Can science disprove the existence of God?

[Crypto2015]

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.

I think you are a little bit confused. The induction versus falsification debate, in which Popper participated, is about how science progresses. Induction works in the following way: we see 1000 white swans and no non-white swan; therefore, we conclude that all swans are white. When we use induction we create general laws based on how often we observe certain facts. Popper said that science didn't actually work in this way. He said that scientists proposed theories and then looked for the falsification of these theories. For example, a scientist may try to prove that all swans are white by looking for non-white swans. Popper may have been wrong regarding the way in which science progresses. Perhaps some scientists use induction more often than falsification. However, regardless of if you are using induction or falsification, you can only study theories or statements that are falsifiable. There is no doubt about this at all. For example, no amount of statistics will be able to tell you if I should have cut my hair yesterday, or if I ought to love my mother. Whether you use induction or falsification, you are only going to be able to use science to study those statements that are falsifiable.

 

[Demonslayer]

While we may not be able to "disprove God" we certainly can disprove most of the claims people make about God.

Let's say tell you the invisible dragon in my garage 1) provides free heat to my home in the winter with his fiery breath 2) provides cool air conditioning in the summer with his flapping wings, 3) keeps my car clean with his soapy tongue and 4) answers my requests for help in life.

Now let's say you review my heating bill and discover I'm burning oil just like the neighbors, and that my heating bill is the same as everyone else's, when I shut off the central air in my house it gets hot and stuffy inside, my car comes out of the garage with the same amount of dirt on it every morning, and I'm not getting the things I ask for when I shout my wishes into the garage. You haven't disproven my claim that an invisible dragon lives in my garage, but you have proven that I'm either lying or mistaken about the things it does and the way it functions.

At that point if I say, go ahead jump off the roof, my invisible dragon will rush out to save you...would you trust me? Wouldn't you say "me thinks this fella is mistaken about his dragon friend?"

 

[Crypto2015]

... 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.

Perhaps I phrased the statement wrong. The cat has a moral obligation to be yellow.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I never said that scientists are writing papers about science being able to disprove the existence of God. Just read the opening post again.

Understood as an assertion about what a handful of scientists assert (especially considering what scientists like Behe, Schroeder, Polkinghorne, Collins, etc.,. "are out to demonstrate"), your opening post amounts to nothing other than that a few scientists assert things in popular works to non-scientists that at least as many scientists assert the opposite of via the same media.

A high-calibre scientist is not the same thing as high-calibre scientific literature.

And thus is irrelevant other than for non-scientists who can't tell the difference.

I have never read anything about the idea of falsifiability being wrong.

Try reading works on scientific methodology and the philosophy of science. Again, you're spouting Popper's philosophy [as popularly misunderstood] which is modern and highly contested within modern history and philosophy of science.

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.

1) If you really were, then you wouldn't be reading that falsifiability is actually in "full force". you'd be familiar with what actual scientists DO and how they actually determine how hypotheses and theories are evaluated.
2) In what field?
3) If you were an actual scientist, you'd be familiar with how (unfortunately) most scientists are almost completely ignorant of the philosophy and history of science, and what scientific methods practicing scientists employ, not the overly simplistic popular version of Popperian falsifiability.

I have published a significant amount of papers and nobody has ever objected to my scientific methodology.

Either you are lying or haven't published anything in any source that all but a tiny minority of scientists or philosophers read. Because there is no account of "scientific methodology" that isn't highly contested. This is so trivially elementary that a basic, undergraduate familiarity with even the philosophy of science by non-scientists would recognize it as such.

You still haven't told me how tall I would be if I had been born in South Africa.

You haven't provided the faintest hint that you are familiar with the ability to evaluate the type of assertions you have made (differentiated from classical sentential logic) or familiarity with the history and philosophy of science.

 

[Crypto2015]

While we may not be able to "disprove God" we certainly can disprove most of the claims people make about God.

Let's say tell you the invisible dragon in my garage 1) provides free heat to my home in the winter with his fiery breath 2) provides cool air conditioning in the summer with his flapping wings, 3) keeps my car clean with his soapy tongue and 4) answers my requests for help in life.

Now let's say you review my heating bill and discover I'm burning oil just like the neighbors, and that my heating bill is the same as everyone else's, when I shut off the central air in my house it gets hot and stuffy inside, my car comes out of the garage with the same amount of dirt on it every morning, and I'm not getting the things I ask for when I shout my wishes into the garage. You haven't disproven my claim that an invisible dragon lives in my garage, but you have proven that I'm either lying or mistaken about the things it does and the way it functions.

At that point if I say, go ahead jump off the roof, my invisible dragon will rush out to save you...would you trust me? Wouldn't you say "me thinks this fella is mistaken about his dragon friend?"

All of this:

"Let's say tell you the invisible dragon in my garage 1) provides free heat to my home in the winter with his fiery breath 2) provides cool air conditioning in the summer with his flapping wings, 3) keeps my car clean with his soapy tongue and 4) answers my requests for help in life."

is falsifiable and therefore it can be scientifically proven to be false.

