Science can't touch god

From Iron Chariots Wiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Counter Apologetics)
m (Counter Apologetics)
 
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
It may be true that [[Science]] cannot touch God, but perhaps a god needs to be selected as the true god for science to "touch".
+
Apologists sometimes insist that evidence-based arguments against god are ineffective because "[[science]] can't touch god." It might be true that scientific approaches have no epistemological access to God, but only if such a god has characteristics making him immaterial, untestable, and non-interactive with the natural world. In other words, an untouchable God is one that has no discernible effect on the natural world.  
This argument goes no where towards stating that a god exists, especially a specific god of ones' preference.
+
 
+
It may also be valuable to realize that Science comments on the [[natural]], not the [[supernatural]]. Science has nothing yet to prove on the existence of a God -- as much as famous [[apologist]]s like to argue, nothing of the sort is true.
+
  
 
==Counter Apologetics==
 
==Counter Apologetics==
Presumably when this argument is made, the individual will mean either physically or non-physically. So to rule out these possibilities it may be useful to ask what they mean precisely, this will help identify any meanings that are unknown and help to stop the possibility of '[[moving the goalposts]]'.
 
  
If the individual means physically then this will obviously mean nothing as God is not meant to be physical and science technically isn't either. This doesn't prove anything whatsoever.
+
* This argument requires that God is not physical and has no physical relationship to the universe. The necessary absence of possible evidence for a god defined as "untouchable by science" makes it especially difficult to advance the proposition that a generic god or a god with any particular characteristics actually exists. Untouchable by science means inaccessible by anyone; how does the theist demonstrate the rationality of believing in a God that is inaccessible? 
If they mean non-physically then they may be refering to the notion that science has nothing to say on the truly supernatural.
+
 
This is relatively true, however, if saying that "you can't prove my religion wrong, so my god is possible to exist" is the argument being made then it may be fitting to raise the notion of them considering every other religion ever conceived -- [[hinduism]], [[islam]], [[pastafarianism]], [[catholicism]], [[christianity]], or any of the ancient religions that have been wiped out it would seem. If the user of the argument does not want to for any reason, then ask why.  The argument they presented is equally valuable to every conceived deity, and should not be used only for a single one of preference.
+
* It is essential to recognize that science comments on the [[natural]], an has nothing to say about the [[supernatural]]. Despite the claims of many apologists, scientific approaches have not proved the existence of any supernatural gods. In fact, ''supernatural'' seems to be a catch-all term for things that do not exist (or are believed to not exist) in the natural world; once they are shown to exist, they are acknowledged as part of the natural world!  Science clearly cannot touch vague, immaterial notions about the existence of a deity, but if science does manage to touch it, it becomes no longer a vague, immaterial notion.
 +
 
 +
* This argument is similar to stating, "My god might exist because [[you can't prove a negative|you can't prove it doesn't!]]" In this case, the atheist might suggest that the theist consider every other religion ever conceived -- [[Hinduism]], [[Islam]], [[Pastafarianism]], [[Catholicism]], [[Christianity]], or any one of numerous [[folk religions|ancient religions]] that have come and gone. If the theist recognizes that this argument does nothing to support the existence of these other deities, why does it support the existence of his or her own god? At the very least, this points out that the argument does not help him or her select among the competing versions of the "untouchable god".
 +
 
 +
{{Common objections}}
  
----
+
[[Category:Arguments]]
 +
[[Category:Criticisms of atheism]]

Latest revision as of 18:08, 20 April 2014

Apologists sometimes insist that evidence-based arguments against god are ineffective because "science can't touch god." It might be true that scientific approaches have no epistemological access to God, but only if such a god has characteristics making him immaterial, untestable, and non-interactive with the natural world. In other words, an untouchable God is one that has no discernible effect on the natural world.

Counter Apologetics

  • This argument requires that God is not physical and has no physical relationship to the universe. The necessary absence of possible evidence for a god defined as "untouchable by science" makes it especially difficult to advance the proposition that a generic god or a god with any particular characteristics actually exists. Untouchable by science means inaccessible by anyone; how does the theist demonstrate the rationality of believing in a God that is inaccessible?
  • It is essential to recognize that science comments on the natural, an has nothing to say about the supernatural. Despite the claims of many apologists, scientific approaches have not proved the existence of any supernatural gods. In fact, supernatural seems to be a catch-all term for things that do not exist (or are believed to not exist) in the natural world; once they are shown to exist, they are acknowledged as part of the natural world! Science clearly cannot touch vague, immaterial notions about the existence of a deity, but if science does manage to touch it, it becomes no longer a vague, immaterial notion.
  • This argument is similar to stating, "My god might exist because you can't prove it doesn't!" In this case, the atheist might suggest that the theist consider every other religion ever conceived -- Hinduism, Islam, Pastafarianism, Catholicism, Christianity, or any one of numerous ancient religions that have come and gone. If the theist recognizes that this argument does nothing to support the existence of these other deities, why does it support the existence of his or her own god? At the very least, this points out that the argument does not help him or her select among the competing versions of the "untouchable god".


v · d Common objections to atheism and counter-apologetics
Personal   Why are you trying to tear down other people's faith? · Why can't everyone just have their own beliefs? · What are your qualifications? · Atheists believe in nothing · You are a communist · Why do atheists inspire such hatred? · That's not my God
Religious   That's not in my Bible · They're not true Christians · You just want to sin · Atheists know there is a God · It takes more faith to disbelieve than it does to believe · God doesn't believe in atheists · Science is a faith · Atheism is a religion · Atheists worship materialism · Hypocrisy of celebrating religious holidays · Atheism is based on faith · Religious belief is beneficial
Science and logic   You can't prove God doesn't exist · Science can't touch god · God can't be defined · So you think we came from nothing / pondsoup / monkeys? · If God didn't create everything, who did? · That might be true for you, but its not true for me · Religion is another way of knowing · Apologetics and dinosaurs
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox