Is God an unscientific theory?

J

John J. Bannan

Registered Senior Member
Some claim theism can't be proven false, therefore it is an unscientific theory. Must every scientific theory be provable? Since when? Is string theory unscientific, then, as it cannot be proven false? Is brane theory unscientific?
 
www.dictionary.com
—Synonyms 1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.
 
So, God is not an established explanation accounting for the known fact that the universe exists? Your definition - not mine.
 
No, thats not what im saying.
Im saying that God is no theory, not even an hypothesis.
Only in an un-technical context can it be considered a theory.
 
Enmos said:
No, thats not what im saying.
Im saying that God is no theory, not even an hypothesis.
Only in an un-technical context can it be considered a theory.
Click to expand...
God is theory if you use the dictionary definition of a theory...
 
Your own definition of theory says: A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena. How is God not an established explanation for the known fact that the universe exists? Your definition also defines hypothesis as:A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth. How is the existence of God not a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of the existence of the universe which serves as a basis of argument to reach the truth? God squarely fits into both definitions as a theory and hypothesis. If you want to excluse God from both, you need to do a little more explaining.
 
John J. Bannan said:
Your own definition of theory says: A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena. How is God not an established explanation for the known fact that the universe exists? Your definition also defines hypothesis as:A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth. How is the existence of God not a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of the existence of the universe which serves as a basis of argument to reach the truth? God squarely fits into both definitions as a theory and hypothesis. If you want to excluse God from both, you need to do a little more explaining.
Click to expand...

You don't understand, atheists can't even admit that God is a theory for explaining the origin of all things, if they did it might hurt the atheistic faith
 
God is certainly a theory and a hypothesis. The question is whether that theory or hypothesis is scientific. Some claim no, because you can't prove God doesn't exist. But, aren't other scientific theories unprovable as they now stand. Such as string theory and brane theory. Is the difference that God theory can never be proved, whereas these other theories might be proved? But if that is the difference, who says that difference is significant enough to label one unscientific and other scientific. I don't believe there is any such authority for such a proposition. But, maybe I'm wrong. That's why I'm asking.
 
The definition says "established explanation" - not proven explanation. Clearly, the billions of theists indicate that God theory is an "established explanation" - although not proven. Besides, if a theory was proven, why call it a theory in the first place? Call it a fact.
 
Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion.
 
Hypothesis and theory. You claim to be saying that God is neither a hypothesis or theory. However, I already showed you how your own definition of these words can include God theory. And then you seem to be making a point about technical context of the words. But, then you seemed to have forgotten what you were arguing. How is God theory not a theory?
 
I assumed you meant theory in the technical context. God is not a theory in the technical context, but is one in a non-technical context. At least as far as im concerned. :shrug:
I guess that means a yes to your thread-question.
 
"God" is not a scientific theory, period.
At best it is a hypothesis.

A hypothesis is a conjecture to explain a certain phenomena, or a reasoned proposal that suggests a correlation. "God" could probably be argued to fit within this.

A scientific theory must offer predictive capability and must be falsifiable - i.e. a theory must fit the known facts, make predictions, and also be possible to disprove.

Brane theory and String theory do currently fit the known evidence, but are so complex in places as to be possibly unfalsifiable. However, certain elements of the overall theories are falsifiable.
Maybe they should still strictly be called "models"? I am not sure.

But "God" is clearly an unfalsifiable - and is thus most certainly not a valid scientific theory.
It is also not possible for the "God theory" to offer predictive capability. So it fails there.

Thus it is not really a question of whether "God" is a scientific theory, but whether the others that you mention should be classified as such. They have probably (although I can not confirm) garnered their "theory" status through the laymen's usage of the word "theory" - as in "unproven concept".
 
scientific theory

noun
a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
 
Enmos said:
scientific theory

noun
a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
Click to expand...

Natural selection isn't falsifiable...why is it in science? But God definitely IS falsifiable...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top