Can science prove that god doesn't exist ?

[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.

 

[The Watcher]

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.

I think that the ‘extensive human subjectivity and expression’ can not equate to scientific method due to the amazing differences regarding ‘what GOD is’ between the various religions and other type entities.

The differences of expressions are also evident within the same or similar religions which proclaim ‘What GOD is”. Therefore it is not a reliable thing to study subjectivity while there remains the element of outside influence on any individuals own understanding of what it is they believe GOD to be.

If one were to look a little into the history of culture and religion one could argue that individuals were experiencing something ‘invisible’ which was having an affect on their understanding of reality, and this was quickly noticed by the hierarchy within the tribes and even seen as a possible threat to the established order of things.
History also shows that in matters of belief it is far better to infiltrate the belief and manipulate the believer then trying to silence or eradicate - by giving answer to the various questions that arise when individuals start to explore the unknown realms which they perceive as interacting with their own subjective individuality – often the first persons to share this news with are those in positions of trust and authority and the answers are well developed because the questions (interestingly enough) are quiet the same – the individuals are having very similar experiences – some of which spark the survival emotion of fear and because individuals also do not communicate effectively with each other, they tend to keep things to themselves as not to appear ‘crazy’ – not realizing that others have the same or similar experiences.

Thus the hierarchy becomes the face of trust and wisdom and have explained what it is that individuals are experiencing and “What GOD is” – in many ways taking the onus of responsibility off the busy little believers to find out for themselves ‘What GOD is” and this effectively nullifies any serious attempt to study subjectivity in any meaningful way.

The only thing which can be surmised then, is that a study of human belief systems in their collective range will give a pretty clear indication of ‘What GOD isn’t” so would be a good place to start – or continue – in the discovery to the answer to the definition of “What GOD is”.

What GOD isn’t thus would be something like:

GOD isn’t…
…something to fear
…something to worship
…male or female…
…good
…evil
…something that requires an intermediate between itself and an individual
…a throne sitting human-like judge
…etc…etc…etc…

[/color]

 

[Annabeth Y]

There is also no scientific evidence saying that he doesn't exist

 

[Evo]

There is also no scientific evidence saying that he doesn't exist

How can you have evidence of something that does not exist? The onus of proof lies with the person making the claim that something exists.

 

[Annabeth Y]

but can you prove God does not exist?

 

[GeorgCantor]

I think it's generally agreed upon that God doesn't exist in New York, in the barber shop, in Monaco or on the Moon. As for whether a creator couldn't exist in a differenet plane of existence, it requires a leap of faith to state that it couldn't or doesn't.

 

[Evo]

but can you prove God does not exist?

That's silly. I could list thousands of things that don't exist and ask you to disprove them. If a person believes in a god, the burden of proof is on them, I don't have to prove them wrong, they have to prove they are right. That's how it works.

 

[Noxide]

Why did a binary question turn into an evil beast?

The answer is no.

 

[Evo]

Why did a binary question turn into an evil beast?

The answer is no.

A thread that should have been solved with one post of "no" has over 100 posts. Only in Philosophy...

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Well, let's flip it around: Science has advanced far, far beyond what was imaginable 650 years ago.

Yet theists who insist upon the fact that God is showable use the exact same arguments Thomas Aquinas wrote down 650 years ago. If it really was meaningfull to attempt to PROVE God, I think we can agree that they would have advanced somewhat. Instead, it seems that it's mostly attempts to apply Aquinas' (and by extension, Aristotle's and Augustine's) arguments to modern day science - For one, Intelligent Design (which attempt to prove an intelligent creator) is just an application of Aquinas' fourth proof, the teleological argument.

I think that speaks for itself in that disproof of god is a meaningless activitiy.

 

[magpies]

The only one that can prove gods existence is god and it might be that the only one that god can prove it to is himself. Just like I can not "prove" my existence to you all. It takes being god to understand god imo.

 

[Mkorr]

If it can be demonstrated that the mind is identical to, or a function of, a material brain, and if this particular entity is defined as a brainless mind, then some trouble might emerge for this particular notion of this entity. Another formulation could be that since all known mental activity has a physical basis, there are most likely no brainless or disembodied minds. But many forms of this entity is conceived of as a disembodied mind. Therefore, such concepts as this entity are probably does not refer to anything that exists. The formalized argument might be

P1. There are probably no such things as an disembodied mind (an empirically supported premise).
P2. If X exists, X is a disembodied mind (definition, or follows from definition).
C. Therefore, probably, X does not exist (from P1 and P2 via modus tollens).

