Is this like 'creationism' in reverse, on the part of non-theists?
2007-10-25 02:50:14 · 24 answers · asked by Jerusalem Delivered 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I don't say that, but God is a theory just like any other.
2007-10-25 02:52:56 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
Science is the methodical study of God's handiwork. They go hand in glove so nicely, there's no room for debate. Using science to prove God is like using a microscope to look at the stars. The greatest thing we can imagine is puny by God's standards, yet He knows every little thing here as well. The sooner we stop trying to understand God and enjoy His creation instead, the happier and more sane we'll be.
2007-10-26 19:39:17 · answer #2 · answered by Thomas E 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think many, or any as I recall, people do say that. Could you point to someone who does?
However I, and many other non-believers, do not accept what believers claim as proof of a gods existence since it either has no evidential link to a god or cannot be tested (i.e. personal knowledge).
It would be sensible to deny that a god could exist if that existence were to breach physical laws, but since, as far as I can see, most believers claim that their god is outside of our existence, that would be inappropriate.
But then we are back to the basic problem. Believers have faith in something for which there is no evidence, and can be no evidence if it is outside of our physical existence, and atheists don't.
It is either faith or evidence, and they are not the same thing.
2007-10-26 19:18:08 · answer #3 · answered by davidifyouknowme 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just as one person's science may be another person's magic, one person's God may be another person's unexplained cosmic phenomenon. The more phenomena that are explained and quantified through scientific means, the less "supernatural" we have left to explore. Personally, I think there is no such thing as the supernatural, only the natural that has not been explained. If one were to define and quantify God to the nth degree and find this quality lurking somewhere in the cosmos, it would no longer be God but another unexplained phenomenon finally explained. Without belief and the willingness to accept something as truth without proof, there is no God. If God is proven scientifically, he will paradoxically cease to be God.
Edit: Interestingly, my line of thought here led me to think that everyone sees, in effect, what they expect to see. Theists see God in everything; atheists see the physical properties and analyze in scientific manner, thus excluding the possibility of God. What does this say about Man and his faculties? Perhaps that we ourselves influence our own reality. Atheists don't really want to see God, and Theists don't want to see a universe without God. So there you are!
2007-10-25 10:00:35 · answer #4 · answered by Black Dog 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Anything that does really exist can be proven by science and logic. If something cannot be proven, that is a strong indication that one should doubt its existence. If one believes some gods exist, he must also believe that they created science too. Why would a deity create anything that would not prove he exists? That makes no sense at all, does it, now?
2007-10-25 09:56:39 · answer #5 · answered by miyuki & kyojin 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think they probably mean that they will only BELIEVE that God exists if He can be proven by science. People who actually understand how science works know that not everything in existence has been proven already, so to say "nothing exists unless proven" would be unscientific.
2007-10-25 09:54:54 · answer #6 · answered by teran_realtor 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Existence or not is independent of whether something can be proven. We can only be certain of existence of an object or entity if it's able to be materially proven. And since god exists (if at all) outside of the material realm, there's no way to satisfactorily prove his existence.
2007-10-25 10:02:34 · answer #7 · answered by chasm81 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's an easy out for those who want nothing to do with God.
Incidentally, God is not theory. It makes no sense to call God, theory. You can't experience God through lab experiments or similar methodology.
Either you are open to experiencing God through faith or you are not. That is a concept so far removed from the scientific process that it is an insult to science to call it theory.
2007-10-25 10:03:47 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't say that.
I am agnostic, and I DO say that without proof, there is no reason to believe.
If someone CHOOSES to believe in the absence of proof, of course that is THEIR RIGHT to do so, and I fully support that right. That's why it is called FAITH.
But for people who require PROOF, they aren't going to believe.
I have NEVER heard anyone say, that if something isn't provable, if therefore does not exsist. I have only heard them say that since it has NOT been proven, they don't believe it.
2007-10-25 09:58:50 · answer #9 · answered by queenthesbian 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, we assert that only what can be objectively verified can exist. Not that we have to already have verified it. There are many things that exist which no one has ever studied.
However, things for which there is no proof are summarily dismissed until proof or evidence is found. If something has no evidence, how exactly does it affect our lives?
2007-10-25 09:54:26 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
Stones are people who are stuck thinking only in terms of the physical realm. They cannot conceive of anything transcending the physical. As science, so far, is stuck exploring and explaining only the physical realm, stones are likewise stuck.
2007-10-25 09:56:45 · answer #11 · answered by jaicee 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