Can science prove that god doesn't exist ?

  • Thread starter rusty009
  • Start date
  • #26
37
2
Well, pretty sure Zeus is a dude... :biggrin:
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.
 
  • #27
744
44
@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.
 
  • #28
37
2
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 force


Defintion removed from any type of ideology. Moving on now.
 
  • #29
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,896
2,403
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.
 
  • #30
744
44
That definition of deity doesn't accomodate 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.
 
Last edited:
  • #31
744
44
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.
 
  • #32
37
2
That definition of deity doesn't accomodate 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
1,482
3
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
744
44
Reread the definition again.
Ok I missed the "or". I still say this isn't a general definition of "God" - it doesn't accomodate the Hindu "Brahman".
 
  • #35
37
2
Ok I missed the "or". I still say this isn't a general definition of "God" - it doesn't accomodate the Hindu "Brahman".
Brahman in Hinduism isn't a god that's why this general definition does not fit such a concept. :smile:.
 
  • #36
37
2
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 occuring 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
744
44
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
89
1
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
37
2
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
37
2
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
744
44
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
Fredrik
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
10,851
412
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
37
2
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
119
0
Answer: No
 
  • #45
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,896
2,403
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
744
44
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
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,896
2,403
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
744
44
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
37
2
@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 learnt 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
744
44
@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.
 

Related Threads on Can science prove that god doesn't exist ?

Replies
16
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • Last Post
11
Replies
255
Views
24K
Replies
29
Views
21K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Last Post
18
Replies
444
Views
32K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • Last Post
5
Replies
100
Views
10K
  • Last Post
11
Replies
270
Views
25K
Top