Can science prove or disprove the existence of a Spiritual existence? God?

[PolyHedral]

Originally Posted by Pegg

because any excuse will do.

I wonder if he has ever wondered why all things in our universe break down over time, yet the laws of physics do not. What keeps them so stable?

Why wouldn't they be? What would change them?

[Call_of_the_Wild]

The existence of God cannot be proven or disproven. What we can do is say to ourselves "which is more plausible"....or...."which is more likely than not to have occurred". As a theist, all we need to do is use science to determine whether or not the universe began to exist. Once we can do that, we can leave science and go to metaphysics and determine what it means for the universe to begin, and that will led us to the Supernatural.

[Pegg]

Originally Posted by lunakilo

Have you ever wondered that?
Did you come to any conclusion?

I thought it was strange that molecules break down over time, but not the very fabric of the universe. The universal laws remain constant.

My conclusion is obviously that these laws are unchangeable and therefore they must have been designed that way, otherwise why wouldn't they disintegrate like everything else in the universe.?

It makes me firmly convinced there is a creator who either keeps the laws stable, or designed them that way.

[Nowhere Man]

Originally Posted by Pegg

I thought it was strange that molecules break down over time, but not the very fabric of the universe. The universal laws remain constant.

My conclusion is obviously that these laws are unchangeable and therefore they must have been designed that way, otherwise why wouldn't they disintegrate like everything else in the universe.?

It makes me firmly convinced there is a creator who either keeps the laws stable, or designed them that way.

Catch is there is no way to know and determine if the universe's "fabric" is consistent and somehow immune to impermanence on which to make particular assumptions on which you build your conclusion upon. So far its "stable" for us certainly, but what we can see, experience, and observe is so far dynamic and fluid and flies in the face of that.

Like our the sun is stable too. So far for the moment....yet fluidity and dynamics tend to catch up soon enough.

[HerDotness]

This snippet from Stenger encourages reaching unwarranted conclusions about Stenger's book. His thesis is that what we know from scientific endeavors and discoveries indicates "beyond a reasonable doubt" that there is no being with the attributes typically given to God.

How does that differ from Dawkins' more specific qualifications? It doesn't. "Reasonable doubt" is not a hard and fast determiner that could not yield to evidence to the contrary uncovered at some future point. We're not talking U.S. trial law where double jeopardy prohibits the possibility of concluding in the future that God does exist.

[Odion]

Some conceptions of God can be disproven, such as the shallow understanding of God that is common to literalists, the unlearned, and anti-theists (who think they know what it is that theists believe, without understanding the nuances, which is why we see things like 'sky daddy', and 'sky fairy'). Most God concepts cannot be proven or disproven, at least not in this point in time. Maybe never.

[Broken Smoke]

All quibbling of semantics aside, this is a prime example of Schrodinger's Cat. If you cannot open the box, how can you prove or disprove there is a cat inside? Therefore, the entire argument is invalid no matter what is said either for or against.

[HerDotness]

Originally Posted by Broken Smoke

All quibbling of semantics aside, this is a prime example of Schrodinger's Cat. If you cannot open the box, how can you prove or disprove there is a cat inside? Therefore, the entire argument is invalid no matter what is said either for or against.

Huh? I don't see the commonalities of what's been said by Stenger with the Schrodinger's Cat paradigm.

Spell those out, please.

[Mestemia]

Originally Posted by Call_of_the_Wild

The existence of God cannot be proven or disproven. What we can do is say to ourselves "which is more plausible"....or...."which is more likely than not to have occurred". As a theist, all we need to do is use science to determine whether or not the universe began to exist. Once we can do that, we can leave science and go to metaphysics and determine what it means for the universe to begin, and that will led us to the Supernatural.

If you are going to ditch science the second you get from it what you want and ignore everything that you dislike, why bother using science at all?

[Mestemia]

Originally Posted by Pegg

I thought it was strange that molecules break down over time, but not the very fabric of the universe. The universal laws remain constant.

My conclusion is obviously that these laws are unchangeable and therefore they must have been designed that way, otherwise why wouldn't they disintegrate like everything else in the universe.?

It makes me firmly convinced there is a creator who either keeps the laws stable, or designed them that way.

So it is just like you said:

"because any excuse will do"