Can science disprove the existence of God?

[Ben Dhyan]

If that is your definition of omnipresent, then God is not omnipresent. God doesn't live in space, He doesn't reside next to atoms and between stars and galaxies.

God is not a substance.

But if you take omnipresent to mean that God's power and authority is everywhere, in the universe and beyond it, then yes, He is omnipresent.

According to the Christian bible...God is spirit...spirit is divine substance...the power of God is exercised through spirit...the divine spirit is omnipresent...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If God actually existed, why would the question of his existence be outside the realm of science?

You are missing the point that something can exist that is outside this observable, testable universe. If you limit your perspective to this universe, everything in it, then you're not going to get anywhere as far as God is concerned.

This is why God can only be talked about through philosophy and logical argument, not through science, not through empiricism. God is a philosophical concept, not a scientific subject. Not even close.

My only limitation is to the testable, because this is the limitation on justifiable knowledge. If you make claims but can't test whether they're true or false, then you're really just making stuff up.

Anything with observable effects is potentially within the scope of science. If God has no observable effects - i.e. if God's existence is indistinguishable from God's existence - how could belief in God ever be justified?

God doesn't affect this universe.

First off: I thought you were a Muslim, no? If God doesn't affect this universe, then any effect we in the universe - including the Qur'an,
among other things - did not come from God. Effectively, what you're saying here is that every revealed religion and every religion with a miracle claim is necessarily false. Do you agree? Even I as an atheist don't go that far.

Also, you contradict yourself in your next sentence. What you describe here - if true - would be a physical effect of God on the universe:

In His perspective, the universe was created in a certain way following a determined set of laws decreed by Him.

And we creatures who have consciousness, are simply observing these laws being carried out through the straight flow of time. The only difference is that our souls, or spiritual bodies, can alter the destiny of the universe as a whole, because firstly, our spiritual bodies are not from this world, and second, our spiritual bodies have free will.

So everything else around us is obeying the laws which cannot be broken, and so are our physical bodies. But our spiritual bodies, our souls, are not. Our true selves come from outside the universe, which is why we are able to do whatever we please. Our entire lives are made up by continuous actions determined by our selves, and every single action is recorded and preserved, and it leaves its print on the universe.

I don't suppose you have any justification for this bag of claims either, do you?

Science can confirm this through time.

IOW, even though you admit you have no justification for any of this now, you hope that one day you'll have some?

I get that you disagree with the idea that God has observable effects. This just leaves you on the other horn of the dilemma, though: if no observation we can make can demonstrate God, then all our observations are consistent with a godless universe. So where's your justification for God?

 

[gnostic]

IOW, even though you admit you have no justification for any of this now, you hope that one day you'll have some?

That's what I could call -- "wishful thinking".

Wishes are suppositions and superstitious belief.

If wishes were true, then one day, cows could sprout wings and fly...I supposed that what they would call that God-awful drinks "Red Bull".

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If wishes were true, then one day, cows could sprout wings and fly...I supposed that what they would call that God-awful drinks "Red Bull".

Why could cows sprout wings if wishes were true? And I don't get the point of God-awful drinks....what has "Red Bull" got to do with wishes or cows sprouting wings?

Btw Jimmie, wishes are true...that wished for may not come true...but they are real conceptualizations.

 

[Palehorse]

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.

If Nanotechnology is Sin. Sin would make the person disprove the existence of GOD.

 

[psychoslice]

Science doesn't need to prove there is no god, science proves what is true and measurable, god falls away by its own accord.

 

[OurCreed]

My only limitation is to the testable, because this is the limitation on justifiable knowledge. If you make claims but can't test whether they're true or false, then you're really just making stuff up.

First off: I thought you were a Muslim, no? If God doesn't affect this universe, then any effect we in the universe - including the Qur'an,
among other things - did not come from God. Effectively, what you're saying here is that every revealed religion and every religion with a miracle claim is necessarily false. Do you agree? Even I as an atheist don't go that far.

Also, you contradict yourself in your next sentence. What you describe here - if true - would be a physical effect of God on the universe:





I don't suppose you have any justification for this bag of claims either, do you?


IOW, even though you admit you have no justification for any of this now, you hope that one day you'll have some?

I get that you disagree with the idea that God has observable effects. This just leaves you on the other horn of the dilemma, though: if no observation we can make can demonstrate God, then all our observations are consistent with a godless universe. So where's your justification for God?

