Some claim theism can't be proven false, therefore it is an unscientific theory. Must every scientific theory be provable? Since when? Is string theory unscientific, then, as it cannot be proven false? Is brane theory unscientific?

www.dictionary.com
—Synonyms 1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.

So, God is not an established explanation accounting for the known fact that the universe exists? Your definition - not mine.

No, thats not what im saying.
Im saying that God is no theory, not even an hypothesis.
Only in an un-technical context can it be considered a theory.

No, thats not what im saying.
Im saying that God is no theory, not even an hypothesis.
Only in an un-technical context can it be considered a theory.
God is theory if you use the dictionary definition of a theory...

Your own definition of theory says: A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena. How is God not an established explanation for the known fact that the universe exists? Your definition also defines hypothesis as:A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth. How is the existence of God not a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of the existence of the universe which serves as a basis of argument to reach the truth? God squarely fits into both definitions as a theory and hypothesis. If you want to excluse God from both, you need to do a little more explaining.

Your own definition of theory says: A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena. How is God not an established explanation for the known fact that the universe exists? Your definition also defines hypothesis as:A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth. How is the existence of God not a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of the existence of the universe which serves as a basis of argument to reach the truth? God squarely fits into both definitions as a theory and hypothesis. If you want to excluse God from both, you need to do a little more explaining.

You don't understand, atheists can't even admit that God is a theory for explaining the origin of all things, if they did it might hurt the atheistic faith

Since when is God established... have you got him on film ??

God is certainly a theory and a hypothesis. The question is whether that theory or hypothesis is scientific. Some claim no, because you can't prove God doesn't exist. But, aren't other scientific theories unprovable as they now stand. Such as string theory and brane theory. Is the difference that God theory can never be proved, whereas these other theories might be proved? But if that is the difference, who says that difference is significant enough to label one unscientific and other scientific. I don't believe there is any such authority for such a proposition. But, maybe I'm wrong. That's why I'm asking.

The definition says "established explanation" - not proven explanation. Clearly, the billions of theists indicate that God theory is an "established explanation" - although not proven. Besides, if a theory was proven, why call it a theory in the first place? Call it a fact.

Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion.

O.K. So what do you say these words mean in a technical context?

O.K. So what do you say these words mean in a technical context?

What words ?

Hypothesis and theory. You claim to be saying that God is neither a hypothesis or theory. However, I already showed you how your own definition of these words can include God theory. And then you seem to be making a point about technical context of the words. But, then you seemed to have forgotten what you were arguing. How is God theory not a theory?

I assumed you meant theory in the technical context. God is not a theory in the technical context, but is one in a non-technical context. At least as far as im concerned. :shrug:
I guess that means a yes to your thread-question.

"God" is not a scientific theory, period.
At best it is a hypothesis.

A hypothesis is a conjecture to explain a certain phenomena, or a reasoned proposal that suggests a correlation. "God" could probably be argued to fit within this.

A scientific theory must offer predictive capability and must be falsifiable - i.e. a theory must fit the known facts, make predictions, and also be possible to disprove.

Brane theory and String theory do currently fit the known evidence, but are so complex in places as to be possibly unfalsifiable. However, certain elements of the overall theories are falsifiable.
Maybe they should still strictly be called "models"? I am not sure.

But "God" is clearly an unfalsifiable - and is thus most certainly not a valid scientific theory.
It is also not possible for the "God theory" to offer predictive capability. So it fails there.

Thus it is not really a question of whether "God" is a scientific theory, but whether the others that you mention should be classified as such. They have probably (although I can not confirm) garnered their "theory" status through the laymen's usage of the word "theory" - as in "unproven concept".

Give me an authoritative cite that says a scientific theory must be falsifiable.

scientific theory

noun
a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

scientific theory

noun
a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

Natural selection isn't falsifiable...why is it in science? But God definitely IS falsifiable...

Natural selection isn't falsifiable...why is it in science? But God definitely IS falsifiable...

Remove 'ifiabl' from that post and you have a winner. :p

How is "God" falsifiable?

Please explain your thought process to reach this conclusion?

WordNet is just an online dictionary. Not even an authoritative dictionary. Why should I believe WordNet? Come on. Give me a better site than that.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

Real scientific theories must be falsifiable. So-called "theories" based on religion, such as creationism or intelligent design are, therefore, not scientific theories. They are not falsifiable and they do not follow the scientific method.

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

Real scientific theories must be falsifiable. So-called "theories" based on religion, such as creationism or intelligent design are, therefore, not scientific theories. They are not falsifiable and they do not follow the scientific method.

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

Thank you ! :)

So what now John ? :rolleyes:

WordNet is just an online dictionary. Not even an authoritative dictionary. Why should I believe WordNet? Come on. Give me a better site than that.:rolleyes:

Okay - what would suffice?

Try Karl Popper...
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/

To summarise what that entry more or less says, here's a quote from the man...
"The criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability." — Karl Popper

If this does not suffice, look up "Scientific Method" on Google and help yourself.

Your site is by Jerry Wilson. So, according to Jerry Wilson scientific theories must be falsifiable. I never heard of Jerry Wilson. Is he some important scientist speaking on behalf of an important scientific institution regarding the definition of theory or hypothesis. Your site is even weaker than the WordNet site. You must do better.

It still represents the current definitions.

What is good enough John ? I get the feeling you are only going to accept it when God says its so. :rolleyes:

Many physicists do, in fact, criticize string theory as being unscientific because there is currently no way to test it. But that’s mainly because of technological limitations. With sufficiently advanced technology, it is theoretically possible to experimentally test string theory. There’s no way to every test the god “theory,” no matter how clever you are or what sort of technology you have.

Of course, it’s possible to test specific ideas that people might have about god – for example, you can do scientific studies to determine whether or not prayer works.

There is a very important characteristic of a scientific theory or hypothesis which differentiates it from, for example, an act of faith: a theory must be ``falsifiable''. This means that there must be some experiment or possible discovery that could prove the theory untrue. For example, Einstein's theory of Relativity made predictions about the results of experiments. These experiments could have produced results that contradicted Einstein, so the theory was (and still is) falsifiable.

http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html

This is not even a quote of Popper, but a Wikipedia statement."One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability." http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:roWoJjpopSkJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory+%22the+criterion+of+the+scientific+status+o f+a+theory+is+its+falsifiability%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Scientific theory
A theory is set of statements closed under certain rules of inference. In particular the set of well-formed formulae consisting of certain axioms and all theorems provable from said axioms is a theory.
~http://www.fact-archive.com

Theorem
A theorem is a statement which can be proven true within some logical framework.
~http://www.fact-archive.com

You still haven't sited any authoritative scientific body that defines scientific theory or hypothesis to require falsifiability. Try again.

Ill repeat:

What is good enough John ? I get the feeling you are only going to accept it when God says its so. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

What? Another online dictionary? Come on. Give me some real authority.

I have to go now John. I suggest you help yourself. But you wont, you are pretty arrogant to dismiss the definition of 'scientific theory'.

Please site the definition of an authoritative scientific body that defines scientific theory or hypothesis to require falsifiability.

Do it yourself. Im out.

Arrogant to question your weak references? Arrogant to ask questions - like where do you get these definitions. If the answer were so easy for you, you would have supplied a better citation by now.

This is not even a quote of Popper, but a Wikipedia statement."One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability." http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:roWoJjpopSkJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory+%22the+criterion+of+the+scientific+status+o f+a+theory+is+its+falsifiability%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
Are you being deliberately dishonest or just a touch dense?

The Wikipedia quote is LIFTED DIRECTLY FROM POPPER!

http://philosophy2.ucsd.edu/~rarneson/Courses/popperphil1.pdf
Search page 3 - about 2/3 the way down - above "II"

These are POPPERS WORDS - FROM HIS OWN LECTURE "Science: Conjectures and Refutations".


If you don't want to accept that - or if you wish to believe that Popper is not an authoritative source - then just come out and say it.

Not to wax all semantical here but... strictly speaking, the criterion is that the entity in question must be falsifiable at least in theory, if not empirically.

This was the main thrust of the post-Vienna Circle Positivists, so as to allow strictly logical entities.

What is your authoritative cite for the proposition that a scientific theory must be falsifiable?

Supreme Court of the U.S. Chief Justice Rehnquist had a problem with Popper. "Only with regard to factors judges might use in screening evidence did Justice Rehnquist dissent.18 He was disturbed by a statement that "the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability,"19 and wrote, e.g., that, while he has great respect for federal judges, "I am at a loss to know what is meant when it is said that the scientific status of a theory depends on its 'falsifiability,' and I suspect some of them will be, too."20http://www.piercelaw.edu/risk/vol4/fall/daubert.htm If I am hard headed, then I join the elite company of a Chief Justice.

