Science Proves God Is Dead!!!

[ydoaPs]

Ummm it has to do with the original topic of the thread

 

" Science Proves God Is Dead!!!

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?"

 

Nope, not at all.

[Sisyphus]

It is not that simple. Transcendental numbers are conceived by elements of the finite material universe, ie humans.

Yet, Transcendental numbers cannot be completely described by any method in the finite material universe.

 

So, how does the universe imagine an object that cannot possibly be created in the universe?

 

But you said transcendental numbers can be conceived but not created.

 

False, I said they cannot be described.

 

Yeah?

 

Well, in science, I would like you to write down all the digits of Pi to examine them so that I can make sure you are correct.

 

What does writing down all the digits have to do with "making sure it's correct?" What does any of this have to do with the rest of the thread?

 

Further, photosynthesis,

 

Energy transfer rates between pigments are very rapid, and charge separation in reaction centers occurs in 3-30 picoseconds

http://photoscience.la.asu.edu/photosyn/education/photointro.html

 

If the plant fails to operate in the pico second range, photosynthesis fails and electron transport is not completed for the photosynthic factory.

 

Now, humans just entered the pico second range in the last decade, but plants have depended on this accuracy for photosynthesis for billions of years.

 

Now, since plants are the most primitive liife on the planet, I am quite sure science can write the recipe book for this sequence of operations.

 

This is also a nonsequitor. Plants are not more primitive than animals, first of all, and so what if they were? It takes our most advanced techniques to look at the most "primitive" things of all, fundamental particles. So?

 

If science cannot do this, then science needs to take its correct role as high priest.

 

So your claim is that if we don't already know everything that can possibly be known, then science is a religion?

[lucky45]

Science also never proved god is alive either. One thing is for shure. there either is a God, or there is no God You decide

[Mr Skeptic]

Another thing is abundantly clear: what you decide to be true, has no effect on reality.

[lucky45]

If science proved God is dead, Are you saying that he was alive at one point or that he never existed in the first place. If God never existed, Then why would the science community try to prove he is dead if he never existed in the first place

[Sisyphus]

The subject of this thread was a hypothetical question about what would happen to society if "god" was "proven" not to exist (or is "dead"). Continued arguments over whether this is in fact the case count as religious discussion and are not allowed on these forums.

[lucky45]

No Problem but I only responded to a question Thankyou

[vuquta]

What does writing down all the digits have to do with "making sure it's correct?" What does any of this have to do with the rest of the thread?

Well, because science is about testing. That means it is based on a posteriori logic. However, if all the digits cannot be written down, they can never be verified. I was simply showing a case which demarcates a priori and a posteriori logic. The reason it is part of this thread is that is shows some of the difficulties with proving existence and non-existence.

 

 

This is also a nonsequitor. Plants are not more primitive than animals, first of all, and so what if they were? It takes our most advanced techniques to look at the most "primitive" things of all, fundamental particles. So?

No it is not and yes plants are more primitive than animals.

Further, there is no comparison of photosynthesis to fundamental particles.

Particles are simply material with properties whereas photosynthesis is a process.

 

Moreover, photosynthesis is the gateway to all life on this planet. Without photosynthesis, there are no carbohydrates and thus no proteins.

In addition, a carbohydrate is an excellent storage medium for energy.

 

 

So your claim is that if we don't already know everything that can possibly be known, then science is a religion?

I made this statement because science draws conclusions on issues that are not logically decidable which in my world is faith based logic.

 

If it is the case that the universe is indeed finite, then science cannot draw any conclusions unless they can be proven to be recursive functions.

[foodchain]

No it is not and yes plants are more primitive than animals.Further, there is no comparison of photosynthesis to fundamental particles.Particles are simply material with properties whereas photosynthesis is a process.

 

That is quite a leap, how do you know that particles are not a process? What do you mean by process, do you mean like radioactive decay, or a chemical reaction? I am just wondering if your theme here could be covered by some foray into complex systems and emergence or what not.

 

The other thing of course is thermodynamics, why does everything have to do quick? Its just a simple point on the matter, but using something unproven or some conjecture to make a definitive statement on something being true or false is sort of lame.

