WILL SCIENCE DISPROVE GOD? [Spirituality & Religion]

@TheBlackPowerRanger Why not? Science is the act of explaining evidence. What evidence is there that can only be explained by postulating a particular god?

@Emosaur ._.
I was taking disprove to be proving nonexistent. Not pointing out a contradiction or problem in one religion's teachings on the concept of God.

And this is the Christian teachings of God, right?
With that being a thousand years ago. I dunno about how long ago Christians believe it or even if they believe that at all tbh

@Sharon because God is literally not subject to the scientific method .-.
God is not a naturally observable phenomenon and arguably isn't even within the realm/dimensions science can operate in.

Do you know what the scientific method is?
And is science really defined as the act of explaining evidence? I never heard this before from any scientist in my life.

I'm also not a fan of postulation. Both assuming the existence of God or assuming the nonexistence of God.

@Emosaur Go
Therefore cannot interact with the universe... strictly an observer, I suppose (although even passive observation requires interaction)

@Emosaur who brought up Christianity?

@newjaninev2 And what evidence or reasoning do you have that can make sense of this conclusion?
Are you sure that if you're not inside of something that you cannot interact with it?

@Emosaur was answering the question "Will science disprove God?"

I guess if he's Christian, it makes sense then

@Emosaur I'm not a Christian and don't believe in Christianity. So if this is a post related to that, I will depart gracefully and allow discussions to continue on.

However, even in the Christian concept of God, science still cannot disprove God is disprove means disprove the existence of. Disproving claims in the bible is a different case.

@TheBlackPowerRanger If magical entities cannot be disproved, they are of no interest to science, as they then carry neither explanatory power nor predictive power.

They are simply unnecessary, unhelpful postulations

@Emosaur I agree tbh. It would mean it is unreliable

@newjaninev2 you speak like science encompasses all explanatory power and predictive power ._.

@TheBlackPowerRanger Is that a bad thing?

Science requires explanatory power and predictive power. As it happens, science has been astoundingly successful and useful in both those areas

@newjaninev2 yeah ._.
We don't use the scientific method for everything. Some things require logic and reason

@TheBlackPowerRanger Humans aren’t too good in either of those areas, and they become completely unreliable when they apply them to human-only concerns and concepts

@newjaninev2 I somewhat agree tbh

@TheBlackPowerRanger It’s the cause of much friction, I find

@newjaninev2 indeed. But maybe if it smoothed, it could finally glow

@TheBlackPowerRanger You've already said that but you haven't explained why.

In that case it can have no effect in the real world, where science operates, so can be safely ignored.

Yes, I have an MSc. What do you think it is?

We don't need to postulate the non-existence of things for which there is no evidence. What about other mythical beings?

@TheBlackPowerRanger Not a fan of postulation? Lol. You have postulated yourself in that reply. LMAO.

@Entwistle 😪
Starting with any conclusion, no matter how rational, will look like postulation