Many contemporary philosophers of science, notably W.H. Newton-Smith, are strongly critical of Popper's philosophy of science. Popper's mistrust of inductive reasoning has led to claims that he misrepresents scientific practice. Inference to the Best Explanation, an alternative account of scientific reasoning, has in recent decades become widely accepted in preference to the Popperian view.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Firstly, two points:

One, strictly speaking, the principle of verifiability pertains to propositions and whether or not they can be said to have meaning.

Two, before you jump back with an ad verecundiam, you're the one who is harping on about the definition.

And so...

What is your authoritative cite for the proposition that a scientific theory must be falsifiable?


Although Sarkus has done a fine job so far....

As I noted before, the Principle was established during the early Logical Positivist period: A.J. Ayer, Language, Truth and Logic, 1936.

In summation: to be meaningful, a statement must either be tautologous, or verifiable (logically).


Supreme Court of the U.S. Chief Justice...

blah, blah....



Category mistake.

It goes without saying that legislative bodies have a poor understanding of logic.

Supreme Court of the U.S. Chief Justice Rehnquist had a problem with Popper. "Only with regard to factors judges might use in screening evidence did Justice Rehnquist dissent.18 He was disturbed by a statement that "the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability,"19 and wrote, e.g., that, while he has great respect for federal judges, "I am at a loss to know what is meant when it is said that the scientific status of a theory depends on its 'falsifiability,' and I suspect some of them will be, too."20http://www.piercelaw.edu/risk/vol4/fall/daubert.htm If I am hard headed, then I join the elite company of a Chief Justice.Since when does a Law Court have any jurisdiction in determining scientific enquiry?

To be honest, his opinion is as useful as a kindergarten school child.

He doesn't understand it.
So what!

The scientific community did - does - and will continue to understand it, and follow it. Primarily due to Popper. He IS an authority on this.

End of story (although I bow to Glaucon's apparent superior knowledge - supremely demonstrated).

A far as I, and most of the scientific community are concerned, scientific theory MUST be falsifiable (or, as we've been reminded, at least falsifiable in theory) or it can be classified as unscientific.

"God" fails in this - although VitalOne claims "God" IS falsifiable but has yet to show how.

I'm harping on the definition because the thread is about the definition of scientific theory. The best you've cited so far is Popper. Other scientists disagree with Popper. You've got to do better than Popper if you want to show falsifiability is a requirement of any scientific theory or hypothesis. Try again.

A.J. Ayer speaks only for himself. This is not an authoritative scientific body defining scientific theory.

I'm harping on the definition because the thread is about the definition of scientific theory. The best you've cited so far is Popper. Other scientists disagree with Popper. You've got to do better than Popper if you want to show falsifiability is a requirement of any scientific theory or hypothesis. Try again.Logic fallacy... It's like saying that because I disagree with X on the subject of A that everything X has said is wrong or in dispute.

You've taken something from Wikipedia that says that scientists disagree with Popper on some things - but until you can show that they disagree that falsifiability is a requirement of a scientific theory then your unwillingness to accept it is nothing but deliberate obstinacy, dishonesty or blatant trollism. Your pick.

A.J. Ayer speaks only for himself. This is not an authoritative scientific body defining scientific theory.
All that you will ever be able to find is individual scientists who speak for themselves. But there isn’t any “International Council on Scientific Opinions” that issues authoritative decrees about the philosophy of science, which is what you seem to be hoping for. That being said, falsifiability is a requirement that is widely accepted by the majority of scientists.

...Several witnesses suggested definitions of science. A descriptive definition was said to be that science is what is "accepted by the scientific community" and is "what scientists do." The obvious implication of this description is that, in a free society, knowledge does not require the imprimatur of legislation in order to become science.

More precisely, the essential characteristics of science are:
(1) It is guided by natural law;
(2) It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;
(3) It is testable against the empirical world;
(4) Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
(5) Its is falsifiable. (Ruse and other science witnesses).

Creation science as described in Section 4(a) fails to meet these essential characteristics. First, the section revolves around 4(a)(1) which asserts a sudden creation "from nothing." Such a concept is not science because it depends upon a supernatural intervention which is not guided by natural law. It is not explanatory by reference to natural law, is not testable and is not falsifiable (25).

McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education
Decision by U.S. District Court Judge William R. Overton
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html

O.K. You say there is no authoritative scientific body that defines scientific theories or hypothesis. There clearly is a debate, however, between falsificationists and justificationists. Accordingly, it is quite acceptable for a scientist to reject falsificationism, even if that scientist is in the minority. Arguing that God as a scientific theory does not require falsifiability, then, is not trolling. This is a legitimate scientific debate. Admit it.

Creationism isn't science because it's theology and incorporates supernatural rather than natural explanations.

I'm not arguing creationism in the sense of all those whacko ideas about the Earth only being seven thousand years old. I am arguing that God is a scientific theory or hypothesis.

...
I am arguing that God is a scientific theory or hypothesis.

No you're not. At least, you've yet to provide any such argument.

All you've done in this thread, as of yet, is attempt to deny a criterion for a scientific theory.

Let's hear your argument.

No it isn't, since at the very least, it is a supernatural rather than a natural explanation.

The argument is that a scientific theory does not require falsifiability. Therefore, you can scientifically theorize that God created the universe due to the absence of a better explanation.

That is one aspect of science that you are concentrating on, how about the requirement that hypothesis be naturalistic, that conclusions are tentative, that it be testable, that they be based on observation?

I didn't say God existed, did I? I said, God is a scientific theory or hypothesis. The conclusion is tentative. As far as testable, that's the whole point of the falsifiability debate. A scientific theory or hypothesis doesn't have to be per se testable. With regard to observation, that's easy. Look at the magnificense of the universe. It is observable that God created it. As far as naturalistic, the observation that God created the universe is an observation of nature.

God is not observable.

God doesn't have to be observable to be a scientific theory or hypothesis. You can't observe certain hypothetical subatomic particles, but they are still part of science. Besides, why would you theorize over something that can be plainly observed? We make theories on things in large part due to the fact that we can't observe them. True, we may later learn to observe them, but observation is not essential nor a part of your own definition.

You can observe subatomic particles, albeit indirectly. Here's a picture of some of their tracks:

http://maltwood.uvic.ca/physics/Libraries/imagelibrary/30-54low.jpg

I said hypothetic subatomic particles. The ones you can't yet see. The ones, for example, larger and larger colliders are being built to detect.

In that case, they existence of these particles is the hypothesis that might explain certain observations about physics. God isn't even a scientific hypothesis. It's a religious dogma that has no place in science. Trying to redefine religion as a kind of science is exactly what creationists do (and fail).

God is a scientific hypothesis which meets the definition of scientific theory or hypothesis. That's what nobody on this thread had been able to prove to me through citation to an authoritative scientific body defining scientific theory or hypothesis. You can say it has no place in science, but that's just your opinion.

God is a scientific hypothesis which mets the definition of scientific theory or hypothesis.

So you can use "god" to make predictions on the future behaviour of things?
With the as-yet-unobserved particles science says "they should have such-and-such properties" and if they do they then so-and-so will happen if we do this and this.
So how how do we test for "god" to fit him into the scheme of things?

God is a scientific hypothesis which meets the definition of scientific theory or hypothesis. That's what nobody on this thread had been able to prove to me through citation to an authoritative scientific body defining scientific theory or hypothesis. You can say it has no place in science, but that's just your opinion.

That's exactly what we just did. By it's very definition, it's not scientific, since all scientific explanations are naturalistic, not supernatural. Case closed. :p

The whole idea of falsifiability, i.e. testing, has already been discussed at length in this thread. My conclusion is that there is a debate among scientists (falsificationists vs. justificationists) whether a theory or hypothesis must be testable to be science. Therefore, no - we don't have to "test" God to have a scientific God theory. Next, where does an authoritative definition of scientific theory or hypothesis states that a scientific theory or hypothesis must predict future behavior of things?

What is your authoritative support for the argument that all scientific explanations are naturalistic?

So you like court rulings ?

"Falsifiability
Falsifiability was one of the criteria used by Judge William Overton in the McLean v. Arkansas ruling to determine that 'creation science' was not scientific and should not be taught in Arkansas public schools. In his conclusion related to this criterion he stated that "While anybody is free to approach a scientific inquiry in any fashion they choose, they cannot properly describe the methodology as scientific, if they start with the conclusion and refuse to change it regardless of the evidence developed during the course of the investigation."[1]

It was also enshrined in United States law as part of the Daubert Standard set by the Supreme Court for whether scientific evidence is admissible in a jury trial."

