Jump to content

Science Proves God Is Dead!!!


Recommended Posts

I'm not sure if this has been asked before, but I figured it'd be a fun discussion:

 

If science were able to prove beyond a shred of doubt that God (any definition of) and the afterlife did not exist, what affect, if any do you feel that would have on humanity?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

That's actually completely opposed to the available data. The data we have shows no direct correlation(it actually shows an inverse one, but that's not important atm as correlation does not imply caus

No, no, no. Believing one thing in common with somebody means you have to believe everything in common. My neighbor and I agree, based on the overwhelming evidence, on which days the garbage gets pick

Well, "God" can mean almost an infinite number of different things, many of which are fundamentally unfalsifiable, others pretty much exist by definition ("God is everything" etc.). So that's not going to happen. Also, there's some iffyness about what "beyond a shred of a doubt" actually means, and whether that's realistic.

 

However, to answer your question (pretending that what everybody means by "God" is something scientifically falsifiable), I don't think it would have much effect at all. People believe plenty of totally discredited things already. Just because somebody figures out that something can't be true doesn't mean that everybody will listen or care.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Besides some of us believe in the God of Sponaza and of Einstein and certain aspects of science are pointing in that direction and not away from it.

 

That's rather a separate discussion than the hypothetical question of the OP. However, this is a good example: Spinoza's "God" is an example of an unfalsifiable one. Tell me, have you read any of his books?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are already plenty of folks who spurn science in favor of spiritual solutions. I think the the more science says the proof is beyond doubt, the more they will doubt it. I think this is already happening and in your scenario the only change would be a firmer resolve on both sides.

 

There are aspects of some people's gods that are beyond what science measures. If a god chooses to remain unobservable to test the faith of its followers, how is science going to disprove it exists?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm...ok, fair enough. I guess I should have said that I meant the standard layman's definition of God (ie..yaweh, allah, jehovah, the big guy upstairs, etc).

 

I posed the question to a co-worker (staunch Christian) last night at work and he says that there'd be a loss of hope, while my fiancee thinks suicide rates would rise.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
There are already plenty of folks who spurn science in favor of spiritual solutions. I think the the more science says the proof is beyond doubt, the more they will doubt it. I think this is already happening and in your scenario the only change would be a firmer resolve on both sides.

 

There are aspects of some people's gods that are beyond what science measures. If a god chooses to remain unobservable to test the faith of its followers, how is science going to disprove it exists?

 

Good point, and I tend to agree. Would that be a form of cognitive dissonance?

 

In regards to your question, I don't know. Let's just say science found a way and did it. Lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites
suicide rates would rise.

That's actually completely opposed to the available data. The data we have shows no direct correlation(it actually shows an inverse one, but that's not important atm as correlation does not imply causation) between religiosity and societal health.

 

Legend

 

A = Australia

C = Canada

D = Denmark

E = Great Britain

F = France

G = Germany

H = Holland

I = Ireland

J = Japan

L = Switzerland

N = Norway

P = Portugal

R = Austria

S = Spain

T = Italy

U = United States

W = Sweden

Z = New Zealand

 

fig1.jpg

 

fig2.jpg

 

fig3.jpg

 

fig4.jpg

 

fig5.jpg

 

fig6.jpg

 

fig7.jpg

 

fig8.jpg

 

fig9.jpg

 

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmm...ok, fair enough. I guess I should have said that I meant the standard layman's definition of God (ie..yaweh, allah, jehovah, the big guy upstairs, etc).
Isn't part of the Abrahamic god's allure that He manifests Himself in indirect ways that can't be predicted or observed? Hasn't He vowed not to present Himself until such a time as mankind is worthy? How can science fully disprove Him if He won't show Himself in a measurable way? Edit: I see you want to bypass this hurdle, but I think it will always be at the root of the Abrahamic concept of faith.

 

I posed the question to a co-worker (staunch Christian) last night at work and he says that there'd be a loss of hope, while my fiancee thinks suicide rates would rise.
I think there would be a bit of both, along with a bit of everything else from apathy to violence. But I don't see any of the major churches overthrowing the concept of faith for any amount of proof on science's part. After a brief period of instability, there would probably be more people on both sides of the fence that were adamant about what they know to be true.
Link to post
Share on other sites
That's actually completely opposed to the available data. The data we have shows no direct correlation(it actually shows an inverse one, but that's not important atm as correlation does not imply causation) between religiosity and societal health.

 

Uh huh. Yes, I see what you're saying there...but ummm, when I asked her, while we were casually sitting around watching TV, she didn't readily have any available data on hand. My theory, and this is also just speculation, is she was just offering her own opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Uh huh. Yes, I see what you're saying there...but ummm, when I asked her, while we were casually sitting around watching TV, she didn't readily have any available data on hand. My theory, and this is also just speculation, is she was just offering her own opinion.

 

I'm not seeing what that really has to do with anything. It's a common claim that seems to be completely false.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not seeing what that really has to do with anything. It's a common claim that seems to be completely false.

 

Since this thread is about speculation and the fact that I did originally ask, "what affect if any do you feel..." personal opinion has just as much to do with this subject as does any data you wish to bring forth.

 

I'm asking for thoughts, opinions, feelings, beliefs, etc...speculation, if you will.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Since this thread is about speculation and the fact that I did originally ask, "what affect if any do you feel..." personal opinion has just as much to do with this subject as do any data you wish to bring forth.

True, but if the personal opinion is completely removed from reality (hence, here's proof that this is unlikely to happen, etc) then it's very much okay for others to point it out.

 

People should share their feelings, but these aren't immune from debate...

Link to post
Share on other sites
True, but if the personal opinion is completely removed from reality (hence, here's proof that this is unlikely to happen, etc) then it's very much okay for others to point it out.

 

People should share their feelings, but these aren't immune from debate...

 

I completely agree. I was just pointing out that I was accepting opinions as well as any hard data about this question.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If science were able to prove beyond a shred of doubt that God (any definition of) and the afterlife did not exist, what affect, if any do you feel that would have on humanity?

 

We have people who reject all kinds of scientific evidence, so you would still have believers.

 

But, assuming most would accept this "proof", I am sure there would be much social unrest - at least in the short term. But, maybe it would lead to a more reasonable humanity. Much would depend on what we do with the information, the perspective we take.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But, maybe it would lead to a more reasonable humanity. Much would depend on what we do with the information, the perspective we take.
As soon as I read this it occurred to me that many people would realize that, if there's no god, we could be alone in the universe. This might actually lead to more space exploration in an attempt to find other life.
Link to post
Share on other sites
assuming most would accept this "proof",

 

I really can't imagine that happening. I think most people wouldn't even hear about it. It would be a quirky item in the science sections of newspapers, Bill O'Reilly would hold it up as proof that scientists are a bunch of commie atheists, and it would be added to the list of memes people argue about on the internet, but nothing else would happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing as the entire definition of God is that she is entirely removed from reality -- existing outside of time and space, controlling all, knowing all, etc -- I doubt any physical proof would be accepted by believers. God is usually considered to be above physics, so any physical proof would be insufficient.

 

That's the entire meaning of "Unfalsifiable".


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
As soon as I read this it occurred to me that many people would realize that, if there's no god, we could be alone in the universe. This might actually lead to more space exploration in an attempt to find other life.

I don't follow your logic.. the reasoning behind space exploration to find other life is because we assume some life exists. If we start from an assumption of ourselves being alone why would we even bother?

 

Did I miss something?


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Another point I just thought of -- hypothetically speaking, if society "accepted" the idea that God is 'dead' (which I am not sure I would support, btw, on a large scale, but that's a completely different argument about belief vs. system of religion, etc) I think that it would force us to re-examine our reasonings for morality and ethics.

 

Many of those reasoning stem from religion, but if you examine them you find humanistic reasoning for some (and may keep the ethical statements) or find no reason for others (and discard them). Whatever it is, the need to re-examine our ethics should prove to be an interesting endeavor on its own, I believe.

 

~moo

Edited by mooeypoo
Consecutive posts merged.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I really can't imagine that happening. I think most people wouldn't even hear about it. It would be a quirky item in the science sections of newspapers, Bill O'Reilly would hold it up as proof that scientists are a bunch of commie atheists, and it would be added to the list of memes people argue about on the internet, but nothing else would happen.

 

Yeah, I can't personally see such a thing amounting to much (albeit being impossible). It may convince some, that science is some antithesis to religion, or science had this agenda all along...but I'm sure that opinion is held already by certain groups / people. I certainly don't think it will cause any civil unrest, that we're not already experiencing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't follow your logic.. the reasoning behind space exploration to find other life is because we assume some life exists. If we start from an assumption of ourselves being alone why would we even bother?

 

Did I miss something?

I said it *could* mean we're alone. I was thinking that the possibility might encourage people to support exploration that would prove we're not. Obviously we wouldn't start with assumption that we are alone (the scientists leading the search wouldn't allow it ;)), but the fear that we may be could logically lead to denial and thus help the pioneering effort.
Link to post
Share on other sites
That's rather a separate discussion than the hypothetical question of the OP. However, this is a good example: Spinoza's "God" is an example of an unfalsifiable one. Tell me, have you read any of his books?

 

Actually no but came across some of the views through reading literature on Einstein. I might be a bit curious to more of Spinoza's thoughts though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually no but came across some of the views through reading literature on Einstein. I might be a bit curious to more of Spinoza's thoughts though.

 

So you're limited to tertiary sources (somebody writing about what Einstein thought about Spinoza's thoughts)?

Link to post
Share on other sites
So you're limited to tertiary sources (somebody writing about what Einstein thought about Spinoza's thoughts)?

 

I wouldn't say limited to, I would say open to some ideas.Sort of like the scientific method. It's a good tool but I wouldn't limit myself to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't say limited to, I would say open to some ideas.Sort of like the scientific method. It's a good tool but I wouldn't limit myself to it.

.... how does that work, though? You will only be empirical but you don't limit yourself to being empirical? and how do you decide when yo limit yourself to the scientific method and when suddenly to abandon it?

 

 

.. I don't quite think this comparison is working, walkntune, especially if that's actually what you meant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
.... how does that work, though? You will only be empirical but you don't limit yourself to being empirical? and how do you decide when yo limit yourself to the scientific method and when suddenly to abandon it?

 

I am a songwriter and musician as well as curious and I observe the world logically, artistically and intuitively.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.