Science cannnot disprove the existence of God.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
WHy put science and reglion together.It does not belong together.jm

tell religion to stop making falsifiable claims about the universe then

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
WHy put science and reglion together.It does not belong together.jm

Because people use both of them to think about the world. Most scientists are religious, even more are faithful.

However, Religion should be taken out of the physical world and stop making claims about the natural world. The "god of the gaps" apprroach is an old one that will destroy religion in the process, which is perhaps why religion is been so volitile in the US.

However the clear MINORITY of scientists are fundamentalists.

its also variable by science

biologists for instance have like 2% who say they believe in a personal god, whereas the number of physicists or mathematicians is signifigantly higher, iirc 🙂

Originally posted by King Kandy
However the clear MINORITY of scientists are fundamentalists.

Yes.

Originally posted by inimalist
Here is a wonderful use of Occam's Razor:

I don't think Occam's razor can even be applied to something like divine revelation. I mean, who gets to define what a "compelling reason" to posit God as a cause of phenomena is? Scientific enterprise? Western philosophy? The adherents themselves?

Originally posted by Ytse
I don't think Occam's razor can even be applied to something like divine revelation. I mean, who gets to define what a "compelling reason" to posit God as a cause of phenomena is? Scientific enterprise? Western philosophy? The adherents themselves?

no, its a fine use

The idea that someone recieved divine revelation vs any other natural explanation of the phenomena fails occam's razor because it a) posits far more unknown variables than any natural phenomena b) it introduces unfalsifiable claims into the equation

Originally posted by inimalist
The idea that someone recieved divine revelation vs any other natural explanation of the phenomena fails occam's razor because it a) posits far more unknown variables than any natural phenomena b) it introduces unfalsifiable claims into the equation

I agree, that's what it does. But what I am saying is that science isn't eqipped to handle such inquiries. So, what use is it to invoke Occam's razor? It's not a compelling argument to use against a theistic worldview because it's ignoring the fundamental "suppositions" of theism.

oh right

relativism

go tell me when that finds results 😛

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Or can they?

They cannot prove that god doesn't exist and they cannot prove that he doesn't but none is saying what triggered the big bang ... God???

Originally posted by inimalist
relativism

go tell me when that finds results 😛

Why don't you tell me why science is successful then? It certainly cannot justify itself.

you have the audacity to say something like that on the internet...

for shame

I dislike when people capitalise pronouns when refering to deities.

Anyway negative proof is logical fallacy.

Originally posted by inimalist
you have the audacity to say something like that on the internet...

for shame

Eh?

What I'm getting at is that science cannot justify it's own methods. For instance the point at which we cut off skepticism as being "too radical" isn't derived by scientific means.

Originally posted by Ytse
Eh?

What I'm getting at is that science cannot justify it's own methods. For instance the point at which we cut off skepticism as being "too radical" isn't derived by scientific means.

The justification is that they work. I really can't see you complaining about the methods of science using that which science created.

Why do you feel that its methods aren't just?

Originally posted by Alliance
The justification is that they work.

Science is successful because science is successful?

Modern methods of science are justified because it is successful.

Whats your take?

Originally posted by Alliance
Modern methods of science are justified because it is successful.

Whats your take?

I'm not saying it isn't useful. Indeed it is a very useful tool. I'm saying science cannot explain why science works. And I'm saying that it ultimately rests on a non-scientific foundation.

Science is justified by it's ability to predict and confirm the predictions.

It works because it's the logical extension of cause & effect.

Originally posted by King Kandy
It works because it's the logical extension of cause & effect.

Here's what I'm getting at:

Science must assume that nature is uniform for it to work at all. For instance we can observe a million times that an apple falling from a tree will move toward earth rather than away from it. But can all of those observation tell us about the future?

We could reason that because falling apples have always been observed to act a particular way in the past that they will continue to act that way in the future. But now we're stuck with trying to justify the idea that the future will be like the past. Well, we could reason that in the past the future was always like the past so in the future it will also be like the past. But that's circular.

So, ultimately science calls upon us to abandon this "radical skepticism" for it to work at all. Now, that seems to be a bit internally incoherent to me. Science demands all sorts of rigor for knowledge to be validated but at it's very core is an assumption. And assumptions aren't very scientific.