"The Daubert Standard
In Daubert, the Supreme Court ordered federal trial judges to become the “gatekeepers” of scientific evidence. Trial judges now must evaluate proffered expert witnesses to determine whether their testimony is both “relevant” and “reliable”; a two-pronged test of admissibility.

The relevancy prong: The relevancy of a testimony refers to whether or not the expert’s evidence “fits” the facts of the case. For example, you may invite an astronomer to tell the jury if it had been a full moon on the night of a crime. However, the astronomer would not be allowed to testify if the fact that the moon was full was not relevant to the issue at hand in the trial.
The reliability prong: The Supreme Court explained that in order for expert testimony to be considered reliable, the expert must have derived his or her conclusions from the scientific method. The Court offered "general observations" of whether proffered evidence was based on the scientific method, although the list was not intended to be used as an exacting checklist:
Empirical testing: the theory or technique must be falsifiable, refutable, and testable.
Subjected to peer review and publication.
Known or potential error rate and the existence and maintenance of standards concerning its operation.
Whether the theory and technique is generally accepted by a relevant scientific community.
Although trial judges have always had the authority to exclude inappropriate testimony, previous to Daubert, trial courts often preferred to let juries hear evidence proffered by both sides.[1] Once certain evidence has been excluded by a Daubert motion because it fails to meet the relevancy and reliability standard, it will likely be challenged when introduced again in another trial. Even though a Daubert motion is not binding to other courts of law, if something was found not trustworthy, other judges may choose to follow that precedent."

God would get past court as a scientific theory.

If you recall, I cited Justice Rehnquist's dissent in Daubert.

That is one aspect of science that you are concentrating on, how about the requirement that hypothesis be naturalistic, that conclusions are tentative, that it be testable, that they be based on observation?

Science is nothing more than naturalism, a religion or philosophy, if a scientist discovers evidence for the supernatural they can't say that it's supernatural, they have to find naturalistic explanations even if it never fits, that's what these atheistic fools don't realize, the reason there's no scientific evidence for the supernatural is because there cannot be any evidence of the supernatural by default in science

The whole idea of falsifiability, i.e. testing, has already been discussed at length in this thread.
I wasn't talking about "testing" in that sense.
I meant make a mathematical model of his behaviour and effect upon the world.

Next, where does an authoritative definition of scientific theory or hypothesis states that a scientific theory or hypothesis must predict future behavior of things?
That's what science does - it provides (mathematical) models of how how things behave: i.e. if this theory is correct then things will behave in such and such a fashion.
That's why science relies so heavily on mathematics - reduce it to an amenable mathematical model (gravity, ballistics, heat transfer - they are all predictions of behaviour, for example, if I let go of a ball from a height of 2 metres I can make predictions on when it will reach the ground, and at what speed).
How can "god" fit into this system?
Simple, he can't, it is impossible to determine at all what "god" will do, or what effect he will have under any set of circumstances, since he is, by definition, supernatural and can make up his own rules at whim.


Okay, I know it's Wiki, but:
The underlying goal or purpose of science to society and individuals is to produce useful models of reality. To achieve this, one can form hypotheses based on observations that they make in the world. By analyzing a number of related hypotheses, scientists can form general theories. These theories benefit society or human individuals who make use of them.

In short, science produces models with useful predictions.

What possible hypotheses can you form from "god"?
What possible model of reality can you get from him?

No common definition ever places falsifiability as a requirement for something to be a theory, so the concept of God is a theory...

Please use your brain John. You want something that is not verifiable or falsifiable to be a scientific theory. It cant be tested nor can it be observed. It is quite loony to accept something like that as scientific theory. I think you are not dumb and therefor you must know this. You are just trying to hold on to some strange idea of yours and do not want to let go.
Just admit you were wrong about this.

I have question for you:
If you are so certain that God is a scientific theory why did you ask if he was to begin with ?
Maybe you were having a bad day and wanted to piss off some people ? :shrug:

Science is nothing more than naturalism, a religion or philosophy, if a scientist discovers evidence for the supernatural they can't say that it's supernatural, they have to find naturalistic explanations even if it never fits, that's what these atheistic fools don't realize, the reason there's no scientific evidence for the supernatural is because there cannot be any evidence of the supernatural by default in science

Because there's no such thing as supernatural.

How is "God" falsifiable?

Please explain your thought process to reach this conclusion?

Well technically you can falsify basically anything, all you have to do to falsify something is to show that an alternative hypothesis is true...

Because there's no such thing as supernatural.

Great circular logic and personal incredulity...."there's no such thing as the supernatural because I say so"...case closed you win

What would prove God doesn't exist? That evolution is true? It is!

Science is nothing more than naturalism, a religion or philosophy, if a scientist discovers evidence for the supernatural they can't say that it's supernatural, they have to find naturalistic explanations even if it never fits,
If there is evidence for the supernatural (discovered BY science) then it would become natural, by definition.

that's what these atheistic fools don't realize, the reason there's no scientific evidence for the supernatural is because there cannot be any evidence of the supernatural by default in science
Incorrect, science has investigated what was once considered supernatural, thunder and lightning, for example.
They turned out not to be supernatural at all.

Well technically you can falsify basically anything, all you have to do to falsify something is to show that an alternative hypothesis is true...

Falsifiability (or disprovability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. It is important to note that "falsifiable" does not mean false; rather, it means that something is capable of being shown to be false in the event that contrary examples or exceptions to the assertion actually exist. Falsifiability is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science.

Evolution happens to be true.

What would prove God doesn't exist? That evolution is true? It is!
Evolution is evidence that there is no creator who made humans 6,000 years ago...so it is evidence that many possible gods do not exist...

If there is evidence for the supernatural (discovered BY science) then it would become natural, by definition.

No, something "supernatural" is something "outside of nature", how would it become natural?


Incorrect, science has investigated what was once considered supernatural, thunder and lightning, for example.
They turned out not to be supernatural at all.
No they didn't, all they did was observe natural phenomenon and try to understand it...

Falsifiability (or disprovability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. It is important to note that "falsifiable" does not mean false; rather, it means that something is capable of being shown to be false in the event that contrary examples or exceptions to the assertion actually exist. Falsifiability is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science.

Evolution happens to be true.

Yeah, I agree, the way you falsify something is by showing that an alternative hypothesis is true...

So natural selection then is NOT science by your own standards, there is no observation or physical experiment that can show that it's false...

No, something "supernatural" is something "outside of nature", how would it become natural?

Something thought to be supernatural can turn out to be natural.


No they didn't, all they did was observe natural phenomenon and try to understand it...
Which is called science.

Yeah, I agree, the way you falsify something is by showing that an alternative hypothesis is true...

So natural selection then is NOT science by your own standards, there is no observation or physical experiment that can show that it's false...

It is observable.

No, something "supernatural" is something "outside of nature", how would it become natural?
Because science can only concern itself with natural phenomena - that's the definition of science - see above about forming hypotheses and models.
If it can be studied by science then it's scientific...

No they didn't, all they did was observe natural phenomenon and try to understand it...
Which had a supernatural "explanation" that turned out to be incorrect.
For many years/ decades whatever it was assumed to be caused by the "gods"

Something thought to be supernatural can turn out to be natural.
I agree with this definitely, but what if scientists discovered that there was something outside of nature or reality from which nature and reality come from? Wouldn't it then still be supernatural?

It is observable.
But it's not falisfiable, so it shouldn't be included into science according to you all...if it is falsifiable then tell me what observation or experiment would show that natural selection is false...

I agree with this definitely, but what if scientists discovered that there was something outside of nature or reality from which nature and reality come from? Wouldn't it then still be supernatural?

No, it would be natural. It would have to be included in the concept 'natural'.


But it's not falisfiable, so it shouldn't be included into science according to you all...if it is falsifiable then tell me what observation or experiment would show that natural selection is false...

If it didnt occur... :bugeye:

Put it this way. Are poltergeists a scientific theory to explain noises of unexplained origin in an old house?

But it's not falisfiable, so it shouldn't be included into science according to you all...if it is falsifiable then tell me what observation or experiment would show that natural selection is false...
A population of creatures with a characteristic that isn't required at all for the environment they live in?
Or creatures without a characteristic that would be considered necessary for survival.

You can craft an experiment to show natural selection doesn't exist or isn't a force in shaping living things. Just use artificial selection to remove certain animals, perhaps fruit flies, that show certain characterstics. After some time doing this, observe if there is an effect on the characteristics of the newborns.

But it's not falisfiable, so it shouldn't be included into science according to you all...if it is falsifiable then tell me what observation or experiment would show that natural selection is false...

