Can science disprove the existence of God?

[ThePainefulTruth]

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.

Universes aren't springing up out of any other singularities.

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

Well, I think you have looked em up, or remembered when I put em up before, and know you've got no answer for them.

 

[bnabernard]

Does this meen that God is a seed?

The story of a mustard seed springs to mind.

bernard (hug)

Maybe my use of the parable is not being understood by blinkered thinking, relate it to the post it addressed.

bernard (hug)

 

[outhouse]

Universes aren't springing up out of any other singularities.

You do not know that, Your statement is factually wrong unless you have looked outside this universe and confirmed your unsubstantiated rhetoric.

know you've got no answer for them.

sadly none that are credible.

 

[cambridge79]

you can't scientifically disprove god as long as you don't define him first. Once is defined you can see if the properties you attribute to him can go along with the knowledge we have of the world.
But every religion has its own definition of god. Therefore we can properly say that the best science can do is disprove some religions.

the very concept of god is so vague and elastic that it can't be disproven cause it can't be scrutinized.
but that doesn't necessarely mean god exists, because in the same way science can't disprove that an invisible cat is living in my room.

 

[outhouse]

you can't scientifically disprove god as long as you don't define him first. Once is defined you can see if the properties you attribute to him can go along with the knowledge we have of the world.
But every religion has its own definition of god. Therefore we can properly say that the best science can do is disprove some religions.

the very concept of god is so vague and elastic that it can't be disproven cause it can't be scrutinized.
but that doesn't necessarely mean god exists, because in the same way science can't disprove that an invisible cat is living in my room.

These are all good points.

Religions have never proved god exist
Only religions have defined the concept
Religions have all changed the concept

And yes science does not have to prove things that do not exist, as not existing.


But when we get to history, we see quite clearly how man made these gods and redefined previous traditions. Not only that many theist are factually hypocritical because if you asked them if they believe the Canaanite gods were real, they would state it was not defined correctly. Fact is Israelites used one of the Canaanite gods and redefined them.

 

[cambridge79]

These are all good points.

Religions have never proved god exist
Only religions have defined the concept
Religions have all changed the concept

And yes science does not have to prove things that do not exist, as not existing.


But when we get to history, we see quite clearly how man made these gods and redefined previous traditions. Not only that many theist are factually hypocritical because if you asked them if they believe the Canaanite gods were real, they would state it was not defined correctly. Fact is Israelites used one of the Canaanite gods and redefined them.

the real conundrum if you think about it is the definition of god itself ( Leaving aside the fact that in my view if god exists is something so above our comprension that we wouldn't even be able to grasp him )
I mean, if you can define him because you actually know him, than is not even faith. I mean i don't have faith in dogs, i know they exists.
on the other hand if you're defining him by faith you can't even be sure that your definition fits him.

 

[outhouse]

the real conundrum if you think about it is the definition of god itself

I study this.

What I see is only people describe what the concept means to them. I see many peoples imagination run wild

When we see the actual process of how Israelites created the concept, it leaves no room for imaginative explanations many try and provide. It is blatant mythology IMHO

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

You do not know that, Your statement is factually wrong unless you have looked outside this universe and confirmed your unsubstantiated rhetoric.

I'm talking about singularities within the universe. If one of those went Big Bang within out 13 billion year field of view, I think we'd know about it. And I'm the one who said we can't know anything from "outside" or "before" the universe--at least we haven't been able too yet--Stephen Hawking's failed (and retracted) attempts to the contrary notwithstanding.

you can't scientifically disprove god as long as you don't define him first.

I can do that much. God is the spiritual, conscious, willful embodiment of the Truth. And even if the one whole Truth is not conscious/willful, it would would still technically be god for us.

Once is defined you can see if the properties you attribute to him can go along with the knowledge we have of the world. But every religion has its own definition of god. Therefore we can properly say that the best science can do is disprove some religions.

First thing, don't attribute God with a gender, there's no basis for believing God reproduces. In fact, it makes more sense the God would be One.

the very concept of god is so vague and elastic that it can't be disproven cause it can't be scrutinized.

