[Scottish]

It's long been held that a Theory is only right until someone comes along and proves it wrong, yes?

So does that mean there's a God because no-one's come along and proven there isn't?

[Fineus]

There isn't a God.
This is also true, because nobody has come along to prove there is.

That's where the problem is... as far as I'm concerned.

[Scottish]

Hmmm. But going by a law of 'more evidence means more right' then the accumulation of other religions saying the Judaistic concept of Yahweh and his subsequent 'reworkings' is completely wrong, Science wins.

There is no 'God'.

But conversely, the accumulation of those religions holds vastly more weight than Science, so Science loses and God comes back to life.

Maybe that's what happened at the Crucifiction.

[aldo_14]

God is outside science.  By nature it/she/he/them exists within a construct beyond measurement or human conception, and intended to be such.  Depending on your cynicism towards religion, that's either for reasons of needing Belief-with-a-capital-B, or because scientific investigation could destroy the control a belief structure wields over its followers.

So God - or Odin, or Allah, or Shiva, etc - is not a theory in any case because it cannot be proven or disproven.  I'd argue that faith is essentially worthless if it can be proven anyways, because the value of it is in the effort of belief.

[Scottish]

Yep.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Scottish
It's long been held that a Theory is only right until someone comes along and proves it wrong, yes?

So does that mean there's a God because no-one's come along and proven there isn't?

Nope. You've got it all the wrong way around.

An unsupported claim is an assertion. If you can gather scientific, testable evidence then it becomes a hypothesis. If you can gather enough evidence that it's the only hypothesis left standing (or that the others only differ on minor details) you can call it a theory. A theory remains the best answer we have to explain what we can observe until new evidence comes along to prove it wrong. At that point the theory is either discarded (if there is a better explaination) or still used as the best explaination but with the advisory that we know that it is deeply flawed and may not always give the right answer (If no one knows why the hell it's not working).

That God exists is an assertion. There is no scientific proof for his existance that can stand up to peer review. It hasn't ever got around to even becoming a scientific hypothesis. There simply isn't enough testable evidence for that.

[Scottish]

'God exists' is a Theory, just not a Scientific one.

[aldo_14]

Well, we are talking about it in the realms of empirical evidence, aren't we?  

The 'theory is correct until disproven' is basically the scientific one (deriving from the scientific or empirical methodology), unless you want to stretch to very vague and essentially meaningless generalisations for proof or disproof.    Within context, that'd refer to scientific hypothesis, because AFAIK the only other meaning of 'theory' not relating to testable or tested evidence(empirical investigation) is belief.

In which case it'd be 'God exists' to be a belief, which is correct, but then potentially excludes the concepts of proof or disproof.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Scottish
'God exists' is a Theory, just not a Scientific one.

Then it has nothing to do with science at all. Would you attempt to win a game of chess with backgammon pieces and dice?

You can't just shoehorn God into science by claiming that it's not a scientific theory. The only things in science are scientific theories.

 Science has never attempted to disprove the existance of God because there has never been any evidence that required it to be disproved.

Faith is a complete seperate matter from science same as the two board games I mentioned.

[Scottish]

Originally posted by karajorma
Then it has nothing to do with science at all. Would you attempt to win a game of chess with backgammon pieces and dice?

If I could, you would only whine about me not following the rules of Chess.

[Black Wolf]

A Quick Science-VS-Religion Question

These are never quick...

[Scottish]

Yeah, but a 'Big Debate' thread woulda been closed instantly.

It's all in the marketting....

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Scottish

If I could, you would only whine about me not following the rules of Chess.

Nope. I'm a bully remember. Just before being checkmated I'd knock all your pieces over, overturn the board and claim victory

[Scottish]

I take it you've never seen Bottom?

Spiderman always wins against Frozen Prawns.

[karajorma]

Of course I've seen Bottom. Who say you get to be Spiderman? *Waves fist menacingly*

[Scottish]

It's my fictional antique ivory/plastic/frozen-prawn 'chess' set!

[Rictor]

So the real question is, can faith co-exist alongside Science. If faith/belief exists beyond science, and does not need explainations and proofs, can a modern human being believe in quantum physics, evolution and all that good stuff, but be guided by faith in those areas where Science, by it's very nature, can not and does not go. Into the realm of the "why". That's basically my position

[WMCoolmon]

Originally posted by Scottish
It's long been held that a Theory is only right until someone comes along and proves it wrong, yes?

So does that mean there's a God because no-one's come along and proven there isn't?

Depends on which theory.

If you mean Scientific Theory, then God is neither; it's like saying that on the other side of the galaxy is a race of four-legged aliens, noone can prove or disprove you.

But if you mean a theory in common usage (which is basicallya guess backed up by reasons from a hunch to a concrete fact) then you could say that yes, God is a theory.

[Kazan]

Originally posted by Scottish
It's long been held that a Theory is only right until someone comes along and proves it wrong, yes?

So does that mean there's a God because no-one's come along and proven there isn't?

wrong

A theory is considered "correct" if it A) Fits the observed evidenced and B) Not contradicted by other evidence

The "existance of God" doesn't fit qualification A

[Scottish]

Burning bush? Wall of fire? Two huge stone tablets with stuff written on them?

You might not be able to observe them, but someone did. So it fits.