Darwinian natural selection is falsifiable, because in principle one could find evidence that (i) genes are not randomly mutating and/or that (ii) reproductive pressures were not favoring certain of the mutations that yielded a survival advantage. Stated differently, you could either find evidence that the genomes of living things were basically fixed and static within certain limits or that those individual changes play little or no role in determining what individuals survive in the long run. Either one would put the nail in Darwin's theory of natural selection.

"Falsifiable" does not mean that the hypothesis under review can be disproved with a single, smoking gun, observation (though that might be the case in certain instances). In the case of natural selection, no one observation can falsify it, but that doesn't make it unfalsifiable.

On the other hand, "God did it" is unfalsifiable, because God gets invoked as an explanation for almost anything. God makes it rain, He punishes the wicked, He rewards the virtuous, but He also makes it not rain, He rewards the wicked and punishes (or "tests") the virtuous—all in equal measure. We sum up all His actions we can't explain rationally with "God works in mysterious ways," but in the end all that means is that God works in ways that are so incomprehensible to us that we cannot predict them, nor use them to in any way conclusively demonstrate that He is having any direct or indirect effect on the universe at all.

In principle, "God did it" can be a plausible explanation to a believer for anything at all or any series of things, good or bad, positive or negative. In contrast, if unfit creatures start surviving in droves with the more fit dying off, at some point even believers in natural selection have to start admitting that those creatures are anomalous exceptions to the rule. If you build up enough such exceptions, then you show, in effect, that natural selection cannot be the significant cause of the diversity of life.

It just so happens that most life seems to be very well adapted to the niche it fills...that might be because God designs them (and why would God design them to be maladapted?), but it also fits natural selection...and it happens to leave natural selection (Darwinian or not) almost unassailable on scientific grounds. Of course the well adapted outcompete the maladapted—it's almost a tautology (since the "one that survived" may often be dubbed the "well adapted" one by virtue of its survival alone). Even if natural selection were a crock, that would likely be true. So one is very unlikely to disprove natural selection by disproving "the survival of the fittest."

Good news for natural selection though, it doesn't have to prove it's right...it just has to withstand attempts to disprove it. The anti-evolution camp has an unhill fight on its hands.

is physics an unscientific theory/science? probably, because there is no way to prove that the world is physical...

Put it this way. Are poltergeists a scientific theory to explain noises of unexplained origin in an old house?

yes because we know that poltergeists exist

Yeah. You're cute but...

woo woo!

I think for some of you boys, (John/Vital one), the best start would be a "science for dummies" book or something because you're clearly not understanding what has been said to you. As a result I shall give you something from sciencemadesimple.com as I feel that will say things in a manner you'll be able to grasp easier:

"The steps of the Scientific Method are:
Observation/Research
Hypothesis
Prediction
Experimentation
Conclusion "

Ok so we have

1) Observation/research

Now, with respect to reading old books I suppose you can 'research' gods, but you certainly can't observe them.

2) Hypothesis

"The hypothesis is a simple statement that defines what you think the outcome of your experiment will be. All of the first stage of the Scientific Method -- the observation, or research stage -- is designed to help you express a problem in a single question ("Does the amount of sunlight in a garden affect tomato size?") and propose an answer to the question based on what you know. The experiment that you will design is done to test the hypothesis. "

So, your hypothesis here is "does a god exist"

3) Prediction

This is where you get to demonstrate how you will show your hypothesis as being true. In the case of tomatoes you could predict that tomatoes that receive less sunlight will be smaller than those that receive more sunlight while both given the same level of care.

So, what is your prediction concerning your god hypothesis? How do you aim to show that your hypothesis is accurate?

4) Experimentation

So, what's your experiment? Without one how scientific did you think you were being? Hell have you even come up with a prediction yet? It's all well and good to say "I have faith a god exists", but if you cannot get beyond that point where is the science exactly? Do you John/Vital claim that "science" is merely suggesting that something exists and done with it? "I believe leprechauns exist" <-- hey look, it's science.. Do me a lemon.

So: explain your prediction then explain your experiment or stfu.

No point mentioning "conclusion", you boys haven't even begun. :bugeye:

No, it would be natural. It would have to be included in the concept 'natural'.
Why would it have to be included into the concept of nature if it's outside of nature, outside of the system?


If it didnt occur... :bugeye:
You can ALWAYS say nature-did-it regardless, which is why the nature of gaps, naturalism, and natural selection is unfalsifiable...

There are innumerable, in fact hundreds of different theories in science that are unfalsifiable, you atheists keep playing these games...when will you just admit that they don't want God to be a theory because it goes against naturalism...

Put it this way. Are poltergeists a scientific theory to explain noises of unexplained origin in an old house?
Yes, definitely...although a bad theory

A population of creatures with a characteristic that isn't required at all for the environment they live in?
Or creatures without a characteristic that would be considered necessary for survival.
But you can still say this all happened naturally through natural selection...so it doesn't falsify anything, all the stuff you listed has already been found and doesn't falsify natural selection...biologists just say "oh well, we know it could've happened through natural selection, case closed"

You can craft an experiment to show natural selection doesn't exist or isn't a force in shaping living things. Just use artificial selection to remove certain animals, perhaps fruit flies, that show certain characterstics. After some time doing this, observe if there is an effect on the characteristics of the newborns.
Artificial selection doesn't really falsify natural selection...they both exists, for instance different breeds of dogs were created through aritificial selection...this doesn't falsify natural selection, biologists don't say that natural selection must be false...

Darwinian natural selection is falsifiable, because in principle one could find evidence that (i) genes are not randomly mutating and/or that (ii) reproductive pressures were not favoring certain of the mutations that yielded a survival advantage. Stated differently, you could either find evidence that the genomes of living things were basically fixed and static within certain limits or that those individual changes play little or no role in determining what individuals survive in the long run. Either one would put the nail in Darwin's theory of natural selection.

"Falsifiable" does not mean that the hypothesis under review can be disproved with a single, smoking gun, observation (though that might be the case in certain instances). In the case of natural selection, no one observation can falsify it, but that doesn't make it unfalsifiable.
All the stuff you listed has already been found...none of this makes anyone think that natural selection is false, it is just a gap...


On the other hand, "God did it" is unfalsifiable, because God gets invoked as an explanation for almost anything. God makes it rain, He punishes the wicked, He rewards the virtuous, but He also makes it not rain, He rewards the wicked and punishes (or "tests") the virtuous—all in equal measure. We sum up all His actions we can't explain rationally with "God works in mysterious ways," but in the end all that means is that God works in ways that are so incomprehensible to us that we cannot predict them, nor use them to in any way conclusively demonstrate that He is having any direct or indirect effect on the universe at all.

In principle, "God did it" can be a plausible explanation to a believer for anything at all or any series of things, good or bad, positive or negative. In contrast, if unfit creatures start surviving in droves with the more fit dying off, at some point even believers in natural selection have to start admitting that those creatures are anomalous exceptions to the rule. If you build up enough such exceptions, then you show, in effect, that natural selection cannot be the significant cause of the diversity of life.

It just so happens that most life seems to be very well adapted to the niche it fills...that might be because God designs them (and why would God design them to be maladapted?), but it also fits natural selection...and it happens to leave natural selection (Darwinian or not) almost unassailable on scientific grounds. Of course the well adapted outcompete the maladapted—it's almost a tautology (since the "one that survived" may often be dubbed the "well adapted" one by virtue of its survival alone). Even if natural selection were a crock, that would likely be true. So one is very unlikely to disprove natural selection by disproving "the survival of the fittest."

Good news for natural selection though, it doesn't have to prove it's right...it just has to withstand attempts to disprove it. The anti-evolution camp has an unhill fight on its hands.
ahahaha...what about nature-did-it explanation, you can ALWAYS say regardless of anything in every imaginable circumstance that "nature-did-it", so it's unfalsifiable...the nature of gaps or in other words "anything gaps or unknowns can just be filled in by nature, it just happened in some unknown naturalistic way, case closed"

I think for some of you boys, (John/Vital one), the best start would be a "science for dummies" book or something because you're clearly not understanding what has been said to you. As a result I shall give you something from sciencemadesimple.com as I feel that will say things in a manner you'll be able to grasp easier:

"The steps of the Scientific Method are:
Observation/Research
Hypothesis
Prediction
Experimentation
Conclusion "

Ok so we have

1) Observation/research

Now, with respect to reading old books I suppose you can 'research' gods, but you certainly can't observe them.

