Can science prove that god doesn't exist ?

[zomgwtf]

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.

 

[dacruick]

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"

 

[madness]

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.

 

[DaveC426913]

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.

 

[MotoH]

Quite an interesting thread, bantering about something that wasn't defined. :zzz: :shy: :!)

Use firefox.

 

[Pythagorean]

What caused the big bang then?

 

[magpies]

What caused the big bang? How can we ever discuss something so unwell defined?

 

[madness]

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.

 

[sylas]

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

 

[kishore_13]

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

 

[Fredrik]

What caused the big bang then?

Why are you asking something that's completely unrelated to the topic of this thread?

 

[zomgwtf]

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

I don't understand what you mean when you say 'dark matter(unknown)'. Are you saying that dark matter is something that is 'unknown' or that it's existence is uncertain?

 

[kishore_13]

I don't understand what you mean when you say 'dark matter(unknown)'. Are you saying that dark matter is something that is 'unknown' or that it's existence is uncertain?

Dark matter is that part of the universe(perceived by us) as something which we have no idea on.I mean its properties and laws so on so forth.And the percentage is huge 74%.I donno what we perceive as 100%, is complete too.

 

[zomgwtf]

Dark matter is that part of the universe(perceived by us) as something which we have no idea on.I mean its properties and laws so on so forth.And the percentage is huge 74%.I donno what we perceive as 100%, is complete too.

Yeahhh... and where'd you learn that we have no idea on? Just because it's invisible doesn't mean it has no physical effects in the universe, just has to do with how it interacts with electromagnetic forces.

Besides, I'm pretty sure that dark matter accounts for under 30% of the observable universe. Someone correct me if this is wrong.

How exactly does this have anything to do with the discussion at hand again?

Also if we observe the effects of dark matter then it certainly does fall into the 'what we perceive'... it's just not matter so we perceive it differently than we would a baseball or a rock.

 

[kishore_13]

Yeahhh... and where'd you learn that we have no idea on? Just because it's invisible doesn't mean it has no physical effects in the universe, just has to do with how it interacts with electromagnetic forces.

The universe is believed to be mostly composed of dark energy and dark matter, both of which are poorly understood at present. Less than 5% of the universe is ordinary matter, a relatively small perturbation.reference-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#Size.2C_age.2C_contents.2C_structure.2C_and_laws

Besides, I'm pretty sure that dark matter accounts for under 30% of the observable universe. Someone correct me if this is wrong.

How much of the "observable" universe is the complete universe(if ever there is one).

How exactly does this have anything to do with the discussion at hand again?

Definition of a superset is only complete when it has its every single subset defined.

Also if we observe the effects of dark matter then it certainly does fall into the 'what we perceive'... it's just not matter so we perceive it differently than we would a baseball or a rock.

Its not matter only because "we" cannot quantify it "yet".

 

[Antiphon]

To the OP 's question: If God exists science may or may not be able to find him. It all depends on whether he would want it possible to be found or not.

If he doesn't exist, science will not be able to state so.

Assuming it's a 50-50 toss up as to whether he would want to be dicoverable and a 50-50 toss up as to whether he exists, the odds of science detecting the existence of God are 1 in 4.

 

[kishore_13]

To the OP 's question: If God exists science may or may not be able to find him. It all depends on whether he would want it possible to be found or not.

If he doesn't exist, science will not be able to state so.

Assuming it's a 50-50 toss up as to whether he would want to be dicoverable and a 50-50 toss up as to whether he exists, the odds of science detecting the existence of God are 1 in 4.

Now why is there so much hush about science.Science means knowledge and in a universe which has nothing unprovable..anything can be proved right ..even vagueness and absurdity.

 

[madness]

Now why is there so much hush about science.Science means knowledge and in a universe which has nothing unprovable..anything can be proved right ..even vagueness and absurdity.

What makes you think that nothing is unprovable? There have been claims in this thread that the non-existence of something cannot be proved, but not that anything can be proved. If that were the case we would have to give up on logic altogether.

 

[Pythagorean]

Why are you asking something that's completely unrelated to the topic of this thread?

I didn't realize there was another page. The post I was directly responding to (waht's post at the end of page 1) was making the argument of infinite regress as a criticism against a God.

Of course, I'd put my money on the big bang over a creator, but my point is that the argument of infinite regress applies to the big bang, too. What caused the events leading up to the big bang? What caused those events? Etc, etc.

I.e., if it was a valid argument, it could be just as easily applied to the big bang.

