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!

Does science prove the existence of god?

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by Ceridwen018, Aug 5, 2004.

  1. Mestemia

    Mestemia Advocatus Diaboli
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    47,824
    Ratings:
    +11,984
    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.
     
  2. Storm

    Storm ThrUU the Looking Glass

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    Messages:
    44,608
    Ratings:
    +2,360
    Religion:
    UU/ panentheist/ neopagan/ process theology
    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.
     
  3. sandandfoam

    sandandfoam Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    Messages:
    11,219
    Ratings:
    +1,712
    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.
     
  4. Pah

    Pah Uber all member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    13,000
    Ratings:
    +1,056
    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.
     
  5. Mestemia

    Mestemia Advocatus Diaboli
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    47,824
    Ratings:
    +11,984
    I agree.
    The problem is that many people seem to think that this means that God does not exist.
     
  6. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    40,178
    Ratings:
    +14,249
    Religion:
    Judaism
    The pervasive success of scientific inquiry serves to render appeals to supernatural agency unnecessary and, in the opinion of many, therefore unwarranted.
     
  7. Mestemia

    Mestemia Advocatus Diaboli
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    47,824
    Ratings:
    +11,984
    And that is understandable, especially if all your beliefs about god have been shown untrue.
     
  8. Storm

    Storm ThrUU the Looking Glass

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    Messages:
    44,608
    Ratings:
    +2,360
    Religion:
    UU/ panentheist/ neopagan/ process theology
    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.
     
  9. Mr Spinkles

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    12,683
    Ratings:
    +3,065
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Quiddity

    Quiddity UndertheInfluenceofGiants

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    19,840
    Ratings:
    +1,375
    Religion:
    Catholic
    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...:)
     
  11. Mr Spinkles

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    12,683
    Ratings:
    +3,065
    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.
     
  12. Quiddity

    Quiddity UndertheInfluenceofGiants

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    19,840
    Ratings:
    +1,375
    Religion:
    Catholic
    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.
     
  13. Ceridwen018

    Ceridwen018 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,768
    Ratings:
    +399
    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.

    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Storm

    Storm ThrUU the Looking Glass

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    Messages:
    44,608
    Ratings:
    +2,360
    Religion:
    UU/ panentheist/ neopagan/ process theology
    No, science has come up with certain things that can be used against the historicity of certain myths. It is not the same thing.

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

    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.

    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.

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

    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.
     
  15. Ceridwen018

    Ceridwen018 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,768
    Ratings:
    +399
    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?

    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.

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

    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.
     
  16. astarath

    astarath Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,825
    Ratings:
    +84
    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!
     
  17. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    40,178
    Ratings:
    +14,249
    Religion:
    Judaism
    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.
     
  18. astarath

    astarath Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,825
    Ratings:
    +84

    uhhh.yeah what he said....kinda :shrug:
     
  19. Mestemia

    Mestemia Advocatus Diaboli
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    47,824
    Ratings:
    +11,984
    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.

    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.

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

    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.

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

    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....
     
  20. Storm

    Storm ThrUU the Looking Glass

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    Messages:
    44,608
    Ratings:
    +2,360
    Religion:
    UU/ panentheist/ neopagan/ process theology
    Your analogy fails. I'm not making positive claim here, you are.

    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.".

    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.

    Well, you're doing it wrong.
     
Loading...