Can science disprove the existence of God?

[Crypto2015]

Jesus is not the Biblical G-d, YHWH yes.
Regards

They are one and the same. We can create another thread about it later.

 

[whereismynotecard]

No one can prove god doesn't exist because even to those who believe in it, they believe in it as a sort of spirit who cannot be seen or touched or measured in any way. It's kind of like trying to prove that a certain galaxy so far away we could never find it doesn't exist. Like, I just made up a galaxy called "Gooble" and it's seventeen billion trillion light years away from the furthest away celestial object scientists have ever discovered. It's constantly moving, so I can't guarantee that if we do make it that far away and search for it that it'll even be in the same place. Prove to me that Gooble doesn't exist. You can't. How could you search literally *everywhere* in a never-ending chain of galaxies? You can't. God will never be dis-proven. Only disbelieved. Just like some of you probably don't believe in Gooble.

 

[Crypto2015]

Yes, but I hope you agree that the fact that the Illiad contains some historical events is not sufficient to increase the plausibility of things like Poseidon.

For the same reason, the Bible does not increase the plausibility of its own supernatural events just because it might contain some historical events.

Unless we apply special pleading.

Don't you think?

Ciao

- viole

I think you are right on that. However, as I replied to another poster, I am not saying that the Iliad and the Bible are at the same level. The supernatural events contained in the Bible are the main message of the Bible. I believe in all of them.

 

[Noa]

To the original question, no, science cannot disprove the existence of a god.

 

[Timothy Bryce]

God is too subjective a concept to necessarily be scientifically proven or disproven.

However, the burden isn't on the scientific method to disprove god as it is in no way indicated by evidence. If some phenomenon came about that warranted a scientific explanation which happened to indicate the possibility of some form of god, it would be a different story; so far, there is no evidence that suggested it in the first place beyond hearsay and conjecture. Until there is, every concept of god is restrained to concerns of a more abstract philosophical nature, metaphor/analogies and incoherent irrationality - this, logically, means that it inherently eludes science altogether.

Short answer: no, but it's not science's problem lol.

 

[Crypto2015]

God is too subjective a concept to necessarily be scientifically proven or disproven.

However, the burden isn't on the scientific method to disprove god as it is in no way indicated by evidence. If some phenomenon came about that warranted a scientific explanation which happened to indicate the possibility of some form of god, it would be a different story; so far, there is no evidence that suggested it in the first place beyond hearsay and conjecture. Until there is, every concept of god is restrained to concerns of a more abstract philosophical nature, metaphor/analogies and incoherent irrationality - this, logically, means that it inherently eludes science altogether.

Short answer: no, but it's not science's problem lol.

On the contrary, there are numerous reasons and significant evidence to believe that God exists. Go through my latests post to find some of these. Science cannot disprove the existence of God not because there is no reason or evidence for God, but because science has its limitations. Science will never have anything to say about metaphysics, philosophy, ethics, and morality. All of these things are outside the province of science, as stated by the best philosophers of science.

 

[Noa]

I fail to see how proof or disproof is a problem at all. For either side. I have never understood it.

 

[Timothy Bryce]

On the contrary, there are numerous reasons and significant evidence to believe that God exists. Go through my latests post to find some of these. Science cannot disprove the existence of God not because there is no reason or evidence for God, but because science has its limitations. Science will never have anything to say about metaphysics, philosophy, ethics, and morality. All of these things are outside the province of science, as stated by the best philosophers of science.

That's essentially what I said.

 

[Timothy Bryce]

On the contrary, there are numerous reasons and significant evidence to believe that God exists. Go through my latests post to find some of these. Science cannot disprove the existence of God not because there is no reason or evidence for God, but because science has its limitations. Science will never have anything to say about metaphysics, philosophy, ethics, and morality. All of these things are outside the province of science, as stated by the best philosophers of science.

Nothing beyond hearsay, conjecture and abstract non-scientific conceptions.

 

[Crypto2015]

Nothing beyond hearsay, conjecture and abstract non-scientific conceptions.

You are wrong. See some of my latest posts.

 

[Timothy Bryce]

You are wrong. See some of my latest posts.

What? The George Ellis quote? It's still a subjective, abstract, non-scientific conception of god predicated on conjecture.

 

[Crypto2015]

What? The George Ellis quote? It's still a subjective, abstract, non-scientific conception of god predicated on conjecture.

A morality-based reason is that without God, there are no moral absolutes. However, we know that there are moral absolutes: some things are absolutely wrong and we know it. Therefore, God must necessarily exist. This doesn't prove God's existence, but it makes faith much more reasonable than disbelieve. A historical reason is the ton of evidence supporting Jesus' resurrection, as well as the fact that the prophecies contained in the Jewish scriptures closely match the events and teachings of Jesus. Another reason is the fact that the book of Daniel predicts the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple with great accuracy. Another reason is that God coming to the Earth to pay for our sins is the most moving story ever and gives meaning and purpose to our lives. Again, this last reason does not prove that God exists, but it makes believing in Him much more reasonable than not believing in him, since in a universe without God, life has no purpose and no meaning. In addition, the fact that the universe cannot be infinite (because infinity is just a concept and has no real existence) tells us that the universe must have had a beginning. Since nothing comes out of nothing, the cause that originated the universe must be outside of the universe (i.e., outside of time and space). For such an atemporal cause to have caused a temporal consequence (the universe), the cause must be personal (i.e., a being) because impersonal atemporal causes can only originate atemporal consequences. There are many other reasons that either prove the existence of God or make believing in God much more reasonable than not believing in God.