 

[DaveC426913]

Of course, I'd put my money on the big bang over a creator,

They are not moochally exclusive.

but my point is that the argument of infinite regress applies to the big bang, too. What caused the events leading up to the big bang? What caused those events? Etc, etc.

I.e., if it was a valid argument, it could be just as easily applied to the big bang.

Precisely. Which is why the invokation of God as a causal factor doesn't get us further ahead.

 

[atyy]

Define God = laws of physics.

Science assumes that God exists. Hence science is a religion.

 

[zomgwtf]

Define God = laws of physics.

Science assumes that God exists. Hence science is a religion.

Hence you get my fist to your face!

(just joking.)

 

[DaveC426913]

Define God = laws of physics.

Science assumes that God exists. Hence science is a religion.

I don't understand either of those statements.

 

[brainstorm]

The dead end scientists run into in trying to study god(s) is that they approach the phenomenon in terms of physical existence of an entity, "God/god(s)"

Karl Jung actually came up with the best scientific way to study "God/gods," i.e. as an archetype of the human psyche. Jung actually found that once he had devoted sufficient study to understanding the archetype or psychology of God/god(s), he actually came to understand God/god(s) in the terms of a believer, and henceforth believed that he had truly discovered "God."

Freud found this ridiculous and chastized Jung for failing to relativize this what Freud thought of as infantile superstition. I agree more with Jung, and I have found that by studying the concept of God, it is possible (even as an atheist, which I was/am) to understand the theology so well that you are able to understand literally what it means to believe in God.

I have to be careful, because this forum prohibits religious peddling, and I don't want to do that. I just can say that I think the best way to study religion as a social scientist is to study it from the inside by becoming a believer. In other words, figure out what you have to do to believe in God, and then study your own experience and beliefs in doing so.

That is the only way for science NOT to prove that God/god(s) don't exist, because theology isn't a materialist but rather a symbolic/spiritual discourse. Again, I'm hesitant to refer to scripture, but this is actually clearly recognized explicitly when Christ is said to have referred to the distinction between matters of flesh and spirit, implying that trying to make sense of spiritual things in materialist logic makes no sense, using the example of being "born again" as returning to one's mother's womb to literally be born again.

Obviously, even devout atheists recognize that being "born again" refers to something other than physically returning to your mother's womb, but this is the same with God/god(s); i.e. you're not going to find God/god(s) in any caves or on a distant planet. God/god(s) is a spiritual phenomenon of faith-knowledge, i.e. theology, and outside of that God/god(s) can't exist because materialist/positivist science only studies things in a way that isolates the material from the spiritual.

If science can find an individual that doesn't contain some archetype/knowledge of what "God/god(s)" means in a subjective sense, that would be proof that God/god(s) doesn't exist for that person, but I seriously doubt that there is an individual human alive that doesn't have some theological knowledge in some form. Maybe individuals with severe learning disabilities might be an exception. It would be interesting to figure out how they experience their own power and creativity, and whether that experience is similar to what other people conceptualize in reference to the "God/god(s)" mythology they have been exposed to.

 

[DaveC426913]

Karl Jung actually came up with the best scientific way to study "God/gods," i.e. as an archetype of the human psyche.

Mmm... OK. We'll add a clarification that we heretofore have all thought went without saying:

Can science prove that god doesn't exist as an independent entity and not just the collective figment of Mankind's minds?

Moving on.

 

[kishore_13]

What makes you think that nothing is unprovable? There have been claims in this thread that the non-existence of something cannot be proved, but not that anything can be proved. If that were the case we would have to give up on logic altogether.

I know it is difficult to digest.:)...
May be we need to get used o it.

 

[madness]

Mmm... OK. We'll add a clarification that we heretofore have all thought went without saying:

Can science prove that god doesn't exist as an independent entity and not just the collective figment of Mankind's minds?

Moving on.

Unfortunately a clear separation of God existing as an independent entity and as an imagined entity isn't always easy. I'll quote Descartes' ontological argument from Discourse on Method and the Mediations:

"Following this, reflecting on the fact that I had doubts, and that consequently my being was not completely perfect, for I saw clearly that it was a greater perfection to know than to doubt, I decided to inquire whence I had learned to think of something more perfect than myself; and I clearly recognised that this must have been from some nature which was in fact more perfect...and because it is no less contradictory that the more perfect should proceed from and depend on the less perfect than that something should arise out of nothing, I could not hold it from myself; with the result that it remained that it must have been put into me by a being whose nature was truly more perfect than mine and which even had in itself all the perfections of which I could have any idea, that is to say, in a single word, which was God.

