Galileo didn't try to apply science outside its legitimate range of applicability. He studied and advanced physics.
In fact, Galileo famously clarified and emphasized the inapplicability of science and religion to eachother. — Michael Ossipoff
Sorry there, but you do not understand the scope of science. Physics does not address the existence of everything. Does it address the existence of numbers? Or morality? Of the supernatural? Of God? No. Show me a single textbook used by any major western university that states physics addresses any supernatural claim? It doesn't exist. — LD Saunders
Physics only addresses material claims and makes no claims outside of the material. Period. — LD Saunders
Theologians say that belief in God's existence, His infinite goodness, wisdom, authority, and power, depends on faith. (Some have claimed that God's existence can be logically proved, but never mind about that now. Someone else will have to rehearse scholastic logic.) If the Theogony in Genesis is not True, then faith is indeed required to accept the Bible as True. — Bitter Crank
I haven't met that many theologians running around busily deceiving little children. The work of theologians is to train preachers, evangelists, religious education specialist, and the like in the fine points of the divine plot. The preachers, et al then turn around and deceive the innocent. And the world around, in all sorts of religions, they do a pretty good job. Most people end up believing in the gods that everybody else believes in. — Bitter Crank
Identify a single textbook in science used at any major western university that states science can even answer the question of whether a God exists? — LD Saunders
Show me a single textbook used by any major western university that states physics addresses any supernatural claim? It doesn't exist. — LD Saunders
↪Bitter Crank
I apprehend some inconsistency in your reply. How is it that theologians interpret the Bible as "not literally true", yet they also believe it? If you know something is not literally true, you would never believe it. You might recognize some other purpose to the writing, other than to speak the literal truth, and instead of believing it, you "believe in it", but what would be that other purpose? To deceive? — Metaphysician Undercover
Take this passage for example. Let's assume that Genesis is not true. You say that we are still supposed to accept (on faith), that the Bible is true. This implies two distinct meanings of "true". We know that it is not rue, yet we may still accept on faith, that it is true. What could this second sense of "true" mean, in relation to the sense of "true" (literally true) by which we reject Genesis as not true? Is this "true" in the sense of honest? This is the only way I see to avoid the conclusion of deception. If the people who wrote the material truly believed it, at the time, as the truth, then they were being honest and true, despite the fact that we see it now as untrue. That doesn't seem to be likely in some instances, so deception seems probable. — Metaphysician Undercover
One almost inevitably generates inconsistencies when talking about religion. If one dismisses the whole thing out of hand, announce that it is all hogwash, then one can avoid inconsistency. When one tries to make sense of the whole thing, one is bound to fall down the rabbit hole, at least for a while. — Bitter Crank
A Catholic theologian would say the purpose of genesis is to speak to God as creator, and in that purpose it in inerrant. — Rank Amateur
But the question is, is "God as creator" itself an untruth? Stephen Hawking is a renowned physicist, he knows a lot about the physical world. If he says that it is highly improbable that the physical world was created by God, one might be inclined to believe this. Then what does this say about the catholic theologians who are speaking to God as creator? Is it the case that they are mistaken, and when they thought they were speaking to God they were really speaking to something else, or are they acting deceptively? Or could a renown physicist mistake the physical world? — Metaphysician Undercover
Scientists and philosophers would be the closest we can get to experts on this, since they're dedicated to studying just what exists, just what the "nature" of various existents (and existence in general) are, etc. — Terrapin Station
Demanding evidence of the absence of a magical being is not a rational position. — Jeremiah
Blue team says; religious leaders are allowed to and able to opine on god but have no proof of its existence. — Sir2u
But not being compatible does not mean that science does not mean that science can not try to scientifically explain god — Sir2u
As far as I am concerned there is only one possible reason why a god could not be studied scientifically, the lack of existence.
Sir2u means "...lack or physical existence (which only a few denominations claim).
— Sir2u
If there is any evidence for a god then eventually someone will find it.
↪Michael Ossipoff
Actually I am refering [He means "referring to"] your god. — Jeremiah
Stephen Hawkings, or a theologians expertise should color there view of the above - but neither changes anything. We all know exactly what they know - that this whole existence that we are aware of either ends with God or a big black whole. We all get to decide for ourselves. — Rank Amateur
Nope, I was talking about your god(s). That is whatever silly nonsense... — Jeremiah
...you are hiding and too scared to say aloud.
To anyone else: I point to Jeremiah's language. It's typical that conceited bigots commonly express their bigotry in a loud namecalling manner. — Michael Ossipoff
You keep claiming that science can study God, which makes you at odds with pretty much all of science. — LD Saunders
A basic introductory science textbook will typically explain to beginning students that science does not address the God issue, or issues regarding alleged angels, demons, ghosts, any supernatural claim. — LD Saunders
Certainly. no scientist to date has ever devised an experiment to falsify God existing. What would that experiment even consist of? It's nonsense that you are advocating, and it's certainly not science. — LD Saunders
When I was studying for my physics degree in college, I never once dealt with the issue of God or anything supernatural. It simply falls outside the scope of science. — LD Saunders
Sir2U: I noticed you failed to cite to any science textbook that supports your position, nor were you able to state any experiment that could falsify the existence of any and all Gods. — LD Saunders
You also have no proof that no God of any kind exists, — LD Saunders
so you are simply an irrational person. — LD Saunders
You believe no God exists, without having any reasonable basis for your claim. — LD Saunders
I, on the other hand, am rational in my position. I don't believe in any God because I find the evidence insufficient, — LD Saunders
but am not claiming that I know no God of any kind exists. — LD Saunders
I also am rational in recognizing the scope and limits of science, and do not let my religious views, atheism, distort science so it coincides with my beliefs. — LD Saunders
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.