Can science disprove the existence of God?

[ArtieE]

What makes you believe that our survival is good? How do you demonstrate that our survival is a good thing?

Organisms evolved a survival instinct which is why organisms see survival as good and death bad. It's in our inherent nature.

 

[Crypto2015]

How can you hate somebody you don't believe exists?

They dislike the character of God. I dislike the Joker from Batman and Robin, but I known that he doesn't exist.

 

[ArtieE]

They dislike the character of God. I dislike the Joker from Batman and Robin, but I known that he doesn't exist.

I guess some people are atheists for this reason. Is that the reason why some Christians aren't Muslims? Because they dislike the character of Allah?

 

[Crypto2015]

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.

This is mathematically incorrect. A probability is defined as the number of positive events divided by the total number of events. No one can disprove the existence of God. Hence, you are left with zero divided by zero. The solution is undetermined.

 

[Crypto2015]

Organisms evolved a survival instinct which is why organisms see survival as good and death bad. It's in our inherent nature.

That does not prove that survive is good. It just proves that evolution has programmed your brain to believe that survival is good.

 

[Crypto2015]

I guess some people are atheists for this reason. Is that the reason why some Christians aren't Muslims? Because they dislike the character of Allah?

No. Islam is wrong at the historical, theological, and moral levels. Only an illiterate peasant could believe in something so patently false as Islam. For instance, Allah believes that the Trinity is comprised of the Father, the Son, and the Virgin Mary. This proves that the Qur'an was written by a man who didn't have any idea of what the Trinity is.

 

[ArtieE]

That does not prove that survive is good. It just proves that evolution has programmed your brain to believe that survival is good.

And how could survival be bad for organisms that are wired for survival?

 

[Demonslayer]

They dislike the character of God.

Which one? The Morgan Freeman one was a pretty likable fella. The one that burns all Jews because they won't worship his son, not so much.

 

[viole]

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.

There is a vast difference between using the origin of churches and seeing Jesus in front of you, as evidence of His resurrection. According to your logic magic underwear exists because the Mormon church started after J. Smith claims.

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.

Quantum Mechanics is actually simpler than classical mechanics. At least for a mathematician like me. But I agree that it is far less intuitive. It requires more reliance on the mathematical abstractions. However, the main reason we find it difficult to visualize is because our brain is a machine that evolved to have a natural intuition of classical things. Food and predators are usually much bigger than an electron.

Our brain, as a product of naturalistic evolution, is not reliable when it comes to understanding things that are irrelevant for our immediate survival. So, QM is not inherently difficult or weird. It is our brain that is too simple.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

This is mathematically incorrect. A probability is defined as the number of positive events divided by the total number of events. No one can disprove the existence of God. Hence, you are left with zero divided by zero. The solution is undetermined.

It's not math, it's logic. Which of my two premises would you say are faulty, and why?

Seems pretty airtight to me.

Until any one cosmological claim can separate itself from the pack, they are all, both defined and yet to be or never will be defined, epistemologically equal. That leaves a one in infinity chance that any of them are correct.

 

[Crypto2015]

There is a vast difference between using the origin of churches and seeing Jesus in front of you, as evidence of His resurrection. According to your logic magic underwear exists because the Mormon church started after J. Smith claims.



Quantum Mechanics is actually simpler than classical mechanics. At least for a mathematician like me. But I agree that it is far less intuitive. It requires more reliance on the mathematical abstractions. However, the main reason we find it difficult to visualize is because our brain is a machine that evolved to have a natural intuition of classical things. Food and predators are usually much bigger than an electron.

Our brain, as a product of naturalistic evolution, is not reliable when it comes to understanding things that are irrelevant for our immediate survival. So, QM is not inherently difficult or weird. It is our brain that is too simple.

Ciao

- viole

What I mentioned about Jesus' resurrection and the emergence of the early church has no parallel in human history. The apostles saw their hopes shattered to pieces by the crucifixion of the person whom they thought would immediately turn Israel into the most powerful kingdom in the world. They were certainly not waiting for the Messiah to be crucified. What led them to start announcing publicly that Jesus had resurrected? What changed their minds so radically as to give them the strength and willingness to suffer persecutions and martyrdom to defend their account of Jesus resurrection? Would they have done this if they had known that Jesus was actually dead and buried? From a purely human perspective, they had nothing to gain by asserting that Jesus had resurrected. They were not going to become rich, rather they were in danger of losing all their possessions. They were not going to become popular, rather they were in danger of being publicly flogged as heretics. Furthermore, if Jesus was lying on his grave, why did they inhabitants of Jerusalem believe in Jesus' resurrection to the degree that they started a movement that would revolutionize the world? Jerusalem was a small city of between 20 to 80 thousand inhabitants. Probably nearly everyone had seen Jesus or heard first hand accounts about him. All of the inhabitants of Jerusalem could check the apostles' assertions about Jesus holy life, crucifixion, and resurrection. Jesus' tomb was there for everyone to see. All of this is undeniable, since it is recorded not only in the Bible, which would be sufficient by itself, but also in other important books written less than a century after Jesus' resurrection by non-Christian authors. So, if Jesus's resurrection hadn't occurred, there is no explanation for the change that took place in the apostles' lives after Jesus' crucifixion, and no explanation for the immediate rise of Christianity.

