Problem numero uno: Science does not attempt to disprove unsubstantiated claims such as "God." It tests claims, and if they don't hold up, science rejects them. So far that means God is a scientific reject, nothing more and nothing less.
says someone who is basically asking "can science prove the Easter bunny" Both has similar evidence for their existence. That is none. I don't need a religious nut telling me about how science works. That's like ISIS member trying to teach me of morality. The very nature of science, which involves piles of evidence that is made through observing and measuring disproves god. You seem to have 0 first hand knowledge of anything related with science. Can you use science to prove that wind exists? Can you use science to prove radiation exists? Can you use science to prove that there are countless galaxies out there? But science can prove nothing... You act like we have known these things since the beginning of time. Fact is, we made these discoveries using science and we proved these discoveris using science Just like you, people back then believed in gods. They were ignorant to the processes that occur in nature. They made a god for wind and sea, they made a god for lightning, they made a god for volcanoes. They did all of these things because they had 0 answers. They just made up their own and called it god. Now we are at a point that the only unaswered question is "where does life come from?" And of course lIke always, since the beginning of time, people made a god for that too. Is not knowing so scary that you have a need to make up a god for for everything that you can't explain? Let's use science to prove wind. We know from observations and expriments that warm air rises and cold air sinks. This creates pressure and creates wind. We can prove that wind exists, how it exists and why it exists with science using similar meathod. We can do the same expriment over and over again, and get the same results. THAT IS SCIENCE You can prove anything with science as long as there is TENABLE EVIDENCE. religion has none. you have no evidence in religion. Nothing to back it up but hear say from a book that was probably altered many times. In science, when there is NO EVIDENCE to support a theory, then that theory is WRONG. THE THERE YOU HAVE IT. USING SCIENCE, I JUST DISPROVED THE THEORY OF GOD. WHY IS IT DISPROVEN AGAIN? BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT.
First, science cannot tell us anything about God. Science describes the natural world, God is of the supernatural. Yes, you can say that there is no evidence for God. I would tend to agree with you. That's because evidence is of the natural world, God is not. We can't say a thing scientifically about God. The concept of God is not falsifiable, hence it's not science. You are mixing up proof with observation. I can observe wind. I can predict wind (based on other measurements). I can't "prove" it exists. You haven't proven or disproven a thing. I think it's a matter of how the word "proved" is used. You are using an everyday version of the word, not a technical version of the word. I'm using the technical meaning of the word, and using the technical meaning, wind is not "proven." My guess is you haven't had science class since, probably junior year of high school. I have a bachelor's degree and master's degree in Biology. I do know science. I have done science. Anybody that claims that science can prove or disprove God doesn't know much about science, or is trying to pull the wool over somebody's eyes. (and yes, both sides do that). Also, I have said nothing about religion in my argument with you about the nature of science. Please read and comprehend, versus bleating "science good, God bad."
It can't prove there is no God anymore than "lack of evidence" for alien life existing proves there "are no aliens anywhere in the universe". The people who make that claim are followers of Scientism - which is a faith-based belief that goes beyond what science actually says - science only states what individuals have observed via testing, it doesn't make a claim about "what else does or doesn't exist". Just like in a criminal court, when a person is found guilty or not guilty, the court is simply making a judgment call based on the information available to them, not an absolute statement about whether or not the person "did or didn't do it".
It can't but we can use science to disprove claims when a Bible Literalist says there was an Exodus as per the Bible then Archeology and related sciences where applicable can disprove such a claim pretty easily.
True, but most Christians view Bible Literalists as being wrong. In the Catholic church, we view Biblical literalism as almost a heresy.
Lots of things are unprofitable within certain contexts; just like a court of law can't prove that Jeffery Dahmer was a "bad person", just that he committed several murders. People believe he was a "bad person" based on faith.
Yes, that's true enough. There are many biblical claims that do not stand up to scientific and historical scrutiny. It's no wonder that many Christians end up engaging in conspiracy theorist-style thinking, claiming that scientists and government are all colluding to hide the "truth" that they choose to believe in.
Objective science follows the evidence to a conclusion, pseudoscience starts from the conclusion then looks for evidence that supports the conclusion. The above is a metaphysical abstract, not science.
