Can science disprove the existence of God?

[Rick O'Shez]

You see what a time waster you are....

I think you're the one wasting your time. You keep preaching but nobody is taking you seriously.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I think you're the one wasting your time. You keep preaching but nobody is taking you seriously.

You are....haha...please start stopping taking me seriously....

 

[psychoslice]

Well what is there to disprove, there is no god and there is no reason to try to disprove it, its just a stupid question that is made by a stupid person.

 

[paarsurrey]

They put too much load on science, it will crack its backbone, the humble mule and the inhuman driver. Right?
Regards

 

[gnostic]

They put too much load on science, it will crack its backbone, the humble mule and the inhuman driver. Right?
Regards

Wrong.

Science has no backbone for it to "crack".

People have backbones, and they may break their back or neck.

Scientists are hiumans, and can make mistakes, but that's why you don't just rely on scientists' words alone.

Science is reliant on both maths (maths are the logical proofs) and empirical (and verifiable) evidences, together.

If the maths and evidences support the explanations and predictions, then those theories and hypotheses are supported by science. If they support explanations, then they are debunked and discarded; there are no need to keep refuted hypothesis or obsolete theory. Science goes wherever there are conclusive or reliable evidences, and not based on faith or on make-believes.

Religion are belief-based and faith-based, which required no evidences and proofs (maths and logic), so it has no scientific values.

If I want to study science, like biology or physics, then I would use or do the research with scientific materials, science textbooks or journals, and not superstitious literature like the Qur'an or the Bible.

The only backbones that would crack are stupid people, like Michael Behe and Zakir Naik, who tried to mix religions with science, and get pseudoscience.

Just because you, yourself, don't understand the science, and never were educated in science, don't mean you can speak for science.

 

[leibowde84]

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?

Can you provide an example to discuss? Of evidence that atheists refuse to consider? Is it verifiable in any way? If testimony, is the speaker available for investigation, or is it merely hearsay? If hearsay, how many levels? Is it anacceptable class of hearsay? If so, can you present that argument? Are there character witnesses available to question and investigate for all 1st person testimony? Direct evidence of good character available?

Honestly interested to hear your answers.

 

[Robert Landbeck]

While 'high calibre' scientists are trying to use the scientific method as an arguement to disprove existence of God, it appears as if someone has used, if not the method but the model of scrutiny that is part of the method, to prove just the opposite! This is what I'm studying carefully at the moment. "the first wholly new interpretation for two thousand years of the moral teachings of Christ has been published. Radically different from anything else we know of from theology or history, this new teaching is predicated upon the 'promise' of a precise, predefined, predictable and repeatable experience of transcendent omnipotence and called 'the first Resurrection' in the sense that the Resurrection of Jesus was intended to demonstrate Gods' willingness to reveal Himself and intervene directly into the natural world for those obedient to His Command, paving the way for access to the power of divine Will and ultimate proof as the justification of faith."

So like it or no, and many won't, a new religious teaching, a wisdom not of human intellectual origin, empirical, transcendent, testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria of evidence based causation and definitive proof now exists. Nothing short of an intellectual, moral and religious/spiritual revolution may be getting under way. To test or not to test, that is the question? More info at http://www.energon.org.uk

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.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

While 'high calibre' scientists are trying to use the scientific method as an arguement to disprove existence of God, it appears as if someone has used, if not the method but the model of scrutiny that is part of the method, to prove just the opposite! This is what I'm studying carefully at the moment. "the first wholly new interpretation for two thousand years of the moral teachings of Christ has been published. Radically different from anything else we know of from theology or history, this new teaching is predicated upon the 'promise' of a precise, predefined, predictable and repeatable experience of transcendent omnipotence and called 'the first Resurrection' in the sense that the Resurrection of Jesus was intended to demonstrate Gods' willingness to reveal Himself and intervene directly into the natural world for those obedient to His Command, paving the way for access to the power of divine Will and ultimate proof as the justification of faith."

So like it or no, and many won't, a new religious teaching, a wisdom not of human intellectual origin, empirical, transcendent, testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria of evidence based causation and definitive proof now exists. Nothing short of an intellectual, moral and religious/spiritual revolution may be getting under way. To test or not to test, that is the question? More info at http://www.energon.org.uk

I read some but stopped when I got the impression that this was about bringing peace in Earth....Jesus prophesized a future Armageddon....and the preconditions appear to be coming to fruition....rather than peace on Earth, it was to be wars and a period the likes of which the earth has never seen...and if this time is not cut short...there would be no human survivors...

 

[SkepticThinker]

I read some but stopped when I got the impression that this was about bringing peace in Earth....Jesus prophesized a future Armageddon....and the preconditions appear to be coming to fruition....rather than peace on Earth, it was to be wars and a period the likes of which the earth has never seen...and if this time is not cut short...there would be no human survivors...

Couldn't you pretty much say that any just about any point in history though? There have always been terrible wars, as long as humans have been around.

