Show me that Science proves there is no god

A Christian Sceptic · 13th December 2007, 10:53 AM

OK,

Since this came up unasked for in a different thread it's made me curious and I would like some answers.

The claim was made that science proves there is no god.

Please read the following closely:
Don't bother asking me to prove there is a God, because I can't. I have never claimed I could. In fact, I do not think science can prove that god exists or doesn't exist. All it can do is prove that it "appears" god exists or it "appears" god doesn't exist.

And by god it could be anything beyond the universe outside it or what have you. A First Cause or the God of the Christians. It doesn't matter.

Again I don't want to know why you think god isn't there. I want to know how and where science proves this.

And yes - I really want to know. I'm a sceptic and that means I'm willing to change my beliefs if needed.

*** But again - I'm not looking for things like "There's evil - so god doesn't exist" or anything like that but something like:

Scientist Bill did this experiment and it proved there was no god.

you know - using the scientific method.

NOTE: This obviously is only attended at someone who thinks science can do this one way or another. I DON'T!

ANOTHER NOTE: I do not want to debate this or fight. I will not respond - I will not counter-point - I will read any scientific literature that shows this.

Henners · 13th December 2007, 10:56 AM

Science doesn't even prove Newton's Laws of Motion. It can't prove why aeroplanes don't fall out of the sky, or why boats float.

Why do you think it can prove imaginary stuff if it can't even prove real stuff?

Marquis de Carabas · 13th December 2007, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by A Christian Sceptic

The claim was made that science proves there is no god.

Gotta love the passive voice. Who made the claim? Ask them to defend it.

JoeEllison · 13th December 2007, 11:02 AM

If you want to have a fight with someone, take it outside!

Jimbo07 · 13th December 2007, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by Henners

Why do you think it can prove imaginary stuff if it can't even prove real stuff?

Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas

Gotta love the passive voice. Who made the claim? Ask them to defend it.

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

If you want to have a fight with someone, take it outside!

Sorry. I've heard the same refrain, "Science proves X..." before. Anyone who does say "Science proves God does not exist" is wrong. People have made that statement, even if I can't come up with an example from the last 5 minutes off the top of my head, MdC.

The appropriate response, of course is much like that made by Henners. The statement, and any religious counters, completely ignore the nature of: science, proof and logic.

ACS: SCIENCE DOES NOT PROVE THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST. That's not what science does.

rocketdodger · 13th December 2007, 11:27 AM

If by "proof" you mean "100% guarantee" then science cannot prove anything.

Its all a matter of probabilities.

Science can show that the probability of a God is so low that for all practical purposes one shouldn't care. Do you constantly worry about gravity reversing and being flung out into space? That's about how improbable God is.

Cainkane1 · 13th December 2007, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by A Christian Sceptic

OK,

Since this came up unasked for in a different thread it's made me curious and I would like some answers.

The claim was made that science proves there is no god.

Please read the following closely:
Don't bother asking me to prove there is a God, because I can't. I have never claimed I could. In fact, I do not think science can prove that god exists or doesn't exist. All it can do is prove that it "appears" god exists or it "appears" god doesn't exist.

And by god it could be anything beyond the universe outside it or what have you. A First Cause or the God of the Christians. It doesn't matter.

Again I don't want to know why you think god isn't there. I want to know how and where science proves this.

And yes - I really want to know. I'm a sceptic and that means I'm willing to change my beliefs if needed.

*** But again - I'm not looking for things like "There's evil - so god doesn't exist" or anything like that but something like:

Scientist Bill did this experiment and it proved there was no god.

you know - using the scientific method.

NOTE: This obviously is only attended at someone who thinks science can do this one way or another. I DON'T!

ANOTHER NOTE: I do not want to debate this or fight. I will not respond - I will not counter-point - I will read any scientific literature that shows this.

People who believe God exists have to prove that he does.

Marquis de Carabas · 13th December 2007, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by Jimbo07

People have made that statement, even if I can't come up with an example from the last 5 minutes off the top of my head, MdC.

I did not claim it was not said. I asked that the question be addressed to the one who said it. Even if you don't have an example ready at hand, CS seems to, else whence this thread? ~~I would just like a pair to be grown~~. I would just like him to grow a pair.

Foster Zygote · 13th December 2007, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by A Christian Sceptic

The claim was made that science proves there is no god.

The claim was made by whom?

Jimbo07 · 13th December 2007, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas

I did not claim it was not said. I asked that the question be addressed to the one who said it. Even if you don't have an example ready at hand, CS seems to, else whence this thread? ~~I would just like a pair to be grown~~. I would just like him to grow a pair.

I wasn't saying it wasn't a strawman or something, in this case, I felt that it should be addressed that whomever said it was wrong, anyway.

Of course, there's nothing produced by science that could be used to prove God's existence... but that's not the issue...

danielk · 13th December 2007, 11:50 AM

Whoever made that claim, if it was indeed made, is a moron. Science operates on the naturalist assumption that there is only the natural world out there. It would be a tad nonsensical to have it prove its own axioms.

Marquis de Carabas · 13th December 2007, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by Jimbo07

I wasn't saying it wasn't a strawman or something, in this case, I felt that it should be addressed that whomever said it was wrong, anyway.

Certainly wrong. I'm just curious as to the identity of that someone.

I'm also curious about the exact nature of the claim. A quote would be nice. I could see myself saying something that could be misconstrued as "science proves there is no god". Science has shown that god is unnecessary as an explanation for speciation, for example. While it is certainly possible someone made such a strong claim as CS presents, it is also possible he has misinterpreted.

