[AFE95]

Now I'm very fond of science, but i do feel could science explain the reason how God(s) created the universe and not why he/she/it couldn't? Maybe not for theism but for deism?

Please be civil and answer respectfully and nicely whether you be theist, atheist, Deist or agnostic

FYI: Deism is a belief that a creator made the universe but has no role in the workings of it i.e no miracles or divine interventions

[chickenonsteroids]

I don't think science should bother itself with the existence of the supernatural. It's meant to focus on the physical and natural world.

[G8D]

No, god doesn't exist.

[.eXe]

(Original post by G8D)
No, god doesn't exist.

How did you determine that?


Posted via TSR iPhone App

[Alpharius]

If science stumbles upon evidence of God (most discoveries have been by accident), I'll look at the evidence, and draw a conclusion.

Until then, there isn't any evidence. That's the end of the discussion among scientists. No evidence, no debate.

[Agenda Suicide]

(Original post by .eXe)
How did you determine that?


Posted via TSR iPhone App

The same way you determine that I'm not under your bed or there isn't a purple shoe eating your family downstairs, there's no conclusive,decisive evidence.

[chickenonsteroids]

(Original post by Agenda Suicide)
The same way you determine that I'm not under your bed or there isn't a purple shoe eating your family downstairs, there's no conclusive,decisive evidence.

Not really. You can falsify all of those things.

The only reason why he's changed from 'There's no evidence for god' to 'god doesn't exist' is because of convenience.

[Halogenation]

(Original post by Agenda Suicide)
The same way you determine that I'm not under your bed or there isn't a purple shoe eating your family downstairs, there's no conclusive,decisive evidence.

There's no decisive evidence for either side of the argument. That's why i'm agnostic.

[King-Panther]

(Original post by Alpharius)
If science stumbles upon evidence of God (most discoveries have been by accident), I'll look at the evidence, and draw a conclusion.

Until then, there isn't any evidence. That's the end of the discussion among scientists. No evidence, no debate.

How could there ever be empirical evidence for something that is beyond matter, the universe in fact? Doesnt that defeat the purpose of empirical evidence?

The logic of some people on here .

[JollyGreenAtheist]

Theoretically, yes. If, hypothetically, God started loitering on the outer edges of our solar system, holy sandals and all, and a scientist's telescope saw him, made contact and verified his existence to a reasonable degree, then science could explain the existence of God.

The likelihood of that occurring is low.

[Insanity514]

I don't think evidence for a God (if there is one) would come from scientific study and experiment. What kind of scientific evidence/experiment would prove the existence of God?
Observing a God descend onto earth? If it's a piece of evidence like that I wouldn't specifically call it scientific evidence, just evidence that a God exists.

[SpiggyTopes]

No

[Alpharius]

(Original post by King-Panther)
How could there ever be empirical evidence for something that is beyond matter, the universe in fact? Doesnt that defeat the purpose of empirical evidence?

The logic of some people on here .

So you're claiming the supernatural?

Say's it all really.

"We can't prove God exists through evidence!" "Really? Right, new plan, claim the supernatural."

[ilovelabradors]

(Original post by AFE95)
Now I'm very fond of science, but i do feel could science explain the reason how God(s) created the universe and not why he/she/it couldn't? Maybe not for theism but for deism?

Please be civil and answer respectfully and nicely whether you be theist, atheist, Deist or agnostic

FYI: Deism is a belief that a creator made the universe but has no role in the workings of it i.e no miracles or divine interventions

First of all, in order to prove that God created the universe, science would have to prove that God exists, right? But that's the problem. If I say that there is a pink unicorn living under my bed, I am the one who has to prove it. Until there is no proof of my pink unicorn, it is acknowledged that my pink unicorn does not exist. So, scientifically speaking there is no God because there is no evidence of it.

If you are fond of science you know this, and you also know that science has explained the creation of universe... without the interference of supernatural entities.

It's up to you, I mean, you can believe in whatever you want, but I am still wondering how can you be fond of science and ask this kind of question.

[chickenonsteroids]

(Original post by Alpharius)
So you're claiming the supernatural?

Say's it all really.

"We can't prove God exists through evidence!" "Really? Right, new plan, claim the supernatural."

No. It's because you're asking a question and always expecting an answer that fits your premises. God is supernatural. You'd be pretty silly to deny that.

It's whether the claims of the supernatural can be backed up properly. Not whether science can test the supernatural because it's not meant to.

[King-Panther]

(Original post by Alpharius)
So you're claiming the supernatural?

Say's it all really.

"We can't prove God exists through evidence!" "Really? Right, new plan, claim the supernatural."

I never claimed God could be proved through empirical evidence (something that can be weighed, timed ect) and nor did God. I'm sorry but you're unaware with whom you're speaking to, so I will pardoned your ignorance.

You're original post proved I should not waste my time, I'm silly to have done so.

[KyraBloke]

Maths helps explains physics. Physics helps explain chemistry. Chemistry helps explain biology. Biology helps explain psychology. Psychology helps explain why people lie + make up stories. So yes!

[Good bloke]

(Original post by chickenonsteroids)
God is supernatural. You'd be pretty silly to deny that.

Eh? Not only do you have no evidence to support the existence of gods, but you have no evidence to support the hypothesis that said unlikely things are supernatural. And you claim it would be silly to deny it! That is truly bizarre logic and a complete lack of commonsense and analytical thinking.

[ilovelabradors]

So I have read some of the answers here and I all I have to say is... It's always the same damn thing! People want to talk about facts, but only use emotive arguments! Why? If you believe in a God that no one has ever seen but you know that he exists, fair enough. But don't tell us that we are not LOGIC because we don't believe in it. It's appalling how people having that kind of argument claim to be the logical....

[SubAtomic]

If Philosophy is science then yeah why not.