Does science prove the existence of god?

[McBell]

I'm a bit confused as to what you mean by this, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

I think what you're saying is that you can prove specific claims about god to be wrong, (such as, cancer patients who unknowingly receive prayers have a higher survival rate that those who do not) but the fact that this specific claim is untrue does not mean that "god" as a whole is untrue, yes?

No.
science has shown that that particular belief is untrue.
It is an assumption to think that that particular belief pertains to God.

Now if you wish to state that science has shown that particular version of god untrue, then i would agree.

 

[Storm]

Think of it this way: tell me why you don't think science disproves god.

Because nothing science has come up with NOTHING that offers evidence against it. Science is not capable of nor interested in disproving God. Science is about how things work. You're trying to say science has disproved something which it currently has no means of even examining. You're trying to force science to suppot your personal agenda, and it doesn't work.

 

[sandandfoam]

The problem with this assumption is that the word "God" carries with it other assumptions about the nature of the subject. If one wants to describe the eternal in the physical as they experience it, why not come up with a new name like "the force"?

I am not fixed on any word, however the word 'God' as I understand it (i.e whatever is) works for me. I think it's the concept that's important not the word.

 

[Pah]

Because nothing science has come up with NOTHING that offers evidence against it. Science is not capable of nor interested in disproving God. Science is about how things work. You're trying to say science has disproved something which it currently has no means of even examining. You're trying to force science to suppot your personal agenda, and it doesn't work.

Science is about truth and reality. When claims are made about attributes of god or gods, they are thus open to investigation. Science has had broad scope with multi-disciplines showing that many claims are bogus.

 

[McBell]

cience has had broad scope with multi-disciplines showing that many claims are bogus.

I agree.
The problem is that many people seem to think that this means that God does not exist.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The problem is that many people seem to think that this means that God does not exist.

The pervasive success of scientific inquiry serves to render appeals to supernatural agency unnecessary and, in the opinion of many, therefore unwarranted.

 

[McBell]

The pervasive success of scientific inquiry serves to render appeals to supernatural agency unnecessary and, in the opinion of many, therefore unwarranted.

And that is understandable, especially if all your beliefs about god have been shown untrue.

 

[Storm]

Science is about truth and reality. When claims are made about attributes of god or gods, they are thus open to investigation. Science has had broad scope with multi-disciplines showing that many claims are bogus.

To use Christianity as an example, science has shown that Biblical Literalism is bogus, but that's just one interpretation of the Bible, not God. It can't disprove God.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Because nothing science has come up with NOTHING that offers evidence against it. Science is not capable of nor interested in disproving God.

There is compelling scientific evidence that human concepts of 'god' stem from the same psychological/cultural factors as human concepts of leprechauns and centaurs--factors which have nothing to do with the actual existence of said magical beings. Thus, the existence of a god outside the human imagination would be a coincidence as extraordinary as the existence of Rudolph the red-nosed-reindeer outside the human imagination.

 

[Quiddity]

There is compelling scientific evidence that human concepts of 'god' stem from the same psychological/cultural factors as human concepts of leprechauns and centaurs--factors which have nothing to do with the actual existence of said magical beings. Thus, the existence of a god outside the human imagination would be a coincidence as extraordinary as the existence of Rudolph the red-nosed-reindeer outside the human imagination.

That really downplays what evidence really is. We didn't need science to tell us that our imaginations can go buck wild. God bless parsimony!

It's good to see you MS...

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Hi Victor. Good to "see" you too!! :bow:

(It's strange that when I see a post from you after a long period of absence, I feel like I'm seeing an old friend whom I have never actually seen.)

There is compelling scientific evidence that human concepts of 'god' stem from the same psychological/cultural factors as human concepts of leprechauns and centaurs--factors which have nothing to do with the actual existence of said magical beings. Thus, the existence of a god outside the human imagination would be a coincidence as extraordinary as the existence of Rudolph the red-nosed-reindeer outside the human imagination.

