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

Scientists and philosophers study any and everything that there's any good reason to believe exists. That would include nonphyhsical existents if there would be any way to make the idea of nonphysical existents coherent.

I have written on a sheet of paper 100 different versions of a flying pink elephant. Until you address and disprove all 100 version this is proof flying pink elephants exist. Unless at that point I just come up with another 100 versions. It really is an absurd argument for the existence of something.

Science is about making evidence based conclusions, and not the type of evidence that only you can see, there are commonly accepted standards of what counts as evidence. Like being demonstrable and repeatable.

But all of human life and experience is not about science. Science addresses the measurable, the empirical, that which is repeatable and controllable and much of reality does not work that way. If we address only what science can measure quite a lot of human experience and perhaps even mind and consciousness seems left out. History cannot be repeated, evolution cannot be repeated and the list goes on. Science alone, like physical description alone leaves much out. If you don't wish to discuss any religious concepts, then what are you doing, just bashing any and all theistic belief?

I think you are making a lot of false assumptions about me. I never said it is all about science and I never said science is without limits. Those are assumptions you made about me completely off the top of your head without any evidence. As I have said several times, I don't care what you believe and I don't need to justify my participation in this thread either.

Anyone who thinks religion and science don't mix, should study the history on the theory of special creation vs species transmutation, Isaac Newton and Reductionism, the heliocentric solar system, and vitalist vs machinist; among many other examples.

You asked me a question about religion. — Michael Ossipoff

No I did not. I quite simple asked you how you know there is no god in the physical world. That is not a religious question, but an inquiry about your knowledge. You have said several times that scientist do not study things like god because they only study physical things, how do they knew that god is not part of the physical world?

Oh, alright, so you’re saying that you didn’t ask to find out something, but instead were just asking in order to prove that you’re right, as a matter of debate (which you deny later in the posts I’m replying to). — Michael Ossipoff

I am not trying to prove anything, I have made no claims that need to be proven.

Can you understand that not everyone is interested in your debate or inclined to cooperate?
If it weren’t your issue, you wouldn’t complain about my not answering you about it. (…because I don’t regard Theism vs Atheism as a debate-issue) — Michael Ossipoff

So why do you keep answering me if it is not to try to prove that you are right? And it is not my debate, I just gave my opinion and then you jumped all over it try to tell me I am wrong.

Yes, and that’s an example of the astounding naiveté that I referred to. …your persistent, unshakable belief that matters of God or ultimate Reality can be proved, or even meaningfully asserted.
.
Sorry--I (and you too) can’t prove anything about God.
so only you know why you wanted me to prove that there isn’t. — Michael Ossipoff

So you cannot and no one else can prove anything about god, yet you insist that god cannot be studied by science. Again, how do you know that? I thought that you wanted a discussion, so let's talk about that.

You assert that people who don’t share your beliefs about the character and nature of Reality (in regard to Theism, for example) have an unreasonable belief. — Michael Ossipoff

Where did I state my views about the character and nature of reality? Please, if nothing else, answer this question.

You mean your issue about God being physical?
Believe in a physical God if you want to. — Michael Ossipoff

I have no issue with non existing things being physical. It does not make sense that after I tell you (several times) that I do not believe that there is such a thing as a god that you keep on mentioning this.
It is not the god that I am interested in but your absolute certainty and confidence that there is no way that a god can be studied by scientists. How can you be so certain?

What seems a bit irrational about that is your great concern about it and demand for a proof about it.
I don’t know of any reason to believe in that belief that you keep promoting. Sorry to dash your hopes. — Michael Ossipoff

I am not promoting any belief, why should I? I ask only that you share the reasons for your beliefs. If that is too much then I am sorry for bother you.

Your nuisance results from your inability to leave it at that. — Michael Ossipoff

I am not a rude person no matter what you think, so I will not stoop to answer.

But I’m not even sure what you mean when you propose a physical God. Your notion about that is contrary to what is suggested by physics so far. — Michael Ossipoff

Even though you are not sure what I mean, I am wrong. That is fantastic.
I do not propose a physical god, I ask you how you know that one does not exist. And there are so many things that go against what is suggested by physics so far, for the simple reason that physics has not gotten very far explaining the universe.

You didn’t call me a name. Your namecalling consisted of calling some unspecified belief of mine “silly nonsense”. Namecalling. — Michael Ossipoff

Actually, if you read the thread properly, I did not. Even though I do agree with Jeremiah when he calls you names.
But lets look at the gentle slurs and put downs you like to throw around shall we.
astounding naiveté
your naïve delusional conceit
a bit irrational
dogmatic bigotry
loud aggressive Atheists
dogmatically-wedded
aggressive-Atheist persuasion
An excusable error. Don’t feel bad.
Dream on.
What he meant (or would have meant if he knew what he was saying) was:

You called dragons fiction, but they have found fossils that quiet easily could have been the base for those ideas.
Some scientist think that all of the wonderful things they discover show the work of god and that by studying them they are learning more about god. Are they wrong?

