Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 ... 12
Send Topic Print
You can't use Science to prove or disprove God (Read 15993 times)
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: You can't use Science to prove or disprove God
Reply #15 - Oct 28th, 2011 at 9:07am
 
Yadda wrote on Oct 28th, 2011 at 1:19am:
muso wrote on Oct 26th, 2011 at 7:33am:

The frogs' worldview is limited by the bounds of their perception, so they make stuff up to try to explain the reality of their situation.





Yes, i am sure that we are all just 'frogs', with perceptions.

Yes ?


hehe




I know that i have 'perceptions'.      Grin


Kermit, aka Yadda.




Far greater men than me have spoken in parables and analogies.

Did you like the cow? It definitely looked as if it was going to go to work on a Sunday.  Do you think its owner is going to hell?

Quote:
e.g.
If Julia_Gillard's ratings are currently low, could Julia improve her standing the public eye, if she appeared on a show like, THE X-FACTOR ???

I doubt it.


She would if she won it, I guess.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 28th, 2011 at 9:14am by muso »  

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
nairbe
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2587
Rural NSW
Gender: male
Re: You can't use Science to prove or disprove God
Reply #16 - Mar 10th, 2012 at 3:35pm
 
muso wrote on Oct 28th, 2011 at 9:04am:
Grey wrote on Oct 28th, 2011 at 2:58am:
Quote:
As for the unscientific part, I think that science and religion are not incompatible


As long as priests adapt their beliefs to fit the facts produced by science, scientists will continue to grin and bear it.

Quote:
You can't use Science to prove or disprove God


You can within the meaning of 'proof' according to science.


Science doesn't have that word in its vocabulary. Maybe you mean maths?


I always find this line of reason amazingly simplistic. As an Atheist i do not look to science for proof that God does not exist because god does not exist. Science has no need nor a cause to do so it is purely the load being born by christians to prove that their god exists. As throughout time they have no proof at all other than a book which has no way of being verified then christians are left with faith. Faith of course means "i don't know"

Well nor do i, but i do not need to hold on to some god and the shallow promise of an after life to give my life meaning. After years of struggle with my mind after a strict church brainwashing as a child, the liberation of an emancipated mind gave me all i need to live this life and know its value.

No science is not needed in this conversation as an atheist, but the christians sure do need it, otherwise they have no argument and nothing to battle against giving them little of value to live for.
Back to top
 

"Faced with what is right, to leave it undone shows a lack of courage."
Confucius
 
IP Logged
 
bobbythefap1
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 7026
Listen now to the rain
Re: You can't use Science to prove or disprove God
Reply #17 - Mar 10th, 2012 at 4:11pm
 
God and all religions are disproved by statistical probability.
A creator is one of an infinite number of possibilities as to the origins of the universe, which makes it so improbable that it is better to say it’s impossible. Furthermore to add specifics to this idea of a creator like religion does make it so impossible it makes absolutely no sense what so ever to believe in. Because without evidence it is just as likely that this universe was created by my fart in an alternate reality somewhere over the rainbow.

It really makes no sense to debate something’s existence until there is evidence for its existence.
Now you may say that the universe or life is proof of a creators existence, but I could just as easily say it is proof of a magical cat; both have the same plausibility.

It important to remember that the range of infinite possibilities as to the creation of the universe is so so so large the human mind could not even comprehend because many possibilities may not even make sense to our cognitive abilities.

Back to top
 

A day without sunshine is like night.
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: You can't use Science to prove or disprove God
Reply #18 - Mar 10th, 2012 at 6:25pm
 
How would you use statistical methods to prove that a particular natural vista is beautiful, or that Colombian coffee is the best, or that you love somebody?

If that statistical technique showed that it was contrary to your beliefs, would your beliefs suddenly become false? - or in the flawed illogical 100% natural brain of a human being, do you think that individual perception might just be a factor?

How do you categorise the supernatural in terms of existence? How would you define that which is supernatural, and how would you define a god in a mutually acceptable way to every human being in the world?

Quote:
It important to remember that the range of infinite possibilities as to the creation of the universe is so so so large the human mind could not even comprehend because many possibilities may not even make sense to our cognitive abilities.