I mean, it's not like it's a very remarkable revelation or something.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Couldn't you pretty much say that any just about any point in history though? There have always been terrible wars, as long as humans have been around.

I mean, it's not like it's a very remarkable revelation or something.

True....except instead of spears, guns, and V2 rockets....there are now a proliferation of nuclear tipped ICBM missiles....it's a whole new ball game..

 

[bnabernard]

It all begs the question regarding 'honesty' and the effects of dishonesty.

bernard (hug)

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Well what is there to disprove, there is no god and there is no reason to try to disprove it, .......

Huh? Atheism is a religion in that it adheres to the dogmatic view that there is No God. Since that can Not be proven it is the exercise of faith in the non-existence of God.
Is absence of evidence really evidence of absence ?_________

 

[Jabar]

Nope.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I read some but stopped when I got the impression that this was about bringing peace in Earth....Jesus prophesized a future Armageddon....and the preconditions appear to be coming to fruition....rather than peace on Earth, it was to be wars and a period the likes of which the earth has never seen...and if this time is not cut short...there would be no human survivors...

Looking past Armageddon - Revelation 19:11; Revelation 19:14-16; Isaiah 11:3-4 - there will Not only be Peace on Earth among people of goodwill, but there will be healing for Earth's nations according to Revelation 22:2. Jesus will fulfill God's promise to father Abraham - Genesis 12:3; Genesis 22:18 - that ALL families and ALL nations of Earth will be blessed.
Blessed with the benefits of healing because mankind will see the return of the Genesis ' tree of life ' for Earth's nations - Revelation 22:2

Yes, we are at the time of Luke 21:11 which is leading up to the ' final signal', so to speak, of 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 when ' they ' ( powers that be ) will be saying, Peace and Security as a precursor to the coming great tribulation of Revelation 7:14. God's people can come through that great tribulation - Isaiah 26:20 - and continue living on Earth right into the start of Jesus' coming millennium-long day of governing over Earth in righteousness. Only the wicked will be destroyed - Psalms 92:7; Jeremiah 25:31-33

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Looking past Armageddon - Revelation 19:11; Revelation 19:14-16; Isaiah 11:3-4 - there will Not only be Peace on Earth among people of goodwill, but there will be healing for Earth's nations according to Revelation 22:2. Jesus will fulfill God's promise to father Abraham - Genesis 12:3; Genesis 22:18 - that ALL families and ALL nations of Earth will be blessed.
Blessed with the benefits of healing because mankind will see the return of the Genesis ' tree of life ' for Earth's nations - Revelation 22:2

Yes, we are at the time of Luke 21:11 which is leading up to the ' final signal', so to speak, of 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 when ' they ' ( powers that be ) will be saying, Peace and Security as a precursor to the coming great tribulation of Revelation 7:14. God's people can come through that great tribulation - Isaiah 26:20 - and continue living on Earth right into the start of Jesus' coming millennium-long day of governing over Earth in righteousness. Only the wicked will be destroyed - Psalms 92:7; Jeremiah 25:31-33

Sure...but Armageddon first.....

 

[Milton Platt]

Huh? Atheism is a religion in that it adheres to the dogmatic view that there is No God. Since that can Not be proven it is the exercise of faith in the non-existence of God.
Is absence of evidence really evidence of absence ?_________

Atheism is the disbelief in a god, not the belief that there is no god. It is not a belief, it is a lack of belief. You do not need dogma to not believe in something. It is a response to the theistic proposition. Theists say there is a god, atheists look at the evidence they put forth and say it is insufficient to support the premise.

Are you going to say that everything you do not believe in is a religion? Is not believing in fairies a religion? Is not believing the moon is made of green cheese a religion? You only believe in one god, probably....but by your standards you are actually a polytheist because you do not believe in all the other gods. Are you practicing a sepearate religion everytime you do not believe in another god???

Atheism is to theism as bald is to hair color, or off is to a TV channel. Why is that so hard to understand?


Furthermore, you cannot put all atheists in one bucket anymore than you can put all theists in one bucket. The only thing common to all atheists is that they have no belief in gods.there is virtually nothing else that uniformly defines atheism.

 

[ak.yonathan]

I don't think that anything is false by definition, even if it is illogical. Parallel straight lines meet at some point in non-Euclidean geometry.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The only thing common to all atheists is that they have no belief in gods.there is virtually nothing else that uniformly defines atheism.

What do you understand the concept God to represent that you do not believe in? I mean it does not make any sense to say you disbelieve in a concept of which you do not know what the concept is meant to represent...

 

[Thief]

Huh? Atheism is a religion in that it adheres to the dogmatic view that there is No God. Since that can Not be proven it is the exercise of faith in the non-existence of God.
Is absence of evidence really evidence of absence ?_________

well played...
and should be posted in every thread having a nonbeliever participating

 

[Jumi]

well played...
and should be posted in every thread having a nonbeliever participating

It's wrong though.