2) Hypothesis

"The hypothesis is a simple statement that defines what you think the outcome of your experiment will be. All of the first stage of the Scientific Method -- the observation, or research stage -- is designed to help you express a problem in a single question ("Does the amount of sunlight in a garden affect tomato size?") and propose an answer to the question based on what you know. The experiment that you will design is done to test the hypothesis. "

So, your hypothesis here is "does a god exist"

3) Prediction

This is where you get to demonstrate how you will show your hypothesis as being true. In the case of tomatoes you could predict that tomatoes that receive less sunlight will be smaller than those that receive more sunlight while both given the same level of care.

So, what is your prediction concerning your god hypothesis? How do you aim to show that your hypothesis is accurate?

4) Experimentation

So, what's your experiment? Without one how scientific did you think you were being? Hell have you even come up with a prediction yet? It's all well and good to say "I have faith a god exists", but if you cannot get beyond that point where is the science exactly? Do you John/Vital claim that "science" is merely suggesting that something exists and done with it? "I believe leprechauns exist" <-- hey look, it's science.. Do me a lemon.

So: explain your prediction then explain your experiment or stfu.

No point mentioning "conclusion", you boys haven't even begun. :bugeye:

Thanks for this post, the God theory meets and fulfills all of these requirements except for experimentation

Vital One:

You *** ! I refuse to react to that, read snakelords post !
I will say one thing: Why is the poltergheist theory a bad one ? Explain that.

Thanks for this post, the God theory meets and fulfills all of these requirements except for experimentation

Glad to be of help. Of course it's failure indicates that it isn't 'science'. Furthermore, it fails on prediction as well, (unless you can make a prediction to answer 'does a god exist')?

However, I shall run you through the format up to the level you admit to being at and we can decide whether you think it's "science":

1) I have actually observed leprechaun looking things - they're probably leprechauns. I have also researched vastly into the historical aspect of leprechauns and indeed the phenomenon in the modern age including a 400,000 people strong leprechaun hunt in Alabama and the observing of clovers and holes in the bottom of trees which is not direct observation but indirect observation, (in the same manner that John claimed observing the universes complexity is observing god).

2) My hypothesis is "[do] leprechauns exist"

3) I predict that if I get to the end of the rainbow I shall meet the leprechauns that live there and thus show that leprechauns do indeed exist.

4) Bugger me sideways.. I can't conduct that experiment.

Is this science? Lol, no it isn't. It worked ok up until number 3, but failed catastrophically on number 4 and thus is not science and isn't worth the 2 minutes 32 seconds I spent typing this.

Glad to be of help. Of course it's failure indicates that it isn't 'science'. Furthermore, it fails on prediction as well, (unless you can make a prediction to answer 'does a god exist')?

However, I shall run you through the format up to the level you admit to being at and we can decide whether you think it's "science":

1) I have actually observed leprechaun looking things - they're probably leprechauns. I have also researched vastly into the historical aspect of leprechauns and indeed the phenomenon in the modern age including a 400,000 people strong leprechaun hunt in Alabama and the observing of clovers and holes in the bottom of trees which is not direct observation but indirect observation, (in the same manner that John claimed observing the universes complexity is observing god).

2) My hypothesis is "[do] leprechauns exist"

3) I predict that if I get to the end of the rainbow I shall meet the leprechauns that live there and thus show that leprechauns do indeed exist.

4) Bugger me sideways.. I can't conduct that experiment.

Is this science? Lol, no it isn't. It worked ok up until number 3, but failed catastrophically on number 4 and thus is not science and isn't worth the 2 minutes 32 seconds I spent typing this.

Thanks again for this post! If this isn't science, then that's great, since the God theory is nothing like this, not even to the slighest most remote extent...

Thanks again for this post! If this isn't science, then that's great, since the God theory is nothing like this, not even to the slighest most remote extent...

Have a go at it then, show us your:
1) Observation/research
2) Hypothesis
3) Prediction
4) Experimentation
5) Conclusion

The argument is that a scientific theory does not require falsifiability. Therefore, you can scientifically theorize that God created the universe due to the absence of a better explanation.

Fair enough.

However, stated in that way, the argument is immediately subject to Occham's Razor.

ergo... goodbye god.

If this isn't science, then that's great, since the God theory is nothing like this, not even to the slighest most remote extent...

So what is the "god theory" exactly and how does it differ?

It's one thing to say that it isn't and a completely different thing to show that it isn't. I would assert that in this instance it's the former because you refrained from explanation. Talk the talk or walk the walk?

A scientific theory or hypothesis is not defined by the scientific method. The scientific method is an encapsulation of falsifiability. Why don't you "scientists" just admit that there is a legitimate debate between falsificationists and justificationists? Brane theory is not observable nor testable, and yet it is a scientific theory. Clearly, science permits inductive reasoning in the formulation of theory or hypothesis without observation or testing. See string theory. You are quite wrong. God can be a scientific theory or hypothesis, just as much as string or brane theory can. Occhem's razor does not eliminate God, unless you can come up with a simpler explanation for the existence of the universe - which you can't. So good luck there.

A scientific theory or hypothesis is not defined by the scientific method. The scientific method is an encapsulation of falsifiability. Why don't you "scientists" just admit that there is a legitimate debate between falsificationists and justificationists? Brane theory is not observable nor testable, and yet it is a scientific theory. Clearly, science permits inductive reasoning in the formulation of theory or hypothesis without observation or testing. See string theory. You are quite wrong. God can be a scientific theory or hypothesis, just as much as string or brane theory can. Occhem's razor does not eliminate God, unless you can come up with a simpler explanation for the existence of the universe - which you can't. So good luck there.You are side-tracking the issue.

It is not a question of whether things such as String Theory or Brane Theory should be classified as theories (there is reasonable debate on that issue alone), but whether GOD is a scientific theory.

It isn't. Period.
Live with it.

Is String Theory? Is it testable? Well, certain elements are. Can we get useful results from the testing - not really... yet. But we might... one day.

But with "God" there is no "one day we might". God is a completely untestable "theory", unfalsifiable - and thus, in any scientists' opinion - UNSCIENTIFIC.


You are also mixing HYPOTHESIS with THEORY.
Don't - they are different!


And the original question was whether God is a scientific THEORY - not a scientific HYPOTHESIS.
So please stick to the thread.

And Occam's Razor DOES eliminate God.
Occam's Razor states that plurality must not be posited unless where necessary. And God is not yet a necessary for our understanding of reality.

God might be a simple theory indeed - but it is unscientific: untestable, unfalsifiable etc, and as such is an unnecessary - and to be put on the back-burner in favour of any other theory that IS scientific.

I was under the impression that string theory is currently untestable and therefore not a scientific theory.

It might not be, as it is currently not falsifiable.

The fact that there is debate about whether String theory and Brane theory are scientific theories is good evidence that a reasonable debate can exist as to whether God theory is scientific. I have the site of at least one scientist who believes God theory is scientific. http://www.thegodtheory.com/
Occam's razor is often paraphrased as "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor
In order to even apply Occam's razor, you need a non-God solution for the existence of the universe, which you don't have. Moreover, Occam's Razor also implies falsifiability, which again is debatably not a requirement of science.

The fact that there is debate about whether String theory and Brane theory are scientific theories is good evidence that a reasonable debate can exist as to whether God theory is scientific.Logical fallacy.
We have shown why "God" is NOT a scientific theory.
The question of whether String theory or Brane theory are is a separate issue - and if they fall down it will be because it has been assessed that they fail either testability or falsifiability or predictability - all of which the "GOD" theory has already been assessed as failing.

The fact that there is debate around String and Brane theory is NOT grounds for claiming there can exist a reasonable debate for "God".
To think so is a logical fallacy.


I have the site of at least one scientist who believes God theory is scientific. http://www.thegodtheory.com/:rolleyes: His book/idea is no more a scientific theory than the alternatives he quotes.
You are most likely confusing it with the layman's use of "theory".

Occam's razor is often paraphrased as "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor
In order to even apply Occam's razor, you need a non-God solution for the existence of the universe, which you don't have.Non-God solution number 1: The Universe has always existed - as evidenced through the conservation of energy.
This is simpler than the theory that requires a "creator".

Non-god solution number 2: The universe created itself out of nothing.
This is simpler than the theory that requires a "creator".

Happy?



Moreover, Occam's Razor also implies falsifiability, which again is debatably not a requirement of science.If you don't accept falsifiability then you must at least offer logical / objective (rather than subjective) justifiability as well as predictability from your tests. Can you do this for the "God" theory? If you think you can - please feel free to demonstrate.
If not - the alternative is to admit that "God" is not a scientific theory.

