Atheists, quit confusing the two.

[devnull]

So you do in fact support the creation of the Frankenstein monster? Nice.....

wow. nonsense alert!

What?

 

[Trakar]

The lack of evidence for their existence is the evidence that they don't exist. To believe something exists when there is no evidence to suggest it does is irrational.

You can't derive a positive assertion from a lack of evidence. The most that could be stated is that there is no evidence to support any claim or assertion of existence.

 

[Tricky]

The OP is wrong.

Science is the study of reality, of nature.

There is nothing apart from nature, nothing 'supernatural', nothing that is off-limits for science.

To test if this is true, can somebody give us any characteristic of the Christian God (or other gods) which cannot be, at least potentially, investigated by some kind of science?

For example, let's take something simple like "God is good." (I'm pretty sure I've heard that in a prayer somewhere.) Well, first, you have to define what is "good", and that involves a branch of sociology called "ethics". You could studies the different things that various people think of as "good" and see if God's actions (or the claims of his action) satisfy the definition of "good" and in what world settings they do so. In my experience, much of God's behavior as described in the Bible, would not fulfill normal definitions of "good", even by the standards of most Christians. (Mass murderer, eg.)

Or, take for example, the claim that "God watches over us". While that might seem to be non-scientific, recall that the science of physics includes "the observer effect". To "watch over" anything requires that the observer change the environment of the observed, at least in some small way. Theoretically, instruments could be designed to measure this effect.

Go ahead and try it. You will find that what this will resolve to is that theology and science don't overlap as long as the god you propose has no characteristics whatsoever.

Is that how you feel about your God, theists? Is He/She/It completely undefinable in all ways? If so, then I humbly accept your contention that theology and science are completely separate fields.

 

[Lowpro]

Hmm Tricky I actually ended up saying something like that to Punshhh recently in the materialism thread except I went a step further mentioning that because your body, your "probe" to reality can only interact with reality, the very idea you can experience something "supernatural" is impossible; there's no apparatus in reality that can be acted on by the supernatural. So, when people claim to supernatural experience, it begs being scrutinized as a mislabeling of the event. You should just stop smokin' the crackpipe.

 

[Trakar]

Hmm Tricky I actually ended up saying something like that to Punshhh recently in the materialism thread except I went a step further mentioning that because your body, your "probe" to reality can only interact with reality, the very idea you can experience something "supernatural" is impossible; there's no apparatus in reality that can be acted on by the supernatural. So, when people claim to supernatural experience, it begs being scrutinized as a mislabeling of the event. You should just stop smokin' the crackpipe.

I would agree with this reasoning fully.

 

[Tricky]

Hmm Tricky I actually ended up saying something like that to Punshhh recently in the materialism thread except I went a step further mentioning that because your body, your "probe" to reality can only interact with reality, the very idea you can experience something "supernatural" is impossible; there's no apparatus in reality that can be acted on by the supernatural. So, when people claim to supernatural experience, it begs being scrutinized as a mislabeling of the event. You should just stop smokin' the crackpipe.

Eventually it all resolves to the same thing: Effects are, by definition, scientifically measureable. If God has any effect, it must be scientifically measurable, or it is not an "effect".

But I see no need to be insulting. All of us hold some irrational beliefs. (One of mine is that cockroaches are harmful and worthy of a scream when you see one, though I have no such problems with spiders and snakes.) There are many reasons, both environmental and emotional, that theists hold their irrational beliefs, so I feel like it is counterproductive to make personal insults about irrational beliefs, because it isn't going to convince anyone. And you can't convince me that cockroaches aren't harmful by calling me a big sissy.

 

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by godless dave
The lack of evidence for their existence is the evidence that they don't exist. To believe something exists when there is no evidence to suggest it does is irrational.

You can't derive a positive assertion from a lack of evidence. The most that could be stated is that there is no evidence to support any claim or assertion of existence.

I would be willing to take this a step further, however, given consideration to Lowpro's comment. The divine and supernatural do not exist within the natural universe, and to the evidence I am aware of, cannot (or do not) interact with the natural world in any significant fashion.

 

[tkmikkelsen]

Atheists are right-- there is no scientific proof of God.

But they forget that Theology is outside of the realm of Science. Science doesn't tell us what is moral, or ethical, or anything else that may happen to be outside the realm of what science is capable of telling us.

Science is a philosophy of skepticism and empirical evidence, and as such has no ability to explore metaphysical questions, which have nothing to do with skepticism or empirical evidence, and everything to do with subjective experience.

They are simply two different, separate, and exclusive realms of knowledge and thought.

Science does have a lot to say about moral and ethics. I believe that most psychologists and a lot of biologists would have a lot of very good answers as to why we feel it is wrong to murder and steal. I can recommend that you read The Science of Good and Evil by Michael Shermer. After that you should have a very clear idea of what science has to say about moral and ethics.

 

[Oystein]

Atheists are right-- there is no scientific proof of God.