My only limitation is to the testable, because this is the limitation on justifiable knowledge. If you make claims but can't test whether they're true or false, then you're really just making stuff up.

Then philosophy is something you should never bother with then. Consider it dead. But for the rest of us, it is a crucial element of study to uncover truth. You can limit yourself to the universe all you want, just know that you will never understand anything beyond that, nor will you get a clear understanding of why things are the way they are, or why everything is the way it is.

First off: I thought you were a Muslim, no? If God doesn't affect this universe, then any effect we in the universe - including the Qur'an,
among other things - did not come from God. Effectively, what you're saying here is that every revealed religion and every religion with a miracle claim is necessarily false. Do you agree? Even I as an atheist don't go that far.

The revelation of the Qur'an and certain acts in the earth which we call miracles were all decreed by God before He even created the universe. Yes, I consider myself a Muslim (submitter).

Also, you contradict yourself in your next sentence. What you describe here - if true - would be a physical effect of God on the universe:

This is what I said, "In His perspective, the universe was created in a certain way following a determined set of laws decreed by Him."

Where is the contradiction? I am describing to you that God has created the entire universe and decreed/determined certain laws. So everything that happened, happens, or will happen, it was all determined by Him beforehand. This doesn't mean He's directly affecting it, as once the universe is created, He decides to affect it and change it up some here and some things there. No, that's not what happens. Since God is all-knowing, He knew the beginning and the end.

I don't suppose you have any justification for this bag of claims either, do you?

The justification for all of these matters is through God and understanding God is through philosophy, reason, and revelation. But since you reject the base, there really is nothing more I can say. When you reject thinking outside the box, you have bigger problems to worry about than some god. And the box here is the universe (not literally).

I get that you disagree with the idea that God has observable effects. This just leaves you on the other horn of the dilemma, though: if no observation we can make can demonstrate God, then all our observations are consistent with a godless universe. So where's your justification for God?

You are under the impression that God is inside the universe and is therefore susceptible to scientific study and empirical analysis. How can I even converse with you when you don't even have the fundamentals figured out yet?

You're arguing against a philosophical concept, while rejecting philosophy!

 

[URAVIP2ME]

According to the Christian bible...God is spirit...spirit is divine substance...the power of God is exercised through spirit...the divine spirit is omnipresent...

Omnipresent, or does God send His spirit as He chooses according to Psalms 104:30 ?

God's spirit is ' neuter ' ( it ) - Numbers 11:17; Numbers 11:25.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Omnipresent, or does God send His spirit as He chooses according to Psalms 104:30 ?

God's spirit is ' neuter ' ( it ) - Numbers 11:17; Numbers 11:25.

Omnipresent in my understanding....the spirit that is sent forth to create from the clay does not leave a vacuum behind it...all spiritual beings of the celestial hierarchy have their being in the divine spirit of God. Iow, there is universal spirit which is God, and there are the celestial hierarchical holarchy which are aspects of God's manifestation...all are spirit...

 

[ArtieE]

You are under the impression that God is inside the universe and is therefore susceptible to scientific study and empirical analysis.

If God isn't actually inside the universe how could he manage to hand out commandments and show Moses his backparts as he does in the Bible?

 

[OurCreed]

If God isn't actually inside the universe how could he manage to hand out commandments and show Moses his backparts as he does in the Bible?

The entire universe was created by God, and God decreed everything to happen at certain times because God knows exactly who will be born, who will do what, who will believe and who will disbelieve, and all that.

So literally every single thing that happens in the universe, it was all pre-determined by God before it all existed. This is the trait for God when He is considered the all-knowing. He knows the beginning and the end of the universe and everything in between. The entire universe is nothing but a mere speck compared to Him and His infinite reign. The time period the universe came into existence was also nothing but a mere speck of a micro-millisecond, and infinitely less than that. You can't even imagine.

Everything was decreed by God to happen beforehand, because He knew everything that will happen. He knew exactly who will pray to Him and what they will pray to Him, and He decides then and there regarding their prayer. Time simply does not exist for God. He does what He pleases, and we see these things happen when they are decreed.

This is why it is very important to understand these concepts of God, because any concept can easily be flawed and would go against the nature of the true concept of God.

 

[ArtieE]

The entire universe was created by God, and God decreed everything to happen at certain times because God knows exactly who will be born, who will do what, who will believe and who will disbelieve, and all that.

The question was: "If God isn't actually inside the universe how could he manage to hand out commandments and show Moses his backparts as he does in the Bible?" Answer the question.

