Can science prove that god doesn't exist ?

[rusty009]

Before I start the discussion, I would like to point out that I am not a very religious person neither am I an Athiest, I’m not trying to provoke any science Vs religion argument, would just like you to share your thoughts.

Ok, my understanding of science is that it is an analytical subject, what I make of it is that it analyses entities, it studies this entity and then tries to describe what is going on using the laws of physics and attempts to describe why it is happening. So from this logic, in order to prove that god does not exist, it would need to find a “god”, put it under the microscope, study it and then say that it is not “god”. I’m sure you can see the error in how it can prove god doesn't exist. What are your thoughts ?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

God is not a subject of science for the reason you cite. Unless a god is made available for testing, there is no way to address the idea in scientific terms. We can only say that there is no accepted scientific evidence suggesting that a God exists.

 

[MotoH]

What is up with people trying to prove God does not exist? Seems like this and trying to prove GRT wrong is the newbie favorite.

 

[Borek]

What is up with people trying to prove God does exist?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The notion that science can debunk faith is probably one of the most common fallacies that we see here.

The most common fallacy that I see is likely the assumption that Occam's Razor is a scientific law - a tool that be used to debunk a claim.

 

[rusty009]

What is up with people trying to prove God does not exist? Seems like this and trying to prove GRT wrong is the newbie favorite.

Read my post, at no point did I try to prove god does not exist, I put out my reasoning for why I thought science can't prove if god does or does not exist !

 

[thack45]

Faith doesn't have physical properties. Can science prove that belief or love doesn't exist? From a scientific perspective, however, the burden of proof lies with the believer as science itself doesn't ask the question.

What is up with people trying to prove God does exist?

What is up with people trying to prove God does not exist?

Differing value systems would be the shortest answer.

 

[DaveC426913]

So from this logic, in order to prove that god does not exist, it would need to find a “god”, put it under the microscope, study it and then say that it is not “god”. I’m sure you can see the error in how it can prove god doesn't exist. What are your thoughts ?

It is impossible to prove the non-existence of something. You cannot, even in principle, prove that a given thing does not exist somewhere in the universe.

Note that it has nothing to do with God. You cannot prove the non-existence of flying unicorns somewhere in the universe either.

This has been discussed many, many, many times here on PF. A search will reveal many members' thoughts on the matter.

 

[sylas]

It is impossible to prove the non-existence of something. You cannot, even in principle, prove that a given thing does not exist somewhere in the universe.

Note that it has nothing to do with God. You cannot prove the non-existence of flying unicorns somewhere in the universe either.

I've always felt this approach completely misses the point.

Science can address all kinds of propositions, provided they have some empirical content. One of the usual attributes of "gods" is that they generally do whatever it is they do right here and now. They might also be involved in activities elsewhere; but in order to be the entity postulated by believers, they are involved HERE. So something limited to another solar system doesn't count, by definition.

Some notions of "god" might be addressed by science. Others might not. It depends. Tell me what is being proposed before I can say whether it has implications that might be tested. Many notions of God DO have implications, most of which fail to hold up. People tend to modify the notion of God in some way rather than reject the theory; but a postulate that continues to be modified to escape awkward implications is the kind of thing scientists tend to dismiss. Even if not formally disproved. It just ends up having no empirical content; even if the original versions of the god-model DID have empirical content and had to be rejected. A lot of god-notions are like this, IMO; including those of most of the major religions; and I suspect that is why most surveys suggest people inclined to scientific thinking are less likely to believe in god.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[zomgwtf]

I am going to agree with the general idea that has been given here.

However the OP should note that science does not deal with proofs or proving ideas/theories true/false. It has to do with scientific evidence as such AFAIK the current scientific evidence suggesting that a God exists isn't substantial to make the assumption that they are existent.

This doesn't prove that they don't exist and science never will, that belongs in the realm of philosophy. I think it should however lay the foundation for people finding beliefs in such supernatural claims.

Something that the OP should separate in their own mind is God(s) from Religion(s)... they are very different. I do firmly believe that science can dispell many religions infact, I do it in my spare time. Not for these forums though.

Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.