That really downplays what evidence really is. We didn't need science to tell us that our imaginations can go buck wild. God bless parsimony!

Can you clarify this objection? I'm not certain that I understand your meaning.

 

[Quiddity]

Hi Victor. Good to "see" you too!! :bow:

(It's strange that when I see a post from you after a long period of absence, I feel like I'm seeing an old friend whom I have never actually seen.)


Can you clarify this objection? I'm not certain that I understand your meaning.

Well, anytime you get into the bio-mechanics of the brain and the psychological field I'm always more hesitant to use the word "evidence". I usually use "proof" rather then evidence. Evidence is more then experimentation and patterns and the field of psychology doesn't work like other scientific fields do. Others [like that of Biology] have more concrete emperical evidence then just patterns like in psychology. Science has only just tapped into the brain and I don't think we can make much of any conclusions about it just yet. That's just my opinion.

 

[Ceridwen018]

science has shown that that particular belief is untrue.
It is an assumption to think that that particular belief pertains to God.

I'm not sure I agree with this. If transubstantiation (a Catholic belief, for instance) was proven wrong, then that would be an example of a belief that pertains to God being proven wrong. It may not be your personal belief about God (disproving the transubstantiation would have no affect on Krishna or Zeus) but it is a belief that Catholics think was given to them by God himself--disproving it could potentially lead to negative consequences for their religion and their view of God, which they hold to be correct among all others.

What you are doing is making an a priori argument. You accept the existence of god first, and all evidence to the contrary merely "doesn't actually pertain to god after all." If we prove something to be wrong about God that we thought was true, your conclusion is that its false because we must have the nature of god wrong--you never consider the idea that maybe it was proven wrong because God doesn't exist. As a scientist you need to give equal weight to every possibility.

Because nothing science has come up with NOTHING that offers evidence against it. Science is not capable of nor interested in disproving God. Science is about how things work.

Actually, science has come up with several things that can be used against the supernatural and religion. For instance, as Mr. Spinkles said, looking from anthropology we see that humans are inclined to create dieties in order to understand natural phenomena around them--this calls the credibility of modern/world religions into question as well.

You said it yourself: science is about how things work, which gives us more evidence against god. Every god that's ever been invented has been said to have some hand in the natural workings of the universe, whether it be creation or lightning. Science has abserved both of these phenomena and countless others, and guess what? Their conclusions do not include god. To reiterate, scientists have concluded on all experiments to date that God was not involved in this or that reaction, or this or that process, etc.--they can be explained entirely by natural means.

So, in the same manner that science disproves leprechauns, science is able to disprove gods and the supernatural. You states earlier that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" like it was some sort of well-known fact. Unfortunately, as far as science goes, that statement is entirely false.

Please keep in mind that this doesn't mean you necessarily shouldn't believe in god. Just because science drisproves god doesn't mean you shouldn't believe in a god for spiritual or philosophical reasons, if you want to.

 

[Storm]

Actually, science has come up with several things that can be used against the supernatural and religion.

No, science has come up with certain things that can be used against the historicity of certain myths. It is not the same thing.

You said it yourself: science is about how things work, which gives us more evidence against god. Every god that's ever been invented has been said to have some hand in the natural workings of the universe, whether it be creation or lightning. Science has abserved both of these phenomena and countless others, and guess what? Their conclusions do not include god.

Nor do they exclude God, which is necessary to say they have disproven the concept.

To reiterate, scientists have concluded on all experiments to date that God was not involved in this or that reaction, or this or that process, etc.--they can be explained entirely by natural means.

Again, they have not shown that God was not involved, they have merely shown the mechanisms. There is nothing in science that argues against the idea that those mechanisms are simply the tools God used.

So, in the same manner that science disproves leprechauns, science is able to disprove gods and the supernatural.

It's not able to do either. BTW, God and the supernatural are not synonymous. It is possible to believe in one without the other. I don't believe in the supernatural myself, I just don't need to pretend that science has disproven it.

