"Can science prove God does not exist?"

[Keneke]

The JREF forums are at a debate level that surpasses the deepness of this article, like, every single frickin' day.

What this paper does prove is the inherent emotional similarities of the scientific community and religion, in that uneducated members seek to espouse the mysteries of The Order before gaining a full knowledge of how the answers are obtained. Unfortunately, this is the opposite of what scientists want.

 

[Whoracle]

"A lesser proof would be to show that it goes against experience, e.g. I accept there are no red crows in the world because no one has ever seen them. This is not a proof that red crows could not or do not exist, only that it seems unlikely. However, if one did pop up on an island somewhere, I would not worry at all. I feel God is a bit like that, no proof but hey he could be hiding."


But if someone were to tell you, hey there are red crows, You'd probably ask for a little proof now wouldn't you? It wouldn't be your responsibility to disprove them. They made the claim, it's their job to back it up. So how come Christians get to make a claim, offer no proof for it, then demand the other side offer proof that what they are saying is not true, and yet still think they are right?

 

[baggie]

"A lesser proof would be to show that it goes against experience, e.g. I accept there are no red crows in the world because no one has ever seen them. This is not a proof that red crows could not or do not exist, only that it seems unlikely. However, if one did pop up on an island somewhere, I would not worry at all. I feel God is a bit like that, no proof but hey he could be hiding."


But if someone were to tell you, hey there are red crows, You'd probably ask for a little proof now wouldn't you? It wouldn't be your responsibility to disprove them. They made the claim, it's their job to back it up. So how come Christians get to make a claim, offer no proof for it, then demand the other side offer proof that what they are saying is not true, and yet still think they are right?

good point, but if he said I saw some red crows but can't quite find them now, I couldn't argue against it. If 600,000,000 christians say they feel the influence of the "red crow" in their lives, maybe even feel that he communicates to them (like my wife thinks happens to her-not in a vocal sort of way mind you) - is that not some (albeit not convincing) evidence?

 

[baggie]

What this paper does prove is the inherent emotional similarities of the scientific community and religion, in that uneducated members seek to espouse the mysteries of The Order before gaining a full knowledge of how the answers are obtained. Unfortunately, this is the opposite of what scientists want.

couldn't agree more

 

[Whoracle]

We should know by now throughout history that just because the masses think something is right doesn't mean it is.

 

[Upchurch]

What this paper does prove is the inherent emotional similarities of the scientific community and religion, in that uneducated members seek to espouse the mysteries of The Order before gaining a full knowledge of how the answers are obtained. Unfortunately, this is the opposite of what scientists want.

I don't know that I would count the author as a member of the scientific community. He had a poor grasp of it.

Of course, maybe that's how religious communities feel about fundamentalists: the emberassing uncle that nobody really wants to claim as actually being part of the family.

 

[Pyrian]

Am I the only one who had a fundamental problem with this:

And if no one can prove that no one can prove an unrestricted negative, then it must be logically possible to prove an unrestricted negative.

Right off the top he's claiming that something which can't be disproven must be possible!

The argument about the Ether is rather amusing, since it could easily be applied to the "cosmological constant", which was similarly "disproven", but lately has been resurrected...

I find the most difficult thing about having any discussion about God is God's rather mutable definition. I can't possibly disprove that God is a gnome-like creature on a planet circling a distant star.

If 600,000,000 christians say they feel the influence of the "red crow" in their lives, maybe even feel that he communicates to them (like my wife thinks happens to her-not in a vocal sort of way mind you) - is that not some (albeit not convincing) evidence?

Certainly - but evidence of what? I would argue something different than a Christian might...

In another forum I made the argument that monotheisms appeal directly to humanity's instinctual desire for an alpha male.

 

[Yahzi]

This is actually a very strange false dicotomy. While on the surface, it makes sense, we now know of phenomena in the universe that do have a property and lack it at the same time.

This is a pretty big thing to toss off without even one example.

I'd like an example, please.

 

[Pyrian]

I figured it was a reference to some sort of quantum wave/particle dichotomy.

 

[Upchurch]

I'd like an example, please.

Sure, electron spin. By quantum mechanics, the wave function of the electron allows it to have different spins at the same time. Only after the wave function is collapsed does the electron have one specific spin.

It would be tempting to argue that the electron had the one spin the entire time but, as I understand it, that isn't correct. It's a Schrodinger's (sp?) Cat kind of thing. Alive and dead until observed.

