independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Will Science Someday Rule Out the Possibility of God?
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 1 of 7 1234567>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 09/20/12 3:19pm

rudedog

avatar

Will Science Someday Rule Out the Possibility of God?

Newton believed that science showed God's infinite wisdom - the more science explained things the more amazed he was at the God's creation. I think he believed that God was in the science.
But we've come a LONG way since Newton. Do you think science will eventually rule out the possibility of God?

Over the past few centuries, science can be said to have gradually chipped away at the traditional grounds for believing in God. Much of what once seemed mysterious — the existence of humanity, the life-bearing perfection of Earth, the workings of the universe — can now be explained by biology, astronomy, physics and other domains of science.

Although cosmic mysteries remain, Sean Carroll, a theoretical cosmologist at the California Institute of Technology, says there's good reason to think science will ultimately arrive at a complete understanding of the universe that leaves no grounds for God whatsoever.

Carroll argues that God's sphere of influence has shrunk drastically in modern times, as physics and cosmology have expanded in their ability to explain the origin and evolution of the universe. "As we learn more about the universe, there's less and less need to look outside it for help," he told Life's Little Mysteries.

He thinks the sphere of supernatural influence will eventually shrink to nil. But could science really eventually explain everything?

Beginning of time

Gobs of evidence have been collected in favor of the Big Bang model of cosmology, or the notion that the universe expanded from a hot, infinitely dense state to its current cooler, more expansive state over the course of 13.7 billion years. Cosmologists can model what happened from 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang until now, but the split-second before that remains murky. Some theologians have tried to equate the moment of the Big Bang with the description of the creation of the world found in the Bible and other religious texts; they argue that something — i.e., God — must have initiated the explosive event.

However, in Carroll's opinion, progress in cosmology will eventually eliminate any perceived need for a Big Bang trigger-puller.

As he explained in a recent article in the "Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity" (Wiley-Blackwell, 2012), a foremost goal of modern physics is to formulate a working theory that describes the entire universe, from subatomic to astronomical scales, within a single framework. Such a theory, called "quantum gravity," will necessarily account for what happened at the moment of the Big Bang. Some versions of quantum gravity theory that have been proposed by cosmologists predict that the Big Bang, rather than being the starting point of time, was just "a transitional stage in an eternal universe," in Carroll's words. For example, one model holds that the universe acts like a balloon that inflates and deflates over and over under its own steam. If, in fact, time had no beginning, this shuts the book on Genesis. [Big Bang Was Actually a Phase Change, New Theory Says]

Other versions of quantum gravity theory currently being explored by cosmologists predict that time did start at the Big Bang. But these versions of events don't cast a role for God either. Not only do they describe the evolution of the universe since the Big Bang, but they also account for how time was able to get underway in the first place. As such, these quantum gravity theories still constitute complete, self-contained descriptions of the history of the universe. "Nothing in the fact that there is a first moment of time, in other words, necessitates that an external something is required to bring the universe about at that moment," Carroll wrote.

Another way to put it is that contemporary physics theories, though still under development and awaiting future experimental testing, are turning out to be capable of explaining why Big Bangs occur, without the need for a supernatural jumpstart. As Alex Filippenko, an astrophysicist at the University of California, Berkeley, said in a conference talk earlier this year, "The Big Bang could've occurred as a result of just the laws of physics being there. With the laws of physics, you can get universes."

Parallel universes

But there are other potential grounds for God. Physicists have observed that many of the physical constants that define our universe, from the mass of the electron to the density of dark energy, are eerily perfect for supporting life. Alter one of these constants by a hair, and the universe becomes unrecognizable. "For example, if the mass of the neutron were a bit larger (in comparison to the mass of the proton) than its actual value, hydrogen would not fuse into deuterium and conventional stars would be impossible," Carroll said. And thus, so would life as we know it. [7 Theories on the Origin of Life]

Theologians often seize upon the so-called "fine-tuning" of the physical constants as evidence that God must have had a hand in them; it seems he chose the constants just for us. But contemporary physics explains our seemingly supernatural good luck in a different way.