FireGarden · 13th December 2007, 11:55 AM

In order to answer your question properly, then I need to know the following: What is the difference between a universe with a god and a universe without a god?

That all becomes very difficult given the range of possible definitions of "god".

Have you heard of Sagan's Dragon?
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm

The important question: "what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all?"

Quote:

But again - I'm not looking for things like "There's evil - so god doesn't exist"....

I still want to quibble with that.
If the definition of god implied that there should be no evil in the world, then discovering evil in the world would be very important data. It would scientifically disprove the existence of a god according to that definition.

Quote:

....or anything like that but something like:

Scientist Bill did this experiment and it proved there was no god.

I don't know a scientist named Bill. But I did hear of one named Abraham -- he went and smashed a few idols and suffered no harm as a result. Did that prove anything?

sol invictus · 13th December 2007, 11:55 AM

While science can never prove anything, logic can. A statement or set of statements can be shown to be logically inconsistent. That's the closest you could ever come to a proof of the non-existence of god.

I think the best argument is due to Epicurus:

Quote:

Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to.

If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent.

If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked.

If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?

So if god were omnipotent and good, there would no evil; ergo, god is either not omnipotent or not good. As those are defining characteristics of god, god does not exist.

Jimbo07 · 13th December 2007, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas

Certainly wrong. I'm just curious as to the identity of that someone.

I'm also curious about the exact nature of the claim. A quote would be nice. I could see myself saying something that could be misconstrued as "science proves there is no god". Science has shown that god is unnecessary as an explanation for speciation, for example. While it is certainly possible someone made such a strong claim as CS presents, it is also possible he has misinterpreted.

Ooh! Fair play!

That's interesting. It may have been misinterpreted. However, I can give you one example of an atheist who has made the claim, "science proves God does not exist." Me!

That's right, I was a moron. Of course, now I'm still a moron, just not a teenager anymore.

Marquis de Carabas · 13th December 2007, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by sol invictus

So if god were omnipotent and good, there would no evil; ergo, god is either not omnipotent or not good. As those are defining characteristics of god, god does not exist.

Those are only defining characteristics of some representations of god. Since CS did not limit the conception of god thus in the OP, you have proved nothing germane.

Furi · 13th December 2007, 12:05 PM

As has been previously stated.

Trying to prove the non-existance of god scientifically is like trying to prove the existance of god scientifically, and as CS stated they cannot offer any evidence to gods existance, likewise I cannot offer any proof of his non-existance.

however the evidence that promotes either idea is so heavily weighted in favour of non existance that I believe in non-existance of a creator or other manifestations of divinity.

I can even entertain the idea of a highly evolved lifeform seeding this planet with genetic stock when they got out of their flying saucer to take a dump as a higher probability for the origins of life than the existance of a god.

A Christian Sceptic · 13th December 2007, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas

I did not claim it was not said. I asked that the question be addressed to the one who said it. Even if you don't have an example ready at hand, CS seems to, else whence this thread? ~~I would just like a pair to be grown~~. I would just like him to grow a pair.

Let me assure you I did ask this to that person - no answer so far. But it got me thinking maybe someone else does have something to show me.

Since you brought up growing a bigger pair - any suggestions? I'm a bit sceptical on some of the male enhancement herbs and drugs that are out there.

Hokulele · 13th December 2007, 12:09 PM

To the OP, just a few thoughts.

1) This sounds a bit like the fallacy of proving a negative. Without seeing the actual claim, I could be wrong.

2) Science can prove that certain aspects or definitions of a god are not true (for example, god is a green walnut living in my glove box). You did leave that a bit open with your comment "And by god it could be anything beyond the universe outside it or what have you. A First Cause or the God of the Christians. It doesn't matter."

3) Be a bit careful with assuming that something posted as hyperbole is exactly what the author intended. Happens a lot on this forum.

I agree with the comments posted so far about what the actual claim was, and who claimed it in the first place.

danielk · 13th December 2007, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by FireGarden

If the definition of god implied that there should be no evil in the world, then discovering evil in the world would be very important data. It would scientifically disprove the existence of a god according to that definition.

First you would have to define "evil". Which is kind of a problem given that religions usually derive morality from god.

I think the argument from evil doesn't get you anywhere logically. However, it's still a fun argument insofar as it sends believers into hot water, since as far as I understand it boils down to the choice of either "god is evil or at least indifferent", or "what we commonly regard as evil is not evil in the eyes of god", or simply "there is no god".

Marquis de Carabas · 13th December 2007, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by A Christian Sceptic

Since you brought up growing a bigger pair - any suggestions? I'm a bit sceptical on some of the male enhancement herbs and drugs that are out there.

I don't believe the male enhancement drugs are marketed as enlarging the testicles. Or are you saying you have a pair of...

ponderingturtle · 13th December 2007, 12:17 PM

Hmm this thread does seem to go toward proving that ACS is a troll.

Why else start a new thread so full of based on an exaggeration or logical fallacy?

ACS the best way of putting it is that a belief in god is unscientific because there is no evidence for god and any suggested evidence for god has been shown to have non god explanations. As there is an infinite number of possible beliefs that have no supporting evidence, it is unscientific to believe in god.

danielk · 13th December 2007, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Hmm this thread does seem to go toward proving that ACS is a troll.

Why is this necessary? I find A Christian Sceptic's openness and willingness to engage in discussion admirable. I wish more religious people were like him.