 

[Timothy Bryce]

A morality-based reason is that without God, there are no moral absolutes. However, we know that there are moral absolutes: some things are absolutely wrong and we know it. Therefore, God must necessarily exist. This doesn't prove God's existence, but it makes faith much more reasonable than disbelieve. A historical reason is the ton of evidence supporting Jesus' resurrection, as well as the fact that the prophecies contained in the Jewish scriptures closely match the events and teachings of Jesus. Another reason is the fact that the book of Daniel predicts the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple with great accuracy. Another reason is that God coming to the Earth to pay for our sins is the most moving story ever and gives meaning and purpose to our lives. Again, this last reason does not prove that God exists, but it makes believing in Him much more reasonable than not believing in him, since in a universe without God, life has no purpose and no meaning. In addition, the fact that the universe cannot be infinite (because infinity is just a concept and has no real existence) tells us that the universe must have had a beginning. Since nothing comes out of nothing, the cause that originated the universe must be outside of the universe (i.e., outside of time and space). For such an atemporal cause to have caused a temporal consequence (the universe), the cause must be personal (i.e., a being) because impersonal atemporal causes can only originate atemporal consequences. There are many other reasons that either prove the existence of God or make believing in God much more reasonable than not believing in God.

Everything you said still presupposes subjective conceptions of "god" and the nature of morality and ventures dangerously close to cyclical logic. This seems to be a common theme amongst theistic apologists: evading the burden of evidence which is inherently their own.

 

[Iti oj]

A morality-based reason is that without God, there are no moral absolutes. However, we know that there are moral absolutes: some things are absolutely wrong and we know it. Therefore, God must necessarily exist. .

I'm not sure I agree or that it is true. Even if it was we could argue that genetics plays a roll in ethics.

 

[Iti oj]

the illogicalness of God sacrificed himself/his son to save us from his self, is not a good reason to accept God imo.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, truth. But clearly annoying for a non-believer.

Don't flatter yourself. You don't rate annoyance.

Your response would be disappointing if I thought you had some sort of real knowledge that you were refusing to share, but you've given me no reason to think this is the case.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

To the original question, no, science cannot disprove the existence of a god.

So the existence or non-existence of gods makes absolutely no measurable difference to any part of the universe that we can observe? That's the implication of your position.

 

[Crypto2015]

Everything you said still presupposes subjective conceptions of "god" and the nature of morality and ventures dangerously close to cyclical logic. This seems to be a common theme amongst theistic apologists: evading the burden of evidence which is inherently their own.

The burden of proof is not inherently on the theist because we are not talking about a spaghetti monster here, but about an entity, God, that has been of crucial cultural importance for virtually all cultures at all times. Atheists are a cultural and an intellectual rarity. So, it seems to me that atheists, as the cultural minority they are, should provide some very tangible evidence for the non-existence of a being that has been believed in by most of humanity throughout the history of our species.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

A morality-based reason is that without God, there are no moral absolutes. However, we know that there are moral absolutes: some things are absolutely wrong and we know it. Therefore, God must necessarily exist. This doesn't prove God's existence, but it makes faith much more reasonable than disbelieve. A historical reason is the ton of evidence supporting Jesus' resurrection, as well as the fact that the prophecies contained in the Jewish scriptures closely match the events and teachings of Jesus. Another reason is the fact that the book of Daniel predicts the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple with great accuracy. Another reason is that God coming to the Earth to pay for our sins is the most moving story ever and gives meaning and purpose to our lives. Again, this last reason does not prove that God exists, but it makes believing in Him much more reasonable than not believing in him, since in a universe without God, life has no purpose and no meaning. In addition, the fact that the universe cannot be infinite (because infinity is just a concept and has no real existence) tells us that the universe must have had a beginning. Since nothing comes out of nothing, the cause that originated the universe must be outside of the universe (i.e., outside of time and space). For such an atemporal cause to have caused a temporal consequence (the universe), the cause must be personal (i.e., a being) because impersonal atemporal causes can only originate atemporal consequences. There are many other reasons that either prove the existence of God or make believing in God much more reasonable than not believing in God.

First you set out to complain about hight calibre scientists saying they can prove God does not exist, complaining that it is not a scientific question. Then you proceed to prove God exists with philosophical argument. If one is forced by science to a conclusion either way, or philosophy, it is all the same forcing, and does not constitute faith, which faith requires freedom. It is hypocritical for you to complain about science proving, when you are philosophically proving.

It is very obvious that Dawkins, Coyne etc. have a problem with faith in general, not just faith in God. The faith element must be made explicit and demonstrated as valid, while you really just assume, and take for granted, the faith element.

 

[Crypto2015]

the illogicalness of God sacrificed himself/his son to save us from his self, is not a good reason to accept God imo.

This is a just dishonest misrepresentation of Christianity that demonstrates that atheists are either not honest enough to argue against real Christianity (because they know that they stand no chance against it) or too ignorant to properly describe their opponent's beliefs. The truth is that God came to this earth to pay for our sins because God is both just and merciful. Since He is just, he had to punish our sins. Since He is merciful, he wanted to save us in spite of our sins. That's why he decided to pay for our sins with his own suffering, satisfying in this way both his justice and his mercifulness.