Theists: A follow-up question, please:?

Question

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AsUGcYRwDLkA0mBWmq.NmiDsy6IX?qid=20060819115150AAOJnnG

I asked what hypothetical evidence, if it existed, would theists accept as proof that god doesn't exist.

No theist would answer this, even hypothetically. Every one admitted that there is no evidence at all that they would accept as proof that god doesn't exist.

I respect your honesty & faith

Now, science is a method used to understand the world, and works by proposing a testable & falsifiable hypothesis, & then trying to find evidence inconsistent with the hypothesis, so as to DISprove (not prove) it.

If you are admitting that you will not accept ANY evidence as being contrary to your god, then that logically precludes any attempt to study it scientifically.

I respect people who admit that their belief in god is based on faith alone

But why do *some* people lie and claim that there is scientific evidence of god or creation, when it is logically impossible?

One can't honestly reject science as a method of understanding god (because of the belief that nothing would disprove it), but then turn around and claim that science supports god.

The positions are mutually exclusive.


I hope some people out there will understand the point that I'm making, but I'm pessimistic.

Paul, it's actually pretty simple.

In science, all hypotheses must be falsifiable, which means that there must exist a possibility that it can be proven false.

If I said that the world was created 5 minutes ago and all of your memories and the physical world were placed there by a tricky god to fool you, that would not be falsifiable. It can't be proven wrong... and therefore CANNOT be investigated scientifically.

For more information on the importance of the principle of falsifiability, read some of Karl Popper's writings. The man is considered one of the founders of the scientific method.

Archer, there can also be no proof of creation for the same reasons.

All I have to do is ask:

What evidence would DISprove that god created the world?

and there is NO ANSWER. None that can be given.

It's the same issue because creationism is not falsifiable either.

So, no , you don't get off the hook with claiming that creationism is scientific because IT isn'e falsifible either.

Catching on yet?

PS: Archer, the geological evidence proves an ancient earth, that man came after beast, etc... which is inconsistent with the literal read of genesis anyway.

Oh, Genesis is falsifiable if read LITERALLY. And it has been falsified. Which is why very, very , very few christians actually read it to be literal and see it instead as analogy.

Paul, you just fell into the logical fallicy that DISproving evolution proves creationism.

That's nonsense.

Scientific proof of A must be proof of A, it is NEVER disproof of B.

Get a clue about what science is, huh?

robabard, the opinions of two men, even those of Einstein and Newton do not constitute evidence.

You are also trying to Prove A by disproving B, so you should also do a little reading about the scientific method because you don't understand it.



and strong beatu... wow! you're just not understanding the point ... not even close. Think about it some more, and then try to re-post if you want.

EyeLoveJesus GETS IT!!!!

Thank you. Someone who understands that faith exists outside of proof or evidence.

Faith is fine, and I respect people like you who acknowledge what true faith really is, and who don't launch into an attack on science when it challenges what people have been taking as a given.

But this recent political movement of trying to attack science and yet claim that it supports religious faith is just ludicrous, uninformed, and dishonest.

I'm glad to see that someone out there knows the difference between FAITH and EVIDENCE... even if it was only 1 person.

debydoo, carbon dating has not been proven unreliable. You're getting your information from anti-science fundy sites obviously.

Carbon dating has been shown to return unreliable data when it is misused. However, when carbon dating is used properly, with the proper sample, and in the proper way, it is reliable.

Please don't parrot misinformation when you don't understand what you're parrotting.



And Desperado, don't claim that there is no evidence for evolution.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
it's too easy to prove you wrong, and you just look like an @ss for saying it.

Todd B, nice cut & paste job, but I'm a scientist so you're not fooling me with that spin. Besides, you're quoting philosophers who actually predated the modern scientific method, so that's useless. Nice try, though.

Oh, and to the guy regarding ID... it's not falsifiable either. Hell, it doesn't even make a single prediction let alone a falsifiable one. Even Behe (one of the biggest proponents of ID) had to admit that under oath in the Dover PA trial.

by the way, Todd B., if you look around the answersingenesis site, you'll find out that their OFFICAL position is that-

If evidence is ever discovered that contradicts the bible, then the evidence is wrong.


How can you believe in a website that has explicitly stated that when reality and theology clash, that REALITY must be wrong????????

Answer 1

All I can say after reading the responses is that it is no wonder that the US is so far behind all other industrialized countries when it comes to science education.

With very few exceptions here, none of these folks seem to have a basic understanding of how science works. They just didn't understand a word of your very valid points.

It's sad, and I fear for the future of our country. We're slipping into the dark ages.

