Is God an unscientific theory?

[SnakeLord]

You should be telling this to yourself...you should be the one abandoning your prejudices...

What prejudices are those exactly? I would say the exact same thing to someone espousing that invisible biker mice from Mars exist but it's not because I am being prejudice, it's simply because it isn't science. It's not my fault.. don't shoot the messenger.

Of course I have given you ample time to establish that it is science but instead you feel it more pertinent to insult atheist-kind. That does not help your case, especially given that this is not a theist vs atheist issue, but a science vs non-science issue.

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

How is that "god theory"? god theory would surely be that plus the added claim that "it was a god"?

Now, feel free to amend what I say here but I would like to clarify exactly what you mean when you say 'god'. Do you mean a being, generally considered omnipotent, omniscient etc etc that was personally responsible as the creator of all that we see?

If so, how is this based upon empirical evidence and research? What experiments have been conducted to show this as being the case?

the God theory makes the most sense, there must be something outside of the system, causeless, from which all things originate...

Not really, no. Of course it also depends upon your personal definition of 'god'. We could just assert that a giant flying hedgehog that has always existed, farted the universe into existence. It is as much science as your claim is. So do define 'god' for me so I know exactly what we're talking about.

Furthermore, why must there be something "outside" of all that exists? (thus dwelling in the non-existent, which doesn't help your case). Why can the universe not have existed forever? Many people would argue that everything seen in life adopts a circular pattern - it lives, dies, gives birth to something else which lives dies and so on. What is your specific grievance with a universe that adopts the same method? (This is just one example - but this is where the problem is.. testability).

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

Well, you seemingly refuse to say anything that doesn't involve a direct attack on my atheism. Define what you mean when you say "god", explain how it is testable, and then we can move from there.

but you insisted to add in your atheistic prejudice into it in order to discredit the theory...

I don't care if you're a theist, I don't care if you're jesus, I don't care if you're an atheist, or I'm an atheist, or Bob the builder's an atheist - these things do not come into this discussion because it isn't about belief or lack thereof, it is about what is or isn't "science". Understand that.

 

[Sarkus]

The universe always existed, and therefore needs no explanation? That's sort of disputed by the Big Bang - isn't it?

Not at all. The Big Bang could be just one of many in a "bang-crunch" cycle. We can not know what caused the Big Bang. We can not know for sure if this universe is always going to expand, or whether we are the by product of a previous universe. Many alternatives exist. God is indeed one - but it is not the simplest.

The universe created itself out of nothing? But if there was nothing there - how could it create itself?

Ah yes, but you're willing to have a God that is eternal and could create it out of nothing?

 

[Sarkus]

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....

VO - either demonstrate its falsifiability or STFU!

You make post after post that merely says "but God theory IS falsifiable" as though that suffices.
It doesn't.
You have been called out on this by others - and now by me.

SHOW HOW THE "GOD" THEORY IS FALSIFIABLE.
SHOW HOW THE "GOD" THEORY MAKES PREDICTIONS.

USE IT TO MAKE A PREDICTION.
PLEASE.

PROVE US ALL WRONG.


OR S.T.F.U.!
Your continual whining and trolling grows wearisome and pathetic.

 

[VitalOne]

VO - either demonstrate its falsifiability or STFU!

You make post after post that merely says "but God theory IS falsifiable" as though that suffices.
It doesn't.
You have been called out on this by others - and now by me.

SHOW HOW THE "GOD" THEORY IS FALSIFIABLE.
SHOW HOW THE "GOD" THEORY MAKES PREDICTIONS.

USE IT TO MAKE A PREDICTION.
PLEASE.

PROVE US ALL WRONG.


OR S.T.F.U.!
Your continual whining and trolling grows wearisome and pathetic.

The reason it's falsifiable is because to falsify something you have to prove an alternative hypothesis true, there are already other non-God alternatives, so prove them true and you would falsify the God-theory...it makes predictions in the same way the non-God alternatives make predictions...there you go, you've been proven wrong

 

[spidergoat]

That's not what falsifiable means. What experiment would prove the non-existence of God? How could someone show that God doesn't exist?

 

[VitalOne]

That's not what falsifiable means. What experiment would prove the non-existence of God? How could someone show that God doesn't exist?

Yes, that is what falsifiable means...to falsify a theory in science you just show an alternative hypothesis is true, thereby making the other one false....

Otherwise you're saying natural selection should be removed from all science, which experiment can falsify it?

 

[spidergoat]

Then you misunderstood the concept.

Falsifiability (or disprovability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment.