You states earlier that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" like it was some sort of well-known fact. Unfortunately, as far as science goes, that statement is entirely false.

No, it isn't. There used to be an absence of evidence for atoms and bacteria, but they were still there.

Please keep in mind that this doesn't mean you necessarily shouldn't believe in god. Just because science drisproves god doesn't mean you shouldn't believe in a god for spiritual or philosophical reasons, if you want to.

If science had disproven God, as it has disproven YEC for instance, that WOULD mean I should not believe in it, because you would have proof that it wasn't real. You don't.

 

[Ceridwen018]

There is nothing in science that argues against the idea that those mechanisms are simply the tools God used.

The evidence is in God's absence, like I said before. Let me try to explain in a different way:

Imagine you were a crime scene investigator (a type of scientist) analyzing a body involved in a homicide. You were able to identify the killer through DNA found on the body, and from there pieced together the motive and murder weapon. All evidence points to Joe Schmoe's guilt, and you even get a begrudging confession out of him. It seems like a closed case, until, inexplicably...

...you decide to name academy award winning actress Hilary Swank as an accessory to the murder. Hilary has no connection to the victim or the killer whatsoever, nor do any of her family and friends. She has no motive, and none of her DNA was found on the victim. There is no evidence to support or even suggest that she had anything to do with this crime or any other. However...she was admittedly "alone" in her house on the night the crime was committed. She can't prove she didn't help with the murder, because there are no witnesses to place her at her home that night, and who's going to believe the proven killer when he says she wasn't there? He's just trying to cover for a beautiful actress who probably bought him off (in cash) anyway.

So what do you do? You can't disprove Hilary's guilt. Do you arrest her?

There used to be an absence of evidence for atoms and bacteria, but they were still there.

Before we found them empirically, we did not consider them to exist. By your logic, we should consider every strange thing we could ever imagine to "exist" (or every human on the face of the earth without an alibi) because someday we might find evidence for it. We don't do this because its not practical and it doesn't make any sense. Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.

God and the supernatural are not synonymous.

Please explain if you would: I've never heard of anything like this.

I just don't need to pretend that science has disproven it

You can try to discredit my motives all you like, but let me assure you: The only thing I need is to spread awareness about science and critical thinking.

 

[astarath]

I dont think the statement is accurate. Science does not currently prove His existence but rather I would say that in sciences search for answers one day it will prove the existence!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So, in the same manner that science disproves leprechauns, science is able to disprove gods and the supernatural. You states earlier that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" like it was some sort of well-known fact. Unfortunately, as far as science goes, that statement is entirely false.

The statement is, indeed, entirely false, but no less so than yours. Science in no way "disproves leprechauns, ... gods and the supernatural", nor does it even try. To suggest otherwise is preposterous. More, it evinces a seriously flawed understanding of methodological naturalism.

In contrasting the Western religions with science, the most important criterion of distinction is that the supernatural or spiritual realm is unknowable in response to human attempts to gain knowledge of it in the same manner that humans gain knowledge of the natural realm (by experience).... 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.

- Arthur N. Strahler, Understanding Science: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues (Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1992)

 

[astarath]

The statement is, indeed, entirely false, but no less so than yours. Science in no way "disproves leprechauns, ... gods and the supernatural", nor does it even try. To suggest otherwise is preposterous. More, it evinces a seriously flawed understanding of methodological naturalism.

uhhh.yeah what he said....kinda

 

[McBell]

I'm not sure I agree with this. If transubstantiation (a Catholic belief, for instance) was proven wrong, then that would be an example of a belief that pertains to God being proven wrong. It may not be your personal belief about God (disproving the transubstantiation would have no affect on Krishna or Zeus) but it is a belief that Catholics think was given to them by God himself--disproving it could potentially lead to negative consequences for their religion and their view of God, which they hold to be correct among all others.

