Does science prove the existence of god?

[BucephalusBB]

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.

a) well yes. I follow proof quite much. But you'll see that for some proof is easier to be proof than for me. When people keep talking about how complicated the eye is, that is way not enough "proof" for me, but for some, that's final..

b) Myself? I never lied to myself, so why would I start then...?

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.

Funny, to me it screams "pattern", and I still don't know why that would need a god

 

[Quiddity]

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.

Wouldn't that only tell you when man started to record his ideas?

 

[Storm]

My argument may be lame and stupid, but you have yet to offer valid support for that objection.

I don't waste effort on Pascal's Wager, either.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Wouldn't that only tell you when man started to record his ideas?

I suppose you're right, all we can say about the earliest ideas is "this is when they left evidence" of them (not necessarily intentional recordings), but we don't know for sure when an idea originated in someone's head. What we can be sure of, I think, is that the origination and development of something like monotheism was nothing like how it is portrayed in the Bible; I think the evidence shows that it was a gradual alteration of earlier stories and ideas. Virgin births, a heralded or prophesized birth, martyrdom, half-god-half-men, flood stories.....these ideas predate Christianity and Judaism by a long shot. (This is not to say that monotheism isn't original in any way; it just wasn't handed down from on high.)

I don't waste effort on Pascal's Wager, either.

Okay.

 

[Rowenn]

"Proof" doesn't exist as far as I can tell. 'True' truth or certaininty in this universe a nearly ungrasppable to the human mind. No, there is no proof for the existence of God, as their most undoubtedly is not one speck of proof for any proposition that a human can make.... That is my oppinion in this matter...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Virgin births, a heralded or prophesized birth, martyrdom, half-god-half-men, flood stories.....these ideas predate Christianity and Judaism by a long shot.

post hoc ergo propter hoc ....

 

[Quiddity]

I suppose you're right, all we can say about the earliest ideas is "this is when they left evidence" of them (not necessarily intentional recordings), but we don't know for sure when an idea originated in someone's head. What we can be sure of, I think, is that the origination and development of something like monotheism was nothing like how it is portrayed in the Bible; I think the evidence shows that it was a gradual alteration of earlier stories and ideas. Virgin births, a heralded or prophesized birth, martyrdom, half-god-half-men, flood stories.....these ideas predate Christianity and Judaism by a long shot. (This is not to say that monotheism isn't original in any way; it just wasn't handed down from on high.)

And that's ok, it's not like there is no room for development within Abrahamaic faiths. If you think about it, it's like that with people now. I wasn't born believing in such things, but I went through a metamorphosis; and I still am. The Bible can be seen as a recording of man's development. So really, no matter what the findings are, it's only going to show that man developed nothing into something; which is something we already agree with.

 

[View from Here]

the idea that science proves religion is, in my view, highly unscientific

 

[PatriotBob]

Well for me, as a christian, to prove the existance of God would start with the Bible. To prove that the Bible is an accurate account of actual events would be a first step would it not. Much more acheivable than proving God out right. Does this sit as logical to you?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

post hoc ergo propter hoc ....

...Strawman.... :areyoucra

 

[Mr Spinkles]

And that's ok, it's not like there is no room for development within Abrahamaic faiths. If you think about it, it's like that with people now. I wasn't born believing in such things, but I went through a metamorphosis; and I still am. The Bible can be seen as a recording of man's development. So really, no matter what the findings are, it's only going to show that man developed nothing into something; which is something we already agree with.

Fair enough.

 

[Ceridwen018]

(the common atheist's argument that God was simply invented to explain natural phenomena is merely wishful thinking with zero anthropological basis)

This statement is wishful thinking.

The formation of religion due to reasons proven other than an "actual god" have been observed in recent history.
Cargo cult - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm actually a little amazed that you would make thi statement. I thought the anthropological evidence for god was well known. If you really feel that it has "zero basis" however, I would encourage you to read a book on the subject.

I would like to reiterate, as I stated in the first post I wrote to start this all off on pg. 34 (for anyone who would like to consult it) "proof" and "disproof" are relative tersm here. Science cannot prove or diprove anything with 100% certainty, but there comes a point when its not practical to worry about it. For instance, its not practical to sit around worrying that gravity has not been proven with 100% accuracy.

That said, science considers god to be nonexistent because it has no evidence for it, and it is not practical for science to consider every possible conception of the human mind to "exist". In the same manner, leprechauns, and that elusive quirk in physics that renders the theory of gravity asunder are all considered to not exist scientifically speaking. Is this 100% certain? Of course not. Is the level of doubt reasonable? No. Does this mean that philosophy, other forms of logic, and spirituality must also show that god is disproven? Absolutely not.

 

[Storm]

This statement is wishful thinking.

No, it's a realistic assessment of the facts. Though there are promising hypotheses, we just don't know where the concept of God originally came from.

The formation of religion due to reasons proven other than an "actual god" have been observed in recent history.
Cargo cult - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I never denied that God-concepts are used to explain natural phenomena, only that that has been shown to be the origin of the concept.

I'm actually a little amazed that you would make thi statement. I thought the anthropological evidence for god was well known. If you really feel that it has "zero basis" however, I would encourage you to read a book on the subject.

I have. Why don't you? I suggest Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Though there are promising hypotheses, we just don't know where the concept of God originally came from.

Fair enough. I agree with you there.

But don't you agree that no promising scientific hypothesis on the subject appeals to miraculous revelation/enlightenment? Such hypotheses, it seems to me, are either falsified (as in scientific tests of the efficacy of intercessory prayer) or are not falsifiable. So although we do not know which hyoptheses will turn out to be correct, the serious contenders are devoid of supernatural appeals. Do you see what I'm saying? (I hope that, like Dwight from the TV show 'The Office', you'll un-shun me.... )

 

[Storm]

Fair enough. I agree with you there.

But don't you agree that no promising scientific hypothesis on the subject appeals to miraculous revelation/enlightenment? Such hypotheses, it seems to me, are either falsified (as in scientific tests of the efficacy of intercessory prayer) or are not falsifiable. So although we do not know which hyoptheses will turn out to be correct, the serious contenders are devoid of supernatural appeals. Do you see what I'm saying? (I hope that, like Dwight from the TV show 'The Office', you'll un-shun me.... )

I do agree that nothing points to the supernatural, yes. Is that what you were asking?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

More or less, yes'm.

 

[astarath]

lol...yes'm

 

[wednesday]

Science is basically proving through material experimentation. I cannot see how they could do this to prove God's existance to be honest. What would they do, run around in a thunder storm trying to catch him in a glass jar like Isaac Newton trying to catch lightning. Would they poke around with thermo-dynamics to capture his essence? I don't see how it can be proved.
Science has only proven that many claimed religious symbols such as the spear of destiny are false. For the record non-destructive testing was used to date the spear of destiny to the 12th century as far as i know.

 

[Somkid]

If science proved the existence of a god I'm sure we would all be going to the same place of worship and it would have made the 10 o' clock news.

 

[sandandfoam]

I was reading CS Lewis yesterday, he wrote "That the ordinary interest in scientification is an affair for psychoanalysis is borne out by the fact that all who like it, like it thus ravenously, and equally by the fact that those who do not, are often nauseated by it. The repulsion of the one sort has the same coarse strength as the fascinated interest of the other and is equally tell-tale."
It's an interesting point of view isn't it?