 

[Sarkus]

The reason it's falsifiable is because to falsify something you have to prove an alternative hypothesis true, there are already other non-God alternatives, so prove them true and you would falsify the God-theory...

Falsifiability is as follows:

I propose theory X.
Observation disproves X.
Theory X is falsified.


There is NO falsification possible for God.


So - now that you have been told what the concept of falsifiability is, and presuming that you now understand your error - please demonstrate how "God" theory is falsifiable.

...it makes predictions in the same way the non-God alternatives make predictions...there you go, you've been proven wrong

The non-God alternatives are not valid scientific theories! They are certainly scientific - but not theories - precisely because they can not make predictions.

So please - what predictions can "God" theory make?

Please. Go on. Tell us all.

 

[VitalOne]

Then you misunderstood the concept.

Falsifiability (or disprovability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment.

Falsifiability is as follows:

I propose theory X.
Observation disproves X.
Theory X is falsified.


There is NO falsification possible for God.


So - now that you have been told what the concept of falsifiability is, and presuming that you now understand your error - please demonstrate how "God" theory is falsifiable.

It's called sophisticated falsficationism...you all must be addicted to wikipedia or something...

The non-God alternatives are not valid scientific theories! They are certainly scientific - but not theories - precisely because they can not make predictions.

So please - what predictions can "God" theory make?

Please. Go on. Tell us all.

It makes predictions in the EXACT same way that the other non-God alternatives do...tell me how these non-God alternatives make predictions and you would've told me how the God theory makes predictions...

 

[spidergoat]

You just made that up.

 

[John J. Bannan]

Now wait. That's a good point. Can't you falsify God theory by proving another theory is true? Couldn't you prove God doesn't exist by proving why the universe exists without God?

 

[Enmos]

Now wait. That's a good point. Can't you falsify God theory by proving another theory is true? Couldn't you prove God doesn't exist by proving why the universe exists without God?

Do it.

 

[John J. Bannan]

Simply because I can't prove why the universe exists without God does not mean it can't theoretically be done. Isn't that the whole goal of physics? Just because we aren't yet sophisticated enough in our knowledge to provide such a proof, why can't it be done theorectically sometime in the future? All that you seem to require is that God theory could be falsifiable - not that it has been shown false. There is no reason why a theory must be proven false first before it can rightly be labeled a scientific theory.

 

[Enmos]

There is no reason why a theory must be proven false first before it can rightly be labeled a scientific theory.

No, but wouldnt it be hilarious ?

 

[spidergoat]

Now wait. That's a good point. Can't you falsify God theory by proving another theory is true? Couldn't you prove God doesn't exist by proving why the universe exists without God?

A theory can't be proven right, only wrong. So your conjecture must theoretically be able to be disproven unto itself in order to be considered scientific. It doesn't have to be disproven in actuality. You must be able to propose a test. What test could that be?

 

[S.A.M.]

Not a good idea to mix science and religion

 

[John J. Bannan]

I always thought that when a theory was proven right, it was now a fact? Of course a theory can be proven right. The test for God theory would then be the test of any competing theory. Makes logical sense. I think VitalOne's got you on this one.

 

[spidergoat]

That's the "God of the gaps" logical fallacy. Theories cannot be proven right with 100% certainty. They can only be proven wrong.

What aspect about a possible theory would prove God doesn't exist? Be specific.

 

[Oli]

I always thought that when a theory was proven right, it was now a fact? Of course a theory can be proven right.

No it can't: it can only be proven to hold true under the circumstances at the time.
Gravity for example, is pretty much "taken" as a fact, but all it would take is one instance of something not falling to the ground when the theory of gravity says it should and then that's that theory needing re-doing.
A single instance can prove a theory wrong, proving it to be a fact would be that we have observed every single instance where it should apply and that it held true for all of them: clearly an impossibility.

The test for God theory would then be the test of any competing theory. Makes logical sense. I think VitalOne's got you on this one.

No: since VO stated that

It makes predictions in the EXACT same way that the other non-God alternatives do...tell me how these non-God alternatives make predictions and you would've told me how the God theory makes predictions...

So how does it compete?
All that theory does is introduce another level (which is not required to make the theory work).
Nous n'avons besoin de cette hypothese-la...
Should we rewrite gravity and add thousands of invisible pixies pulling things downwards?
That would explain everything equally as well as gravity, but then we'd have to explain the extraneous pixies and say where they came from.

 

[John J. Bannan]

If nothing can be proven 100% true, then nothing can be proven 100% false either. How can I be specific about a theory that would explain why the universe exists without God, when science has tried but has not yet devised such a theory? "Be specific" Give me a break.