Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 62
  1. #1
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,663
    Post Thanks / Like

    The scientific method is an invalid tool for determining if God exists.

    1. God is not observable or measurable.
    2. The scientific method is based solely on observation and measurement.
    3. Therefore, the scientific method is an invalid tool for determining if God exists.
    4. Therefore, claiming to be an atheist based on a lack of scientific evidence for God is not logical.

  2. #2
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,896
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The scientific method is an invalid tool for determining if God exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    1. God is not observable or measurable.
    2. The scientific method is based solely on observation and measurement.
    3. Therefore, the scientific method is an invalid tool for determining if God exists.
    4. Therefore, claiming to be an atheist based on a lack of scientific evidence for God is not logical.
    Please justify premise 1 - that God is "not observable or measurable". No definition of God I know attributes those traits to God. Even the Bible contains numerous accounts of God appearing to people, or otherwise demonstrating signs and wonders to cow or wow people. If God even appeared one time before or performed one miracle, that means he is capable of being observed and measured.
    Trendem

  3. #3
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,663
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The scientific method is an invalid tool for determining if God exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trendem View Post
    Please justify premise 1 - that God is "not observable or measurable".
    God has only been observed when He chose to be. This has not happened in modern times. Therefore, God is not observable or measurable by modern science.
    Last edited by evensaul; July 31st, 2008 at 09:18 PM.

  4. #4
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,896
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The scientific method is an invalid tool for determining if God exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    God has only been observed when He chose to be. This has not happened in modern times. Therefore, God is not observable or measurable by modern science.
    No, that does not logically follow. Just because you do not know of instances where God has been observed in modern times, does not mean that God totally cannot be observed or measured. In fact, many modern theists continue to claim that they have seen God, or angels, or Jesus, or Holy Mary, or have had "miracles" happen to them. Your argument fails.
    Trendem

  5. #5
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    I am the monster under your bed
    Posts
    887
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The scientific method is an invalid tool for determining if God exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trendem View Post
    No, that does not logically follow. Just because you do not know of instances where God has been observed in modern times, does not mean that God totally cannot be observed or measured. In fact, many modern theists continue to claim that they have seen God, or angels, or Jesus, or Holy Mary, or have had "miracles" happen to them. Your argument fails.
    There was a story on the news about someone who made a grilled cheese sandwich and it looked like Mary.
    http://www.geocities.com/brodavelist...e/cheese_1.htm
    The truth about forever is forever never comes. The truth about today is that it only last until tomorrow. The truth about tomorrow is that its just another day.
    Keep sayin' my name baby, 'cause haters make me FAMOUS
    Jayson Micheal was born April 6, 2009 :-D

  6. #6
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4,156
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The scientific method is an invalid tool for determining if God exists.

    If the argument being made is that that which is unmeasurable and unobservable, by definition, cannot be disproven by science, then I don't take issue with the logical strength of your argument. However, I have trouble seeing how this strengthens the theist position. If anything, accepting premise 1 discredits the theist argument by declaring that their central claim, the existence of a God, is by definition outside our only precedented avenue to truth. By stating that God can never be proven by the mechanism by which we ascertain virtually all claims, you only solidify the folly of a belief in God.

    Second, as Trendem has established, most commonly accepted Gods do have means by which they should be empirically verifiable, even if it is only by their past interactions with humans. The mere fact that God has chosen to make himself observable in past forces us to reject your first premise.
    [CENTER]-=] Starcreator [=-

  7. #7
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The scientific method is an invalid tool for determining if God exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trendem
    Please justify premise 1 - that God is "not observable or measurable". No definition of God I know attributes those traits to God. Even the Bible contains numerous accounts of God appearing to people, or otherwise demonstrating signs and wonders to cow or wow people. If God even appeared one time before or performed one miracle, that means he is capable of being observed and measured.
    Allow me to modify his/her argument.

    1) Science requires testable and reproducible observations and measurements.
    2) Our Universe marks the boundary of testable and reproducible observation and measurement.
    3) God exists outside of His creation (i.e. outside the Universe).
    4) God does not interact with the World in a predictable or reproducible way.
    5) Therefore Science alone is incapable of handling the question of God's existence.
    6) Arguments for atheism based on a lack of Scientific evidence are methodologically unsound.

    You know, I've made these exact same arguments at least five or six times now in response to Zhavrics continued use of certain Dawkins Quotes.

    Now before you attack my own arguments for God's existence, let me point out that my arguments do not assert Scientific proof of God. Rather my arguments are philosophical arguments that rely on Science as support for certain premises.

