Is God an unscientific theory?

[John J. Bannan]

Oli. If it is impossible to show that in each and every circumstance something holds true, then you are clearly denying that we can say anything is a fact. But, we say things are facts all the time. Are we wrong?

 

[Oli]

If nothing can be proven 100% true, then nothing can be proven 100% false either.

100% false?
If current theories of gravity are shown to be wrong even once then the theory is flawed: every text book should then carry the statement "under the following circumstances gravity will work".
Not 100% false, no-one claimed that, just incomplete.
If you mean "proving god 100% false" again that's not the case, or the aim: the more science explains the less "need" for god in any part of the universe there is.
Even if everything were explained scientifically it would still be possible to claim that god existed, just that he played no role whatsoever... what need then, for him?

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.

No, science has never tried to devise a theory to explain why the universe exists without god: only to devise a theory why the universe exists.
"God" does not enter into it, and cannot.

Oli. If it is impossible to show that in each and every circumstance something holds true, then you are clearly denying that we can say anything is a fact. But, we say things are facts all the time. Are we wrong?

Oops: scientific theories.
Not a denial that there are facts.
If stating a fact then (ideally) the circumstances under which it is taken to be fact should be stated, but they're generally assumed, even in everyday life.

Simple example: I'm going for a pint with my friend tonight.
Providing:
I don't die,
she doesn't,
the world doesn't explode,
the pub doesn't run out of beer,
my mother doesn't ask me to do some errand for her, etc etc.

Most "facts" are so trivial or temporary that the unstated assumptions may not be needed:
The interior of my house is yellow (until I repaint it, the house no longer exists, the colour fades to "yuck").
I am 51 years old - until my next birthday.

If I drop a hammer it will fall (unless gravity no longer holds true).

 

[spidergoat]

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.

You don't have to formulate an alternative theory, but you do have to show that your "God theory" is falsifiable. Let me give you an example. You could prove evolution is false if you found a Homo Sapiens fossil inside a T-Rex fossil.

What can you think of in a similar way, would prove God doesn't exist? This is the essence of falsifiability. If you can't think of one, then God cannot be a scientific theory.

In my view, the "God theory" is not falsifiable. No matter what naturalistic explanation for the universe that science can determine, you can always say God was behind that.

 

[John J. Bannan]

Oli. How do you know that if everything were explained scientifically, it would still be possible to claim God existed? Considering the fact that you don't know any such fact, it is interesting that you would comment about its implications as it relates to God.

Spidergoat. I can prove, for example, that the world isn't flat by showing that the world is round. The proof of one theory is the disproof of another. If it is impossible to prove a theory for the existence of the universe without God, then what's the point of all these scientists building bigger and better particle colliders?

 

[Oli]

Oli. How do you know that if everything were explained scientifically, it would still be possible to claim God existed? Considering the fact that you don't know any such fact, it is interesting that you would comment about its implications as it relates to God.

I do know it for a fact: it would be POSSIBLE.
Like Spidergoat said

No matter what naturalistic explanation for the universe that science can determine, you can always say God was behind that.

If we ever discover what caused the Big Bang someone will be able to say "yes but god put that in place", and then if we ever find out what started THAT someone can claim "Yes, but god put THAT in place".
Whatever explanation science comes up with someone will be able to say that god started whatever science has found.

 

[John J. Bannan]

Not true. It depends on what science finds - doesn't it?

 

[Oli]

Spidergoat. I can prove, for example, that the world isn't flat by showing that the world is round. The proof of one theory is the disproof of another.

The world being flat was not a theory in the scientific sense: the evidence did not point to a flat Earth.
Showing the world is round disproved an idea (and a badly-thought out one at that).

If it is impossible to prove a theory for the existence of the universe without God, then what's the point of all these scientists building bigger and better particle colliders?

? The point of the colliders is to see if the current theories of physics are correct: some particles have been postulated that, if they exist, will make things fall into place. If the colliders find them that those theories will have another validation, if they are not found then the theories must be looked at again.

 

[John J. Bannan]

For example, if nothingness is found to be the root cause of existence - you can't say God put nothingness in place. Nothingness can't be put in place.

 

[Oli]

Not true. It depends on what science finds - doesn't it?

Of course not.

Religion: God created the universe.
Science: Er, no, the Big Bang did it.
Religion: Well god created the Big Bang.
Extended:
Science: no, the big Bang was caused by X.
Religion: Well God put X there to start the Big Bang.

And so on and so on.
One step back at a time...

 

[Oli]

For example, if nothingness is found to be the root cause of existence - you can't say God put nothingness in place. Nothingness can't be put in place.

