Is God's existence objectively verifiable?

[Scoobes]

Norris2k said:

Scoobes said:

We're debating in two different directions but we're actually making the same point. Science is not religion but my point always was that they're not comparable. Very often though, people turn to religion in these threads and pit proven scientific theories against heresay. Religion often assumes it has answers for the unknown, but on a number of areas where people take religious texts at face value, they deny robust and proven scietific theories in favour of unproven nonsense. At the worst and extreme end they'll believe religious therapies will cure them of life threatening illness and ignore the scientifically proven treatments that could actually save their life.

You can talk about people blindly having faith in science, but I like to think that most people with a reasonable high school education know enough of the scientific method to know the process of hypothesis, test, conclusion and review (I know I got taught this very basic principle at age 11 if not earlier). That scientific papers get rigorous scrutiny and that experiments are repeated by different groups. That when scientists fake data they get called up on it (the retracted Nature paper on STAP comes to mind). That the science industry has to adhere to a strict process and set of standards before any product born of that science can be released (ISO standards, clinical trials, GLP and GMP). Being a scientist, perhaps I take this for granted, but we're also living in the information age. Data and information is literally a mouse or touchscreen away. The excuses for not being educated in the scientific method are reduced every year.

The point is that science as a way of understanding the world is not comparable to religion, yet too many people put them in direct conflict. And as a method for understanding the world around us, a system that constantly improves its models and admits our ignorance in the face of evidence, science will always trump religion (which assumes knowledge based on heresay).

@bolded I know this is a quote, but why does there even have to be a "who"? This in itself is a completely human concept but one we have no true evidence for. The belief in god is a completely human construct based on a simple and very human view of the world. We give things meaning, we see design when we view and interpret the world/universe around us, but few people actually stop to think "why does there need to be a purpose? a design? or even a point?". And given our limited understanding of the universe (which is why the scientific method came to be), why do human beings attribute this unknown to a god or a religion? Would it not be more accurate to simply admit our ignorance than make assumptions and place meaning where their may be none?

While apparently reasonnable, you are not, that's why it's never ending. "[...] science will always trump religion (which assumes knowledge based on heresay)". About the bold part... Says who ? Christians don't burn iphone, the Vatican does not claims the earth is flat (and never did btw), the babylonians had science, Einstein has never been an heretic... Most theists in developped countries accept science as a source of progress. But you, you can't resist the need to put religion down here and there, you would never concede a single point against science. You are a zealot. I'm not. I believe in science, I don't believe in God, I don't need a who, but I don't need and I don't think it's fair to define faith as an assumption based on ignorance. Again, that's the point of quoting Newton, he's not an ignorant. I tried to put some balance, so, no, I believe we are not making the same point at all, that's a dead end.

Nothing of what you said goes against what I did. Religious groups didn't come up with those theories, science and scientists did. By its nature, the way religion tries to explain things is through faith, which when you boil it down to religious texts is essentially unverifiable stories written by human beings (aka heresay). I'm not putting it down so much as stating a simple fact. Religion serves different purposes to different people, but if someone is going to use it to explain the world contrary to the actual evidence then they shouldn't be surprised when someone questions that.

That said, at no point did I say all religious people think science is wrong (and some of the greatest scientific and engineering ideas have come from theists), but there are a minority that put faith above robust scientific theory which at times can be dangerous (as I pointed out). For those people, the scientific method as a self-improving system is always going to be more accurate than their faith.