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Why else start a new thread so full of based on an exaggeration or logical fallacy?

One dumb thread doesn't make one a troll, unless perhaps if that's the only contribution.

FireGarden · 13th December 2007, 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by danielk

First you would have to define "evil".

In my experience, very few people will argue that there is no evil in the world.

But, as already pointed out, the OP leaves god pretty much undefined. Which is why my main answer is stolen from Sagan.

I just didn't want Epicurus' contribution to be rejected as unscientific. It is observation based. Natural science. It's only fault is that it doesn't refute the Flying Spaghetti Monster -- very pro-pirate, therefore very pro-evil.

ponderingturtle · 13th December 2007, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by danielk

Why is this necessary? I find A Christian Sceptic's openness and willingness to engage in discussion admirable. I wish more religious people were like him.

It is starting this thread after abandoning his previous thread asking athiests to define the god that they want to believe in that is what I base that assertion on.

I might be wrong, but it does seem odd to create such thread, it does seem like trolling.

DoubtingStephen · 13th December 2007, 12:28 PM

While science does not prove that there is no Imaginary Bearded Sky Daddy, it is also true that there is no evidence whatsoever that any such imaginary super-pals exist.

In the total absence of evidence for the existence of an invisible self aware and bad tempered item with no mass or energy, a rational person might be expected to refrain from asserting that it exists.

yairhol · 13th December 2007, 12:29 PM

Science does not deal with the disproving of a god. If anything, it would try to prove that there is a god because science deals with proving things theoretically & empirically. With the aid of science we may end up with a conclusion that there is no need for a god in order for nature to be as it is (as Richard Dawkins says).
In fact, as Hokulele has said, trying to prove there is no god is trying to prove a negative which is impossible as it is impossible to prove that lettuce has no feelings or that there is no flying spaghetti monster: http://www.venganza.org/

Regards,
Yair

A Christian Sceptic · 13th December 2007, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas

I don't believe the male enhancement drugs are marketed as enlarging the testicles. Or are you saying you have a pair of...

Wow - thank God I was sceptical and didn't buy them!

bokonon · 13th December 2007, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by A Christian Sceptic

A First Cause or the God of the Christians. It doesn't matter.

Nothing to do with science, but I think logic shows the God of the Christians doesn't exist. Most Christians would define him as being (1) All good, (2) All powerful, and (3) All knowing.

Originally Posted by A Christian Sceptic

I'm not looking for things like "There's evil - so god doesn't exist" or anything like that

Oops, never mind.

A Christian Sceptic · 13th December 2007, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

It is starting this thread after abandoning his previous thread asking athiests to define the god that they want to believe in that is what I base that assertion on.

I might be wrong, but it does seem odd to create such thread, it does seem like trolling.

I wanted to know what people thought. People posted. People stopped posting. It died - why is that me abandoning it? But I understand.

I might add - I appreciated peoples responses - it was very interesting. I have many other ideas for posts, but now I'm thinking maybe theres no point if all people will post is questions of why I posted it, etc.

I did appreciate the Carl Sagan link although not directly related. I enjoy his writings and loved COSMOS.

ponderingturtle · 13th December 2007, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by A Christian Sceptic

I wanted to know what people thought. People posted. People stopped posting. It died - why is that me abandoning it? But I understand.

Because it seemed like you where ignoring many of the points people tried to raise.

bignickel · 13th December 2007, 12:44 PM

I'm in a pretty good mood right now, so I'll take the question as it is. I'm thinking that ACS is referencing Dawkins' latest book, where Dawkins says that Science can weigh in on the "god" question. ACS' statement seems to be a roundabout way of expressing Dawkins' point; at the same time, his statement is one that that gets put forth by theists as an 'atheist' belief (which always tends to rile a few feathers here).

It is possible to prove a negative, if you show that certain things that must accompany something else are not present; then it is shown: that particular something does not exist. As long as we're careful with our definitions, extremely careful that.

"There is no (normal) elephant in this room." Very easy. Normal (breathing) elephants, produced by currently understood biological means, leave obvious clues to their presence. We can see them. We can weigh the room I'm in on a scale, and then weight an completely identical room on a different scale, and compare weights. We can look for crushed furniture, smell the air, and check the bowl of peanuts to see if any are missing. All point to: no elephant in the room.,

The trouble for 'there is no god' is right off the bat, 'god' is an un-definable entity. All we can say is "if (un-definable entity) exist, with characteristic X, then Y should be present". All that leaves us with is an endless series of X's, with Y's to check for them. Since there are an infinite number of (un-definable entities), the whole exercise begins to get a little silly.

"How can you say that (un-definable entity) doesn't exist?" is thus a nonsensical question from the POV of inductive logic. Pragmatically speaking, it's not there until evidence begins to suggest it does. And the evidence would only speak towards the existence of definable entities, never undefined ones.

Langis · 13th December 2007, 12:45 PM

Originally Posted by A Christian Sceptic

Please read the following closely:
Don't bother asking me to prove there is a God, because I can't.

bokonon · 13th December 2007, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by A Christian Sceptic

I did appreciate the Carl Sagan link although not directly related. I enjoy his writings and loved COSMOS.

Cosmos is going to be re-broadcast in January.

Originally Posted by bignickel

"How can you say that (un-definable entity) doesn't exist?" is thus a nonsensical question from the POV of inductive logic. Pragmatically speaking, it's not there until evidence begins to suggest it does. And the evidence would only speak towards the existence of definable entities, never undefined ones.

