What will happen if, science runs across definitive proof of God?

[quatona]

What will happen if science someday runs across definitive proof of a God?

A definite scientific proof that a God exists would mean that God is entirely natural.
This would shake a lot of theologies in their fundaments.
How the individual theists would deal with this, I do not dare to predict.

 

[MoreCoffee]

So long as you don't pretend that others are being unreasonable in dismissing your theology, then no, it doesn't annoy us per se.

Of course such persons are being unreasonable

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Of course such person are being unreasonable

In what way?

 

[MoreCoffee]

In what way?

By arguing against a foundational truth

 

[Archaeopteryx]

By arguing against a foundational truth

A foundational truth that you apparently reached arbitrarily. How then can you call others 'unreasonable' for reaching different foundational truths?

 

[MoreCoffee]

A foundational truth that you apparently reached arbitrarily. How then can you call others 'unreasonable' for reaching different foundational truths?

It is self evident, they have failed to arbitrate properly.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It is self evident, they have failed to arbitrate properly.

They likewise claim that their foundational truths are self-evident and that you have failed to arbitrate properly.

 

[MoreCoffee]

They likewise claim that their foundational truths are self-evident and that you have failed to arbitrate properly.

we're agreed; your atheism or agnosticism or whatever form of non-Christianity you claim really rests on your foundational beliefs which appear to exclude the existence of God. Therefore let us hear no more "prove it" taunts and no more "the onus of proof lies with the side making claims" since it is now quite evident that your own position rests on foundations that you have not proved.

Q.E.D

 

[Archaeopteryx]

we're agreed; your atheism or agnosticism or whatever form of non-Christianity you claim really rests on your foundational beliefs which appear to exclude the existence of God. Therefore let us hear no more "prove it" taunts and no more "the onus of proof lies with the side making claims" since it is now quite evident that your own position rests on foundations that you have not proved.

Q.E.D

Hang on, where did I say that my atheism is a "foundational truth"? I didn't say that. Don't project your faults onto others, particularly when they have not made an analogous claim.

The reason I used the word "they" rather than "I" is because I was referring to other theists who, like you, assert that their particular theology is foundational. Having clarified that point, here is the larger point again: they likewise claim that their foundational truths are self-evident and that you have failed to arbitrate properly.

 

[KCfromNC]

There's nothing incoherent or untrue about accounting belief in God as foundational.

Depends on how one's arbitrary epistemology defines these words, I guess. If one of my foundational beliefs is that everyone's god is a square circle or other logical impossibility then anyone's foundational belief in god is incoherent. That's the great part about randomly pretending things are true - one can make up anything they want. It is doubly-great when, as you say, there's no reason for these arbitrary claims to line up with reality. One could believe anything they want for no reason at all and still feel justified in that belief.

 

[True Scotsman]

You mean more people would acknowledge the existence of a God, or more people would believe in (as in trust in) that being ?

There are people who don't even think Obama is actually the President of the US, he's just an actor on a sound stage somewhere. He exists, but he's not who he's claimed to be IOW. Similarly, there are people who believe he's a reptilian shapeshifter. So what do you mean by "believe in God" in this context ?

Belief is the acceptance that a statement about reality is true or that a thing exists. That's what I mean about belief. So if science proved that God existed by some objective method then I would believe.

 

[KCfromNC]

By arguing against a foundational truth

So if one of my foundational "truths" is that we can argue against other's foundational "truths", you'd find that "truth" unarguable and therefore be OK with people arguing against yours? Seems like there's a lot of problems with this sort of epistemological approach of just making things up and calling them true.

 

[KCfromNC]

A definite scientific proof that a God exists would mean that God is entirely natural.
This would shake a lot of theologies in their fundaments.
How the individual theists would deal with this, I do not dare to predict.

This is an important point. There are lots of mutually exclusive religious beliefs. No matter what god science finds in this scenario, the majority of religious believers are going to end up with their religious beliefs proven factually wrong.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

This is an important point. There are lots of mutually exclusive religious beliefs. No matter what god science finds in this scenario, the majority of religious believers are going to end up with their religious beliefs proven factually wrong.

