Does science prove the existence of god?

[Ceridwen018]

I have heard many religious state in these forums that they believe science proves god's existence, but I've never been able to formally question them.

I am very interested to see some of this evidence though, so please, post away and then we can talk about it!

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The idea that God can be 'proven' flies in the face of the whole faith concept. Really, everyone wants what they think to be true to be backed by evidence and logic, but because so many religious concepts are NOT backed by evidence and logic, the concept of virtuous faith came to the rescue. Not believing for lack of evidence (which is perfectly reasonable) is severely looked down upon in most religions (how dare you think for yourself--show some humility!)

Jesus said "Blessed are they who believe and have not seen". This is basically a catch all. In any case, trying to 'prove' faith-based beliefs does them an injustice, in my opinion.

 

[(Q)]

Considering that even science doesn't make that claim, science usually has nothing to do with gods. You know, the complete lack of evidence thing...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I found a couple of things that I think relevant ...

In contrasting the Western religions with science, the most important criterion of distinction is that the supernatural or spiritual realm is unknowable ... Given this fiat by the theistic believers, science simply ignores the supernatural as being outside the scope of scientific inquiry. Scientists in effect are saying:

You religious believers set up your postulates as truths, and we take you at your word. By definition, you render your beliefs unassailable and unavailable.​

This attitude is not one of surrender, but simply an expression of the logical impossibility of proving the existence of something about which nothing can possibly be known through scientific investigation.

- Understanding Science: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues by Arthur N. Strahler

First let's get this straight. Proof, as we mean it when we say "prove me wrong", has nothing to do with science. While we might use the word "proof" in science, it is not a scientific idea. Proving is an exercise in logic. The other meaning of the word "proof", as it is used when we refer to whiskey – "this is 90 proof" – actually has its origin in the meaning of the word as we use it in science, but that's a whole different story!

Here's a definition of what it means to prove something: "Proof is arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the available evidence." Notice that this has absolutely nothing to do with being right or wrong. It also has nothing to do with science either, since you can have logical conclusions in Social Studies, English, or any other subject. The word proof is used a lot in law, and the idea isn't a lot different if we use it in science.

In science we collect empirical evidence through the process of experimentation. If we collect enough evidence, we will probably notice patterns or regularities in the evidence, and then we will develop generalizations that describe what we have observed. These generalized descriptions of observed events are called scientific laws.

- see Proof

 

[Ceridwen018]

Hey, I'm just a little tired of people big-wigging it around about how god can be proven by science, and then not being able to attain satisfaction by way of explanation. I have noticed, that this idea usually doesn't come out until the debate has begun to wind down--"Oh yeah, well science proves god you know..." What?! Why didn't you bring this up in the VERY BEGINNING? We could've saved so much time and breath...

So, all of you out there who believe science can prove god--come in here and tell us why!

 

[(Q)]

I would suspect that the "science" theists refer to is not the science we tend to agree with. In that respect, anything goes no matter how far-fetched.

 

[Runt]

Oddly enough, I agree with Q. A lot of sites out on the internet claiming that they have scientific proof that God exists seem to come to that conclusion only by misunderstanding (sometimes deliberately) basic scientific laws and theories.

 

[tetra46]

Science does not need to prove a god or gods existed. I may look at this a little different than most because I like to think I'm coming from a more positive path. I've read almost all the bible and from this indebt read the prove god does not exist is all there for one to see, BUT ONLY IF ONE LOOKS. Using just one example, I and many of my fellow atheists see quite clearly how many religious folk can not see what is obvious.

Example: God created man in his own image.

This simple quote from the said book may not be exact, but we have found most religions except the above.

Now let’s rip it apart: God created man...it is also said he created everything else too. I can't quite believe how many folk think there must have been a god to start off the beginning. BUT where in the world did this god come from? Don't tell me he just appeared because that's a cop out.

Anyway, my point (or our point) has a very strong base to start by looking a little deeper into this so called god and his creation. If we are of his image then he (god) must have genitals too. HE MUST HAVE! But what does he need them for? He must be just as human as we. And be capable of sexual relations. And if that’s the case then where’s Mrs. God? (There is evidence that in the Jewish faith there was a Mrs. God then come along some rabbi’s (males) and wrote her out of the faith).