The fact that there is debate about whether String theory and Brane theory are scientific theories is good evidence that a reasonable debate can exist as to whether God theory is scientific. I have the site of at least one scientist who believes God theory is scientific. http://www.thegodtheory.com/
Occam's razor is often paraphrased as "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor
In order to even apply Occam's razor, you need a non-God solution for the existence of the universe, which you don't have. Moreover, Occam's Razor also implies falsifiability, which again is debatably not a requirement of science.

They may not be, strictly speaking, theories, but they are hypothesis, and they are scientific. God is never considered a theory among those who believe it, it is considered truth.

The universe always existed, and therefore needs no explanation? That's sort of disputed by the Big Bang - isn't it? The universe created itself out of nothing? But if there was nothing there - how could it create itself? A better example you might've given is that nothingness itself is something, which requires no explanation. I proposed this in another thread, but was heavily opposed due to the apparent contradictory logic it implies - that nothing and something are the same. Still, not an easily accepted solution - though simpler.

What authoritative scientific body says that science must make predictions? Isn't this the same as saying it's falsifiable? How else would you test whether a theory is false, unless you made predictions and then performed tests?

I have the site of at least one scientist who believes God theory is scientific.

So.. someone can make a claim to anything and then because they happen to have a qualification in a certain field of science the claim instantly becomes a "scientific theory"?

I would regard myself as a 'scientist' as far as it's defined, so can I now claim that leprechauns exist and call that a "scientific theory" on the basis that I have qualifications in science but absolutely regardless to whether I can do any experimentation etc or not? A bizarre notion indeed.

The problem largely stems from layman use of certain words. This is a serious issue with scientific words such as 'evolution' and 'theory' - because they don't mean to science what they mean to everyone else. The media and people in general become accustomed to using these words in a certain context that isn't actually accurate from a scientific perspective. Even dictionaries are guilty of largely misconstruing a scientific word.

I perused a couple of dictionary sites and found this entry for 'theory':

"guess or conjecture."

This is exactly where the problem lies.

Unfortunately I am not all that clued up on string theory etc so will have to make do with a link that you might find interesting to read: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19526121.200-string-theory-the-fightback.html

As a result of not being all that clued up on it I wont get into an argument over whether it is or is not science - I shall leave that for a related debate in one of the other subforums of Sciforums. However.. is "god" a scientific theory?



NO.

Logical fallacy.
We have shown why "God" is NOT a scientific theory.
The question of whether String theory or Brane theory are is a separate issue - and if they fall down it will be because it has been assessed that they fail either testability or falsifiability or predictability - all of which the "GOD" theory has already been assessed as failing.

The fact that there is debate around String and Brane theory is NOT grounds for claiming there can exist a reasonable debate for "God".
To think so is a logical fallacy.
You haven't shown anything, the God theory is falsifiable, does make predictions, etc...and matches the criteria of a scientific theory...the reason it cannot be accepted is because it contradicts naturalism....


Non-God solution number 1: The Universe has always existed - as evidenced through the conservation of energy.
This is simpler than the theory that requires a "creator".

Non-god solution number 2: The universe created itself out of nothing.
This is simpler than the theory that requires a "creator".

Happy?
This is a great example of how atheists are forced to escape the God conclusion by choosing ANY alternative explanation

The God-theory says there was always something unborn, unmade, eternal, causeless, unchanging, etc...from which the universe and all things came from instead of saying "well the universe just some how always existed" or "the universe just happened into existence"....atheists can't handle this implication knowing how very probable it is so they (using blind atheistic faith) choose any other alternative explanation...

You haven't shown anything, the God theory is falsifiable, does make predictions, etc...and matches the criteria of a scientific theory

I have already called you on this claim. Repeating the same nonsense over and over doesn't make it any less nonsensical. Time to walk the walk.. Details please.

The God-theory says there was always something unborn, unmade, eternal, causeless, unchanging, etc...from which the universe and all things came instead of saying "well the universe just some how always existed" or "the universe just happened"....atheists can't handle this implication

Wait.. if there's always something unborn, unmade, eternal, causeless etc.. why wouldn't that be the universe itself? Why must it be a guy in the sky? Sorry, which sounds more plausible?

I have already called you on this claim. Repeating the same nonsense over and over doesn't make it any less nonsensical. Time to walk the walk.. Details please.
How is the God-theory not falsifiable? The only reason it's nonsense is because it contradicts atheism...anything that contradicts atheism is automatically nonsense


Wait.. if there's always something unborn, unmade, eternal, causeless etc.. why wouldn't that be the universe itself? Why must it be a guy in the sky? Sorry, which sounds more plausible?
Woah...you must be hard of reading can you point out where I mentioned a guy in the sky? These atheists try anything to escape the God conclusion...keep trying

How is the God-theory not falsifiable? The only reason it's nonsense is because it contradicts atheism...anything that contradicts atheism is automatically nonsense


Slow down there. You made a bold claim, it's time you supported that claim.

Purely out of interest this has nothing to do with "atheism". This is about what is or is not scientific - please leave your personal prejudice against atheists at the door. Many thanks.

Have you done that? Good, let's move on.. Kindly support your claim that 'god' is qualified as being a 'scientific theory'.

Many thanks again.

Woah...you must be hard of reading can you point out where I mentioned a guy in the sky?

That's the convenient way of expressing the notion of a specific being with intellect that resides in another realm or outside of time or wherever else it happens to reside. Apologies if it upset you.

How is the God-theory not falsifiable? The only reason it's nonsense is because it contradicts atheism...anything that contradicts atheism is automatically nonsense

Woah...you must be hard of reading can you point out where I mentioned a guy in the sky? These atheists try anything to escape the God conclusion... keep trying
*************
M*W: There was no god long before there was atheism, so your assumption that anything that contradicts atheism is automatically nonsense. There is only one thing that contradicts atheism and that is the existence of a god.

If you were just a figment of my imagination, would that contradict atheism?

Slow down there. You made a bold claim, it's time you supported that claim.

Purely out of interest this has nothing to do with "atheism". This is about what is or is not scientific - please leave your personal prejudice against atheists at the door. Many thanks.

Have you done that? Good, let's move on.. Kindly support your claim that 'god' is qualified as being a 'scientific theory'.

Many thanks again.
You should be telling this to yourself...you should be the one abandoning your prejudices...

The God-theory says that there is something unborn, unmade, causeless, unchanging, eternal, before all things, the resting place of all, always existing, from which all of existence comes from....this is based upon empirical evidence/research, makes predictions, is a hypothesis, etc...just like the superstring theory, brane theory, etc...

The alternative explanations are "the universe just some how always existed, no need for cause and effect" or "the universe just some how spontaneously came into existence with no cause"...the God theory makes the most sense, there must be something outside of the system, causeless, from which all things originate...


That's the convenient way of expressing the notion of a specific being with intellect that resides in another realm or outside of time or wherever else it happens to reside. Apologies if it upset you.
It may be in a Greco-Roman religion, it's the typical atheistic argument "oh I don't believe in a man in the sky" used to ridicule and attack theists...but the problem is that no religion besides Greco-Roman religions describes God as a man in the sky...I never mentioned any of the things you mentioned but you insisted to add in your atheistic prejudice into it in order to discredit the theory...

*************
M*W: There was no god long before there was atheism, so your assumption that anything that contradicts atheism is automatically nonsense. There is only one thing that contradicts atheism and that is the existence of a god.
You're right!!!! The reason God doesn't exist is because "atheists just say so" case closed...

You should be telling this to yourself...you should be the one abandoning your prejudices...

What prejudices are those exactly? I would say the exact same thing to someone espousing that invisible biker mice from Mars exist but it's not because I am being prejudice, it's simply because it isn't science. It's not my fault.. don't shoot the messenger.

Of course I have given you ample time to establish that it is science but instead you feel it more pertinent to insult atheist-kind. That does not help your case, especially given that this is not a theist vs atheist issue, but a science vs non-science issue.

The God-theory says that there is something unborn, unmade, causeless, unchanging, eternal, before all things, the resting place of all, always existing, from which all of existence comes from....this is based upon empirical evidence/research, makes predictions, is a hypothesis

How is that "god theory"? god theory would surely be that plus the added claim that "it was a god"?

Now, feel free to amend what I say here but I would like to clarify exactly what you mean when you say 'god'. Do you mean a being, generally considered omnipotent, omniscient etc etc that was personally responsible as the creator of all that we see?

If so, how is this based upon empirical evidence and research? What experiments have been conducted to show this as being the case?

the God theory makes the most sense, there must be something outside of the system, causeless, from which all things originate...

Not really, no. Of course it also depends upon your personal definition of 'god'. We could just assert that a giant flying hedgehog that has always existed, farted the universe into existence. It is as much science as your claim is. So do define 'god' for me so I know exactly what we're talking about.