That being the case, the religious better hope that science doesn't find definitive evidence for a deity. If it does, many would have to abandon their religion.

 

[MoreCoffee]

we're agreed; your atheism or agnosticism or whatever form of non-Christianity you claim really rests on your foundational beliefs which appear to exclude the existence of God. Therefore let us hear no more "prove it" taunts and no more "the onus of proof lies with the side making claims" since it is now quite evident that your own position rests on foundations that you have not proved.

Q.E.D

Hang on, where did I say that my atheism is a "foundational truth"? I didn't say that. Don't project your faults onto others, particularly when they have not made an analogous claim.

The reason I used the word "they" rather than "I" is because I was referring to other theists who, like you, assert that their particular theology is foundational. Having clarified that point, here is the larger point again: they likewise claim that their foundational truths are self-evident and that you have failed to arbitrate properly.

I can't help but chuckle at that response. Try reading what was in my post again. I think you missed something ...

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I can't help by chuckle at that response. Try reading what was in my post again. I think you missed something ...

No, it seems that you've missed something. You projected your own faults (foundationism) onto me and thus reached the wrong conclusions.

Let's bring it back to the question that prompted all this: in what way are we being unreasonable in not assenting to your arbitrarily derived theology?

 

[TillICollapse]

Belief is the acceptance that a statement about reality is true or that a thing exists. That's what I mean about belief. So if science proved that God existed by some objective method then I would believe.

I understand, just wanting to clarify what you meant by "believe". Some people use a phrase like that to imply a level of trust in a thing or something. "I believe in that person," etc and so forth.

 

[hedrick]

A definite scientific proof that a God exists would mean that God is entirely natural.
This would shake a lot of theologies in their fundaments.
How the individual theists would deal with this, I do not dare to predict.

Not necessarily. God has effects on the natural world. Otherwise we would never know about him. In principle that provides an opportunity to verify that he exists.

One attempt was intelligent design. It didn't claim to know what God is, but did claim to show some kind of intelligent designer outside nature. The attempt failed, because there are reasonable ways that evolution could have formed the examples cited. But some kind of proof like that might possibly be convincing.

Also, I'm not sure just what "natural" means in this context. God is certainly not an object in our universe. But suppose that cosmology learns about something outside our universe, and that it finds something that looks like God there. I don't see that this would necessarily contradict the Biblical picture of God. I'm not sure whether this would make God "natural," and why I would care if it does. One conventional picture of God is that he necessarily exists, and that he created the universe. If something exists and is able to create universes, it seems to me that at least in principle we could find out about it.

 

[TillICollapse]

Not necessarily. God has effects on the natural world. Otherwise we would never know about him. In principle that provides an opportunity to verify that he exists.

One attempt was intelligent design. It didn't claim to know what God is, but did claim to show some kind of intelligent designer outside nature. The attempt failed, because there are reasonable ways that evolution could have formed the examples cited. But some kind of proof like that might possibly be convincing.

Also, I'm not sure just what "natural" means in this context. God is certainly not an object in our universe. But suppose that cosmology learns about something outside our universe, and that it finds something that looks like God there. I don't see that this would necessarily contradict the Biblical picture of God. I'm not sure whether this would make God "natural," and why I would care if it does. One conventional picture of God is that he necessarily exists, and that he created the universe. If something exists and is able to create universes, it seems to me that at least in principle we could find out about it.

Someone can feel free to correct me if they wish, but pretty much by definition, scientific proof deals with the natural world. If something is attributed to being not part of the natural world, it would fall outside the realm of scientific methodology.

 

[bhsmte]

Someone can feel free to correct me if they wish, but pretty much by definition, scientific proof deals with the natural world. If something is attributed to being not part of the natural world, it would fall outside the realm of scientific methodology.

I would agree.

And people are free to speculate on what may or may not be part of the natural world all they like.