So Descartes' argument basically says - I can imagine God, therefore he must exist.

 

[brainstorm]

Mmm... OK. We'll add a clarification that we heretofore have all thought went without saying:

Can science prove that god doesn't exist as an independent entity and not just the collective figment of Mankind's minds?

Moving on.

Of course science will never find proof of God, but the question is whether the impossibility of God's/god(s)' existence from the perspective of materialist/positivist science is sufficient to prove its nonexistence?

In order to establish nonexistence through science, you would have to be able to establish sufficient proof that God's/god(s)' nonexistence as a physical entity is sufficient to establish nonexistence more generally.

That's when you get into debating the existence, status, functioning, etc. of subjectivity, which is where you get into the approaches of people like Jung and DesCartes (thanks, btw, whoever posted about DesCartes - I forgot about his search for God).

So if God doesn't exist physically, does subjectivity exist and if so, do subjective things exist to the people who experience them subjectively. E.g. Do dreams and thoughts exist inside the dreamer/thinker, and if so what is their significance?

 

[Kerrie]

If an omnipotent creator with a human like conscious does exist, I bet he or she is laughing at us right now.

Can the limitations of our minds even define god to prove or disprove his/hers/its existence?

 

[magpies]

I had a thought let me know if this sounds right. "Proof isn't really proof until everyone believes it." Seems true imo but who knows.

 

[DaveC426913]

I had a thought let me know if this sounds right. "Proof isn't really proof until everyone believes it." Seems true imo but who knows.

Well, for one: everybody believing a thing does not make that thing true; a pitfall Mankind has succumbed to repeatedly.

I'd say more like "proof isn't proof until anyone who has the inclination and resources can confirm it for themselves independently."

 

[brainstorm]

Well, for one: everybody believing a thing does not make that thing true; a pitfall Mankind has succumbed to repeatedly.

I'd say more like "proof isn't proof until anyone who has the inclination and resources can confirm it for themselves independently."

This is true. There is an important distinction between an objective fact and a social fact. I wouldn't even say that social "facts" are actually facts as much as they are social behavior that attempts to simulate the level of acceptance of something that is objectively incontrovertible.

On the other hand, I think it is in a way correct that proof isn't proof until someone is convinced by it. This of course assumes that someone is reasonable and open to the possibility of reasoning about the proof. Sometimes people's desire to believe something is strong enough that they refuse to even look at evidence to the contrary.

Still, there are also people who are so interested in gaining the authority-status that comes with agreeing with other authorities, that they avoid questioning facts or proof that they know will win them discredit among the people whose approval they are concerned with maintaining.

Proof becomes proof when it is reasonably accepted as defensible proof. If it is just accepted as support and taken as proof because of a preponderance of evidence, it is not really proof. Proof is defensible when it can be logically or otherwise reasonably shown to demonstrate the incontrovertibility of a claim. If the critic can provide a reasonable basis for invalidating or qualifying the basis for accepting evidence as proof, then it is not proof in the context that disqualifies it.

E.g. Even if it were possible to absolutely prove that God/god(s) do not exist as physical entities, the qualification that God/god(s) exist as subjective entities makes it impossible to prove that God/god(s) don't exist, unless subjectivity itself can be proven not to exist - or you have to define "existence" as only meaning "physical existence." If you admit that subjective existence is also a form of existence, the question becomes what relevance is it that God/god(s) exist as subjective phenomena. I.e. What is the relevance of subjectivity and the ontology of experiential phenomena?

 

[SixNein]

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 ?

Understanding the problem is half the battle. Unfortunately, nobody can understand God.

 

[brainstorm]

Understanding the problem is half the battle. Unfortunately, nobody can understand God.

Karl Jung would disagree. My friends who are Jehovah's Witnesses would also disagree. Both would say that by being open to exploring what/who God is, your personal familiarity with the entity/ies and or the concept(s) - depending on how you approach it - continues to increase. No one may ever be able to completely understand and define God/god(s) but I believe that is because of the nature of subjectivity/spirituality. Nevertheless, I believe your understanding (as believer or not) can continue to grow through study and reflection. This is true of other aspects of your subjectivity as well, such as your personality, your life history, your sense of purpose, etc. Nothing subjective is simply there for you to study as an object. It's more like you cultivate and refine your subjectivity as you explore and reflect on it. You end up creating the object of study through the process of discovering and reflecting on it. The further you get, the more it seems like you are discovering something that was always there waiting to be found before you started. Fascinating phenomenon, imo.