Some versions of quantum gravity theory, including string theory, predict that our life-giving universe is but one of an infinite number of universes that altogether make up the multiverse. Among these infinite universes, the full range of values of all the physical constants are represented, and only some of the universes have values for the constants that enable the formation of stars, planets and life as we know it. We find ourselves in one of the lucky universes (because where else?). [Parallel Universes Explained in 200 Words]

Some theologians counter that it is far simpler to invoke God than to postulate the existence of infinitely many universes in order to explain our universe's life-giving perfection. To them, Carroll retorts that the multiverse wasn't postulated as a complicated way to explain fine-tuning. On the contrary, it follows as a natural consequence of our best, most elegant theories.

Once again, if or when these theories prove correct, "a multiverse happens, whether you like it or not," he wrote. And there goes God's hand in things. [Poll: Do You Believe in God?]

The reason why

Another role for God is as a raison d'être for the universe. Even if cosmologists manage to explain how the universe began, and why it seems so fine-tuned for life, the question might remain why there is something as opposed to nothing. To many people, the answer to the question is God. According to Carroll, this answer pales under scrutiny. There can be no answer to such a question, he says.

"Most scientists … suspect that the search for ultimate explanations eventually terminates in some final theory of the world, along with the phrase 'and that's just how it is,'" Carroll wrote. People who find this unsatisfying are failing to treat the entire universe as something unique — "something for which a different set of standards is appropriate." A complete scientific theory that accounts for everything in the universe doesn't need an external explanation in the same way that specific things within the universe need external explanations. In fact, Carroll argues, wrapping another layer of explanation (i.e., God) around a self-contained theory of everything would just be an unnecessary complication. (The theory already works without God.)

Judged by the standards of any other scientific theory, the "God hypothesis" does not do very well, Carroll argues. But he grants that "the idea of God has functions other than those of a scientific hypothesis."

Psychology research suggests that belief in the supernatural acts as societal glue and motivates people to follow the rules; further, belief in the afterlife helps people grieve and staves off fears of death.

"We're not designed at the level of theoretical physics," Daniel Kruger, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of Michigan, told LiveScience last year. What matters to most people "is what happens at the human scale, relationships to other people, things we experience in a lifetime."

http://news.yahoo.com/science-someday-rule-possibility-god-115945479.html

"The voter is less important than the man who provides money to the candidate," - Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens
Rudedog no no no!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 09/20/12 4:27pm

Graycap23

Makes perfect sense 2 me.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 09/20/12 4:27pm

V10LETBLUES

I don't think so. Not n the foreseeable future. We arw are barely skimming the surface of a grain of sand that is. Our solar system. The only way we could know for certain, is if god himself came down and told us he didn't exist.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 09/20/12 5:00pm

XxAxX

avatar

personally, i think science cannot rule out 'god' due to because science will be the first to detect and encounter alien intelligence which, to my way of thinking, is likely what the old legends called 'god. but that's just me.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 09/20/12 8:24pm

RodeoSchro

Nope!

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 09/20/12 10:20pm

lust

avatar

V10LETBLUES said:

I don't think so. Not n the foreseeable future. We arw are barely skimming the surface of a grain of sand that is. Our solar system. The only way we could know for certain, is if god himself came down and told us he didn't exist.

And then dissapeared into a puff of logic.

If the milk turns out to be sour, I aint the kinda pussy to drink it!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 09/20/12 10:28pm

lust

avatar

Rule out the possibility? Probably not. But it will and is diminishing the probability of there being a god simply by elimenating the need for one.

[Edited 9/20/12 22:30pm]

If the milk turns out to be sour, I aint the kinda pussy to drink it!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 09/21/12 12:13am

BombSquad

avatar

rudedog said:

But there are other potential grounds for God. Physicists have observed that many of the physical constants that define our universe, from the mass of the electron to the density of dark energy, are eerily perfect for supporting life. Alter one of these constants by a hair, and the universe becomes unrecognizable. "For example, if the mass of the neutron were a bit larger (in comparison to the mass of the proton) than its actual value, hydrogen would not fuse into deuterium and conventional stars would be impossible," Carroll said. And thus, so would life as we know it. [7 Theories on the Origin of Life]

and in the meantime, in a parallel universe not so far away, with different physical constants than ours, some alien entity swimming in some wobbling quantum soup is thinking "we are lucky the constants are as they are and not any different. otherwise we'd probably just had usless stars million degress hot, some cold empty planets out of rocks, and ENDLESS useless empty space in between. in such a unverse conventional wobbling quantum soup would be impossible, and thus life as we know it."