 

[Shad]

Do you agree with Flew's words in post # 615, and if Not why not ?

It is an argument from incredulity in which complexity must mean an IDer. It is a typical argument from theists which is expected since the book the quote was from was written by a Christian not Flew himself. Flew only signed off on the book.

 

[gnostic]

You are under the impression that God is inside the universe and is therefore susceptible to scientific study and empirical analysis. How can I even converse with you when you don't even have the funda

No.

God is not susceptible to scientific or empirical studies, because the belief in God and that any scripture is true, reside solely on blind faith of primitive superstitions.

Science required people to acquired knowledge objectively, by dispensing with preconceptions, such as believe, faith and superstition. But religion required such blind belief, faith and superstition to be pinnacle of their existence.

That's why religion and science don't mix well, because religion require people to ignore evidences in favour of what they believe in...and in this case the superstitious belief in a deity, without verifiable evidences.

That people are still superstitious today, only demonstrate the absurd fear and ignorance still persisted among the theists and believers.

This "God did it" mentality that God created EVERYTHING is nothing more than make-believe or wishful thinking, since you cannot prove it beyond your proclamation of "I believe" is not credible in the least.

It has no more credibility than a child who believe in leprechaun is hoarding gold coins in cauldron on the other side of the rainbow.

The entire universe was created by God, and God decreed everything to happen at certain times because God knows exactly who will be born, who will do what, who will believe and who will disbelieve, and all that.

If you truly believe that God created everything, then you are contradicting yourself if you deny that God is not ultimately responsible for creating evil. If you believe in God is everything and created everything then he is also the source for all evil.

You can't say that he created everything, and only believe in that he created good, without creating evil. Either God created everything, including evil, or otherwise he didn't create everything.

This is why abrahamic religions are bull####, because the religions they call people believe and follow is a contrdiction to their own set of belief, and they want people to follow it on blind faith alone.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

This "God did it" mentality that God created EVERYTHING is nothing more than make-believe or wishful thinking, since you cannot prove it beyond your proclamation of "I believe" is not credible in the least.

As a matter of interest.....what do you think was the cause of the universe?

 

[gnostic]

As a matter of interest.....what do you think was the cause of the universe?

I think I have already told you before, ben.

I DON'T KNOW!!!!

How many times must I say this before you can grasp the concept of uncertainty?

All I know that the universe wasn't created by some supreme beings. That's based on wishful thinking of the believers, because I have read of people believing this or that god was responsible for creation in different religions from different cultures or different civilisations. That's superstitions, not verifiable knowledge.

Seriously, why must there be a "cause" in everything that have anthropomorphic traits like a creator with consciousness, emotions and all?

You really don't know how silly it sounds to me, that people still use fear and ignorance to perpetrate this primitive myth of creator-creation.

You are still basing this ultimate or supreme consciousness on blind faith (which I would call make-believe wishful thinking, or more simply as superstition).

The bottom line is this, ben. No one knows. Not me. Not you. Not any of scientist and not any of the so-called priests, clergies or prophets. The problem with the religious believers is that they relying solely on blind faith or superstitions in what they believe in, without single shred of evidences to support their collective belief or (from the fanatics, their) delusion.

Science has learn far more than any one religion ever did about this Earth, this solar system, this galaxy and this universe, AND YET, scientists still don't know it all. But you are forgetting one thing, science has only just began exploring outside the boundary of this Earth.

Sure, everything we know of astronomy, astrophysics and cosmology are still uncertain in this area or that, and scientists still speculate and make mistakes, but that's part of the process of science. They learn, they make mistakes, and they learn from their mistakes.

The beauty of science is that the learning process is never ending. We learn incrementally, uncovering one mystery after another, we learn through trial-and-error, and we don't rely solely on logic; we required evidences that can be tested and verified, and not rely on superstitious preconception.

And that's where religions failed; they rely on blind faith, not on evidences. And whenever there is error in what people believe in, instead of learning from their error, they make some half-baked fallacious excuses to cover the holes that keep appearing.

Science allow for progress in knowledge, but religious people fall into the trap of dogma and superstitions, still believing in angels and demons or jinns, and some non-existing deities.

People hide behind prayers and false belief in creator and creation, hoping to make their problems go away, and religions, like Christianity and Islam, and other religions that believers in afterlife, are still using superstitions as crutch for their fear and insecurity (eg fear of death, and wanting to live forever).

