Can science disprove the existence of God?

[lewisnotmiller]

well played...
and should be posted in every thread having a nonbeliever participating

Why? Because you think we haven't heard that opinion a million times previously? I assure you, we have.
I am an agnostic atheist precisely because I recognize the value of doubt. God might exist, how would I know?

It should be noted, informatively, that most of the people who raise this argument against atheism go far further than merely asserting God's existence, and instead seek to define God's nature. They appear quite prepared to do this without referring to their own 'advice', which is equal parts amusing and frustrating.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

Depends on how people define God.
A personal omnipresent omnipotent God like Yahweh or Allah, An impersonal higher consciousness and reality that never changes like Brahman or A mix of cosmic primeval consciousness (Purusha) with the primeval dynamic energy (Prakriti) causing the universe to create, pervade, destroy and recreate infinite number of times?

 

[Thief]

Why? Because you think we haven't heard that opinion a million times previously? I assure you, we have.
I am an agnostic atheist precisely because I recognize the value of doubt. God might exist, how would I know?

It should be noted, informatively, that most of the people who raise this argument against atheism go far further than merely asserting God's existence, and instead seek to define God's nature. They appear quite prepared to do this without referring to their own 'advice', which is equal parts amusing and frustrating.

and what shall I make of this?....that believers are willing to nod their head without 'proof'?
and atheists are willing to shake their heads.....nay....without 'proof'.....

I think in more likely there is a God
how do I know?....science
Cause and effect is a basic requirement .....and substance won't move on it's own volition
the Big Bang was more likely a snap of God's fingers....so to speak

a nonbeliever has no cause to place before the movement

 

[Thief]

It's wrong though.

see my previous post

 

[Jumi]

see my previous post

I don't know what you're trying to say. If you don't believe in Cthulhu, is that a religion?

 

[ArtieE]

see my previous post

Christianity is a religion and a Christian believes his god exists. He doesn't believe other gods exist. Does a Christian have two religions or is not believing Thor exists and not believing Poseidon exists count as two separate religions and if so how many separate religions can a person have?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think in more likely there is a God
how do I know?....science
Cause and effect is a basic requirement .....and substance won't move on it's own volition
the Big Bang was more likely a snap of God's fingers....so to speak

a nonbeliever has no cause to place before the movement

And you do?

You violate your own premises: if all effects need causes, then your god needs a cause and you've answered nothing. If not all effects need causes, then you've failed to make the case for why your god might be necessary.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

and what shall I make of this?....that believers are willing to nod their head without 'proof'?
and atheists are willing to shake their heads.....nay....without 'proof'.....

I can speak only for myself. But in simple terms, yes.

I think in more likely there is a God
how do I know?....science
Cause and effect is a basic requirement .....and substance won't move on it's own volition
the Big Bang was more likely a snap of God's fingers....so to speak

You go further than merely supposing an original cause which you call God though. You define God's nature.

a nonbeliever has no cause to place before the movement

Again, I speak only for myself. And no...I don't. But there are lots of things I don't know. I feel no need to pick an answer that is unconvincing just for the sake of it.

 

[Thief]

I can speak only for myself. But in simple terms, yes.



You go further than merely supposing an original cause which you call God though. You define God's nature.



Again, I speak only for myself. And no...I don't. But there are lots of things I don't know. I feel no need to pick an answer that is unconvincing just for the sake of it.

when it comes down to that 'beginning' ....it's one or the other.....

Spirit first?.....or substance?
and substance is not 'self'- starting

 

[Thief]

And you do?

You violate your own premises: if all effects need causes, then your god needs a cause and you've answered nothing. If not all effects need causes, then you've failed to make the case for why your god might be necessary.

note previous post^

 

[Thief]

Christianity is a religion and a Christian believes his god exists. He doesn't believe other gods exist. Does a Christian have two religions or is not believing Thor exists and not believing Poseidon exists count as two separate religions and if so how many separate religions can a person have?

it is written.....ye are gods....

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

note previous post^

You mean the post where you contradicted the first post I quoted?

 

[Thief]

You mean the post where you contradicted the first post I quoted?

ok ...let's clarify....
which statement would you rebuttal...and please do...

 

[ArtieE]

Huh? Atheism is a religion in that it adheres to the dogmatic view that there is No God. Since that can Not be proven it is the exercise of faith in the non-existence of God.
Is absence of evidence really evidence of absence ?_________

LOL Neither believing God exists nor believing God doesn't exist is a religion. A religion is per definition a set of beliefs not just one belief. Do you think believing Zeus doesn't exist is a religion too? [emoji5]

 

[Jumi]

I belong to the acommunist religion because I don't believe in communism.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

when it comes down to that 'beginning' ....it's one or the other.....

Spirit first?.....or substance?
and substance is not 'self'- starting

Presume whatever you like. Im comfortable saying 'I don't know.'
If someone asks me to explain the underpinning mathematics behind string theory, I'd say the same. What would you say?

 

[Thief]

Presume whatever you like. Im comfortable saying 'I don't know.'
If someone asks me to explain the underpinning mathematics behind string theory, I'd say the same. What would you say?

Spirit first.
otherwise science has lied about the nature of movement.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Spirit first.
otherwise science has lied about the nature of movement.

Science has 'lied'?!
Okay then. I think you're running to a strange definition of science.

 

[Thief]

Science has 'lied'?!
Okay then. I think you're running to a strange definition of science.

if you believe is science.....

science would insist.....
substance at rest will remain at rest....

Someone had to be there to give it a 'push'......so to speak

if substance is 'self' motivated.....science has lied

 

[Ouroboros]

I belong to the acommunist religion because I don't believe in communism.

And you were born that way. Everyone around knew that you were an acommunist as a baby, but they never told you.