Answer 2

Proof that God does not exist? Say you are accused of committing a heinous crime that you know you didn't commit, but everyone thinks you did. Prove to everyone's satisfaction that you did not do the deed. No matter what proof you bring to bear, you will not convince everyone. There will always be a bunch who think you did it. The difficulty of proving something doesn't exist or a deed was never done is extremely difficult and just about impossible. As for the premise that God exists, it requires reason, understanding and intellectual integrity. So lack of any one of those qualities will make it nigh impossible to look at the evidence and believe what your eyes see. Now if you say, just hypothesize that God does not exist, well that is easy. The materialistic world view would be the only alternative. Then a human being would have no more intrinsic value than a flea. His happiness would not be anyone's concern. Value would only be accrued by continual acts that benefit society. Anyone that does not benefit is exterminated; no big loss. Hedonism would be the only good until the time of extermination came. Some thoughtful persons would wonder why they are even here. Everything will become empty. The only challenge would be survival. The elite could starve you, nuke you, experiment on you, and that would get your attention. You would try to save your worthless life. You'd lose, but it would get interesting and give you a worthwhile goal, for awhile at least.

Answer 3

I see what you are saying. A person can't say that they don't believe science can disprove God, then turn around and say that science proves the existance of God. True that.

Unfortuantely, we are talking about a group of people. Some Christians have been argued with so much that they feel they have to "scientifically justify" the existance of God. This is not wise. God cannot be touched physically, measured, or directly observed.

We can know of God's existance through another kind of evidence...historical. Science depends on current, recordable, and reproducable observations. I know that gravity works because I have seen it work again and again. If an apple fell up to the ceiling today while I was the only one watching it, it would not be scientifically "provable." Yet, that doesn't change the fact that it happened. If 100 people saw it and testified that it happened, we would be more comfortable saying that this was a HISTORICAL phenomenon that we cannot reproduce or understand scientifically. If 10,000 people saw the single event, it would be hard to understand, but as a group of people, we would rely on the testimony of the witnesses and trust that everyone that was there tells the same exact story.

So it is with God, the Creation, and the Bible.

Answer 4

You seem to have presupposed that science is the true measuring stick to determine what is or is not true. I respectfully reject that worldview. I does not make sense to use a discipline of questionable veracity to judge one of certain veracity. I think this would be something like using a new theory to judge whether or not an established law was true. It approaches the situation from an illogical direction.
I disagree that current scientific practices try to disprove current hypothesis. I agree that they should, I just don't think good scientific practices are being followed. The soft tissues which were found on a supposed 65 million year old fossil is one example. Previous belief held that 100k years was the longest possible time these could remain. The correct thing to do would be to look at all evidence again without bias. Then determine what age the fossil is. Instead, they have ruled out any possibility that the 65 million yrs could be wrong. Bad science.

I also must disagree with your opinion expressed in your additional details. My belief is that God created us with certain abilities and without others. Science relies on our abilities to observe. Since those abilities are limited, it is logical that science is limited. Since I believe that God created us with these limitations, it is logical that they were intentional. So we observe what he intends us to observe. Or put another way he reveals himself to us only as he chooses to. We serve his purpose, not he ours. Does my position require faith? Yes is does. But it is not a blind faith. Evidence of God is abundant to the spiritual person. It is also there for the scientist too. But he must not rule out God before he gathers the evidence.
Does science require faith? Yes it does as well. Consider the big bang, or inflation or Hawking's imaginary time, or string theory. What about abiogenesis?
So both science and religion require faith. I openly admit to mine. And still I respect those with opposing views. You seem capable of doing the same. Thank You. and
God Bless You.

Edit: reply to remark about AIG-- There is a difference between theology clashing with evidence and clashing with reality. Evidence can seem to clash with theology because we misinterpret it. This is no different that evidence clashing with other evidence. It happens all the time. Yet, we do not say that reality clashes with reality. So AIG is correct. If evidence is contrary to the bible, it is because the evidence is an incomplete picture. With more evidence it will come into harmony with the bible.

Answer 5

I totally understand what you are saying,

if scientific evidence is not acceptable to disproving God then how can it be used to prove God?

I understand your logic. I appreciate your respect of the fact that we have such strong faith.

Understand that scientific testing (evidence) is often flawed. Take the carbon dating. It is still being used many years after it has been proven unreliable.

Evolution -- it is still being touted as scientific, even thought the father of evolution (Darwin) said in his late years that he had made a terrible mistake.

Given your definition... If you are truly going to try and prove God exists by showing He doesn't exist.... Then go for it. There is no proof anywhere that He does not exist. You might even find yourself getting to know God.

Science can prove many things. But it cannot prove or disprove what is known by faith. The following text might help you to understand what faith is....

Hebrews 11:1. Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Like I said I do understand your question.

Good luck I hope this doesn't just make you more frustrated.

