Let's have a proper debate on the debate towards in science of God

Let's have a proper debate on the debate towards in science of God.

I'll leave these links:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant_problem
magazine.biola.edu/article/10-summer/can-dna-prove-the-existence-of-an-intelligent-desi/

>inb4 atheist
I'm still unsure about God, but every top elite scientist still haven't disproven God, I seen and read many nobel prize winners who are still christians.

So It seems the argument is not yet settled.

Someone post the pop scientist versus geniuses opinions on philosophy pic, pls.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant_problem
magazine.biola.edu/article/10-summer/can-dna-prove-the-existence-of-an-intelligent-desi/
youtube.com/watch?v=v8mJr4c66bs
youtube.com/watch?v=FSmdSw9eEIA
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Classification_schemes
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Would you ask a historian about whether a skin lesion is cancerous? Science studies the natural philosophy of the physical world; we are not concerned about metaphysics.

God don't real faggot. Allah Ackbar!

i think its an oversimplification and misunderstanding of science to think that it is just about disproving things. If you like, there could be infinite possibly hypotheses or potential theories about the universe that aren't or can't be disproved, but this doesn't necessarily validate them. It's alot more than that. I think its fallacious to say that just because something hasn't been disproven, you can feel you secure in using that as a stance or attitude to live by.

science = empiricism

show me empirical observation of any physical phenomena indicating a god

but God has implications in the physical world.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant_problem
>magazine.biola.edu/article/10-summer/can-dna-prove-the-existence-of-an-intelligent-desi/

baka, to be h

youtube.com/watch?v=v8mJr4c66bs

>Let's have a proper debate on the debate towards in science of God.
Let's not.

Yes, but the scientific method operates under an assumed metaphysics and epistemology.

Those assumptions need to be in place in order to analyze anything scientifically.

If you reject those assumptions, that's fine, but we can;t have a scientific discussion about something then. We would have to establish what new set of metaphysical and epistemological constraints you are speaking within and argue subject to that new framework.

Natural philosophy means the study of things that aren't being fucked with by jackasses, outside effects, or Jesus - i.e. in their natural state.

Science says an apple will fall from the tree and hit the ground with some speed. If I catch it and keep it from the ground, or if a gust wind changes the apples speed, or if God deletes it; the science wasn't disproved/wrong/contradicted. It just didn't apply to that situation.

How about this argument: Fuck off, not science related.

>If you reject those assumptions

hmm, not sure you necessarily have to reject those assumptions unless you know something about God that means you have to. Tbh, like in any kind of field, it really depends on the scope and clarity of the theory.

There str maybe theories that don't stand up very well to scientific analysis about God but some are better, for instance if you're a biblical literalist, there are some things you can test, because that form of Christianity makes unique predictions about the age of the world and also historical events that happened.

I don't really understand your point in this.

see

>some dood empirically proves some spooky miracles and shit
>claims its the product of their god
>there are tons of other gods, goddesses, and extra-dimensional pixies, gnomes, unicorns and dragons that can do the same exact shit
>say some dood discovers that a god has claimed to have done that spooky miracle shit
>how could you ever know they weren't lying?
>its a freaking god or gods or a pack of mystical dragon-unicorn hybrids with god powers posing as whichever god they say they are

but God invented science

>every top elite scientist still haven't disproven God
You cannot. Religion is not falsifiable as is the requirement for a theory.

>lel reddit falsifiable meme

Science doesn't care if something is false as long as it's useful.

desu i think falsifiability is flexible and variable. Religion isnt intrinsically unfalsifiable. it depends on your conception of the theory and the background it rests on. I think theres been other theories which were unfalsifiable in the past but are falsifiable now as per science. e.g. atomism.

>Science doesn't care if something is false as long as it's useful.

what you on about?

You know what else isn't falsifiable, the existence of Hitler.

actually very true. this gets a ((you))

but at the same time i think its pragmatic that we shouldn't really put forward theories unless there is a reason to. Hitler's existence isn't falsifiable technically (or very difficult to) but it makes no sense to say Hitler existed unless you have some reason for that proposition.

>saying Hitler didn't exist doesn't confirm my biases so it's rejected
>saying Jesus didn't exist does confirm my biases so it's accepted

Show me empirical evidence that the scientific method is more effective than pulling things out of my ass.

>Hard mode: without begging the question

I thought we moved on from Popper decades ago. Positivism is the worst.

what? explain.

God will never be disproven. I think you misunderstand the meaning of atheism.

in case this was your point, i think academia generally thinks jesus existed.

>Show me empirical evidence that the scientific method is more effective than pulling things out of my ass.

that's actually relatively simple.

If you design a machine using stress/strain numbers you pull out of your ass, it will likely immediately break.

If you design a machine using empirically derived stress/strain values, your machine will function correctly until fatigue life, or user error.

How are you determining which one worked better? Empirically?

isn't god a spirit? isn't a spirit energy? why wouldn't he/she/it be real? the real question is, Is he/she/it who they say he/she/it is?

Ah, I have the perfect answer for you my friend.

You see, science and spirituality go hand in hand. All you require to see this is a little introduction to sacred geometry:

youtube.com/watch?v=FSmdSw9eEIA

>I'll leave these links:

PROTIP: Ignore those for now...the anthropic principle blows those away...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Atheists lean on the AP to explain away fine-tuning, cosmological constants, DNA, etc. but from the standpoint of a purely godless universe devoid of "supernatural" effects, there's a troubling workaround, and pic related homes in on it.

This is, if we live in a multiverse (required by AP), AND it possesses Max Tegmark's four levels (quantum effects leading to a Many-Worlds scenario) then it's inevitable an AI intelligence vastly superior to ours will eventually arise (any other option leads an intelligence inexorably to extinction via universal heat death) with nearly God-like powers. That God-like AI will find a way to achieve immortality.

(In pic related, Tipler believed that it would exploit the "Big Crunch", but the BC has fallen heavily into disfavor in cosmological science circles...this doesn't rule out another method, however, as a sufficiently advanced AI would be able to discern the fabric of the universe itself and find that other method)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Classification_schemes

Further, such an AI would be capable of spawning new universes, potentially with programming "back doors", that would allow a guy like Jesus to exist. Tipler explored this concept in the pic related's sequel, The Physics of Christianity.

tl;dr: Read pic related and it's sequel, and my links. You're better off looking *into the future* and not the past, Christfriend.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant_problem
I know this is probably a troll thread, but see the anthropic principle.
On the off chance you're actually a christian; what caused god? If an entity as complex and mighty as your god could be without cause somehow, would that not imply that our relatively simple universe must also be capable of existing without cause?

>science of God.

Which one?

Models and theories are falsified, not observables. We may say that Hitler existed because Hitler was observed, we may say that Jesus existed because Jesus was observed (probably; he's a well-documented figure for his time, but it was not a well-documented time). We cannot make the same claim for god, and so we cannot say god exists. We could say that god existed without direct observation of god if some theory predicted the existence of god, but no falsifiable theories or models do so.

this assumes that immortality is possible

if heat death is inevitable in spite of quantum mechanical timey wimey stuff then that whole argument goes out the window

*tips fedora*

There is only one G-d you autistic loser.

I have come to believe these posts are not made ironically.

Look Veeky Forums

this person is probably real

look at them with me

This is why Tipler leaned on a Big Crunch exploit.

A God-like AI could exploit the energy created by the final collapse (which diverges to infinity) to create a temporal "instant" that lasts indefinitely.

Perhaps such a Crunch could be induced?