Does science prove the existence of god?

[Pah]

Forgive me for not reading the whole thread, but how? What ideas did you present?

Science has shown that morality is not god given, that prayer is unanswered, that the "word" of the Chritian god is in error.

 

[Storm]

Science has shown that morality is not god given, that prayer is unanswered, that the "word" of the Chritian god is in error.

All of that is debateable, and even if it weren't, it still doesn't disprove God or the supernatural, only certain ideas about them.

This I'll grant you: science has proven that Biblical Literalism is in error. Not much of an accomplishment.

 

[Pah]

All of that is debateable.....

Actually, it has been peer reviewed and published.

It also must be said that even if not scientific, the study of logic has shown that no formal argument proves god. The "omni" attributes have been shown to be bogus as well.

The question becomes much more probable that any god does not exist outside the brain.

 

[Storm]

Actually, it has been peer reviewed and published.

No, it hasn't. Take prayer for instance. While I do not believe in the efficacy of prayer, there is no way to disprove the stock answer of "sometimes the answer is 'no.'"

It also must be said that even if not scientific, the study of logic has shown that no formal argument proves god.

1) We're talking science, not philosophy.
2) Nor have any disproved God.

The "omni" attributes have been shown to be bogus as well.

Philosophically, I'll have to agree with you. Scientifically, nope.

You still have the problem that this is only one concept of God. Try showing how science disproves pantheism, I dare you.

The question becomes much more probable that any god does not exist outside the brain.

Obviously, that's also debateable.

The fact is, God is not something that science has or CAN at this point disprove.

 

[Ceridwen018]

While I do not believe in the efficacy of prayer, there is no way to disprove the stock answer of "sometimes the answer is 'no.'"

I talk about this in the big post I wrote on page 34. Science can "disprove" the supernatural, because in science, things for which no evidence exists do not exist. Sounds pretty logical, eh?

At any rate, that's why trying to prove your god's existence with science is such BS. To evaluate something with science you need a testable hypothesis. With something like gods or leprechauns you can always justify a negative outcome with "sometimes the answer is just no" or "maybe god just didn't want to." :sarcastic

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

No, it hasn't. Take prayer for instance. While I do not believe in the efficacy of prayer, there is no way to disprove the stock answer of "sometimes the answer is 'no.'"


1) We're talking science, not philosophy.
2) Nor have any disproved God.


Philosophically, I'll have to agree with you. Scientifically, nope.

You still have the problem that this is only one concept of God. Try showing how science disproves pantheism, I dare you.


Obviously, that's also debateable.

The fact is, God is not something that science has or CAN at this point disprove.

The onus is not up to science to disprove anything. I could claim that minotaurs exist, but I wouldn't dare ask anyone to disprove their existence. It's up to me to show everyone why they exist or why I feel that they exist and give a reasonable conclusion to why I feel that way. I don't buy into the concept of belief without reason. There's always a reason why we believe the way we do, though we may not always understand it or the reason may be obscure. The whole idea of divine revelation is not a self-fulfilling concept. It doesn't prove itself like the idea of "I can speak because I am speaking these words."

The onus to provide evidence is on the believers, no matter what shape it may take. Reasonable arguments can be made in any topic. To terminate an argument by saying that something is a matter of faith or disprovable is lazy. We can always arrive at reasonable conclusions, even if they are broad and open-ended. Enter Atheism.

 

[Storm]

I talk about this in the big post I wrote on page 34. Science can "disprove" the supernatural, because in science, things for which no evidence exists do not exist. Sounds pretty logical, eh?

No. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Unless you want to argue that atoms didn't exist until we were able to observe ithem.

At any rate, that's why trying to prove your god's existence with science is such BS.

I agree, which is why I didn't try to do any such thing. However, trying to disprove GOd with science is also BS.

 

[sandandfoam]

The onus is not up to science to disprove anything. I could claim that minotaurs exist, but I wouldn't dare ask anyone to disprove their existence. It's up to me to show everyone why they exist or why I feel that they exist and give a reasonable conclusion to why I feel that way. I don't buy into the concept of belief without reason. There's always a reason why we believe the way we do, though we may not always understand it or the reason may be obscure. The whole idea of divine revelation is not a self-fulfilling concept. It doesn't prove itself like the idea of "I can speak because I am speaking these words."

The onus to provide evidence is on the believers, no matter what shape it may take. Reasonable arguments can be made in any topic. To terminate an argument by saying that something is a matter of faith or disprovable is lazy. We can always arrive at reasonable conclusions, even if they are broad and open-ended. Enter Atheism.

I don't see the need to choose science over religion or vice-versa. Where did God come from? what caused the big bang?- same problem. Why assume that 'God' is not a word that describes the eternal in the physical as experienced by a believer who is attempting to arrive at a rational understanding of the universe as they experience it? To assume that there is no God is no more or less rational than to assume that there is. Rather a different perspective.

 

[Storm]

The onus is not up to science to disprove anything.

I never said it was. I merely disagree with the argument that it already has.