 

[viole]

What I mentioned about Jesus' resurrection and the emergence of the early church has no parallel in human history. The apostles saw their hopes shattered to pieces by the crucifixion of the person whom they thought would immediately turn Israel into the most powerful kingdom in the world. They were certainly not waiting for the Messiah to be crucified. What led them to start announcing publicly that Jesus had resurrected? What changed their minds so radically as to give them the strength and willingness to suffer persecutions and martyrdom to defend their account of Jesus resurrection? Would they have done this if they had known that Jesus was actually dead and buried? From a purely human perspective, they had nothing to gain by asserting that Jesus had resurrected. They were not going to become rich, rather they were in danger of losing all their possessions. They were not going to become popular, rather they were in danger of being publicly flogged as heretics. Furthermore, if Jesus was lying on his grave, why did they inhabitants of Jerusalem believe in Jesus' resurrection to the degree that they started a movement that would revolutionize the world? Jerusalem was a small city of between 20 to 80 thousand inhabitants. Probably nearly everyone had seen Jesus or heard first hand accounts about him. All of the inhabitants of Jerusalem could check the apostles' assertions about Jesus holy life, crucifixion, and resurrection. Jesus' tomb was there for everyone to see. All of this is undeniable, since it is recorded not only in the Bible, which would be sufficient by itself, but also in other important books written less than a century after Jesus' resurrection by non-Christian authors. So, if Jesus's resurrection hadn't occurred, there is no explanation for the change that took place in the apostles' lives after Jesus' crucifixion, and no explanation for the immediate rise of Christianity.

I know people who were ready to sacrifice their whole family because they thought a starship hiding behind a comet will give a ride to their souls.

Ciao

- viole

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is mathematically incorrect. A probability is defined as the number of positive events divided by the total number of events. No one can disprove the existence of God. Hence, you are left with zero divided by zero. The solution is undetermined.

In that situation, why would anyone ever be a Christian?

If the state of evidence for God is "we can't prove he/she/it doesn't exist", then why would someone:

- accept not only the existence of God, but also a boatload of details about God and purported deeds of this God?
- not only intellectually assent to this very specific God, but devote their life to the fact that this God is true?

In any other instance, if something may or may not be true and its truth has zero impact on anything we see or experience, then the rational thing is to ignore it.

For Christianity (or Judaism, or Islam, or any other religion built around a deity) to be rational, you need something more than this: you need compelling evidence not only for the existence of God, but that the nature of God is as your religion says it is, and that God wants people to believe as your religion believes.

All this "well, you can't prove my religion is false" stuff coming from religious people is an admission of failure and irrationality, IMO.

Edit: it's especially strange coming from people in revealed religions. If you were justified in believing that the Bible came from God, then this justification would also serve as evidence for God. When you say that there's no evidence for or against the existence of God, you imply that you have no good reason to think that your scripture was divinely inspired.

 

[paarsurrey]

For Christianity (or Judaism, or Islam, or any other religion built around a deity) to be rational, you need something more than this: you need compelling evidence not only for the existence of God, but that the nature of God is as your religion says it is, and that God wants people to believe as your religion believes.

As far as Islam, it gives no compelling reason as it is against the theme and purpose of human life set by G-d:
[18:30] And say, ‘It is the truth from your Lord; wherefore let him who will, believe, and let him who will, disbelieve.’ Verily, We have prepared for the wrongdoers a fire whose flaming canopy shall enclose them. And if they cry for help, they will be helped with water like molten lead which will burn the faces. How dreadful the drink, and how evil is the Fire as a resting place!
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=18&verse=21
Regards

 

[Milton Platt]

Just listen to any of the videos in which Krauss or Dawkins are interviewed. These high-calibre scientists claim that science can prove that God's existence is unlikely. The idea of falsifiability has not been shown to be inadequate by anyone. Some have criticized it, but no one has proven it wrong or inadequate. Regarding the statements that I have presented as unfalsifiable, you cannot demonstrate they are true or that they are false. You may prove that your cat is yellow, but you cannot prove that your cat ought to have been yellow. You cannot prove or disprove any claim about how tall I would have been if I had been born in Nigeria. Come on, man, are you even serious? Tell me how tall I would have been if I had been born in South Africa. LOL.

If he has the genetic profile of his cat's parents, yes, he can show (prove is the wrong word) that his cat should have been yellow.

 

[paarsurrey]

Can science disprove the existence of God?

No, it can never ever.
Please

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Can science disprove the existence of God?

No, it can never ever.
Please

So, in your view, God is unfalsifiable?

You can't think of anything where you could say "if God exists, we should expect to see _________" and then go to look if that thing really is there?

Your God has no measurable impact on what we observe?

 

[paarsurrey]

So, in your view, God is unfalsifiable?
You can't think of anything where you could say "if God exists, we should expect to see _________" and then go to look if that thing really is there?
Your God has no measurable impact on what we observe?

Is it from science or religion? Please
Regards

 

[leibowde84]

Can science disprove the existence of God?

No, it can never ever.
Please

As you admit here, God's existence is an unfalsifiable claim. Until "God" can be sufficiently defined and limited, which has yet to be done, his existence cannot be proven or disproven. So, the lacking is in how God is defined, which in no way makes his existence more or less likely.

 

[leibowde84]

Is it from science or religion? Please
Regards

He asked you a question. Does God have a measurable impact on what we observe? You answered a question with a question.