 

[SixNein]

Karl Jung would disagree. My friends who are Jehovah's Witnesses would also disagree. Both would say that by being open to exploring what/who God is, your personal familiarity with the entity/ies and or the concept(s) - depending on how you approach it - continues to increase. No one may ever be able to completely understand and define God/god(s) but I believe that is because of the nature of subjectivity/spirituality. Nevertheless, I believe your understanding (as believer or not) can continue to grow through study and reflection. This is true of other aspects of your subjectivity as well, such as your personality, your life history, your sense of purpose, etc. Nothing subjective is simply there for you to study as an object. It's more like you cultivate and refine your subjectivity as you explore and reflect on it. You end up creating the object of study through the process of discovering and reflecting on it. The further you get, the more it seems like you are discovering something that was always there waiting to be found before you started. Fascinating phenomenon, imo.

If an infinite being is indeed infinite, how is your finite mind going to understand the infinite?

 

[Kerrie]

If an infinite being is indeed infinite, how is your finite mind going to understand the infinite?

This is the conclusion I have come to with the concept of "God".

 

[madness]

If an infinite being is indeed infinite, how is your finite mind going to understand the infinite?

Well if you're a Hindu (specifically Vedanta) you would try to realize that "God" and the self are the same thing and that there is no distinction between the self and the universe (or something like that). But this just goes to show the massive range of concepts which are all ascribed the word "God".

 

[Pythagorean]

They are not moochally exclusive.

That's true. I guess I was thinking in the context of creationist arguments, not the more general, deist idea of a creator.

Precisely. Which is why the invokation of God as a causal factor doesn't get us further ahead.

While I generally agree, I'm having trouble understanding the context of this response.

 

[brainstorm]

If an infinite being is indeed infinite, how is your finite mind going to understand the infinite?

Infinity is a concept that your mind is capable of understanding because it was invented as a mental concept. Certainly you're not going to be able to grasp everything that is conceptualizable in terms of "creation" at the same time. It's enough to be able to realize that everything your mind is capable of perceiving, thinking, or imagining has be be recreated within your consciousness to be perceivable. That can be hard to grasp; i.e. that everything you can imagine to exists already exists within your imagination. Certainly your imagination/mind is not infinite, but it cannot imagine anything beyond the infinite existence it imagines, so it takes some reflection to realize that all the possibilities of perception in your imagination and thoughts are finite, including that of infinity - but also that your mind is capable of generated infinite thoughts and imaginable possibilities. You can't just sabotage the entirety of subjective potential by claiming the mind is finite and contrasting it with the concept of infinity.

 

[SixNein]

Infinity is a concept that your mind is capable of understanding because it was invented as a mental concept. Certainly you're not going to be able to grasp everything that is conceptualizable in terms of "creation" at the same time. It's enough to be able to realize that everything your mind is capable of perceiving, thinking, or imagining has be be recreated within your consciousness to be perceivable. That can be hard to grasp; i.e. that everything you can imagine to exists already exists within your imagination. Certainly your imagination/mind is not infinite, but it cannot imagine anything beyond the infinite existence it imagines, so it takes some reflection to realize that all the possibilities of perception in your imagination and thoughts are finite, including that of infinity - but also that your mind is capable of generated infinite thoughts and imaginable possibilities. You can't just sabotage the entirety of subjective potential by claiming the mind is finite and contrasting it with the concept of infinity.

I do not think infinity is a invention; instead, I think it was discovered.

 

[magpies]

Really? I was sure santa invented it.

 

[Rico L]

some of my friend are religious but they love science! I've had the same discussion with them before, what they said is that "the science is the how things behave like but god is the answer to why do they behave in such way".

they have their point but personally i believe there is a 50 50 chance that god might exists although i am not religious.

but one day we will find out ..

 

[brainstorm]

I do not think infinity is a invention; instead, I think it was discovered.

A couple posts ago, you claimed that humans aren't capable of grasping infinity - and now you're saying that they discovered it? What is infinity other than an ideal concept? Any practical effort to count or measure anything results in a finite number, doesn't it? The only way to arrive at infinitude is to apply logical or mathematical formulas that operate at the conceptual level.

