Why are creationists so threatened by science?

[Wiccan_Child]

It is not a testable hypothesis for me, I have no clue how to test for God's existence, or by anyone else as far as I have ever heard.

But, "I don't know how to test it" isn't the same as "It's not testable". It stands as 'testable' until proven otherwise. To me, this makes it a hypothesis that falls within scientific purview.

This is also why I find the "Science can only test the natural" unimpressive.

Talk about winning a Nobel Prize. If someone ever figured out a way to test for the existence of God we would have a lifetime winner.

I don't believe so. We'd have a winner if they tested for God and got a positive result, but the test alone is relatively easy.

1) God answers prayers
2) Pray
3) Observe results

It's not the most rigorous of tests and I daresay could be refined, but it's a test nonetheless. It's one that makes many people doubt their faith: if God exists and helps those who pray to him, then why don't we see such divine intervention? Why does it rain on the just and the unjust? This, in its core, is a rudimentary test.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why is the existence of God not a testable hypothesis?

That's what I have been asking for years. From what I have seen, it is the theists who insist that God should be removed from science, not the atheists.

If God exists then we should see . . .

Clear violations of the nested hierarchy.

Evidence of a recent global flood.

A young Earth.

No stars farther out than 6,000 light years.

I could keep going, but I think people get the drift. The reason that theists want to keep God out of science is because God has already failed testing, IMHO.

 

[keith99]

That's what I have been asking for years. From what I have seen, it is the theists who insist that God should be removed from science, not the atheists.

If God exists then we should see . . .

Clear violations of the nested hierarchy.

Evidence of a recent global flood.

A young Earth.

No stars farther out than 6,000 light years.

I could keep going, but I think people get the drift. The reason that theists want to keep God out of science is because God has already failed testing, IMHO.

Nope.

If the claims about God made by a small subset of thsoe claiming to be his followers are true we should expect the above.

If those thigns are not there it only proves those men were wrong.

Which is why it is so difficult to have any meangful disproof of God.

 

[keith99]

It is not a testable hypothesis for me, I have no clue how to test for God's existence, or by anyone else as far as I have ever heard.

Talk about winning a Nobel Prize. If someone ever figured out a way to test for the existence of God we would have a lifetime winner.

Or someone burnt for witchcraft.

 

[AV1611VET]

I feel really blessed that I belong to a Christian denomination that doesn't debase science.

You don't need to answer this, but think about your denomination's belief about the Eucharist ... does that debase science?

 

[variant]

I don't believe so. We'd have a winner if they tested for God and got a positive result, but the test alone is relatively easy.

1) God answers prayers
2) Pray
3) Observe results

It's not the most rigorous of tests and I daresay could be refined, but it's a test nonetheless. It's one that makes many people doubt their faith: if God exists and helps those who pray to him, then why don't we see such divine intervention? Why does it rain on the just and the unjust? This, in its core, is a rudimentary test.

It's never that simple.

What your test disproves or proves is that God simply answers prayers.

God is not defined simply to answer prayers. He is defined purposefully with conditions so that no such test is valid.

Observe:

Five Conditions Of Answered Prayer

So, we can't tell whether such a God exists or not because we have no way of telling whether we satisfy the conditions under which God will answer prayer.

This makes me an atheist because I find defining God in such a way as not to be tested is not intellectually honest.

If we could get a comprehensive definition of God and the conditions that we should and should not expect if God exists then it is entirely testable and falsifiable.

 

[RickG]

You don't need to answer this, but think about your denomination's belief about the Eucharist ... does that debase science?

Not in the least, it is a symbolic celebration. My Church celebrates the Lords Supper every month in addition to special occasions.

 

[Loudmouth]

If the claims about God made by a small subset of thsoe claiming to be his followers are true we should expect the above.

Every testable claim made about deities that has been tested have come back negative.

"Once nature seemed inexplicable without a nymph in every brook and a dryad in every tree. Even as late as the nineteenth century the design of plants and animals was regarded as visible evidence of a creator. There are still countless things in nature that we cannot explain, but we think we know the principles that govern the way they work. Today for real mystery one has to look to cosmology and elementary particle physics. For those who see no conflict between science and religion, the retreat of religion from the ground occupied by science is nearly complete." (Weinberg, S., "Dreams of a Final Theory," Pantheon: New York NY, 1992, pp.249-250)

​

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It's never that simple.

