Why is it that neither science nor logic can disprove God? — Shawn

They don't? I would say that belief in such an incoherent notion was pretty much ruled out by science and logic. Of course there are plenty of ad hoc arguments in his favour, but they are far from convincing.

Ontological shock, such as surprise that there is a world, can only be honestly met with recognition that such issues are intractable.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

They don't? I would say that belief in such an incoherent notion was pretty much ruled out by science and logic. Of course there are plenty of ad hoc arguments in his favour, but they are far from convincing. — Banno

It's not convincing if you assume the supposition that God exists. Following from this everything I say is moot.

So, what's the justification for this bedrock belief?

What?

Not really a coherent set of questions. — tim wood

Indeed.

What? — Banno

It's an asserted proposition to say that God exists, no?

So, what's the reason for believing so despite science and logic?

"Why is it that neither science nor logic can disprove that there is a hippopotamus sitting on your head?" Absurdly stupid question you say? "Obviously no hippopotamus is sitting on my head!" Try proving it, and if you cannot, then obviously there must be one sitting on your head. — tim wood

Yes, isn't this an asserted proposition then to assume that God exists when presented with science or logical arguments?

Why is it that neither science nor logic can disprove God? — Shawn

No systematic approach can disprove the existence of god because there is no universally recognized definition of god. The best we can do is refute different formulations of god. What god are we talking about?

Why is it that neither science nor logic can disprove God? — Shawn

Scientific investigation cannot do so because the question of deity lies outside of if scope of inquiry. Science deals with the natural universe, and claims of the existence of deity are, by their very nature, supernatural claims.

Logic cannot positively disprove claims regarding deity, but it can provide a rational basis for not believing therein. The rationale for this was stated most succinctly, as far as I know, by Bertrand Russell. I paraphrase: "the acceptance of supernatural claims requires supernatural proofs". This means, of course, that in the absence of a supernatural manifestation giving proof of the existence of God, it is irrational to believe in such an existence, and the claim should be met with a "provisional skepticism", which does not categorically deny the existence of deity, and yet refuses to accept it.

Scientific investigation cannot do so because the question of deity lies outside of if scope of inquiry. Science deals with the natural universe, and claims of the existence of deity are, by their very nature, supernatural claims. — Michael Zwingli

Well, this is what I was attempting address in regards to ex nihilo arguments, when they are raised by inquiry. This is what Stephen Hawking wrote about that science can prove that something out of nothing need not be true to render the asserted proposition that God exists as true.

Hope that made sense.

So, what's the reason for believing so despite science and logic? — Shawn

But I don't...?

I understand that. But, just as Wittgenstein told Russell that there might be a rhinoceros in the room, and you couldn't disprove it, so too is the God argument when consider God's existence as an asserted proposition, no?

Well, to the extent that God is made up we can proceed down the following path:

I'll not go over the "flying spaghetti monster" argument, but let's say that I believe there's a Goddess not a God. My neighbor believes that there is a cosmic turtle. My other neighbor thinks we are in the dreams of giant. My friend thinks that there is a supreme number, which rules over all numbers, etc.

But then, who is right? They all claim to believe as strongly as anyone in the planet, and all have had profound experiences that reveal such truths to them.

So we can postulate an infinite amount of God(s), with the same legitimacy as the God of the Christians. The thing is, we cannot disprove things, we can say at most that they're extremely unlikely. I can't disprove we aren't in The Matrix, nor that the whole world came into existence 5 seconds ago. Why? Because they could be the case.

But if the "original God" is as likely as anything else I've said, then I don't think you should assign a good likelihood such a being exists at all.

So, what's the reason for believing so despite science and logic? — Shawn

So here's the thing. Believers will keep believing even if science and logic could disprove god/s.

So here's the thing. Believers will keep believing even if science and logic could disprove god/s. — Tom Storm

Or they can reformulate "god" (utilizing theology) to evade logic and science.

Wishful thinking. Not all believers are alike. I am a believer in God and I will stop believing if you refute my argument for God's existence, as it is solely on its basis that I believe in him. I doubt, however, that your failure to refute it would have any influence over your disbelief. Just a hunch.

I agree with your analysis and seem to be stuck on the referent that X exists. X being, as you said, a Turtle, Goddess, or in a farfetched dream of a giant.

So, it's an assumed proposition to say that God exists. Hence from this one cannot assume that God doesn't exist even when confronted with facts or scientific theories denying his existence.

Science investigates the sensible world. There's no reason to think God has a sensible body, and even if he did, it would be beyond science to establish that the body in question was God's. For one would have to show that there was a mind inhabiting it - which is not something science can do even in our case - and furthermore that this mind was, among other things, morally perfect - which is once more, not something science investigates. So science is really no more inthe business of finding God than a metal detectorist is.

Why is it that neither science nor logic can disprove God? — Shawn

Well, if you define God as that which cannot be disproven by science or logic, then there you have it.