"Definable" like "All-good, all-powerful, all-knowing"? Not on the table, apparently...

-Fran- · 13th December 2007, 01:15 PM

He's probably referring to me?

I said the following things in another thread (in a discussion with ACS, see quotes below). It might have been worded badly. I was trying to say that I am an atheist because what I know of the world comes from science and that I don't see a need for a god to explain things about the natural world with. I didn't actually mean that science has disproved god, only that what is claimed that a god can do with our world, science has natural explanations for. Such as evolution to explain the life that we can see around us, hence a creator is not needed and so on. All that scientific knowledge put together has removed a deity as a possible explanation for an impressive amount of things. Enough things for me to think that a god is not likely. For things that we don't know yet how they function, there is a gap in our knowledge, and I'd rather not fill it with god (or other supernatural explanations), but would rather wait for science to fill in the gaps. Experience tells me that science is far more likely to some day bring the answers to the remaining gaps. The more we know through scientific means, the less we need a deity as an explanation for anything. People then talk of a deity that pretty much does nothing, but then, to me, such a deity becomes quite hard to separate from something that don't exist.

I might be wrong about everything, but that was in all honesty how I meant to reason.

Quote:

I don't think there is a god because all what science says contradicts supernatural beings such as a god. Science knows enough about, and have explained enough about how our world functions, and how our minds works for god to be highly unlikely and totally unnecessary.

Quote:

I have all of science pointing to the likelihood of a deity being virtually 0

Quote:

For a sufficiently large amount of the claims that are made about what a god supposedly can do, and does, science can show that there is a natural explanation instead, and a god is therefore not necessary as an explanation for anything.

Herzblut · 13th December 2007, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by A Christian Sceptic

The claim was made that science proves there is no god.

The claim is correct.

As a starting point I'd study the scientific paper cited below which gives a concise overview of current investigations in the area of Hermeneutics (=scientific disproval of God):

Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity
Alan D. Sokal, Department of Physics, New York University

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/s...inglefile.html

Expecting an exciting discussion
Herzblut

Robin · 13th December 2007, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by Herzblut

The claim is correct.

As a starting point I'd study the scientific paper cited below which gives a concise overview of current investigations in the area of Hermeneutics (=scientific disproval of God):

Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity
Alan D. Sokal, Department of Physics, New York University

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/s...inglefile.html

Expecting an exciting discussion
Herzblut

Excuse me, what is the purpose of posting a cite to a well-known hoax paper?

Just what does it add to the discussion???

Henners · 13th December 2007, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by A Christian Sceptic

I wanted to know what people thought. People posted. People stopped posting. It died - why is that me abandoning it? But I understand.

Science is limited to proposing hypotheses and attempting to disprove them.

So, for example, a feasible hypothesis might be: If God exists then prayer will be better than a placebo.

It's perfectly testable.

Is prayer better than a placebo?

I've never seen any evidence that it is.

Therefore there is no God.

QED.

Of course that always assumes that prayer works. It could easily be the case that God exists but does not give a twopenny damn whether you pray or not.

He just likes to see everyone wasting their time on Sunday mornings.

danielk · 13th December 2007, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by Robin

Just what does it add to the discussion???

I think you've been had.

Robin · 13th December 2007, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas

Gotta love the passive voice. Who made the claim? Ask them to defend it.

I note that this has still not been answered.

Theists are, of course, always keen to draw attention away from the complete absence of evidence for their thesis by moving the discussion in this direction.

But if this claim has been made, let us see the claim in the poster's own words.

Otherwise there is a suspicion, CS, that you just made him up as pretext to start this thread.

13th December 2007, 10:53 AM	#1
A Christian Sceptic Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: I'm a male! Posts: 2,288	Show me that Science proves there is no god OK, Since this came up unasked for in a different thread it's made me curious and I would like some answers. The claim was made that science proves there is no god. Please read the following closely: Don't bother asking me to prove there is a God, because I can't. I have never claimed I could. In fact, I do not think science can prove that god exists or doesn't exist. All it can do is prove that it "appears" god exists or it "appears" god doesn't exist. And by god it could be anything beyond the universe outside it or what have you. A First Cause or the God of the Christians. It doesn't matter. Again I don't want to know why you think god isn't there. I want to know how and where science proves this. And yes - I really want to know. I'm a sceptic and that means I'm willing to change my beliefs if needed. * But again - I'm not looking for things like "There's evil - so god doesn't exist" or anything like that but something like: Scientist Bill did this experiment and it proved there was no god. you know - using the scientific method. NOTE: This obviously is only attended at someone who thinks science can do this one way or another. I DON'T!** ANOTHER NOTE: I do not want to debate this or fight. I will not respond - I will not counter-point - I will read any scientific literature that shows this.
	Last edited by A Christian Sceptic; 13th December 2007 at 11:05 AM. Reason: because people are not reading this closely enough

13th December 2007, 10:56 AM	#2
Henners Muse Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 767	Science doesn't even prove Newton's Laws of Motion. It can't prove why aeroplanes don't fall out of the sky, or why boats float. Why do you think it can prove imaginary stuff if it can't even prove real stuff?
Henners Muse Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 767

13th December 2007, 10:58 AM	#3
Marquis de Carabas Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: vuori Posts: 27,106	Originally Posted by A Christian Sceptic The claim was made that science proves there is no god. Gotta love the passive voice. Who made the claim? Ask them to defend it.
	__________________ Jesus ... wasn't he the bloke who turned fish into wine and made the lepers multiply? -KateHL Violence is more acceptable than incest. I have been told to keep this in mind.

