Can science prove that god doesn't exist ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rusty009
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Science
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of whether science can prove the non-existence of God. Participants explore the relationship between science and faith, the nature of evidence, and the implications of various philosophical arguments regarding existence and non-existence.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that science cannot address the existence of God unless a God is made available for empirical testing.
  • Others suggest that proving non-existence is fundamentally impossible, as it applies to any entity, including hypothetical beings like flying unicorns.
  • A participant notes that the burden of proof lies with the believer, as science does not typically engage with questions of belief.
  • There are claims that the assumption that science can debunk faith is a common fallacy, and that Occam's Razor is often misapplied in this context.
  • Some participants express frustration with the recurring nature of debates about proving or disproving God's existence, suggesting it reflects differing value systems.
  • A later reply discusses the evolution of complexity from simplicity in the universe, contrasting this with the idea of complexity arising from a divine creator.
  • One participant mentions that while logical arguments can be made against God's existence, these may not apply to a transcendent being.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus; multiple competing views remain regarding the relationship between science and the existence of God, as well as the nature of evidence and belief.

Contextual Notes

Some arguments depend on definitions of God and the nature of scientific inquiry, while others highlight the limitations of empirical evidence in addressing metaphysical claims.

  • #31
DaveC426913 said:
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
madness said:
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.
 
  • #33
zomgwtf said:
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.
 
  • #34
zomgwtf said:
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".
 
  • #35
madness said:
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. :smile:.
 
  • #36
what said:
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)
 
  • #37
zomgwtf said:
Brahman in Hinduism isn't a god that's why this general definition does not fit such a concept. :smile:.

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".
 
  • #38
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.
 
  • #39
madness said:
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?
 
Last edited:
  • #40
Kajahtava said:
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'?
 
  • #41
zomgwtf said:
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".
 
  • #42
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.
 
  • #43
madness said:
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.
 
  • #44
Answer: No
 
  • #45
Kajahtava said:
Zeus wasn't really a perfect being now was he?
And now we have another assumed property of a God: that it is "perfect".
 
  • #46
zomgwtf said:
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?
 
  • #47
madness said:
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".
 
  • #48
DaveC426913 said:
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.
 
  • #49
@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.)
 
  • #50
zomgwtf said:
@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.
 
  • #51
madness said:
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.
I think you are confused.
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.

Your confusion I believe stems from you using two different interpretations of Brahman, one in which he is a 'creator' of everything and all that... on the website you linked, you don't think that's a form of worship?

The other which you are trying to say is what ISN'T a god... well it really ISN'T a god, even to the Hindu, it's just the 'substrate of EVERYTHING'.

This isn't worshipped but there are other gods which ARE worshipped. Mainly Vishnu, Brahma, Shiva, or Shakti. There are others depending on the Hinduism you speak of (some don't even involve god at all and are all philosophical.) These four gods are what comprise the supreme substrate. They are all worshipped.I still am failing to understand how the 'universal substrate' which all of us come from is not a personification of a force in the universe... It's just EVERYTHING all in one... still being personified you have yet to show how it isn't.
 
Last edited:
  • #52
It is impossible to prove that God doesn't exist. Everything has tried, and nothing has succeeded. There is, to me, a lot of things that point to the notion of God being made up. One such thing is that every culture in the world has its own God(s). How can that not point you in the direction of non-existence. Also, it is extremely probable to me that people create something such as God because they are afraid of the unknown. The bottom line is, life is better when there is heaven. And life is better when there is someone of all encompassing power watching over you. This is a philosophical argument though, not a scientific one. As I think DaveC said at the beginning of the thread, "you cannot prove the non existence of something"
 
  • #53
zomgwtf said:
Your confusion I believe stems from you using two different interpretations of Brahman, one in which he is a 'creator' of everything and all that... on the website you linked, you don't think that's a form of worship?

I explained in a previous post that Brahman is not a creator in the usual sense - Hindus believe the universe always existed. And no he isn't worshipped, the deities you mentioned are (except Brahma who is almost never worshipped).

The other which you are trying to say is what ISN'T a god... well it really ISN'T a god, even to the Hindu, it's just the 'substrate of EVERYTHING'.

As I said when I first brought up the topic of Brahman, the words God and Brahman are often used interchangeably when translated to English. You're right that he isn't a God by your definition, but he is considered a God by most Hindus (the same ones who consider him the substrate of everything). This is the whole point I'm trying to make.

This isn't worshipped but there are other gods which ARE worshipped. Mainly Vishnu, Brahma, Shiva, or Shakti. There are others depending on the Hinduism you speak of (some don't even involve god at all and are all philosophical.) These four gods are what comprise the supreme substrate. They are all worshipped.


I still am failing to understand how the 'universal substrate' which all of us come from is not a personification of a force in the universe... It's just EVERYTHING all in one... still being personified you have yet to show how it isn't.

Brahman isn't usually considered a personification of anything, that's what the various deities are for. Do you think the laws of nature are a personification of a force? Or the universe itself? Brahman is to be understood in similar terms.
 
  • #54
So, are we agreed? Trying to define if God exists is utterly meaningless because we don't even agree what it might be? :shy:**

**Since I only have access to the first 9 smilies,I am going to start using random smilies until the IE8 smilie dropdown bug is fixed.
 
  • #55
Quite an interesting thread, bantering about something that wasn't defined.:biggrin: :blushing: :-p :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :smile: :approve: :cry: :cool: :confused: :zzz: :redface: :smile: :frown: :bugeye: :eek: :rolleyes: :shy: :!) :mad: :wink: o:) :-p :devil:

Use firefox.
 
  • #56
What caused the big bang then?
 
  • #57
What caused the big bang? How can we ever discuss something so unwell defined?
 
  • #58
DaveC426913 said:
So, are we agreed? Trying to define if God exists is utterly meaningless because we don't even agree what it might be? :shy:**

**Since I only have access to the first 9 smilies,I am going to start using random smilies until the IE8 smilie dropdown bug is fixed.


We are basically in agreement, the only disagreement was that I assumed it was acceptable to assume a common western conception of God in order that a discussion could be had.
 
  • #59
magpies said:
What caused the big bang? How can we ever discuss something so unwell defined?

Is that sarcasm? The Big Bang is very thoroughly defined indeed; with clear indications of what is known and what is still unclear. This is a very stark distinctions between the domains of science and religion. I don't mean that as one being "better" than the other -- it isn't necessarily sensible to apply the methods of one domain to the other. But science is by its nature much more well defined, in the sense that there is very wide agreement on fundamentals and on the standing of different scientific models.

Cheers -- sylas
 
  • #60
madness said:
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.

When 74% of the universe,according to science is dark matter(unknown)..how can it prove the non exisence of a thing or an entity or an event or whatever
 

Similar threads

Are true geniuses extinct?
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
6K
Can Science Disprove the Existence of God and End Religion?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Discussion on the science-literature relationship and more
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Are We God? Exploring the Hidden Truth of Our Existence
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Philosophy of Science: Discussing Maths, Physics, Mind, & AI
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Open Access Scientific Publications
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
353
Is it possible to prove the existence of God?
  • · Replies 70 ·
3
Replies
70
Views
13K
Can Science and Belief in God Coexist?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
What is the position of god in science?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Is pantheism compatible with an anthropomorphic view of God?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K