And the funniest thing is that one of those myths (Epic of Gilgamesh) from dead ancient Akkadian-Babylonian religion have give me insight that's far more profound perspective than that of any living religions of today.

Gilgamesh, the strongest man to ever live, fear death after his friend's passing, wandered the Earth, seeking eternal life. He met Utnapishtim (also known as Akkadian Atrahasis and Sumerian Ziusudra), who told Gilgamesh that he can't live forever, but gave herb that will restore his youth, health and vigour, and give him a long life. But this herb was devoured by a snake, as he bathed. Only then, did it hit Gilgamesh that he cannot be immortal like the gods, that he shouldn't fear death that he forget to live. Only then, did Gilgamesh came to term with his mortality and he finally found peace for himself.

That's myth, superstitious as it may be, is far more profound than false promise of heaven/paradise promised by Jesus and Muhammad, even more profound than Buddhist unreachable transcendent consciousness or Nirvana.

Anyway, I don't want to repeat myself again, the next time you ask me this question, ben.

Just accept that I don't know what cause the universe to be, but I am willing to learn what I can from science, even if they don't have a complete answer when I am gone.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I think I have already told you before, ben.

I DON'T KNOW!!!!

How many times must I say this before you can grasp the concept of uncertainty?

All I know that the universe wasn't created by some supreme beings. That's based on wishful thinking of the believers, because I have read of people believing this or that god was responsible for creation in different religions from different cultures or different civilisations. That's superstitions, not verifiable knowledge.

Seriously, why must there be a "cause" in everything that have anthropomorphic traits like a creator with consciousness, emotions and all?

You really don't know how silly it sounds to me, that people still use fear and ignorance to perpetrate this primitive myth of creator-creation.

You are still basing this ultimate or supreme consciousness on blind faith (which I would call make-believe wishful thinking, or more simply as superstition).

The bottom line is this, ben. No one knows. Not me. Not you. Not any of scientist and not any of the so-called priests, clergies or prophets. The problem with the religious believers is that they relying solely on blind faith or superstitions in what they believe in, without single shred of evidences to support their collective belief or (from the fanatics, their) delusion.

Science has learn far more than any one religion ever did about this Earth, this solar system, this galaxy and this universe, AND YET, scientists still don't know it all. But you are forgetting one thing, science has only just began exploring outside the boundary of this Earth.

Sure, everything we know of astronomy, astrophysics and cosmology are still uncertain in this area or that, and scientists still speculate and make mistakes, but that's part of the process of science. They learn, they make mistakes, and they learn from their mistakes.

The beauty of science is that the learning process is never ending. We learn incrementally, uncovering one mystery after another, we learn through trial-and-error, and we don't rely solely on logic; we required evidences that can be tested and verified, and not rely on superstitious preconception.

And that's where religions failed; they rely on blind faith, not on evidences. And whenever there is error in what people believe in, instead of learning from their error, they make some half-baked fallacious excuses to cover the holes that keep appearing.

Science allow for progress in knowledge, but religious people fall into the trap of dogma and superstitions, still believing in angels and demons or jinns, and some non-existing deities.

People hide behind prayers and false belief in creator and creation, hoping to make their problems go away, and religions, like Christianity and Islam, and other religions that believers in afterlife, are still using superstitions as crutch for their fear and insecurity (eg fear of death, and wanting to live forever).

And the funniest thing is that one of those myths (Epic of Gilgamesh) from dead ancient Akkadian-Babylonian religion have give me insight that's far more profound perspective than that of any living religions of today.

Gilgamesh, the strongest man to ever live, fear death after his friend's passing, wandered the Earth, seeking eternal life. He met Utnapishtim (also known as Akkadian Atrahasis and Sumerian Ziusudra), who told Gilgamesh that he can't live forever, but gave herb that will restore his youth, health and vigour, and give him a long life. But this herb was devoured by a snake, as he bathed. Only then, did it hit Gilgamesh that he cannot be immortal like the gods, that he shouldn't fear death that he forget to live. Only then, did Gilgamesh came to term with his mortality and he finally found peace for himself.

That's myth, superstitious as it may be, is far more profound than false promise of heaven/paradise promised by Jesus and Muhammad, even more profound than Buddhist unreachable transcendent consciousness or Nirvana.

Anyway, I don't want to repeat myself again, the next time you ask me this question, ben.

Just accept that I don't know what cause the universe to be, but I am willing to learn what I can from science, even if they don't have a complete answer when I am gone.