Let me go on: This god had a (how can I say this) “bum too”. Oh dear, if that’s the case then he must have needed to eat and if that’s the case too! He could fart as well.

And did you know? He could not have been a perfect god/human because he told folk to cut off their foreskin. WHY? Did he error in his creation? Because if he was the almighty and created us in his image, why did he create us with a foreskin?

From one, little quote. Amazing

 

[Named]

Why would a theist ever claim to be able to prove their God's existence with solid proof, logic and evidence?
Faith can't be challenged, no matter what. It contorts and twists, wraps around or evades anything thrown at it. An indelible force, who would give that up?
If the concept of a God was backed by that which can be challenged, it may, and probably will, be shot down.
We can't have that, can we?

That's what has bothered me throughout the history of my debating with religious types. They demand temporal proof and flawless reasoning from me, supporting my theories, but if I challenge THEIR theories, they can play the faith card. "It doesn't matter, it's supernatural, I don't have to explain it. We just can't comprehend it..."
How is that fair?
If you, as a religious type, are incapable of logically arguing your beliefs, employing empirical evidence in your defence, you have no right to demand it of an Athiest.
Ne?

 

[Zero Faith]

For something to be scientific, it must be consistent, repeatable and have the capability of making predictions. Take thermodynamics:

1) Consistent: There are no known exceptions to the laws set out in thermodynamics.

2) Repeatable: I can take an experiment performed in Australia, set it up in my kitchen, and get the same results.

3) Predictions: I can look at an engine, or a chemical reaction, then use thermodynamics to predict how it will work. I can then prove my prediction by running the engine or reacting the chemicals and comparing.

If, at any time, any of these three principles is violated, then the scientific facts under questions must be reconsidered. These principles repesent the core of scientific thought.

So. If you can apply God to these three criteria and come out positive, then yes -- science has proven the existence of God.

I think it goes without saying that this has not occurred by any stretch of the imagination. Science and God have nothing to do with each other.

 

[croak]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"He is the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth..." (Surat ash-Shura, 11)[/font][/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/font]​

THE DEATH OF MATERIALISM

​

​

Materialism can no longer claim to be a scientific philosophy.
Arthur Koestler, the renowned Social Philosopher. 1

How did the endless universe we live in come into being?

How did the equilibrium, harmony, and order of this universe develop?

How is it that this Earth is such a fit and sheltering place for us to live in?

Questions such as these have attracted attention since the dawn of the human race. The conclusion reached by scientists and philosophers searching for answers with their intellects and common sense is that the design and order of this universe are evidence of the existence of a supreme Creator ruling over the whole universe.

This is an indisputable truth that we may reach by using our intelligence. Allah declares this reality in His holy book, the Qur'an, which He inspired as a guide for humanity fourteen centuries ago. He states that He has created the universe when it was not, for a particular purpose, and with all its systems and balances specifically designed for human life.
Allah invites people to consider this truth in the following verse:

Are you stronger in structure or is heaven? He built it. He raised its vault high and made it level. He darkened its night and brought forth its morning light. After that He smoothed out the earth… (Surat an Naziat: 27-30)

​

Elsewhere it is declared in the Qur'an that a person should see and consider all the systems and balances in the universe that have been created for him by Allah and derive a lesson from his observations:

He has made night and day subservient to you, and the sun and moon and stars, all subject to His command. There is certainly Signs in that for people who pay heed. (Surat an-Nahl: 12)

​

In yet another verse of the Qur'an, it is pointed out:

He makes night merge into day and day merge into night, and He has made the sun and moon subservient, each one running until a specified time. That is Allah, your Lord. The Kingdom is His. Those you call on besides Him have no power over even the smallest speck.(Surah Fatir: 13)

​

This plain truth declared by the Qur'an is also confirmed by a number of the important founders of the modern science of astronomy. Galileo, Kepler, and Newton all recognised that the structure of universe, the design of the solar system, the laws of physics and their states of equilibrium were all created by Allah and they arrived at that conclusion as a result of their own research and observations.