13th December 2007, 11:27 AM	#5
Jimbo07 Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,416	Originally Posted by Henners Why do you think it can prove imaginary stuff if it can't even prove real stuff? Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas Gotta love the passive voice. Who made the claim? Ask them to defend it. Originally Posted by JoeEllison If you want to have a fight with someone, take it outside! Sorry. I've heard the same refrain, "Science proves X..." before. Anyone who does say "Science proves God does not exist" is wrong. People have made that statement, even if I can't come up with an example from the last 5 minutes off the top of my head, MdC. The appropriate response, of course is much like that made by Henners. The statement, and any religious counters, completely ignore the nature of: science, proof and logic. ACS: SCIENCE DOES NOT PROVE THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST. That's not what science does.
Jimbo07 Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,416	__________________ This post approved by your local jPac (Jimbo07 Political Action Committee), also registered with Jimbo07 as the Jimbo07 Equality Rights Knowledge Betterment Action Group. Atoms in supernova explosion get huge business -- Pixie of key

13th December 2007, 11:30 AM	#7
Cainkane1 Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: The great American southeast Posts: 7,191	Science doesn't have to disprove the existence of God Originally Posted by A Christian Sceptic OK, Since this came up unasked for in a different thread it's made me curious and I would like some answers. The claim was made that science proves there is no god. Please read the following closely: Don't bother asking me to prove there is a God, because I can't. I have never claimed I could. In fact, I do not think science can prove that god exists or doesn't exist. All it can do is prove that it "appears" god exists or it "appears" god doesn't exist. And by god it could be anything beyond the universe outside it or what have you. A First Cause or the God of the Christians. It doesn't matter. Again I don't want to know why you think god isn't there. I want to know how and where science proves this. And yes - I really want to know. I'm a sceptic and that means I'm willing to change my beliefs if needed. * But again - I'm not looking for things like "There's evil - so god doesn't exist" or anything like that but something like: Scientist Bill did this experiment and it proved there was no god. you know - using the scientific method. NOTE: This obviously is only attended at someone who thinks science can do this one way or another. I DON'T!** ANOTHER NOTE: I do not want to debate this or fight. I will not respond - I will not counter-point - I will read any scientific literature that shows this. People who believe God exists have to prove that he does.
	__________________ If at first you don't succeed try try again. Then if you fail to succeed to Hell with that. Try something else.

13th December 2007, 11:02 AM	#4
JoeEllison Cuddly Like a Koala Bear Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 7,276	If you want to have a fight with someone, take it outside!

13th December 2007, 11:27 AM	#6
rocketdodger Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Hyperion Posts: 6,668	If by "proof" you mean "100% guarantee" then science cannot prove anything. Its all a matter of probabilities. Science can show that the probability of a God is so low that for all practical purposes one shouldn't care. Do you constantly worry about gravity reversing and being flung out into space? That's about how improbable God is.

13th December 2007, 11:37 AM	#8
Marquis de Carabas Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: vuori Posts: 27,106	Originally Posted by Jimbo07 People have made that statement, even if I can't come up with an example from the last 5 minutes off the top of my head, MdC. I did not claim it was not said. I asked that the question be addressed to the one who said it. Even if you don't have an example ready at hand, CS seems to, else whence this thread? ~~I would just like a pair to be grown~~. I would just like him to grow a pair.
	__________________ Jesus ... wasn't he the bloke who turned fish into wine and made the lepers multiply? -KateHL Violence is more acceptable than incest. I have been told to keep this in mind.

13th December 2007, 11:43 AM	#9
Foster Zygote Dental Floss Tycoon Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge Posts: 14,386	Originally Posted by A Christian Sceptic The claim was made that science proves there is no god. The claim was made by whom?
	__________________ It looks just like a Telefunken U47... You'll love it.

13th December 2007, 11:46 AM	#10
Jimbo07 Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,416	Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas I did not claim it was not said. I asked that the question be addressed to the one who said it. Even if you don't have an example ready at hand, CS seems to, else whence this thread? ~~I would just like a pair to be grown~~. I would just like him to grow a pair. I wasn't saying it wasn't a strawman or something, in this case, I felt that it should be addressed that whomever said it was wrong, anyway. Of course, there's nothing produced by science that could be used to prove God's existence... but that's not the issue...
Jimbo07 Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,416	__________________ This post approved by your local jPac (Jimbo07 Political Action Committee), also registered with Jimbo07 as the Jimbo07 Equality Rights Knowledge Betterment Action Group. Atoms in supernova explosion get huge business -- Pixie of key

13th December 2007, 11:50 AM	#11
danielk Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Berlin Posts: 1,077	Whoever made that claim, if it was indeed made, is a moron. Science operates on the naturalist assumption that there is only the natural world out there. It would be a tad nonsensical to have it prove its own axioms.
	__________________ "Our brains are capable of much more than we realize." - mayday

13th December 2007, 11:53 AM	#12
Marquis de Carabas Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: vuori Posts: 27,106	Originally Posted by Jimbo07 I wasn't saying it wasn't a strawman or something, in this case, I felt that it should be addressed that whomever said it was wrong, anyway. Certainly wrong. I'm just curious as to the identity of that someone. I'm also curious about the exact nature of the claim. A quote would be nice. I could see myself saying something that could be misconstrued as "science proves there is no god". Science has shown that god is unnecessary as an explanation for speciation, for example. While it is certainly possible someone made such a strong claim as CS presents, it is also possible he has misinterpreted.
	__________________ Jesus ... wasn't he the bloke who turned fish into wine and made the lepers multiply? -KateHL Violence is more acceptable than incest. I have been told to keep this in mind.

