TV.'

When you say "To there be gods it must be possible to have powers thatviolates the known laws of nature. Thus we can disprove gods." How do you know it's not possible to violate the known laws? What have you done to establish this?
 
Syed said:
Myth of God


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

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Myth?s=t

Myth

noun
1.
a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2.
stories or matter of this kind:
realm of myth.
3.
any invented story, idea, or concept:
His account of the event is pure myth.
4.
an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5.
an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.
Click to expand...

Well, since you have already admitted that god is a myth, why would science try to disprove that?
 
Juma said:
Keith&Co. said:
How do you know it's not possible to violate the known laws? What have you done to establish this?
Click to expand...
If the laws could be violated they would not be laws.
Click to expand...
I thought the whole point is that what is born of nature is bound by the law, and that which is supernatural is not. In other words, supernatural beings could reduce the entropy of the universe.
 
If they could, they wouldn't just abstractly reduce the entropy. There would be some process by which they do so and that process would work according to some natural law.
 
Syed said:
Myth of God


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

Science also cannot disprove Odin.

Science cannot disprove Zeus.

Science cannot disprove Zoroaster.

Science cannot disprove leprechauns.

Science cannot disprove fairies.

Science cannot disprove vampires.

Science cannot disprove elves.

Come on, Syed. We've been over this before. Most existence claims are non-falsifiable, which means they cannot be disproved even if the claims are in fact false, but they can be proved if the claims are true. That's why responsibility for proving that elves are real has to lie with those who believe that elves are real. It is not science's responsibility to disprove what can never be disproved. The fact that science cannot disprove elves does not prove that elves are real. The fact that science cannot disprove elves doesn't even give us a good reason to take seriously any claim that elves are real. You know what would give us a reason to take those claims seriously?

Evidence that elves are real.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
 
Tom Sawyer said:
If they could, they wouldn't just abstractly reduce the entropy. There would be some process by which they do so and that process would work according to some natural law.
Click to expand...
Yup. If, for example, an intelligent race developed a method of using photons to create order. Perhaps they could use EM to create consciousness or something... without relying on organic chemistry. Then again, if you can continually add energy to the system, why not create a sandbox solar system for beings to live in. You don't even need a huge universe- just make it look like there is one. They might catch on though.....
 
They might catch on? Clearly you haven't met too many humans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom