That is quite a weird comment. If you want a definition for science, google it, you're on the internet, you have no excuse. And no religion and science don't match; one relies on faith and the other on facts. They're irreconcilable. Are you a deist or an agnostic? Quit sitting on the fence mate, about time to make up your mind.
Fucking,I need peoples Revulsion,not a explanation.
Actually T.A.D., the Bible's god has been portrayed in a variety of ways - in Genesis, written mostly by the Yahwist Source and the Priestly Source, the writers of the Yahwist Source saw him as an anthropomorphic being who strolled over to Abram's tent for an afternoon snack before moseying on down to destroy thousands in Sodom and Gomorrah, yet in the New Testament, Yeshua (Jesus) said, "God is a spirit." The truth is, since Man created god in His own image, as Man's sophistication evolved, so did his concept of a god.
As for testing for god, Michelangelo, as he was carving the Moses, was reputed to have said that he saw Moses in the stone, and simply chipped away everything that wasn't Moses. I suppose you could use the same razor - examine everything, and whatever cannot be rationally explained, place it in a "Possibly God" folder, but I suspect you will ultimately reach the same conclusion as Neill Degrasse Tyson, who said: "God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance, that gets smaller and smaller as time goes on."
Thanks for yer Revulsion
I agree completely, but you asked, "If such things were true, and if god is non-physical how would we detect such a thing? How would you design an experiment for it?"
I gave you the only one I could think of, an adaptation of Occam's Razor. Even then, I advocated a "Possible" file, rather than a "Probable" file, on the assumption that over time, these too would evaporate when coming into contact with inevitable actual scientific knowledge.
I would say a hundred Hail Mary's and pray the rosary for days on end, but I assume I would still go to hell.
He will certainly have a lot to answer for. As Nietzsche said: The only excuse for God is that he doesn't exist.
Then What ?
Hey let's all go and worship!
That's a funny thing. I am atheist, was born atheist (like all of us), but if "God" was to show up, and somehow, prove that he was God, and has the abilities of God, and that when we die, we will go to heaven, then I'd start believing God in a hot minute. There's probably some mechanism behind gravity that we don't yet understand, but so far as we could show that it exists, and fits within our framework of knowledge, then I'll believe that too.
That's the thing with this topic: it's like a trick question. "If" -- meaning "suppose it's true" -- so suppose it's true that science proves God's existence, then what? Well, then, atheism would be quite illogical, wouldn't it?
Perhaps someone could make a legitimate point for believing in God's existence, but not following God's rules, something that involves free will.
The thread topic presupposes the existence of God. The word "if" is grammatically the conditional operator. In a logical statement, anything that follows this word is assumed to be true. People who absolutely refuse to entertain hypothetical questions -- why they even respond to this thread is beyond me. I'm sorry for being rude, but it's like if someone asked a silly question, such as: "Where would you escape to if you were wanted for murder?" And you answered, "I'm not wanted for murder, therefore your question is just falsely conceptualized in your brain." (facepalm)
God may always be a human concept in the real world, but "what happens if science proves God's existence?" It's rational to disbelieve God, sure. But ifscience proved God's existence, then it would be irrational to disbelieve God. I wonder how those who absolutely refuse to consider hypothetical questions feel about scientists formulating hypotheses in order to advance science. I can just imagine someone going, "That's absurd, there's no proof that your hypothesis is true. Case closed."