13th December 2007, 11:55 AM	#13
FireGarden Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Spannungsbogen -- without a visa Posts: 5,043	In order to answer your question properly, then I need to know the following: What is the difference between a universe with a god and a universe without a god? That all becomes very difficult given the range of possible definitions of "god". Have you heard of Sagan's Dragon? http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm The important question: "what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all?" Quote: But again - I'm not looking for things like "There's evil - so god doesn't exist".... I still want to quibble with that. If the definition of god implied that there should be no evil in the world, then discovering evil in the world would be very important data. It would scientifically disprove the existence of a god according to that definition. Quote: ....or anything like that but something like: Scientist Bill did this experiment and it proved there was no god. I don't know a scientist named Bill. But I did hear of one named Abraham -- he went and smashed a few idols and suffered no harm as a result. Did that prove anything?
	__________________ When Americans talk about freedom, it’s our secular code word for salvation. There’s no salvation outside the church; there’s no freedom outside the American way of life. -- James Carroll B'tselem Tony Karon's blog Last edited by FireGarden; 13th December 2007 at 12:00 PM.

13th December 2007, 11:55 AM	#14
sol invictus Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Nova Roma Posts: 8,417	While science can never prove anything, logic can. A statement or set of statements can be shown to be logically inconsistent. That's the closest you could ever come to a proof of the non-existence of god. I think the best argument is due to Epicurus: Quote: Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world? So if god were omnipotent and good, there would no evil; ergo, god is either not omnipotent or not good. As those are defining characteristics of god, god does not exist.
	Last edited by sol invictus; 13th December 2007 at 11:55 AM.

13th December 2007, 11:58 AM	#15
Jimbo07 Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,416	Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas Certainly wrong. I'm just curious as to the identity of that someone. I'm also curious about the exact nature of the claim. A quote would be nice. I could see myself saying something that could be misconstrued as "science proves there is no god". Science has shown that god is unnecessary as an explanation for speciation, for example. While it is certainly possible someone made such a strong claim as CS presents, it is also possible he has misinterpreted. Ooh! Fair play! That's interesting. It may have been misinterpreted. However, I can give you one example of an atheist who has made the claim, "science proves God does not exist." Me! That's right, I was a moron. Of course, now I'm still a moron, just not a teenager anymore.
Jimbo07 Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,416	__________________ This post approved by your local jPac (Jimbo07 Political Action Committee), also registered with Jimbo07 as the Jimbo07 Equality Rights Knowledge Betterment Action Group. Atoms in supernova explosion get huge business -- Pixie of key

13th December 2007, 11:58 AM	#16
Marquis de Carabas Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: vuori Posts: 27,106	Originally Posted by sol invictus So if god were omnipotent and good, there would no evil; ergo, god is either not omnipotent or not good. As those are defining characteristics of god, god does not exist. Those are only defining characteristics of some representations of god. Since CS did not limit the conception of god thus in the OP, you have proved nothing germane.
	__________________ Jesus ... wasn't he the bloke who turned fish into wine and made the lepers multiply? -KateHL Violence is more acceptable than incest. I have been told to keep this in mind.

13th December 2007, 12:05 PM	#17
Furi Felix Sapiens Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Living life in the bus lane Posts: 2,006	As has been previously stated. Trying to prove the non-existance of god scientifically is like trying to prove the existance of god scientifically, and as CS stated they cannot offer any evidence to gods existance, likewise I cannot offer any proof of his non-existance. however the evidence that promotes either idea is so heavily weighted in favour of non existance that I believe in non-existance of a creator or other manifestations of divinity. I can even entertain the idea of a highly evolved lifeform seeding this planet with genetic stock when they got out of their flying saucer to take a dump as a higher probability for the origins of life than the existance of a god.

13th December 2007, 12:06 PM	#18
A Christian Sceptic Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: I'm a male! Posts: 2,288	Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas I did not claim it was not said. I asked that the question be addressed to the one who said it. Even if you don't have an example ready at hand, CS seems to, else whence this thread? ~~I would just like a pair to be grown~~. I would just like him to grow a pair. Let me assure you I did ask this to that person - no answer so far. But it got me thinking maybe someone else does have something to show me. Since you brought up growing a bigger pair - any suggestions? I'm a bit sceptical on some of the male enhancement herbs and drugs that are out there.

13th December 2007, 12:09 PM	#19
Hokulele Official Nemesis Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Trying to decide whether to set defenses against an army, or against mole rats. Posts: 27,265	To the OP, just a few thoughts. 1) This sounds a bit like the fallacy of proving a negative. Without seeing the actual claim, I could be wrong. 2) Science can prove that certain aspects or definitions of a god are not true (for example, god is a green walnut living in my glove box). You did leave that a bit open with your comment "And by god it could be anything beyond the universe outside it or what have you. A First Cause or the God of the Christians. It doesn't matter." 3) Be a bit careful with assuming that something posted as hyperbole is exactly what the author intended. Happens a lot on this forum. I agree with the comments posted so far about what the actual claim was, and who claimed it in the first place.
	__________________ Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!" Some person: "Why did you shoot that?" Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!" - Tragic Monkey