--Marcus Aurelius

 

[waht]

From a scientific point of view, the universe has built itself up from the simplest constituents of matter to more complex.

Doesn't even matter what came before the bigbang, we know that:

There is lots of hydrogen in the universe. Over the span of billions of years, some hydrogen got converted to all elements in the periodic table via supernova explosions. The newly cooked elements then came together into planets where the elements are allowed to come into contact with each other. As a result, chemical compounds are formed which are basically even more complex structures of matter then there were before. Then some of them began replicating and life happened. Life evolved into trillions of pointless dead end lineages that died off eons of ago. What survived to date are humans among many other creatures.

In conclusion what we see is the evolution of:

simplicity > complexity

and not

complexity > simplicity

 

[madness]

It is impossible to prove the non-existence of something. You cannot, even in principle, prove that a given thing does not exist somewhere in the universe.

Note that it has nothing to do with God. You cannot prove the non-existence of flying unicorns somewhere in the universe either.

This has been discussed many, many, many times here on PF. A search will reveal many members' thoughts on the matter.

I don't entirely agree. At least as a mathematical/logical game you can prove something's non-existence by contradiction. There are several well-known attempts to disprove God's existence in this sense, namely by showing that his properties are self contradictory - can God create a stone so heavy he can't lift it? If God is all loving and all powerful and all loving, why does he allow suffering to exist?

Even so, I do agree that you can't disprove God's existence, since these logical games needn't apply to some transcendent all powerful being, and arguably needn't even apply to our regular non-transcendent universe.

 

[zomgwtf]

In conclusion what we see is the evolution of:

simplicity > complexity

and not

complexity (God) > simplicity

So you are saying that if we created a simulation of a universe to play out exactly how we model our own universe and in the universe life arises, intelligent life. That the can conclude that their universe was not made by something more complex than the origin of the universe?

That seems to be contrary to logic, we can not conclude definitively on anything which exists outside the universe.

 

[zomgwtf]

I don't entirely agree. At least as a mathematical/logical game you can prove something's non-existence by contradiction. There are several well-known attempts to disprove God's existence in this sense, namely by showing that his properties are self contradictory - can God create a stone so heavy he can't lift it? If God is all loving and all powerful and all loving, why does he allow suffering to exist?

Even so, I do agree that you can't disprove God's existence, since these logical games needn't apply to some transcendent all powerful being, and arguably needn't even apply to our regular non-transcendent universe.

We shouldn't discuss religious ideologies of god(s) and just discuss it in concept..

 

[DaveC426913]

I've always felt this approach completely misses the point.

It doesn't miss the point; what it does is highlight the fact that this, and almost all other instances of questions like this are poorly formed and ambiguous.

At face value, what I have said is strictly true. As always, the poster will now have to respond with "OK, well what I really meant was..."

...at which point we will have the usual discussion about varying opinions of what constitutes "God".

But the OP (and anyone else in the discussion) must first be brought to the realization that the initial question is poorly-formed.

 

[madness]

We shouldn't discuss religious ideologies of god(s) and just discuss it in concept..

I wasn't aware that I was making reference to any specific ideologies.

And to Waht - most people who cite God as an explanation for the universe do so because they consider him to be simple and not complex. The line of reasoning you cite is the same one they use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't entirely agree. At least as a mathematical/logical game you can prove something's non-existence by contradiction. There are several well-known attempts to disprove God's existence in this sense, namely by showing that his properties are self contradictory - can God create a stone so heavy he can't lift it? If God is all loving and all powerful and all loving, why does he allow suffering to exist?

Yup. They're just games.

For example, you cannot prove the "unliftable rock" argument without first defining God as omnipotent. Once you have managed to force God into this box, you can then prove that nothing can logically fit in the box. But that's not disproving God, that's simply proving the contradictory nature of "omnipotence".

 

[DaveC426913]

I wasn't aware that I was making reference to any specific ideologies.

The ideology where you defined God as omnipotent and/or omniscient and/or all loving.

 

[madness]

I was quoting well known arguments against his existence. Without attributes like omnipotence there's not much to say about God, we have literally no clue what the word means.

