What does science think will disprove God?And what do Christians think will prove God?

[RestlessSoul]

Right.

When we withhold judgment on a claim, we say that it's 50% likely and 50% unlikely. Technically, this still means that the claim is not likely to be true and is improbable. It's just not more unlikely than it is likely.

Considerably less improbable than the statistical near-impossibility of our universe developing in just the way it has, to allow galaxies to form and life to emerge in at least one corner thereof.

 

[firedragon]

Science cannot say anything about the supernatural; it only observes the natural world.

Finally this fact seems to have drilled in.

 

[firedragon]

What does science think will disprove God?And what do Christians think will prove God?Just curious.

As said by Alt above, science cannot prove or disprove God via induction because science has a methodology called naturalism.

The only way for Christians to prove God exists is via philosophical arguments. They can use science as a part of their deduction.

 

[PruePhillip]

What does science think will disprove God?And what do Christians think will prove God?Just curious.

We don't ask, 'What is your science?'
We ask, 'What is your FAITH.' --- you prove these thing through your personal experience.

 

[firedragon]

Evidence of God's existence would have to be put forth first before we have to worry about science attempting to disprove the idea.

If science follows naturalism, how would evidence for a supernatural be presented?

Thats an oxymoron.

 

[firedragon]

I don't think that's quite accurate.

"Methodological naturalism" doesn't mean that science can't one day prove the existence of ghosts, reincarnation, psychic powers, an afterlife, etc. It just means that it focuses on what is observable and measurable.

If God affects the natural world in any way, such as answering prayers or performing miracles, we can test that. And we have. And we have found that God doesn't answer prayers or perform miracles.

I have heard people say this. But it's absurd. No one knows if God performs these so called "miracles" that you are referring to. You are stemming from the wish-maker's dreams. That means, someone wishes he gets a ton of gold to appear in his room. These statements you make are just apologetics.

And you made a claim that "we have found that God doesn't answer prayers or perform miracles". How did your "we" group who ever you are referring to do that?

Can you provide the study data, sample sizes, sampling methods etc??

Thanks.

 

[stvdv]

What does science think will disprove God?

Science below mind, God beyond mind
Hence
Science lacks Wisdom to disprove God
@stvdvRF(God)

 

[stvdv]

And what do Christians think will prove God?Just curious.

Science below mind, God beyond mind
Hence
To get proof you must go beyond mind
But
Proof is a mental thing at best
Hence
Well...need I say more?
@stvdvRF(God)

 

[blü 2]

What does science think will disprove God?And what do Christians think will prove God?Just curious.

First, not "disprove", rather, "demonstrate the strong likelihood of the non-existence of".

Second, what real thing is a "God"?

If, using your answer to that question, we find a real suspect, what test will determine whether it's God or not?

 

[RestlessSoul]

First, not "disprove", rather, "demonstrate the strong likelihood of the non-existence of".

Second, what real thing is a "God"?

If, using your answer to that question, we find a real suspect, what test will determine whether it's God or not?

Good luck dousing for water with a metal detector

 

[stvdv]

What does science think will disprove God?

Science works with observable, measurable evidence

IF above about Science is true
THEN science lacks interest in God
BECAUSE God is beyond measurable

AND

IF Atheist uses Science while debating God
THEN Atheist lacks interest in God
Hence useless to debate for me
@stvdvRF(God)

 

[Segev Moran]

What does science think will disprove God?And what do Christians think will prove God?Just curious.

You cannot disprove God same as you cannot Prove it.
It cannot be disproved as God is a non physical concept and science only deals with the physical "realm".
For the same reason, you cannot prove Gods exsitence.
You can, however, try to prove Gods affect on the physical world, yet it will only prove something beyond the known physical is happening and not necessarily God.

 

[blü 2]

Good luck dousing for water with a metal detector

At least with the unicorn you know it's equine, has a single horn mid-forehead and only talks to virgins.

God? It's as though [he]'s only an idea, a concept with no external counterpart ─ indeed, were it otherwise, we could take God's photograph, [he] could appear on TV, give concerts ...

 

[RestlessSoul]

At least with the unicorn you know it's equine, has a single horn mid-forehead and only talks to virgins.

God? It's as though [he]'s only an idea, a concept with no external counterpart ─ indeed, were it otherwise, we could take God's photograph, [he] could appear on TV, give concerts ...

So anything we can't see, we can assume does not exist?

 

[viole]

What does science think will disprove God?And what do Christians think will prove God?Just curious.

Science cannot disprove things that are not falsifiable, including the vanilla versions of Gods circulating today.

but it can make them superfluous.

ciao

- viole

 

[RestlessSoul]

Science cannot disprove things that are not falsifiable, including the vanilla versions of Gods circulating today.

but it can make them superfluous.

ciao

- viole

Everything is superfluous in the absence of need or interest.

 

[viole]

Everything is superfluous in the absence of need or interest.

Well, I never said God, gods are not needed. Actually, that is why I think people believe in Them.

So, to be precise, I need to expand. Science can make gods superfluous as explanation of the natural world.

better?

ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, I never said God, gods are not needed. Actually, that is why I think people believe in Them.

So, to be precise, I need to expand. Science can make gods superfluous as explanation of the natural world.

better?

ciao

- viole

That depends on what version of science you use. I have another version of science.

 

[blü 2]

So anything we can't see, we can assume does not exist?

No definition in terms appropriate to something with objective existence, only fairytale qualities like omnipotence, omniscience, perfection; never appears, never says, never does; explicable as a sociological and psychological phenomenon but has no characteristics of real objects and entities ─ no just not seen, but not meaningfully described.

At least if you were looking for a unicorn, you'd know one if you found one, and you could bring it back for inspection, make videos and photos of it, and so on.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Science works with observable, measurable evidence it has no interest in disproving imaginary ideas.

Millions or billions of religious people have, for literally, 10.000 years been trying to prove their particular god and failing, I don't see anything new happening here.

I have a different understand of science. So to me, science can neither prove nor disprove the metaphysical version of the supernatural.