Can science disprove the existence of God?

[Thief]

when it comes to God.....there will be no proof

 

[outhouse]

when it comes to God.....there will be no proof

Where there is no proof, often times nothing exist outside imagination.


In this case deities have all had mythological origins. So we already know there will be no proof of something that does not exist and has never had any evidence to support itself as existing.


There is no evidence in our lives

There is no evidence in nature.

There is no evidence in history.

There is no evidence anywhere at any time.

Now we do possess tons of evidence, the concept is factual evolved mythology created by ancient men who did not know where rains and lightning and thunder came from.

 

[psychoslice]

How do you disprove something that doesn't exist ?.

 

[LuisDantas]

Far too often, when the matter of whether god can be "disproven" is brought up we end up facing a particularly tired non-argument.

First of all, Burden of Proof does matter

God is not complete enough an idea for it to even make sense to want to prove, or even evidence, its existence. One might perhaps perceive the impossibility of "disproving" its existence as some sort of refuge against rational refutation, but that is a rather poor refuge for one to choose. So poor, in fact, as to be meaningless at the very least, quite possibly offensive to theism even.

Why so? Because of course, it is not possible to disprove God's existence. Unfortunately for apologists, that is so for many of the same reasons it is not possible to disprove Russell's Teapot, although I personally favor the claim that I am the rightful inheritor of the throne of Lower Envlavia. Actually, make that the claim that I am the space alien werewolf rightful ruler of Lower Envlavia. Might as well turn up the absurdity meter up.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Russell's_Teapot


Then again, one should consider that far as concepts go, "God" is a rather troubled one, since it is so poorly defined (and intentionally so), to the point that its vagueness is one of its most useful qualities. When people agree that they both believe in God's existence, they are not truly saying anything at all informative about what they believe in, except perhaps that they are not very demanding when it comes to evidence for that in which they believe.

People often can and do have meaningful understandings of "God", and often enough they even hold largely compatible conceptions of same, largely because they were exposed to similar theological teachings and make similar assumptions. On the other hand, it is a very common occurrence for people to talk about "God" without clarifying what they mean by that, thereby creating an illusion of agreement where there may well be none.

 

[Thief]

saying you don't know is a stance of ignorance.

I am willing to say I am sure.
God does exist.
faith requires no proving

 

[Thief]

Where there is no proof, often times nothing exist outside imagination.


In this case deities have all had mythological origins. So we already know there will be no proof of something that does not exist and has never had any evidence to support itself as existing.


There is no evidence in our lives

There is no evidence in nature.

There is no evidence in history.

There is no evidence anywhere at any time.

Now we do possess tons of evidence, the concept is factual evolved mythology created by ancient men who did not know where rains and lightning and thunder came from.

you're looking in al the wrong places.
just sit still and think about it.
that's all you can do.

and imagination is the problem solving part of your mind.
you have no answers?.....you might not have what it takes to form the line of thought.

 

[outhouse]

you have no answers?.....

I have plenty

I just don't use my own created mythology to explain credible nature.

You just proselytize your own made up theology with no support from anyone, because you have no support

 

[gnostic]

I am willing to say I am sure.
God does exist.
faith requires no proving

Of course, faith required "no proof" and "no evidences", otherwise they wouldn't be called "faith".

This "faith" is just someone's personal opinion on things they don't understand, and yet they are willing to believe what they want to believe despite all contrary to the truth. Religious "faith" is simply another word for someone who believe in SUPERSTITION.

And superstition is the based on ignorance and fear.

Faith really has nothing to do with the truth, because faith is just one asserting one's personal opinion with no real justification and no mean of proving other than that person strongly believe in something they cannot see or feel, and cannot possibly understand.

Have you ever considered that one's faith might be false or wrong, or in the case of believing in "god" or in "spirit", FAR-FETCHED?

 

[prometheus11]

No, science does not speculate on what cannot be measured or is not indicated by measurement. Science cannot "disprove" that which cannot be demonstrated as more than figment of imagination.

 

[prometheus11]

saying you don't know is a stance of ignorance.

I am willing to say I am sure.
God does exist.
faith requires no proving

That's what Muslims tell me.

 

[bnabernard]

Does nothing exist

bernard (hug)

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I have done an experiment and proved that God doesn't exist. So there.

 

[bnabernard]

So you asked to borrow a dollar and got no reply, I don't exist in some circumstances.

bernard (hug)

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

God can not be proven or disproved unless we can define God. I suppose a standard definition of God will be required before proof can be expected. However If I can use the common idea of what God is, ie eternal, all knowing etc, I will offer the following; Can science disprove, or prove self awareness? (No). God is not a 'tangible' object in most cases, and I am casually referencing the Christian view of God. Ordinarily God presents as a vision, a dream, disembodied voice etc. (again a standard definition of God, even a christian God eludes me!).

When I say God is not tangible I mean God is sometimes like a dream. Science can determine a brain is in a dream state but not what the brain is dreaming, or even how dreams are created. So, IMO, 'science' can not prove the existence of God. That may change in the future, as science and God seem to be becoming more compatible.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

you're looking in al the wrong places.
just sit still and think about it.
that's all you can do.

and imagination is the problem solving part of your mind.
you have no answers?.....you might not have what it takes to form the line of thought.

Thief, have you noticed many atheists dont accept the same kind of evidence for the existence of God that can be presented in court to prove guilt or innocence of even a capital crime?

 

[Jumi]

Thief, have you noticed many atheists dont accept the same kind of evidence for the existence of God that can be presented in court to prove guilt or innocence of even a capital crime?

Which gods do you feel are proven to this level of accuracy and do you feel the condemned may be innocent?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Thief, have you noticed many atheists dont accept the same kind of evidence for the existence of God that can be presented in court to prove guilt or innocence of even a capital crime?

I think you will find that the burden of proof in criminal cases is pretty high.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

That may change in the future, as science and God seem to be becoming more compatible.

Really? It looks to me more like the gaps for God are progressively shrinking.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

God, cre

God can not be proven or disproved unless we can define God. I suppose a standard definition of God will be required before proof can be expected. However If I can use the common idea of what God is, ie eternal, all knowing etc, I will offer the following; Can science disprove, or prove self awareness? (No). God is not a 'tangible' object in most cases, and I am casually referencing the Christian view of God. Ordinarily God presents as a vision, a dream, disembodied voice etc. (again a standard definition of God, even a christian God eludes me!).

When I say God is not tangible I mean God is sometimes like a dream. Science can determine a brain is in a dream state but not what the brain is dreaming, or even how dreams are created. So, IMO, 'science' can not prove the existence of God. That may change in the future, as science and God seem to be becoming more compatible.

If we define God as creator of the universe, then yes- a creator God can be disproven by showing the universe was never created- which is exactly what atheists have tried to do for a century, with eternal, static, steady state, big crunch theories etc.

i.e. God is perfectly falsifiable in this sense, but nobody has been able to do it.

Similarly if we expand the common definition of God the creator, as creating the universe specifically for the benefit of humanity- , this also could have been falsified if the galaxy had turned out to be teaming with sentient life

So in this sense God is far more scientifically falsifiable, testable, and validated than any atheist theory so far

 

[Rick O'Shez]

If we define God as creator of the universe, then yes- a creator God can be disproven by showing the universe was never created- which is exactly what atheists have tried to do for a century, with eternal, static, steady state, big crunch theories etc.

A creator God will only be dis-proven when science eventually discovers the mechanism behind the big bang. It's currently a gap that God can occupy. Another gap that God can currently occupy is the idea that the universe was created just for humans, I'm sure that gap will be closed eventually though.