Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
51 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Science proclaims God dead....eventually. rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
I see you...
United States
Avon
Ohio
flag msg tools
"I made a promise on the grave of my parents...
badge
...that I would rid this city of the evil that took their lives. "
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So, I was crusing Yahoo this morning, and I saw this headline on the front page...

Will Science Someday Rule Out the Possibility of God

...and my first first thought was. "Well, this will certainly lead to no good.".

I'm curious about what our favorite scientisty (yes, I know thats not a word) types have to say about this bold claim by our friend Sean here, or did the reporter screw up a science story again?

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jack Smith
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Which god and how is he defined? There's literally millions of them to choose from as everyone seems to make different claims about what he can and has done.

Without defining something you can't really eliminate it. God beliefs tend to move on the edge of current science anyway so he will just move the next step.

A couple of hundred years ago everyone was a bible literalist, now very few are.

Particular claims about god can be eliminated but other claims will simply take its place. You can't assume people will use reason or evidence to believe or not believe something either. Creationists show that along with some posters here.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think it's impossible to proove that god is dead, either he is real (and thus immortal) or he is not real and was never alive. Silly philosophical arguments asside you cannot (by it's very definition) disproove the existance of something that has no physical existance. They can proove that god is not needed as a mechanic, not that he does not exist.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jack Smith
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
I think it's impossible to proove that god is dead, either he is real (and thus immortal) or he is not real and was never alive. Silly philosophical arguments asside you cannot (by it's very definition) disproove the existance of something that has no physical existance.


One thing I have noticed is such a shift to Philosophical arguments recently, often based on Cosmological arguments. William Lane Craig started it with the divine command 'theory' and the rehash of the 1,300 year old Kalam argument. You now have the presuppositionalists and others coming in (Sye Ten Brukenkak or something and Eric Hovind)

Of course they would not pass a first year philosophy course with their arguments but they are convincing to the gullible.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
I see you...
United States
Avon
Ohio
flag msg tools
"I made a promise on the grave of my parents...
badge
...that I would rid this city of the evil that took their lives. "
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Halfinger wrote:
Sye Ten Brukenkak


Sye Ten Bruggencate
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jack Smith
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Dispaminite wrote:
Halfinger wrote:
Sye Ten Brukenkak


Sye Ten Bruggencate


Yeh I just think of 'baked cakes' and the guys such a wacko I couldn't be bothered to check, thanks
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josiah Fiscus
United States
Pittsburgh (Monroeville)
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
God is the solution to a metaphysical problem (sin). Science can change (and has) our views on various physical phenomena, of course. It is even possible that we will someday be able to explain everything in the physical world (though I doubt it). But all science does is explain "how God does things." The only people a "God-eliminating" discovery will shake are people who didn't have a correct understanding of God in the first place. This is a Good Thing.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
happyjosiah wrote:
God is the solution to a metaphysical problem (sin). Science can change (and has) our views on various physical phenomena, of course. It is even possible that we will someday be able to explain everything in the physical world (though I doubt it). But all science does is explain "how God does things." The only people a "God-eliminating" discovery will shake are people who didn't have a correct understanding of God in the first place. This is a Good Thing.


I agree with this part (it's more or less what I said), But I don't agree ith your comment about a correct understanding of God, as there is more then one god, and more then way way to intereperate it. What you can say is it won't affect those who have an unshakable faith in thier god, that is a bad thing.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josiah Fiscus
United States
Pittsburgh (Monroeville)
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
there is more then one god


I don't think there is. At least not more than one REAL god.

You are right people interpret that God differently, but science actually gives us guidance in that respect. That was my point, that science may help Christians agree on more things about the nature of God.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
happyjosiah wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
there is more then one god


I don't think there is. At least not more than one REAL god.

You are right people interpret that God differently, but science actually gives us guidance in that respect. That was my point, that science may help Christians agree on more things about the nature of God.


