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.

Children are dead wringers for deception and all sorts of deceptions are foisted upon them--various big lies and smaller ones. It's a Miracle that anybody escapes total entrapment in the snares and deceits of religion, but remarkably, some do.

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

According to the way of thinking in those days he was way out of line with what was acceptable. Both by the Scientific and religious leaders. The fact that he emphasized the in-applicability of science and religion to each other made him more unpopular.

But not being compatible does not mean that science does not mean that science can not try to scientifically explain god, after all religions have been trying for years to explain science religiously.

As far as I am concerned there is only one possible reason why a god could not be studied scientifically, the lack of existence. If there is any evidence for a god then eventually someone will find it. I wont be waiting around for that to happen though.

as a card carrying theist, I agree with just about all of that. And to go a step further, many theologians would emphasize it is the decision by faith that makes it meaningful.

If God came down, introduced Himself, Stopped the world from spinning on its axis for a few hours, made unicorns appear in Piccadilly, and stopped Trump from lying. Then said, the love each other thing and promised eternal life, everyone would believe, but would it be as meaningful?

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

So some scientists comes up with a wonderful idea, from a mathematical equation it appears that there should be more mass in the universe than there is visible. "Let's look for dark matter" they say and start trying to prove it exists by designing experiments to detect it.

A lot of their work is trying to prove the existence of things. The cause of a rare sickness is unknown until they prove that a gene dysfunction that no one new existed was the cause.

There are plenty of examples of scientists trying to prove the existence of things.

If there is a god somewhere there must be evidence, lots of christian scientists try to find that evidence. Some religions use scientific knowledge to prove that god exists, how could that be possible?

It is only in philosophical think that they are kept apart.

Physics addresses many "supernatural" claims. Are ghosts really nothing more than the energy leaving the body at the moment of death? The claim was investigated and the results were never neither for or against the idea, mainly because they have not figured out the way to investigate it properly. But they did find that there was a certain loss of bodily wait a short while after death.

https://futurism.com/the-physics-of-death/

Oh dear and then there is this guy Sir Roger Penrose that claims to be a physicist,(one of those people that studies physics I think) making these weird claims about supernatural things called souls. The actual article about his ideas is sort of beyond my idea of reading for pleasure so this a fun SUN version.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/2123380/researchers-claim-that-humans-have-souls-which-can-live-on-after-death/

There have been many scientific studies on morality.
https://www.edge.org/event/the-new-science-of-morality

Physics only addresses material claims and makes no claims outside of the material. Period. — LD Saunders

Physics is the science of matter and energy and their interactions. That covers everything in the universe and quite a lot of what is thought to be outside of it, other universe maybe.

Science itself has no limit to what it can investigate, but neither general science nor physics in particular go about making any claims about anything unless it has been investigated first.
PERIOD.

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?

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

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.

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

If the theologians are training preachers to deceive children, then you can't really say that the theologians are not deceiving children. They are guilty through complicity.

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

Show me the books you have read, from primary school on up, on the scientific method and maybe I will consider answering any further posts as long as you use the "quote" function so that I you you have replied.

↪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

Can't speak for all, but a Catholic theologian would say the Bible is inerrant in its purpose which is the salvation of souls. The purpose is not to be historically or scientifically accurate.

Red team says; scientist are incapable of nor should be allowed to opine on the existence of god and are unable to prove its non existence.

Blue team says; religious leaders are allowed to and able to opine on god but have no proof of its existence.

Most scientist really don't have strong opinions that they want to share, so a ban on them saying things would be basically worthless. And time is not up yet to prove there is no god, maybe someone will one day take a shot at it.

If red team comes up with proof of existence it might change the game, but I wont wait around for that to happen.

Red team has to lose.

If you want to hang the theologians along with the preachers, OK. You'll just need a bigger gallows.

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.

I have a feeling that some theologians actually don't believe much of what is in the Bible.

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

A Catholic theologian would say the purpose of genesis is to speak to God as creator, and in that purpose it in inerrant. The purpose was not a scientific explanation of how creation happened, or historical in its timing. So they may say the differences between today's understanding of the science of creation and an account of creation written 2000 years in no way effect the purpose of presenting God as creator.

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

It seems I'm in the rabbit hole right now. So. referring to those inconsistencies, would you think that they are honest mistakes, or a tactic which Plato described, and is now called a "noble lie"? I would think that there is some of each, but we're discussing the principal point here, God Himself.

If we judge theologians as not telling us the truth concerning the existence of God, then there ought to be a reason why they are not telling the truth. And I believe, that what is important here, is not the fact that they are not telling the truth, but the reason why they are not telling the truth, because this is what will influence our attitude toward them. Either we think of them as having made an honest mistake, or we think of them as deceitful.