 

[Crypto2015]

Understood as an assertion about what a handful of scientists assert (especially considering what scientists like Behe, Schroeder, Polkinghorne, Collins, etc.,. "are out to demonstrate"), your opening post amounts to nothing other than that a few scientists assert things in popular works to non-scientists that at least as many scientists assert the opposite of via the same media.


And thus is irrelevant other than for non-scientists who can't tell the difference.

Try reading works on scientific methodology and the philosophy of science. Again, you're spouting Popper's philosophy [as popularly misunderstood] which is modern and highly contested within modern history and philosophy of science.

1) If you really were, then you wouldn't be reading that falsifiability is actually in "full force". you'd be familiar with what actual scientists DO and how they actually determine how hypotheses and theories are evaluated.
2) In what field?
3) If you were an actual scientist, you'd be familiar with how (unfortunately) most scientists are almost completely ignorant of the philosophy and history of science, and what scientific methods practicing scientists employ, not the overly simplistic popular version of Popperian falsifiability.

Either you are lying or haven't published anything in any source that all but a tiny minority of scientists or philosophers read. Because there is no account of "scientific methodology" that isn't highly contested. This is so trivially elementary that a basic, undergraduate familiarity with even the philosophy of science by non-scientists would recognize it as such.


You haven't provided the faintest hint that you are familiar with the ability to evaluate the type of assertions you have made (differentiated from classical sentential logic) or familiarity with the history and philosophy of science.

LOL. Are you doubting the fact that I am scientist? I can prove it to you. I work in the field of Physical Chemistry. I co-authored eleven scientific articles in international peer-reviewed journals. I am not a Nobel Prize candidate, but I am still a scientist. I don't see why it matters, though.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

LOL. Are you doubting the fact that I am scientist?

Yes.

I can prove it to you.

Then do so.

 

[picnic]

...
However, regardless of if you are using induction or falsification, you can only study theories or statements that are falsifiable. There is no doubt about this at all. For example, no amount of statistics will be able to tell you if I should have cut my hair yesterday, or if I ought to love my mother. Whether you use induction or falsification, you are only going to be able to use science to study those statements that are falsifiable.
...

That is a good point that I agree with, however I would say that ALL questions are falsifiable. When I ask "should I have cut my hair yesterday?", I am implicitly asking "would outcomes have been more desirable if I had cut my hair yesterday?". Specifically I might be asking "would my job interview have gone better if I had cut my hair yesterday?". This is a question that science can answer. Science might conclude that a nice haircut can increase the probability of a second interview.

All knowledge comes from science, and every question is falsifiable. God can't be studied, because theists refuse to specify who God is and what He does. God is an invisible, tasteless condiment.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Perhaps I phrased the statement wrong. The cat has a moral obligation to be yellow.

Ah.

Arguing that this is unfalsifiable implies that:

- ethics has no foundation.
- morality applies to cats.

Do you believe this is the case?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

My name is Sergio G. Lopez. You can find my profile in Researchgate.

Please give a more specific link. I used to participate in RG when I was a graduate student and my profile is still accessible, if woefully outdated: Legion

 

[Crypto2015]

That is a good point that I agree with, however I would say that ALL questions are falsifiable. When I ask "should I have cut my hair yesterday?", I am implicitly asking "would outcomes have been more desirable if I had cut my hair yesterday?". Specifically I might be asking "would my job interview have gone better if I had cut my hair yesterday?". This is a question that science can answer. Science might conclude that a nice haircut can increase the probability of a second interview.

All knowledge comes from science, and every question is falsifiable. God can't be studied, because theists refuse to specify who God is and what He does. God is an invisible, tasteless condiment.

Science cannot tell you if something is desirable or not or if something is right or wrong. It can just tell you if something is or is not. For example, science can prove that this or that haircut pleases your interviewers, but it cannot prove that pleasing your interviewers is something to be desired.

 

[Crypto2015]

Ah.

Arguing that this is unfalsifiable implies that:

- ethics has no foundation.
- morality applies to cats.

Do you believe this is the case?

Ethics and morality are meaningless from a scientific point of view, precisely because moral statements are not falsifiable.

 

[Crypto2015]

Please give a more specific link. I used to participate in RG when I was a graduate student and my profile is still accessible, if woefully outdated: Legion

Link removed at author's request.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sergio_Lopez16

So you are new to the sciences and your contributions to the sciences is what most of those of us who were once graduate students or early post-docs was: basically nil (no insult intended). Very good! But what on earth makes you think that scientific methodology lends itself to proof or that (pseudo)-popperian falsifiability characterizes any "scientific methodology"? As a doctorate, even if your RG profile doesn't list much in the way of research publications, I know you must have research experience (I'm familiar with how it works, which is partly why I stopped participating on RG; also, I left "pure" academia for research consulting). But you don't indicate in any of your works or profile a basic understanding of the philosophy of science. Nor do you indicate a basic familiarity with scientific methodology outside of your highly specialized field (of which I am more than a little acquainted with).