The fact that human minds can conceptualize infinity but never have access to empirically observing infinitude outside themselves suggests infinity is a conceptual invention, not a discovery, since humans are incapable of discovering infinity through direct counting or measurement. "Ad infinitum" includes the "ad" to indicate the shift from empirical account to conceptual extrapolation of a pattern.

 

[The Watcher]

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 ?

Greetings

This is my first post on this Physics Forum and the question “Can science prove that god doesn't exist?” is hard to answer – most importantly because there needs to be a definition regarding ‘what GOD is” as DaveC426913 points out on more than one occasion in this thread.

I realize that this threads last comment is a month ago no doubt due to lack of any real conclusion.

If there is a GOD and this is defined broadly as something intelligent which created this universe and also has the ability to commune with the individual, as two examples of commonly accepted definitions, neither definition goes very far as helpful to science for the purpose of measurable evidence.

The question though, is “can science prove that GOD doesn’t exist?” and the answer would have to be something along the lines of “Yes – once GOD is defined.”

Even with the two examples of definition given as to “What GOD is” – these can only be answered by science honestly as something like “Then GOD does not exist because Science can prove that these definitions prove that GOD does not exist.

Thus as soon as GOD is defined, Science can prove it does not exist.

Why?

Because GOD by any definition exists outside the definable Universe and thus all definitions which are used to describe that which is indefinable are un-provable while they remain outside the definable boundaries of the universe.

Now some definitions of “What GOD is” merge the creator with the creation and say that all that is, is GOD and more personally GOD is within the conscious experience of the Universe and thus we are part of “What GOD is” which might give science something to measure and come to some conclusion about, but…well…if this were so then science is already doing this very thing and at present time the discovery process is still happening …and presuming that humanity makes it through these times, will still be happening for some time to come.

If the content of the above paragraph were true, then what is really occurring is that GOD will eventually prove Itself and science will have something to do with that process.
Also, IF “What GOD is” happens to be something like ‘God is the conscious experience within the universe,” then the consciousness itself will define ‘What GOD is” as IT discovers Itself

Conclusion:
Science is not, and never will be an instrument/entity/method in which to ‘prove that GOD does not exist.’

 

[magpies]

The reason I don't think science can prove if god exists or not is because science isn't a person and only people have the capacity for proof. Proof is not something you toss in somebodys face and say accept the facts or else. It's something someone makes a choice to believe true or not. This is the problem of freewill in essence.

 

[brainstorm]

Atheism can utilize materialism to deny God's material existence. But materialist atheism cannot erase God's existence as an idea, belief, or other subjective phenomenon because materialism is paralyzed where subjective matters are concerned. The best it can do is claim that subjectivity is meaningless in comparison with materiality. Yet the material reality of human experience is that it is all filtered through subjectivity such that nothing is meaningful or even perceivable EXCEPT as it is processed by subjectivity/consciousness. Thus you have the problem of the computer monitor: the monitor may have very little to do with how the computer works, but without an interface, nothing about the computer can be known, experienced, or perceived. So even if you manipulate the idea of God in such a way as to disprove it materially, what do you do with the idea of God? Karl Jung studied it as an archetype of the human psyche, and by doing so discovered what it means for God to "exist." Understanding God's existence subjectively is, imo, the only way to legitimately study it scientifically, because God has no directly observable existence outside of subjectivity. He does, however, exist extensively in human subjectivity and expression - and if you are interested in "God," the way to study "Him" is through study of subjectivity, both in the form of external representations but also introspective reflection on one's own subjective knowledge.

 

[magpies]

Wow just wow well said.

 

[Gokul43201]

If an infinite being is indeed infinite, how is your finite mind going to understand the infinite?

Oh jeez! How is your finite mind going to understand the set of positive integers?

 

[Gokul43201]

Oh, and by the way, science does not deal with proving that stuff doesn't exist (proof of a universal negative). That's only something that mathematics can do, so long as the "stuff" involved is a mathematical object. So to address the thread title, science can not prove that god doesn't exists, nor can it prove that leprechauns, elves or gremlins don't exist.

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialscien...ER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm

 

[brainstorm]

Oh, and by the way, science does not deal with proving that stuff doesn't exist (proof of a universal negative). That's only something that mathematics can do, so long as the "stuff" involved is a mathematical object. So to address the thread title, science can not prove that god doesn't exists, nor can it prove that leprechauns, elves or gremlins don't exist.

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialscien...ER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm

Good point. The realism of plausibility is a subjective art, not an objective science.