Can science disprove the existence of God?

[Crypto2015]

I am amazed at how many high-calibre scientists are out to demonstrate that science disproves the existence of God. This amazes me because in general all science students learn at least a little bit of philosophy of science. One of the most basic principles in philosophy of science is that of falsifiability. A statement is falsifiable if there is an observation (either experimental or logical) that can demonstrate that the statement is false. For example, the statement “all cats are black” can easily be disproven by finding a cat that is not black. Similarly, the statement “parallel straight lines meet at some point” is false by definition. However, statements such as “this cat ought to be black” are unfalsifiable because it is impossible to demonstrate what something ought to be. Another example of an unfalsifiable statement is “if I had been born in Nigeria, I would be two meters tall”. These statements are unscientific because they are unfalsifiable. Science cannot tell us anything about them. It can neither prove them nor disprove them. However, an unfalsifiable statement may be true. For example, “mothers ought to love their children” is unfalsifiable and unscientific, but may be true nonetheless. The existence of God is unfalsifiable. Therefore, science cannot tell us anything about it. Claiming that this is not so is demonstrating a profound ignorance of what science is and is not. Please share your thoughts on the matter.

 

[Rapha]

Evil scientists are proving that YHWH exists everyday by inventing gadgets of war and following the Book of Revelation word for word.

RFID chips are going to prove the Mark of the Beast
Scalar weaponry has just turned 1/3 of World salt water into bitter water with Fukushima making the Pacific radioactive.
The Beast with 7 Heads and 10 Horns has been in place since the '60's with the 10 super-countries (NAFTA, EU, etc) and the G7 countries.

So scientists could easily prove that YHWH doesn't exist by :-
1) giving everyone a job
2) introducing cheap cold fusion technology that has been around since Nikola Tesla
3) allow humans to colonize off worlds

However, the Archon alien race live off fear and misery which is why the elite and scientists constantly create wars.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I am amazed at how many high-calibre scientists are out to demonstrate that science disproves the existence of God.

I will be amazed if you are able to cite even a tiny minority of scientific literature (NOT popular works by a handful of scientists, which can be easily matched by scientists out to "prove" the existence of god) demonstrating this to be so.

This amazes me because in general all science students learn at least a little bit of philosophy of science. One of the most basic principles in philosophy of science is that of falsifiability.

Falsifiability is a fairly recent introduction to the sciences by Popper and shown to be inadequate by those such as Quine, Laudan, Lakatos, Conant, etc.

For example, the statement “all cats are black” can easily be disproven by finding a cat that is not black.

However, as the philosophy of science has demonstrated, scientific hypotheses and experiments are theory-laden, and do not lend themselves to such reductio arguments.

Similarly, the statement “parallel straight lines meet at some point” is false by definition.

Unless one is working with particular non-Euclidean geometries in which this is not the case

However, statements such as “this cat ought to be black” are unfalsifiable because it is impossible to demonstrate what something ought to be.

This is easily falsifiable. That's because falsifiability is a formal matter, and modal statements can be formally falsified given a modal system as easily as can those from classical (sentential) logic.

“if I had been born in Nigeria, I would be two meters tall”.

Again easily "falsifiable". Simply use one of the extensions or alternatives to classical logic that incorporates modal conditionals. And no logic allows for the falsifiability of any empirical findings, as these make fundamental assumptions about the nature of observation (as Descartes showed first, but the assumption of which Kant, Hume, and others rendered more problematic)..

These statements are unscientific because they are unfalsifiable.

You are conflating formal logic with the sciences, and relying on a modern yet long abandoned notion from the philosophy of science.

It can neither prove them nor disprove them.

Proof is for mathematics.

 

[Crypto2015]

I will be amazed if you are able to cite even a tiny minority of scientific literature (NOT popular works by a handful of scientists, which can be easily matched by scientists out to "prove" the existence of god) demonstrating this to be so.


Falsifiability is a fairly recent introduction to the sciences by Popper and shown to be inadequate by those such as Quine, Laudan, Lakatos, Conant, etc.


However, as the philosophy of science has demonstrated, scientific hypotheses and experiments are theory-laden, and do not lend themselves to such reductio arguments.


Unless one is working with particular non-Euclidean geometries in which this is not the case


This is easily falsifiable. That's because falsifiability is a formal matter, and modal statements can be formally falsified given a modal system as easily as can those from classical (sentential) logic.


Again easily "falsifiable". Simply use one of the extensions or alternatives to classical logic that incorporates modal conditionals. And no logic allows for the falsifiability of any empirical findings, as these make fundamental assumptions about the nature of observation (as Descartes showed first, but the assumption of which Kant, Hume, and others rendered more problematic)..


You are conflating formal logic with the sciences, and relying on a modern yet long abandoned notion from the philosophy of science.


Proof is for mathematics.

Just listen to any of the videos in which Krauss or Dawkins are interviewed. These high-calibre scientists claim that science can prove that God's existence is unlikely. The idea of falsifiability has not been shown to be inadequate by anyone. Some have criticized it, but no one has proven it wrong or inadequate. Regarding the statements that I have presented as unfalsifiable, you cannot demonstrate they are true or that they are false. You may prove that your cat is yellow, but you cannot prove that your cat ought to have been yellow. You cannot prove or disprove any claim about how tall I would have been if I had been born in Nigeria. Come on, man, are you even serious? Tell me how tall I would have been if I had been born in South Africa. LOL.

 

[Mackerni]

“this cat ought to be black” are unfalsifiable “if I had been born in Nigeria, I would be two meters tall”. These statements are unscientific because they are unfalsifiable. Science cannot tell us anything about them. It can neither prove them nor disprove them. However, an unfalsifiable statement may be true. For example, “mothers ought to love their children” is unfalsifiable and unscientific, but may be true nonetheless. The existence of God is unfalsifiable. Therefore, science cannot tell us anything about it. Claiming that this is not so is demonstrating a profound ignorance of what science is and is not. Please share your thoughts on the matter.

"This cat ought to be black." "If I had been born in Nigeria, I would be two meters tall." "Mothers ought to love their children." Do you know something about these statements? They are opinions. Someone has the ability to choose whatever opinions they might believe, and therefore, have self-validity in their own beliefs. They're just opinions after all.

For example, a pantheist, a monotheist, and a polytheist would have three radically different opinions on this subject matter. But pantheism, monotheism, and polytheism are all just opinions. Religion and politics are interesting because it's merely a way to see the world. I'm a Unitarian Universalist but I have my own creed. i'm a Libertarian but I sometimes think of authoritarian excuses for problems. We are more than are labels, and therefore we are more than our opinions.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Just listen to any of the videos in which Krauss or Dawkins are interviewed.

Why would I? I've been working as a researcher in the sciences for years. Dawkins basically stopped contributing to the sciences before I started working as a scientist, and Krauss' work as a scientist is irrelevant to your post.

These high-calibre scientists claim that science can prove that God's existence is unlikely.

In what "high-caliber" scientific literature? I remind you that I differentiated between popular science and actual scientific literature.

The idea of falsifiability has not been shown to be inadequate by anyone.

Wrong.

Some have criticized it, but no one has proven it wrong or inadequate.

That's because "proving" it wrong would require that 1) it BE provable and 2) that proof were something other than that which it is. For non-scientists such as yourself, proof seems to be relevant to the sciences in ways that it clearly and obviously isn't and can't be.

Regarding the statements that I have presented as unfalsifiable, you cannot demonstrate they are true or that they are false.

I can easily do so, providing that you admit that there must exist a method for proof. Having admitted such a claim (that one can prove a statement false), you must admit a formal method for doing so, negating anything relating to proof in your posts.

Tell me how tall I would have been if I had been born in South Africa. LOL.

Tell me, how many pink unicorns aren't democrats? "Statements that to the ordinary mortal are false or meaningless are thus accepted as true by mathematicians; if you object, the mathematician will retort, 'find me a counterexample.'"
You continue to conflate mathematics with the sciences.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Do you know something about these statements? They are opinions.

Actually they are EXTREMELY important examples of conditionals. The classic example is "If Oswald didn't kill Kennedy, somebody else did" vs. "If Oswald hadn't killed Kennedy, somebody else would have". This gets into modal logic and possible worlds semantics, amongst other issues. However, for the purposes of this thread, these distinctions are wholly irrelevant.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am amazed at how many high-calibre scientists are out to demonstrate that science disproves the existence of God. This amazes me because in general all science students learn at least a little bit of philosophy of science. One of the most basic principles in philosophy of science is that of falsifiability. A statement is falsifiable if there is an observation (either experimental or logical) that can demonstrate that the statement is false. For example, the statement “all cats are black” can easily be disproven by finding a cat that is not black. Similarly, the statement “parallel straight lines meet at some point” is false by definition. However, statements such as “this cat ought to be black” are unfalsifiable because it is impossible to demonstrate what something ought to be. Another example of an unfalsifiable statement is “if I had been born in Nigeria, I would be two meters tall”. These statements are unscientific because they are unfalsifiable. Science cannot tell us anything about them. It can neither prove them nor disprove them. However, an unfalsifiable statement may be true. For example, “mothers ought to love their children” is unfalsifiable and unscientific, but may be true nonetheless. The existence of God is unfalsifiable. Therefore, science cannot tell us anything about it. Claiming that this is not so is demonstrating a profound ignorance of what science is and is not. Please share your thoughts on the matter.

Science can't answer the question "does God (god/gods) exist?" In that sense, you're right.

However, other questions are squarely within the domain of science, such as "is there physical evidence that gods have measurable effects?" and "does the evidence justify accepting a particular god-claim as true?"

BTW: when you were studying the philosophy of science, do you remember what you learned about whether unfalsifiable claims should be accepted? (Hint: the answer is "no")

 

[Crypto2015]

"This cat ought to be black." "If I had been born in Nigeria, I would be two meters tall." "Mothers ought to love their children." Do you know something about these statements? They are opinions. Someone has the ability to choose whatever opinions they might believe, and therefore, have self-validity in their own beliefs. They're just opinions after all.

For example, a pantheist, a monotheist, and a polytheist would have three radically different opinions on this subject matter. But pantheism, monotheism, and polytheism are all just opinions. Religion and politics are interesting because it's merely a way to see the world. I'm a Unitarian Universalist but I have my own creed. i'm a Libertarian but I sometimes think of authoritarian excuses for problems. We are more than are labels, and therefore we are more than our opinions.

Certain opinions are falsifiable. For example, "It will rain tomorrow" can be proven false. On the contrary, "I think it ought to rain tomorrow" cannot be proven wrong. The latter assertion is unscientific. It has no meaning for science.

 

[Crypto2015]

Why would I? I've been working as a researcher in the sciences for years. Dawkins basically stopped contributing to the sciences before I started working as a scientist, and Krauss' work as a scientist is irrelevant to your post.


In what "high-caliber" scientific literature? I remind you that I differentiated between popular science and actual scientific literature.


Wrong.


That's because "proving" it wrong would require that 1) it BE provable and 2) that proof were something other than that which it is. For non-scientists such as yourself, proof seems to be relevant to the sciences in ways that it clearly and obviously isn't and can't be.

I can easily do so, providing that you admit that there must exist a method for proof. Having admitted such a claim (that one can prove a statement false), you must admit a formal method for doing so, negating anything relating to proof in your posts.


Tell me, how many pink unicorns aren't democrats? "Statements that to the ordinary mortal are false or meaningless are thus accepted as true by mathematicians; if you object, the mathematician will retort, 'find me a counterexample.'"
You continue to conflate mathematics with the sciences.

I never said that scientists are writing papers about science being able to disprove the existence of God. Just read the opening post again. A high-calibre scientist is not the same thing as high-calibre scientific literature. I have never read anything about the idea of falsifiability being wrong. On the contrary, I have read that it is still in full force within the scientific community. By the way, I am a scientist myself. I have published a significant amount of papers and nobody has ever objected to my scientific methodology. You still haven't told me how tall I would be if I had been born in South Africa.

 

[averageJOE]

I am amazed at how many high-calibre scientists are out to demonstrate that science disproves the existence of God. This amazes me because in general all science students learn at least a little bit of philosophy of science. One of the most basic principles in philosophy of science is that of falsifiability. A statement is falsifiable if there is an observation (either experimental or logical) that can demonstrate that the statement is false. For example, the statement “all cats are black” can easily be disproven by finding a cat that is not black. Similarly, the statement “parallel straight lines meet at some point” is false by definition. However, statements such as “this cat ought to be black” are unfalsifiable because it is impossible to demonstrate what something ought to be. Another example of an unfalsifiable statement is “if I had been born in Nigeria, I would be two meters tall”. These statements are unscientific because they are unfalsifiable. Science cannot tell us anything about them. It can neither prove them nor disprove them. However, an unfalsifiable statement may be true. For example, “mothers ought to love their children” is unfalsifiable and unscientific, but may be true nonetheless. The existence of God is unfalsifiable. Therefore, science cannot tell us anything about it. Claiming that this is not so is demonstrating a profound ignorance of what science is and is not. Please share your thoughts on the matter.

Which god are you talking about here?

 

[Crypto2015]

Science can't answer the question "does God (god/gods) exist?" In that sense, you're right.

