On 1/19/2014 6:10 AM, clipka wrote:
>> God may
>> actually exist - but since it is impossible to prove or disprove this,
>> the question is outside the remit of science.
>
> Fully agree on that one.
>
> In my above definition of science however, it's not because we can't
> prove or disprove his/her/their existence, but because that matter
> doesn't get us anywhere in our predictions. (There's even a lot of
> scripture on this matter.)
>
I don't. See, the problem is, if you define god as some "ineffable 
something, we can't describe.", then you are correct, and that is 
invariably the "fallback" position of believers (since they can always, 
later, bait and switch back to the one they really do talk about all the 
time). However, any "defined" version, like.. the most common form of 
the Christian version, which performs miracles, reacts to prayers, etc., 
and thus has a tangible impact, of some kind, has "testable" attributes. 
The problem for the people believing in that version, while claiming, 
when cornered, that its the other vague one they really believe in, is 
that people *do* test those claims, including even some religious 
believers (like the whole prayers in hospitals fiasco), and the "god" 
involved spectacularly fails them.

So, no. The one people actually follow, actual practice their religion 
at, and actually believe in, when not trying to wiggle out of it, "is" 
testable using the scientific method. Its just the ones that don't, 
don't appear to, or don't currently, do anything, at all, that are 
"untestable". And, no one actually follows those.

-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message