Why Science Does Not Disprove God

[dachnik]

You will have much greater insight into Universe's mathematical design if you can read this:

http://kniganews.org/2014/01/02/orients/
http://kniganews.org/download/

PS: google translate might be of help

[1715152096]

1715152096

[1715152096]

1715152096

[beerbelch]

You can discuss that for long and will not find a solution.

[Nemo1024]

In my view, there are scientific disciplines that are well-equipped in examining religion. Those are: psychology, biology, neuroscience, anthropology and archaeology.

[Wipeout2097]

Of course science doesn't disprove God. But scientists aren't the ones with the burden of proof in the first place.

There is no burden of proof. If there was, it wouldn't be considered "faith"

I know there isn't. But if religious people want to meddle into science, they should start working on an effort of backing up their faith with facts, like everyone else that comes forward with theories.

A tiny correction there: it should have read hypothesises. A theory is a hypothesis that has already been strengthened by multiple empiric experiments. This is one of the reasons why people detached from the scientific process have trouble with, say, the theory of evolution, calling it "just a theory".

Oh yes. Ok, thanks.

[Trillium]

Misplaced Burden of Proof

What if you were to say this to your friend: “I think God exists and I can prove it using logic.” Then your friend were to say, “How could you possibly do that?” Then you were to say, “How? Well, how can you prove God doesn’t exist using logic?

What’s happened here is tricky, and it happens often in conversations without either person realizing it. If you make a claim about something, it is on you to prove that the claim is true. If you say something is the case, you must show how it’s the case. What happened above is that you shifted the burden of proof to your friend, when in fact it was on you. You claimed that you could prove God exists using logic, so it was on you to do so. Your friend never claimed that he could prove God didn’t exist.

This is misplacing the burden of proof. We make claims all the time about the world, and sometimes people ask us to explain how we know the claims we are making. When this happens, it is on us to explain it, not them. A common form of this argument is known as the appeal to ignorance. The appeal to ignorance basically says, “You can’t prove it’s false, so it must be true.” Or it says, “You can’t prove it’s true, so it must be false.”Again, if you make a claim that something is false, it’s on you to show how it’s false. The fact that someone else can’t prove your claim to be true doesn’t make it false. This fallacy exploits the things about the world that we don’t know.

Notice that both of the following are fallacies: “You can’t prove God doesn’t exist, so he must exist.” “You can’t prove that God does exist, so he must not exist.”

Often, people who understand logic well—like lawyers and politicians—will deliberately misplace the burden of proof to make their opponent look bad. They know the burden of proof is on them, but they want to shift focus away from themselves so they purposefully commit a burden of proof fallacy to catch their opponent off guard. Now that you’ve taken this class, you can arm yourself against such people!

Source: http://www.neo-philosophy.com/LogicWeek7.html

More: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

[cryptodevil]

It is absolutely possible to reason about god or . . .

No, because if you employ critical thinking and reasoning about the concept of 'God' you swiftly find that the notion falls apart as, in order to maintain the notions required for this topic of conversation, one has to become intellectually dishonest.

What you could say, instead, is, "It is absolutely possible to speculate about God . . ."

Which is just making shit up basically. Anything beyond that falls outside the bounds of intellectual honesty.

any other subject science can't explore including the study of the very large (I.e. the universe as a whole), the very small (subatomic and quantum levels), extremely rare events (e.g. Alien encounters, UFOs, God manifesting the body of a single individual, etc.).  

Can't explore? I suspect you misunderstand what the scientific method actually is.

 Science, aside from being a method, is simply one of many theories of knowledge acquisition, and by no means is it the best

Actually it is. You're just making false claims now in order to attempt to rubbish science and the scientific method so your ooky-spooky woo can be painted equally as valid a concept. It is not.

I suggest you learn a bit more about both the scientific method and fallacious argument.

[the joint]

It is absolutely possible to reason about god or . . .

No, because if you employ critical thinking and reasoning about the concept of 'God' you swiftly find that the notion falls apart as, in order to maintain the notions required for this topic of conversation, one has to become intellectually dishonest.

What you could say, instead, is, "It is absolutely possible to speculate about God . . ."