Materialism: A 19th-Century Fallacy

The reality of the creation of which we speak has been ignored or denied since the earliest times by a particular philosophical point of view. It is called "materialism". This philosophy, which was originally formulated among the ancient Greeks, has also made an appearance from time to time in other cultures and has been advanced by individuals as well. It holds that matter alone exists and that it has done so for an infinity of time. From these tenets, it claims that the universe has also "always" existed and was not created.

In addition to their claim that the universe exists in an infinity of time, materialists also assert that there is no purpose or aim in the universe. They claim that all the equilibrium, harmony and order that we see around us are merely the product of coincidence. This "coincidence assertion" is also put forward when the question of how human beings came into being comes up. The theory of evolution, widely referred to as Darwinism, is another application of materialism to the natural world.

We just mentioned that some of the founders of modern science were faithful people who were in agreement that the universe was created and organised by Allah. In the 19th century, an important change took place in the attitudes of the scientific world with respect to this matter. Materialism was deliberately introduced to the agenda of modern science by various groups. Because the 19th century's political and social conditions formed a good basis for materialism, the philosophy gained wide acceptance and spread throughout the scientific world.

The findings of modern science however undeniably demonstrate how false the claims of materialism really are.


The Findings of 20th-Century Science

Let us recall the two assertions of materialism about the universe:

Modern science proves the reality of the creation of the universe by Allah, contrary to what outdated materialist philosophy maintains. Newsweek made "Science Finds God" the cover story of its July 27th 1998 issue.​

The universe exists in infinite time and, because it has no beginning or end, it was not created.Everything in this universe is merely the result of chance and not the product of any intentional design, plan, or vision.Those two notions were boldly advanced and ardently defended by 19th-century materialists, who of course had no recourse other than to depend upon the limited and unsophisticated scientific knowledge of their day. Both have been utterly refuted by the discoveries of 20th-century science.

The first to be laid in the grave was the notion of the universe existing in infinite time. Since the 1920s, there has been mounting evidence this cannot be true. Scientists are now certain that the universe came into being from nothingness as the result of an unimaginably huge explosion, known as the "Big Bang". In other words, the universe came into being–or rather, it was created by Allah.

The 20th century has also witnessed the demolition of the second claim of materialism: that everything in the universe is the result of chance and not design. Research conducted since the 1960s consistently demonstrates that all the physical equilibriums of the universe in general and of our world in particularly are intricately designed to make life possible. As this research deepened, it was discovered each and every one of the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology, of the fundamental forces such as gravity and electromagnetism, and of the details of the structure of atoms and the elements of the universe has been precisely tailored so that human beings may live.

Scientists today call this extraordinary design the "anthropic principle". This is the principle that every detail in the universe has been carefully arranged to make human life possible.To sum up, the philosophy called materialism has been utterly refuted by modern science. From its position as the dominant scientific view of the 19th century, materialism collapsed into fiction in the 20th. How could it have been otherwise? As Allah indicates "We did not create heaven and earth and everything between them to no purpose. That is the opinion of those who are disbelievers." (Surah Sad: 27) it is wrong to suppose that the universe was created in vain. A philosophy so utterly flawed as materialism and systems based on it were doomed to failure from the very beginning. Creation is a fact. In this book we will be examining the evidence for this fact. We will see how materialism has collapsed in the face of modern science and also witness how wonderfully and perfectly the universe has been designed and created by Allah.

<a href="<A href="http://www.creationofuniverse.com">The">http://www.creationofuniverse.com">The Creation of the Universe</a>

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Since the 1920s, there has been mounting evidence this cannot be true. Scientists are now certain that the universe came into being from nothingness as the result of an unimaginably huge explosion, known as the "Big Bang".

1)Time is relative, so even though there was a beginning, the universe has still always existed. There never was a "nothingness" from which the big bang came. 2)The universe is not "perfect" in any respect--it is what it is, and doesn't need our a priori notions of what constitutes "perfection" to exist the way it does.

 

[Orthodox]

Zero Faith,

You Said:

Science and God have nothing to do with each other.

This makes no sense. If God exists and does/has interact/ed with the universe then there should be measurable effects of this. Do you believe that the scientific method is the only way by which one can ascertain truth?

