Originally posted by Bardock42
But it actually is. It's cute that you guys don't want it to be. But science is concerned with everything.
No its not. You like to think so.
Natural sciences, (which are the ones spoken of in this thread)are not concerned with sociological, philosophical, theological and metaphysical matters.
There is not a SINGLE natural scientific trait in philosophy.
Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
Don’t know why I’m getting jumped on for this but it is a hypothetical question, I didn’t even say that they were trying to prove God or not that they found proof that he didn’t exist. Simply put they could have been searching for the answer to the start of the universe and in doing so proved there was no God.However science can be used to test the “supernatural” but not to prove it but to disprove it, find out what people perceived to be supernatural and explain it with science. Such as people used to think lighting was the wraith of Zeus, but with science that has been debunked.
It is not my intention to 'jump at you', but this question has been argued too many times (in various threads over various topics).
Natural science cannot be used in argument about God. Ever.
Why?
Because science draws conclusions on empirically collected data. You cannot empirically collect data on something you don't even have a clear definition of. God cannot generate empirical data.
That means that idea of God is a philosophical, and metaphysical one - not scientific.
Let me put it this way -
To ask science to prove God, is the same thing as me asking you to use scientific method to answer a following question -
Are the things that are valuable, valuable because we value them or do we value them because they are valuable?
Can you use scientific method to answer question above? No? Why? Because its a philosophical question. Just as God is.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
It is not my intention to 'jump at you', but this question has been argued too many times (in various threads over various topics).Natural science cannot be used in argument about God. Ever.
Why?
Because science draws conclusions on empirically collected data. You cannot empirically collect data on something you don't even have a clear definition of. God cannot generate empirical data.
That means that idea of God is a philosophical, and metaphysical one - not scientific.Let me put it this way -
To ask science to prove God, is the same thing as me asking you to use scientific method to answer a following question -
[b]Are the things that are valuable, valuable because we value them or do we value them because they are valuable?
Can you use scientific method to answer question above? No? Why? Because its a philosophical question. Just as God is. [/B]
Originally posted by AllianceFor **** sake, it was just a question. And what has been argued over countless threads, science disproving God or Christianity gone tomorrow?
✅
Fine I'll ****ing change the question, and magic fairy goes POOF there is no God. Happy? This question is not even about ****ing science, it is about if there was proof and I don't care what the hell from, that there is no God what would it do on society. That is why I put this in the ****ing post " No I don’t want to hear “It will never happen”, for the sake of the thread I’m purposing that it does."
Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
For **** sake, it was just a question. And what has been argued over countless threads, science disproving God or Christianity gone tomorrow?Fine I'll ****ing change the question, and magic fairy goes POOF there is no God. Happy? This question is not even about ****ing science, it is about if there was proof and I don't care what the hell from, that there is no God what would it do on society. That is why I put this in the ****ing post " [b]No I don’t want to hear “It will never happen”, for the sake of the thread I’m purposing that it does.
" [/B]
can i be the magic fairy
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
No its not. You like to think so.Natural sciences, (which are the ones spoken of in this thread)are not concerned with sociological, philosophical, theological and metaphysical matters.
There is not a SINGLE natural scientific trait in philosophy.
I didn't say that philosophy uses scientific methods. I said that science is of course interested in explaining all phenomenons in our world. You say that God is outside of the natural world and that science can not find evidence for it....but science does not just agree with your idiotic view, it would of course try to find evidence and research it...as it does with anything that we regard as supernatural.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
God cannot generate empirical data.
You know that why?
And even if you know that....science knows it and just say "Meh, that one is not for us, it can't be found" .... just doesn't seem like scientists behaviour.
Originally posted by Alliance
Theres no need to blow a gasket, but science does not examine the supernatural. Its a common error in arguments and it SEVERELY undermines science.I understand its not part of your question, but its a severe error that really needs to be stopped.
God you are an idiot. And probably going to be one heck of a horrible scientist.
Let me ask you this question: How do YOU (alliance) know whether a phenomenon is natural and therefore alright for you to research or whether it is not? What is supernatural for you and why. 5000 years ago would gunpowder have been supernatural for you and therefore not for you to research? How do you know what is and what isn't? And couldn't a God be a natural phenomenon?
Also, how do you know that we won't find a law or applicable mathematical prove that a God can not exist in, lets say a Christian way? You seem really close minded.
I understand that you and lil b like to think of a set of believes which have the trait "not to be researched by science" ... they don't exist though, because whether or not scientific approaches work or not....Science will always try.
Also, it doesn't really need to be true....that science disproved in in this hypothetical question, the idea that everyone believes it is enough.
Originally posted by AllianceIf I was trying to disprove God with science that would be one thing, but to b*tch about it in this thread with a hypothetical question that doesn't even talk about that is something I would expect from other members.
Theres no need to blow a gasket, but science does not examine the supernatural. Its a common error in arguments and it SEVERELY undermines science.I understand its not part of your question, but its a severe error that really needs to be stopped.
