Can science prove that god doesn't exist ?

[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.