 

[Orthodox]

Mr Spinkles,

You said:

1)Time is relative, so even though there was a beginning, the universe has still always existed. There never was a "nothingness" from which the big bang came. 2)The universe is not "perfect" in any respect--it is what it is, and doesn't need our a priori notions of what constitutes "perfection" to exist the way it does.

1) What did you mean by "time is relative, so even though there was a beginning, the universe has still always existed". The General Theory of Relativity shows us that time is a property of the universe. A's time compared to B's time differs on the basis of A's velocity compared to the velocity B observes c (the speed of light) at. The same fact that makes time relative requires that time has a beginning. According to GR there was a period (I will not say time!) when there was no time. Namely, the Big Bang Singularity Point. Space and time (commonly called spacetime) are a property of matter and matter had it's origin in the BB. The universe has not always existed - from a scientific perspective anyway. There was not even a natural cause-effect relationship before the BB because time itself was non-existent. This is why the BB reeks of theistic implications. If you don't believe me I can show you how. I can also direct you to scientists who have tried to disprove the BB on the basis that it 'smells of the divine'.

You also said "There never was a "nothingness" from which the big bang came". The entire field of spacetime came into existence along with matter in the BB. Before the BB there wasn't even a vaccum for 'nothing' to be in- there truly was no universe.

2) You said, "The universe is not "perfect" in any respect--it is what it is, and doesn't need our a priori notions of what constitutes "perfection" to exist the way it does".

I agree, the universe is not perfect, but that does not mean it never was. By the way, are you acknowledging that human being's have an a priori notion of perfection? If you say the universe is not perfect what standard are you judging it by? If you have some idea of a perfection you have never seen and deny exists, where does this concept of perfection come from. If we are simply products of this universe why would we consider it imperfect - surely we are naturally selected to fit in with this universe and its' features, not anothers'....

By the way, I read your Journal thing. I was really interesting and well written. You said that you did some Astronomy and Theology. Is that at College? What are you studying, if you don't mind me asking?

 

[Orthodox]

Hello again Ceridwen!

you said:

I have heard many religious state in these forums that they believe science proves god's existence, but I've never been able to formally question them.

I am very interested to see some of this evidence though, so please, post away and then we can talk about it!

What area are you most interested in (ie. Cosmology, ID)? I only ask so that I can get straight to the point and not waste you time.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Hey Orthodox! What's up?

I guess I wasn't really thinking of one area in particular. Basically, one of the main reasons for why I don't believe in god, is because there is no scientific evidence (let alone enough to equate any sort of 'proof', or high probability) to support the theory of god...or is there. I believe it might have even been you who said you had scientific evidence for god. I'm just interested in what that might be.

 

[Orthodox]

Hey Ceridwen,

To begin with, do you believe that science is the only way by which we can find and verify truth? I need to know which angle to begin with.

Orthodox

 

[Orthodox]

ok well i'll just go ahead anyway

 

[Orthodox]

Hey Ceridwen,

Ok first things first. The entire study of science is based on the idea of 'probability'. You can’t prove to me that if you drop a pencil now it will fall to the floor. How do you know that there won’t be an exception to the Law of Gravity? However, you can just use inductive logic to postulate that it probably will. Fancis Bacon, the father of modern science, stated "true knowledge is knowledge by causes", this is precisely what inductive logic is, knowledge by causes. We knew that pencils (or rather, quills) fell to the ground before we knew that gravity was the reason why. My point in this first section is that definite proof is a rare commodity in any area, one must use reason to bridge the gap and make a connection between probability and definitive fact. When one searches for evidence one should always search for evidence that can absolve all reasonable doubt - we have to look for something that is true beyond reasonable doubt.

Ok, so where is the evidence that can take us beyond reasonable doubt? Theologians and philosophers have placed the evidence in two main categories and a couple of sub-categories. I will cover a few of these.

1) Philosophical evidence

a. Moral

b. Ontological

2) Scientific

a) Cosmological

b) Teleological

I know you might say that this thread was specifically about ‘scientific evidence’ for God. However, I believe that separating philosophy from science destroys its’ basis. Furthermore, many of the most easily grasped and comprehensive evidences for God are philosophical.

