is it sensible or logical, scientifically....?

Question

from a PURELY scientific view, is it truly sensible, logical, or productive, to affirmatively say that there is NO God?

look at the amount of scientific knowlege we have. its a pretty decent amount, right? I mean a person could probably spend their whole life studying one area of it and not know everything there is to know in that field.

but, on the other hand, any honest scientist would admit that theres much more they do NOT know about any particular subject, than that which they DO know.

all our knowlege is based on the accumulation of a handful of people, over a few hundred years, on a speck of a planet among who knows how many, on the edge of one galaxy, amongst... again, who knows how many. and whos to know theres not something beyond that? or others below?
theres so much in existance that science has yet to even think about being able to look at....

its fully scientific to say that theres no evidence for God, or the afterlife. ... but to affirmatively say theres not?

depending on exactly how you define "God" ... it seems peculiar that one would assert it to affirmatively not exist.

I mean,if someone belives in "thor" ... you can say that it doesn't exist, and alot of people would agree with you. ... but what if there was an alien that called themselves that, to ancient people it dealt with, and became that figure through stories and such?

one could say that "well they weren't a god!, just an alien!" but really isn't that an issue with the definition of "God"? the thing that the word was referring to, in that case... if that were so... would in fact, actually be real, and actually exist ... even if it didn't qualify as that which many people have come to use that word for.

saying "God doesn't exist!" without defining what it is you are decreeing to not-exist, ... is meaningless!

Lucid, so what definition of God do you declare to not exist?

are you so arrogant as to belive that everyone else perceives the world as you do?
have you considered the possibility that , in the situations that others experience, something they call "God" in fact, actually existing, IS the simplest solution?

I mean have you HEARD some of the crap some "scientists" come up with to get around "God" as a solution to things? its hilarious.

andrew, prove what does/does not exist? without more specifically defining what "God" means when you use the word... its useless.

without further specification of meaning, the word "God" covers too broad a spectrum of meaning to be of any use. such that one meaning could be completely true, and the other completely false, while falling under the same general use of the same word.

wow. its amazing how many people who directly or indirectly take an intellectually superior position, don't get this. its not that complicated, or so i thought.

>>"This argument seems to be saying because we don't know we should believe in something with no evidence or proof."<<

thats not what I'm saying at all. the jist of it is that I'm saying the scientific/logical solution, in real honesty, can only go as far as an agnostic "I don't know". and that an affirmatively non-existant belief is as, if not MORE "Faith based" as to say that it does exist.

you definitionally can't experience the non-existance of something.
at least a halucination or delusion of something affirmatively BEING there, COULD be real.
I can experience a person having existed. ... I can't experience their having not ever existed.

and thats not even the whole point, a big part of the point is that "God" is too unspecific of a word to even use scientifically or logically, without further definition.

I normally try to cover at least 2 answers with an edit, but since you specifically asked... heh

in essence, this is exactly why the word needs definition, as many people use the concept of God, it would indeed be that "bin of wish fulfillment".
my argument is that basically... "God" does not NECCESARILY mean that.

a phrase I read in a book, was "I don't belive in God, but what I belive in, I call God."

what *I* call God, IS "of such perfection that his existance could not be doubted". and that its more that a large portion of the observers, can't see the forest for the trees.

what if the difference between science now, and science in 1000 years, is discovery of a way to objectively observe things that spiritual people have been able to perceive, in a non-objective way... since the beginning of history?

what if the lines connecting the dots that "draw" "GOD" that spiritual people "see" is in that range that they see, but science has not developed to be able to observe, YET.

basically the part you referred to earlier, ...

I have experienced things, as have quite a few others, that the most simple explanation, is something that would be categorized as "spiritual" or "religious" and would in an analytical sense, be entirely not empirically provable.

I mean, if someone experiences a dozen interconnected, beneficial "coincidences" and 1 in a million chances of luck in a row for an outcome... its hard to think its really completely unguided.

I think that the core of the scientific method CAN be applied to the metaphysical world. ... but it would have to be adapted to the different medium.
applying current scientific method to metaphysical things, would be like using a pressure-measuring device designed for the bottom of the ocean, in outer space.
add to that that a large amount of the variables in the metaphysical situation, aren't even currently recognized to EXIST... its a big jump.
the metaphysical world isn't just random whatever someone wishes...

Answer 1

didn't read the whole thing it was too long yeah I know I am lazy but you can neither prove he does not exist or that he does

Answer 2

Is it productive for science to exclude God? Science is a method of inquiry. I would think it can inquire into anything. So to say science only deals with the material universe is limiting science. Science ranges from psychology to sociology and philosophy. It depends on which branch of science, so we are talking about the physical sciences. I can't see why it might not, to some degree, include spirituality. Everything is actually related. A scientist would do well to know all the disciplines as even language relates to science if only to publish and think. Science has to define how it relates to other disciplines. To define the fence you need to look on both sides. For instance, if psychology gets to consciousness does it have to wait for science to decide if awareness can be created or destroyed? Psychology would have to investigate the relationship of science to consciousness. And science could determine if awareness can create energy. Considering all we know now, that seems like a very real question, if only to disprove it. In fact scientists are looking into those questions.
No ones even going to read this with all these answers, but anyway, is it possible that maybe we are just vain arguing over words and working a crossword puzzle for amusement, while there is so much wrong in the world? Science hasn't proven there even if a unified field theory, but we don't throw science out. Why not agree on what we can? Peace, working together to fix the ills in the world, information in psychology to fix aberrant behavior non-violantly. God is love, let all your affairs take place with love, humility, not thinking any more of yourself than you have to but think so as to have a sound mind. If we can agree to work together in love and compassion we could get on with the work. If the majority of the world went along with that, a lot could be done by citizen volunteers. Are we just making excuses for not taking responsibility for our earth and passing it on to leaders? If science says we have the emotional maturity of a two or three year old, could we grow up a little? Logical, but we won't and these will be more vain words. No one gets the vision that if it is to be done we must do it. One of the major issues is starting an open discussion by citizen with terrorist. We can't say they can't be helped if we haven't tried. I think we have the technology. Even a truce would be an improvement. We have no authority other than numbers but governments listen to numbers clearly presented. Every arguement and obsticall can be resolve one step at a time. We would no doubt get support from some of the greatest minds in the world, until now unheard. It takes two people and then three and it's well along the way before you know it.