Has anyone tried unplugging the United States and plugging it back in?
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 09/21/12 2:07am

BobGeorge909

avatar

Sorry....don't use a Wii to post on the org.

[Edited 9/22/12 7:33am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 09/21/12 6:41am

CarrieMpls

Ex-Moderator

avatar

lust said:

Rule out the possibility? Probably not. But it will and is diminishing the probability of there being a god simply by elimenating the need for one.

[Edited 9/20/12 22:30pm]

That's in line with my thinking too. We invented gods to explain what we don't understand. The more we learn and understand the less we need a god to explain it.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 09/21/12 7:04am

PurpleJedi

avatar

It's a possibility...once humans have lost their souls. nod

By St. Boogar and all the saints at the backside door of Purgatory!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 09/21/12 7:08am

Shanti0608

Science might but ppl will always need something to fear and to keep them in line so to speak.

Kind of like how I have friends that threaten their kids to be behave by saying if you don't behave Santa will not come bring you toys.

Fear!

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 09/21/12 8:19am

razor

I can certainly envisage arriving at a point where we can explain the universe to a degree of understanding where we can reasonably say we have, to borrow the phrase, no more need for the god hypothesis (some would argue we're already there).

Whether that stops people believing will be another matter. As we see with evolution, for some when reality conflicts with belief, reality loses.

[Edited 9/21/12 8:35am]

"He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; and he that dares not reason is a slave." - William Drummond
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 09/21/12 8:20am

razor

RodeoSchro said:

Nope!

Be fascinated to know on what you base this certainty?

"He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; and he that dares not reason is a slave." - William Drummond
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 09/21/12 8:22am

razor

PurpleJedi said:

It's a possibility...once humans have lost their souls. nod

Should science indeed do as the op suggests and catagorically rule out a god, we would have surely established that we never actually had any souls to lose.

"He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; and he that dares not reason is a slave." - William Drummond
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 09/21/12 4:33pm

duccichucka

Science cannot rule out belief in God or the possibility of the existence of

a God just as much it cannot rule out belief in love and/or justice or the

possibility of the existence of love and/or justice.

And besides, in order for science to rule out the possibility of God, it

would first have to agree on what/who "God" is, right?!

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 09/21/12 4:40pm

IanRG

There are two ways to answer this.

Will Science correctly or incorrectly rule out the possibility of God?

If there is no God, then I think that science has a chance of proving this. It will not be soon and it will not be by better understanding the big bang, evolution and whether there is a multiverse or not - these are just the hows. It will be by better understanding the whys.

If God exists, then absolutely, the article demonstrates that people like Sean Carroll well and truly have the capability to delude themselves and others - to misdirect science to falsely prove their wrong assumptions.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 09/21/12 4:57pm

lust

avatar

duccichucka said:

Science cannot rule out belief in God or the possibility of the existence of

a God just as much it cannot rule out belief in love and/or justice or the

possibility of the existence of love and/or justice.

And besides, in order for science to rule out the possibility of God, it

would first have to agree on what/who "God" is, right?!

Lets then say that the concept of god would be defined as a sentient entity that created the universe? That sound reasonable?

And I think scientists woul be happy to admit love exists and tell you the exact checmicals and mechanism that make us feel it. Of course science can't rule out belief in sometimg but it can rule out what you beleive in beyond reasonable doubt.

If the milk turns out to be sour, I aint the kinda pussy to drink it!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 09/21/12 5:25pm

toejam

avatar

duccichucka said:

Science cannot rule out belief in God or the possibility of the existence of a God just as much it cannot rule out belief in love and/or justice or the possibility of the existence of love and/or justice.


"Belief" in God, and God's actual existence/non-existence are two different things though.

Regarding love and justice, these are feelings and perceptions. I know I have feelings and perceptions (consciousness). I suspect other people do too. I can't prove that they do, only that I see so many similarities between myself and others, that it makes sense to think that they do. I know what my body does when it feels pain and sadness (cries, shivers etc.), and so when I see others crying and shivering, I accept that they too are having similar feelings.