 

[Demonslayer]

All of this:

"Let's say tell you the invisible dragon in my garage 1) provides free heat to my home in the winter with his fiery breath 2) provides cool air conditioning in the summer with his flapping wings, 3) keeps my car clean with his soapy tongue and 4) answers my requests for help in life."

is falsifiable and therefore it can be scientifically proven to be false.

Yes, I realize that. So are many claims about God. God made humans in their present form, God answers prayers, God once caused a global flood, God cures cancer sometimes, etc. etc. All falsifiable and can be readily proven false.

My whole point was people say "you can't disprove God" but the fact is you can disprove a whole lot of things people claim about God. Thus, if I claim there is an invisible being that does X, Y and Z, and I can disprove X, Y and Z, why should anyone believe in the being I'm claiming does these things that aren't occuring?

 

[Crypto2015]

So you are new to the sciences and your contributions to the sciences is what most of those of us who were once graduate students or early post-docs was: basically nil (no insult intended). Very good! But what on earth makes you think that scientific methodology lends itself to proof or that (pseudo)-popperian falsifiability characterizes any "scientific methodology"? As a doctorate, even if your RG profile doesn't list much in the way of research publications, I know you must have research experience (I'm familiar with how it works, which is partly why I stopped participating on RG; also, I left "pure" academia for research consulting). But you don't indicate in any of your works or profile a basic understanding of the philosophy of science. Nor do you indicate a basic familiarity with scientific methodology outside of your highly specialized field (of which I am more than a little acquainted with).

I am not new to the sciences, unfortunately, and my contribution is not nil. You are not close to winning the Nobel Prize either, let me remind you. Actually, I have more publications than you. Anyway, being a Nobel Prize recipient is not one of the requirements for participating in this forum. Why on earth can't you see the list of publications on my RG profile? You can even download the articles, for God's sake. Just acknowledge the fact that you were wrong about me.

 

[Crypto2015]

Yes, I realize that. So are many claims about God. God made humans in their present form, God answers prayers, God once caused a global flood, God cures cancer sometimes, etc. etc. All falsifiable and can be readily proven false.

My whole point was people say "you can't disprove God" but the fact is you can disprove a whole lot of things people claim about God. Thus, if I claim there is an invisible being that does X, Y and Z, and I can disprove X, Y and Z, why should anyone believe in the being I'm claiming does these things that aren't occuring?

"God answers prayers" completely unfalsifiable.
"God caused a global flood" this is falsifiable but there is no reason to take the whole of the Bible 100% literally, as all atheists do. The "earth" mentioned in Genesis may have referred to the territories that were known to the people of Noah's tribe.
"God cures cancer sometimes" completely unfalsifiable.

Conclusion, the existence of God is unfalsifiable.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ethics and morality are meaningless from a scientific point of view, precisely because moral statements are not falsifiable.

Circular nonsense. "Moral statements aren't falsifiable because they're not falsifiable."

 

[picnic]

Science cannot tell you if something is desirable or not or if something is right or wrong. It can just tell you if something is or is not. For example, science can prove that this or that haircut pleases your interviewers, but it cannot prove that pleasing your interviewers is something to be desired.

That is another good point. What does it mean for something "to be desired"? - "to be desired" for what? There is always an implicit goal and science can help us know how to achieve that goal. That is why science is useful. Science can tell us that certain famous poems help to create a certain state of mind in the listener. Science can tell us that the paintings by certain painters are more likely to cause viewers to pause in wonderment. The domain of science is not so limited as some suggest.

Regardless, we are not asking if God's existence "is to be desired"; we are asking if God exists. If we define what we mean by God, then science can answer the question. Maybe we define God to be a warm fuzzy feeling. Science can say that "yes, warm fuzzy feelings do exist."

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I am not new to the sciences

When I was a graduate student, I had more followers and a higher RG score than you do currently. You are barely a post-doc, and you have little or no experience outside of a very limited field.

and my contribution is not nil.

Not nil. Just basically nil.

You are not close to winning the Nobel Prize either

True. I'm in the private sector. I'm the person people like you hire when they are out of their depth. That's why a long time ago I was an active member of RG just because I was bored, and even then I gained a following double of that that you follow, my "RG score" (a largely pointless metric) was triple that of your own, and all despite the fact that my profile is long outdated.
But none of this matters. I could be a high-school dropout, and it wouldn't matter. Your experience with chemistry doesn't excuse your claims about scientific methodology and the philosophy of science in face of all evidence to the contrary. Your knowledge of Popperian falsification is that of a reader of popular science and you present nothing to indicate an awareness of actual knowledge of the minimal familiarity with philosophy of science you claim scientists are typically aware of. You can't even accurately present Popper's view (which is THE basis for the falsification perspective).

Actually, I have more publications than you.

No, you don't. I'm in the private sector, and my RG profile is woefully outdated and I kept it for a while to answer questions from those like you when I was bored.

Why on earth can't you see the list of publications on my RG profile?

I can. I can access all of them. And they tell me that you are the kind of researcher that assists some PI in a study I get paid to advise concerning.