Answer 3

[[["a big part of the point is that "God" is too unspecific of a word to even use scientifically or logically, without further definition."]]]

I must say that I definitely agree with you on this one. "God" is a relative term, just the same as "good/bad"... Although to you it might mean one thing, to me it could mean a totally and completely different thing. And who is actually to say which opinion is right or wrong... Ex: Some would agree that Logic is not absolute because it is at times subject to "vote." Logic is often dependent upon different people's minds since people are different. Therefore, "absolutes" cannot be based on human thinking since human thinking is often contradictory. However some others might logic can be agreed on and is undeniable, proven true through a logical process, known as a syllogism.

Something that is undefined, such as the term "God" cannot be determined to exist or not exist b/c of the fact that it is in fact undefined, and can have many different meanings.

Answer 4

No scientist would ever affirmatively say that there is NO God? Science studies evidence where it can be found and from that evidence makes predictions of plausibility and creates theories. Since there is no evidence to study relating to a god, science has nothing to consider where god is concerned. In short, science does not say there is no god. Science simply states that without observable evidence to study, there is nothing to suggest that there is. You may be right. There may well be a god. But until some evidence can be found to support the notion, then science will concentrate on other explanations for the beginnings of the universe and such that evidence shows to be more feasible.

Answer 5

This argument seems to be saying because we don't know we should believe in something with no evidence or proof. Would it be equally valid for me to say an advance alien civilization created our world as part of some science experiment. There is just as much proof or reason to believe this as for a supernatural deity. I will hold off on believing scenarios without evidence as that is the criteria that I apply to the rest of my life.

"the jist of it is that I'm saying the scientific/logical solution, in real honesty, can only go as far as an agnostic "I don't know". and that an affirmatively non-existant belief is as, if not MORE "Faith based" as to say that it does exist."

I disagree with your idea. I think there is a bit a semantical versus pragmatic definition difference here. By your rigid definition there would be few things we could ever say we know for sure and would have to also declare ourselves agnostic on. On the flip side scientists don't say believe in everything until there is proof for or against. The path of science is to formulate questions and then test them and base our beliefs and understanding on objective evidence. Living by your definition could get chaotic as we would have to give astrology, the boogie man, alien visitations, demon infestation, and all other manner of bizarre, improbable, and lacking evidence claims more merit than they deserve until they can be shown to be true by some evidence. I do agree with the idea the definition of God could be so broad that it can mean anything. If you define God as the sum of the four fundamental forces of physics I certainly couldn't dispute that. Problem is in trying to have a discussion everyone is bringing their very different personal concepts of God to the conversation and assuming your concept is somewhere like their own. For the conversation to be meaningful you have to first get everyone on the same page as to what the idea of God being discussed is. I think you are thinking about ignosticsm here. The premise of ignosticsm is that a coherent definition of "God" must be put forward before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition cannot be verified empirically, the ignostic believes that it is not coherent. In that case, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the truth value of the existence of God (as there defined) is meaningless (in other words, whether it is true or false does not matter).

Answer 6

Good Post RW! I find it amazing that so many people have faith in unproven theories to the same degree that I have faith in God. I can't prove that God exist and my counterparts can't prove that he doesn't exists. Religion is based on faith. Anything that cannot be proven is simply based on faith. Both Christians and atheists must have a measure of faith to believe in those things that they have accepted. My faith is in God, and I strongly believe that God created the entire Universe. I have faith in the inspired word of God.

Have faith dear friends in God.
Isaiah 45:18
Hebrews 11:3
Colossians 1:16

Answer 7

No

Since science deals only with material tangible things it has nothing to do with God, it simply can't proove or disproove God.

Particularly i think occam's razor [some answers mentioned it], point to the existance of a creator.

Paz de Cristo

Answer 8

well said, and i mostly agree... but do you really think that god is the sort of thing that can get lost in your sock drawer? shouldn't an omnipotent being leave some sort of evidence?

"I mean have you HEARD some of the crap some "scientists" come up with to get around "God" as a solution to things? its hilarious."

can you elaborate on this? seems like your biases are showing with this statement ;)

edit: thanks for clarifying. it's interesting to consider what sort of things science might be capable of examining in the future. really it's anyone's guess what's just over the horizon, i think all we can be sure of is that it will be very strange. imagine trying to explain antimatter to aristotle... i don't see any reason to think that god is over the horizon, but obviously i could be wrong.

Answer 9

I shave with Ockham's Razor.
Keeps my face and my life clean of dross.

I can't do much with what I don't know, as vast as it is..... so I make do with what I do know until I manage to learn more. Show me evidence of a god and I'll believe in it.... but without that evidence I will maintain my scepticism.

Answer 10

You are likely to get a great deal of references to "Ockham's Razor" in Atheists' responses.

"Ockham's Razor" is the atheist version of "Pascal's Wager" in a sense, though logically it makes much more sense.