 

[Yahzi]

That doesn't strike me as contradicting the notion that an object either has a property or doesn't. Before the waveform collapses, it has all the spins, and afterwards it has one. The only contradiction is the claim that an electron can only have one spin at a time: but given that we aren't actually talking about something spinning, maybe this is just another way of saying we don't really know what spin is.

I know that light acts as a wave or a particle depending on the test, but I don't see this as a logical contradiction, but simply as a poor application of an analogy (obviously light is neither a simple particle or a simple wave, but some other phenomena).

 

[Scott Wheeler]

I think whether or not a claim of existance of god is falsifiable all depends on the specific claim. When fundimentalists make very specific claims of god which can be falsified such as the creation sory from Genesis then the claim is falsifiable and IMO has obviously been disproven. OTOH if we are talking about the deist claim of a god creator that walked away and doesn't interact with the universe you have a claim that is not falsifiable. When discussing "god" we always have to consider the definition of god. Einstein's god is not Jerry Falwell's god.

 

[Interesting Ian]

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/schick_21_1.html

That is probably one of the most well-written pieces of Philosophy I've ever read.

(Dont be surprised when you see plenty of people quoting that article...)

Huh?? I've already refuted this in that other thread! http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870101163#post1870101163Seems like you've just ignored me. Oh well I'll just paste it in.

From Link

No, for in order to prove that something does not exist, one need not show that it is logically impossible. One need only show is that it is epistemically unnecessary-that it is not required to explain anything. Science has proven the non-existence of many things in this way, such as phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, and the planet Vulcan. Scientific proofs, unlike logical proofs, do not establish their conclusions beyond any possibility of doubt. But they are proofs nonetheless, for they establish their conclusions beyond a reasonable doubt and that is all that is needed to justify them.

Phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, and the planet Vulcan are theoretical entities that were postulated in order to explain various phenomena. Phlogiston was postulated to explain heat, the luminiferous ether was postulated to explain the propagation of light waves through empty space, and Vulcan was postulated to explain the perturbations in the orbit of Mercury. Science has shown, however, that these phenomena can be explained without invoking these entities. By demonstrating that these entities are not needed to explain anything, science has proven that they do not exist.

Scientists prefer natural explanations to supernatural ones, not because of any metaphysical bias on their part, but because natural explanations produce more understanding than supernatural ones. As Plato realized, to say that God did it is not to explain anything, but simply to offer an excuse for not having an explanation.4

This guy hasn't got a clue. By such reasoning one indeed could conclude that God doesn't exist, but we would also have to conclude that no consciousnesses at all exist. If God's activity can be replaced by reference to the physical laws of nature, then so can our own consciousnesses. All of our behaviour can be described employing physical laws. We simply need to apply those physical laws to the processes in our brains and our local environment. But we know this must be false since each and every one of us is implicitly aware of his or her own consciousness.

I agree with Plato of course, but I'm pretty damn sure he wasn't saying this proved there was no God. I'm sure that he wasn't as stupid as the guy writing the article.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Re: "Can science prove God does not exist?"

You have to remember to take in all of the related arguements, if you break it down into individual statements, you omit some of the important supporting arguements.

The article showed one of the logical inconsistancies of a Supreme God, then it explained how everything could have come about just as did sans creator, then it gave a few examples of some bad postulates that have been dreamed up (just there for clarification), then it showed how belief in God was unacceptable as a form of reasoning. From the material provided, it is reasonable to conclude God does not exist.

You complete and total moron. F*cking read my response.

 

[Yahweh]

Re: Re: "Can science prove God does not exist?"

Huh?? I've already refuted this in that other thread! http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870101163#post1870101163Seems like you've just ignored me. Oh well I'll just paste it in.

I'm not sure if you refuted it, oh well.

This guy hasn't got a clue. By such reasoning one indeed could conclude that God doesn't exist, but we would also have to conclude that no consciousnesses at all exist. If God's activity can be replaced by reference to the physical laws of nature, then so can our own consciousnesses. All of our behaviour can be described employing physical laws. We simply need to apply those physical laws to the processes in our brains and our local environment. But we know this must be false since each and every one of us is implicitly aware of his or her own consciousness.

I agree with Plato of course, but I'm pretty damn sure he wasn't saying this proved there was no God. I'm sure that he wasn't as stupid as the guy writing the article.

Hey, you entitled to your own opinions, I've got my own. For some reason, I just really liked that article (I know it isnt "defiant proof there is no god"), it just appealed to me for some reason (must be the colors).

