God vs Science

If we are going to give God the status of a scientific answer we need scientific evidence. We do not have that.
The clash between science and religion is created solely by religious people who try to give God unjustified scientific status, and the sceptics who demand the evidence that was not intended to be there. Without them there would be no clash.
We need to come to terms with the fact that if a deity existed it would be a philosophical issue, not a scientific one. Then, and only then, can we discuss the matter honestly with each other.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Science
• Religion
• Epistemology
• Atheism
• Christianity
• Islam
• Theism
• Clutchology

[disarmsmile]

Science deals with material proofs, such as the earth is flat and the rest of the solar system doesn't rotate it. However science counts for nothing with dealing with immaterial proofs, such as the existence of god or mathematics ( sciencetifically you can't prove with 100% certainty that all triangle have an area that's equal to base times height divided by two, however in mathematics you can prove it to be true with 100% acurracy). Thus scientific prove is irrelevant to the existance of god!

[Clutchology]

Exactly. Which is why it's so tiresome to see theists trying to use science to prove the existence of god, and atheists trying to use it to disprove him.

Both have failed before they even start.

[arjenvdziel]

@Clutchology However, if there is not the slightest understandable reason (or proof) to believe in God, then why believe in him at all? There would be just at must reason to believe in the literally countless other gods that have "existed" throughout history. And Pascal's Wager doesn't cut it. If you didn't believe before, but decide to take "the wager", God would know you did not truely believe. And if you already believed, it wouldn't be a wager....

[Clutchology]

@arjenvdziel Just because we rule out science, doesn't mean there is no understandable reason. Science doesn't exist in an epistemological vacuum. There are other valid and more appropriate epistemic methods we can use.

I believe a philosophical argument has to be formed. Science can be used to help justify a posteriori premises, but the arguments have to be philosophical in nature, not scientific.

PS. I'm an atheist. Got the impression reading your comment that you thought I was a theist.

[einLesenderArbeiter]

turkey knives are not razors. razors are razors. just saying.

[MegaPokerMon]

@TommyGuitarful yes lol its not even translated right...The Catholics edited it all back in the day to meet their own ends. Changed the Hebrew word for Pit into Hell to boost failing church attendance.

[TommyGuitarful]

@MegaPokerMon you're right, it's not impossible at all, I wasn't talking about the concept of creation per se. What's impossible is to reconcile the contents of a book written by humans 2000 years ago with modern day science. The two should be kept well apart!

[disarmsmile]

@MegaPokerMon Obviously, you have no formal training in math because otherwise you'd know that math isn't a science and it is absolute. Nothing in the physical universe can be described perfectly by math but there is no perfect forms or shapes in the physical universe. There are no perfect circles, or triangle in the universe and even if you try to make one there will always be imperfections in the material you use. Math takes place purely in thought in order to have no imperfections.

[MegaPokerMon]

@TommyGuitarful in an infinite system, creation is not impossible. If a man can manipulate an atom, A larger form of existence could manipulate a universe. But whether that existence gives any shit for the things happening in the tiny little sub/atomic structure it has created is another question entirely. If there is a creator it probably only cares whether his creation works without worrying about the parts as a whole just like man doesnt care about molecules as long the compound works.

[MegaPokerMon]

@disarmsmile thats wrong actually nothing in this universe is 100% accurate even proven by math. Given enough trials on a long enough timeline their will be deviation. Scientists like to believe that everything is absolute and has a quantifiable answer. But mathematics is nothing more than a set of theories to quantify our own perspective of the universe. In an infinite system there are no 100% proofs only things which appear as constants from our limited perspective. No opinion on the God thing

[TommyGuitarful]

@BaraKaStew you're just skirting around the issue, it was you who said something cant be created by nothing, not me. Nothing in the bible is up to date, it is all representative of the time it was written, as with all religious texts. You cant say "something has to have created this" and then avoid the issue of what it was that created the something that created it ...... oh no, you're religious, or course you can :P