The onus to provide evidence is on the believers, no matter what shape it may take. Reasonable arguments can be made in any topic.

Quibble: the onus is on anyone who makes positive claim ( a statement of fact as opposed to belief). Like the statement that science has disproven GOd.

To terminate an argument by saying that something is a matter of faith or disprovable is lazy.

Uhm, that's not at ALL what I'm trying to do. I'm only saying that science has not disproven God in response to the claim that it has.

We can always arrive at reasonable conclusions, even if they are broad and open-ended. Enter Atheism.

Among all the other worldviews.

 

[Storm]

I don't see the need to choose science over religion or vice-versa. Where did God come from? what caused the big bang?- same problem. Why assume that 'God' is not a word that describes the eternal in the physical as experienced by a believer who is attempting to arrive at a rational understanding of the universe as they experience it? To assume that there is no God is no more or less rational than to assume that there is. Rather a different perspective.

What he said.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

I don't see the need to choose science over religion or vice-versa. Where did God come from? what caused the big bang?- same problem. Why assume that 'God' is not a word that describes the eternal in the physical as experienced by a believer who is attempting to arrive at a rational understanding of the universe as they experience it? To assume that there is no God is no more or less rational than to assume that there is. Rather a different perspective.

Atheism is not a belief that there is no god, it's simply a lack of belief. Atheist literaly means "not a theist" (by the way, I do find it odd to apply a label describing what someting is not). Some atheists firmly believe that there isn't but most of us simply disregard the question. It's not that we belief there isn't, it's that we don't believer there is.

 

[sandandfoam]

it's that we don't believer there is.

Implying that there ..?

 

[camanintx]

I don't see the need to choose science over religion or vice-versa. Where did God come from? what caused the big bang?- same problem. Why assume that 'God' is not a word that describes the eternal in the physical as experienced by a believer who is attempting to arrive at a rational understanding of the universe as they experience it? To assume that there is no God is no more or less rational than to assume that there is. Rather a different perspective.

The problem with this assumption is that the word "God" carries with it other assumptions about the nature of the subject. If one wants to describe the eternal in the physical as they experience it, why not come up with a new name like "the force"?

 

[Ceridwen018]

No. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Unless you want to argue that atoms didn't exist until we were able to observe ithem.

According to the scientific method, that's exactly what I'm saying. That's what discovery is all about: finding evidence for something where previously there was no evidence.

The way science works is that scientists write down observations of the natural world, hypothesize as to how something works based on those observations, and then try to experiment and see if their hypothesis is correct or not, etc. With the addition of new technology, scientists are able to observe nature in places where they previously could not (space, under the sea) and with greater clarity (telescope, microscope)--many times, this results in scientists changing their mind about the outcome of a previous hypothesis based on the new information they recieve. In those cases, its back to the drawing board. Science can change and grow as more information is recieved and observed.

With something like the atom, before the atom was discovered it was considered not to have existed. Actually that's not true: no one even had any concept of the atom, so they couldn't even think of it as nonexisting! Once the atom was discovered, scientists proceeded to make the necessary changes to scientific theory to accomodate this new discovery.

What you are suggesting is for science to re-write their theories before any new discoveries are made. Are you saying that we should consider every possible substance, organism, etc. that we can possibly conceive of to exist within the natural world, because who knows: We just might not have evidence for it yet? In that case, you should all accept the existence of fuglyploofs, because you can't prove they're not out there! No, I'm sorry--that's not how science works. Don't you see how accepting the existence of something without evidence of any kind is just ridiculous? Its only after we make a discovery, like the atom, that we can say, "Wow, they've been here all along and we just hadn't found them yet." Science has a method. It works.

trying to disprove GOd with science is also BS.

No, its not, because in science if there is no evidence for something, it is irrelevant. Do you believe in leprechauns? Do you think leprechauns exist? Did you say "no"? Why? Is it because there's no evidence for them? Aha.

Please go back and read the post I made on page 34 that discusses in detail how science works in relation to "proving" and "disproving" things, and respond to something from that post specifically, because I don't want to clog this thread by repeating myself.

 

[Storm]

According to the scientific method, that's exactly what I'm saying.

Then you're wrong. Atoms existed long before microscopes.

The way science works is that scientists write down observations of the natural world, hypothesize as to how something works based on those observations, and then try to experiment and see if their hypothesis is correct or not, etc. With the addition of new technology, scientists are able to observe nature in places where they previously could not (space, under the sea) and with greater clarity (telescope, microscope)--many times, this results in scientists changing their mind about the outcome of a previous hypothesis based on the new information they recieve. In those cases, its back to the drawing board. Science can change and grow as more information is recieved and observed.

Yes, I know.

With something like the atom, before the atom was discovered it was considered not to have existed. Actually that's not true: no one even had any concept of the atom, so they couldn't even think of it as nonexisting! Once the atom was discovered, scientists proceeded to make the necessary changes to scientific theory to accomodate this new discovery.

Wrong. Philosophers among the ancient Greeks came up with the idea long before electron microscopes were even dreamed of. Wiki: atomism

What you are suggesting is for science to re-write their theories before any new discoveries are made.