A dictionary is no authority in such matters. Talk about not understanding limits. — Jeremiah

Without noncircular definitions, how would you expect words to be able to describe reality? And, if they can't, then maybe you need to be a bit more modest and less assertive.

Michael Ossipoff

Just lay your argument down and supply your evidence. Stop beating around the bush and just give us your proof, as would be the standard in any other setting. — Jeremiah

Yes, that's a standard requirement, that an assertion should be accompanied by proof, or at least evidence. But, as it has been necessary for me to repeat so many times, I don't regard Reality's nature or character as an issue for assertion, argument, proof, logic, or debate.

In other words, there's no such thing as "proof" regarding the nature or character of Reality.

You keep demanding evidence for a matter on which I haven't asserted.

As I've said several times before, many Theists have evidence, and some, such as the Scholastics, have written about it. Evidence needn't be evidence that you like or accept.

I'm not at all interested in convincing you that there's evidence (of what I haven't asserted to you). Can you get that?

As I've said, Congratulations, you win your debate.

Even in mundane worldly matters, the convincingness of evidence is a subjective matter of opinion and a matter of degree. Evidence needn't be evidence that you like, agree with or acccept. That's even moreso for the matter of the character or nature of Reality.

But I've already given these answers. Like a parrot, you're repeating the same words that I've already answered.

I realize that namealling is against the rules here, but I'm not namecalling your beliefs...only your parrot-like behavior.

Michael Ossipoff

Scientists and philosophers study any and everything that there's any good reason to believe exists. That would include nonphyhsical existents if there would be any way to make the idea of nonphysical existents coherent. — Terrapin Station

Maybe Terreapin mean to say "pseudoscientists".

Michael Ossipoff

We are not talking about a word. We are talking a multicultural theological and philosophical concept and if you think a brief colloquial summary in a dictionary is sufficient to span that entire scope then I think that shows how limited your reflections are in such things, and it speaks volumes about your lack of insight into religious faith.

I have not called you any names. You have accused me of name-calling, but it not actually something I have done; however, I do recall you calling me a bigot. I'll consider this proof to the subjective nature in which you try to bend reality. So yes, to substantiate your position you need to clarify it and support it, as you clearly lack objectivity in these matters.

All I have asked you to do, is make your argument and give your proof and that is not an unreasonable request.

If someone can't even put their own argument forward then this tells me that they don't even have confidence in their own position.

And so this is how it goes, on the religious side there is never any evidence, just a bunch of talk, while scientist continue to crank out mountains of evidence for their claims.

You have said several times that scientist do not study things like god because they only study physical things, how do they knew that god is not part of the physical world?

.
As has already been pointed out to you, you talk a lot about science, but seem to have no idea what it is.
.
Physicists’ theories and evidence-suppored laws are based on their observations. They don’t have a theory about a physical god, because they don’t have observations about it.
.
Alright?
.

”Yes, and that’s an example of the astounding naiveté that I referred to. …your persistent, unshakable belief that matters of God or ultimate Reality can be proved, or even meaningfully asserted.
.
Sorry--I (and you too) can’t prove anything about God.
so only you know why you wanted me to prove that there isn’t.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
So you cannot and no one else can prove anything about god

.
Very good. You’ve got it.
.

, yet you insist that god cannot be studied by science.

.
Science studies and describes this physical universe and the inter-relations of its constituent parts. Physicists have no observations about a physical god, and therefore no theory about one. How would you like them to study God?
.
See above. Stop embarrassing yourself.
.

Again, how do you know that?

.
See above.
.

”You assert that people who don’t share your beliefs about the character and nature of Reality (in regard to Theism, for example) have an unreasonable belief.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Where did I state my views about the character and nature of reality? Please, if nothing else, answer this question.

.
You express your view that Theists believe something for which there’s no evidence, and that Theism requires proof. Those are views about the nature and character of Reality.
.

It is not the god that I am interested in but your absolute certainty and confidence that there is no way that a god can be studied by scientists.

.
…having no experimental evidence of a physical god, and none that even suggests one?
.
In fact, only you know what you mean by a physical god..
.

How can you be so certain?

.
See above. And, as I suggested above, you might want to stop embarrassing yourself.
.
”What seems a bit irrational about that is your great concern about it and demand for a proof about it.
I don’t know of any reason to believe in that belief that you keep promoting. Sorry to dash your hopes.” — Michael Ossipoff
.

I ask only that you share the reasons for your beliefs. If that is too much then I am sorry for bother you.

