Question:
Can God be scientifically disproven?
DivinePath
2015-06-04 12:08:23 UTC
Can God be scientifically disproven?
174 answers:
2015-06-05 10:21:06 UTC
No you cannot I read that humans can only observe what's around them in limitations. Which basically means we can't see and hear everything. We can't measure consciousness hence as someone said we cannot prove or disprove Gods existence through science as he is metaphysical. And really what is God anyway? Is it a big bearded guy sitting up on a cloud or is it something more abstract than that? That we just cant describe?



Many questions come into play here. I think for one that the existing notions of what and who God is are far too narrow hence why atheism is on the rise. If you were to ask me what God would be if he/she were to exist I would say to me it would be something indescribable, something invisible, malleable that works in complex ways, like a overruling law of nature.



I don't know about God but it would probably be far easier to scientifically prove the idea of there being an afterlife, one day, maybe. It has some correlation to quantum physics.
Justin H
2015-06-07 01:33:32 UTC
The question of whether or not there is a god is a yes or no question. How you answer that question will largely depend on how you define god. But it is a yes or no question. Given enough time and the right tools, we should be able to definitively answer the question. The problem is what tools and how much time?



Realistically, the question of whether or not there is a god will not be conclusively answered any time soon. However, as scientific knowledge of our universe continues to grow, it will continue to answer questions which were previously the realm of god and religion. As science begins to close more of the gaps in our knowledge, there are fewer places where god could possibly exist.



Even if you choose a more metaphorical interpretation of religious dogma, there will still be fewer opportunities to see god in the natural world. Eventually reasonable people will no longer be able to reconcile reality with their faith. For some this leads to fundamentalism, and a complete rejection of science. For others it leads to questions about how the more dogmatic aspects of religion can hold up if the more fundamental aspects do not.



Getting back to your question, I don't think god can ever be conclusively disproved. At least not in the foreseeable future. However, I think there will come a time when the question has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt for the average person. We are already well beyond that point for me.
Jules
2015-06-06 10:11:08 UTC
Scientific Accuracy



Science has made great strides in modern times. As a result, old theories have given way to new ones. What was once accepted as fact may now be seen as myth. Science textbooks often need revision.



The Bible is not a science textbook. Yet, when it comes to scientific matters, the Bible is noteworthy not only for what it says but also for what it does not say.



Free of unscientific views.



Many mistaken beliefs gained wide acceptance in ancient times. Views about the earth ranged from the idea that it was flat to the notion that tangible substances or objects held it aloft. Long before science learned about the spread and prevention of disease, physicians employed some practices that were ineffective at best, lethal at worst. But not once in its more than 1,100 chapters does the Bible endorse any unscientific views or harmful practices.



Scientifically sound statements.



Some 3,500 years ago, the Bible stated that the earth is hanging “upon nothing.” (Job 26:7) In the eighth century B.C.E., Isaiah clearly referred to “the circle or, sphere of the earth.” (Isaiah 40:22) A spherical earth held in empty space without any visible or physical means of support—does not that description sound remarkably modern?



Written about 1500 B.C.E., the Mosaic Law (found in the first five books of the Bible) contained sound laws regarding quarantining of the sick, treatment of dead bodies, and disposal of waste.—Leviticus 13:1-5; Numbers 19:1-13; Deuteronomy 23:13, 14.



Partly as a result of turning powerful telescopes toward the heavens, scientists have concluded that the universe had a sudden “birth.” Not all scientists like the implications of this explanation. One professor noted: “A universe that began seems to demand a first cause; for who could imagine such an effect without a sufficient cause?” Yet, long before telescopes, the very first verse of the Bible plainly stated: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”—Genesis 1:1.



Even though it is an ancient book and touches on many subjects, the Bible contains no scientific inaccuracies. Does not such a book merit, at the very least, our consideration?
?
2015-06-11 01:18:36 UTC
Not really no. You ever watch "God's not dead"? In that movie a college student basically explains how the big bang and evolution could be a result of god. (his explanation has to do with a bunch of stuff about how the universe is really really old and even if from basic organisms into the current organisms of the world by comparison to the age of the universe happened in a matter of days) So I'd imagine that anything a scientist could come up with to disprove the existence of a god could also be used to prove the existence of a god. Unless of course somebody found some other being that is responsible for creation, but then I suppose that being would be considered god. Basically all I'm saying is it's impossible to really prove or disprove the idea of a god. It's all heresay
?
2015-06-04 12:18:36 UTC
Since God is a nonphysical entity, and science is the study of the physical world, it would be impossible to use science to disprove God's existence. Even so, science can still be used to make God irrelevant by finding natural explanations for phenomena once attributed to him. However, even if you were able to attribute all phenomena to natural causes, you still haven't disproven God. In conclusion, the most science can say against God's existence is that he isn't necessary.
Amy
2015-06-04 12:40:58 UTC
Any particular God that interacts in any detectable way with the universe can be (dis)proven.