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm rejecting your assertion that science has disproven God.

Don't you see how accepting the existence of something without evidence of any kind is just ridiculous?

Yes, which is why I don't do it, much less suggest it.

No, its not, because in science if there is no evidence for something, it is irrelevant.

Irrelevant =/= nonexistant.

Please go back and read the post I made on page 34 that discusses in detail how science works in relation to "proving" and "disproving" things, and respond to something from that post specifically, because I don't want to clog this thread by repeating myself.

Then don't repeat yourself. I read that post and had no real objection to it. My only objection is to your assertion that science has disproven God. It hasn't.

 

[McBell]

My point was that scientifically speaking, science most certainly CAN disprove the existence of god and the supernatural, based on the ideas I presented.

I disagree.
Science can prove that what some of the things people believe about god is untrue, but to make the assumption that the belief that was shown to be wrong actually pertains to god is another ball of wax.

 

[YmirGF]

According to the scientific method, that's exactly what I'm saying. That's what discovery is all about: finding evidence for something where previously there was no evidence.

Please go back and read the post I made on page 34 that discusses in detail how science works in relation to "proving" and "disproving" things, and respond to something from that post specifically, because I don't want to clog this thread by repeating myself.

A brillant bit of writing Lady Ceridwen. Upon reflection however I tend to agree with Stormy on one point which is that Science can most certainly prove specific assumptions about "god" to be in error, but that by no means is actual proof that "god" does not exist. That being said though, if certain aspects of "god concepts" are proven invalid then it does make the thinking person wonder about the accuracy of the remaining unprovable aspects.

Likewise, I agree with your illustration of atoms. Simply because some folks wrote about elementary particles in religious material long ago does not mean they were ever considered as a serious part of accepted scientific thinking. They were only neat ideas known to a comparative few and those few were not scientists. For scientists, they did not exist and so through hypothosis and subsequent investigation atoms were proven to exist. It is therefore fair to call that a "discovery" as the reality of atoms had indeed been verified -- not just theorized. Further they documented HOW they made the discovery so that still others could verify the results independantly. Verified results do not require faith to sustain their plausibility.

Imho, faith is the opposite of science and results in its own kind of proof. I am inclined to believe that "faith" is simply wishful thinking, that becomes a self-fulfilling fantasy, powered by the level of belief applied. In some ways, faith can simply be defined as a form of auto-suggestion or hypgnosis, even if some alive today think it to be very "hip" to be in on that gnosis.

Add to this elements of Jungian psychology and the religions of old are reduced to crumbs from a loaf that has long since been lost, if indeed they ever had much substance to begin with.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Then you're wrong. Atoms existed long before microscopes.

I think we're misunderstanding each other. I'm not saying that atoms popped into existence the moment they were discovered by humans, obviously. I am saying that with the way science works it does not deal with things for which there is no evidence, and therefore, as far as science is concerned, it does not exist.

Like the possible quirk in physics that renders our current theory of gravity asunder. Right now, we haven't discovered anything like that and gravity is doing just fine, so that crazy quirk in physics does not exist as far as anybody is concerned.

if you want to talk philosophy, that's different. Philosophy has not as of yet disproven god, but science is something completely different.

Philosophers among the ancient Greeks came up with the idea long before electron microscopes were even dreamed of.

Philosphers have come up with a lot of crazy stuff over the years, such as the idea that fire and wind are alive, or that people are actually living in several simultaneous universes at the same time. These two things have something in common: there is no scientific evidence for either of them. When the Greeks came up with their idea of atomism, they didn't have any evidence for it either. It was just an idea based on nothing, which could have just as easily been proven incorrect by modern science. For what its worth, the idea of the atom held by the ancient Greeks is actually very different from what we know the atom to be today. The fact that it bears the same name is simply a matter of convenience.

My only objection is to your assertion that science has disproven God.

This is why I wish you would reply to a particular part of my previous post. I didn't just say, "Science disproves god" and leave it at that. I provided several examples and reasons for why that statement is true. Please choose from one of them so we can continue, because your rejection of my idea without explanation leave me with nothing.

Think of it this way: tell me why you don't think science disproves god.

If your answer is "because the lack of evidence doesn't equal the lack of existence," then I would please like for you to acknowledge that you believe leprechauns exist.

 

[McBell]

If your answer is "because the lack of evidence doesn't equal the lack of existence," then I would please like for you to acknowledge that you believe leprechauns exist.

Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc

Science can prove that what some of the things people believe about god is untrue, but to make the assumption that the belief that was shown to be wrong actually pertains to god is another ball of wax.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Science can prove that what some of the things people believe about god is untrue, but to make the assumption that the belief that was shown to be wrong actually pertains to god is another ball of wax.

I'm a bit confused as to what you mean by this, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

I think what you're saying is that you can prove specific claims about god to be wrong, (such as, cancer patients who unknowingly receive prayers have a higher survival rate that those who do not) but the fact that this specific claim is untrue does not mean that "god" as a whole is untrue, yes?