Coherent discussion.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Does science prove the existence of god?
- Thread starter Ceridwen018
- Start date
Alan Young
Member
What is it you hope to achieve from harmonious discussion jay?
What answers are you looking for?
What do you hope to do with the answers you find?
Where will your findings take those whom you are conversing with?
More importantly what will this do for the poor unfortunate people of the world?
What answers are you looking for?
What do you hope to do with the answers you find?
Where will your findings take those whom you are conversing with?
More importantly what will this do for the poor unfortunate people of the world?
Pah
Uber all member
I wish my discussions were as weighty effect "for the poor unfortunate people of the world". Do you really get that result?
Rolling_Stone
Well-Known Member
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
well according to some bits of Quantum mechanics things do occasionally *blip* out of "nowhere" and then they *piff* back out to "nowhere".
wa:do
wa:do
Rolling_Stone
Well-Known Member
Then the "nowhere" isn't nothing, is it? A potential something isn't nothing.
No what it means is matter jumps in and out of existance. Not exactly sure how this works to do with the flow of time I think. It pops out of existance in one place and can pop back into existance anywhere else in the universe, chance though dictates that some are more likely than others. I think the example given was that when you cross the road you expect to get to the other side however one time you could walk across the road you could end up somewhere completly different(no not the hospital because you've just been hit by a car 
)
However im not to sure on any of that and im sure it was in a book i read.
)However im not to sure on any of that and im sure it was in a book i read.
Lilly-moonshine-goblin
reap what thou sow
I am an atheist and always have been, but lately Ive discovered the karmanetics theory of good luck.
Im sure this man has proof of karma. My life has been depressing, and almost thought of buying a bible, but when I started helping others my life changed dramatically. Can´t statistics be proof of karma "reap what you sow" and therefore some type of god?
Im sure this man has proof of karma. My life has been depressing, and almost thought of buying a bible, but when I started helping others my life changed dramatically. Can´t statistics be proof of karma "reap what you sow" and therefore some type of god?
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
or it could be the result of changing the outlook you have on your life.
God doesn't need to figure into it at all... just basic psychology.
wa:do
God doesn't need to figure into it at all... just basic psychology.
wa:do
divinelight
divinelight
Does there need to be proof of a god. Religons are based on belief after all. If you believe there is a god then science is not needed. If you don't then why try to find one? If you do have faith and you want science to prove that a god exists, then your faith is not strong enough
If you just believe blindly you will never discover the truth unless it is what you believe, but you will never find it out unless you question it. But they got it covered by the "you have to believe blindly" thing. I'm pretty sure science can neither prove the existence of gods nor disprove it.
It always comes back to it, where did gods come from? Saying that they made it all explains nothing, it must have started somewhere, and why wasn't that just big bang or sometime before that even? Adding some character to the unknown before the start doesn't help.
Pah
Uber all member
Science can measure the effects of the Christian god. For example, in the belief of answered prayer, science can measure, in a double blind study, that prayer directed at a patient in a cardiac ward does not receive a benefot of prayer groups. Science can explore the origin of morality and show that the Christian god has nothing to do with it. Science completely discredits the idea of a creation generated by the same god.
Ceridwen018
Well-Known Member
You have to also understand how science works when it comes to "proving" and "disproving" things. Nothing in science is ever 100% certain--there is always some doubt, and every theory in science is open for change or elimination upon the discovery of new information. It all depends upon reasonable doubt, like in a courtroom. You can't prove to the jury with 100% certainty that John Doe committed a certain crime, because you can't transport the jury back in time to witness it themselves. What you CAN do, it show the jury enough evidence to convince them beyond a reasonable doubt that John Doe is guilty. If something in science is "proven" that simply means there are no reasonable doubts that it is not true. If something in science is "disproven" that simply means that there are no reasonable doubts that it might be true.
