Logic: There is no God

Post Reply New Topic

what about multiverse and string theory?

but even something being accepted as a scientific law doesnt make it say anything about "real existence" - which accidentially is what is to be proven/disproven of god.

eipsa, you should definitely read up on science theory, just to find out what science does, methodically and what kind of statements can be derived from scientific findings, therefore.

LOL fuzzy. Nicely done.

The irony is that I believe in god. But I beleive that god believes in science, and hes disappointed in those of you that dont.

Yeah, a belief in one thing shouldn't automatically close off your mind to other things. It's all about critically thinking and exploration.

though i think i'm just correcting your syntax on this...but god doesn't BELIEVE in anything. god KNOWS because he supposedly created everything. so therefore what you're saying is that god created science and all the formulas and made sure everything added up perfectly when the universe was created.



just clarifying that before some crazy christian-science weirdo starts saying about that science is a false god or whatever other garbage.


have a great day

not really....our law is supposed to be based off of the logic that one cannot prove against something...just prove something. so therefore one could never prove innocence. but then can prove the evidence putting them at the scene of the crime is wrong. which is why you're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty...because it's up to the prosecutor to bring evidence and make a logical case as to why you did something illegal. the defense' job is to refute the evidence and prove that the assumption of innocence is correct.


this same logical model can be applied with god. it's entirely backasswards wrong for me to have to prove there isn't a god because you can't prove against something...you can only refute claims with facts. innocent until proven guilty. godless until proven of existence of a god.



and yes, it is logic. criminal is supposed to be that logical as well....unfortunately that isn't always the case.

Yes, that is much better worded. Thanks for the clarification.

Yet Eipsa's point in starting this topic was to claim that logic proves that God does not exist and that logic is flawed.

So the logical progression runs like this: Einstein's Theory of Relativity proves that the universe is a closed finite system and many of Einstein's theories have been proven therefore the universe is a closed finite system. In order for that logic to work, the second point would have to be that all of Einstein's theories have been proven and in order to claim that one would have to prove the Theory of Relativity which would make the logical progression unnecessary. This is not logic, this is faith in Einstein.

exactly. and since scientific models can not be proven -period- this is all there is to stick with.

the judeo-muslim-christian god doesn't exist. that's easily proven. just refute the religion...which mostly easily done with science and archeology. science disproves everything regarding to what the various religious texts describe as right or natural or whathaveyou. and archeology just shows us that many of the stories are taken from older stories. like jesus walking on water....someone walking on water was a common story to verify divinity. the sharing of bread and wine as a symbol of body and blood is from the mithras myth (persian myth that existed before jesus) where he says to his followers: "he who shall not eat of my body or drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and i may be one with him shall not be saved." ironically, mithras also had twelve followers...12 is a very significant astrological number....which is why we have 12 months.

that absolutely no higher being exists....that's a little harder.

way to completely pervert the idea of the scientific theory for your own ignorant causes. you have no comprehension of science if that's what you really think of it.


and if i'm not mistaken, einstein has already been proven wrong.


and no...nothing is faith with regards to science...it's the best answer available at the time. there's a difference. faith is that you follow one answer no matter what evidence is provided. logic and science requries that you test such theories again and again and then REtest them when new equipment and new evidence is presented to provide a clearer picture and it's essentially always updated.

way to completely pervert the idea of faith for your own ignorant causes.

just for the sake of science theory - a short rundown on the method of empirical science:
through senses, humans have phenomena of the world.
through applying causality (causality is not found in nature, regarding whom you follow, hume or kant, its either a learned pattern or an apriori template - either way, its something WE superimpose on the world for the sake of structuring it.), phenomena are structured, repeating patterns of cause and effect emerge.
these patterns (keep in mind: structures made up by humans, based on a number of observed cases - empirical experience) are looked at, measured, data is collected and eventually, models are created by which mathematical calculation can be applied.
at this point, a general statement (a scientific law) has been derived from observation of single cases (empirical experience). the model is a means of structuring the data. its not a description of a phenomenon in the world.
as you said, scientific laws are revisited, corrected, reformulated... to keep them working in the light of new measuring devices, new findings, new data or whatever new. the measure by which a scientific law is measured is whether it works, not whether it contains true statements on the world.
scientific theories can only be proven wrong, by the very nature of how they are derived. to derive a verified general statement from empirical data, youd need access to every single case your theory is covering. for a theory on the color of swans, youd need to have access to the color of all swans currently in existence (pretty hard thing to do), all swans that have been (impossible) and all swans that will ever be (even more impossible). its the nature of inductive methods... nothing fancy.

science isnt a tool for describing objective truth, its a tool for providing working solutions for working with the world.

please... its pathetic. go out and read up on popper at the very least. some more hands-on lecture wouldnt hurt either. so far, its just reenacting the psychologism-debate of around 1900, which bores me to no end.

and now we have reached a point of where semantics come into play.


faith, as is used in most common colloquial language here is used to describe the believing in something without proof. i've not perverted the language. you've perverted the language by citing that there are things yet to be answered so therefore everything must be wrong.


that's your flaw in the viewing of the scientific method. you see the revision as meaning that everything is wrong no matter what. science is the most effective tool for describing the world around us. religion is the most ineffective. that's the bottom line of it all.


to claim that science cannot prove anything is semantic insanity by someone who refuses to be proven wrong.

i didnt say that science is all wrong. i said that science isnt the magical cure for everything and not the answer to any question. science is good at what it does (providing working methods), but bollocks beyond that, as just about every tool is. science is good at describing the world in facets, because that is part of its methodology.
science is effective, the fact that we can build cars that drive and planes that bring people into the air without the means of catapulting via explosion is quite something...
but: science answers only the questions its asking. the meaning of life (meaning in general), morals, feelings, identity, being,... arent questions posed by science and therefore, not answered.

the big flaw in the conception that is prevalent these days is that some science may be in touch with one of these phenomenons and the scientific model is then taken a) for true ontological being and b) as the absolute answer for any question regarding that phenomenon. example: neurobiology and thought. sceitists have nifty tools that alolow us to measure a lot of things in the head while its still working. then, as an inquisitive mind insists on doing, causal chains between neuronal brain activity and thoughts are drawn, measured, eventually formed into theories... its all fine so far, until we draw conclusions that are not covered by what the scientific method can achieve: saying that thought IS MERELY the measured brain activity. proclaiming that said causal connection really, ontologically, exists (in the world, not in our minds). the phenomenon of having a thought is reduced to a facet that falls in the territory of a given sceince - reductionism par excellance.
i dont say that science is useless... but bloating it up to make statements on what things really are, when all the statement originally contains is information how perceptions of things appear in relation to each other is not different from any other religion. thats why i found the term "faith in einstein" to be fitting. you are free to adopt science as some kind of religion, to fill your life with meaning, instead of "only" describing relations of phenomena (no small feat, considering what it allows us to do), but please, be conscious of when you are referring to scientific findings in a religious way (a lot of people do, nowadays).

what you read as "science cannot prove anything" is in fact the sheer deduction from what a scientific statement is. by the way it is derived (inductive, from observed specific cases to the assumption of a general - i gather you are firm in your logics, so you know that secure logical conclusions work the other way round: deductive from the general to the specific), it (the statement) is impossible to be ultimately proven.
it may work, but it is impossible to be filled with ontological truth.

systems that may answer questions of ontology or epistemology, or any question regarding the meaning of things, etcetera... dont provide so many things that work in practical everyday life as science does. but science doesnt answer the aforementioned questions at all. different tools for different jobs. thats all.

(by the way: i, personally, find it as much a perversion of science to twist it to make metaphysical statements from it, as i find it a perversion of religion -or any metaphysically oriented system- when it is twisted to result in physical statements - creationism and the like)