And yes I agree that they're just games, that's what I said in my post. I was just pointing out that it's common to attempt to prove his non-existence in this way.

 

[waht]

So you are saying that if we created a simulation of a universe to play out exactly how we model our own universe and in the universe life arises, intelligent life. That the can conclude that their universe was not made by something more complex than the origin of the universe?

That seems to be contrary to logic, we can not conclude definitively on anything which exists outside the universe.

By hypothesizing something more complex outside of our framework hasn't really answered anything at all. What created the thing that created our universe? What created the thing that created the thing that created the universe? ... ad-infinitum.

As a result God (as defined as a super complex entity) only leads to an infinite regress.

 

[DaveC426913]

I was quoting well known arguments against his existence.

Against the existence of specific ideologies of God. Which we're trying to avoid.

And yes I agree that they're just games, that's what I said in my post.

Odd, what I read was "I don't entirely agree...you can prove something's non-existence..."

 

[zomgwtf]

As a result God (as defined as a super complex entity) only leads to an infinite regress.

Agreed, but why do you feel that you are special enough to solve this regress simply by positing that we must be the originating universe/possible cause?

 

[zomgwtf]

@madness, even using the term HIS(singular) is very specific to certain religions.

I'm a polytheist and I believe Zeus is king of the Gods, what you have to say to me now about the definition of God?

 

[DaveC426913]

@madness, even using the term HIS(singular) is very specific to certain religions.

I'm a polytheist and I believe Zeus is king of the Gods, what you have to say to me now about the definition of God?

Well, pretty sure Zeus is a dude...

 

[madness]

Against the existence of specific ideologies of God. Which we're trying to avoid.

The only things we have to barter with are the attributes, or properties, of a supposed God. Without assuming some of these there's no discussion to be had.

Odd, what I read was "I don't entirely agree...you can prove something's non-existence..."

I said that the non-existence of something can be disproved in a mathematical/logical game. I then went on to explain why this needn't apply to the real world and/or God.

 

[zomgwtf]

Well, pretty sure Zeus is a dude...

lol.

Well the point being that Zeus may be a guy but he is A god. "His" is singular and it is discussing GOD. That's very specific. To me there are many god(s) and they are not all masculine and they do not have the qualities of the other religious ideologies.

 

[madness]

@madness, even using the term HIS(singular) is very specific to certain religions.

I'm a polytheist and I believe Zeus is king of the Gods, what you have to say to me now about the definition of God?

Like I said, there is no discussion to be had without making some assumptions on what God is. The ones I used are the ones mostly discussed in western philosophy and what God is most commonly taken to mean in this context.

 

[zomgwtf]

Like I said, there is no discussion to be had without making some assumptions on what God is. The ones I used are the ones mostly discussed in western philosophy and what God is most commonly taken to mean in this context.

define: god
--God is a deity in theistic and deistic religions and other belief systems, representing either the sole deity in monotheism, or a principal deity in polytheism.Swinburne, R.G. "God" in Honderich, Ted. (ed)The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 1995.

deity: any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a forceDefintion removed from any type of ideology. Moving on now.

 

[DaveC426913]

Like I said, there is no discussion to be had without making some assumptions on what God is.

No assumptions necessary.

As I pointed out in post 15, there is no discussion to be had until we have a well-formed question. Once the OP defines what he is asking about, we'll have a discussion.


It would be just as silly to ask a question like "Is the fish?" and then have everyone chime in for 50 posts with their own takes on the phrase.

The ones I used are the ones mostly discussed in western philosophy and what God is most commonly taken to mean in this context.

Which is why assumptions are bad.

 

[madness]

That definition of deity doesn't accommodate the Judeo-Christian or Hindu concept "God". You assume God is a "personification" - whether God is personal or impersonal is a matter of ideology. And what is this about the personification of a force? I think this refers to more primitive religions.

 

[madness]

No assumptions necessary.

As I pointed out in post 15, there is no discussion to be had until we have a well-formed question. Once the OP defines what he is asking about, we'll have a discussion.


It would be just as silly to ask a question like "Is the fish?" and then have everyone chime in for 50 posts with their own takes on the phrase.

Which is why assumptions are bad.