13th December 2007, 12:11 PM	#20
danielk Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Berlin Posts: 1,077	Originally Posted by FireGarden If the definition of god implied that there should be no evil in the world, then discovering evil in the world would be very important data. It would scientifically disprove the existence of a god according to that definition. First you would have to define "evil". Which is kind of a problem given that religions usually derive morality from god. I think the argument from evil doesn't get you anywhere logically. However, it's still a fun argument insofar as it sends believers into hot water, since as far as I understand it boils down to the choice of either "god is evil or at least indifferent", or "what we commonly regard as evil is not evil in the eyes of god", or simply "there is no god".
	__________________ "Our brains are capable of much more than we realize." - mayday

13th December 2007, 12:15 PM	#21
Marquis de Carabas Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: vuori Posts: 27,106	Originally Posted by A Christian Sceptic Since you brought up growing a bigger pair - any suggestions? I'm a bit sceptical on some of the male enhancement herbs and drugs that are out there. I don't believe the male enhancement drugs are marketed as enlarging the testicles. Or are you saying you have a pair of...
	__________________ Jesus ... wasn't he the bloke who turned fish into wine and made the lepers multiply? -KateHL Violence is more acceptable than incest. I have been told to keep this in mind.

13th December 2007, 12:17 PM	#22
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,417	Hmm this thread does seem to go toward proving that ACS is a troll. Why else start a new thread so full of based on an exaggeration or logical fallacy? ACS the best way of putting it is that a belief in god is unscientific because there is no evidence for god and any suggested evidence for god has been shown to have non god explanations. As there is an infinite number of possible beliefs that have no supporting evidence, it is unscientific to believe in god.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

13th December 2007, 12:23 PM	#23
danielk Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Berlin Posts: 1,077	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle Hmm this thread does seem to go toward proving that ACS is a troll. Why is this necessary? I find A Christian Sceptic's openness and willingness to engage in discussion admirable. I wish more religious people were like him. Originally Posted by ponderingturtle Why else start a new thread so full of based on an exaggeration or logical fallacy? One dumb thread doesn't make one a troll, unless perhaps if that's the only contribution.
	__________________ "Our brains are capable of much more than we realize." - mayday

13th December 2007, 12:25 PM	#24
FireGarden Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Spannungsbogen -- without a visa Posts: 5,043	Originally Posted by danielk First you would have to define "evil". In my experience, very few people will argue that there is no evil in the world. But, as already pointed out, the OP leaves god pretty much undefined. Which is why my main answer is stolen from Sagan. I just didn't want Epicurus' contribution to be rejected as unscientific. It is observation based. Natural science. It's only fault is that it doesn't refute the Flying Spaghetti Monster -- very pro-pirate, therefore very pro-evil.
	__________________ When Americans talk about freedom, it’s our secular code word for salvation. There’s no salvation outside the church; there’s no freedom outside the American way of life. -- James Carroll B'tselem Tony Karon's blog

13th December 2007, 12:28 PM	#25
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,417	Originally Posted by danielk Why is this necessary? I find A Christian Sceptic's openness and willingness to engage in discussion admirable. I wish more religious people were like him. It is starting this thread after abandoning his previous thread asking athiests to define the god that they want to believe in that is what I base that assertion on. I might be wrong, but it does seem odd to create such thread, it does seem like trolling.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

13th December 2007, 12:28 PM	#26
DoubtingStephen Queer Propagandist Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 1,548	While science does not prove that there is no Imaginary Bearded Sky Daddy, it is also true that there is no evidence whatsoever that any such imaginary super-pals exist. In the total absence of evidence for the existence of an invisible self aware and bad tempered item with no mass or energy, a rational person might be expected to refrain from asserting that it exists.
	__________________ God Hates Mixed Fibers God Hates Barbers God Hates Crustaceans Last edited by DoubtingStephen; 13th December 2007 at 12:28 PM.

13th December 2007, 12:29 PM	#27
yairhol Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 1,403	Science does not deal with the disproving of a god. If anything, it would try to prove that there is a god because science deals with proving things theoretically & empirically. With the aid of science we may end up with a conclusion that there is no need for a god in order for nature to be as it is (as Richard Dawkins says). In fact, as Hokulele has said, trying to prove there is no god is trying to prove a negative which is impossible as it is impossible to prove that lettuce has no feelings or that there is no flying spaghetti monster: http://www.venganza.org/ Regards, Yair
yairhol Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 1,403

13th December 2007, 12:32 PM	#29
bokonon Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,444	Originally Posted by A Christian Sceptic A First Cause or the God of the Christians. It doesn't matter. Nothing to do with science, but I think logic shows the God of the Christians doesn't exist. Most Christians would define him as being (1) All good, (2) All powerful, and (3) All knowing. Originally Posted by A Christian Sceptic I'm not looking for things like "There's evil - so god doesn't exist" or anything like that Oops, never mind.
bokonon Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,444

13th December 2007, 12:35 PM	#30
A Christian Sceptic Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: I'm a male! Posts: 2,288	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle It is starting this thread after abandoning his previous thread asking athiests to define the god that they want to believe in that is what I base that assertion on. I might be wrong, but it does seem odd to create such thread, it does seem like trolling. I wanted to know what people thought. People posted. People stopped posting. It died - why is that me abandoning it? But I understand. I might add - I appreciated peoples responses - it was very interesting. I have many other ideas for posts, but now I'm thinking maybe theres no point if all people will post is questions of why I posted it, etc. I did appreciate the Carl Sagan link although not directly related. I enjoy his writings and loved COSMOS.
	Last edited by A Christian Sceptic; 13th December 2007 at 12:45 PM.