Elasticity isn't the problem, it's evidence, or the complete lack thereof for or against.

but that doesn't necessarely mean god exists, because in the same way science can't disprove that an invisible cat is living in my room.

I've pointed out that the total, perfect, lack of evidence for or against God is something of an indication for God. How could the universe come to be spontaneously while so perfectly leaving no evidence for how it came to be. But then we realize that a lack of evidence can't be used as evidence.

Clever.

 

[cambridge79]

I can do that much. God is the spiritual, conscious, willful embodiment of the Truth. And even if the one whole Truth is not conscious/willful, it would would still technically be god for us.

No you can't. You're just wishfully chosing what you would like god to be but can't prove he actually is all of that.

now we can debate if science, or reason or logic, can exclude that such god with such properties exists. But even if they couldn't exclude it, that wouldn't still be a proof he actually exists.

For example, can a chair with 462 legs exist? science say it can exist. Yet i think is safe to assume nobody ever built a chair with 462 legs in human history and nobody ever will.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

No you can't. You're just wishfully chosing what you would like god to be but can't prove he actually is all of that.

You said, paraphrased, that we can't prove (or disprove) God unless we define (It) first. So I put the theoretical definition out there to be examined and tested.

now we can debate if science, or reason or logic, can exclude that such god with such properties exists. But even if they couldn't exclude it, that wouldn't still be a proof he actually exists.

Precisely! And I merely added that if there were no such conscious, willful God, that the Truth should still be our god in the non-capitalized sense of its ultimate value. Truth instead of money, or power, or sex, or fame....etc.

For example, can a chair with 462 legs exist? science say it can exist. Yet i think is safe to assume nobody ever built a chair with 462 legs in human history and nobody ever will.

Well yes, because a straw-man would be sitting in that chair.

 

[outhouse]

I'm talking about singularities within the universe. If one of those went Big Bang within out 13 billion year field of view, I think we'd know about it.

No, we would not, If we were within its circle.

There is a difference between small black holes, and super massive black holes, and ones larger. We don't have the science down on these BH's but we know they are singularities.

We also know singularities can expand.

 

[outhouse]

I can do that much.

Personal perspective is useless in this context.

God is the spiritual, conscious, willful embodiment of the Truth

Personal opinion is worthless for all in this context.


By all standards gods were all created by man, as factually only man has defined them in mythology, and attributed nature to them in error.

 

[paarsurrey]

I can do that much. God is the spiritual, conscious, willful embodiment of the Truth. And even if the one whole Truth is not conscious/willful, it would would still technically be god for us.

I agree with what I have coloured in magenta.
Regards

 

[leibowde84]

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.



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.

Would you agree that you take pride in avoiding prudence in the interest of your faith?

 

[outhouse]

This is getting old.

Until you provide sources, it will stay old

 

[paarsurrey]

Can science disprove the existence of God?


It is not a question that relates to "scientific method", scientific method is incapacitated. Right?Please
Regards

 

[outhouse]

scientific method is incapacitated. Right?

No. Those trying to prove mythology is real.

You fail to realize you carry the burden of proof, and you fail daily.

 

[paarsurrey]

Can science disprove the existence of God?

It is not a question that relates to "scientific method", scientific method is incapacitated. Right?Please
Regards

No. Those trying to prove mythology is real.
You fail to realize you carry the burden of proof, and you fail daily.

The Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics are crushed under the burden of proof/evidence, yet they don't realize.

Regards

 

[prometheus11]

The Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics are crushed under the burden of proof/evidence, yet they don't realize.

Regards

I don't understand what you mean. Do you mean that there is much evidence for one of humanities proposed gods?

If so, that would be wonderful. I've been wondering if any reliably consistent methodology could ever prove gods existence.

Do you have reliable and consistent measurements that can demonstrate the existence of a god?

 

[Thief]

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 would have you rely on cause and effect.
no conclusion is firm if you cannot associate the effect with the experiment you performed.

at the 'point of singularity' science stops.
science cannot deal with it......but would take you there.

substance is said to be still until 'something' moves it.

and here at the forum....no one seems willing to do what science cannot
choose

Spirit first?.....or substance?

I say substance is creation and has no volition of it's own.
Spirit first.
God did it.