But Science can explain the mechanisms that produce these feelings, or at least, is working on them, and has made much progress in the last century. There are things we can do to our physical bodies that alter our perceptions of love and justice. There may be no ultimate, absolute, "correct" version of love or justice, only our individual perception of them. Similarly, there are good evolutionary reasons for how these feelings may have been moulded by the circumstances of history into what we typically perceive them as being. Most of us would agree that we love our children, and this is exactly what we would expect should evolutionary pressures also alter our feelings/perceptions as it does to our physicality.

Ultimately, I can't help but feel you too often pin your hopes of there being a God on the current mysteries of consciousness. But from my point of view, all I see is a stock 'God of the Gaps' argument: Science can't/hasn't explained x, therefore God... Well... Maybe, but let's wait and see. If God is simply defined as "consciousness", then I would agree that consciousness exists. But I suspect most definitions of God go beyond that.

And besides, in order for science to rule out the possibility of God, it would first have to agree on what/who "God" is, right?!


Very good point. And to me, this explains why the definition of God typically changes as science progresses. Believers in a particular God definition either have to shut themselves off from the science that disagrees with their definition (which typically results in them labelling non-believers as being "closed-minded", not really seeking the truth etc.), or they accept the science and adjust their definition of God in the process. And this is the great catch of religion. If in your God definition, you have a get-out-of-jail clause like "God created everything", then you can always play that hand to "answer" current scientific mysteries: "Oh, we don't know how consciousness works? Well, that's not a problem, because it says here that God created everything so that explains it!!" Righteo. Well, all I will say is that the track record of that kind of argument is pretty poor.

.

[Edited 9/22/12 0:04am]

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 09/21/12 5:30pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

No. proving a negative is not possible sans god like powers, so proving there is no god would require god. the fact that relgion conventily assumes god is all powerful so no evidence is evidence as god could have made that to trick us.

but NO: the laws of logic can not ever prove a negitive. so god can never be ruled out.

I stand with Ben and the Moderators!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 09/21/12 5:56pm

toejam

avatar

IanRG said:

If there is no God, then I think that science has a chance of proving this. It will not be soon and it will not be by better understanding the big bang, evolution and whether there is a multiverse or not - these are just the hows. It will be by better understanding the whys.


A "why" question seeks to determine conscious decisions being made by other conscious beings: E.g. Why did the man cross the road? Because he wanted to avoid standing in the puddle. We project that the man is indeed conscious, and made a conscious decision to avoid the puddle. Whether or not our projection is accurate is another question altogether.

But if there is nothing else out there that is conscious, then putting a "why" question onto it could be as empty as asking "What is the colour of jealousy?" or "Who is the Planet Jupiter?"

And if God is the "answer" to "why" things exist, then why does God exist? My guess is that you would see that question as being as empty as "What is the colour of jealousy?" because your definition of God wouldn't allow there to be another consciousness that explains his existence. The point is: The question of "why" can only go so far, God or no God. I'm just not convinced that there is another conscious thing out there that actually does answer the question "Why do we/the universe (etc.) exist?".

AND... even if we knew that there WAS a God who had a purpose for us, knowing and understanding that purpose is yet another leap.

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 09/21/12 6:16pm

IanRG

toejam said:

IanRG said:

If there is no God, then I think that science has a chance of proving this. It will not be soon and it will not be by better understanding the big bang, evolution and whether there is a multiverse or not - these are just the hows. It will be by better understanding the whys.


A "why" question seeks to determine conscious decisions being made by other conscious beings: E.g. Why did the man cross the road? Because he wanted to avoid standing in the puddle. We project that the man is indeed conscious, and made a conscious decision to avoid the puddle. Whether or not our projection is accurate is another question altogether.

This is wrong. Within the assumption here that there is no God the why there is a universe, us etc. does not seek any concious decision at all.