Because he isn't real. Easter bunny and tooth fairies arnt natral either. So anyone who can claim that science can disprove them must be pulling wool over peoples eyes too right? In the same way science disproves a theory that lacks any evidence, science disproves religion because it too lacks evidence. Yeh right and I have a PhD in quantum physics. Even if you have the degree that you claim, it doesn't give you credibility. I've seen some phds who are some of the biggest nuts. So while REAL scientists measure and observe the natural world, you stay in your fairy land You can make up all the degrees you want. Doesn't change the fact that you know NOTHING of scientific meathod. To prove ANYTHING you need evidence. If you have 0 evidence than you can't prove it. If you can't prove it than you are WRONG. It's as simple as that. That's how science works.
You're turning around the message. Of course many things exist which are waiting to be explored, investigated, researched understood and finally proven to exist in a certain way of existence. That however is not the question here. Look above. The question is: How can science prove there is no ''Gods''? That is impossible. Franklin didn't attempt to prove that electricity does not exist. And if he would have, he would have failed. Simply because it does exist. Therefore: Non-existence of something cannot be proven. Nowhere. Never.
Positive energy joins space and ''God'' , negative energy goes to hell (the earth's core) based on positive and negative mass and the neutral mass of space? We can prove hot air rises and sinks again when more negative...
Hmmm, electricity doesn't exist, it is observer effect. electricity is made and not a entity of its own existence.
This is an illogical position. If there is no evidence for God, how can you make the these definitive statements about his nature? All you can accurately say is that there could be something beyond our fundamental ability to observe it. By definition though, you can say literally nothing else about that thing. We could come up with an any concept, declare it supernatural and it would be at the same level as any of the multiple definitions of God in this context. Anyway, anything declared supernatural but said to affect the natural world can be studied via those alleged effects. If it is claimed God did X via method Y but it is shown X never happened or happened via a different means, that specific definition of God would be disproven (as far as anything can be).
Exactly that, the firmament of the mind, we could make any god or any thing up that exists outside of that and it would equally have the same premise, no value of fact. I think we can prove there is no God by proving this.
So basically, your last science class was in high school. You aren't even using the vocabulary of anybody that has any knowledge of the scientific method. For something to be a scientific theory, it has to be able to be falsifiable, which means that there has to be a way to show that it is not valid. Again, read Popper. Not being able to prove something doesn't make you wrong, as it is impossible to prove anything in science. It is possible to prove things in math, but math is basically logic, and not a reflection of the natural world. God (and Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny) have nothing to do with science. My main point is that God is unknowable by the scientific method. I grant that belief in God is not scientific. I grant that there is no evidence for the existence of God.
When have I made definitive statements about God's nature? I haven't, besides saying that God is supernatural. There is no way to evaluate God scientifically. You can evaluate human claims about God, but those are basically invalid anyway, at least according to most of Christianity.
Hello, "amateur scientist", I am a professional scientist (this is my day off, if anyone wants to know) and have been for many years. I am also a Priest. This caught my eye: Really? Should I not believe in God so I can sound edgy and "scientific"? What precisely is it that should be preventing me, a scientist, from believing in God? Then you wrote this: You just said two different things. Are you trying to prove or disprove the existence of God or are you trying to prove or disprove the existence of religion? In short, what exactly is it that you are trying to say?
That's two definitive statements already ("is supernatural" doesn't automatically equate to "can't be evaluated scientifically"), plus the implied "God exists". Just using a singular proper noun suggests some assumptions. Again, you can say there could be something beyond our ability to study but by definition, you can say nothing more than that. Nothing personal, but you're a human making claims about God.
No they actually do start with a hypothesis (conclusion). It's only pseudo-science if facts are outright ignored even when they contradict or disprove a conclusion. This is why Scientism is pseudoscience, since science itself makes no assertion about "what else exists" or "what people should believe", nor does it assert that natural scientific evidence is the "only" form of evidence by which individuals should make conclusions. By science you mean formalized natural science. If on the flip side you're claiming that nothing exists or is true outside of the natural sciences - then that's not science, just Scientism, which is a faith-based belief.
Why would science bother trying to do such a thing? The hypothesis was dismissed long ago due to lack of data to review. This of course does not disprove Gods, it simply makes them irrelevant to science.
Fact is that evidence is gathered to fit the hypothesis as best as possible. The Scientific Method (TM) is just a specific, formalized system for gathering evidence and forming conclusions, just like the criminal justice system is.