.
I’d be glad to give a reason for any assertion that I’ve made to you.
.
(…or at least I would have been willing to do so until exiting this conversation with aggressive attack-Atheists. And I’m exiting that conversation as of the posting of this last reply on the topic.)
.

”But I’m not even sure what you mean when you propose a physical God. Your notion about that is contrary to what is suggested by physics so far.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Even though you are not sure what I mean, I am wrong. That is fantastic.

.
As I said in your quote of me, directly above, Your notion is contrary to what is suggested by physics so far, and is something regarding which physicists have no evidence whatsoever, and therefore is of great interest only to you.
.

Some scientist think that all of the wonderful things they discover show the work of god and that by studying them they are learning more about god. Are they wrong?

.
They’re certainly learning more about physics. If you want to say that they’ve made discoveries about God, then go forth and preach it to the multitudes. (Excuse me—You already are.)
------------------------------------------------
You ask why I keep replying to you. Good question. This will be my last reply to you, because I’m tired of answering the same repeatedly-parroted words.
.
In fact, in general, this “conversation” with aggressive attack-Atheists is getting too time-consuming again.
.
I hereby sign out from it again. This time with finality. Aggressive attack-Atheists will always keep attacking. It’s what they do and what they are. I don’t have time to continue to answer them every time they trot out their same arguments, always singing from the same hymn-book.
.
Michael Ossipoff

We are not talking about a word. We are talking a multicultural theological and philosophical concept — Jeremiah

No, we were talking about your apparent belief that words can describe Reality

Michael Ossipoff

You are dodging. The idea that a few lines in a dictionary is sufficient to cover a vast subject of something like religious faith, is stupid.

If someone can't even put their own argument forward then this tells me that they don't even have confidence in their own position. — Jeremiah

I've already explained to you that I don't regard the character or nature of Reality to be a matter for or argument, assertion, logic, proof or debate.

I've already declared you to be the winner of your debate.

Michael Ossipoff

Ya, I have heard your lame excuses.

The idea that a few lines in a dictionary is sufficient to cover the vast subject of something like religious faith is stupid. — Jeremiah

It isn't about how sufficient dictionaries are. It's about whether words can describe Reality.

I made no claim that dictionaries are sufficient in such matters.

It isn't just that dictionaries are insufficient in such matters. Words themselves are.

Alright, I don't have time for any more of this.

Conversation concluded.

When I don't reply to Jeremiah, or to other similar to him, in this or other threads about Theism vs Atheism, or anywhere else that aggressive attack-Atheists pop up (as they always will), that doesn't mean that he's said something irrefutable. It's just that I don't have time for any more of this.

Michael Ossipoff

I like the disclaimer at the bottom, as it shows that I got to you. It also displays a flare of egotism, since you are worried others might see your silence as defeat. Which means you approach these exchanges as a contest.

There is absolutely no real and eternal identity of ourselves. If so, what on earth is it? Consequently, because there would be no content of such a thing, it is absolutely peripheral and meaningless.

Hannah Arendt spoke about 'God is Dead.' She did not propose it...

Physicists’ theories and evidence-suppored laws are based on their observations. They don’t have a theory about a physical god, because they don’t have observations about it.
.
Science studies and describes this physical universe and the inter-relations of its constituent parts. Physicists have no observations about a physical god, and therefore no theory about one. How would you like them to study God?
. — Michael Ossipoff

And there you go again, missing the point entirely and continuing to harp on about your assertions that you have never made that science cannot study god.

I’d be glad to give a reason for any assertion that I’ve made to you. — Michael Ossipoff

Which is what I asked for.

Your notion is contrary to what is suggested by physics so far, and is something regarding which physicists have no evidence whatsoever, and therefore is of great interest only to you. — Michael Ossipoff

The "suggested so far" of the statement is the key there.
And no one has any evidence to the contrary either. And it is not of great interest to me. I could not care one way or the other. But you appear to be most sure of what you say.

Compared to a few years ago the knowledge that science has acquired is astounding, but science still knows so little about our own planet that there are new animals, plants, and sicknesses being discovered almost daily.

Science studies black holes, or so they say.
Along with that they study the background radiation that they say is the remains of the BIG BANG.
Science studies germs and microscopic little beasties that are too small to see.
Science studies thought processes through the use of electronic brain scans.
Plants and animals are being genetically engineered.
And a whole load of other things that were unknown and even unimaginably at one time.
This is just the science of today, what will the science of tomorrow be like? What might be "suggested" by the science of the future?

Many people got laughed at and ridiculed because of their ideas. It was not so long ago in the history of mankind that if you talked to people that were not present you could be in for problems, nowadays almost everyone does it.