One can use science to show the lack of a need for any supernatural intervention for the current state of the universe... but would still never be able to prove or disprove the existence of the supernatural be it the existence of deities, or faerie folk or Santa.
If it became possible to travel in time back to the days of yore, to discover no Jesus as is told in the Bible ever existed that would put a severe dent in Christian mythology. It still wouldn't necessarily disprove the existence of the Christian god though (nor is it even remotely possible as far as I'm aware under current potential theoretical models of time travel.)
Under the assumption of the hypothetical magical disproving of god though, I don't expect much would change for many more moderate people. As it hasn't thus far as science has increasingly explained how the natural world ticks along. Some may give up on their faith, some would just ignore it and continue believing, perhaps some would convert to another that hadn't been disproved, potentially I could even see a lot of suicides - as frankly some people need something beyond the physical to believe in. I don't see it affecting me whatsoever. 🙂
A massive advanced alien mothership could come down the, Aliens inside could show evidence, and explain an alternative explanation to existence than "God made it", with advanced techniques or whatever.
Deeply religious people still wouldn´t believe it, and would probably want a holy war against the blasphemous Satan guided devils from space.
Its simple really, Either your a believer or not (in whatever religion depending on your upbringing).
So christianity, Islam and Venusian queen of light worshipers will always be unless it is bread out through generations.
Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
For **** sake, it was just a question. And what has been argued over countless threads, science disproving God or Christianity gone tomorrow?Fine I'll ****ing change the question, and magic fairy goes POOF there is no God. Happy? This question is not even about ****ing science, it is about if there was proof and I don't care what the hell from, that there is no God what would it do on society. That is why I put this in the ****ing post " [b]No I don’t want to hear “It will never happen”, for the sake of the thread I’m purposing that it does.
" [/B]
Watch your language! You know the rules. If you can't debate without swearing, you will be removed from the forums.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I didn't say that philosophy uses scientific methods. I said that science is of course interested in explaining all phenomenons in our world. You say that God is outside of the natural world and that science can not find evidence for it....but science does not just agree with your idiotic view, it would of course try to find evidence and research it...as it does with anything that we regard as supernatural.You know that why?
And even if you know that....science knows it and just say "Meh, that one is not for us, it can't be found" .... just doesn't seem like scientists behaviour.
God you are an idiot. And probably going to be one heck of a horrible scientist.
Let me ask you this question: How do YOU (alliance) know whether a phenomenon is natural and therefore alright for you to research or whether it is not? What is supernatural for you and why. 5000 years ago would gunpowder have been supernatural for you and therefore not for you to research? How do you know what is and what isn't? And couldn't a God be a natural phenomenon?
Also, how do you know that we won't find a law or applicable mathematical prove that a God can not exist in, lets say a Christian way? You seem really close minded.
I understand that you and lil b like to think of a set of believes which have the trait "not to be researched by science" ... they don't exist though, because whether or not scientific approaches work or not....Science will always try.
Also, it doesn't really need to be true....that science disproved in in this hypothetical question, the idea that everyone believes it is enough.
I originally added ''God cannot generate imperial data, for now, anyway'' but deleted it later. Forget why.
Anyway, its not accessible to us at the moment. Just like high pitch sounds were not few hundred years ago.
That doesn't mean they didn't exist. We just didn't know that they were there, and that we could not hear them.
We need a definition of God first. We don't have that (minus Abrahamic explanations)
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I originally added ''God cannot generate imperial data, for now, anyway'' but deleted it later. Forget why.Anyway, its not accessible to us at the moment. Just like high pitch sounds were not few hundred years ago.
That doesn't mean they didn't exist. We just didn't know that they were there, and that we could not hear them.We need a definition of God first. We don't have that (minus Abrahamic explanations)
To be fair, you guys just disturbed his topic, dragging it off-topic...I'd be annoyed.
Why would god generate imperial data? 131
The thread does define the deity in question as the Christian permutation of "god."
-----
Also I should add an addendum to what I said about the remoteness of possibility for time travel back to those points in time - that would be assuming that we were the only form of life in the universe sufficiently technological to develop the potential theoretical methods of time travel.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Why would god generate imperial data? 131The thread does define the deity in question as the Christian permutation of "god."
-----
Also I should add an addendum to what I said about the remoteness of possibility for time travel back to those points in time - that would be assuming that we were the only form of life in the universe sufficiently technological to develop the potential theoretical methods of time travel.
Then its a discussion on Christianity as an institution, and should not involve God at all.
I don't think one needs science to see shortcomings of Christianity.
Besides, we can agree that science has been around before and during Christian era, yet religion remains present.
If off-put by Christianity, people turn to other cults (see Scientology)
...
On the question of ''Christianity gone tomorrow'' (independent of science or God), yes, it will be.
Probably not in USA (American identity is stronger than European, as are Christian identities in USA), but in Europe definitively. It will be replaced by Islam.
Why? Because Islamic identity is far stronger than post-Christian European one. ''European identity'' is all over the place anyway.
When faced between two choices, the stronger one always win.
Hence people who are in america, wherever they come from, have a strong sense of BEING American. Which is good. (dependeing how you view it, of course)