Why does that make assumptions bad? I don't see the problem with using the standard and best-accepted definition. Anyway, we are basically in agreement that without agreeing on a definition there is no discussion to be had.

 

[zomgwtf]

That definition of deity doesn't accommodate the Judeo-Christian or Hindu concept "God". You assume God is a "personification" - whether God is personal or impersonal is a matter of ideology. And what is this about the personification of a force? I think this refers to more primitive religions.

Reread the definition again.

 

[waht]

Agreed, but why do you feel that you are special enough to solve this regress simply by positing that we must be the originating universe/possible cause?

What is observed thus far scientifically is that the of arrow of evolution of the universe goes from simple structures to more complex structures.

But if our universe was born out of a complex structure, then what is more likely: that the complex structure came from even a more complex structure? or that it came from a simpler structure?

The notion that the universe came from a more complex structure is like saying that the chicken came before the egg.

 

[madness]

Reread the definition again.

Ok I missed the "or". I still say this isn't a general definition of "God" - it doesn't accommodate the Hindu "Brahman".

 

[zomgwtf]

Ok I missed the "or". I still say this isn't a general definition of "God" - it doesn't accommodate the Hindu "Brahman".

Brahman in Hinduism isn't a god that's why this general definition does not fit such a concept. .

 

[zomgwtf]

What is observed thus far scientifically is that the of arrow of evolution of the universe goes from simple structures to more complex structures.

But if our universe was born out of a complex structure, then what is more likely: that the complex structure came from even a more complex structure? or that it came from a simpler structure?

The notion that the universe came from a more complex structure is like saying that the chicken came before the egg.

Ok... that's nice, now tell me what the arrow of evolution, or time, or entropy has to say about outside the universe?

Also why is it relevant what we observe to be occurring with entropy anyways? The only reason it seems to have an arrow is because we observe it as such. It is very convincing though so I'm not going to argue with it, I'm just reminding you... again: Science is only based on what's contained within our physical universe from our vantage point. (this isn't limited to human condition... to me our vantage point includes all types of observation methods we have)

 

[madness]

Brahman in Hinduism isn't a god that's why this general definition does not fit such a concept. .

You might argue that but the word God is often used interchangeably with Brahman. He (it) is often considered to be the one true God which all other Hindu God's are a representation of. Hinduism refers to various and diverse beliefs so some Hindus may not think of Brahman as God.

Just a quick search on Google gives http://www.hinduwebsite.com/brahmanmain.asp - "Brahman is the highest and supreme God of Hinduism".

 

[Kajahtava]

Most 'religions' have no 'omnipotent' gods too, neither are they 'worshipped', Zeus wasn't really a perfect being now was he? He cheated a lot on his wife.

For many religions, their gods are more 'mythological creatures' than the common western concept of 'a god' which is at least omnipotent, a creator, or benevolent.

 

[zomgwtf]

You might argue that but the word God is often used interchangeably with Brahman. He (it) is often considered to be the one true God which all other Hindu God's are a representation of. Hinduism refers to various and diverse beliefs so some Hindus may not think of Brahman as God.

Just a quick search on Google gives http://www.hinduwebsite.com/brahmanmain.asp - "Brahman is the highest and supreme God of Hinduism".

Brahma is the creator God. Brahman is a substance, if the Hindus talk about Brahman as if it is Brahma then yes, what they refer to Brahman as God DOES fit the definition I've given.

I like to think I've studied religions, Hinduism being one of them, but I've never read anything which would indicate that Brahman is a God.

That website you reference to definitely fits the definition I've given, how doesn't it?

 

[zomgwtf]

Most 'religions' have no 'omnipotent' gods too, neither are they 'worshipped', Zeus wasn't really a perfect being now was he? He cheated a lot on his wife.

For many religions, their gods are more 'mythological creatures' than the common western concept of 'a god' which is at least omnipotent, a creator, or benevolent.

This has to be one of the most rediculous comments I've read on PF before. Are you saying that because other religions have gods which do not fit the Judeo-christian god they are just 'mysthological creatures'?