Even gravity, which is a theory that is generally accepted by all (probably due to the fact that it is so easily tested: take a pencil, hold it up in the air, let go, and see what happens. If evolution could be tested so simplistically, we wouldn't have creationists, but unfortunately its a much more complicated theory than that) is not true with 100% certainty scientifically speaking. We think the theory of gravity to be true because it has been tested here on earth and in our universe countless times, and the results are always the same. We have no reasonable doubts to suggest that it might not be true. Technically, it is possible that someday someone will drop a pencil and it will not fall to the ground due to some strange law of physics that we haven't discovered yet, and thus our conventional theory of gravity would have to be altered. However, we don't have any evidence to suggest that this will or will not happen, so it is not a reasonable doubt.
In other words, there is no evidence to suggest that the theory of gravity needs to be changed, and until there it, it won't be. Doesn't it seem silly to preemptively alter a theory like gravity "just in case" something is discovered in the future that might change it? That would be nonsense. "Just in case" is not a reasonable doubt. Would you let a criminal walk free "just in case" he's innocent, even though it has been proven with 90% certainty that he is guilty?
Now we get onto how science "disproves" things. There are two ways.
1. If you experiment on a hypothesis and show it be incorrect, then you have disproven that hypothesis.
2. If there is no evidence for something, then it is scientifically insignificant. There are no "reasonable doubts" to consider it to be a possibility.
So, for number one. A hypothesis is an idea posed by someone that has to meet certain criteria. A hypothesis must make predictions, such as: "If I add this chemical, I will get this reaction." If you add the chemical and do NOT get the reaction, and you repeat the process several times and still do NOT get the reaction, and your friend tries adding the same chemical over in her lab and neither does she get the reaction, then your hypothesis has been reasonably disproven.
To turn your hypothesis into a theory, you must find a mechanism. Suppose you added the chemical and DID get the reaction. You retested the experiment several times and each time you DID get the reaction. Your friend tried it in her lab and also got the reaction. Therefore, you can assume your hypothesis is correct. But WHY did the reaction happen when you added the chemical? What is it about this particular chemical that caused the reaction, when any other chemical might not have? Through answering that "why" question, you are establishing a mechanism, and are on your way to possibly describing a theory.
For number 2. If there is no evidence for something, then it is considered to be scientifically insignificant, aka, incorrect--there are no reasonably doubts to suggest that it is true. If you hypothesize that there are leprechauns in Ireland, and you go to Ireland but find no leprechauns, what is the state of your hypothesis? Is it incorrect?
First of all, it is important to realize that this leprechaun "hypothesis" is not a hypothesis at all, because it does not make predictions. There is nothing here that you can test. If you find no leprechauns in Ireland, you could always just say that "they were hiding" or "I didn't look hard enough". Its only if you make a statement such as "If there are leprechauns in Ireland, they will be drawn out of hiding within 24 hours by a pot of gold." Now, that's something you can test! Put a pot of gold in a field, hide in a tree, and see what happens for the next 24 hours. If no leprechauns come to claim the gold within that time frame, and you and several other scientists test a retest all over Ireland and still no leprechauns come out to play, it is reasonably correct to assume that your hypothesis is incorrect, and there are no leprechauns. Unfortunately, the case is still not closed on leprechauns, because that hypothesis was not cut and dry. A pot of gold didn't draw them out, by maybe something else would. There are an infinite number of possible hypotheses you would have to go through, and you still wouldn't be finished.
Why is this? Because we don't know anything about leprechauns. In the previous hypothesis with the chemical, we knew things about the chemical in question, and also about the reaction we hoped would take place. Since we don't know anything for certain about leprechauns, anything goes. Who's to say that leprechauns like cheese better than gold? Whose to say you need to wait for 48 hours, and not just 24? Both are equally correct assertions because we have nothing to go on that would suggest otherwise.
This is why it is impossible for science to analyze a "negative" or something for which we have no previous evidence. Therefore science would consider these "leprechauns" to be insignificant, and not worth considering. Much like the random quirk in physics that might mess up the theory of gravity: there is no evidence for it, so it is not considered, and won't be until it "shows itself" as it were. If there is no previous evidence for something, such as leprechauns, an anti-gravity law, or even John Doe's guilt, then those things are not significant, they are not worth considering, and we have no reasonable doubts to suggest that they might be true.
Like the leprechauns, gods and other deities pose a problem to science. The statement "There is a god" is not a hypothesis, because it cannot be tested. You could break that general statement up into an infinite number of more detailed hypotheses, such as "If god exists, then patients who are prayed for will have a higher survival rate than those who are not" (which, as mentioned above, has already been tested and shown to not be true) but you still will never be able to conclude anything. Again, this is because we know nothing about god, so we could say anything and it could possibly be "true". Who's to say that god just chooses not to answer prayers for sick people? Just as we would not preemptively change the theory of gravity, it is just as silly to consider a supernatural deity as a cause for natural phenomena as long as there is no evidence for it, and especially when a natural explanation exists.
Even gravity, which is a theory that is generally accepted by all (probably due to the fact that it is so easily tested: take a pencil, hold it up in the air, let go, and see what happens. If evolution could be tested so simplistically, we wouldn't have creationists, but unfortunately its a much more complicated theory than that) is not true with 100% certainty scientifically speaking. We think the theory of gravity to be true because it has been tested here on earth and in our universe countless times, and the results are always the same. We have no reasonable doubts to suggest that it might not be true. Technically, it is possible that someday someone will drop a pencil and it will not fall to the ground due to some strange law of physics that we haven't discovered yet, and thus our conventional theory of gravity would have to be altered. However, we don't have any evidence to suggest that this will or will not happen, so it is not a reasonable doubt.
In other words, there is no evidence to suggest that the theory of gravity needs to be changed, and until there it, it won't be. Doesn't it seem silly to preemptively alter a theory like gravity "just in case" something is discovered in the future that might change it? That would be nonsense. "Just in case" is not a reasonable doubt. Would you let a criminal walk free "just in case" he's innocent, even though it has been proven with 90% certainty that he is guilty?
Now we get onto how science "disproves" things. There are two ways.
1. If you experiment on a hypothesis and show it be incorrect, then you have disproven that hypothesis.
2. If there is no evidence for something, then it is scientifically insignificant. There are no "reasonable doubts" to consider it to be a possibility.
So, for number one. A hypothesis is an idea posed by someone that has to meet certain criteria. A hypothesis must make predictions, such as: "If I add this chemical, I will get this reaction." If you add the chemical and do NOT get the reaction, and you repeat the process several times and still do NOT get the reaction, and your friend tries adding the same chemical over in her lab and neither does she get the reaction, then your hypothesis has been reasonably disproven.
To turn your hypothesis into a theory, you must find a mechanism. Suppose you added the chemical and DID get the reaction. You retested the experiment several times and each time you DID get the reaction. Your friend tried it in her lab and also got the reaction. Therefore, you can assume your hypothesis is correct. But WHY did the reaction happen when you added the chemical? What is it about this particular chemical that caused the reaction, when any other chemical might not have? Through answering that "why" question, you are establishing a mechanism, and are on your way to possibly describing a theory.
For number 2. If there is no evidence for something, then it is considered to be scientifically insignificant, aka, incorrect--there are no reasonably doubts to suggest that it is true. If you hypothesize that there are leprechauns in Ireland, and you go to Ireland but find no leprechauns, what is the state of your hypothesis? Is it incorrect?
First of all, it is important to realize that this leprechaun "hypothesis" is not a hypothesis at all, because it does not make predictions. There is nothing here that you can test. If you find no leprechauns in Ireland, you could always just say that "they were hiding" or "I didn't look hard enough". Its only if you make a statement such as "If there are leprechauns in Ireland, they will be drawn out of hiding within 24 hours by a pot of gold." Now, that's something you can test! Put a pot of gold in a field, hide in a tree, and see what happens for the next 24 hours. If no leprechauns come to claim the gold within that time frame, and you and several other scientists test a retest all over Ireland and still no leprechauns come out to play, it is reasonably correct to assume that your hypothesis is incorrect, and there are no leprechauns. Unfortunately, the case is still not closed on leprechauns, because that hypothesis was not cut and dry. A pot of gold didn't draw them out, by maybe something else would. There are an infinite number of possible hypotheses you would have to go through, and you still wouldn't be finished.
Why is this? Because we don't know anything about leprechauns. In the previous hypothesis with the chemical, we knew things about the chemical in question, and also about the reaction we hoped would take place. Since we don't know anything for certain about leprechauns, anything goes. Who's to say that leprechauns like cheese better than gold? Whose to say you need to wait for 48 hours, and not just 24? Both are equally correct assertions because we have nothing to go on that would suggest otherwise.
This is why it is impossible for science to analyze a "negative" or something for which we have no previous evidence. Therefore science would consider these "leprechauns" to be insignificant, and not worth considering. Much like the random quirk in physics that might mess up the theory of gravity: there is no evidence for it, so it is not considered, and won't be until it "shows itself" as it were. If there is no previous evidence for something, such as leprechauns, an anti-gravity law, or even John Doe's guilt, then those things are not significant, they are not worth considering, and we have no reasonable doubts to suggest that they might be true.
Like the leprechauns, gods and other deities pose a problem to science. The statement "There is a god" is not a hypothesis, because it cannot be tested. You could break that general statement up into an infinite number of more detailed hypotheses, such as "If god exists, then patients who are prayed for will have a higher survival rate than those who are not" (which, as mentioned above, has already been tested and shown to not be true) but you still will never be able to conclude anything. Again, this is because we know nothing about god, so we could say anything and it could possibly be "true". Who's to say that god just chooses not to answer prayers for sick people? Just as we would not preemptively change the theory of gravity, it is just as silly to consider a supernatural deity as a cause for natural phenomena as long as there is no evidence for it, and especially when a natural explanation exists.
JamBar85
Master Designer
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 personally think no. I've always looked at science/scientists as trying to prove theories and questions based on logic and facts. They don't ever seem to say that something is fact until they have hard evidence to prove it.
I don't know if contradictory is the right word, but it just doesn't seem right somehow that science would or could prove the existence of an almighty being that created well.... everything and has been around since the beggining of time or even before that.
If there is asolutely no evidence of God to be found anywhere, how could scientists begin to put together a theory or even a guess to the original question?
I'd like to find out more. Good question this.
Captain Civic
version 2.0
I think it can, but it depends on your metaphysical view of the evidence.
Like it has been said in previous threads, the idea of the fine tuning of this world for life seems pretty amazing. Of course, in the same breath, you can say it was a random set of chaotic events and leave it at that. Science can't "prove" God exists, but depending on your leanings, it can support your idea. It's just that the same evidence can be deconstructed to mean something else ofr someone else.
Like it has been said in previous threads, the idea of the fine tuning of this world for life seems pretty amazing. Of course, in the same breath, you can say it was a random set of chaotic events and leave it at that. Science can't "prove" God exists, but depending on your leanings, it can support your idea. It's just that the same evidence can be deconstructed to mean something else ofr someone else.
Ceridwen018
Well-Known Member
Captain Civic said:
My point was that scientifically speaking, science most certainly CAN disprove the existence of god and the supernatural, based on the ideas I presented.
If you want to analyze the supernatural from a metaphysical point of view though, that's a whole other ball game. Science and philosophy are two different things. Science can disprove god, philosophy as of yet cannot.
Pah
Uber all member
I agree!
What science can do is measure those attributes that the Christian god supposedly posses. In the all cases where science can investigate, that god have failed a "presence" test.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Forgive me for not reading the whole thread, but how? What ideas did you present?