For example, a god who throws lightning bolts when angry is disproven by the fact that the cause of lightning does not include anger.

For the major modern religions, there is also enough historical record to demonstrate the origins of their current beliefs and how different those are from the allegedly divine revelation.



Theists get around this by re-defining God each time one is disproven, and refusing to commit to any definition that makes any testable claim.

The problem is that as soon as you stop challenging them, they start making claims again. So the conversation goes something like this: "God created the world in 6 days" "No, here's the proof that it took much longer." "Well, *something* created the world at *some time*" "I can't disprove that." "The God who created the world will torture you forever if you eat pork."
Araktsu
2015-06-04 21:50:02 UTC
Your question: "Can God be scientifically disproven?"



It is not clear what you mean by scientifically disproven.



First of all you will need to specify which god you have in mind:



• http://www.godchecker.com/



There are thousands of possibilities.



Once you decide on some god, you will need to show your evidence, if any, that alleges to prove the existence of that god.



We can work from there.



Something for which there is no evidence, either direct or indirect, and that is typically a metaphysical claim, is not the sort of thing that scientific method applies to.



As far as I can discern, there is no god, no Yahweh, no Jesus, no Allah, none of the Hindu gods, no Animist spirits, no Shinto kami, none of it. So far religion has not worked anywhere for anyone. In the real world there is no universal cosmic mommy-daddy watching over us. In the real world untold numbers of human beings have been exterminated in the name of some god or another, everything from systematic human sacrifice to genocide.



Yet there is no credible evidence that there has ever been any god at all.



The real world is much more complex.



Educate yourself. You will be pleased with the result:



• Where we live:

“Geosystems: An Introduction to Physical Geography” Christopherson, Robert. (Prentice Hall)

• Where we came from:

“Introduction to Physical Anthropology” Jurmain/Kilgore/Trevathan/Ciochon. (Cengage Learning)

• What we have been doing:

“History of the World” Roberts, J.M.; Westad, O.A. (Oxford University Press: 2013)

“A History of the Arab Peoples” (of Islam) Hourani, Albert. (Harvard University Press: 2002)

• Life science:

“Biology” by Raven/Johnson/Losos/Mason/Singer (McGraw-Hill)
2015-06-04 17:19:11 UTC
No.



But God can be rationally disproven. You just need to take off your blindfold. Think logically about Christianity. Evaluate it, and see that is impossible. I'll give you some crazy verses that will definitely get you to get you a head start on the road to reality:



the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken. (Mark 13:5)



the mountains and hills will burst into song before you, and all the trees of the field will clap their hands (Isaiah 55:12)



Let the rivers clap their hands (Psalm 98:8)
ANDRE L
2015-06-05 09:28:01 UTC
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." Isaac Asimov



"Does it mean, if you don’t understand something, and the community of physicists don’t understand it, that means God did it? Is that how you want to play this game? Because if it is, here’s a list of things in the past that the physicists at the time didn't understand [and now we do understand.] If that’s how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on - so just be ready for that to happen, if that’s how you want to come at the problem." Neil deGrasse Tyson



"Time itself must come to a stop [at the singularity]. You can’t get to a time before the big bang, because there was no time before the big bang. We have finally found something that does not have a cause because there was no time for a cause to exist in. For me this means there is no possibility of a creator because there is no time for a creator to have existed. Since time itself began at the moment of the Big Bang, it was an event that could not have been caused or created by anyone or anything. … So when people ask me if a god created the universe, I tell them the question itself makes no sense. Time didn’t exist before the Big Bang, so there is no time for God to make the universe in. It’s like asking for directions to the edge of the Earth. The Earth is a sphere. It does not have an edge, so looking for it is a futile exercise.” Stephen Hawking



-If the Universe needs a creator, why doesn't god?

If god doesn't need a creator, why does the Universe ?-



Yep. Already done.
supernovamike11
2015-06-04 12:25:23 UTC
In order for something to be within the reach of science, you have to first accept that that thing is qualifiable under all of the scientific method's assumptions. They include, but are not limited to:

- The thing must be tangible and/or measurable by human senses or, preferably, measuring devices of some kind.

- The thing must be reproducible. That is, a relevant event must be identical if the conditions are identical. Similarly, it must be predictable, and adhere to the "laws of nature," as they are currently understood.

- Nothing about the event or entity could have changed at any point in the past. It must be the same as it has always been.

- It must be simple enough for the human mind to understand.



These, among other premises, are all assumptions that are completely unproven, but we maintain because we must in order to preserve the efficacy of the scientific method.



As should be obvious, many models of God or religion do not share these assumptions. Therefore, deity is a non-scientific question. Science, by definition, cannot answer it.
2015-06-06 05:06:01 UTC
No s/he cannot. I state that I am atheist. In fact I'm probably strictly an agnostic. The reason I claim to be an atheist is because I find, in my experience, that most people misunderstand agnosticism. They think an agnostic is exactly 50:50, which is not true. I'm an almost atheist.