Furthermore, why must there be something "outside" of all that exists? (thus dwelling in the non-existent, which doesn't help your case). Why can the universe not have existed forever? Many people would argue that everything seen in life adopts a circular pattern - it lives, dies, gives birth to something else which lives dies and so on. What is your specific grievance with a universe that adopts the same method? (This is just one example - but this is where the problem is.. testability).

but the problem is that no religion besides Greco-Roman religions describes God as a man in the sky...I never mentioned any of the things you mentioned

Well, you seemingly refuse to say anything that doesn't involve a direct attack on my atheism. Define what you mean when you say "god", explain how it is testable, and then we can move from there.

but you insisted to add in your atheistic prejudice into it in order to discredit the theory...

I don't care if you're a theist, I don't care if you're jesus, I don't care if you're an atheist, or I'm an atheist, or Bob the builder's an atheist - these things do not come into this discussion because it isn't about belief or lack thereof, it is about what is or isn't "science". Understand that.

The universe always existed, and therefore needs no explanation? That's sort of disputed by the Big Bang - isn't it?Not at all. The Big Bang could be just one of many in a "bang-crunch" cycle. We can not know what caused the Big Bang. We can not know for sure if this universe is always going to expand, or whether we are the by product of a previous universe. Many alternatives exist. God is indeed one - but it is not the simplest.

The universe created itself out of nothing? But if there was nothing there - how could it create itself?Ah yes, but you're willing to have a God that is eternal and could create it out of nothing? :rolleyes:

You haven't shown anything, the God theory is falsifiable, does make predictions, etc...and matches the criteria of a scientific theory...the reason it cannot be accepted is because it contradicts naturalism....VO - either demonstrate its falsifiability or STFU!

You make post after post that merely says "but God theory IS falsifiable" as though that suffices.
It doesn't.
You have been called out on this by others - and now by me.

SHOW HOW THE "GOD" THEORY IS FALSIFIABLE.
SHOW HOW THE "GOD" THEORY MAKES PREDICTIONS.

USE IT TO MAKE A PREDICTION.
PLEASE.

PROVE US ALL WRONG.


OR S.T.F.U.!:mad:
Your continual whining and trolling grows wearisome and pathetic.

VO - either demonstrate its falsifiability or STFU!

You make post after post that merely says "but God theory IS falsifiable" as though that suffices.
It doesn't.
You have been called out on this by others - and now by me.

SHOW HOW THE "GOD" THEORY IS FALSIFIABLE.
SHOW HOW THE "GOD" THEORY MAKES PREDICTIONS.

USE IT TO MAKE A PREDICTION.
PLEASE.

PROVE US ALL WRONG.


OR S.T.F.U.!:mad:
Your continual whining and trolling grows wearisome and pathetic.

The reason it's falsifiable is because to falsify something you have to prove an alternative hypothesis true, there are already other non-God alternatives, so prove them true and you would falsify the God-theory...it makes predictions in the same way the non-God alternatives make predictions...there you go, you've been proven wrong

That's not what falsifiable means. What experiment would prove the non-existence of God? How could someone show that God doesn't exist?

That's not what falsifiable means. What experiment would prove the non-existence of God? How could someone show that God doesn't exist?

Yes, that is what falsifiable means...to falsify a theory in science you just show an alternative hypothesis is true, thereby making the other one false....

Otherwise you're saying natural selection should be removed from all science, which experiment can falsify it?

Then you misunderstood the concept.

Falsifiability (or disprovability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment.

The reason it's falsifiable is because to falsify something you have to prove an alternative hypothesis true, there are already other non-God alternatives, so prove them true and you would falsify the God-theory...
Falsifiability is as follows:

I propose theory X.
Observation disproves X.
Theory X is falsified.


There is NO falsification possible for God.


So - now that you have been told what the concept of falsifiability is, and presuming that you now understand your error - please demonstrate how "God" theory is falsifiable.


...it makes predictions in the same way the non-God alternatives make predictions...there you go, you've been proven wrongThe non-God alternatives are not valid scientific theories! They are certainly scientific - but not theories - precisely because they can not make predictions.

So please - what predictions can "God" theory make?

Please. Go on. Tell us all.

Then you misunderstood the concept.

Falsifiability (or disprovability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment.

Falsifiability is as follows:

I propose theory X.
Observation disproves X.
Theory X is falsified.


There is NO falsification possible for God.


So - now that you have been told what the concept of falsifiability is, and presuming that you now understand your error - please demonstrate how "God" theory is falsifiable.


It's called sophisticated falsficationism...you all must be addicted to wikipedia or something...


The non-God alternatives are not valid scientific theories! They are certainly scientific - but not theories - precisely because they can not make predictions.

So please - what predictions can "God" theory make?

Please. Go on. Tell us all.
It makes predictions in the EXACT same way that the other non-God alternatives do...tell me how these non-God alternatives make predictions and you would've told me how the God theory makes predictions...

You just made that up.

Now wait. That's a good point. Can't you falsify God theory by proving another theory is true? Couldn't you prove God doesn't exist by proving why the universe exists without God?

Now wait. That's a good point. Can't you falsify God theory by proving another theory is true? Couldn't you prove God doesn't exist by proving why the universe exists without God?

Do it.

Simply because I can't prove why the universe exists without God does not mean it can't theoretically be done. Isn't that the whole goal of physics? Just because we aren't yet sophisticated enough in our knowledge to provide such a proof, why can't it be done theorectically sometime in the future? All that you seem to require is that God theory could be falsifiable - not that it has been shown false. There is no reason why a theory must be proven false first before it can rightly be labeled a scientific theory.

There is no reason why a theory must be proven false first before it can rightly be labeled a scientific theory.

No, but wouldnt it be hilarious ? ;)

Now wait. That's a good point. Can't you falsify God theory by proving another theory is true? Couldn't you prove God doesn't exist by proving why the universe exists without God?

A theory can't be proven right, only wrong. So your conjecture must theoretically be able to be disproven unto itself in order to be considered scientific. It doesn't have to be disproven in actuality. You must be able to propose a test. What test could that be?

Not a good idea to mix science and religion

http://jesusandmo.net/strips/2007-01-22.jpg

I always thought that when a theory was proven right, it was now a fact? Of course a theory can be proven right. The test for God theory would then be the test of any competing theory. Makes logical sense. I think VitalOne's got you on this one.

That's the "God of the gaps" logical fallacy. Theories cannot be proven right with 100% certainty. They can only be proven wrong.

What aspect about a possible theory would prove God doesn't exist? Be specific.

I always thought that when a theory was proven right, it was now a fact? Of course a theory can be proven right.
No it can't: it can only be proven to hold true under the circumstances at the time.
Gravity for example, is pretty much "taken" as a fact, but all it would take is one instance of something not falling to the ground when the theory of gravity says it should and then that's that theory needing re-doing.
A single instance can prove a theory wrong, proving it to be a fact would be that we have observed every single instance where it should apply and that it held true for all of them: clearly an impossibility.

The test for God theory would then be the test of any competing theory. Makes logical sense. I think VitalOne's got you on this one.
No: since VO stated that
It makes predictions in the EXACT same way that the other non-God alternatives do...tell me how these non-God alternatives make predictions and you would've told me how the God theory makes predictions...
So how does it compete?
All that theory does is introduce another level (which is not required to make the theory work).
Nous n'avons besoin de cette hypothese-la...
Should we rewrite gravity and add thousands of invisible pixies pulling things downwards?
That would explain everything equally as well as gravity, but then we'd have to explain the extraneous pixies and say where they came from.

If nothing can be proven 100% true, then nothing can be proven 100% false either. How can I be specific about a theory that would explain why the universe exists without God, when science has tried but has not yet devised such a theory? "Be specific" Give me a break.

Oli. If it is impossible to show that in each and every circumstance something holds true, then you are clearly denying that we can say anything is a fact. But, we say things are facts all the time. Are we wrong?

If nothing can be proven 100% true, then nothing can be proven 100% false either.
100% false?
If current theories of gravity are shown to be wrong even once then the theory is flawed: every text book should then carry the statement "under the following circumstances gravity will work".
Not 100% false, no-one claimed that, just incomplete.
If you mean "proving god 100% false" again that's not the case, or the aim: the more science explains the less "need" for god in any part of the universe there is.
Even if everything were explained scientifically it would still be possible to claim that god existed, just that he played no role whatsoever... what need then, for him?

How can I be specific about a theory that would explain why the universe exists without God, when science has tried but has not yet devised such a theory? "Be specific" Give me a break.
No, science has never tried to devise a theory to explain why the universe exists without god: only to devise a theory why the universe exists.
"God" does not enter into it, and cannot.