Nothingness (as far we know) cannot be the cause of something: so what MADE the nothingness become something?

Science: we don't know.
Religion: well if you don't know, can't god have done?

 

[John J. Bannan]

How could God create nothingness?

Seems to me pretty obvious. If God doesn't exist, then matter must have come from nothingness.

 

[Oli]

How could God create nothingness?

Isn't god supposed to be all powerful?
And if we could show that it came from nothing, since we're here (and are something) then what caused nothing to become something?

Seems to me pretty obvious. If God doesn't exist, then matter must have come from nothingness.

How do you work that out?
Please explain your logic.

 

[Sarkus]

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

Eh? It's known as scientific falsifiability.

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...

For £$%!'s sake, VO.
How many times do I have to say this...

THE OTHER THEORIES ARE ALSO NOT SCIENTIFIC THEORIES - AS THEY CAN NOT BE USED TO PREDICT!

Thus - as the other non-God alternatives do NOT make predictions - please tell me how your God theory DOES!!

Or since you stated: "It makes predictions in the EXACT same way that the other non-God alternatives do..." and I have stated... AGAIN... that they DON'T PREDICT AND ARE NOT VALID SCIENTIFIC THEORIES (more just concepts) are you prepared to admit that GOD is NOT A SCIENTIFIC THEORY?

 

[John J. Bannan]

How could God cause nothingness to become something, as the state of nothingness would by definition exclude the existence of God? My logic isn't that something caused nothingness to turn into something. My logic is that nothingness and somethingness are the same thing.

 

[Oli]

How could God cause nothingness to become something, as the state of nothingness would by definition exclude the existence of God?

Oh THAT sort of nothingness?
Apologies, I (mis)understood, since so many believers claim god doesn't count as part of the universe, or is apart from it or something similar.
If there was absolutely nothing at all then surely it would be impossible to have something any time later?

My logic isn't that something caused nothingness to turn into something. My logic is that nothingness and somethingness are the same thing.

So no apples is the same as two (or three) apples?
Nothing is NOTHING.
Something is something else...

 

[S.A.M.]

How do you know what nothing is?

No apples could mean lots of oranges

 

[John J. Bannan]

Exactly my point. How do you know what nothingness is? Perhaps science will discover that nothingness and somethingness are the same thing. Poof, there goes God. Accordingly, I at least can point to a possible explanation for the existence of the universe that does not include God, which science could perhaps prove - which in turn would prove that God doesn't exist. Now, I am not saying God doesn't exist - only that I could theorize such.

 

[VitalOne]

You just made that up.

Wtf are you talking about man, I didn't make up any of this, you all should read up more on what falsification is instead of relying on the fan-based wikipedia....

Here's some links on what sophisticated falsificationism is (you know real sources, not wikipedia):
http://www.hu.mtu.edu/~tlockha/h3700sophfals.f05.doc
http://www.galilean-library.org/falsificationism.html
http://clublet.com/why?NaiveVsSophisticatedFalsificationism

Eh? It's known as scientific falsifiability.

Sophisticated falsificationism is a better word (IMO)

For £$%!'s sake, VO.
How many times do I have to say this...

THE OTHER THEORIES ARE ALSO NOT SCIENTIFIC THEORIES - AS THEY CAN NOT BE USED TO PREDICT!

Thus - as the other non-God alternatives do NOT make predictions - please tell me how your God theory DOES!!

Or since you stated: "It makes predictions in the EXACT same way that the other non-God alternatives do..." and I have stated... AGAIN... that they DON'T PREDICT AND ARE NOT VALID SCIENTIFIC THEORIES (more just concepts) are you prepared to admit that GOD is NOT A SCIENTIFIC THEORY?

They predict how universes come into existence...so all the requirements are met besides experimentation...

 

[spidergoat]

For example, if nothingness is found to be the root cause of existence - you can't say God put nothingness in place. Nothingness can't be put in place.

So finally, you come up with an idea for how the God "theory" can be falsified. If "nothingness" (the absense of anything) were found to be the root cause of everything, then there is no such thing as God.

That sounds good, but in fact nothingness can't be a cause of anything... since it's nothing.

Try again?

 

[John J. Bannan]

As I already explained, the logic is not that nothingness caused somethingness - it's that they're the same thing. No need to even tackle the causation problem. Of course, I completely understand your objection to this theory. Nevertheless, it seems rather obvious to me that if there is no God, then the universe sprang from nothingness. Nothing cannot cause something, unless they are the same thing. The problem for science is to explain how they can be the same thing.