Notice how "deceitful" implies unfaithful, so those who preach faith are practising unfaithfulness, if this is the case. But the unfaithfulness demonstrated is an unfaithfulness to us, their fellow human beings. Why would they be unfaithful to us, and seek to deceive us, do they hate us? If we are pawns in their game, which includes "God", then doesn't that imply that they actually believe in God and they are not really deceiving us?

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?

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

Not sure truth is the right concept.

One can believe something is true and act accordingly thorough either fact, reason or faith.

No one can state as a matter of fact that God is, or that God is not
It is both reasonable to believe God is or God is not
One can, on faith alone believe that God is or God is not.

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.

Sir2u: You keep claiming that science can study God, which makes you at odds with pretty much all of science. 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. Why? Because science sticks with the material world, period, and assumes that any scientific explanation will only reference a material explanation. Therefore, by definition, science does not deal with any supernatural claim.

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. 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. The only people who suggest otherwise are following a religious dogma -- typically new atheist scientism -- to distort science to promote their dogma. I'm an atheist who is perfectly fine with real science, and I see no need to twist and distort science, like creationists do, in order to promote atheism. The creationists and new atheists are two groups who are closer to each other than they imagine --- they both distort science to promote their religious views. Both groups are full of junk-thinking as far as I'm concerned, as well as every science textbook writer used at every major western university's science departments.

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. You also have no proof that no God of any kind exists, so you are simply an irrational person. You believe no God exists, without having any reasonable basis for your claim. I, on the other hand, am rational in my position. I don't believe in any God because I find the evidence insufficient, but am not claiming that I know no God of any kind exists. 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.

Demanding evidence of the absence of a magical being is not a rational position.

If you can't prove to me that I don't have an invisible purple magical donkey, then you are being a very irrational person.

Can't prove Santa Claus is not real? Stop being so irrational.

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

Scientists are specially-qualified to study and describe the physical universe and the relations among its constituent parts. That's all.

Philosophers? The soundness of what they say about "existents" and "existence" depends on how sloppy the are, and on how committed to their prior beliefs they are. In other words, doen't expect much here.

Michael Ossipoff

Demanding evidence of the absence of a magical being is not a rational position. — Jeremiah

The "magical being" that you refer to is your God. So you attribute belief in your God to others, and criticize a belief that is posited only by you and other Fundamentalists and Biblical Literalists.

Michael Ossipoff

Blue team says; religious leaders are allowed to and able to opine on god but have no proof of its existence. — Sir2u

The notion of provable assertions about the nature and character of overall Reality is hilarious.

It shows the incredible pretentiousness of Aggressive-Atheists.

Michael Ossipoff

Actually I am referring to your god(s).

But not being compatible does not mean that science does not mean that science can not try to scientifically explain god — Sir2u

As I've said, the only word for that statement is "hillarious". It's a really silly thing to say, given that science can, and is intended to, only study and describe this physical universe (and maybe any physically-inter-related multiverse of which it's a part) and relations among its constituent parts.

...unless you're referring to a religious denomination (and there is sat least one) that claims that God exists physically. ...in which case you'd need to say so, and specify that denomination.

Michael Ossipoff

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.

Evidence doesn't mean proof. Merriam-Webster defines evidence as "outward sign". Evidence therefore doesn't prove an assertion, and doesn't conclusively win a debate. You don't know what every Theist's belief is, or what outward-sign they have for it.

You can say that if no Theist has given you a good argument regarding the existence of God, then you win your argument or debate. That's alright. As far as I'm concerned, if you want an argument or debate, then congratulations--You win your argument or debate by default.

But you can't validly say that you know everyon'e believe and their outward-sign in support of it. You can say that you don't know of any evidence or other reason to believe that there's God. No one will argue with you or criticize that position.

And don't show the astounding pretensiousness and conceit of claiming to know, or have a sound argument about, overall Reality as a whole.

Assertion, proof, argument and debate are irrelevant, inapplicable and meaningless for matters involving the character and nature of overall Reality as a whole.

Michael Ossipoff

↪Michael Ossipoff
Actually I am refering [He means "referring to"] your god. — Jeremiah

You, not I, posit a magical being. The magical being is your God.

Maybe you define as "magical" all that isn't physical. Then presumably the word "which" is magical, as is the square root of 2. My, the world is full of magical things :D

I don't use the word God, unless replying to people who do, due to its anthropmorphic connotation.

You're exemplifying what I said about attributing belief in your God to others.

Michael Ossipoff

Nope, I was talking about your god(s). That is whatever silly nonsense you are hiding and too scared to say aloud.

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

I can't accept that, that we all know exactly what they know. Every person's knowledge is unique and specific to that individual.

.

