Science can't touch god

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Added category and template)
(8 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
It maybe true that Science cannot touch God, but perhaps a god needs to be selected as the true god for science to "touch".
+
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".
This argument goes no where towards stating that a god exists, especially a specific god of ones preference.
+
This argument goes no where towards stating that a god exists, especially a specific god of ones' preference.
  
It may also be valuable to realise that Science comments on the natural, not the supernatural. and science has nothing yet to prove
+
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.
the existence of a God -- as much as famous apologists like to argue, nothing of the sort is true.
+
  
Presumably when this argument is made, the user will mean either physically or non-physically (obviously). so to rule out these possibilities it may be useful to ask what they mean precisely, this will help identifying any meanings that are unknown and help to stop the goalposts from being moved.
+
==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 user 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.
+
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.
 
If they mean non-physically then they may be refering to the notion that science has nothing to say on the truly supernatural.
 
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.
+
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.
 +
 
 +
{{Common objections}}
 +
 
 +
[[Category:Arguments]]
 +
[[Category:Criticisms of atheism]]

Revision as of 09:45, 24 October 2011

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". 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 apologists like to argue, nothing of the sort is true.

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. 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.


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