Does science prove the existence of god?

[Storm]

The statement is, indeed, entirely false, but no less so than yours. Science in no way "disproves leprechauns, ... gods and the supernatural", nor does it even try. To suggest otherwise is preposterous. More, it evinces a seriously flawed understanding of methodological naturalism.

Thank you! :yes:

 

[astarath]

huh???

 

[Storm]

huh???

"huh?" what?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

In the OP of a separate thread that I've started, I argue:

[Science] does not disprove the existenceof any supernatural entity, from Ahura Mazda to Zeus. Technically, no scientific theory can categorically disprove anything, especially not vaguely-defined supernatural beings.

However, what [science] does imply is this: belief in Zeus, Thor, and all supernatural entities, has nothing to do with the existence of said entities. Any previously unknown natural process, or fact about the universe, or inter-dimensional/extraterrestrial beings discovered by science bearing any resemblance to Zeus or Thor would be a coincidence. [There is] scientific evidence for the following: if Zeus or Thor exist precisely as believers have described them, it would be a coincidence only slightly less extraordinary than if it were discovered that the Easter Bunny exists. Zeus and Thor are merely two examples [but all empirically unfalsifiable god-concepts apply]

Here's the thread: Beyond Disbelief: Religion as Human Invention

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

[There is] scientific evidence for the following: if Zeus or Thor exist precisely as believers have described them, it would be a coincidence only slightly less extraordinary than if it were discovered that the Easter Bunny exists.

I am aware of no such evidence. Certainly none has been offered, either here of in your referenced post.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I am aware of no such evidence. Certainly none has been offered, either here of in your referenced post.

The ideas of Zeus, Thor, and the Easter Bunny originate and spread by natural means. Assuredly, these means do not include the results of scientific studies verifying the existence of Zeus, Thor, or the Easter Bunny. You are aware of no such evidence for this? In fact, in my referenced post I do offer evidence, including:

Countless new cults, or new versions of old religions, spring up all the time, and the vast majority of them die out...

...the tendency of people to unwittingly accept the views of those around them (geographic distribution of religions), to project patterns and intelligent agency onto randomness or natural forces (planets and patterns of stars assigned god or spirit status), and so on...

The existence of gods/spirits/supernatural realms...is not empirically testable...
​

I also mention the absence--despite a great deal of searching--of the following, which also constitutes evidence:

....religious rituals were demonstrably proved to have non-physical effects on the world significantly beyond what one would expect by chance (e.g. controlled studies show that rain dances increase the chances of rain, or intercessory prayer heals amputees)...

...two civilizations who have no contact with each other (say, the ancient Hebrews and the ancient Aztecs) to produce identical books of ancient scriptures with identical proper names and commandents (say, they both receive an identical Ten Commandments from YHWH as brought by Moses)....

...that an ancient people had knowledge, which they claimed to be revealed by the divine, of something that they could not have possibly known with their technology...

a religious text/prophesy/creation story should never have many specific, correct beliefs about things that could not have been known by natural means--especially for things as specific as numbers, dates, and pronouns (e.g. the universe is 14 billion years old, on Sept. 11 2001 19 men will crash four planes to kill 2,974 people in the United States, etc.)
​

 

[charles brough]

I notice in this thread a lot of reference to the Biblical "God," but why pick on Him? The world's religions have a host of gods and none of their believers are able to show good evidence they exist. In fact, to me, an athiest is someone who does not believe in ANY god---in fact, belief in no such thing as "spirits" at all. Anything else is hedging, compromising, unwillingness to take a stand. To me, prinicple is involved, a matter of intellectual self respect.

If I am asked by believers to show proof their "Spirit" does NOT exist, I tell them I believe in Santa Claus because no one can prove he does NOT exist. Can anyone here?

 

[Storm]

If I am asked by believers to show proof their "Spirit" does NOT exist, I tell them I believe in Santa Claus because no one can prove he does NOT exist. Can anyone here?

Yes, we've been to the North Pole. Not a toyshop in sight.

The problem with arguments like this is that they never come up with a valid comparison. They work just fine as justifications for disbelief, but fail as as promotions.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Science in no way "disproves leprechauns, ... gods and the supernatural", nor does it even try.

I'm in no way suggesting that science is intentionally trying to smoke out supernatural ideas--it doesn't have to. Like I said in the post I made on pg. 34, "prove" and "disprove" are relative terms here. Science cannot "prove" or "disprove" anything with 100% certainty, but that doesn't discredit the theory of relativity, nor does it mean that when a microbiologist discovers an unknown process within a cell and seeks to understand its mechanism, she considers the idea that "God did it" as a viable possibility.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Seems to me that you are trying to say that if one is shown false that they are all shown false.

That's not what I'm trying to say. I agree with you that if one idea about the supernatural is shown to be false, that doesn't mean you can conclude that everything about the supernatural is also false. What I mean to say is that that is the entire problem right there: Because we have no evidence for the supernatural to back up any claims we might make, people can make any sorts of claims they want. I can claim that my cat is Buddha reincarnated, and you can't prove me wrong.

That's why, in science, things and ideas without evidence to support them are considered to be unsubstantial.

And you have still not shown how science has disproven God.
Seems to me that you are doing the exact same thing that you complain about theists doing.
You have made up your mind and are sticking to it.