It is commonsense that science is not the only means by which we can discover truth. What evidence do I have to back up this statement? It’s simple; the idea that science is the only source of truth is an unscientific truth claim itself. No scientific method tested this assumption and therefore it must be false - according to itself! My point here is this, truth can be arrived at via philosophy (an example is the use of logic) as well as science (which itself requires philosophical assumptions in order to discover truth). Science can only discover truth if:

1. We assume that truth is knowable (incidentally, assuming the opposite is self-contradictory).
2. We assume various philosophical precepts such as (the Law of Causality, Logic etc)

Philosophical Evidence for God

Moral

Every single human society has operated on the notions of good and bad, right and wrong. While these various societies have not always believed exactly the same thing, what is important is that each did believe in some idea of moral duty. Where is the natural, atheistic explanation for this? Why ought I to behave in one way as opposed to another? Why is a beneficial thing preferable to a detrimental one? Why should I do the right thing and not the wrong thing? Why is there any distinction drawn between good and bad things? Where does the concept of value or worth come from if there isn’t really any objective meaning for anything?

I have read a number of books detailing the copy book atheistic answer to these questions so I am fully aware of the common response to my questions. What do you think are the reasons for, and perimeters constructing, the ideas of good and bad? Allow me to hazard a couple of guesses at what may be ticking through your head right now (if I am wrong correct me).

1. 
   [*]Good is that which advances natural selection and evolutionary process.
   [*]Good is that which our instinct tells us to do.
   [*]Good is what I want it to be.

Does this work though? I’ll go through each point individually.

1. If ‘good is that which advances natural selection and evolutionary process’ why is that? Why ought I to submit to the evolutionary process? The word ‘ought’ implies some moral imperative so what makes evolution good? Why is it better that creatures evolve than that they don’t? Darwinism declares that life is a cosmic accident, that it is meaningless and unintended. How then can evolution be anything other than a plain and simple mechanism, neither good nor bad?
2. If ‘Good is that which our instinct tells us to do’ how does our instinct know what is good? Why ought I to follow my instinct? What makes the demands of my instinct superior to the opposites of its claims?
3. If ‘Good is what I want it to be’ then why is the Holocaust an evil (or a good, if you think that way)? Hitler wanted the Jews to die why was this bad (or good)? There is no objective value to the existence of humanity so what does it matter if 6 million Jews die? Why ought I to do anything I don’t want to do? And finally, why ought I to do what I want?

There is no rational basis for morality in atheism. If we weren't the product of a personal, moral God why would we have any concept of good or bad. The logical end of atheism is Nihilism – a belief in the total absence of meaning, value, and worth in everything. However, I wonder if you have ever tried to think nihilistically? It doesn’t work. To ‘convert’ to nihilism one must have decided that nihilism is correct and therefore ‘better’ or ‘preferential’ to non-nihilism. That itself is a value based judgement. Furthermore, the only place to go from nihilism is insanity, like Nietzsche. Do you believe in the total absence of value, worth and meaning? If not, why?

 

[Orthodox]

Ontological

This ontological argument for the existence of God goes like this.

1. Various things exist independently or in spite of what we see in the universe.
2. Therefore there must be another place where they are fulfilled and/or exist.

An example of this would be the concept of justice. I’m sure you would agree that the world has a lot of injustice, right? The problem for the atheist arises when one considers that there is no natural explanation for the human idea of (and obsession with) justice. If we have never seen true justice how do we know what it is? How do we know that the universe is unjust if we have no example of justice to judge it by? There must be some source for our objective standard of justice. The theist will say that God, who himself is eternally just, puts this conception into people – it is therefore a priori. Atheists have a very hard time counteracting this argument. Another form of the argument is called the Argument from Perfection. This argument states that in order for us to call things imperfect (a common example would be the universe – wasn’t that the main thrust of your ‘Trinity of Religious Contradiction’ thread?) we must have an idea of what perfect is. How can we call something less than perfect if we don’t know what perfect is? And if we do know what perfection is how exactly did we find out about it? We have never seen it but we daily make judgments that necessitate an understanding of it.

As C. S. Lewis stated, "Just how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust… Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too – for the argument depended on saying that the world really was unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist – in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless – I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality – namely my idea of justice – was full of sense. (Mere Christianity, 45,46).

What do you think the reason is for your conception of such abstract concepts as justice, perfection, beauty, infinity and eternity (more on this below)?