Answer 6

I believe in God,and I know that there is no laboratory test that can prove me right.
Now, science is supposed to be what you just said it was. How ever this method of testing you describe does not apply to evolution. If it did, then evolution would not be in all our science books. There is no proof-none. What you have is an old theory that is supported only by assumptions and postulations and other theories, but no solid evidence-none. All there is are lots of bones with no dates on them. All dates (every one of them) over about 5500 years are theories only-based on the assumed ages of the geologic strata (c.1830). Radio-metric dating methods (which are theoretical) are designed to support the assumed age of the strata, which is based on an assumed age of the index fossil. Basically what that means is that the age of T-Rex is a "guess" based on an "assumption" that is used to support a "theory"--scientist do not know-period. It just gets worse-no connection between man and ape yet either.

Now, there is archaeological and historical evidence to support some of the information given in the Bible. That makes the Bible at least part true. How do we know that the rest of it is not true-we don't. There are many who do not believe it-but no proof that it is not true.
I will continue to believe in God, even with all your science scoffing at me.


Edit: Okay I see what you are doing- I hope you can find your answer. I really do.

Answer 7

Perhaps the stumbling block is word choice. "Proof" is a systematic set of dominoes falling that can not be refuted. But you can also "know" something that is not proveable. My girlfriend is beautiful, a total babe. But that can never be proven. So, there are obviously important truths outside of the proveable. This is what The Bible talks about when they say "their wisdom is their foolishness": know it all people who don't really even know all the possible ways to know things.

As for God and science. If you count up all the coincidences that were 100% (proveable!, lol) required for life to live on this planet, you start thinking ... "Gee, that's just too coincidental ... I wonder if." This is a way to approach God with science. There are many others. Have you not known, have you not heard that both Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein believed in God? The world has not produced any other scientific intellect that even approaches these two. So, for your own karmic health, don't think for a second that science closes the door on God.

You can close the door if you want. That's cool. You can even nail plasterboard over the door. But the door is there.

Best to you ...

.

Answer 8

Here's the thing. I'm agnostic, BECAUSE there's nothing that would disprove and (more surprisingly) NOTHING THAT WOULD PROVE IT!

Think of it. Some guy, with a HUGE beard, comes down, he makes lightning come from his fingertips, he brings back the dead, and he makes the earth quake. Is that god? No it's just a superscientist: Electrogun, Bioreinducer, and ... I don't have a good pseudoscientific name for the third one. You can't prove there is a god, and you can't prove that one specific entity created the universe, even if it shows up and does a lotta stuff.

The "truth" of the existence of god isn't positive or negative, it's unverifiable. Just like the two following sentences:
This Sentence is a Lie
This Sentence is True.

The first is a paradox. The second isn't, but since something can't simultaneously be true and false (and it'd be possible to apply either observation), they are both unverifiable. The same is true of god. Which is why I'm agnostic, rather than athiest.

Answer 9

Some are not comfortable admitting that they live by faith and not by sight. God is spirit and as such, cannot be scrutinized scientifically.
I think the evidence part comes in when people attempt to prove the validity and accuracy of the Bible. There is evidence to support this and that and some will argue to the death over it.
God honors faith. When Jesus walked this earth the religious leaders who doubted asked for signs, for proof. He rebuked them.
Faith in God cannot be proven, or even explained, to those who deny it.
Mother Theresa once did an interview with a news anchor, Dan Rather maybe? He asked: "What do you say when you pray to God?:"
She answered: "I don't say anything; I just listen."
"Well, then, what does God say to you? "
And she responded: "He doesn't say anything, He just listens. And if you don't understand that, I can't explain it to you."
She didn't need to prove anything to anyone. She lived by faith and that is nothing to be ashamed of.

Answer 10

I hear that Intelligent design as a theory provides the best possible explanation for the origin of certain areas of microbiology and cosmology. This is not saying the same thing as you assert that Creationists are claiming this is the evidence for the existence of God. I don't really think that God's existence is dependent on our belief one way or the other.
If science is about understanding the world, doesn't that place things other than the visible world outside the domain of science?

Answer 11

Hello devlsadvoct.. :)

I used to be an Atheist..

After I asked Christ into my heart..my eyes were opened to the Truth for the first time.. :)

I rechecked scientific possiblities and if they were connected at all..In some ways yes..because science has shown us that even though we cannot see air..we now know it exists..we cannot see a plant, a child or an animal grow with our naked eyes..but we know that they do..

But when I started to check out miracles..I found out that science says that a miracle is something that cannot be proven in the physical realm, because science deals with things that are material and physical evidence..even though miracles have been shown to exist..that is why a they cannot be understood by men of science..

You are correct, we walk by faith and not by sight..Amen!!

In Jesus Most Precious Name..
With Love..In Christ.. :)