Does science prove the existence of god?

[Mr Spinkles]

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

Please explain.

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?

There is a difference between argument offered as refutation of another's position, and observation offered for you and anyone else's due consideration. Sheesh!

 

[Storm]

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

We're trying, but I'm unaware of any widely accepted theory (the common atheist's argument that God was simply invented to explain natural phenomena is merely wishful thinking with zero anthropological basis), though neurotheology shows potential.

We can also trace the historical roots and development of the god myth, beginning with the ancient conception of a sky-god.

Actually, it's far more likely that animism and ancestor worship came first. You're overstating the case.

Furthermore, I am free to imagine a Santa whose toyshop cannot be observed,

But then it's not Santa. You're just trying to stretch a faulty argument. I am unimpressed.

 

[Yerda]

We're trying, but I'm unaware of any widely accepted theory (the common atheist's argument that God was simply invented to explain natural phenomena is merely wishful thinking with zero anthropological basis), though neurotheology shows potential.

Is neurotheology the idea that we have a god-lobe or religion-centre in our brain?

But then it's not Santa. You're just trying to stretch a faulty argument. I am unimpressed.

My mum told me that Santa was invisible, as were his sleigh and deer. Why not his shop?

 

[Storm]

Is neurotheology the idea that we have a god-lobe or religion-centre in our brain?

No, it's a field of study devoted to the neurology of mystical experience. Here's the Wiki. I suppose the ideas you're referring to could be considered neurotheological hypotheses, but they certainly don't define the field. If you're interested in the topic, I highly recommend Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief.

My mum told me that Santa was invisible, as were his sleigh and deer. Why not his shop?

>sigh< Still not comparable to God.

 

[Yerda]

No, it's a field of study devoted to the neurology of mystical experience. Here's the Wiki. I suppose the ideas you're referring to could be considered neurotheological hypotheses, but they certainly don't define the field. If you're interested in the topic, I highly recommend Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief.

Thanks!

>sigh< Still not comparable to God.

Hmmm. They both have beards!

 

[Storm]

You're most welcome.

 

[Pah]

No, it's a field of study devoted to the neurology of mystical experience. Here's the Wiki. I suppose the ideas you're referring to could be considered neurotheological hypotheses, but they certainly don't define the field. If you're interested in the topic, I highly recommend Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief....

Having that book, I'd say that "god" has gone away.

They show biological centers of the brain the react to spiritual "bliss". In the two cases I remember, the "bliss" was directly centered to the religious experience. You'll remember that the nuns spoke of being with Christ (don't nuns "marry" Christ?) and the "eastern" advocate found the "fullness" of the universe.

Science has shown that there are parts of the brain that process this spiritual awareness. But, the process did not produce the same result - one cancels the other as far as "truth" goes. It is much the same as language capability. The processing of English and French and Japanese is done by the brain but the "stuff" of language is what has been taught by the particular environment.

The same can be said of morality.

Science disproves god(s).

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Actually, it's far more likely that animism and ancestor worship came first. You're overstating the case.

Actually, I think I'm understating it. Whether we trace the roots of the god myth back to the sky-god, or further to animism and ancestor worship, we can, in fact, trace back the roots of the history of the god myth, as I claimed. Do you stand by your suggestion that this is not possible?

But then it's not Santa. You're just trying to stretch a faulty argument. I am unimpressed.

It may not be a popular or traditional conception of Santa, but that doesn't mean it isn't Santa. Santa is not constrained by what fallible mortals believe about him, in their flawed attempts to understand him. Science may not find a toyshop at the North Pole, and perhaps that does disprove one aspect of one particular conception of Santa. But science can't disprove Santa. It doesn't even try to disprove Santa.

 

[Storm]

Actually, I think I'm understating it. Whether we trace the roots of the god myth back to the sky-god, or further to animism and ancestor worship, we can, in fact, trace back the roots of the history of the god myth, as I claimed. Do you stand by your suggestion that this is not possible?

You misunderstand me; I'm not saying it's not possible, just that it hasn't been accomplished yet.

It may not be a popular or traditional conception of Santa, but that doesn't mean it isn't Santa. Santa is not constrained by what fallible mortals believe about him, in their flawed attempts to understand him. Science may not find a toyshop at the North Pole, and perhaps that does disprove one aspect of one particular conception of Santa. But science can't disprove Santa. It doesn't even try to disprove Santa.

You're still just trying to stretch a faulty argument beyond its limited capacity, and I am still unimpressed. Can we let it go now?

 

[Zeno]

You're still just trying to stretch a faulty argument beyond its limited capacity, and I am still unimpressed. Can we let it go now?

Insofar as I can tell, the only unique attribute you are giving to God is that we have not fully traced back the origin of the concept?

Is that correct?

Argumentum ad populum doesn't make "God" any less faulty.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

You misunderstand me; I'm not saying it's not possible, just that it hasn't been accomplished yet.

Okay, I agree with you there. So, we agree that:

• It's possible to trace back the myth of Santa historically, and it has been
• It's possible to trace back the myth of God historically, but it has not been accomplished yet

How do either of these facts require that a magical man who calls himself Santa have a visible toyshop on the North Pole?

 

[Storm]

Insofar as I can tell, the only unique attribute you are giving to God is that we have not fully traced back the origin of the concept?

Is that correct?

No it's just one trait among many that makes Santa an inadequate comparison.