Yet again you have created an anology that makes absolutley no sense and is just a poor, poor excuse to recycle your opinion about why you don't believe in God. Why there is a universe and us etc is not by any stretch of the imagination similar to why a person chose to cross the road - unless you are saying there is a universal conciousness! A better analogy would be how river water flows downstream does not explain why there is gravity - no concious decision by anyone or anything.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 09/21/12 6:38pm

toejam

avatar

IanRG said:

A better analogy would be how river water flows downstream does not explain why there is gravity - no concious decision by anyone or anything.


So why does gravity exist then?

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 09/21/12 7:07pm

IanRG

toejam said:

IanRG said:

A better analogy would be how river water flows downstream does not explain why there is gravity - no concious decision by anyone or anything.


So why does gravity exist then?

Ahh, your vortex of mundanity returns...

We are not discussing why gravity exists anymore than why a person crossed a road. We were discussing whether science can rule out the possibility of God. On the unproven assumption that there is no God then contrary to your argument and poor analogy, the why anything exists is not under this assumption the result of any concious decision.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #24 posted 09/21/12 7:37pm

toejam

avatar

^I'll just close then by restating: I'm just not convinced that there is another conscious thing out there that actually does provide us with a tangible answer as to "why" we/the universe/existence (etc.) exists. And I remain skeptical towards the claims made by yourself and others that there is. And on that note, vortex closed.

("Vortex of mundanity". I like that. I should have copywrighted that phrase lol)

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #25 posted 09/21/12 8:08pm

IanRG

toejam said:

^I'll just close then by restating: I'm just not convinced that there is another conscious thing out there that actually does provide us with a tangible answer as to "why" we/the universe/existence (etc.) exists. And I remain skeptical towards the claims made by yourself and others that there is. And on that note, vortex closed.

("Vortex of mundanity". I like that. I should have copywrighted that phrase lol)

I never ever claimed that if there is no God then there must be another conscious thing out there that provides us with a tangible answer as to why.

This was never my argument, is not my argument, bears no relationship at all to anything I said and it is this error that I tried to correct when I said "no concious decision by anyone or anything".

It is the reason I said that your poor anology was so very, very poor - a man making a decision relies on conciousness, gravity has no conciousness and this is why I corrected your analogy to something with no conciousness - you are arguing against a fiction of your own making.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #26 posted 09/21/12 9:47pm

toejam

avatar

^OK. Well, I have no problem with "gravity" being a sufficient enough answer at this point in time as to "why" water flows down stream. In that sense, I see what you're saying - not all "why" questions seek to determine conscious decisions made by other conscious beings. But of course the next question is "why does gravity exist?". And I'm not sure we really know whether or not that question has any answer or relevance yet. All I'm saying is that when asking the "why" question, at some point we have to stop and say, well this "just is", or that explanations could go on forever and we continue to look for them, ... or we simply say we don't know at this point in time, which is the position I take. For me, hitching your wagon (as Damosuzuki would say) to a "just is" as specific as a conscious, supernatural, intentful, eternal entity like a God, just seems a bit of a stretch with what we now know. But even if we do make this leap, then trying to decipher what that God's intention with the existence he created is seems yet another stretch.

So I'm not really sure whether or not science can rule out the possibility of God. Provided there are mysteries, I suspect people will always speculate about the answers to those mysteries by invoking higher conscious beings "outside" of the universe that we currently understand. But I think most of the time that's nothing more than a biproduct of our evolutionary history that has encouraged us to project consciousness, seek its intention, and assume that the bump in the night has more relevance to our survival than it actually might in reality.

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #27 posted 09/21/12 10:26pm

IanRG

toejam said:

^OK. Well, I have no problem with "gravity" being a sufficient enough answer at this point in time as to "why" water flows down stream. In that sense, I see what you're saying - not all "why" questions seek to determine conscious decisions made by other conscious beings. But of course the next question is "why does gravity exist?". And I'm not sure we really know whether or not that question has any answer or relevance yet. All I'm saying is that when asking the "why" question, at some point we have to stop and say, well this "just is", or that explanations could go on forever and we continue to look for them, ... or we simply say we don't know at this point in time, which is the position I take. For me, hitching your wagon (as Damosuzuki would say) to a "just is" as specific as a conscious, supernatural, intentful, eternal entity like a God, just seems a bit of a stretch with what we now know. But even if we do make this leap, then trying to decipher what that God's intention with the existence he created is seems yet another stretch.