Which is just making shit up basically. Anything beyond that falls outside the bounds of intellectual honesty.

any other subject science can't explore including the study of the very large (I.e. the universe as a whole), the very small (subatomic and quantum levels), extremely rare events (e.g. Alien encounters, UFOs, God manifesting the body of a single individual, etc.).  

Can't explore? I suspect you misunderstand what the scientific method actually is.

Science, aside from being a method, is simply one of many theories of knowledge acquisition, and by no means is it the best

Actually it is. You're just making false claims now in order to attempt to rubbish science and the scientific method so your ooky-spooky woo can be painted equally as valid a concept. It is not.

I suggest you learn a bit more about both the scientific method and fallacious argument.

Addressing responses to each quote:

1)  Actually, God is a logical *necessity*, but unless you're actually curious about why this is, I'll spare you a lengthy explanation.  For example, if you can prove absolute truth exists (this is ludicrously easy as any attempt to deny absolute truth only reaffirms its existence), and you set 'absolute truth'='God' or 'x' or 'Allah' or whatever else, then you're no longer speculating -- instead, you are reasoning about something that is demonstrably provable.  If you have any doubts about the existence of absolute truth, I can dispell all of them in a few sentences.

2)  Please tell me how science can explore something abstract (hint: it can't).  I also hope you realize that science carries unfalsifiable (at least by its own methods) assumptions, e.g. we live in a Positivistic Universe.  This is particularly interesting because a Positivistic Universe is provably illogical since invoking a Positivistic Universe requires invoking a logical fallacy, namely the assertion that any two relands 'x' and 'y' can actually be absolutely independent of one another; this is wrong.

[cryptodevil]

^^^ Yum, word salad.

Goodness me you are certainly full of yourself. Shame you are so eminently full of something else too.

Firstly, could you explain to me what your point '3' is meant to be a take-down of? It appears to be solely a way for you to brag about how awesome you were as a student. Doesn't really address anything else though, does it?

[Nemo1024]

1)  Actually, God is a logical *necessity*, but unless you're actually curious about why this is, I'll spare you a lengthy explanation.  For example, if you can prove absolute truth exists (this is ludicrously easy as any attempt to deny absolute truth only reaffirms its existence), and you set 'absolute truth'='God' or 'x' or 'Allah' or whatever else, then you're no longer speculating -- instead, you are reasoning about something that is demonstrably provable.  If you have any doubts about the existence of absolute truth, I can dispell all of them in a few sentences.

I think you enter a fallacy region here. By the very same logic I can prove that you, "the joint" is a big green blob using mind tricks to appear in a human form. And it'd be interesting to hear your seasoning about "absolute truth".

Have you read Ludvig Holberg's "Erasmus Montanus" perchance?  

[the joint]

^^^ Yum, word salad.

Goodness me you are certainly full of yourself. Shame you are so eminently full of something else too.

Firstly, could you explain to me what your point '3' is meant to be a take-down of? It appears to be solely a way for you to brag about how awesome you were as a student. Doesn't really address anything else though, does it?

You suggested I learn more about the 'scientific method' and 'fallacious argument,' so I'm being equally passive-aggressive.  

[the joint]

1)  Actually, God is a logical *necessity*, but unless you're actually curious about why this is, I'll spare you a lengthy explanation.  For example, if you can prove absolute truth exists (this is ludicrously easy as any attempt to deny absolute truth only reaffirms its existence), and you set 'absolute truth'='God' or 'x' or 'Allah' or whatever else, then you're no longer speculating -- instead, you are reasoning about something that is demonstrably provable.  If you have any doubts about the existence of absolute truth, I can dispell all of them in a few sentences.

I think you enter a fallacy region here. By the very same logic I can prove that you, "the joint" is a big green blob using mind tricks to appear in a human form. And it'd be interesting to hear your seasoning about "absolute truth"

If someone says, "There is no absolute truth," they are saying, "It is the absolute truth there is no absolute truth."

If someone says, "There is more than one absolute truth" or "Truth is relative," then they are saying "It is the absolute truth that there is more than one absolute truth" or "It is the absolute truth that truth is relative."

You can't escape it; any attempt to deny absolute truth reaffirms its existence.

[Nemo1024]

Everything is relative to an observer, including this statement.

[the joint]

Everything is relative to an observer, including this statement.