Which is my whole point.
If science shows one particular trait that some believers in God attribute to God then science has not shown anything other than that one particular aspect of God that is held by a part of those who believe in God false.

Nothing more.

The problem you have here is that there is not a single meaningful definition of God that would include every deity that is believed in.
Seems to me that you are trying to say that if one is shown false that they are all shown false.
And that is just not true.

What you are doing is making an a priori argument. You accept the existence of god first, and all evidence to the contrary merely "doesn't actually pertain to god after all." If we prove something to be wrong about God that we thought was true, your conclusion is that its false because we must have the nature of god wrong--you never consider the idea that maybe it was proven wrong because God doesn't exist. As a scientist you need to give equal weight to every possibility.

I will assume that you are using the term 'you' in the above to refer to theists.
This is not what I am saying, though I can understand how you can come to this conclusion.

The problem is that science needs to look at each religion and even each Christian denomination as worshiping a separate deity.

Then science will need to show how each and every one of those deities cannot exist.

Actually, science has come up with several things that can be used against the supernatural and religion. For instance, as Mr. Spinkles said, looking from anthropology we see that humans are inclined to create dieties in order to understand natural phenomena around them--this calls the credibility of modern/world religions into question as well.

Agreed.
But it is not proof by any stretch of the imagination.

You said it yourself: science is about how things work, which gives us more evidence against god. Every god that's ever been invented has been said to have some hand in the natural workings of the universe, whether it be creation or lightning. Science has abserved both of these phenomena and countless others, and guess what? Their conclusions do not include god. To reiterate, scientists have concluded on all experiments to date that God was not involved in this or that reaction, or this or that process, etc.--they can be explained entirely by natural means.

Interesting.
Merely having an explanation that does not include God does not mean that God does not exist. It merely shows that God might not have done it.

So, in the same manner that science disproves leprechauns, science is able to disprove gods and the supernatural. You states earlier that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" like it was some sort of well-known fact. Unfortunately, as far as science goes, that statement is entirely false.

Really?
Science has dis proven leprechauns? What about unicorns? Or dragons?
Please be so kind as to link the peer reviewed articles

Please keep in mind that this doesn't mean you necessarily shouldn't believe in god. Just because science drisproves god doesn't mean you shouldn't believe in a god for spiritual or philosophical reasons, if you want to.

And you have still not shown how science has disproven God.
Seems to me that you are doing the exact same thing that you complain about theists doing.
You have made up your mind and are sticking to it.

Science has not disproven God or leprechauns.
Science has merely shown that the likely hood of them existing is slim to none.
Of course, science has to go largely on there being no evidence to support this position, but what the hey, if it is good enough for theists....

 

[Storm]

The evidence is in God's absence, like I said before. Let me try to explain in a different way:

Your analogy fails. I'm not making positive claim here, you are.

Before we found them empirically, we did not consider them to exist. By your logic, we should consider every strange thing we could ever imagine to "exist" (or every human on the face of the earth without an alibi) because someday we might find evidence for it. We don't do this because its not practical and it doesn't make any sense. Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.

No, my logic does not fall prey to either side of the negative proof fallacy. Yours does.
From Wiki:

The fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative is a logical fallacy of the following form:

• "X is true because there is no proof that X is false."

It is asserted that a proposition is true, only because it has not been proven false. The negative proof fallacy often occurs in the debate of the existence of supernatural phenomena, in the following form:

• "A supernatural force must exist, because there is no proof that it does not exist".

However, the fallacy can also occur when the predicate of a subject is denied:
"A supernatural force does not exist, because there is no proof that it does exist.".

Please explain if you would: I've never heard of anything like this.

There are naturalistic theological models, mine is one. In a nutshell, I believe that the physical cosmos is an aspect of God, its physical form. I believe that the laws of nature are vital to its functioning, and inviolate.

You can try to discredit my motives all you like, but let me assure you: The only thing I need is to spread awareness about science and critical thinking.

Well, you're doing it wrong.