So far science had undermined many of the basic precepts that have been core to Chrisitan faith. You may be right and the reason for that is that the churches have been wrong for thousands of years, does not really inspire me to think that any of it may be right.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul DeStefano
United States
Long Island
New York
flag msg tools
designer
badge
It's a Zendrum. www.zendrum.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
happyjosiah wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
there is more then one god


I don't think there is. At least not more than one REAL god.


That would be a different debate.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Geosphere wrote:
happyjosiah wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
there is more then one god


I don't think there is. At least not more than one REAL god.


That would be a different debate.


3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
fightcitymayor
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
"This is a really weird game, and you’ll find that most people will not want to play this."
Avatar
mb
happyjosiah wrote:
God is the solution to a metaphysical problem (sin)...
That's a nice trick: Present a specifically Abrahamic problem, give it an Abrahamic moniker (let's call it "sin") then declare that an Abrahamic god is here to solve your problem! Nice work if you can get it.

9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dispaminite wrote:
I'm curious about what our favorite scientisty (yes, I know thats not a word) types have to say about this bold claim by our friend Sean here, or did the reporter screw up a science story again?


I haven't read his full story (and probably won't), but this quote makes it appear that the reporter didn't get this particularly wrong:

Mr. Carroll's Article wrote:
Most modern cosmologists are convinced that conventional scientific progress will ultimately result in a self-contained understanding of the origin and evolution of the universe, without the need to invoke God or any other supernatural involvement.[2] This conviction necessarily falls short of a proof, but it is backed up by good reasons. While we don't have the final answers, I will attempt to explain the rationale behind the belief that science will ultimately understand the universe without involving God in any way.


I personally hate both of these types of articles.

Even if one can perfectly explain the physical universe around us, there's always "room for God" if someone wants to believe. Religious belief may be many things, but it's fundamentally based on a belief in things outside of our universe and experience. Unless Mr. Carroll is suggesting that science can actually disprove the existence of a reincarnation cycle, Karma, heaven, souls, etc. there will always be room for belief.

I wish articles like this would go away. They do little but pick fights where we could live without them and usually make highly religious people (who outnumber people like Mr. Carroll by a large margin) far more likely to go "vote values" so that their religious views are "defended from science."

5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josiah Fiscus
United States
Pittsburgh (Monroeville)
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
perfalbion wrote:
Dispaminite wrote:
I'm curious about what our favorite scientisty (yes, I know thats not a word) types have to say about this bold claim by our friend Sean here, or did the reporter screw up a science story again?


I haven't read his full story (and probably won't), but this quote makes it appear that the reporter didn't get this particularly wrong:

Mr. Carroll's Article wrote:
Most modern cosmologists are convinced that conventional scientific progress will ultimately result in a self-contained understanding of the origin and evolution of the universe, without the need to invoke God or any other supernatural involvement.[2] This conviction necessarily falls short of a proof, but it is backed up by good reasons. While we don't have the final answers, I will attempt to explain the rationale behind the belief that science will ultimately understand the universe without involving God in any way.


I personally hate both of these types of articles.

Even if one can perfectly explain the physical universe around us, there's always "room for God" if someone wants to believe. Religious belief may be many things, but it's fundamentally based on a belief in things outside of our universe and experience. Unless Mr. Carroll is suggesting that science can actually [i]disprove
the existence of a reincarnation cycle, Karma, heaven, souls, etc. there will always be room for belief.

I wish articles like this would go away. They do little but pick fights where we could live without them and usually make highly religious people (who outnumber people like Mr. Carroll by a large margin) far more likely to go "vote values" so that their religious views are "defended from science."



Yeah, that's what I was trying to say. Thanks Ken!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Zé Mário
Portugal
Porto
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
happyjosiah wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
there is more then one god

I don't think there is.

Why?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Asur wrote:
happyjosiah wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
there is more then one god

I don't think there is.

Why?



*because*!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jbrier
United States
Aventura
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
happyjosiah wrote:
God is the solution to a metaphysical problem (sin).


But the concept of sin itself is a religious construct. As a nonreligious person the word has no meaning to me.