But they forget that Theology is outside of the realm of Science. Science doesn't tell us what is moral, or ethical, or anything else that may happen to be outside the realm of what science is capable of telling us.

Science is a philosophy of skepticism and empirical evidence, and as such has no ability to explore metaphysical questions, which have nothing to do with skepticism or empirical evidence, and everything to do with subjective experience.

They are simply two different, separate, and exclusive realms of knowledge and thought.

Everything has probably been said, but not yet by everyone
So here is my take:


Theology is the study and teaching of all things pertaining to supposed "gods".


A. Theology doesn't tell us what's moral or ethical, it may at most make claims about what morals certain gods want us to follow.

Not all theologies are like that: The Greek pantheon is best remembered for its amoral frollicking. People did not follow then or believe in them because they were seeling guidance, but because they were fooled into believing, and because those gods were thought to wield power. it was thought that you could influence them positively by praying and making sacrifices, and negatively by, well, praying and sacrificing to other gods p).

To decide if the commandments of any given god are actually moral and ethical, you have to step outside the realm of that particular theology. For example, when Moses ordered the Israelite army to commit a complete genocide against the Midianites, his theology posited that "killing all men, women and children of an entire people is moral and ethical". Moses' men apparently thought differently, they killed only the men, and let the women and children live (in captivity). Today; Christians claim to follow the same god that Moses followed. It has to be the same theology. Do Christians believe that only total genocides are morally good, while partial ones are an abomination to the lord - yhw does not approve of mercy towards women and children? Is studying the relevations of a god really the way to figure out what's moral or what's not? Do believers really want to claim that they have no moral compass, no idea about what's right or wrong, of theology doesn't explain to them what god wants? What a sorry state such believers would be in!


B. Which theology teaches factual truth?

The existence of many theologies, most of them mutually exclusive, raises the simple question: Which one describes actually existing gods? How can we tell which theologies describe gods that don't actually exist?
We would expect any theology to convince us that their base premise is at least true. To do so, in this day and age, any theology must either surrender and say it can't prove its base premises, or enter the realm of science and use the scientific method.



Summary:
- Theology cannot tell us what is moral, or ethical
- Theology must overlap with the realm of science, or no-one would take it serious

 

[hgc]

We would expect any theology to convince us that their base premise is at least true. To do so, in this day and age, any theology must either surrender and say it can't prove its base premises, or enter the realm of science and use the scientific method.

Uh, that's just the problem, isn't it? Theology always assumes the premise of the existence of its deities. It's a basic feature, like stripes on a tiger. Why would a theology ever surrender? Theologians have faith; otherwise this would all be moot.

 

[Cainkane1]

Humans being social animals are usually born with a set of ethics. Just as a nest of ants or a school of sharks don't bite each other humans are genetically wired for living in harmony with their fellow man. So science can explain the origen or morality as well or better than metaphysics or religion ever could.

 

[Mojo]

Atheists are right-- there is no scientific proof of God.

But they forget that Theology is outside of the realm of Science. Science doesn't tell us what is moral, or ethical...

Nor does theology. It just tells us what the people who invented gods thought was moral or ethical.

 

[Aepervius]

Nor does theology. It just tells us what the people who invented gods thought was moral or ethical.

Which is a distinction which become flagrantly apparent on the subject of stoning people for various small infraction, or slavery, eating oyster, or wearing a cotton-wool mix t-shirt.

 

[dafydd]

So you do in fact support the creation of the Frankenstein monster? Nice.....

Frankenstien's monster. It was fictional,by the way.

 

[Trakar]

Eventually it all resolves to the same thing: Effects are, by definition, scientifically measureable. If God has any effect, it must be scientifically measurable, or it is not an "effect".

But I see no need to be insulting...

Ah,...for some reason I didn't register the "crackpipe" ending statement, I certainly agree that insults are not necessary, and should probably modify my "completely agree" to reflect that.

 

[godless dave]

You can't derive a positive assertion from a lack of evidence.

Of course you can.

The most that could be stated is that there is no evidence to support any claim or assertion of existence.

And that's all that needs to be said. If there is no evidence to support a claim, then there is no reason to believe the claim is true.

If the only reason you think something might exist is because you can imagine it, human experience shows us that you can immediately assume it doesn't exist.

 

[Trakar]

Of course you can.

not using sound logic

And that's all that needs to be said. If there is no evidence to support a claim, then there is no reason to believe the claim is true.

beliefs don't require evidences, and this presumes that someone is trying to convince others that their claims about their beliefs are objectively true.

 

[dafydd]

not using sound logic



beliefs don't require evidences, and this presumes that someone is trying to convince others that their claims about their beliefs are objectively true.

Thank you for toning down the thesaurus. This is not a dig at you,I mean it.

 

[Nonpareil]

beliefs don't require evidences

Unless you want them to be rational.

 

[godless dave]

beliefs don't require evidences, and this presumes that someone is trying to convince others that their claims about their beliefs are objectively true.

Rational beliefs require evidences. And what about convincing yourself? Don't you examine your own beliefs to make sure they're based in reality?