PP - we're bordering on the same territory. I agree with that last point, but that doesn't make me either an agnostic, an atheist or a theist. To be one of those, we need to pretend that the definitive questions make sense, except for the case of some theists who believe that they know what the question means.  By the way, gods and creation of the universe rarely come as a package deal, except maybe in the Abrahamic religions.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Mar 10th, 2012 at 6:37pm by muso »  

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
bobbythefap1
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 7026
Listen now to the rain
Re: You can't use Science to prove or disprove God
Reply #19 - Mar 10th, 2012 at 6:40pm
 
muso wrote on Mar 10th, 2012 at 6:25pm:
How would you use statistical methods to prove that a particular natural vista is beautiful, or that Colombian coffee is the best, or that you love somebody?

If that statistical technique showed that it was contrary to your beliefs, would your beliefs suddenly become false? - or in the flawed illogical 100% natural brain of a human being, do you think that individual perception might just be a factor?

How do you categorise the supernatural in terms of existence? How would you define that which is supernatural, and how would you define a god in a mutually acceptable way to every human being in the world?

Quote:
It important to remember that the range of infinite possibilities as to the creation of the universe is so so so large the human mind could not even comprehend because many possibilities may not even make sense to our cognitive abilities.


PP - we're bordering on the same territory. I agree with that last point, but that doesn't make me either an agnostic, an atheist or a theist. To be one of those, we needs to pretend that the definitive questions make sense, except for the case of some theists who believe that they know what the question means. 
Those things you listed are opinions, the origins of the universe would be a fact if we knew what it was; which is vastly different to an opinion.
If you were to say for example Colombian coffee is the best because it has the strongest aroma you could look at what causes strong aroma in coffee, apply that to growing conditions of beans from around the world and see which has the highest probability of being aromatic as a result of the best conditions.
Of course if you had the coffee beans right in front of you, you could test the smell of beans from around the world and know definitively which is the most aromatic.

But god or the cause of our universe is not right in front of us and we can only evaluate it by what we know, which is nothing.
And the equvialant to comparing the coffee beans growing conditions in my analogy is being done today on ficition, with no evidence what so ever; which would be like guessing the growing conditions (of which we don’t even understand the concept) and trying to somehow get the right answer; i.e. this god or that god.

Science looks to find the information of which we can evaluate and thus understand.
But at present no such information exists.
So we can sit in ignorance and believe that a certain god is the truth for absolutely no reason, or we can embrace science and actually work out reality and fact.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Mar 10th, 2012 at 6:46pm by bobbythefap1 »  

A day without sunshine is like night.
 
IP Logged
 
nairbe
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2587
Rural NSW
Gender: male
Re: You can't use Science to prove or disprove God
Reply #20 - Mar 10th, 2012 at 7:22pm
 
bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 10th, 2012 at 6:40pm:
muso wrote on Mar 10th, 2012 at 6:25pm:
How would you use statistical methods to prove that a particular natural vista is beautiful, or that Colombian coffee is the best, or that you love somebody?

If that statistical technique showed that it was contrary to your beliefs, would your beliefs suddenly become false? - or in the flawed illogical 100% natural brain of a human being, do you think that individual perception might just be a factor?

How do you categorise the supernatural in terms of existence? How would you define that which is supernatural, and how would you define a god in a mutually acceptable way to every human being in the world?

Quote:
It important to remember that the range of infinite possibilities as to the creation of the universe is so so so large the human mind could not even comprehend because many possibilities may not even make sense to our cognitive abilities.


PP - we're bordering on the same territory. I agree with that last point, but that doesn't make me either an agnostic, an atheist or a theist. To be one of those, we needs to pretend that the definitive questions make sense, except for the case of some theists who believe that they know what the question means. 
Those things you listed are opinions, the origins of the universe would be a fact if we knew what it was; which is vastly different to an opinion.
If you were to say for example Colombian coffee is the best because it has the strongest aroma you could look at what causes strong aroma in coffee, apply that to growing conditions of beans from around the world and see which has the highest probability of being aromatic as a result of the best conditions.
Of course if you had the coffee beans right in front of you, you could test the smell of beans from around the world and know definitively which is the most aromatic.

But god or the cause of our universe is not right in front of us and we can only evaluate it by what we know, which is nothing.
And the equvialant to comparing the coffee beans growing conditions in my analogy is being done today on ficition, with no evidence what so ever; which would be like guessing the growing conditions (of which we don’t even understand the concept) and trying to somehow get the right answer; i.e. this god or that god.

Science looks to find the information of which we can evaluate and thus understand.
But at present no such information exists.
So we can sit in ignorance and believe that a certain god is the truth for absolutely no reason, or we can embrace science and actually work out reality and fact.