If science or logic say there is nothing they cannot disprove, then they have their work cut out for them.

Yes. I mean, part of the problem is that if you "what is God? And please, don't give me the All Wise, All Noble argument." What they usual say, in my experience, are very, very, very nebulous ideas, that verge on not being meaningful at all.

Like the people who say "I believe in a Higher Power." "Ok, but what is that?" "Something bigger than me and you." "Uh, yeah, many things are bigger than me, what do you have in mind?" "Something beyond us", etc.

So yeah, something very nebulous, very weird and very big may exist. It doesn't make sense.

And I forgot to add, why don't people ask about the devil?

I mean really. The opposite of an all good being.

Maybe the persistence of the idea does not come from a set of convictions but a response to experience. I am not causing everything that happens but I do cause some things to happen. Do those disparate observations catch a glimpse of what is going on or not? The question starts from a poverty far removed from explanations of sufficiency.

A proposition of mathematics can be proved in the terms accepted at the beginning as definitions. Very little else is like that, even the technical systems that drive our world. Some models work better than others for a specific purpose. Is the question of the divine supposed to be approached the same way?

So yeah, something very nebulous, very weird and very big may exist. It doesn't make sense. — Manuel

Well, once you shout out that there's an elephant in the room, one can argue, perhaps persuasively, that it is there. But, this doesn't address the psychological importance of believing itself.

Moore said a lot about common sense, no?

Maybe the persistence of the idea does not come from a set of convictions but a response to experience. I am not causing everything that happens but I do cause some things to happen. Do those disparate observations catch a glimpse of what is going on or not? The question starts from a poverty far removed from explanations of sufficiency. — Valentinus

Again, as per the OP, I believe the importance is the ex nihilo argument that something came from nothing. Yes?

Science investigates the sensible world. There's no reason to think God has a sensible body, and even if he did, it would be beyond science to establish that the body in question was God's. For one would have to show that there was a mind inhabiting it - which is not something science can do even in our case - and furthermore that this mind was, among other things, morally perfect - which is once more, not something science investigates. So science is really no more inthe business of finding God than a metal detectorist is. — Bartricks

It seems common sensicle to believe in God; but, when one is confronted with questioning his existence the issue isn't hard to make it likewise common sensicle.

Why is that?

Well, if you define God as that which cannot be disproven by science or logic, then there you have it. — James Riley

I'm just saying that it qualifies as a assumed proposition to assume God's existence, no?

The alternative to the ex nihilo argument is equally not self evident. To accept the alternative would mean what seems like a new form of life is actually just a repetition of what was already expressed. Perhaps all of the Creation stories are trying to move away from that conclusion.

Edit to Add:
Oh crap. I just remembered I have left the Forum. Pardon the interruption.

Why is it that neither science nor logic can disprove God? — Shawn

Because they start from axioms. Empiricism, for instance, starts from the requirement that whatever is posited is discernable by sense-experience, or is mathematically provable with reference to such evidence, as a matter of course. Logic starts from axioms and rules, such as the law of identity and the law of the excluded middle, whereas the first principle of reality is not so bound.

I think, furthermore, that modern culture on the whole has become so alienated from the framework within which the idea of God is intelligible, that it literally doesn't make the kind of sense that it will understand. I notice, for instance, that in respect of the question of the reality of abstract reals, such as number, the question that is invariably asked is whether they're 'out there,somewhere'. But if such abstracts are real, they are transcendent, in that they are not situated in time and space. But if they're not situated in time and space - not 'out there somewhere', then, for empiricism, they can't be real. This is a deep and permeating issue in modern philosophy.

(I am saying this, not as one committed to defending a specific doctrinal idea of God, but as one who is convinced of the inadequacy of naturalism to present a meaningful philosophy. )

it qualifies as a assumed proposition to assume — Shawn

I'd say an assumption is an assumed proposition.

I see lots of people throw the word "God" around when that term, that concept, has not first been defined in the discussion.

I see lots of people throw the word "God" around when that term, that concept, has not first been defined in the discussion. — James Riley

See this review of David Bentley Hart's 'Experience of God'

while there has been a great deal of public debate about belief in God in recent years, the concept of God around which the arguments have run their seemingly interminable courses has remained strangely obscure the whole time. The more scrutiny one accords these debates, moreover, the more evident it becomes that often the contending parties are not even talking about the same thing; and I would go so far as to say that on most occasions none of them is talking about God in any coherent sense at all.

The alternative to the ex nihilo argument is equally not self evident. To accept the alternative would mean what seems like a new form of life is actually just a repetition of what was already expressed. Perhaps all of the Creation stories are trying to move away from that conclusion. — Valentinus

I believe that at the very first of the issue is the Principle of Sufficient Reason. To assume something exists means there must have been a cause for it, either intelligent or supernatural. Hence X exists to explain the phenomenon.

Distancing from the Principle of Sufficient Reason is not necessarily wrong; but, isn't what science or logic can deal with. Is this really at it's stripped down core the issue?