Okay, I agree with you there. So, we agree that:

• It's possible to trace back the myth of Santa historically, and it has been
• It's possible to trace back the myth of God historically, but it has not been accomplished yet

How do either of these facts require that a magical man who calls himself Santa have a visible toyshop on the North Pole?

You know what, I'm done wasting my time with this asinine argument. If you were willing to see my point, you would have done so by now.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

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!

I'm not aware of anyone who says science proves God's exixtence, but it does allow God's existence.

 

[Zeno]

No it's just one trait among many that makes Santa an inadequate comparison.

I would be interested in this list of traits. If you don't want to continue with this argument I won't dispute your list, but I am interested for merely educational purposes.

Or to state it more generally (thus eliminating your Santa problem): what traits does the concept of God have that distinguish it from other unverifiable abstract concepts.

If you're done arguing, I won't bother giving my opinion on this list. But I am sincerely interested in such a list for future reference.

 

[Quiddity]

Okay, I agree with you there. So, we agree that:

• It's possible to trace back the myth of Santa historically, and it has been
• It's possible to trace back the myth of God historically, but it has not been accomplished yet

How do either of these facts require that a magical man who calls himself Santa have a visible toyshop on the North Pole?

How in the world do you trace back the myth of God? I don't get it.

 

[Storm]

The thing is, Mr. Spinkles, I KNOW you can come up with a solid, impressive argument. You've done so several times even in my limited experience, with your recent thread Beyond Disbelief: Religion as Human Invention being a shining example.

Which makes it doubly frustrating when you resort to something as lame as the Santa comparison. That argument is stupid, to put it plainly. You can do better.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Which makes it doubly frustrating when you resort to something as lame as the Santa comparison. That argument is stupid, to put it plainly. You can do better.

My argument may be lame and stupid, but you have yet to offer valid support for that objection. I'm not saying that Santa and God are equivalent concepts. I agree with you that science cannot disprove any entry on the infinite list of conceivable magical beings. (Or am I mistaken that you agree with this?) I'm merely pointing out that, because of this fact, there is no scientifically sound way to judge any of these beings as more or less ridiculous than any other, and thus Santa (and all conceivable permutations of his nature, including a purple beard or a rocket sleigh) has as much right to sit at the top of the list as God, as far as science is concerned.

You can say that this is a lame or stupid argument....but thus far, the only support you have offered for that objection has to do with the nature and history of human belief in Santa vs. God. In fact, that has no bearing on the claims I'm making, and I don't understand why you think it does.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

How in the world do you trace back the myth of God? I don't get it.

You trace back the idea of God (I won't call it a 'myth' for argument's sake) the same way you trace back any human idea: you see how it is transmitted and altered through history.


An example from an article at UCLA:

AMMAN: In a remote corner of Jordan, archaeologists have uncovered a room that may transform the way we think about God. ​

Its massive stones still clinging to the damp hills of the Jordan River Valley, the Migdol Temple at first appears to be little more than an ancient network of fortified walls. Yet when Jordanian and Australian archaeologists working at the site of ancient Pella began piecing it together in 1997, it didn't take them long to realize that they were reconstructing something extraordinary: a 3,600-year-old textbook in stone. ​

The Migdol Temple charts within a single room one of the most important events in human history: the transition from polytheism to the belief in one God.​

....​

Continuously in use from 1650 BC to 850 BC , the Migdol Temple holds within it hundreds of religious artifacts that point to five very distinct phases of occupation and rebuilding.​

Constructed, destroyed, and reconstructed time and time again, the Migdol Temple records changing cult practices during the Canaanite Hyksos ascendancy, then again during the Egyptian New Kingdom Empire, the Philistine Era, and the Age of the Local Kingdoms. ​

A stone spectator to a period of intense religious and political upheaval, every single one of the periods bruised, scarred, and left its mark on the temple, transforming the unassuming circular stones into a time capsule that is transforming the understanding of religious history.​

.....​

The newest finds at the Migdol Temple suggest that the region had its own distinct form of monotheism, and that monotheism arose in several areas of the Middle East at once in order to unify small nation-states.​

From wiki:

Origin and Development of Monotheism:

The concept sees a gradual development out of notions of henotheism and monolatrism. In the Ancient Near East, each city had a local patron deity, such as Shamash at Larsa or Sin at Ur. The first claims of global supremacy of a specific god date to the Late Bronze Age, with Akhenaten's Great Hymn to the Aten (connected to Judaism by Sigmund Freud in his Moses and Monotheism), and, depending on dating issues, Zoroaster's Gathas to Ahura Mazda. Currents of monism or monotheism emerge in Vedic India in the same period, with e.g. the Nasadiya Sukta. Philosophical monotheism and the associated concept of absolute good and evil emerges in Classical Antiquity, notably with Plato (c.f. Euthyphro dilemma), elaborated into the idea of The One in Neoplatonism.

 

[Sunstone]

"Beer is proof God exists and wants us to be happy."

- Ben Franklin


Is making beer a science? I certainly think so! QED: Science proves god exists!

 

[PatriotBob]

So to scientificly prove God's existance... that's quite the undertaking.... let me ask you this first, and think honestly about my question before you respond.

If I was to prove logically and scientificly that God exists, would you...

a) honestly beleive that God undoubtedly exists.
or
b) find your self incapable of admiting it's truth.

As odd of a question as it is, you'd be surprised how many brilliant people can not believe even when presented with sound proof.

Myself personally, I find science to be a great tool to study God's creation. From physics, anatomy, biology and chemistry. It just screams "Intelligently Designed". But that's me.

Think about my question, maybe we'll have to prove some things...