I know, but it was a rough sketch of how a test might look.

What your test disproves or proves is that God simply answers prayers.

God is not defined simply to answer prayers.

Actually, per some theists, that's exactly part of his definition: creative, intelligent, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, prayer-answering, etc. It comes as part of the package. To others, he's just that which created the universe, so de dicto necessarily exists so long as there is some thing responsible for the universe.

He is defined purposefully with conditions so that no such test is valid.

Observe:

Five Conditions Of Answered Prayer

So, we can't tell whether such a God exists or not because we have no way of telling whether we satisfy the conditions under which God will answer prayer.

This makes me an atheist because I find defining God in such a way as not to be tested is not intellectually honest.

If we could get a comprehensive definition of God and the conditions that we should and should not expect if God exists then it is entirely testable and falsifiable.

As has been the case for other deities proposed by humanity. Static electricity, not thunder deities, create lightening and thunder. The hydrological cycle, not Aries, creates rain. We have disproven the existence of deities before, so it's not true that deities are always untestable. Why can't the same be said of the deity of Jews, Christians, and Muslims? Sure, they can redefine their terms to slip away, but they might not - and if that's the case, then the Abrahamic God may well be testable.

 

[variant]

and if that's the case, then the Abrahamic God may well be testable.

Feel free to try and see what happens.

Have you noticed were sitting here talking to people who feel threatened by the fairly mundane claims of evolutionary biology?

From my observation the psychology of belief will indeed reinvent and force God into ever more untestable definitions.

 

[CabVet]

You don't need to answer this, but think about your denomination's belief about the Eucharist ... does that debase science?

Of course not, why would it? The Eucharist is a religious belief, not a scientific hypothesis.

 

[variant]

Of course not, why would it? The Eucharist is a religious belief, not a scientific hypothesis.

AV has clearly muddled the ideas of truth, religion and science all together as many others have.

 

[AV1611VET]

Have you noticed were sitting here talking to people who feel threatened by the fairly mundane claims of evolutionary biology?

Funny ... I thought that's why this thread was created.

And judging from the responses, it looks to me like you're wrong.

ETA: Nevermind ... I've got the wrong thread in mind. I was thinking of nowax's thread.

 

[Loudmouth]

As has been the case for other deities proposed by humanity. Static electricity, not thunder deities, create lightening and thunder. The hydrological cycle, not Aries, creates rain. We have disproven the existence of deities before, so it's not true that deities are always untestable. Why can't the same be said of the deity of Jews, Christians, and Muslims? Sure, they can redefine their terms to slip away, but they might not - and if that's the case, then the Abrahamic God may well be testable.

In the end, what they consider evidence for God is a universe whose day to day functioning is indistinguishable from a universe with no gods in it.

 

[super animator]

They think that by disproving YEC you disprove Christianity.

 

[Loudmouth]

They think that by disproving YEC you disprove Christianity.

It's a bit like disproving the claim that I have an invisible fire breathing dragon in my garage:

The Dragon In My Garage

 

[super animator]

It's a bit like disproving the claim that I have an invisible fire breathing dragon in my garage:

The Dragon In My Garage

I was talking about the consequence of disproving YEC, don't see how Carl sagn dragon is involved in this. Their logic is essentially slippery slope fallacy, easy to point out.

 

[Mediaeval]

The more heavily religious a country, the lower its levels of happiness and education

Other articles affirm a positive influence deriving from religion: christianpost.com/news/believers-better-protected-from-depression-than-atheists-study-says-68057/ , news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7302609.stm

Christians follow the Man of Sorrows. And yet there is joy and peace in believing. "Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh…Woe unto you that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep" (Luke 6).

 

[variant]

I was talking about the consequence of disproving YEC, don't see how Carl sagn dragon is involved in this. Their logic is essentially slippery slope fallacy, easy to point out.

Trying to disprove Christianity as a whole would be like disproving the inviable dragon.

YEC makes some testable claims that are in fact wrong. But, your answer is a good one to the op.

That God must move into the realm of the untestable whenever we come to test it should sincerely bother believers, but, of course it doesn't bother them all.

 

[Loudmouth]

Their logic is essentially slippery slope fallacy, easy to point out.

Their logic is as follows:

"Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder."
The Dragon In My Garage

I think it is spot on for this thread.