Can science prove that god doesn't exist ?

  • Thread starter rusty009
  • Start date
  • #51
37
2
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
1,033
1
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
744
44
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
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,896
2,403
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
19
1
Quite an interesting thread, bantering about something that wasn't defined.


:biggrin: :blushing: :tongue: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rofl: :approve: :yuck: :cry: :cool: :confused: :zzz: :redface: :smile: :frown: :bugeye: :eek: :uhh: :shy: :grumpy: :!!) :mad: :wink: o:) :tongue2: :surprised:devil:

Use firefox.
 
  • #56
Pythagorean
Gold Member
4,205
268
What caused the big bang then?
 
  • #57
155
1
What caused the big bang??? How can we ever discuss something so unwell defined?
 
  • #58
744
44
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
sylas
Science Advisor
1,646
7
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
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
 
  • #61
Fredrik
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
10,851
412
What caused the big bang then?
Why are you asking something that's completely unrelated to the topic of this thread?
 
  • #62
37
2
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?
 
  • #63
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.
 
  • #64
37
2
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.
 
  • #65
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".
 

Attachments

Last edited:
  • #66
1,679
3
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.
 
  • #67
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.
 
  • #68
744
44
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.
 
  • #69
Pythagorean
Gold Member
4,205
268
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.
 
  • #70
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,896
2,403
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.
 
  • #71
atyy
Science Advisor
13,985
2,262
Define God = laws of physics.

Science assumes that God exists. Hence science is a religion.
 
  • #72
37
2
Define God = laws of physics.

Science assumes that God exists. Hence science is a religion.
Hence you get my fist to your face! :rofl:

(just joking.)
 
  • #73
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,896
2,403
Define God = laws of physics.

Science assumes that God exists. Hence science is a religion.
I don't understand either of those statements.
 
  • #74
503
0
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #75
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,896
2,403
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.
 

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