13th December 2007, 12:40 PM	#31
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,417	Originally Posted by A Christian Sceptic I wanted to know what people thought. People posted. People stopped posting. It died - why is that me abandoning it? But I understand. Because it seemed like you where ignoring many of the points people tried to raise.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

13th December 2007, 12:44 PM	#32
bignickel Mad Mod Poet God Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 2,724	I'm in a pretty good mood right now, so I'll take the question as it is. I'm thinking that ACS is referencing Dawkins' latest book, where Dawkins says that Science can weigh in on the "god" question. ACS' statement seems to be a roundabout way of expressing Dawkins' point; at the same time, his statement is one that that gets put forth by theists as an 'atheist' belief (which always tends to rile a few feathers here). It is possible to prove a negative, if you show that certain things that must accompany something else are not present; then it is shown: that particular something does not exist. As long as we're careful with our definitions, extremely careful that. "There is no (normal) elephant in this room." Very easy. Normal (breathing) elephants, produced by currently understood biological means, leave obvious clues to their presence. We can see them. We can weigh the room I'm in on a scale, and then weight an completely identical room on a different scale, and compare weights. We can look for crushed furniture, smell the air, and check the bowl of peanuts to see if any are missing. All point to: no elephant in the room., The trouble for 'there is no god' is right off the bat, 'god' is an un-definable entity. All we can say is "if (un-definable entity) exist, with characteristic X, then Y should be present". All that leaves us with is an endless series of X's, with Y's to check for them. Since there are an infinite number of (un-definable entities), the whole exercise begins to get a little silly. "How can you say that (un-definable entity) doesn't exist?" is thus a nonsensical question from the POV of inductive logic. Pragmatically speaking, it's not there until evidence begins to suggest it does. And the evidence would only speak towards the existence of definable entities, never undefined ones.
	__________________ "You can find that book everywhere and the risk is that many people who read it believe that those fairy tales are real. I think I have the responsibility to clear things up to unmask the cheap lies contained in books like that." - Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone

13th December 2007, 12:45 PM	#33
Langis Thinker Join Date: May 2007 Location: Edmonton Posts: 175	Originally Posted by A Christian Sceptic Please read the following closely: Don't bother asking me to prove there is a God, because I can't.

13th December 2007, 01:14 PM	#34
bokonon Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,444	Originally Posted by A Christian Sceptic I did appreciate the Carl Sagan link although not directly related. I enjoy his writings and loved COSMOS. Cosmos is going to be re-broadcast in January. Originally Posted by bignickel "How can you say that (un-definable entity) doesn't exist?" is thus a nonsensical question from the POV of inductive logic. Pragmatically speaking, it's not there until evidence begins to suggest it does. And the evidence would only speak towards the existence of definable entities, never undefined ones. "Definable" like "All-good, all-powerful, all-knowing"? Not on the table, apparently...
bokonon Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,444

13th December 2007, 01:15 PM	#35
-Fran- Master Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 2,581	He's probably referring to me? I said the following things in another thread (in a discussion with ACS, see quotes below). It might have been worded badly. I was trying to say that I am an atheist because what I know of the world comes from science and that I don't see a need for a god to explain things about the natural world with. I didn't actually mean that science has disproved god, only that what is claimed that a god can do with our world, science has natural explanations for. Such as evolution to explain the life that we can see around us, hence a creator is not needed and so on. All that scientific knowledge put together has removed a deity as a possible explanation for an impressive amount of things. Enough things for me to think that a god is not likely. For things that we don't know yet how they function, there is a gap in our knowledge, and I'd rather not fill it with god (or other supernatural explanations), but would rather wait for science to fill in the gaps. Experience tells me that science is far more likely to some day bring the answers to the remaining gaps. The more we know through scientific means, the less we need a deity as an explanation for anything. People then talk of a deity that pretty much does nothing, but then, to me, such a deity becomes quite hard to separate from something that don't exist. I might be wrong about everything, but that was in all honesty how I meant to reason. Quote: I don't think there is a god because all what science says contradicts supernatural beings such as a god. Science knows enough about, and have explained enough about how our world functions, and how our minds works for god to be highly unlikely and totally unnecessary. Quote: I have all of science pointing to the likelihood of a deity being virtually 0 Quote: For a sufficiently large amount of the claims that are made about what a god supposedly can do, and does, science can show that there is a natural explanation instead, and a god is therefore not necessary as an explanation for anything.
	__________________ Thank goodness there are such things as lies. Imagine if everything you heard was true! (Albert Engström) Last edited by -Fran-; 13th December 2007 at 01:53 PM.

13th December 2007, 01:17 PM	#36
Herzblut Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Deutschland Posts: 2,234	Originally Posted by A Christian Sceptic The claim was made that science proves there is no god. The claim is correct. As a starting point I'd study the scientific paper cited below which gives a concise overview of current investigations in the area of Hermeneutics (=scientific disproval of God): Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity Alan D. Sokal, Department of Physics, New York University http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/s...inglefile.html Expecting an exciting discussion Herzblut
	__________________ Our knowledge has made us cynical; our cleverness, hard and unkind. We think too much and feel too little. More than machinery we need humanity. More than cleverness, we need kindness and gentleness. Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost. - Charles Chaplin, 1940 Last edited by Herzblut; 13th December 2007 at 01:20 PM.