However, other questions are squarely within the domain of science, such as "is there physical evidence that gods have measurable effects?" and "does the evidence justify accepting a particular god-claim as true?"

BTW: when you were studying the philosophy of science, do you remember what you learned about whether unfalsifiable claims should be accepted? (Hint: the answer is "no")

Unfalsifiable statements are meaningless when it comes to science, but they may be full of meaning when it comes to mankind. Furthermore, as I have written in the opening post, a statement cannot be said to be false just because it is unfalsifiable. "I should love my mother" is an unfalsifiable claim, but that doesn't mean that the statement is false.

 

[Crypto2015]

Which god are you talking about here?

The Christian God.

 

[averageJOE]

The Christian God.

You just displayed the bias in your argument.

 

[picnic]

...
One of the most basic principles in philosophy of science is that of falsifiability. A statement is falsifiable if there is an observation (either experimental or logical) that can demonstrate that the statement is false.
...

In the book on philosophy of science from the "a very short introduction" series( http://www.veryshortintroductions.c.../9780192802835.001.0001/actrade-9780192802835 ) the author shows that Popper's falsifiability isn't the whole story; scientists actually do try to prove things to be true through induction too. IMO, statistics comes closer to representing the philosophy of science than Popper's falsifiability.

So science can disprove or prove the existence of God in the same way that it can disprove or prove the existence of gravity. (Of course every answer that science delivers is subject to change in the future.)

The real problem with investigating God is the difficulty of defining God. Believers have absurd definitions that can't be tested usually.

 

[Crypto2015]

You just displayed the bias in your argument.

Can someone discuss something without having a bias?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Unfalsifiable statements are meaningless when it comes to science, but they may be full of meaning when it comes to mankind. Furthermore, as I have written in the opening post, a statement cannot be said to be false just because it is unfalsifiable. "I should love my mother" is an unfalsifiable claim, but that doesn't mean that the statement is false.

Do you understand the difference between statements about value judgements (e.g. "I should love my mother") and statements about factual matters (e.g. "gods exist") when it comes to falsifiability?

 

[Iti oj]

Just listen to any of the videos in which Krauss or Dawkins are interviewed. These high-calibre scientists claim that science can prove that God's existence is unlikely. The idea of falsifiability has not been shown to be inadequate by anyone. Some have criticized it, but no one has proven it wrong or inadequate. Regarding the statements that I have presented as unfalsifiable, you cannot demonstrate they are true or that they are false. You may prove that your cat is yellow, but you cannot prove that your cat ought to have been yellow. You cannot prove or disprove any claim about how tall I would have been if I had been born in Nigeria. Come on, man, are you even serious? Tell me how tall I would have been if I had been born in South Africa. LOL.

2.....thats two examples not many

 

[leibowde84]

I am amazed at how many high-calibre scientists are out to demonstrate that science disproves the existence of God. This amazes me because in general all science students learn at least a little bit of philosophy of science. One of the most basic principles in philosophy of science is that of falsifiability. A statement is falsifiable if there is an observation (either experimental or logical) that can demonstrate that the statement is false. For example, the statement “all cats are black” can easily be disproven by finding a cat that is not black. Similarly, the statement “parallel straight lines meet at some point” is false by definition. However, statements such as “this cat ought to be black” are unfalsifiable because it is impossible to demonstrate what something ought to be. Another example of an unfalsifiable statement is “if I had been born in Nigeria, I would be two meters tall”. These statements are unscientific because they are unfalsifiable. Science cannot tell us anything about them. It can neither prove them nor disprove them. However, an unfalsifiable statement may be true. For example, “mothers ought to love their children” is unfalsifiable and unscientific, but may be true nonetheless. The existence of God is unfalsifiable. Therefore, science cannot tell us anything about it. Claiming that this is not so is demonstrating a profound ignorance of what science is and is not. Please share your thoughts on the matter.

What scientists claim that science can disprove God? I've never heard that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You may prove that your cat is yellow, but you cannot prove that your cat ought to have been yellow.

... only because the statement is vague. What do you mean by "ought to have been" in that sentence? I can think of many ways to take it:

- the fact that the cat is yellow is in keeping with expectations (based on genetics, maybe?)
- by being yellow, the cat has fulfilled some moral imperative.
- being yellow confers some sort of relative advantage on the cat.
- somebody somehow intended for the cat to be yellow.
- the cat being yellow fulfills someone's preference.

Most of the ways I can interpret "the cat ought to have been yellow" ARE falsifiable.