Can science disprove the existence of God?

[ArtieE]

Darwin never witnessed a new species, only changes within a species. He has no clue about the origin of species, except a fanciful imagination.

I suppose that could be said of the people who invented all the different creation myths too.

 

[ArtieE]

So what happens to you when you die?

I haven't decided. First they will harvest the useful organs since I'm an organ donor and then they'll either bury or burn the rest.

 

[Kemosloby]

I suppose that could be said of the people who invented all the different creation myths too.

The difference being the creation account comes from somebody who witnessed creation, God. Darwin does not present any credible witness to support his claims.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

One way or another it all boils down to law, everything follows a pattern according to the law of the situation, without laws there is nothing.
If there is a God did he create law or was God created by the law, does the law have its own law.

Or is what you imagine the law to be.... God?. God is not divided, so all apparent attributes....time, space, energy, matter, order, awareness, etc., are merely aspects of an indivisible oneness that only appears as separate characteristics when perceived by the dualistic mind of mankind,

 

[loverofhumanity]

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.

Science requires reflection and mediation two powers that are not measurable therefore cannot be absolutely proven to exist.

Plucking ideas out of 'thin air' is very 'unscientific' yet it is the process whereby inventions, arts, technologies and discoveries are made and which advance our civilisation.

A scientists raw material is Faith and belief in something. Then they develop theories and hypothesis then they test it in a lab etc.

For a scientist to do what they do they require as much faith and belief in the unknown that a religious person requires.

For instance. There is a belief that life exists in the universe apart from us. But it's only a belief and $trillions have been spent in pursuit of a theory, a belief, a guess, a hypothesis that has not been proven just assumed.

Why not spend this money on the poor?

Until they actually come across other beings, it's all a blind belief.

 

[Kemosloby]

Or is what you imagine the law to be.... God?. God is not divided, so all apparent attributes....time, space, energy, matter, order, awareness, etc., are merely aspects of an indivisible oneness that only appears as separate characteristics when perceived by the dualistic mind of mankind,

If that was true God wouldn't mind if people worshipped creation or created things, but he does. And the divided mind is the result of sin entering the world.

 

[ArtieE]

Not enough evidence? As you read the Genesis account, do you not see overwhelming evidence around you? The evidence surrounds all of us from the depths of the oceans to the far reaches of space. You need more evidence?

There are two different creation accounts in Genesis and your creation myths are just two of many. All the writers of all the different creation myths could claim that the evidence is all around us.

 

[ArtieE]

The difference being the creation account comes from somebody who witnessed creation, God.

No it doesn't. The different creation accounts are not first-person narratives. The different creation accounts in the Bible come from different authors and different times. Genesis creation narrative - Wikipedia

 

[Kemosloby]

No it doesn't. The different creation accounts are not first-person narratives. The different creation accounts in the Bible come from different authors and different times. Genesis creation narrative - Wikipedia

All claiming the origin of the information as from God. Darwin claims his information comes from observation but has never observed a new species come into being. Yet his book is titled Origin of Species, so if he made a thread on RF we would all laugh at him for a bit then move on to the next thread. Yet somehow it became science?

 

[ArtieE]

All claiming the origin of the information as from God.

So? We shall believe something just because somebody claims it's true?

Darwin claims his information comes from observation but has never observed a new species come into being. Yet his book is titled Origin of Species, so if he made a thread on RF we would all laugh at him for a bit then move on to the next thread. Yet somehow it became science?

It became science because science and reality says that we are the offspring of our parents, and they are the offspring of their parents, and they are in turn offspring of their parents and so on. That is just simple reason and logic. But if you suddenly should claim at some point down the line that we are no longer offspring of our parents but were personally designed and created by a god you are making a leap of faith.

 

[Kemosloby]

So? We shall believe something just because somebody claims it's true?It became science because science says that we are the offspring of our parents, and they are the offspring of their parents, and they are in turn offspring of their parents and so on. That is just simple reason and logic. But if you suddenly should claim at some point down the line that we are no longer offspring of our parents but were personally designed and created by a god you are making a leap of faith.

Offspring must have had an origin. You see that the offspring as far as we can see, humans produce human offspring. It's holds water that people were created as people. It's a leap of imagination to say people came from monkeys, or even from a chupacabra.

 

[ArtieE]

Offspring must have had an origin. You see that the offspring as far as we can see, humans produce human offspring.

If we could follow every generation back there is no reason to assume that one of our ancestors would have to have been designed and created by a god.

It's holds water that people were created as people. It's a leap of imagination to say people came from monkeys, or even from a chupacabra.

You came from your parents. They came from their parents. They came from their parents. How can it possibly be a leap of imagination to claim that we come from our parents? I certainly didn't just imagine having parents.

 

[Kemosloby]

If we could follow every generation back there is no reason to assume that one of our ancestors would have to have been designed and created by a god.You came from your parents. They came from their parents. They came from their parents. How can it possibly be a leap of imagination to claim that we come from our parents? I certainly didn't just imagine having parents.

So you think humans have been around forever? Or they had a beginning?

 

[ArtieE]

So you think humans have been around forever? Or they had a beginning?

Geneticists say we evolved in and came out of Africa.

 

[Kemosloby]

Geneticists say we evolved in and came out of Africa.

Evolved from what?

 

[ArtieE]

Evolved from what?

Just look up human evolution in Google. Have to go now night in Norway.

 

[McBell]

The difference being the creation account comes from somebody who witnessed creation, God.

Bold empty claim.

It's holds water that people were created as people.

True.
Now all you need do is show that humans were "created"...

It's a leap of imagination to say people came from monkeys, or even from a chupacabra.

I agree.
Good thing the only people who make this ridiculous claim are creationists and others who are ignorant of evolution.

 

[Kemosloby]

Just look up human evolution in Google. Have to go now night in Norway.

cop out...

 

[McBell]

cop out...

"Human evolution is the lengthy process of change by which people originated from apelike ancestors. Scientific evidence shows that the physical and behavioral traits shared by all people originated from apelike ancestors and evolved over a period of approximately six million years."

Source​

I can't wait to see how Chubby Checker you get with it.

 

[Kemosloby]

"Human evolution is the lengthy process of change by which people originated from apelike ancestors. Scientific evidence shows that the physical and behavioral traits shared by all people originated from apelike ancestors and evolved over a period of approximately six million years."

Source​

I can't wait to see how Chubby Checker you get with it.

I like bananas, it must be true. They don't really say anything other than make an authoritative statement they expect us to regard as truth. I don't believe it. It's a mountain of BS piled onto the original BS that Darwin dreamed up. As we can see, humans produce human offspring everytime. The evidence supports that we originated as humans, created by God, fully human.