 

[madness]

Brahma is the creator God. Brahman is a substance, if the Hindus talk about Brahman as if it is Brahma then yes, what they refer to Brahman as God DOES fit the definition I've given.

I like to think I've studied religions, Hinduism being one of them, but I've never read anything which would indicate that Brahman is a God.

That website you reference to definitely fits the definition I've given, how doesn't it?

No it doesn't. It says "Brahman, the Universal Self, is described in the Upanishads as the highest, Supreme and absolute God and the Creator of all".

 

[Fredrik]

Experiments can only tell us how accurate a theory's predictions are. If the claim is that there exists something that someone might want to assign the label "God", then the answer is no. This claim doesn't make any predictions, so it can neither be falsified nor proved to be more accurate than other theories.

On the other hand, if we're talking about a "God theory" that makes specific claims about things that can be measured, then we're definitely back in the realm of science, and we can design and perform a series of experiments to find out how accurate the claims are. If they're really bad, then that theory has been falsified.

 

[zomgwtf]

No it doesn't. It says "Brahman, the Universal Self, is described in the Upanishads as the highest, Supreme and absolute God and the Creator of all".

How doesn't it fit the definition. That would help instead of you repeating what I've already read.

 

[Noxide]

Answer: No

 

[DaveC426913]

Zeus wasn't really a perfect being now was he?

And now we have another assumed property of a God: that it is "perfect".

 

[madness]

How doesn't it fit the definition. That would help instead of you repeating what I've already read.

He is not worshipped as controlling some part of the world or aspect of life or as a personification of a force. So basically none of your definition fits. The problem with your definition is that you took it from two different sources. God and deity generally have different connotations. And if you already read it, why did you claim that you have never read anything that suggests Brahman is a god?

 

[DaveC426913]

He is not worshipped as controlling some part of the world or aspect of life

I'm sayin' this is nicely covered under "Supreme and absolute God and the Creator of all".

 

[madness]

I'm sayin' this is nicely covered under "Supreme and absolute God and the Creator of all".

Well Brahman isn't worshipped at all actually - hopefully we don't have to debate what worship is defined as. And by creator it means that he is the "substrate" that the universe emanates from - "In the Hindu religion, Brahman (Devanāgarī: ब्रह्मन् bráhman) is the eternal, unchanging, infinite, immanent, and transcendent reality which is the Divine Ground of all matter, energy, time, space, being, and everything beyond in this Universe (Wikipedia)", not the creator in the familiar sense. He isn't thought of as interfering or controlling things in any way, but rather thought of as what the universe and our individual consciousnesses arise from.

 

[zomgwtf]

@madness

In fact it falls very nicely into the definition I gave. You don't think personifying the essence of 'everything' in the universe fits why exactly? As well I never DID read anything which suggested that until I read that website. I've only ever read of BRAHMA being considered the creator god of Hinduism.

++ Props for quoting wiki, I never would have thought to look there but heyyy!

Brahman is the Absolute Reality or universal substrate (not to be confused with the Creator god Lord Brahmā) in Hinduism.

That's what I had learned Brahman to be.

If people begin to worship it and apply 'it created this and that' 'it does this' then yes it perfectly fits within the definition I've posted. As well I didn't use two definitions I used ONE definition of God and I clarified that definition of god by defining deity as well (because god = deity in the general sense... it's only until you start applying religious ideologies that it starts to take on different meanings.)

 

[madness]

@madness

In fact it falls very nicely into the definition I gave. You don't think personifying the essence of 'everything' in the universe fits why exactly?

This is my point, it agrees with common sense ideas about what God is but not with a single part of the definition you gave - he isn't worshipped, he doesn't control aspects of the world or our life and certainly isn't the personification of a force.

If people begin to worship it and apply 'it created this and that' 'it does this' then yes it perfectly fits within the definition I've posted. As well I didn't use two definitions I used ONE definition of God and I clarified that definition of god by defining deity as well (because god = deity in the general sense... it's only until you start applying religious ideologies that it starts to take on different meanings.)

This is the problem, he isn't worshipped and doesn't do anything. He is thought of as "ultimate truth", "the ground of all being" and the source of consciousness that we are all a part of but not an active thing that controls or affects things.