In what way did I misrepresent what you said?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can science disprove the existence of God?
- Thread starter Crypto2015
- Start date
Take you time. Here is a good introduction. --> http://archive.is/0pC8J
Could be, but I think pure naturalism makes more sense when we deal with evolution. After all, it is called evolution by natural selection, and not by divine tinkering. Its natural and ateleological/unguided character are important parts of the theory, not simple interpretations thereof. I am afraid that evolutionary theists hurt both evolution and the Bible.
And it is not a strong enough objection to stop believing in any God. I think it is strong enough to stop believing in the Christian God.
By the way, do you really think that God's thinking is far beyond our comprehension?
Ciao
- viole
Crypto2015
Active Member
I was thinking about the eternal universe that you mentioned. I read a few articles. Thomas Aquinas actually postulated a version of the cosmological argument that does not depend on a finite universe. Have you heard of the argument from contingency? Just in case you haven't, here it is
"In the scholastic era, Aquinas formulated the "argument from contingency", following Aristotle in claiming that there must be something to explain why the Universe exists. Since the Universe could, under different circumstances, conceivably not exist (contingency), its existence must have a cause – not merely another contingent thing, but something that exists by necessity (something that must exist in order for anything else to exist).[14] In other words, even if the Universe has always existed, it still owes its existence to anUncaused Cause,[15] Aquinas further said: "...and this we understand to be God."[16]
Aquinas's argument from contingency allows for the possibility of a Universe that has no beginning in time. It is a form of argument from universal causation. Aquinas observed that, in nature, there were things with contingent existences. Since it is possible for such things not to exist, there must be some time at which these things did not in fact exist. Thus, according to Aquinas, there must have been a time when nothing existed. If this is so, there would exist nothing that could bring anything into existence. Contingent beings, therefore, are insufficient to account for the existence of contingent beings: there must exist a necessary being whose non-existence is an impossibility, and from which the existence of all contingent beings is derived.
The German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz made a similar argument with his principle of sufficient reason in 1714. "There can be found no fact that is true or existent, or any true proposition," he wrote, "without there being a sufficient reason for its being so and not otherwise, although we cannot know these reasons in most cases." He formulated the cosmological argument succinctly: "Why is there something rather than nothing? The sufficient reason [...] is found in a substance which [...] is a necessary being bearing the reason for its existence within itself."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument
As far as I understand, theistic evolution does not claim that God and natural selection are one and the same or that they replace each other from time to time. I believe that theistic evolution states that evolution was set in motion by God, who knew from the beginning what would be the result of the evolution process. Hence, one he set evolution in movement, God just let evolution follow its course. Perhaps you'll say that under these circumstances postulating the existence of God is unnecessary. I disagree. The laws of nature cannot create nature. In other words, the laws of nature can explain how the universe works, but not why there is a universe in the first place. For that we need something that is beyond the laws of nature.
Yes, I believe that we can understand God only partially. That our intelligence is not sophisticated enough to apprehend the nature of God in its entirety.
Why did you stop believing in God? Was it because of evolution?
Last edited:
I am very confident with the argument from contingency, especially its Leibnizian or modal form. I used to debate this with very smart theists, in the past. I am not even sure I disagree with the conclusions, even thought I sense something smelly about the PSR. However, to go from the existence of a necessary explanation to the conclusion that this necessary explanation is conscious, intentional, moral and sent His son to the cross is like claiming victory on a marathon after having run the first few centimeters.
If we had enough evidence that this phylosophical entity really exists, died for our sins, and resurrected from the grave, why on earth do we need such a level of philosophical sophistication to show that He exists? I mean, resurrecting, walking on water and creating bread and fish out of thin air is not exactly in the mainstream.
No, I believe those thinkers did not have enough evidence that Jesus was what they claimed He was, and they knew it. They needed heavier weapons to show that at least a not-to-well-specified necessary explanation existed. Which is, in my opinion, self defeating for any version of God they might have believed in.
I believe there are no whys, only hows. This is, I think, the most compressed definition of what naturalism is. Whys have the bad habit to beg the question or, equivalently, to ask questions that are applicable only under the assumption that things follow a form of teleology or purpose, for which there is no a-priori evidence nor need that goes beyond our anthropological need to find answers to everything.
Partially? In this case, how do you know that what you think to understand about Him really corresponds to what He thinks?
No, the theory of evolution was just the last nail on my belief's coffin.