I am really trying to not come off like that, and not because I want to "hide my true motivation," but because I want people to consider what I have to say.

I am not saying that "God does not exist." That may be what I personally think, but that's not the point of this thread. I'm talking about how God and all supernatural things are treated by science. They are treated like they don't exist. So as I said before, I'm not trying to tell anyone not to believe whatever they want, I'm just trying to be realistic.

No, my logic does not fall prey to either side of the negative proof fallacy. Yours does.
From Wiki:

An important thing to note is that your Wiki article is not about science. If you want to talk about God's existence based on philosophy, general logic, spirituality, etc., then that's a whole other ballgame. Lack of evidence equalling lack of existence might not be a good argument from a philosophical perspective, but from the perspective of science, it is. According to the scientific method, God is considered nonexistent. However, I will analyze your article:

The fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative is a logical fallacy of the following form:
"X is true because there is no proof that X is false."

You just said that "your logic does not fall prey to either side of the negative proof fallacy," but I don't understand how you don't fit into this category.

 

[Storm]

You just said that "your logic does not fall prey to either side of the negative proof fallacy," but I don't understand how you don't fit into this category.

I am NOT saying that God must exist simply because it has not been proven false. If you thought I was, we have miscommunication.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm in no way suggesting that science is intentionally trying to smoke out supernatural ideas--it doesn't have to. Like I said in the post I made on pg. 34, "prove" and "disprove" are relative terms here. Science cannot "prove" or "disprove" anything with 100% certainty, but that doesn't discredit the theory of relativity, nor does it mean that when a microbiologist discovers an unknown process within a cell and seeks to understand its mechanism, she considers the idea that "God did it" as a viable possibility.

This is not about what you think she meant. It's about:

So, in the same manner that science disproves leprechauns, science is able to disprove gods and the supernatural.

You are simply wrong. If and when you choose to initiate a thread supplying a scientific disproof (relative or otherwise) of leprechauns, gods, and the supernatural, I will follow it with interest.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Yes, we've been to the North Pole. Not a toyshop in sight.

That only disproves specific human beliefs ABOUT Santa. It doesn't disprove Santa in general. Maybe Santa exists but we got the North Pole toyshop part wrong. Right?

 

[Storm]

That only disproves specific human beliefs ABOUT Santa. It doesn't disprove Santa in general. Maybe Santa exists but we got the North Pole toyshop part wrong. Right?

Wrong. Santa is a specific and detailed myth. What's more, we can trace the historical roots and development of the myth. God is not in the same category.

 

[logician]

I notice in this thread a lot of reference to the Biblical "God," but why pick on Him? The world's religions have a host of gods and none of their believers are able to show good evidence they exist. In fact, to me, an athiest is someone who does not believe in ANY god---in fact, belief in no such thing as "spirits" at all. Anything else is hedging, compromising, unwillingness to take a stand. To me, prinicple is involved, a matter of intellectual self respect.

If I am asked by believers to show proof their "Spirit" does NOT exist, I tell them I believe in Santa Claus because no one can prove he does NOT exist. Can anyone here?

There's probably more evidence that Santa Claus exists than that Jesus ever existed.

 

[Random]

Science has not proven anything @ all "exists", therefore it cannot know what does not "exist" either. Questions about what constitutes "existence" are not the purvue of science, but rather epistemology and other branches of philosophy (strictly speaking).

Whenever anyone claims something exists by contrast to something else that allegedly does not, fallacious assumption is involved.

Matter is a constant in the 5-sense realm, that is all we can say.

 

[Yerda]

Wrong. Santa is a specific and detailed myth. What's more, we can trace the historical roots and development of the myth. God is not in the same category.

Can we not trace the historical roots and development of God?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Wrong. Santa is a specific and detailed myth. What's more, we can trace the historical roots and development of the myth. God is not in the same category.

We can also trace the historical roots and development of the god myth, beginning with the ancient conception of a sky-god. Furthermore, I am free to imagine a Santa whose toyshop cannot be observed, just as you are free to imagine a god which is less "specific" than traditional conceptions. It is true, of course, that a foggy conception of Santa is not as popular as one of God....but that has no bearing on the existence of either entity.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

So, like God, Santa cannot be scientifically disproved. Only particular human conceptions of Santa can be falsified. From a scientific perspective, then, both God and Santa and all unfalsifiable entities are equally possible.

Yet some of these entities--equally plausible in terms of scientific evidence--are more popular than others. Perhaps we can use scientific inquiry to find out why that is? I think the first hypothesis we would have to reject is that such beliefs become popular because they are accurate.....

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

From a scientific perspective, then, both God and Santa and all unfalsifiable entities are equally possible.

Yet some of these entities--equally plausible in terms of scientific evidence--are more popular than others.

The statement is cognitively meaningless, much like stating that Tuesdays and Thursdays are equally salty.

Yet some of these entities--equally plausible in terms of scientific evidence--are more popular than others. Perhaps we can use scientific inquiry to find out why that is? I think the first hypothesis we would have to reject is that such beliefs become popular because they are accurate.....

Yes, argumentum ad numerum is fallacious argument rather than valid hypothesis, but I recall no one making such an argument in this thread. So how is this anything other than a strawman?