[split] God(s), Science & Evidence - Comments thread

[Edwardo Piet]

I find it interesting how they both mentioned NOMA.

I agree that without actual evidence then all religions claims can just be rejected by science.

But I wonder sometimes if "God" really is a scientific hypothesis since he's unfalsifiable and undetectable.

I know Dawkins thinks he is anyway because 'science deals with existence claims'. But I talked with Adrian about it on MSN and I'm not so sure...because is it really a scientific hypothesis if the claim is of a nature that is undetectable and unfalsifiable by science?

But either way of course - "God" can be safely discarded by science because not only is there no known scientific evidence of God (and arguably there can't be since he is unfalsifiable and unprobable) but there is no known evidence at all. And we don't know anything that would be valid other than science anyway (and it looks like science perhaps can't be - because as I said, "God" is unfalsifiable and unprovable) - it looks like God 'can't win' (so far as we know there is no evidence of "God" of any form - he can be safely discarded even if only for this reason alone, regardless of just how improbable he is)

Yeah so I find the whole NOMA thing interesting - how they both mentioned it in their opening posts.

I wonder what that will lead to. I find that interesting.

EvF