    It is also my personal belief that questions about what preceded/caused our Universe constitute metaphysical questions, not Scientific ones. This is because I think it is physically impossible for us to view anything past the Big Bang singularity. Because of this, any theory of this will not be experimentally testable or observable, eliminating the ability to actually do Science. Such theories will always be relegated to the realm of Mathematics and philosophy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Starcreator
    If anything, accepting premise 1 discredits the theist argument by declaring that their central claim, the existence of a God, is by definition outside our only precedented avenue to truth. By stating that God can never be proven by the mechanism by which we ascertain virtually all claims, you only solidify the folly of a belief in God.
    "our only precedented avenue to truth"

    What ever happened to philosophy and logic? By what Scientific basis do you assert the truth and validity of the Scientific method? You can't verify Science by Science, not only would that be a circular argument, but no way to experimentally test such a question.

    I find your Scientism to be entirely unsound.
    I typically cite original research papers and reviews that are available only to a personal or institutional subscriptional. If you wish a PDF copy of the papers I cite, send me a request.

  8. #8
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,663
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The scientific method is an invalid tool for determining if God exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by leeshaforeverr View Post
    There was a story on the news about someone who made a grilled cheese sandwich and it looked like Mary.
    http://www.geocities.com/brodavelist...e/cheese_1.htm
    Irrelevant to the thread.

  9. #9
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    I am the monster under your bed
    Posts
    887
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The scientific method is an invalid tool for determining if God exists.

    How is it irrelevant? It shows that God is trying to make appearances, in modern times. You were saying that God doesn't, I was proving you wrong.
    The truth about forever is forever never comes. The truth about today is that it only last until tomorrow. The truth about tomorrow is that its just another day.
    Keep sayin' my name baby, 'cause haters make me FAMOUS
    Jayson Micheal was born April 6, 2009 :-D

  10. #10
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,663
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The scientific method is an invalid tool for determining if God exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by starcreator View Post
    I don't take issue with the logical strength of your argument. However, I have trouble seeing how this strengthens the theist position.
    Irrelevant to the OP.
    The OP does not mention or support theism.


    Quote Originally Posted by starcreator View Post
    Second, as Trendem has established, most commonly accepted Gods do have means by which they should be empirically verifiable, even if it is only by their past interactions with humans.
    Irrelevant to the OP. The OP does not reference "commonly accepted" gods.

    Quote Originally Posted by starcreator View Post
    The mere fact that God has chosen to make himself observable in past forces us to reject your first premise.
    It has not been proven that any god has been observable in the past.


    _________________________________ Post Merged _________________________________


    Quote Originally Posted by leeshaforeverr View Post
    How is it irrelevant? It shows that God is trying to make appearances, in modern times. You were saying that God doesn't, I was proving you wrong.
    Such alleged visions are not proven to be God or caused by God.


    _________________________________ Post Merged _________________________________


    Quote Originally Posted by Trendem View Post
    No, that does not logically follow. Just because you do not know of instances where God has been observed in modern times, does not mean that God totally cannot be observed or measured. In fact, many modern theists continue to claim that they have seen God, or angels, or Jesus, or Holy Mary, or have had "miracles" happen to them. Your argument fails.
    Individual theist claims are irrelevant. Their claims have not been verified to be actual observations or measurements of God.
    Last edited by evensaul; July 31st, 2008 at 08:43 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

  11. #11
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    I am the monster under your bed
    Posts
    887
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The scientific method is an invalid tool for determining if God exists.

    So what if they aren't proven to be God, many and most believers will tell you that it is him trying. You just don't want anything to do with anything that can prove you wrong even.
    The truth about forever is forever never comes. The truth about today is that it only last until tomorrow. The truth about tomorrow is that its just another day.
    Keep sayin' my name baby, 'cause haters make me FAMOUS
    Jayson Micheal was born April 6, 2009 :-D

  12. #12
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,663
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The scientific method is an invalid tool for determining if God exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by leeshaforeverr View Post
    So what if they aren't proven to be God, many and most believers will tell you that it is him trying. You just don't want anything to do with anything that can prove you wrong even.
    No, leesha, we're having debates based on logic and evidence. I've seen you demand proof of others many times. Now it's your turn. Show proof that your baked goods are God smiling at you.

  13. #13
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,727
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The scientific method is an invalid tool for determining if God exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trendem View Post
    Please justify premise 1 - that God is "not observable or measurable".
    I think the Psalms attribute this to God. Something similar to, "who can measure your ways, who can count you width or depth." Not an exact quote, but I would definitely say an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent God would be a bit unmeasurable no?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  14. #14
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,663
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The scientific method is an invalid tool for determining if God exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I think the Psalms attribute this to God. Something similar to, "who can measure your ways, who can count you width or depth." Not an exact quote, but I would definitely say an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent God would be a bit unmeasurable no?
    Irrelevant to the OP. Religious texts are not proven to be from God, or proven to accurately describe God.