Oli. If it is impossible to show that in each and every circumstance something holds true, then you are clearly denying that we can say anything is a fact. But, we say things are facts all the time. Are we wrong?
Oops: scientific theories.
Not a denial that there are facts.
If stating a fact then (ideally) the circumstances under which it is taken to be fact should be stated, but they're generally assumed, even in everyday life.

Simple example: I'm going for a pint with my friend tonight.
Providing:
I don't die,
she doesn't,
the world doesn't explode,
the pub doesn't run out of beer,
my mother doesn't ask me to do some errand for her, etc etc.

Most "facts" are so trivial or temporary that the unstated assumptions may not be needed:
The interior of my house is yellow (until I repaint it, the house no longer exists, the colour fades to "yuck").
I am 51 years old - until my next birthday.

If I drop a hammer it will fall (unless gravity no longer holds true).

If nothing can be proven 100% true, then nothing can be proven 100% false either. How can I be specific about a theory that would explain why the universe exists without God, when science has tried but has not yet devised such a theory? "Be specific" Give me a break.

You don't have to formulate an alternative theory, but you do have to show that your "God theory" is falsifiable. Let me give you an example. You could prove evolution is false if you found a Homo Sapiens fossil inside a T-Rex fossil.

What can you think of in a similar way, would prove God doesn't exist? This is the essence of falsifiability. If you can't think of one, then God cannot be a scientific theory.

In my view, the "God theory" is not falsifiable. No matter what naturalistic explanation for the universe that science can determine, you can always say God was behind that.

Oli. How do you know that if everything were explained scientifically, it would still be possible to claim God existed? Considering the fact that you don't know any such fact, it is interesting that you would comment about its implications as it relates to God.

Spidergoat. I can prove, for example, that the world isn't flat by showing that the world is round. The proof of one theory is the disproof of another. If it is impossible to prove a theory for the existence of the universe without God, then what's the point of all these scientists building bigger and better particle colliders?

Oli. How do you know that if everything were explained scientifically, it would still be possible to claim God existed? Considering the fact that you don't know any such fact, it is interesting that you would comment about its implications as it relates to God.

I do know it for a fact: it would be POSSIBLE.
Like Spidergoat said No matter what naturalistic explanation for the universe that science can determine, you can always say God was behind that.
If we ever discover what caused the Big Bang someone will be able to say "yes but god put that in place", and then if we ever find out what started THAT someone can claim "Yes, but god put THAT in place".
Whatever explanation science comes up with someone will be able to say that god started whatever science has found.

Not true. It depends on what science finds - doesn't it?

Spidergoat. I can prove, for example, that the world isn't flat by showing that the world is round. The proof of one theory is the disproof of another.
The world being flat was not a theory in the scientific sense: the evidence did not point to a flat Earth.
Showing the world is round disproved an idea (and a badly-thought out one at that).

If it is impossible to prove a theory for the existence of the universe without God, then what's the point of all these scientists building bigger and better particle colliders?
? The point of the colliders is to see if the current theories of physics are correct: some particles have been postulated that, if they exist, will make things fall into place. If the colliders find them that those theories will have another validation, if they are not found then the theories must be looked at again.

For example, if nothingness is found to be the root cause of existence - you can't say God put nothingness in place. Nothingness can't be put in place.

Not true. It depends on what science finds - doesn't it?
Of course not.

Religion: God created the universe.
Science: Er, no, the Big Bang did it.
Religion: Well god created the Big Bang.
Extended:
Science: no, the big Bang was caused by X.
Religion: Well God put X there to start the Big Bang.

And so on and so on.
One step back at a time...

For example, if nothingness is found to be the root cause of existence - you can't say God put nothingness in place. Nothingness can't be put in place.

Nothingness (as far we know) cannot be the cause of something: so what MADE the nothingness become something?

Science: we don't know.
Religion: well if you don't know, can't god have done?

How could God create nothingness?

Seems to me pretty obvious. If God doesn't exist, then matter must have come from nothingness.

How could God create nothingness?
Isn't god supposed to be all powerful?
And if we could show that it came from nothing, since we're here (and are something) then what caused nothing to become something?

Seems to me pretty obvious. If God doesn't exist, then matter must have come from nothingness.
How do you work that out?
Please explain your logic.

It's called sophisticated falsficationism...you all must be addicted to wikipedia or something...Eh? It's known as scientific falsifiability.


It makes predictions in the EXACT same way that the other non-God alternatives do...tell me how these non-God alternatives make predictions and you would've told me how the God theory makes predictions...For £$%!'s sake, VO.
How many times do I have to say this...

THE OTHER THEORIES ARE ALSO NOT SCIENTIFIC THEORIES - AS THEY CAN NOT BE USED TO PREDICT!

Thus - as the other non-God alternatives do NOT make predictions - please tell me how your God theory DOES!!

Or since you stated: "It makes predictions in the EXACT same way that the other non-God alternatives do..." and I have stated... AGAIN... that they DON'T PREDICT AND ARE NOT VALID SCIENTIFIC THEORIES (more just concepts) are you prepared to admit that GOD is NOT A SCIENTIFIC THEORY?

How could God cause nothingness to become something, as the state of nothingness would by definition exclude the existence of God? My logic isn't that something caused nothingness to turn into something. My logic is that nothingness and somethingness are the same thing.

How could God cause nothingness to become something, as the state of nothingness would by definition exclude the existence of God?
Oh THAT sort of nothingness? :D
Apologies, I (mis)understood, since so many believers claim god doesn't count as part of the universe, or is apart from it or something similar.
If there was absolutely nothing at all then surely it would be impossible to have something any time later?

My logic isn't that something caused nothingness to turn into something. My logic is that nothingness and somethingness are the same thing.
So no apples is the same as two (or three) apples?
Nothing is NOTHING.
Something is something else...

How do you know what nothing is?

No apples could mean lots of oranges :D

Exactly my point. How do you know what nothingness is? Perhaps science will discover that nothingness and somethingness are the same thing. Poof, there goes God. Accordingly, I at least can point to a possible explanation for the existence of the universe that does not include God, which science could perhaps prove - which in turn would prove that God doesn't exist. Now, I am not saying God doesn't exist - only that I could theorize such.

You just made that up.

Wtf are you talking about man, I didn't make up any of this, you all should read up more on what falsification is instead of relying on the fan-based wikipedia....

Here's some links on what sophisticated falsificationism is (you know real sources, not wikipedia):
http://www.hu.mtu.edu/~tlockha/h3700sophfals.f05.doc
http://www.galilean-library.org/falsificationism.html
http://clublet.com/why?NaiveVsSophisticatedFalsificationism

Eh? It's known as scientific falsifiability.

Sophisticated falsificationism is a better word (IMO)


For £$%!'s sake, VO.
How many times do I have to say this...

THE OTHER THEORIES ARE ALSO NOT SCIENTIFIC THEORIES - AS THEY CAN NOT BE USED TO PREDICT!

Thus - as the other non-God alternatives do NOT make predictions - please tell me how your God theory DOES!!

Or since you stated: "It makes predictions in the EXACT same way that the other non-God alternatives do..." and I have stated... AGAIN... that they DON'T PREDICT AND ARE NOT VALID SCIENTIFIC THEORIES (more just concepts) are you prepared to admit that GOD is NOT A SCIENTIFIC THEORY?
They predict how universes come into existence...so all the requirements are met besides experimentation...

For example, if nothingness is found to be the root cause of existence - you can't say God put nothingness in place. Nothingness can't be put in place.

So finally, you come up with an idea for how the God "theory" can be falsified. If "nothingness" (the absense of anything) were found to be the root cause of everything, then there is no such thing as God.

That sounds good, but in fact nothingness can't be a cause of anything... since it's nothing.

Try again?

As I already explained, the logic is not that nothingness caused somethingness - it's that they're the same thing. No need to even tackle the causation problem. Of course, I completely understand your objection to this theory. Nevertheless, it seems rather obvious to me that if there is no God, then the universe sprang from nothingness. Nothing cannot cause something, unless they are the same thing. The problem for science is to explain how they can be the same thing.

Exactly my point. How do you know what nothingness is?
So you're going to redefine "nothing"?:shrug:

Perhaps science will discover that nothingness and somethingness are the same thing.
Hardly likely since nothing is nothing and something is not nothing, it's something.

Poof, there goes God.
And since science would have shown (according to you) that something came out of nothing there'd be someone at the back screaming "I told you god did it!".

Accordingly, I at least can point to a possible explanation for the existence of the universe that does not include God, which science could perhaps prove - which in turn would prove that God doesn't exist. Now, I am not saying God doesn't exist - only that I could theorize such.
No you can't since where did the something come from?