Can science prove or disprove the existence of a Spiritual existence? God?

[Looncall]

I also think information is a conserved quantity - like energy/mass, that information cannot be destroyed... the universe is made up of more than just matter and energy - it is made up of information too, of laws, and I think it is also made up of something that can be called spirit, or intelligence, and that spirit cannot be created or destroyed.

We can't see energy, we can only see how it moves what is around it. Spirit is a little different from energy, a bouncing ball has energy, but it does not think or act for itself. The recently deceased has as much energy as the living, but there is something present in the living that is not there within the deceased.

What evidence do you have that any of this is true?

Of course one cannot see energy, it is not a substance.

Your statement comparing the living and the dead is false. What is different is the arrangement of their parts (ie chemistry). You are trying to sneak souls in through the back door.

 

[Thief]

It didn't create itself. It's just a result of unknown natural forces. When water condensates on a cold pipe you can't say the water "created" itself. It's just the water vapor in the air changing into water. No deities needed to "create" water.

And the first law of motion (inertia)...
And object at rest will remain at rest...until 'something' moves it.

So the singularity was a 'point' at rest until God said....'I AM"....?

And what placed the 'point' in the first place?
Still no Creator?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

No reason to think the singularity was 'at rest'.

 

[Krok]

And the first law of motion (inertia)...

From Wiki

First law: Every object continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless compelled to change that state by external forces acted upon it

And object at rest will remain at rest...until 'something' moves it

Or keep on moving in a straight line, until something moves it.

So the singularity was a 'point' at rest

Or an object moving in a straight line.

...until God said....'I AM"....?

Any verifiable evidence for the existence of any god whom/who was or were able to say that?

And what placed the 'point' in the first place?

And what put god there in the first place?

Still no Creator?

Still no verifiable evidence for the existence of any god or gods?

 

[Krok]

And now the question remains....which came first?
Spirit?....or substance? (Focus on the singularity)

Err, we do have verifiable evidence for the existence of substance. Against that, we have absolutely no verifiable evidence for the existence of any supernatural spirit. The question "which came first?" is thus irrational. Substance came first, because it exists. Supernatural spirits don't even come last. They don't exist.

No contest.

 

[RedJamaX]

Back to the OP's argument...

I am an Agnostic Theist, and I agree.

I do not beleive Science can disprove the existence of a spiritual existence or a God. However, I do think Science can disprove that any "God" had/has anything significant to do with our Natural Physical world (ie. Creation, virgin births, carving Stone Tablets).

I have experienced things in my life which allow me to beleive in a spiritual existence, and evidence enough for me to beleive in an "after-life". But I beleive that any influence from the spritual world into our world is very limited via molecular energy ONLY (light, sound, electricity). So, the display of a burning bush, totally possible!

small print...
(now that I've said that, allow me to ellaborate further to say that I have yet to see any scientific evidence that Moses was even a real person... and this is "not" my argument that science "has prooven" God does not have a "physical" effect on our natural world. I simply stated that "I do think Science can disprove that any "God" had/has anything significant to do with our Natural Physical world (ie. Creation, virgin births, carving Stone Tablets).")

 

[paarsurrey]

Back to the OP's argument...

I am an Agnostic Theist, and I agree.

I do not beleive Science can disprove the existence of a spiritual existence or a God. However, I do think Science can disprove that any "God" had/has anything significant to do with our Natural Physical world (ie. Creation, virgin births, carving Stone Tablets).

I have experienced things in my life which allow me to beleive in a spiritual existence, and evidence enough for me to beleive in an "after-life". But I beleive that any influence from the spritual world into our world is very limited via molecular energy ONLY (light, sound, electricity). So, the display of a burning bush, totally possible!

small print...
(now that I've said that, allow me to ellaborate further to say that I have yet to see any scientific evidence that Moses was even a real person... and this is "not" my argument that science "has prooven" God does not have a "physical" effect on our natural world. I simply stated that "I do think Science can disprove that any "God" had/has anything significant to do with our Natural Physical world (ie. Creation, virgin births, carving Stone Tablets).")

It the one true attributive creative God decided to do something who could stop Him from it. He is the creator of both nothing and something, in my opinion.

 

[paarsurrey]

Science and the Scientific Method are terrific tools for obtaining a better understanding of the Natural Universe. Can it be used to understand the Supernatural Universe? Can it be used to prove or disprove the existence of the Almighty, God, supernatural forces or anything else which exists beyond our Natural Universe?

I agree with the above.

Science is a secular working tool in hands for the humans; it got existed by joint efforts of the religious and irreligious not very long ago. It is designed for material and physical problems; and could fail in other fields miserably. Nature corrects science and not otherwise.

To stretch it to all fields of life is erroneous endeavour of the Atheists and the like; which shows, in my opinion, weakness of their thought.

 

[ArtieE]

I agree with the above.

Science is a secular working tool in hands for the humans; it got existed by joint efforts of the religious and irreligious not very long ago. It is designed for material and physical problems; and could fail in other fields miserably. Nature corrects science and not otherwise.

To stretch it to all fields of life is erroneous endeavour of the Atheists and the like; which shows, in my opinion, weakness of their thought.

Can you show any evidence there actually are any other "fields of life"? And by the way, an atheist is simply a person who doesn't believe in deities. You might believe in pixies, fairies and trolls and an atheist might believe in pixies, fairies and trolls.

 

[Thief]

Err, we do have verifiable evidence for the existence of substance. Against that, we have absolutely no verifiable evidence for the existence of any supernatural spirit. The question "which came first?" is thus irrational. Substance came first, because it exists. Supernatural spirits don't even come last. They don't exist.

