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.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
A definite scientific proof that a God exists would mean that God is entirely natural.What will happen if science someday runs across definitive proof of a God?
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.
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?
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.
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
There's nothing incoherent or untrue about accounting belief in God as foundational.
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 ?
By arguing against a foundational truth
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.
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 by chuckle at that response. Try reading what was in my post again. I think you missed something ...
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.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.
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.
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?