Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Have a go at it then, show us your:
1) Observation/research
2) Hypothesis
3) Prediction
4) Experimentation
5) Conclusion
Is God an unscientific theory?
- Thread starter John J. Bannan
- Start date
Have a go at it then, show us your:
1) Observation/research
2) Hypothesis
3) Prediction
4) Experimentation
5) Conclusion
Fair enough.
However, stated in that way, the argument is immediately subject to Occham's Razor.
ergo... goodbye god.
So what is the "god theory" exactly and how does it differ?
It's one thing to say that it isn't and a completely different thing to show that it isn't. I would assert that in this instance it's the former because you refrained from explanation. Talk the talk or walk the walk?
John J. Bannan
Registered Senior Member
A scientific theory or hypothesis is not defined by the scientific method. The scientific method is an encapsulation of falsifiability. Why don't you "scientists" just admit that there is a legitimate debate between falsificationists and justificationists? Brane theory is not observable nor testable, and yet it is a scientific theory. Clearly, science permits inductive reasoning in the formulation of theory or hypothesis without observation or testing. See string theory. You are quite wrong. God can be a scientific theory or hypothesis, just as much as string or brane theory can. Occhem's razor does not eliminate God, unless you can come up with a simpler explanation for the existence of the universe - which you can't. So good luck there.
You are side-tracking the issue.
It is not a question of whether things such as String Theory or Brane Theory should be classified as theories (there is reasonable debate on that issue alone), but whether GOD is a scientific theory.
It isn't. Period.
Live with it.
Is String Theory? Is it testable? Well, certain elements are. Can we get useful results from the testing - not really... yet. But we might... one day.
But with "God" there is no "one day we might". God is a completely untestable "theory", unfalsifiable - and thus, in any scientists' opinion - UNSCIENTIFIC.
You are also mixing HYPOTHESIS with THEORY.
Don't - they are different!
And the original question was whether God is a scientific THEORY - not a scientific HYPOTHESIS.
So please stick to the thread.
And Occam's Razor DOES eliminate God.
Occam's Razor states that plurality must not be posited unless where necessary. And God is not yet a necessary for our understanding of reality.
God might be a simple theory indeed - but it is unscientific: untestable, unfalsifiable etc, and as such is an unnecessary - and to be put on the back-burner in favour of any other theory that IS scientific.
It might not be, as it is currently not falsifiable.
John J. Bannan
Registered Senior Member
The fact that there is debate about whether String theory and Brane theory are scientific theories is good evidence that a reasonable debate can exist as to whether God theory is scientific. I have the site of at least one scientist who believes God theory is scientific. http://www.thegodtheory.com/
Occam's razor is often paraphrased as "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor
In order to even apply Occam's razor, you need a non-God solution for the existence of the universe, which you don't have. Moreover, Occam's Razor also implies falsifiability, which again is debatably not a requirement of science.
Occam's razor is often paraphrased as "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor
In order to even apply Occam's razor, you need a non-God solution for the existence of the universe, which you don't have. Moreover, Occam's Razor also implies falsifiability, which again is debatably not a requirement of science.
Logical fallacy.
We have shown why "God" is NOT a scientific theory.
The question of whether String theory or Brane theory are is a separate issue - and if they fall down it will be because it has been assessed that they fail either testability or falsifiability or predictability - all of which the "GOD" theory has already been assessed as failing.
The fact that there is debate around String and Brane theory is NOT grounds for claiming there can exist a reasonable debate for "God".
To think so is a logical fallacy.
His book/idea is no more a scientific theory than the alternatives he quotes. You are most likely confusing it with the layman's use of "theory".
Non-God solution number 1: The Universe has always existed - as evidenced through the conservation of energy.
This is simpler than the theory that requires a "creator".
Non-god solution number 2: The universe created itself out of nothing.
This is simpler than the theory that requires a "creator".
Happy?
If you don't accept falsifiability then you must at least offer logical / objective (rather than subjective) justifiability as well as predictability from your tests. Can you do this for the "God" theory? If you think you can - please feel free to demonstrate.
If not - the alternative is to admit that "God" is not a scientific theory.
They may not be, strictly speaking, theories, but they are hypothesis, and they are scientific. God is never considered a theory among those who believe it, it is considered truth.
