1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Can science disprove the existence of God?

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by Crypto2015, Oct 13, 2015.

  1. Crypto2015

    Crypto2015 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2015
    Messages:
    696
    Ratings:
    +170
    Religion:
    Christian
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 8
  2. Rapha

    Rapha Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2012
    Messages:
    304
    Ratings:
    +44
    Religion:
    Universal
    Evil scientists are proving that YHWH exists everyday by inventing gadgets of war and following the Book of Revelation word for word.

    RFID chips are going to prove the Mark of the Beast
    Scalar weaponry has just turned 1/3 of World salt water into bitter water with Fukushima making the Pacific radioactive.
    The Beast with 7 Heads and 10 Horns has been in place since the '60's with the 10 super-countries (NAFTA, EU, etc) and the G7 countries.

    So scientists could easily prove that YHWH doesn't exist by :-
    1) giving everyone a job
    2) introducing cheap cold fusion technology that has been around since Nikola Tesla
    3) allow humans to colonize off worlds

    However, the Archon alien race live off fear and misery which is why the elite and scientists constantly create wars.
     
  3. LegionOnomaMoi

    LegionOnomaMoi Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    11,029
    Ratings:
    +2,250
    I will be amazed if you are able to cite even a tiny minority of scientific literature (NOT popular works by a handful of scientists, which can be easily matched by scientists out to "prove" the existence of god) demonstrating this to be so.

    Falsifiability is a fairly recent introduction to the sciences by Popper and shown to be inadequate by those such as Quine, Laudan, Lakatos, Conant, etc.

    However, as the philosophy of science has demonstrated, scientific hypotheses and experiments are theory-laden, and do not lend themselves to such reductio arguments.

    Unless one is working with particular non-Euclidean geometries in which this is not the case

    This is easily falsifiable. That's because falsifiability is a formal matter, and modal statements can be formally falsified given a modal system as easily as can those from classical (sentential) logic.

    Again easily "falsifiable". Simply use one of the extensions or alternatives to classical logic that incorporates modal conditionals. And no logic allows for the falsifiability of any empirical findings, as these make fundamental assumptions about the nature of observation (as Descartes showed first, but the assumption of which Kant, Hume, and others rendered more problematic)..

    You are conflating formal logic with the sciences, and relying on a modern yet long abandoned notion from the philosophy of science.

    Proof is for mathematics.
     
    • Like Like x 4
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. Crypto2015

    Crypto2015 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2015
    Messages:
    696
    Ratings:
    +170
    Religion:
    Christian

    Just listen to any of the videos in which Krauss or Dawkins are interviewed. These high-calibre scientists claim that science can prove that God's existence is unlikely. The idea of falsifiability has not been shown to be inadequate by anyone. Some have criticized it, but no one has proven it wrong or inadequate. Regarding the statements that I have presented as unfalsifiable, you cannot demonstrate they are true or that they are false. You may prove that your cat is yellow, but you cannot prove that your cat ought to have been yellow. You cannot prove or disprove any claim about how tall I would have been if I had been born in Nigeria. Come on, man, are you even serious? Tell me how tall I would have been if I had been born in South Africa. LOL.
     
  5. Mackerni

    Mackerni Libertarian Unitarian

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2015
    Messages:
    234
    Ratings:
    +85
    Religion:
    Unitarian Universalism
    "This cat ought to be black." "If I had been born in Nigeria, I would be two meters tall." "Mothers ought to love their children." Do you know something about these statements? They are opinions. Someone has the ability to choose whatever opinions they might believe, and therefore, have self-validity in their own beliefs. They're just opinions after all.

    For example, a pantheist, a monotheist, and a polytheist would have three radically different opinions on this subject matter. But pantheism, monotheism, and polytheism are all just opinions. Religion and politics are interesting because it's merely a way to see the world. I'm a Unitarian Universalist but I have my own creed. i'm a Libertarian but I sometimes think of authoritarian excuses for problems. We are more than are labels, and therefore we are more than our opinions.
     
  6. LegionOnomaMoi

    LegionOnomaMoi Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    11,029
    Ratings:
    +2,250
    Why would I? I've been working as a researcher in the sciences for years. Dawkins basically stopped contributing to the sciences before I started working as a scientist, and Krauss' work as a scientist is irrelevant to your post.

    In what "high-caliber" scientific literature? I remind you that I differentiated between popular science and actual scientific literature.

    Wrong.

    That's because "proving" it wrong would require that 1) it BE provable and 2) that proof were something other than that which it is. For non-scientists such as yourself, proof seems to be relevant to the sciences in ways that it clearly and obviously isn't and can't be.
    I can easily do so, providing that you admit that there must exist a method for proof. Having admitted such a claim (that one can prove a statement false), you must admit a formal method for doing so, negating anything relating to proof in your posts.

    Tell me, how many pink unicorns aren't democrats? "Statements that to the ordinary mortal are false or meaningless are thus accepted as true by mathematicians; if you object, the mathematician will retort, 'find me a counterexample.'"
    You continue to conflate mathematics with the sciences.
     
