Does Science prove God does not exist?

A Christian-Scientist came to my school a couple of years ago trying to explain that Science proves God exists because everything is so perfect that it had to be organised by a Divine being. Doesn't the fact that we are here and able to think about it, talk about it, discuss it show that the reason it came about may have been Divine Intervention or just the way it is.

Confused

Strictly speaking, science does not prove the existence or non-existence of God.

Science can lead people to abandon their beliefs in God, however. In that case, though, I would place the blame more on the person than on science.

-Chris

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." (Rom 5:8)
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To belive in GOD is that and that alone, a belief.

A belief is defined by the dictionary as:

1. that which is believed; an accepted opinion.
2. conviction of the truth or reality of a thing, based upon grounds insufficient to afford positive knowledge: statements unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: children's belief in their parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets: the Christian belief.

A belief in GOD is all we have. There is not supporting eveidence that proves that GOD exists.
But do we need proof, you find in life that the only people who require proof is sceptics and disbelievers.

Do you believe?

__________________
In GOD we trust

(Adjusting in seat due to sciatica pain...) Yeah, everything is perfect.

Nope. It doesn't prove anything. You can't prove God. That's what's so great, it's faith. You can't prove there is no God. That too requires faith. We start with that, and confirm it with evidence. Even if I said

1)Things exist
2)Things cannot initiate their own existence
3)There had to be a Divine creator
4)God, and since he is not an effect
5)He needs no explanation of a cause
6)Therefore, He is an uncaused cause; self-existant

- Actually...

- It is very possible to rule out the existence of a god by using science and logic together. The only trick is that we actually have to DEFINE that god and his or her attributes, and those attributes must impact us in some empirically measurable way.

- For example. Any god that is defined as:

1. The creator of the universe.
2. Omnipotent.
3. Omniscient.
4. Benevolent.

- Such a god cannot exist. It is logically prohibited.

I think it was C.S. Lewis that once wrote about science and the proof or disproof of God/divine intervention. In a nutshell, he said that science studies nature, hence it can not prove or disprove the external forces that govern nature. For instance, if I put 75 cents in my dresser tonight, I will be guaranteed to have 75 cents in it tomorrow morning, unless someone tampers with the money within my dresser. It is the same way with divine intervention. All the laws of nature, all the logic based upon the repetition of those laws, are superceded by the "tampering" of God, as He is outside the realm of Earthly things.

__________________
Repent: Repent: to turn from sin and dedicate oneself to the amendment of one's life

Superman: This is one reason science is restricted to methodological naturalism.

Science studies the universe under the assumption that no one is playing silly buggers with it. Because anyone capable of playing silly buggers with nature itself is certainly unstudiably or predictable using natural tools.

So science is restricted to studying the natural world, because all it has are natural tools.

Different subjects in Science support each other, yet at the very foundation of this support, people have yet to find factual information. Meaning they can't say it is fully reliable nor can they say it's not. Which means some things we take for granted only seems true if you use Faith to believe the unproven supporting evidence is true. In a word, the credibility of science is still shakey.

God, did give us lots and lots and evidence too. But again, in the end it all comes down to Faith again.

Simply put, it's pretty much the same both ways. It's up to you to choose. Just like people did in Genesis (the Adam and Eve creation story, for those who didn't know...=) )

Not that I totally do not believe in science, however. I believe in the parts of Science that simply explains the works of God. Such as gravity, friction and stuff. What I do not believe in, are speculations based on the assumption that unproven theories are true -- especially if it denies the existence of God. Because I already know that he does.

__________________
1 Cor 13:13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

All science is based on methodological naturalism. That is that the natural universe can be understood as the result of natural processes and natural processes alone.

As I alluded to earlier, this was chosen as the method because supernatural processes are not studieably by natural tools and methods.

As all science shares the same foundation, I am uncertain as to your meaning.
Yes. There is no such thing as "proof" in science. Proof is for math and logic. Evidence is all there is in science.

All theories have large amounts of evidence, generally from two or more independent sources. Some theories, like evolution, have evidence from a great many idependent sources.

Would you mind using specific examples? You have lots of vague generalites, but nothing specific to discuss.