Science makes the claim that for something to exist its effects must be detectable, measurable — TheMadFool
Perhaps you can explain to me the difference between ''prove'' and ''verify''. — TheMadFool
Therefore, scientifically speaking God must exist by virtue of the multitudinous effects God has on us humans. — TheMadFool
Keeping that in mind let us look at the God question. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that God has an effect on people - in the way they conduct themselves, in what they eat, in what they wear, etc. In fact no other entity has as broad and deep an effect on us humans as God. In some cases these effects may even be measurable.
Therefore, scientifically speaking God must exist by virtue of the multitudinous effects God has on us humans. — TheMadFool
How are the effects different from people believing in god, even though god does not exist? In other words, what testable and observable difference is there between people practicing Christianity when Christianity is true and people practicing Christianity when Christianity is false and the practicioners of Christianity are simply wrong about their beliefs? — Chany
Again, in science, you start from observations, go to testable hypothesis then go to experiments to eliminate those hypotheses that are false. You are beginning with the hypothesis being true and then are looking for ovservations that would be there if the hypothesis is true. You are assuming the conclusion — Chany
I don't get it. "God" is not automatically seen as the cause of these effects on people. Rather, a belief in God is what should be (naturalistically) seen as the cause of these behaviors — darthbarracuda
If the lack of God affects the non-believers does that mean the lack of God exists? — John
Briefly, my point is the application of the scientific principle on existence when applied to God leads us, clearly, to affirm god's existence. We can very very easily observe the effects of God on people. Therefore, scientifically, God exists — TheMadFool
Good point. Thanks. However it follows that you also accept, given your stance, that atoms, chemical reactions, physical laws are also simply beliefs — TheMadFool
Just because you are using the same logic in the scientific method on the existence of God does not mean you are doing science. — FLUX23
What you are saying is analogous to saying unicorns exist because we know unicorns from fantasy books — FLUX23
If you apply scientific method anywhere other than science, then that method itself is already pointless — FLUX23
Let's try. I'm going to use the concept of Unicorns to prove that my dream island exists. It doesn't work, nor does it make sense — GreyScorpio
However, the existence of God is not required to explain the observation; mere belief is all that required, regardless of the actual existence of God — Chany
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.