 

So you claim that not every bit of evidence is open to scientific investigation, big deal, did the Romans invent microwave using electronics, no, but its not as if it were some developmental impossibility. Who knows what science will claim to understand in even fifty years, or even just a few years of operational LHC.

[the tree]

It reminds that the BBT is a creationist theory introduced by a priest (Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître ) in 1927. It is quite funny that most of atheists are supporting the BBT instead of fighting it. They haven't even figure it is a creationist theory, and if you tell them (as I do) they will refuse to listen, believing the BBT is "their" materialist theory. It is not. BBT belongs to creatonism.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

It's kind of beyond me how this is relevant - it's an actual theory, doesn't matter where it originally came from.

[mooeypoo]

A theory stands by the merits of the evidence that supports it, not the person that suggested it.

[michel123456]

It's kind of beyond me how this is relevant - it's an actual theory, doesn't matter where it originally came from.

 

A theory stands by the merits of the evidence that supports it, not the person that suggested it.

 

Politically correct. But naive.

[mooeypoo]

Politically correct. But naive.

Not naive. Scientific method.

[Mr Skeptic]

What he means is that if a person who has a history of doing excellent science suggests a theory, it is given some credence due solely to that person's previous accomplishments, in addition to that of it's own merit. It gets extra benefit of the doubt.

[mooeypoo]

What he means is that if a person who has a history of doing excellent science suggests a theory, it is given some credence due solely to that person's previous accomplishments, in addition to that of it's own merit. It gets extra benefit of the doubt.

Sure, but eventually the theory itself is judged by the evidence, and not by the person suggesting it. The theory might get to be tested faster (IE, might be more "welcoming" to other scientists) because of the reputation of whoever suggests it, but EVENTUALLY, the theory is judged on the merit of its evidence.

 

It's called peer review...

[Chriton]

Surely the word "God" is used to try to explain a why we exist...he is supposed to have created us, We need to explain why we are here so a "God" is a good explanation for our existance.

 

But if we realise that there are other explanations for our existance then "God" will be what he should be.

 

The cell did not divide because it wanted to, life did not evolve because of some random genetic choice...I believe there was a blueprint to do this, like parts of a computer program coming together for a purpose that was intended.

 

But what is the end product?

 

I dont believe in the concept of a "God" but there is purpose, reason, that something has a goal for life, otherwise why are we here and where are we going?

[mooeypoo]

Surely the word "God" is used to try to explain a why we exist...he is supposed to have created us, We need to explain why we are here so a "God" is a good explanation for our existance.

psychologically, maybe, but not scientifically. The "God" answer suggests a finite answer, one that suggests we stop asking more questions.

 

But if we realise that there are other explanations for our existance then "God" will be what he should be.

 

The cell did not divide because it wanted to, life did not evolve because of some random genetic choice...I believe there was a blueprint to do this, like parts of a computer program coming together for a purpose that was intended.

Cool. Relevancy? Evidence? How does this hypothesis help us make sense of our physical world?

 

But what is the end product?

 

I dont believe in the concept of a "God" but there is purpose, reason, that something has a goal for life, otherwise why are we here and where are we going?

Purpose can be subjective, too, so we should be careful in mixing subjects here. The fact that a human being can have purpose in their lives has nothing to do with the behavior of the universe.

 

And you can say a planet has purpose, but that's not really helping anything; what purpose does it have, to sustain life? well, that doesn't follow, seeing as the vast majority of planets we know of has no life. The idea of purpose is more philosophical than scientific. It's an interesting question but it's not really helping a scientific (and therefore objective) examination of our reality.

[Mr Skeptic]

Surely the word "God" is used to try to explain a why we exist...he is supposed to have created us, We need to explain why we are here so a "God" is a good explanation for our existance.

 

God is a convenient explanation. But we scientists judge how good a theory is based on how well it can predict (not explain!) the facts. Therefore, God is a terrible explanation, because virtually no predictions can be made from that.

 

I dont believe in the concept of a "God" but there is purpose, reason, that something has a goal for life, otherwise why are we here and where are we going?