  15. #15
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    504
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The scientific method is an invalid tool for determining if God exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    1. God is not observable or measurable.
    2. The scientific method is based solely on observation and measurement.
    3. Therefore, the scientific method is an invalid tool for determining if God exists.
    4. Therefore, claiming to be an atheist based on a lack of scientific evidence for God is not logical.
    This looks like a fun game, let's play...

    1. The Invisible Pink Unicorn is not observable or measurable.
    2. The scientific method is based solely on observation and measurement.
    3. Therefore, the scientific method is an invalid tool for determining if the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists.
    4. Therefore, claiming to be an a-IPUist based on a lack of scientific evidence for the Invisible Pink Unicorn is not logical.

    Repeat for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the invisible fairies that magically make the sky blue, etc.

    Of course, your entire argument falls apart if you want to make any sort of claim that God intervenes in the world in any way.
    Ezekiel 4:12 (King James Version)
    And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight.

  16. #16
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,727
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The scientific method is an invalid tool for determining if God exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Irrelevant to the OP. Religious texts are not proven to be from God, or proven to accurately describe God.
    Well if you refuse to use religious texts for your description, then how do you maintain that we obtain evidence of a said Being? And if there is no way of obtaining evidence, doesn't that argue that it is immeasurable?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  17. #17
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,220
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The scientific method is an invalid tool for determining if God exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    1. God is not observable or measurable.
    2. The scientific method is based solely on observation and measurement.
    3. Therefore, the scientific method is an invalid tool for determining if God exists.
    4. Therefore, claiming to be an atheist based on a lack of scientific evidence for God is not logical.
    The title of your thread is as follows: "The Scientific Method Is An Invalid Tool For Determining If God Exists."

    You claim science is an invalid took for determining God's existance, and you also claim that
    "Religious texts are not proven to be from God, or proven to accurately describe God".
    So, if we cannot use science, not the Bible to prove God's existance, what can we use?
    Frozen In Time Yearning Forbidden Wishes Damned And Divine
    Scars Of My Broken Kisses What Will Follow If Tomorrow's Blind? My Eternal Night.

  18. #18
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,663
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The scientific method is an invalid tool for determining if God exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrFungus420 View Post
    .
    4. Therefore, claiming to be an a-IPUist based on a lack of scientific evidence for the Invisible Pink Unicorn is not logical.

    Repeat for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the invisible fairies that magically make the sky blue, etc.
    I'd generally agree, if you are saying those entities are not observable or measurable. The scientific method would not be a valid process for determining if those entities exist.

    Appeal to ridicule won't carry any weight here.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrFungus420 View Post
    .
    Of course, your entire argument falls apart if you want to make any sort of claim that God intervenes in the world in any way.
    No such claim is made in the OP.


    _________________________________ Post Merged _________________________________


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Well if you refuse to use religious texts for your description, then how do you maintain that we obtain evidence of a said Being?
    I did not maintain that we do obtain any evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    And if there is no way of obtaining evidence, doesn't that argue that it is immeasurable?
    The OP maintains that the scientific method is not a valid process to obtain evidence. I did not say "there is no way of obtaining evidence", but only maintained that the scientific method is not a valid process for doing so.


    _________________________________ Post Merged _________________________________


    Quote Originally Posted by Tarja Turunen View Post

    So, if we cannot use science, not the Bible to prove God's existance, what can we use?
    I don't know of any scientific processes or machinery operating today.
    Last edited by evensaul; August 1st, 2008 at 05:19 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

  19. #19
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,785
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The scientific method is an invalid tool for determining if God exists.

    Off Topic:

    How the hell do i start a new thread???

  20. #20
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,663
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The scientific method is an invalid tool for determining if God exists.

    http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/

    Start at forums. Choose a forum. Look for the New Thread button upper left.

 

 
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Absolute truth vs Relative truth
    By starcreator in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: November 27th, 2012, 10:49 AM
  2. Claim NRE - a scientific question
    By Fangrim in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: June 23rd, 2008, 12:41 PM
  3. Why pure Agnosticism/Skepticism is flawed
    By Apokalupsis in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 218
    Last Post: October 14th, 2006, 06:14 PM
  4. Why Doesn't Science Want to Explore Intelligent Design?
    By Xanadu Moo in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 206
    Last Post: March 2nd, 2006, 07:01 AM
  5. One Science Method
    By Montalban in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: December 1st, 2004, 11:44 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •