Is God an unscientific theory?

God doesn't have to be observable to be a scientific theory or hypothesis. You can't observe certain hypothetical subatomic particles, but they are still part of science. Besides, why would you theorize over something that can be plainly observed? We make theories on things in large part due to the fact that we can't observe them. True, we may later learn to observe them, but observation is not essential nor a part of your own definition.
 
You can observe subatomic particles, albeit indirectly. Here's a picture of some of their tracks:

30-54low.jpg
 
I said hypothetic subatomic particles. The ones you can't yet see. The ones, for example, larger and larger colliders are being built to detect.
 
In that case, they existence of these particles is the hypothesis that might explain certain observations about physics. God isn't even a scientific hypothesis. It's a religious dogma that has no place in science. Trying to redefine religion as a kind of science is exactly what creationists do (and fail).
 
God is a scientific hypothesis which meets the definition of scientific theory or hypothesis. That's what nobody on this thread had been able to prove to me through citation to an authoritative scientific body defining scientific theory or hypothesis. You can say it has no place in science, but that's just your opinion.
 
Last edited:
John J. Bannan said:
God is a scientific hypothesis which mets the definition of scientific theory or hypothesis.
Click to expand...

So you can use "god" to make predictions on the future behaviour of things?
With the as-yet-unobserved particles science says "they should have such-and-such properties" and if they do they then so-and-so will happen if we do this and this.
So how how do we test for "god" to fit him into the scheme of things?
 
John J. Bannan said:
God is a scientific hypothesis which meets the definition of scientific theory or hypothesis. That's what nobody on this thread had been able to prove to me through citation to an authoritative scientific body defining scientific theory or hypothesis. You can say it has no place in science, but that's just your opinion.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what we just did. By it's very definition, it's not scientific, since all scientific explanations are naturalistic, not supernatural. Case closed. :p
 
The whole idea of falsifiability, i.e. testing, has already been discussed at length in this thread. My conclusion is that there is a debate among scientists (falsificationists vs. justificationists) whether a theory or hypothesis must be testable to be science. Therefore, no - we don't have to "test" God to have a scientific God theory. Next, where does an authoritative definition of scientific theory or hypothesis states that a scientific theory or hypothesis must predict future behavior of things?
 
So you like court rulings ?

"Falsifiability
Falsifiability was one of the criteria used by Judge William Overton in the McLean v. Arkansas ruling to determine that 'creation science' was not scientific and should not be taught in Arkansas public schools. In his conclusion related to this criterion he stated that "While anybody is free to approach a scientific inquiry in any fashion they choose, they cannot properly describe the methodology as scientific, if they start with the conclusion and refuse to change it regardless of the evidence developed during the course of the investigation."[1]

It was also enshrined in United States law as part of the Daubert Standard set by the Supreme Court for whether scientific evidence is admissible in a jury trial."

"The Daubert Standard
In Daubert, the Supreme Court ordered federal trial judges to become the “gatekeepers” of scientific evidence. Trial judges now must evaluate proffered expert witnesses to determine whether their testimony is both “relevant” and “reliable”; a two-pronged test of admissibility.

The relevancy prong: The relevancy of a testimony refers to whether or not the expert’s evidence “fits” the facts of the case. For example, you may invite an astronomer to tell the jury if it had been a full moon on the night of a crime. However, the astronomer would not be allowed to testify if the fact that the moon was full was not relevant to the issue at hand in the trial.
The reliability prong: The Supreme Court explained that in order for expert testimony to be considered reliable, the expert must have derived his or her conclusions from the scientific method. The Court offered "general observations" of whether proffered evidence was based on the scientific method, although the list was not intended to be used as an exacting checklist:
Empirical testing: the theory or technique must be falsifiable, refutable, and testable.
Subjected to peer review and publication.
Known or potential error rate and the existence and maintenance of standards concerning its operation.
Whether the theory and technique is generally accepted by a relevant scientific community.
Although trial judges have always had the authority to exclude inappropriate testimony, previous to Daubert, trial courts often preferred to let juries hear evidence proffered by both sides.[1] Once certain evidence has been excluded by a Daubert motion because it fails to meet the relevancy and reliability standard, it will likely be challenged when introduced again in another trial. Even though a Daubert motion is not binding to other courts of law, if something was found not trustworthy, other judges may choose to follow that precedent."

God would get past court as a scientific theory.
 
spidergoat said:
That is one aspect of science that you are concentrating on, how about the requirement that hypothesis be naturalistic, that conclusions are tentative, that it be testable, that they be based on observation?
Click to expand...

Science is nothing more than naturalism, a religion or philosophy, if a scientist discovers evidence for the supernatural they can't say that it's supernatural, they have to find naturalistic explanations even if it never fits, that's what these atheistic fools don't realize, the reason there's no scientific evidence for the supernatural is because there cannot be any evidence of the supernatural by default in science
 
John J. Bannan said:
The whole idea of falsifiability, i.e. testing, has already been discussed at length in this thread.
Click to expand...
I wasn't talking about "testing" in that sense.
I meant make a mathematical model of his behaviour and effect upon the world.

Next, where does an authoritative definition of scientific theory or hypothesis states that a scientific theory or hypothesis must predict future behavior of things?
Click to expand...
That's what science does - it provides (mathematical) models of how how things behave: i.e. if this theory is correct then things will behave in such and such a fashion.
That's why science relies so heavily on mathematics - reduce it to an amenable mathematical model (gravity, ballistics, heat transfer - they are all predictions of behaviour, for example, if I let go of a ball from a height of 2 metres I can make predictions on when it will reach the ground, and at what speed).
How can "god" fit into this system?
Simple, he can't, it is impossible to determine at all what "god" will do, or what effect he will have under any set of circumstances, since he is, by definition, supernatural and can make up his own rules at whim.


Okay, I know it's Wiki, but:
The underlying goal or purpose of science to society and individuals is to produce useful models of reality. To achieve this, one can form hypotheses based on observations that they make in the world. By analyzing a number of related hypotheses, scientists can form general theories. These theories benefit society or human individuals who make use of them.

In short, science produces models with useful predictions.
Click to expand...

What possible hypotheses can you form from "god"?
What possible model of reality can you get from him?
 
No common definition ever places falsifiability as a requirement for something to be a theory, so the concept of God is a theory...
 
Please use your brain John. You want something that is not verifiable or falsifiable to be a scientific theory. It cant be tested nor can it be observed. It is quite loony to accept something like that as scientific theory. I think you are not dumb and therefor you must know this. You are just trying to hold on to some strange idea of yours and do not want to let go.
Just admit you were wrong about this.

I have question for you:
If you are so certain that God is a scientific theory why did you ask if he was to begin with ?
Maybe you were having a bad day and wanted to piss off some people ? :shrug:
 
VitalOne said:
Science is nothing more than naturalism, a religion or philosophy, if a scientist discovers evidence for the supernatural they can't say that it's supernatural, they have to find naturalistic explanations even if it never fits, that's what these atheistic fools don't realize, the reason there's no scientific evidence for the supernatural is because there cannot be any evidence of the supernatural by default in science
Click to expand...

Because there's no such thing as supernatural.
 
Sarkus said:
How is "God" falsifiable?

Please explain your thought process to reach this conclusion?
Click to expand...

Well technically you can falsify basically anything, all you have to do to falsify something is to show that an alternative hypothesis is true...
 
VitalOne said:
Science is nothing more than naturalism, a religion or philosophy, if a scientist discovers evidence for the supernatural they can't say that it's supernatural, they have to find naturalistic explanations even if it never fits,
Click to expand...
If there is evidence for the supernatural (discovered BY science) then it would become natural, by definition.

that's what these atheistic fools don't realize, the reason there's no scientific evidence for the supernatural is because there cannot be any evidence of the supernatural by default in science
Click to expand...
Incorrect, science has investigated what was once considered supernatural, thunder and lightning, for example.
They turned out not to be supernatural at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top