 

We are here to pass on our genes... how we do that is up to us.

[michel123456]

Surely the word "God" is used to try to explain a why we exist...he is supposed to have created us, We need to explain why we are here so a "God" is a good explanation for our existance.

 

But if we realise that there are other explanations for our existance then "God" will be what he should be.

 

The cell did not divide because it wanted to, life did not evolve because of some random genetic choice...I believe there was a blueprint to do this, like parts of a computer program coming together for a purpose that was intended.

 

But what is the end product?

 

I dont believe in the concept of a "God" but there is purpose, reason, that something has a goal for life, otherwise why are we here and where are we going?

 

From an objective point of vue, you can find maybe not answers to your questions, but hints. I found some but if you want me to explain what I mean you must be prepared to get uncomfortable. And I am not even sure whether this forum would accept my views on the subject although they are not related to any kind of deity.

[Difference]

Considering the differences between spirituality and religion, I believe humanity would eventually see the true spirituality.

[mooeypoo]

I believe humanity would eventually see the true spirituality.

Yes, that's the point all religions are making, isn't it...

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

From an objective point of vue, you can find maybe not answers to your questions, but hints. I found some but if you want me to explain what I mean you must be prepared to get uncomfortable. And I am not even sure whether this forum would accept my views on the subject although they are not related to any kind of deity.

Unless they're supported by evidence,they're not objective. Not that they should be -- in this cases, I'm not too sure it's a bad thing to have only subjective views, but you should *know* that they are subjective. Because if they're subjective, thy have no room in a scientific endeavor.

 

Just saying, michel. If these are subjective, then whether we(the forum) likes them or not is irrelevant.

[ydoaPs]

/me points to the topic AGAIN

[michel123456]

Yes, that's the point all religions are making, isn't it...

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

Unless they're supported by evidence,they're not objective. Not that they should be -- in this cases, I'm not too sure it's a bad thing to have only subjective views, but you should *know* that they are subjective. Because if they're subjective, thy have no room in a scientific endeavor.

 

Just saying, michel. If these are subjective, then whether we(the forum) likes them or not is irrelevant.

 

Hm. "Evidence" can be subjective as well. For example, I can say that the Earth is spinning, it is an observation and that makes it an evidence, as you mean it. But I can say that humanity is destroying the planet, it is an observation as well, but I really don't know whether this observation can be considered as objective. Someone else can come and say, no, that is not the case, and begin an endless debate based on exactly the same data's. What is considered as "evidence" will drive in different interpretations, and I truly believe that in science there are few true "evidences" and there are a lot of "interpretations".

All what I was prepared to say are based on such "evidences", as "Humanity is destroying the planet" and I still don't know if statements like these would be welcomed here, even in Speculations. Maybe that would be considered as toooo bad. And I have a lot of statements of this kind.

[mooeypoo]

Hm. "Evidence" can be subjective as well. For example, I can say that the Earth is spinning, it is an observation and that makes it an evidence, as you mean it.

In science, evidence is counted by their objectivity. "The earth is spinning" is an observable claim, independent of subjectivity of a person. It's absolutely objective.

But I can say that humanity is destroying the planet, it is an observation as well, but I really don't know whether this observation can be considered as objective.

It's not an observation that is objective, though, it's absolutely subjective and requires proof. That's part of the reason why the argument over climate change is so vehement with scientists on both sides of the fense.

 

That claim is not scientific unless it is supported by further evidence.

 

Someone else can come and say, no, that is not the case, and begin an endless debate based on exactly the same data's.

That would be interpretation, perhaps. But look here: The earth is spinning. Can you interpret the observable evidence any differently? That's an objective claim. Testable, tested, proven.

 

 

The entire point of the scientific method is to aid the scientists (who are people, human beings, prone to mistakes and subjectivity) reach *objective* claims. The point of the scientific method is to strip away as much of the subjectivity as possible.

 

That's why claims need to be supported. That's why there's peer review. That's why there's falsifiability. Etc etc etc.

 

 

~moo

[michel123456]

Your last post ends splendidly this thread Mooyepoo. Good for you.