Does Science prove God does not exist?

[Intemperance]

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

 

[kern]

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

 

[salacious]

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?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Intemperance
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.

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

 

[Defender of the Faith 777]

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

 

[AtheistArchon]

- 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.

 

[Superman53142]

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.

 

[Morat]

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.

 

[darkwoof]

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.

 

[Morat]

Different subjects in Science support each other, yet at the very foundation of this support, people have yet to find factual information.

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.

Meaning they can't say it is fully reliable nor can they say it's not.

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.

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.

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

 

[Starscream]

In a word, the credibility of science is still shakey.

Or so says the theist typing away at a computer.

 

[leyon]

I concur with Morat, as science requires something that can be repeatable ad infitum to "prove" it. Thus by extension logic, being the vehicle through which scientific theories arise and fall, can only conclude so much. Of course, if you can get God / The Creator / The Force / <insert favourite diety here> to jump thru hoops again and again for us to study, that wouldn't make him/her/it much of a God now, would it?

 

[Morat]

Note: The observations must be repeatable. Not the event. Unique events can be studied, so long as they leave data that can be observed.

The worldwide iriduim layer at the KT boundary, for instance.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Starscream

Or so says the theist typing away at a computer.

I think computers offer ample evidence that scientific results are not always reproducible.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Starscream

Or so says the theist typing away at a computer.

Yeah, but he's using Windows.

 

[Mahdi_Golestaneh]

It is a scientific proving for existence of god. At first, it proves existence of ghost because existence of it is a reason for existence of god.
Our brain reflects to signals that enter to brain. When somebody asks us a question, we answer him.
For this purpose, there is no need to ghost and complicated connections in brain transform these entering signals to re-act in miscellaneous members in body. But we feel events that occur, too.
Imagine a robot that the network of brain has been simulated for it by electronic circuits. It re-acts like a human but can we say that it feels events, which occur, and even what itself do. How we can say a combination of materials as brain or that simulated brain circuit is aware of activities that happens in itself and feels them. I think we cannot explain it without accepting the existence ghost.
Existence of ghost is a reason for existence of god.

 

[MartinM]

Translation: I assume that there is no natural explanation for X. Therefore there is no natural explanation for X. Therefore there must be a supernatural explanation for X. Let's call him God.

Wow. I'm convinced.

 

[pureone]

This article is a scientific proving for existence of god..

Mahdi Golestaneh

What article?

The thread title/OP ask two different things.

1.Does science Prove that God does not exist?
no. science hasn't really had that on the agenda. Too busy loking at everything else. Proving or disproving he existence of God has been more popular in the philosophy than science. Even last year at my college a philosophy student "proved" God exists in a colloquium.They have to do something while they sit drinking coffee.

2. Does science prove that everything was not made by God?
I can't answer that one as well as some others here. I know the arguments but am not really able to repeat them well.

 

[MartinM]

He means his own post, pureone.


Wow. This thread is really old.

 

[pureone]

He means his own post, pureone.


Wow. This thread is really old.

Ah.

Yes.