Does science prove the existence of god? (Jesus, ritual, beliefs)

[Ceridwen018]

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!

[Mr Spinkles]

The idea that God can be 'proven' flies in the face of the whole faith concept. Really, everyone wants what they think to be true to be backed by evidence and logic, but because so many religious concepts are NOT backed by evidence and logic, the concept of virtuous faith came to the rescue. Not believing for lack of evidence (which is perfectly reasonable) is severely looked down upon in most religions (how dare you think for yourself--show some humility!)

Jesus said "Blessed are they who believe and have not seen". This is basically a catch all. In any case, trying to 'prove' faith-based beliefs does them an injustice, in my opinion.

[(Q)]

Considering that even science doesn't make that claim, science usually has nothing to do with gods. You know, the complete lack of evidence thing...

[Jayhawker Soule]

I found a couple of things that I think relevant ...

In contrasting the Western religions with science, the most important criterion of distinction is that the supernatural or spiritual realm is unknowable ... Given this fiat by the theistic believers, science simply ignores the supernatural as being outside the scope of scientific inquiry. Scientists in effect are saying:

You religious believers set up your postulates as truths, and we take you at your word. By definition, you render your beliefs unassailable and unavailable.

This attitude is not one of surrender, but simply an expression of the logical impossibility of proving the existence of something about which nothing can possibly be known through scientific investigation.

- Understanding Science: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues by Arthur N. Strahler

First let's get this straight. Proof, as we mean it when we say "prove me wrong", has nothing to do with science. While we might use the word "proof" in science, it is not a scientific idea. Proving is an exercise in logic. The other meaning of the word "proof", as it is used when we refer to whiskey – "this is 90 proof" – actually has its origin in the meaning of the word as we use it in science, but that's a whole different story!

Here's a definition of what it means to prove something: "Proof is arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the available evidence." Notice that this has absolutely nothing to do with being right or wrong. It also has nothing to do with science either, since you can have logical conclusions in Social Studies, English, or any other subject. The word proof is used a lot in law, and the idea isn't a lot different if we use it in science.

In science we collect empirical evidence through the process of experimentation. If we collect enough evidence, we will probably notice patterns or regularities in the evidence, and then we will develop generalizations that describe what we have observed. These generalized descriptions of observed events are called scientific laws.

- see Proof

[Ceridwen018]

Hey, I'm just a little tired of people big-wigging it around about how god can be proven by science, and then not being able to attain satisfaction by way of explanation. I have noticed, that this idea usually doesn't come out until the debate has begun to wind down--"Oh yeah, well science proves god you know..." What?! Why didn't you bring this up in the VERY BEGINNING? We could've saved so much time and breath...

So, all of you out there who believe science can prove god--come in here and tell us why!

[(Q)]

I would suspect that the "science" theists refer to is not the science we tend to agree with. In that respect, anything goes no matter how far-fetched.

[Runt]

Oddly enough, I agree with Q. A lot of sites out on the internet claiming that they have scientific proof that God exists seem to come to that conclusion only by misunderstanding (sometimes deliberately) basic scientific laws and theories.

[tetra46]

Science does not need to prove a god or gods existed. I may look at this a little different than most because I like to think I'm coming from a more positive path. I've read almost all the bible and from this indebt read the prove god does not exist is all there for one to see, BUT ONLY IF ONE LOOKS. Using just one example, I and many of my fellow atheists see quite clearly how many religious folk can not see what is obvious.

Example: God created man in his own image.

This simple quote from the said book may not be exact, but we have found most religions except the above.

Now let’s rip it apart: God created man...it is also said he created everything else too. I can't quite believe how many folk think there must have been a god to start off the beginning. BUT where in the world did this god come from? Don't tell me he just appeared because that's a cop out.

Anyway, my point (or our point) has a very strong base to start by looking a little deeper into this so called god and his creation. If we are of his image then he (god) must have genitals too. HE MUST HAVE! But what does he need them for? He must be just as human as we. And be capable of sexual relations. And if that’s the case then where’s Mrs. God? (There is evidence that in the Jewish faith there was a Mrs. God then come along some rabbi’s (males) and wrote her out of the faith).

Let me go on: This god had a (how can I say this) “bum too”. Oh dear, if that’s the case then he must have needed to eat and if that’s the case too! He could fart as well.

And did you know? He could not have been a perfect god/human because he told folk to cut off their foreskin. WHY? Did he error in his creation? Because if he was the almighty and created us in his image, why did he create us with a foreskin?

From one, little quote. Amazing

[Named]

Why would a theist ever claim to be able to prove their God's existence with solid proof, logic and evidence?
Faith can't be challenged, no matter what. It contorts and twists, wraps around or evades anything thrown at it. An indelible force, who would give that up?
If the concept of a God was backed by that which can be challenged, it may, and probably will, be shot down.
We can't have that, can we?

That's what has bothered me throughout the history of my debating with religious types. They demand temporal proof and flawless reasoning from me, supporting my theories, but if I challenge THEIR theories, they can play the faith card. "It doesn't matter, it's supernatural, I don't have to explain it. We just can't comprehend it..."
How is that fair?
If you, as a religious type, are incapable of logically arguing your beliefs, employing empirical evidence in your defence, you have no right to demand it of an Athiest.
Ne?

[Zero Faith]

For something to be scientific, it must be consistent, repeatable and have the capability of making predictions. Take thermodynamics:

1) Consistent: There are no known exceptions to the laws set out in thermodynamics.

2) Repeatable: I can take an experiment performed in Australia, set it up in my kitchen, and get the same results.

3) Predictions: I can look at an engine, or a chemical reaction, then use thermodynamics to predict how it will work. I can then prove my prediction by running the engine or reacting the chemicals and comparing.

If, at any time, any of these three principles is violated, then the scientific facts under questions must be reconsidered. These principles repesent the core of scientific thought.

So. If you can apply God to these three criteria and come out positive, then yes -- science has proven the existence of God.

I think it goes without saying that this has not occurred by any stretch of the imagination. Science and God have nothing to do with each other.