I don't have a problem when someone says that belief in religion is a matter of faith. What bothers me is when people start talking as if religion were self-evident or logical. It's just not. If it were there wouldn't be a debate about which god is the real one or whether there is one at all. There is simply no part of the universe or human existence that logically requires (or even suggests) the concept of God.

If you disagree... prove it. Otherwise recognize that your religion is just a belief based entirely on faith, with no basis in the real world other than tradition.
7 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
verandi wrote:
...talking as if religion were self-evident or logical.


And this is the types of discussions that I loathe. Religion is logical. It just subscribes to a logic that you do not accept. I think a more accurate statement is "religion can lead people to reject scientific evidence that demonstrates scripture cannot literally be true." Which is far more fair.

But then, I'm pretty tired of the atheist/theist debate because it's very rare that it produces a meaningful exchange.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josiah Fiscus
United States
Pittsburgh (Monroeville)
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hey guys, I'm speaking from a Christian perspective here. I'm not justifying every presupposition I have or trying to convert you. I'm merely trying to answer the question "What would a Christian think about this article?" Since the assumption of most everyone else seems to be "they will ignore the evidence and think whatever they want", I am trying to show that this is not the case for many of us. Rather, we see science as learning about how God does things, and adjust our views accordingly. I do not expect you to agree with the place I am coming from, but I do want you to see that there are options beyond "God can't exist" and "Ignore all scientific evidence". If you already believe those are not the only two possibilities, feel free to ignore my comments. If you DO think those are the only possibilities, perhaps you might find my or Ken's post useful in understanding why this is not the case.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Zé Mário
Portugal
Porto
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
happyjosiah wrote:
I do not expect you to agree with the place I am coming from, but I do want you to see that there are options beyond "God can't exist" and "Ignore all scientific evidence".


I didn't accuse you of anything...
Why don't you see options beyond "there is ONE god"?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Asur wrote:
happyjosiah wrote:
I do not expect you to agree with the place I am coming from, but I do want you to see that there are options beyond "God can't exist" and "Ignore all scientific evidence".


I didn't accuse you of anything...
Why don't you see options beyond "there is ONE god"?


Because that's the tenet of his faith. If you want to debate the theology, that's where this would go. But that faith is no more testable than a belief in the numerous gods you'll find in Hindi or other belief systems. And, I suspect, Josiah will be quite clear that this is what he believes, not what he can prove.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
"that's a smith and wesson, and you've had your six"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Science assumes this reality is in fact reality. There is no spoon.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
happyjosiah wrote:
Hey guys, I'm speaking from a Christian perspective here. I'm not justifying every presupposition I have or trying to convert you. I'm merely trying to answer the question "What would a Christian think about this article?" Since the assumption of most everyone else seems to be "they will ignore the evidence and think whatever they want", I am trying to show that this is not the case for many of us. Rather, we see science as learning about how God does things, and adjust our views accordingly. I do not expect you to agree with the place I am coming from, but I do want you to see that there are options beyond "God can't exist" and "Ignore all scientific evidence". If you already believe those are not the only two possibilities, feel free to ignore my comments. If you DO think those are the only possibilities, perhaps you might find my or Ken's post useful in understanding why this is not the case.


The question was can science disprove god, I was not aware they were only trying to disprove the Christian one.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dean
Canada
Ottawa
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The question asked in the article "can science know everything" is a bit imprecise. More accurately, I think the question should be "can humans learning everything through science".

I believe it unlikely, on two fronts. First, the pessimist in me thinks that humanity will probably blow itself up with its acquired knowledge before all knowledge can be acquired. Or, slightly less pessimistically, some catastrophic event will permanently halt our advancement (say, a dying sun, asteroid, whatever).

But more pragmatically, it's quite possible that there are things that just can't be known. In Lawrence Krauss' "Universe from Nothing" talks, I was struck by the notion that, because the universe is expanding, and this expansion is accelerating, there will be a point where a future civilization, using science, won't be able to detect the same evidence we can today that supports the Big Bang theory. As such, using the same tools that we use, they would come to different conclusions. Is it possible that we're a different version of such a hypothetical civilization, and there are potential discoveries lost to us?
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.