The Black Vault Message Forums

Discover the Truth!        

Religion & Spirituality

Using science as proof of God existing???

Whether you believe in a higher power or not, this forum is dedicated to the topic of religion and spirituality. We live in a diverse world with different morals and ideas when it comes to our beliefs, so come in and share your thoughts.

Postby humphreys » Fri Mar 30, 2012 11:18 am

greeney2 wrote:Now, as I keep telling you, science has not claimed "there is no God", it is not the job of science to make such a claim.

Thank you. This was the purpose of this entire post, since so many atheists hinge thier beliefs on science and demand a scientific test as proof of Gods existance.


Well, you're talking about something different entirely there.

One can demand scientific evidence to prove the existence of God before believing, without expecting science to disprove God's existence. The first is reasonable, the latter isn't, due to the inability to prove a negative.

If we use the example of unicorns, we should not expect science to be able to prove there are no unicorns. However, we should not believe in them without scientific evidence of some kind. If unicorns were real, we should expect a scientific proof of their existence to be possible.
"All of our behavior can be traced to biological events about which we have no conscious knowledge: this has always suggested that free will is an illusion."

- Sam Harris
User avatar
humphreys
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:51 pm
Location: Inside your head.

Postby at1with0 » Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:04 pm

The truth of a statement lies in whether or not all the definitions are satisfied.

"God exists" is but one of many examples of that principle. Its truth depends on the definitions of the following words:

1. God
2. exists
3. proof

Thus, depending on the definitions, it is possible to prove that God does not exist, that God does exist, and even possible to prove that you can't prove it either way (i.e., it is undecidable). Anything is possible.


That's precisely why proof does not matter. :lol:
"it is easy to grow crazy"
User avatar
at1with0
 
Posts: 9183
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:55 pm
Location: the coproduct of the amalgam of all structures

Postby humphreys » Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:09 pm

at1with0 wrote:The truth of a statement lies in whether or not all the definitions are satisfied.

"God exists" is but one of many examples of that principle. Its truth depends on the definitions of the following words:

1. God
2. exists
3. proof

Thus, depending on the definitions, it is possible to prove that God does not exist, that God does exist, and even possible to prove that you can't prove it either way (i.e., it is undecidable). Anything is possible.

That's precisely why proof does not matter. :lol:


There is no agreed upon full definition of God, therefore no possible disproof.

By what method would you go about determining that a logically possible being is not present in the Universe somewhere?
"All of our behavior can be traced to biological events about which we have no conscious knowledge: this has always suggested that free will is an illusion."

- Sam Harris
User avatar
humphreys
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:51 pm
Location: Inside your head.

Postby at1with0 » Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:44 pm

humphreys wrote:There is no agreed upon full definition of God, therefore no possible disproof.

The word set is undefined in set theory and, oddly enough, there is no disproof of the existence of sets. Even though the word set is undefined, many things can be said about sets that are unambiguous, rigorous, and precise.

By what method would you go about determining that a logically possible being is not present in the Universe somewhere?

What is logically possible and impossible is irrelevant.

We'd have as much luck in proving sets are not present in the universe somewhere.

But to more directly answer your question, the universe would have to be exhaustively examined before any conclusion is justified. There might be a way to cheat and not have to examine the whole universe though.
"it is easy to grow crazy"
User avatar
at1with0
 
Posts: 9183
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:55 pm
Location: the coproduct of the amalgam of all structures

Postby humphreys » Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:46 pm

at1with0 wrote:But to more directly answer your question, the universe would have to be exhaustively examined before any conclusion is justified. There might be a way to cheat and not have to examine the whole universe though.


That is not feasible.

Whatever we are searching for might be clever enough to make sure he/it is never where we are looking, or clever enough to evade our best detection methods.
"All of our behavior can be traced to biological events about which we have no conscious knowledge: this has always suggested that free will is an illusion."

- Sam Harris
User avatar
humphreys
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:51 pm
Location: Inside your head.

Postby at1with0 » Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:54 pm

humphreys wrote:
at1with0 wrote:But to more directly answer your question, the universe would have to be exhaustively examined before any conclusion is justified. There might be a way to cheat and not have to examine the whole universe though.


That is not feasible.

Whatever we are searching for might be clever enough to make sure he/it is never where we are looking, or clever enough to evade our best detection methods.


Yes, which is, I think, your point, that there is no feasible way to prove a logically possible being is not present in the Universe.
"it is easy to grow crazy"
User avatar
at1with0
 
Posts: 9183
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:55 pm
Location: the coproduct of the amalgam of all structures

Previous

Return to Religion & Spirituality

cron
  • View new posts
  • View unanswered posts
  • Who is online
  • In total there are 3 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 10 minutes)
  • Most users ever online was 292 on Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:19 pm
  • Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests