Can science disprove the existence of God?

[bnabernard]

Does this meen that God is a seed?

The story of a mustard seed springs to mind.

bernard (hug)

 

[paarsurrey]

I am amazed that anyone would write this. Science analyses and describes natural phenomena. Science completely ignores gods.
If a scientist makes any kind of comment on a god then not in their capacity as scientist - and definitely not high-calibre.
It's pretty tough to prove non-existence, so the entire notion is flawed in my eyes.

It is definitely flawed. Science has never set-up a discipline to find G-d, they know it is none of their business to establish such a discipline. Science is that that works in day to day situation, it cannot find any absolute facts, not even a single fact.

Science proceeds from facts to laws to theories by a difficult-to-define process called induction. Induction includes pattern-recognition, brainstorming, tinkering, creative guessing and that elusive "insight". It is not a process of deductive logic.
Theories and laws are required to be of such form that one can deductively proceed from theories to laws to data. The results of deduction must meet a stringent standard: they must agree with experiment and with observations of nature.
Mathematics is a process of deductive logic. Therefore it is ideally suited to be the language and the deductive link between theories and experimental facts. Because of this, some non-scientists think that mathematics and logic are used to "prove" scientific propositions, to deduce new laws and theories, and to establish laws and theories with mathematical certainty. This is false, as we shall see.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/logic.htm​

Science is circular reasoning as much as earth is round.
If one probes into a fact, it melts away.
Regards

 

[bnabernard]

Its clever the way two highly inflammable gases come together to put out fires, he said chucking a bucket full of hydrogen and oxygen mix onto his bonfire.
What came first the gas the fire or the water?.


bernard (hug)

 

[Shad]

It is definitely flawed. Science has never set-up a discipline to find G-d, they know it is none of their business to establish such a discipline. Science is that that works in day to day situation, it cannot find any absolute facts, not even a single fact.

Science proceeds from facts to laws to theories by a difficult-to-define process called induction. Induction includes pattern-recognition, brainstorming, tinkering, creative guessing and that elusive "insight". It is not a process of deductive logic.
Theories and laws are required to be of such form that one can deductively proceed from theories to laws to data. The results of deduction must meet a stringent standard: they must agree with experiment and with observations of nature.
Mathematics is a process of deductive logic. Therefore it is ideally suited to be the language and the deductive link between theories and experimental facts. Because of this, some non-scientists think that mathematics and logic are used to "prove" scientific propositions, to deduce new laws and theories, and to establish laws and theories with mathematical certainty. This is false, as we shall see.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/logic.htm​

Science is circular reasoning as much as earth is round.
If one probes into a fact, it melts away.
Regards

Induction is not circular reasoning you have been told that repeatedly.

 

[StopS]

Induction is not circular reasoning you have been told that repeatedly.

I think it's impossible to tell people who are ignorant that they are ignorant. It's amazing how scared some people are of science.

 

[bnabernard]

They say that a little knowledge is dangerous, how little is little compared with total/absolute knowledge?

bernard (hug)

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I am amazed at how many high-calibre scientists are out to demonstrate that science disproves the existence of God. This amazes me because in general all science students learn at least a little bit of philosophy of science. One of the most basic principles in philosophy of science is that of falsifiability. A statement is falsifiable if there is an observation (either experimental or logical) that can demonstrate that the statement is false. For example, the statement “all cats are black” can easily be disproven by finding a cat that is not black. Similarly, the statement “parallel straight lines meet at some point” is false by definition. However, statements such as “this cat ought to be black” are unfalsifiable because it is impossible to demonstrate what something ought to be. Another example of an unfalsifiable statement is “if I had been born in Nigeria, I would be two meters tall”. These statements are unscientific because they are unfalsifiable. Science cannot tell us anything about them. It can neither prove them nor disprove them. However, an unfalsifiable statement may be true. For example, “mothers ought to love their children” is unfalsifiable and unscientific, but may be true nonetheless. The existence of God is unfalsifiable. Therefore, science cannot tell us anything about it. Claiming that this is not so is demonstrating a profound ignorance of what science is and is not. Please share your thoughts on the matter.

Some scientists and professional atheists (Dawkins, Krauss, Stenger, and even Hawking, begrudgingly), have admitted in the last few years that a laissez-faire Creator and/or God can't be ruled out. The ultimate problem is that there's no evidence either way for how the universe came to be.

 

[bnabernard]

Absolute knowledge, would in religious terms be God, a bit of knowledge would be a god,
I'll consult God's word, pretty much like 'I don't know but I know who does. In modern times, lacking faith in God and having faith in man we might check the computor, look it up in a book,.
Religion accepts the existence of pre-existino absolute knowledge and moves forward turnig right because God says so etc,
Problem, people want to have a look down the left turn to see why, and of course get lost.

bernard (hug)

 

[bnabernard]

Once man has completed his task to build a super intelligence that knows better than he himself, will he be able to live with it?

bernard (hug)

 

[outhouse]

Does this meen that God is a seed?

The story of a mustard seed springs to mind.

bernard (hug)

Do you think god grows like a weed?

 

[outhouse]

. The ultimate problem is that there's no evidence either way for how the universe came to be.

Has nothing to do with mythology.


There are excellent natural explanations that do not require mythology.

Some scientists and professional atheists (Dawkins, Krauss, Stenger, and even Hawking, begrudgingly), have admitted in the last few years that a laissez-faire Creator and/or God can't be ruled out.

Provide sources your quote mining again, way out of context.

 

[leibowde84]

It is definitely flawed. Science has never set-up a discipline to find G-d, they know it is none of their business to establish such a discipline. Science is that that works in day to day situation, it cannot find any absolute facts, not even a single fact.

Science proceeds from facts to laws to theories by a difficult-to-define process called induction. Induction includes pattern-recognition, brainstorming, tinkering, creative guessing and that elusive "insight". It is not a process of deductive logic.
Theories and laws are required to be of such form that one can deductively proceed from theories to laws to data. The results of deduction must meet a stringent standard: they must agree with experiment and with observations of nature.
Mathematics is a process of deductive logic. Therefore it is ideally suited to be the language and the deductive link between theories and experimental facts. Because of this, some non-scientists think that mathematics and logic are used to "prove" scientific propositions, to deduce new laws and theories, and to establish laws and theories with mathematical certainty. This is false, as we shall see.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/logic.htm​

Science is circular reasoning as much as earth is round.
If one probes into a fact, it melts away.
Regards

Can you support this claim and reconcile it with the meaning of the term "circular reasoning" (see below)? There is nothing in your citation or comment that supports this claim.

"Science is circular reasoning as much as earth is round."

An argument is circular if its conclusion is among its premises, if it assumes (either explicitly or not) what it is trying to prove. Such arguments are said to beg the question. A circular argument fails as a proof because it will only be judged to be sound by those who already accept its conclusion.

Anyone who rejects the argument’s conclusion should also reject at least one of its premises (the one that is the same as its conclusion), and so should reject the argument as a whole. Anyone who accepts all of the argument’s premises already accepts the argument’s conclusion, so can’t be said to have been persuaded by the argument. In neither case, then, will the argument be successful.

Example
(1) The Bible affirms that it is inerrant.
(2) Whatever the Bible says is true.
Therefore:
(3) The Bible is inerrant.

This argument is circular because its conclusion—The Bible is inerrant—is the same as its second premise—Whatever the Bible says is true. Anyone who would reject the argument’s conclusion should also reject its second premise, and, along with it, the argument as a whole.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Has nothing to do with mythology.
There are excellent natural explanations that do not require mythology.

There is no information that explains or precedes the Big Bang. And all revelation/miracles etc. rely entirely on 100% hearsay, which when applied to religion, equals mythology.

Provide sources your quote mining again, way out of context.

I have provided them previously on this site, and I'm sure if I provided them again, you'd just go off on another tangent without acknowledging them. So if you want me to jump through those hoops again, you're going to have to provide something to make it worthwhile. And they aren't out of context whatsoever. Of course if you don't want to be (further) embarrassed, you could find them easily enough yourself, but then you'd have to actually be interested in the Truth.

 

[outhouse]

There is no information that explains or precedes the Big Bang

False. The BB started from a singularity. The universe is full of singularities.

And all revelation/miracles etc. rely entirely on 100% hearsay, which when applied to religion, equals mythology.

Yes religion is full of mythology and science uses educated knowledge to determine possibilities.


Your god of the gaps is a pitiful excuse for not having evidence to support any aspect of your belief.

As to where all of science is evidence based.

 

[outhouse]

but then you'd have to actually be interested in the Truth.

Since when is your particular faith which is solely based on geographic location the so called "truth"


You still have not provided credible sources to your desperate quote mining.

 

[bnabernard]

Do you think god grows like a weed?

Does god grow like a weed, or does God grow like a weed?

How does a weed differ from any other plant when it grows, it feeds, sufficient for it;s needs, its roots spread out in the soil and it digests the relevant therein to slap on growth, just like man who digests the plants benefits from the processing factory that exists between him and the soil, netter to eat a handful of soil that has been processed by a plant or even an animal that has processed the plant, than go straight to source and have a mud pie.

However with collective plants and animals 'a collective'' being God, no, beneficiaries of God and thereby gods perhaps

Bit like absolute Knowledge, there may well be collective knowledge but untill absolute is achieved even the best know how can be turned on it's head given the point of new understanding.

bernard (hug)

 

[outhouse]

How does a weed differ from any other plant when it grows

Grade school biology answers that one.

Maybe you don't understand the parable of the mustard seed

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

False. The BB started from a singularity. The universe is full of singularities.

This is getting old. None of the singularities in black holes (if they exist) can be connected or equated with the BB singularity.

You're flailing.

Yes religion is full of mythology and science uses educated knowledge to determine possibilities.

You appear to be saying that you agree.

Your god of the gaps is a pitiful excuse for not having evidence to support any aspect of your belief.

What excuse, there is no evidence. In fact, Hawking, in his atheistic zeal, tried to claim there was such evidence but then had t o back down.

As to where all of science is evidence based.

???????

Since when is your particular faith which is solely based on geographic location the so called "truth"

???????

You still have not provided credible sources to your desperate quote mining.

And I won't post them again until you meet the requirements, no matter how much you try to ignore them.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I am amazed at how many high-calibre scientists are out to demonstrate that science disproves the existence of God. This amazes me because in general all science students learn at least a little bit of philosophy of science. One of the most basic principles in philosophy of science is that of falsifiability. A statement is falsifiable if there is an observation (either experimental or logical) that can demonstrate that the statement is false. For example, the statement “all cats are black” can easily be disproven by finding a cat that is not black. Similarly, the statement “parallel straight lines meet at some point” is false by definition. However, statements such as “this cat ought to be black” are unfalsifiable because it is impossible to demonstrate what something ought to be. Another example of an unfalsifiable statement is “if I had been born in Nigeria, I would be two meters tall”. These statements are unscientific because they are unfalsifiable. Science cannot tell us anything about them. It can neither prove them nor disprove them. However, an unfalsifiable statement may be true. For example, “mothers ought to love their children” is unfalsifiable and unscientific, but may be true nonetheless. The existence of God is unfalsifiable. Therefore, science cannot tell us anything about it. Claiming that this is not so is demonstrating a profound ignorance of what science is and is not. Please share your thoughts on the matter.

Science: Sociology, psychology, intercultural studies, anthropology, philosophy, theology, history, prooves that godis not an external being or spirit that exists a part from human basic needs to survive.

Fortunately, believers do not look much into the nature of their belief...looking at what counters their faith true...for if some found that their experiences Their experiences and spirituality is not universal (hence not fact) maybe the world would come to end.

Maybe "science" is keeping its mouth shut. Politics are involved too not just science.

God is an experience not a fact to be proved true.

 

[outhouse]

None of the singularities in black holes (if they exist) can be connected or equated with the BB singularity.

You cannot connect any black hole to any other black hole.

So your statement is a word game that is non sequitur.

The universe formed from a singularity and factually nature is full of singularities.

Hawking, in his atheistic zeal, tried to claim there was such evidence but then had t o back down.

Provide sources.

And I won't post them

Which means you have no credibility, and without sources to back your opinions, ALL of your opinions remain unsubstantiated.