Why is it that neither science nor logic can disprove God? — Shawn
Not really a coherent set of questions. If you troubled to make them coherent, likely you'd have already answered them for yourself.Why is it that neither science nor logic can disprove God?
What's the bedrock belief here that overrides one's reasons or lack thereof, of or for believing in God in face of no empirical evidence to attest to his existence.
Is it really the argument from nothing, that something was created that backs everything God related up? — 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. — Banno
"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
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. — Michael Zwingli
Why is it that neither science nor logic can disprove God? — Shawn
So yeah, something very nebulous, very weird and very big may exist. It doesn't make sense. — Manuel
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
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
Well, if you define God as that which cannot be disproven by science or logic, then there you have it. — James Riley
Why is it that neither science nor logic can disprove God? — Shawn
it qualifies as a assumed proposition to assume — Shawn
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
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
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.