"It is the absolute truth that everything is relative to an observer, including this statement."

[cryptodevil]

You suggested I learn more about the 'scientific method' and 'fallacious argument,' so I'm being equally passive-aggressive.  

Wow, you *really* do place a great deal of stock in your own 'cleverness', shame really, the scare-quotes around that word are there for a reason.

Your point '3' is utterly trite, it is not a clever retort to my remark that you would be better served learning more about the scientific method, if the reason why I suggest such is because the assertions you are making are clearly indicative of someone failing to account properly for the correct application of it as *the* tool for knowledge acquisition.

Either you don't understand the scientific method properly, meaning my suggestion is pertinent, while your point '3' is simply you fallaciously appealing to your own authority or, and this might equally be true, you do understand the scientific method but choose to dishonestly respond as if otherwise while crowing about how 'clever' all and sundry claim you to be, according to you.

[Nemo1024]

Everything is relative to an observer, including this statement.

"It is the absolute truth that everything is relative to an observer, including this statement."

It is the absolute truth for that specific observer that everything is relative to an observer, including this statement.

You see what I am doing? The same trick as "turtles all the way down".

And to repost: Have you read Ludvig Holberg's "Erasmus Montanus", perchance?

[cryptodevil]

Actually it is equally dishonest for anybody to be basing their argument on empty nonsense such as truth', let alone doing an on-the-fly conversion of it to equal 'God'.

You might as well say "Absolutely fluuuum exists" for all the use your argument is. Much in the same way as you are unable to define 'God', you are also unable to define the truth that you are attempting to smoke'n'mirror us with.

But I'm guessing that you're simply from the tired old school of claiming there must be a 'God' because, otherwise, how would you explain the beauty of a flower, or lurve, or morality. You know, subjective-made-up-shit(tm) that sounds all deep and meaningful but is only ever an exercise in intellectual dishonesty.

[the joint]

You suggested I learn more about the 'scientific method' and 'fallacious argument,' so I'm being equally passive-aggressive.  

Wow, you *really* do place a great deal of stock in your own 'cleverness', shame really, the scare-quotes around that word are there for a reason.

Your point '3' is utterly trite, it is not a clever retort to my remark that you would be better served learning more about the scientific method, if the reason why I suggest such is because the assertions you are making are clearly indicative of someone failing to account properly for the correct application of it as *the* tool for knowledge acquisition.

Either you don't understand the scientific method properly, meaning my suggestion is pertinent, while your point '3' is simply you fallaciously appealing to your own authority or, and this might equally be true, you do understand the scientific method but choose to dishonestly respond as if otherwise while crowing about how 'clever' all and sundry claim you to be, according to you.

Ill tell you what -- rebut points #1 and #2 and I'll concede #3.  However, it seems to me that you don't understand the limitations or boundaries of the scientific method, the discipline from which science is derived (philosophy), and how disciplines like mathematics and philosophy can pick up the slack by tackling issues science is ill-equipped to explore.

Point #3 isn't meant to be clever.  I am allowed to have a self-esteem and take pride in my accomplishments, thanks.

[the joint]

Everything is relative to an observer, including this statement.

"It is the absolute truth that everything is relative to an observer, including this statement."

It is the absolute truth for that specific observer that everything is relative to an observer, including this statement.

You see what I am doing? The same trick as "turtles all the way down".

And to repost: Have you read Ludvig Holberg's "Erasmus Montanus", perchance?

No, I know how to avoid a 'Tower of Turtles', thanks.

No, I haven't read that.

[cryptodevil]

Ill tell you what -- rebut points #1 and #2 and I'll concede #3.

I just did.

I am allowed to have a self-esteem and take pride in my accomplishments, thanks.

Good for you. Just don't wheel out your accomplishments and paint them as a retort in future. That is appealing to your own authority, which is fallacious.

[dancupid]

It's easy to prove God exists - you just need a good definition.

Let God be "the sum off all that exists" - and lo!, God exists by definition.
But such a definition doesn't tell me what to do - should I sacrifice virgins and only eat tofu?

Religion deosn't care about the definition - it cares about behaviour and conformity.
Belief is an after the fact justification for why we behave in certain ways.

The question science should be asking is 'why have human beings spontaneously and ubiquitously evolved religious forms of behaviour?'