Science is full of discoveries made by accident but a lot of discoveries have come from small bits of information or ideas about what to look for. Not all of them had been observed before the theory about them appeared.
The "god particle" had never been observed but mathematics said it might be there. So they devised a plan to find it.
Neutrinos are something else that science has spent lots of time trying to detect, but they only have the results of them passing through other mediums to show their existence as they are not in any way visible.

To say that science only studies and creates theories about what can be observed is naive. Sometimes theories about something are what leads to an experiment that leads to a discovery. If it were true that science only studies and creates theories about what can be observed we would still be living in caves.

But back to the point you missed. The question I asked you was.

How do you know there is not a material god?

It has nothing at all to do with science studying god, it has nothing to do with whether you believe in god and it is certainly not a religious question. It is just a simple question about something you know.

But please don't spend any of your time trying to answer, it would be better spent doing some reading of scientific journals.

And yes, I accept your apology for confusing me with someone else and for the insulting behavior you used.
Oh sorry, forget that last line.

Dont feed the Bridge Troll ;)

Jeremiah: You need to learn how to think straight before claiming I need to learn how to read.

Jeremiah: I see that it was you who made this comment, which I mistakenly thought was made by another user: "And yet, despite your claim of an education, you keep demanding proof of this non-existence; showing how little you actually understand the scientific process. It is like those people who demand science prove that vaccines never cause autism. It is an impossible standard and it cannot be done. Science can show that there is no evidence of a link, and it is on the lack of evidence where we draw our conclusion. Science is an evidence based methodology, which often also includes making conclusions on a lack of evidence. So much for your college degree, as in this area it seems"

Now then it is you who needs to learn how to read, and not me, as I never claimed that science functions by proving things, although it most certainly does do this, despite people's love affair for Popper. After all, we know for a fact the Earth is not in the shape of a square, and never can be, as it is a three-dimensional spatial object, and it can never be described as a two-dimensional shape, and that is a fact, a proven fact,. and it won't change. We also know such other facts as an instantaneous velocity, where the velocity is not constant, can not be directly calculated algebraically, but has to be approximated through a limit process, and this fact will never change either.


What I stated, however, was that science cannot be used to determine that no God of any kind exists, as claimed by Hawkins, and that scientists have no special knowledge on this issue, because science does not address the issue, at all. You are also not able to read my numerous comments where I have stated I do not believe in any God, I am an atheist, however, unlike you, I know science, have a physics degree I earned long ago, and am planning to attend grad school in the next couple of years in applied mathematics. I love science so much that I refuse to stand by why anyone, whether creationists or atheists, distort it to serve their ideological views.

Dont feed the Bridge Troll ;) — DingoJones

If someone does not try to feed them, they will die of ignorance(sorry) hunger.

Dear Mister Saunders'

Please learn to use the "QUOTE" function that is incorporated in the forum.

When you select the text that you desire to quote, a little black box should appear on you screen with the letters QUOTE in it. Just click on it and the text will appear like magic in the reply box at the bottom of the page.
If for some reason clicking on the box does not work, try right clicking on it. I have to do that with one of the computers I use.

Regards

You do need to learn how to read, as you have missed my point since the very start, and you still clearly don't get it.

I am saying this statement here:

that science cannot be used to determine that no God of any kind exists, as claimed by Hawkins, and that scientists have no special knowledge on this issue, — LD Saunders

Carries no significance, it is pointless and moot. You have not been able to grasp that this entire thread. I am not disagreeing with it, I am disagreeing with what you think it means.

Your major error here is the way in which you misinterpret the implications of your statement. Not only is it impossible to prove the non-existence of something (God, cyborg frogs, unicorns, etc.) but it is a condition that applies to everyone, not just scientist, therefore if that is the standard which bars scientist IT BARS EVERYONE, including theologians. You are pushing a worthless, moot point. It is a silly argument for why scientist can't have "special knowledge on this issue" and by those standards even theologians also "have no special knowledge on this issue."

The idea that simply because someone's profession is science that they can't also at the same time be an "expert" in the God concept is just stupid, senseless and lacks all common sense. And as I said at the start of the thread, if there is a Creator then to understand this Creator, it would be better to study the actual works of the Creator, rather than the works of man. Go back a few hundred years ago and that is exactly what people thought and it was a huge motivating factor for many natural philosophers (aka scientist) back then. It is only in recent history that people have start to draw this sharp line between the two.

You have provided no good reason at all why theologians should be preferred in this respect and all you have done is pushed your horrible misunderstanding of a fallacy, trying to misshape it into some-type awkward filter.

Furthermore science does address the issue of God by classifying it as an unfalsifiable claim, and I openly encourage everyone to engage scientific principles into their supernatural investigates, that is how we move from mysticism to fact.

So what makes a theologian such an expert? All they do is study human imagination.