Obviously, this argument may not be perfect, but it could be one interesting perspective to take and best of all, it is at least partly empirical. It is not an absolute proof of course (very hard to get those in science), but it seems to be evidence-based.

 

[Mkorr]

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

However, we can provide evidence for a universal negative. For instance, to my knowledge, there is a lot of evidence against the existence of a perpetual motion machine (or equivalently stated, evidence for the universal nonexistence of a perpetual motion machine). This is not proof (in the sense of mathematical proof) of course, but it is empirical evidence.

 

[magpies]

Where did you get the "there are probably no such things as an disembodied mind?" part?

 

[Mkorr]

Where did you get the "there are probably no such things as an disembodied mind?" part?

It is an empirical premise supported by works done in cognitive sciences, which has, I think, showed that most of our cognitive faculties are identical to and/or depend crucially on the brain. This entity X is often conceived of as having very powerful cognitive faculties, yet no brain or equivalent structure.

There are many independent lines of evidence for mind/brain physicalism. We have mapped cognitive faculties to areas of the brain, we notice that when someone has damaged their brain, the corresponding cognitive faculty is also damaged, chemicals such as drugs disrupt the chemical balance and the brain, but also the reliability of cognitive faculties. Crucial menal functions such as reason, attention, clarity and control, decline just as certain chemicals decline in availability. Organisms with more differentiated brain tend to have more differentiated cognitive faculties. Organisms with a brain that has a larger occipital lobe, for instance, tend to have better vision.

If it is the case that destroying parts of a brain destroys parts of a mind, then destroying all the parts of a brain will destroy the whole mind. I think this is enough justification for that premise.

 

[magpies]

Well in all honesty I am not sold but that's probably because I have a different understanding for what a mind is then you seem to. It seems to me that you think mind and brain are the same thing just two different words for the same thing. To me that is not the case and the difference between mind and brain is about as different as zero and infinity imo.

 

[Mkorr]

Well in all honesty I am not sold but that's probably because I have a different understanding for what a mind is then you seem to. It seems to me that you think mind and brain are the same thing just two different words for the same thing. To me that is not the case and the difference between mind and brain is about as different as zero and infinity imo.

You are of course free to believe whatever you want, but you cannot have your own facts. As I have tried to argued, the scientific evidence seems to strongly supports mind/brain physicalism. What evidence do you feel supports dualism? What problem do you see with the evidence I have presented?

 

[magpies]

Well I think the problem is that there isn't a difference between mind and brain for you or at least that's the way it seems. If I said trains and cars are the same thing you would obviously not agree. However if I said that mind and brain are the same thing you would agree. I don't for the life of me really understand why?

 

[Mkorr]

Well I think the problem is that there isn't a difference between mind and brain for you or at least that's the way it seems. If I said trains and cars are the same thing you would obviously not agree. However if I said that mind and brain are the same thing you would agree. I don't for the life of me really understand why?

Because of the scientific evidence. I gave a short presentation of some of that evidence in a previous post.

What would convince you that the mind is identical or crucially depend on the brain?

 

[magpies]

From my understand it really can't be so I guess you would have to show that my logic in this regards is flawed. You will have to convince me that a train is a car basically. While I can see that trains are similar to cars in my mind they are not the same thing. Just as a mind has things in common with a brain they are however not the same thing to me.

 

[GeorgCantor]

I don't know how you got to the mind/brain argument in this particular thread, but let me give you my 2 cents worth...

You both assume a brain is a brain and a mind is a mind. What this seems to imply is that you both think we have a good understanding of what matter is. Look more closely and you will see that this is wrong.

First matter is 99.9999% empty space, it's made of neither particles nor waves as we imagine them. Scientists cannot unambiguously describe matter, matter is still very baffling. Molecules can pass through one slit or 2 slits, depending what question you choose to ask. Moreover, making a few widely accepted assumptions doesn't agree with the most tested theory of physics - QM. Local realism appears to be a contradiction, a cognitive dissonance and perhaps a mind trick. More to the point, some experiments strongly suggest that the observer cannot be removed from the system being measured.

Particles of matter appear to influence each other when they share a common source even when they are spatially separated. And what you call particles isn't anywhere really close to being particles at all. We have no picture and certainly no intuitive understanding of what matter really is. With that in mind, what is a brain? And what is mind? And are they different? I'd say they are not, but for the reasons i stated above - We don't know what matter is.

Getting back to the topic - we need to first conceptulize what it means to "exist", given the new knowledge that was acquired in the 20th century, and then see if we can go ahead and draw fundamental conclusions about prime causes. As it currently stands - we don't know what it means to exist either, beyond the personal experience of everyone, so this question better be asked when we at least know what matter is or what it means to exist in a reality like ours.