John J. Bannan
Registered Senior Member
The universe always existed, and therefore needs no explanation? That's sort of disputed by the Big Bang - isn't it? The universe created itself out of nothing? But if there was nothing there - how could it create itself? A better example you might've given is that nothingness itself is something, which requires no explanation. I proposed this in another thread, but was heavily opposed due to the apparent contradictory logic it implies - that nothing and something are the same. Still, not an easily accepted solution - though simpler.
John J. Bannan
Registered Senior Member
What authoritative scientific body says that science must make predictions? Isn't this the same as saying it's falsifiable? How else would you test whether a theory is false, unless you made predictions and then performed tests?
So.. someone can make a claim to anything and then because they happen to have a qualification in a certain field of science the claim instantly becomes a "scientific theory"?
I would regard myself as a 'scientist' as far as it's defined, so can I now claim that leprechauns exist and call that a "scientific theory" on the basis that I have qualifications in science but absolutely regardless to whether I can do any experimentation etc or not? A bizarre notion indeed.
The problem largely stems from layman use of certain words. This is a serious issue with scientific words such as 'evolution' and 'theory' - because they don't mean to science what they mean to everyone else. The media and people in general become accustomed to using these words in a certain context that isn't actually accurate from a scientific perspective. Even dictionaries are guilty of largely misconstruing a scientific word.
I perused a couple of dictionary sites and found this entry for 'theory':
"guess or conjecture."
This is exactly where the problem lies.
Unfortunately I am not all that clued up on string theory etc so will have to make do with a link that you might find interesting to read: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19526121.200-string-theory-the-fightback.html
As a result of not being all that clued up on it I wont get into an argument over whether it is or is not science - I shall leave that for a related debate in one of the other subforums of Sciforums. However.. is "god" a scientific theory?
NO.
You haven't shown anything, the God theory is falsifiable, does make predictions, etc...and matches the criteria of a scientific theory...the reason it cannot be accepted is because it contradicts naturalism....
This is a great example of how atheists are forced to escape the God conclusion by choosing ANY alternative explanation
The God-theory says there was always something unborn, unmade, eternal, causeless, unchanging, etc...from which the universe and all things came from instead of saying "well the universe just some how always existed" or "the universe just happened into existence"....atheists can't handle this implication knowing how very probable it is so they (using blind atheistic faith) choose any other alternative explanation...
I have already called you on this claim. Repeating the same nonsense over and over doesn't make it any less nonsensical. Time to walk the walk.. Details please.
Wait.. if there's always something unborn, unmade, eternal, causeless etc.. why wouldn't that be the universe itself? Why must it be a guy in the sky? Sorry, which sounds more plausible?
How is the God-theory not falsifiable? The only reason it's nonsense is because it contradicts atheism...anything that contradicts atheism is automatically nonsense
Woah...you must be hard of reading can you point out where I mentioned a guy in the sky? These atheists try anything to escape the God conclusion...keep tryingSnakeLord said:
Slow down there. You made a bold claim, it's time you supported that claim.
Purely out of interest this has nothing to do with "atheism". This is about what is or is not scientific - please leave your personal prejudice against atheists at the door. Many thanks.
Have you done that? Good, let's move on.. Kindly support your claim that 'god' is qualified as being a 'scientific theory'.
Many thanks again.
That's the convenient way of expressing the notion of a specific being with intellect that resides in another realm or outside of time or wherever else it happens to reside. Apologies if it upset you.
*************
M*W: There was no god long before there was atheism, so your assumption that anything that contradicts atheism is automatically nonsense. There is only one thing that contradicts atheism and that is the existence of a god.
John J. Bannan
Registered Senior Member
If you were just a figment of my imagination, would that contradict atheism?
You should be telling this to yourself...you should be the one abandoning your prejudices...
The God-theory says that there is something unborn, unmade, causeless, unchanging, eternal, before all things, the resting place of all, always existing, from which all of existence comes from....this is based upon empirical evidence/research, makes predictions, is a hypothesis, etc...just like the superstring theory, brane theory, etc...
The alternative explanations are "the universe just some how always existed, no need for cause and effect" or "the universe just some how spontaneously came into existence with no cause"...the God theory makes the most sense, there must be something outside of the system, causeless, from which all things originate...
It may be in a Greco-Roman religion, it's the typical atheistic argument "oh I don't believe in a man in the sky" used to ridicule and attack theists...but the problem is that no religion besides Greco-Roman religions describes God as a man in the sky...I never mentioned any of the things you mentioned but you insisted to add in your atheistic prejudice into it in order to discredit the theory...SnakeLord said:
You're right!!!! The reason God doesn't exist is because "atheists just say so" case closed...