No contest.

ok...so you believe in the tangible.
From another thread moments ago....

In the scheme of superlatives, Someone has to be greatest.
We have hierarchy in this life.
I strongly suspect as much in the next.

Creation is more than a concept.
We and everything else....do exist.

If substance is self generating then all life is chemistry bound.
Chemistry fails.
If Spirit is the Source then life beyond breath can be possible.

I believe in life after death.
Hierarchy awaits.
(end quote)

Focus on the point of origin.
It cannot self generate....it won't exist in the first place.
If the laws of motion apply...it won't move.

If your thought and feeling is completely chemical....
all that you are is terminal.

And then the existence of Man is a complete mystery with no resolve.
Not much point in generating billions of learning devices only to have everyone of them crumble to dust.

 

[otokage007]

Actually science can't disprove anything, in the sense that it can not prove "something doesn't exist". This is because, from a scientific perspective, something that is not supported by evidence does not exist until it is proven. So scientists can't disprove the existence of God but they don't need to either, because that is already disproven.

An example: do mermaids exist? Well, there is no evidence that they do, so from a scientific perspective, they do not exist. Their existence is disproven in the moment that they have no evidence supporting them.

 

[Thief]

Actually science can't disprove anything, in the sense that it can not prove "something doesn't exist". This is because, from a scientific perspective, something that is not supported by evidence does not exist until it is proven. So scientists can't disprove the existence of God but they don't need to either, because that is already disproven.

An example: do mermaids exist? Well, there is no evidence that they do, so from a scientific perspective, they do not exist. Their existence is disproven in the moment that they have no evidence supporting them.

This is very much like saying ....dark energy does/does not exist.

Scientists 'know' it's there.

They just can't prove it.....no means to do so.
They can 'see' the effect....but can't put it into an experiment.

So God is there....and everywhere.
I can see the effect.
I just can't make an experiment large enough to contain the specimen.

 

[otokage007]

This is very much like saying ....dark energy does/does not exist.

Scientists 'know' it's there.

They just can't prove it.....no means to do so.
They can 'see' the effect....but can't put it into an experiment.

So God is there....and everywhere.
I can see the effect.
I just can't make an experiment large enough to contain the specimen.

First of all, u don't need to "experiment" to prove something exists. Sometimes only observation is needed. Grass exists, and u don't have to do an experiment to prove that. On the contrary, God can't be observed, nor experimented with. So, as I said, it's the same as mermaids: it doesn't exist untill the contrary is proven.

About the Dark energy, I'm really bad a physics but I hope some physists enter this thread and answer you. As far as I know, dark energy is just an hypothesis for the moment, and it can't be proven yet, it is like "an hypothesis to fill some gaps". However, I heard supernovae are kind of an evidence of dark energy, so maybe it has evidences and its more than "just an hypothesis". But again, I know nothing bout physics, much less bout cosmic physics.

 

[Thief]

First of all, u don't need to "experiment" to prove something exists. Sometimes only observation is needed. Grass exists, and u don't have to do an experiment to prove that. On the contrary, God can't be observed, nor experimented with. So, as I said, it's the same as mermaids: it doesn't exist untill the contrary is proven.

About the Dark energy, I'm really bad a physics but I hope some physists enter this thread and answer you. As far as I know, dark energy is just an hypothesis for the moment, and it can't be proven yet, it is like "an hypothesis to fill some gaps". However, I heard supernovae are kind of an evidence of dark energy, so maybe it has evidences and its more than "just an hypothesis". But again, I know nothing bout physics, much less bout cosmic physics.

Your first line is contrary to all the demands you will see here in this forum.
Everyone else would insist on that tangible repeatable result to prove what you cannot see.

And science can often do that....prove what cannot be seen.

God however, is too much for the task.
You'll just have to think about it.

 

[paarsurrey]

First of all, u don't need to "experiment" to prove something exists. Sometimes only observation is needed. Grass exists, and u don't have to do an experiment to prove that. On the contrary, God can't be observed, nor experimented with. So, as I said, it's the same as mermaids: it doesn't exist untill the contrary is proven.

About the Dark energy, I'm really bad a physics but I hope some physists enter this thread and answer you. As far as I know, dark energy is just an hypothesis for the moment, and it can't be proven yet, it is like "an hypothesis to fill some gaps". However, I heard supernovae are kind of an evidence of dark energy, so maybe it has evidences and its more than "just an hypothesis". But again, I know nothing bout physics, much less bout cosmic physics.

I don't agree with you. I think in all societies and in all regions of the world and in all times, there have been persons called messenger prophets of the one true attributive creator God who have experienced having conversation with Him. How could one reject their witnessing? They were truthful persons.

 

[otokage007]

They were truthful persons.

So am I.

 

[paarsurrey]

So am I.

You may not be; give your evidences.

 

[Looncall]

I don't agree with you. I think in all societies and in all regions of the world and in all times, there have been persons called messenger prophets of the one true attributive creator God who have experienced having conversation with Him. How could one reject their witnessing? They were truthful persons.

There are truthful people around who are sure they are Napoleon Bonaparte. Your argument fails to hold water. Even if they were truthful about what they experienced, the experiences may not have been real but only some psychological disruption.

 

[otokage007]

You may not be; give your evidences.

I don't need evidences, it is written in some ancient book called... The Tible. Buy it and chek it out, 50% prize reduction if bought before august ends.

 

[ArtieE]

There are truthful people around who are sure they are Napoleon Bonaparte. Your argument fails to hold water. Even if they were truthful about what they experienced, the experiences may not have been real but only some psychological disruption.

One in five Americans believe in alien abduction and thousands upon thousands have had personal experience with aliens. This proves to a Christian that aliens exist. Right?