Again is it of any consequence. Christians and for that matter Muslims and buddhists and Hindus and the rest all base everything on faith, faith cannot be measured, studied, analysed or judged. It simply just is, i don't know how many time at youth rallies after a long day they would stir tired youths into a frenzy and tell us it was the spirit of the lord we felt when in reality it was over tired sugar laden over hormonal teens feeling confused.

Science is reason and logic, it has a long long way to go before it has the ultimate answers, but it does help us to realise that there is a structure to the universe that can be understood with the discipline to focus on that which is rather than that we wish was.
Back to top
 

"Faced with what is right, to leave it undone shows a lack of courage."
Confucius
 
IP Logged
 
Dnarever
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 57065
Here
Gender: male
Re: You can't use Science to prove or disprove God
Reply #21 - Mar 10th, 2012 at 7:51pm
 
Sappho wrote on Oct 24th, 2011 at 9:28am:
You can't use Science to prove or disprove God, yet people do it all the time.

So, how do we prove or disprove God's existence?



A scientist shaking his hand would do me?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: You can't use Science to prove or disprove God
Reply #22 - Mar 11th, 2012 at 8:16am
 
Dnarever wrote on Mar 10th, 2012 at 7:51pm:
Sappho wrote on Oct 24th, 2011 at 9:28am:
You can't use Science to prove or disprove God, yet people do it all the time.

So, how do we prove or disprove God's existence?


A scientist shaking his hand would do me?



Well, If she exists, she knows where I live.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: You can't use Science to prove or disprove God
Reply #23 - Mar 11th, 2012 at 8:37am
 
bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 10th, 2012 at 6:40pm:
[Those things you listed are opinions, the origins of the universe would be a fact if we knew what it was; which is vastly different to an opinion.


... but until we do, it's also an opinion, and all these things will probably remain as opinions, which are the exclusive property of the human condition.

You can't apply scientific method to something unless you first define it in a cognitively meaningful way.

Also, "If you can't measure it, it doesn't exist" is a total non-sequitur. Things don't suddenly start to exist as a consequence of a new technology that enables their measurement. I'd be pretty certain that neutrinos actually existed in the 19th century.

How do you define time without reference to time? In a universe with no observable events, how do you measure time? Is time real or is it just a theory - or a number of competing theories?`Does time progress at a constant rate or not? (notwithstanding Einstein)
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
bobbythefap1
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 7026
Listen now to the rain
Re: You can't use Science to prove or disprove God
Reply #24 - Mar 11th, 2012 at 10:08am
 
muso wrote on Mar 11th, 2012 at 8:37am:
bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 10th, 2012 at 6:40pm:
[Those things you listed are opinions, the origins of the universe would be a fact if we knew what it was; which is vastly different to an opinion.


... but until we do, it's also an opinion, and all these things will probably remain as opinions, which are the exclusive property of the human condition.

You can't apply scientific method to something unless you first define it in a cognitively meaningful way.

Also, "If you can't measure it, it doesn't exist" is a total non-sequitur. Things don't suddenly start to exist as a consequence of a new technology that enables their measurement. I'd be pretty certain that neutrinos actually existed in the 19th century.

How do you define time without reference to time? In a universe with no observable events, how do you measure time? Is time real or is it just a theory - or a number of competing theories?`Does time progress at a constant rate or not? (notwithstanding Einstein)
Isnt that what I said sorta?
Back to top
 

A day without sunshine is like night.
 
IP Logged
 
Sappho
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1406
Gender: female
Re: You can't use Science to prove or disprove God
Reply #25 - Mar 12th, 2012 at 6:27pm
 
bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 10th, 2012 at 4:11pm:
God and all religions are disproved by statistical probability.
A creator is one of an infinite number of possibilities as to the origins of the universe, which makes it so improbable that it is better to say it’s impossible. Furthermore to add specifics to this idea of a creator like religion does make it so impossible it makes absolutely no sense what so ever to believe in. Because without evidence it is just as likely that this universe was created by my fart in an alternate reality somewhere over the rainbow.


And then again.....

[quote]A scientist has calculated that there is a 67% chance that God exists.

Dr Stephen Unwin has used a 200-year-old formula to calculate the probability of the existence of an omnipotent being. Bayes' Theory is usually used to work out the likelihood of events, such as nuclear power failure, by balancing the various factors that could affect a situation.

The Manchester University graduate, who now works as a risk assessor in Ohio, said the theory starts from the assumption that God has a 50/50 chance of existing, and then factors in the evidence both for and against the notion of a higher being.
source

Finally, probability is not certainty.
Back to top
 

"Love is a cunning weaver of fantasies and fables."
 