So I'm not really sure whether or not science can rule out the possibility of God. Provided there are mysteries, I suspect people will always speculate about the answers to those mysteries by invoking higher conscious beings "outside" of the universe that we currently understand. But I think most of the time that's nothing more than a biproduct of our evolutionary history that has encouraged us to project consciousness, seek its intention, and assume that the bump in the night has more relevance to our survival than it actually might in reality.

This is a much better answer, the type that I like from you.

Obviously, I disagree with you that recognising God as being behind this is a specific "just is" that is a stretch. Also, U disagree that our knowledge of God is merely a by-product of evolution. So I will put these aside.

I think that whilst ever there is mystery that we should and will seek to answer these mysteries by expanding our knowledge - be that through the physical sciences, philosophy, theology etc etc. I cannot see a day when we will say to ourselves "that is it, we know enough, let's stop."

The problem I see in the OP is that the article's author assumes that there is no God and all belief in God is based on the God in the Gaps fallacy. If this is driving his science then it is flawed - To use an analogy borrowed from Stephen Hawking's latest book: Refining epicycles so that they more and more accurately represented how planets and the sun orbit the Earth will never mean that the Earth is in the centre of solar system - in the same way theories deliberately constructed to explain away God will never mean that God does not exist.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #28 posted 09/21/12 11:09pm

toejam

avatar

^And I generally agree with most of this. But I would add two more things:

IanRG said:
- in the same way theories deliberately constructed to explain away God will never mean that God does not exist.


1) that "theories" (such as yours) constructed to explain the existence of God may never mean that God does indeed exist (i.e. what people pin down as being explainable by God can, and have been, be prematurely labelled), and 2) that just because Science may not be able to completely disprove a particular definition of God, that that should not be considered evidence for that God - in the same way that Science may also not be able to completely disprove the claim of the existence of a conscious rock who makes a conscious choice to appear unconscious when being observed, should not be considered evidence for the existence of such a rock. Fictions can be written that explain things that cannot be disproven (and people have a tendency to fall for them when they are perceived as being beneficial to "believe" in)

... OK, and a third thing (lol):

I would also question whether the author really is "deliberately constructing a theory to explain away God", or whether he is merely pointing to the potential dubiousness of the characteristics typically ascribed to God by many believers. Is someone who points out the flaws in belief in Allah "deliberately constructing a theory to explain away God", or are they simply pointing out the flaws in believing in him?

.

[Edited 9/21/12 23:14pm]

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #29 posted 09/21/12 11:43pm

IanRG

toejam said:

^And I generally agree with most of this. But I would add two more things:

IanRG said:
- in the same way theories deliberately constructed to explain away God will never mean that God does not exist.


1) that "theories" (such as yours) constructed to explain the existence of God may never mean that God does indeed exist (i.e. what people pin down as being explainable by God can, and have been, be prematurely labelled), and 2) that just because Science may not be able to completely disprove a particular definition of God, that that should not be considered evidence for that God - in the same way that Science may also not be able to completely disprove the claim of the existence of a conscious rock who makes a conscious choice to appear unconscious when being observed, should not be considered evidence for the existence of such a rock. Fictions can be written that explain things that cannot be disproven (and people have a tendency to fall for them when they are perceived as being beneficial to "believe" in)

You have missed my point - the existence of a theory for or against anything does not create or uncreate the thing the theory is about. God's existence is independent of theories as is your existence.

... OK, and a third thing (lol):

I would also question whether the author really is "deliberately constructing a theory to explain away God", or whether he is merely pointing to the potential dubiousness of the characteristics typically ascribed to God by many believers. Is someone who points out the flaws in belief in Allah "deliberately constructing a theory to explain away God", or are they simply pointing out the flaws in believing in him?

If he was just pointing out flaws then this summation could be right. However, he is doing more than this and in the proceess he is falling for the God in the gaps fallacy by imagining that we may be able to close the gaps by coming up with alternate explanations. This is what I am talking about by saying that if he deliberately constructs a theory to explain away God.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 1 of 7 1234567>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Will Science Someday Rule Out the Possibility of God?