Ciao
- viole
Last edited:
It is advantageous for our species that we can get immoral and irrational and illogical people to believe in a religion that prevents them from doing immoral things. We have no need for religion we know the difference between right and wrong.
No, I will tell him that raping people could have very bad consequences for him so he should avoid doing it.
Ted Bundy was imprisoned and executed. I don't hurt people because they would hurt me back in self defense and I don't want to get hurt.
I don't do immoral things to people because then they will do things to me in self defense and I don't wanna get hurt. I help people instead because people helping each other is a much better strategy for well being and survival. That seems pretty rational to me.
I want to live a long and happy life and to achieve that behaving well is much more advantageous than behaving badly.
Because friends help each other and since I want to live a long and happy life having friends helping me increases my chances of that.
Because we all want to live good and long lives and being kind to each other increases our chances of survival.
I feel I need to be a good friend because I have a survival instinct and being a good friend and having good friends is an excellent survival strategy.
I don't think science can disprove the existence of the christian god any more than it can disprove the existence of Marduk.
On the other hand:
I don't think religion can prove the existence of the christian god any more than it can prove the existence of Marduk.
There's another problem: Proof is in the realm of mathematics. And mathematics *do prove* that a god isn't *necessary*. But when people say "proof" they most often actually mean "evidence".
But in the interest of a honest discussion, the burden of evidence is always on the accuser... So if you say that something exists, you should be the one to show it. I'm not saying you can. I'm just saying that any argument you make for science being unable to disprove the existence of deities, doesn't prove their existence either.
I can't prove the existence of Marduk. I also can't disprove it. It doesn't mean he exists or not: It means the actual argument, on a semantic level, is a paradox. It cannot be resolved.
To this effect: I find threads / discussions like this to be lazy and dishonest. Because people are expected to argue even though it's a logical paradox.
On the other hand:
I don't think religion can prove the existence of the christian god any more than it can prove the existence of Marduk.
There's another problem: Proof is in the realm of mathematics. And mathematics *do prove* that a god isn't *necessary*. But when people say "proof" they most often actually mean "evidence".
But in the interest of a honest discussion, the burden of evidence is always on the accuser... So if you say that something exists, you should be the one to show it. I'm not saying you can. I'm just saying that any argument you make for science being unable to disprove the existence of deities, doesn't prove their existence either.
I can't prove the existence of Marduk. I also can't disprove it. It doesn't mean he exists or not: It means the actual argument, on a semantic level, is a paradox. It cannot be resolved.
To this effect: I find threads / discussions like this to be lazy and dishonest. Because people are expected to argue even though it's a logical paradox.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Religious belief is generally irrational anyway.
The features that were taken from the environment and used to build Santa would still have to be properly defined.
Tomorrows_Child
Active Member
Science over the last 15 years or so of theoretical physics has essentially proven the existence of God.
How do you figure?
Crypto2015
Active Member
Sorry for the very late reply. People choose not to believe even in the face of evidence. Jesus' resurrection is the best possible explanation for the growth of the early Jewish church in the months and years that followed Jesus' crucifixion. However, for some people this is not enough. Even if Jesus resurrected right before their eyes, it would not be enough. The problem with this people is not a lack of evidence for Jesus' divine authority, but an emotional and personal enmity towards God. If someone hates God, no amount of evidence will be sufficient to bring this person to repentance and belief in Jesus. Of course that not everyone chooses to be an atheist because of this reason, but sometimes this is the right explanation for some people's unbelief.
The Bible says that we have the mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:16). Therefore, we are able to understand all that God has revealed in the Bible. However, I do not think that our brains are sophisticated enough to understand all of the science behind creation. For instance, our minds certainly struggle with unintuitive branches of sciences, such as Quantum Mechanics. I am sure that Quantum Mechanics is actually a piece of cake in comparison with other laws of nature.
Crypto2015
Active Member
What makes you believe that our survival is good? How do you demonstrate that our survival is a good thing?
How can you hate somebody you don't believe exists?
Satans_Serrated_Edge
Deicidal
True, we can not falsify that claim. What we can do is reduce it to an infinitely small probability, and easily.
Absent evidence, there can be an infinite amount of cosmological claims that are epistemologically equal by default(as each has 0 supporting evidence and can not be falsified)
All existing cosmological claims are without evidence and can not be falsified.
Therefore, all existing cosmological claims are equally, infinitely, unlikely.