Nope, I was talking about your god(s). That is whatever silly nonsense... — Jeremiah

"Whatever silly nonsense..."? But if you don't know the specifics of my impressions on such matters, then how can you know that they're "silly nonsense"?

Because it doesn't agree with what you believe, or isn't Materialism? :D

...you are hiding and too scared to say aloud.

If you want to ask about God, if you want religious-instruction, then I recommend that you contact a church or a divinity-school.

(But ask them with much more humility and much less conceit than you exhibit now. I don't know if anyone will consider talking to you while you're conceitedly and namecallingly asserting your sureness that you're right and characterizing them or their beliefs. Why should anyone then be motivated to devote time to you? Of course there might be church-people or other Theists who are more behavior-tolerant than i am.)

As for my religious impressions and beliefs and reasons for them, they aren't secret. They're all over these forums, in various threads. But in a conversation with you? .... :D

As I said, if you want an argument or debate about whether there's God, then congratulations--You win your argument or debate by default. The nature or character of overall Reality as a whole isn't a matter for assertion, argument, debate or proof.

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

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

Characterizing a whole group on the perceived actions of one individual you assume to be a member of the larger group, is the very heart of prejudice and bigotry. It is commonly called stereotyping. So point away, as not only have you just displayed your own bias, you have also displayed, by using one sample as representative of a whole, your scientific ineptitude.

However, if it makes your feel any better I think "materialist" are just as big of idiots as believers. This whole idea of division of ideologies is a form of compartmentalization people use to engage in various forms of false equivalence in order to feel a sense of justification in beliefs they know don’t measure up. Which is why people so desperately build these subjective walls between empirical/rational investigation and “spiritual/religious” beliefs. As they know, on some level, that their fiction would fail to stand up to such scrutiny, so their next best option is to maintain certain beliefs are exempt from such standards. Some people also engage is semantic shifting in order to feel unique in their beliefs, which is where I suspect you fall in.

The difference here is that some of us are unconvinced that God (or the like) is a special case that needs special rules.

No division I say, no division at all, everything gets its fair turn. I don't care how many babies God kills, he still has to stand on the altar of reason.

You keep claiming that science can study God, which makes you at odds with pretty much all of science. — LD Saunders

No I do not, I said that there is no reason why science should not be able to investigate the existence of things. Including gods, ghost and a host of supernatural things. And I have also said that there are scientists that do try to explain them and therefore have to study them.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/02/there-is-a-paranormal-activity-lab-at-the-university-of-virginia/283584/

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

https://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/10/22/the-top-8-paranormal-scientific-studies-what-we-can-learn-from-them/

Some one had better tell these guys about that. We would not want them to look silly would we?

Please give me the names of these typical text books as I have looked in those on my shelf and none of them do that. I also looked in several sociology, psychology and a couple of physics text books and none have that disclaimer either. Sounds like BS to me. I have worked in education for almost 30 years and have never seen that written in any book.

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

How sure are you of this statement? Many scientist have tried to explain god in other ways from the common image of it. And many have used scientific data to reason their way to the conclusion that there is or is not a god.

https://kenboa.org/apologetics/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/
http://time.com/77676/why-science-does-not-disprove-god/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wn5bKALeSyM

But all they have done is to say that science does not prove that gods don't exist, they cannot say that that it never will. The simple fact that they are investigating the workings of the universe might mean that at any time they could find proof of its existence or lack of existence. The book is not closed yet.

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

Sixty years ago quantum physics was not in many physics courses either, go figure. Maybe it did not exist back then. Or maybe they had not researched it enough to include it.
And I find it strange that a person with a college degree in physics has not figured out how to use the "QUOTE" function on a Philosophy Forum.

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

That would mostly be because I never claimed that they existed so why should I even bother to try and cite them. But by the same standard you have failed to cite any of the textbooks used at any of the major western universities that you talk so much about.

You also have no proof that no God of any kind exists, — LD Saunders

Neither do you, so I guess that makes us even.

so you are simply an irrational person. — LD Saunders

So you cannot find anything of value to say, so you start insulting people. Typical of your type of bullshitter.

You believe no God exists, without having any reasonable basis for your claim. — LD Saunders

How do you know this? How do know that I do not have a reasonable basis for what ever claim you think I made. I would like to know exactly what claim you think I made as well.

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

What evidence? How can you rationalize nothing? It seems to be nothing more than a whim that you have become a non believer because there is exactly the same amount of evidence on both sides of the debate. Did you flip a coin to decide.

but am not claiming that I know no God of any kind exists. — LD Saunders

And where exactly did I make that statement?

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

The only limits that sciences has ever had are the ones put on it by religious views. Where would we be now if the church had not screwed up the beginnings of the scientific endeavor with the inquisition.
Only those that have religion have beliefs, the rest of us reasoning folks have educated opinions.
Period