Ok..... so you do not know what caused the universe to be. You may be interested to know that the answer lies in understanding pantheism.... the universe is the manifestation of God... There was no beginning to the universe....God has always manifested....but the manifestation is forever changing. God can't be known via the manifestation for God is one and the manifestation is only a concept to represent the relative lower vibrational aspect of the divine continuum. Now please do not let the use of the term 'God' throw you into a tizz.....it is being used to represent something completely different to your belief of what it means based on your reading of the Abrahamic tradition..

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Science doesn't need to prove there is no god, science proves what is true and measurable, god falls away by its own accord.

#666 .....we've got your number buster...

 

[psychoslice]

#666 .....we've got your number buster...

This is true, and I wouldn't be surprised if these religious nuts think I am the 666 lol.

 

[Segev Moran]

Hi all,
New to this forum and glad I can have a chance to talk and hear different POV of my own.

I am not a religious person, Nor will i ever be... I'm not here to try and convince anyone to neglect his life's beliefs and move over to the "other" side of atheism.
I Do however love a good debate and would love hearing anyone who has a good and valid point to make

So my issue with this statement: Scientist cannot disprove the existence of GOD...
I Seem to hear it every time a debate about science and religion is taking place.

Lets start with the definition of science...

"the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."

And in a nutshell.. To those who are unfamiliar with how science works:

When you come up with a scientific THEORY.. Yes.. it all begins as a theory... Before you pitch it to the masses, or even to your fellow scientist, you have to have a POC. The proof of concept...
If you manage to come up with a theory that answers a lot of questions and solves problems of its subject, then... the goal of science is to try and disprove it...

Once science tries to disprove a theory.. One of three things can happen:

1. The theory cannot be unproven as it fits all the problems of the issue, thus becoming a viable theory that now science will try and prove as much of it as possible.
2. The theory will not be disproved but will be lacking.. thus now science will try to see if the theory actually answers questions that had no answer before ( and of course.. the issues and experiments are all measurable) and by doing so will actually improve the theory or fine tune it until it reaches a point of being an evidence
3. The theory will be disproved or in other words, will have no grounds and ability to really solve the issues that are at hand.

It is important to understand that every scientific discovery we have now days.. started as a theory that slowly evolved and fine tuned until it reached the point of being so strong that it becomes a scientific evidence.

And the most important thing is that science unlike religous is not affraid to be proven wrong!!!
on the contrary.. countless of times a better theory came up and replaced (or enhanced or fine tuned) a previous accenpted theory.

A Short question:

A physics teacher comes in to your son's school... (Lets assume you have a son and he is on the first grade)...
In the first class of physics, the teacher addresses the kids and asks them how the rain is formed?
putting aside some very rare kids that will know the answer....
The assumption will be that no kid in the class will be able to tell the answer to that question ( the scientific answer).

Now imagin the teacher saying:

The answer is GOD! GOD is making the rain fall from the clouds...GOD is using it's mighty powers and makes the rain drops in the clouds and then it makes them fall to the earth.

I assume you will go to that teacher and talk some sense to her? ( i Hope )

Humanity.. is not even in the first grade... we are hardly in kindergarden! and the fact that we don't know the answer to a question, dosent mean the answer is not there and will not be answered at some point.
But to claim that the lack of evidence to disprove something makes it real... is the worst thing to build upon.
If you don't know how the rain is being form in the clouds (and we do know the answer to that specific question btw), dosent mean that a GOD is doing it!

When i think about how religoun came to be.. i always imagine two small kids playing war...
The first says: My wolf will eat you!!!! the second goes.. yeh? well my bear will kill your wolf! and then the first says well i have a giant elephant that will crush your bear)
And it goes on and on until one of the kids says.. well i have the strongest wizard in the world that will spell you.. and the second, wanting to win the battle is left
with no other choice then saying.. well my wizard is the one who created everything! so nothing can beat him!

Thats GOD.. GOD is that wizard that "no one beat" cause he made everything..

So no.. science dosent care if you beleive in GOD!.. atheists don't mind if someone feels good and it helps him to beleive in GOD...
What science is bothered with is the fact that religious people assume that if someone doesn't know the answer.. the answer is GOD!

Not proving something is wrong doesn't make it true! it just makes it a possibility!
If one is to say that GOD is a possibility.,.. no scientist could ever argue differently until he proved this possibility is not possible. But religion not only says that GOD is only a possibility.. it says its the ONLY truth there is.