 

[Leif Roar]

That doesn't strike me as contradicting the notion that an object either has a property or doesn't. Before the waveform collapses, it has all the spins, and afterwards it has one. The only contradiction is the claim that an electron can only have one spin at a time: but given that we aren't actually talking about something spinning, maybe this is just another way of saying we don't really know what spin is.

How about the double slit experiment, where a photon can be shown to pass through both the left and the right slit?

 

[Interesting Ian]

and I would like hard proof that the claim that the existence of god is falsifiable

The author is claiming that there is no phenoma in the natural world that needs a god to explain it (in principle),

Confuses physical explanations with metaphysical explanations.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Re: "Can science prove God does not exist?"

I'm not sure if you refuted it, oh well.


Hey, you entitled to your own opinions, I've got my own. For some reason, I just really liked that article (I know it isnt "defiant proof there is no god"), it just appealed to me for some reason (must be the colors).

Why why why why why???? Why do you f*cking like it?? Who the hell cares about an atheist disproving the atheist conceptualisation of God in any case?? Not that he manages to do even that. BTW the guy also clearly has no knowledge of the philosophy of science either. An absolute load of rubbish.

 

[Yahweh]

Re: Re: Re: Re: "Can science prove God does not exist?"

Why why why why why???? Why do you f*cking like it??

I thought it made a few good points (yeah, I also noted a bit of fuzzy logic as well).

This is one of the things that caught my attention:
"Scientists prefer natural explanations to supernatural ones, not because of any metaphysical bias on their part, but because natural explanations produce more understanding than supernatural ones."

I couldnt disagree with that in any way, shape, or form.

Just to cite an example, think about Young Earth Creationism...
Me: How old do you think the earth is?

Bob: 10,000 years old.

Me: What?

Bob: Thats what it says in the bible.

Me: I think that's just a booboo.

Bob: The bible is the word of God, God is infallible.

Me: So you are telling me the Grand Canyon was formed in 10000 years.

Bob: Yes, God put it there. Oh, by the way scientists discovered that dust on the moon is too thin, proving the earth is 6000 years old.

Me: Most creationists dont take the Moon Dust "theory" seriously at all, its just a parrot which only reflects how little outside reading has been done on this topic. (For more info, see http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/dust.html, and http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/moon_dust.html). Aside from that, what do you think of the rocks that millions of years old.

[ Try to imagine a conversation like this going on for about 2 hours... eventually Bob will conclude that the devil put me on this earth to try to steer him away from god *sigh*.]

Can you see why supernatural explanations dont really cut it?

As Plato realized, to say that God did it is not to explain anything, but simply to offer an excuse for not having an explanation.

How do earthquakes happen?
God makes earthquakes.

Where does thunder come from?
God makes thunder.

Where did I come from?

You didn’t suddenly spring into existence the moment you were born.

You were happy in Heavenly Father’s presence, but He knew that you needed more in order to progress. You did not have a physical body like you do now, and you needed a chance to gain experience on your own—away from His presence, but with the ability to communicate with Him and receive help. So He sent you to Earth, hoping that you would return to Him and receive everything He has to offer you.

Before you were born, you lived with your Heavenly Father as one of His beloved spirit children. You knew and loved Him, and He knew and loved you.

Although you have forgotten your life before you were born, your Heavenly Father has not. He knows you and loves you. He wants you to come to know and love Him, too.

(Source: http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1117-1,00.html)

Again, another demonstration where supernatural explanation clearly dont cut it. But at the same time, the 3 short questions I asked can and are easily explained in purely natural and materialistic *evil grin* terms.

Who the hell cares about an atheist disproving the atheist conceptualisation of God in any case??

Why bury your head in the ground and say "I dont care", there is no such thing as a meaningless question.

Not that he manages to do even that. BTW the guy also clearly has no knowledge of the philosophy of science either. An absolute load of rubbish.

I personally thought it was very well written (except for what he had to say about unrestricted negatives).

 

[Leif Roar]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Can science prove God does not exist?"

I thought it made a few good points (yeah, I also noted a bit of fuzzy logic as well).

This is one of the things that caught my attention:
"Scientists prefer natural explanations to supernatural ones, not because of any metaphysical bias on their part, but because natural explanations produce more understanding than supernatural ones."

I couldnt disagree with that in any way, shape, or form.

Personally, I'd classify "natural explanations produce more understanding than supernatural ones" as a metaphysical statement.