IP Logged
 
Sappho
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1406
Gender: female
Re: You can't use Science to prove or disprove God
Reply #26 - Mar 12th, 2012 at 6:29pm
 
bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 10th, 2012 at 4:11pm:
God and all religions are disproved by statistical probability.
A creator is one of an infinite number of possibilities as to the origins of the universe, which makes it so improbable that it is better to say it’s impossible. Furthermore to add specifics to this idea of a creator like religion does make it so impossible it makes absolutely no sense what so ever to believe in. Because without evidence it is just as likely that this universe was created by my fart in an alternate reality somewhere over the rainbow.


And then again.....

Quote:
A scientist has calculated that there is a 67% chance that God exists.

Dr Stephen Unwin has used a 200-year-old formula to calculate the probability of the existence of an omnipotent being. Bayes' Theory is usually used to work out the likelihood of events, such as nuclear power failure, by balancing the various factors that could affect a situation.

The Manchester University graduate, who now works as a risk assessor in Ohio, said the theory starts from the assumption that God has a 50/50 chance of existing, and then factors in the evidence both for and against the notion of a higher being.
source


Finally, probability is not certainty.
Back to top
 

"Love is a cunning weaver of fantasies and fables."
 
IP Logged
 
bobbythefap1
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 7026
Listen now to the rain
Re: You can't use Science to prove or disprove God
Reply #27 - Mar 12th, 2012 at 6:30pm
 
Sappho wrote on Mar 12th, 2012 at 6:27pm:
[quote author=6B5457524F52585A576B4E4B4B5E4F3B0 link=1319412508/17#17 date=1331359863]God and all religions are disproved by statistical probability.
A creator is one of an infinite number of possibilities as to the origins of the universe, which makes it so improbable that it is better to say it’s impossible. Furthermore to add specifics to this idea of a creator like religion does make it so impossible it makes absolutely no sense what so ever to believe in. Because without evidence it is just as likely that this universe was created by my fart in an alternate reality somewhere over the rainbow.


And then again.....

Quote:
A scientist has calculated that there is a 67% chance that God exists.

Dr Stephen Unwin has used a 200-year-old formula to calculate the probability of the existence of an omnipotent being. Bayes' Theory is usually used to work out the likelihood of events, such as nuclear power failure, by balancing the various factors that could affect a situation.

The Manchester University graduate, who now works as a risk assessor in Ohio, said the theory starts from the assumption that God has a 50/50 chance of existing, and then factors in the evidence both for and against the notion of a higher being.
source

Finally, probability is not certainty.

There is no way you could work out the probability, which is the point in what I was saying.
It is one in an infinite number of possibilities.
If people could comprehend infinity they would probably agree with my position on religion.
Back to top
 

A day without sunshine is like night.
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: You can't use Science to prove or disprove God
Reply #28 - Mar 12th, 2012 at 8:07pm
 
Quote:
A scientist has calculated that there is a 67% chance that God exists.

Dr Stephen Unwin has used a 200-year-old formula to calculate the probability of the existence of an omnipotent being. Bayes' Theory is usually used to work out the likelihood of events, such as nuclear power failure, by balancing the various factors that could affect a situation.

The Manchester University graduate, who now works as a risk assessor in Ohio, said the theory starts from the assumption that God has a 50/50 chance of existing, and then factors in the evidence both for and against the notion of a higher being.
.



Therein lies the flaw. Besides that, people have an expectation of the type of god that exists according to their own beliefs. They look at that 67% and some see the vanilla, non-interventionalist god of the Deists, some see  the fully fledged Gold, Frankinsense and Myrh version complete with 3 Hail Marys and an Our Father, and others see their own cultural interpretation. 

Even if that 67% were valid, you'd have to share that 67% between all the possible gods. I'm not sure what you'd do with the polytheists. The Our Father migfht end up with a 2 % share or less.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Mar 12th, 2012 at 8:17pm by muso »  

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
nairbe
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2587
Rural NSW
Gender: male
Re: You can't use Science to prove or disprove God
Reply #29 - Mar 12th, 2012 at 8:16pm
 
The purpose of science is not to prove or disprove the existence of a fairytale. Science is the pursuit of knowledge based on investigation, logic, assessment, verification and probability. It has no use for faith. It is only the obsession of the God botherers that keeps this futile argument alive. Really it is the faithful that need science.
Back to top
 

"Faced with what is right, to leave it undone shows a lack of courage."
Confucius
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 ... 12
Send Topic Print