    #6 LegionOnomaMoi, Oct 13, 2015
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2015
    • Like Like x 4
  7. LegionOnomaMoi

    LegionOnomaMoi Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    11,029
    Ratings:
    +2,250
    Actually they are EXTREMELY important examples of conditionals. The classic example is "If Oswald didn't kill Kennedy, somebody else did" vs. "If Oswald hadn't killed Kennedy, somebody else would have". This gets into modal logic and possible worlds semantics, amongst other issues. However, for the purposes of this thread, these distinctions are wholly irrelevant.
     
  8. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Subway Stalinist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    61,314
    Ratings:
    +19,119
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    Science can't answer the question "does God (god/gods) exist?" In that sense, you're right.

    However, other questions are squarely within the domain of science, such as "is there physical evidence that gods have measurable effects?" and "does the evidence justify accepting a particular god-claim as true?"

    BTW: when you were studying the philosophy of science, do you remember what you learned about whether unfalsifiable claims should be accepted? (Hint: the answer is "no")
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Crypto2015

    Crypto2015 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2015
    Messages:
    696
    Ratings:
    +170
    Religion:
    Christian
    Certain opinions are falsifiable. For example, "It will rain tomorrow" can be proven false. On the contrary, "I think it ought to rain tomorrow" cannot be proven wrong. The latter assertion is unscientific. It has no meaning for science.
     
    #9 Crypto2015, Oct 13, 2015
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2015
  10. Crypto2015

    Crypto2015 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2015
    Messages:
    696
    Ratings:
    +170
    Religion:
    Christian
    I never said that scientists are writing papers about science being able to disprove the existence of God. Just read the opening post again. A high-calibre scientist is not the same thing as high-calibre scientific literature. I have never read anything about the idea of falsifiability being wrong. On the contrary, I have read that it is still in full force within the scientific community. By the way, I am a scientist myself. I have published a significant amount of papers and nobody has ever objected to my scientific methodology. You still haven't told me how tall I would be if I had been born in South Africa.
     
  11. averageJOE

    averageJOE zombie

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2009
    Messages:
    2,592
    Ratings:
    +699
    Which god are you talking about here?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Crypto2015

    Crypto2015 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2015
    Messages:
    696
    Ratings:
    +170
    Religion:
    Christian
    Unfalsifiable statements are meaningless when it comes to science, but they may be full of meaning when it comes to mankind. Furthermore, as I have written in the opening post, a statement cannot be said to be false just because it is unfalsifiable. "I should love my mother" is an unfalsifiable claim, but that doesn't mean that the statement is false.
     
  13. Crypto2015

    Crypto2015 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2015
    Messages:
    696
    Ratings:
    +170
    Religion:
    Christian
    The Christian God.
     
  14. averageJOE

    averageJOE zombie

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2009
    Messages:
    2,592
    Ratings:
    +699
    You just displayed the bias in your argument.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  15. picnic

    picnic Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2015
    Messages:
    492
    Ratings:
    +171
    Religion:
    Ignostic
    In the book on philosophy of science from the "a very short introduction" series( http://www.veryshortintroductions.c.../9780192802835.001.0001/actrade-9780192802835 ) the author shows that Popper's falsifiability isn't the whole story; scientists actually do try to prove things to be true through induction too. IMO, statistics comes closer to representing the philosophy of science than Popper's falsifiability.

    So science can disprove or prove the existence of God in the same way that it can disprove or prove the existence of gravity. (Of course every answer that science delivers is subject to change in the future.)

    The real problem with investigating God is the difficulty of defining God. Believers have absurd definitions that can't be tested usually.
     
  16. Crypto2015

    Crypto2015 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2015
    Messages:
    696
    Ratings:
    +170
    Religion:
    Christian
    Can someone discuss something without having a bias?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Subway Stalinist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    61,314
    Ratings:
    +19,119
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    Do you understand the difference between statements about value judgements (e.g. "I should love my mother") and statements about factual matters (e.g. "gods exist") when it comes to falsifiability?
     
  18. Iti oj

    Iti oj Global warming is real and we need to act
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    13,689
    Ratings:
    +2,570
    Religion:
    RF cult leader & taosit black magician
    2.....thats two examples not many
     
  19. leibowde84

    leibowde84 Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Messages:
    16,129
    Ratings:
    +5,456
    Religion:
    Agnostic Atheist
    What scientists claim that science can disprove God? I've never heard that.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Subway Stalinist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    61,314
    Ratings:
    +19,119
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    ... only because the statement is vague. What do you mean by "ought to have been" in that sentence? I can think of many ways to take it:

    - the fact that the cat is yellow is in keeping with expectations (based on genetics, maybe?)
    - by being yellow, the cat has fulfilled some moral imperative.
    - being yellow confers some sort of relative advantage on the cat.
    - somebody somehow intended for the cat to be yellow.
    - the cat being yellow fulfills someone's preference.

    Most of the ways I can interpret "the cat ought to have been yellow" ARE falsifiable.
     
Loading...