I believe that there isn't a single shred of evidence for the existence of any deity. I also know that there is no evidence to disprove the existence of any deity. But, I know the absolutely impossible challenge of proving something doesn't exist. Because I don't believe in the existence of any deity and because there's no proof of no deity I'm technically agnostic. However, the probability of the existence of any deity is very close to zero. So, even though I'm a technical agnostic it would take only the slightest nudge to make me a strict atheist.



The non-existence of any deity cannot be proven: scientifically or otherwise. Proving the non-existence of anything is impossible. I'm sure that you don't believe in Zeus but can you find scientific evidence that proves his non-existence? Of course the probability of the existence of Zeus is almost certainly zero; as it is for any deity.
handsome_chap
2015-06-08 12:29:35 UTC
If he exists, no. If he doesn't exist, yes.



Science is a method by which we reach understanding of the cosmos. Science is the journey, not the destination. As we progress through deeper layers of comprehension, our picture of the universe necessarily changes.



If the history of the scientific quest teaches us anything, it is that we can only properly speak of 'present understanding'.



There are several certainties beyond the foreseeable reach of the scientific method - not least, whether or not the scientific journey will indefinitely continue to unfold new layers of comprehension, or whether we will reach a finite limit of omniscience.



Similarly out of purview is speaking with any authority about matters beyond this universe, where 'common sense' local laws of causality - even mathematics itself - may not prevail. There is therefore a critical distinction between the questions 'who made the universe?' and 'who made its maker?’ The former can be considered; the latter is unnavigable. We barely have the language to interrogate causality outside/before/yond spacetime - the domain necessarily occupied by a proposed 'creator'.



Attempts by theists and atheists alike to collapse this uncertainty into rigid 'scientific' dogma are untenable. We don't know. Possible, we can't ever know.



Similarly, arguments against the existence of a creator on the basis of the minutiae of its methodology are spurious. If one designs a PCB, subsequent analysis of the manner and speed of its fabrication is immaterial when assessing whether the item was purposefully made or not. It is similarly absurd to suggest that if man came from monkeys God doesn't exist.



Really, the only worthwhile debate in this area - and by far the best indication that the universe is a construct - is the origin of the laws governing the unfolding of increasing complexity in the universe - how maths gave birth to physics, from which arose chemistry and the recent, interesting biology. The idea that God presides over ever-diminishing gaps in our knowledge seems entirely fallacious, missing the implications of the big picture - a God whose DNA infuses everything. The meaningful question is not 'can science prove or disprove?' - answer: no - it seems to me to be: ‘if not God, what?’



Ultimately, whether one favours special external treatment for this universe, or the statistical likelihood of at least one bubble in the multiverse being 'interesting' depends on what you're comfortable believing - from which each of selects evidence to support the world-view that appeals.



The irony is that our personal belief about this matter is everything, yet nothing: if there is no God, our beliefs are irrelevant; if there is a God our disbelief is insignificant.
2015-06-07 03:17:25 UTC
NOT unless empirical evidence can be provided for the universe having evolved out nothing. Some scientists have already tried proving the universe evolved from out of nothing. All they have given us though is a mathematical abstract and not empirical evidence.



edit:



The inherent flaw in Atheistic thinking, which is being propagated on here in answers to this question, is atheists always try to apply scientific standards and criteria to religion. The problem with that is religion is not a science nor is it bound by anything to do with. This kind of thinking gives rise to proof not being proof unless its scientifically derived.



edit2:



NOT being a science or bound by does NOT make a particular field of knowledge irrelevant or invalid. To suggest it does is actually exhibits closed-mindedness and ignorance. IT would also nullify science since science is based upon the non-sciences.
It Is Always Now
2015-06-05 17:22:08 UTC
What do you mean by "scientifically disproven"? Science doesn't deal with proof.



However, God is inconsistent with many scientific theories and laws, so in that sense he is already "scientifically disproven". And the idea of something existing "outside of time and space" contradicts general relativity, and is not to mention unintelligible.
Amy
2015-06-09 21:32:11 UTC
No, it can't be disproven scientifically. Certain RELIGIONS can occasionally be disproven, but the existance of a god that is not tied to any religious denomination cannot be.
CB
2015-06-04 13:07:35 UTC
Accurate Science

“Have I not written you heretofore with counselings and knowledge, to show you the truthfulness of true sayings, so as to return sayings that are the truth?”—PROVERBS 22:20, 21.



HOW IS THE BIBLE DIFFERENT? Ancient books often feature unsound and dangerous ideas that have been thoroughly debunked by modern science. Even today, authors must update textbooks to harmonize with new discoveries. But the Bible claims that it was authored by the Creator and that his Word “endures forever.”—1 Peter 1:25.

AN EXAMPLE: The Mosaic Law commanded the Israelites to dispose of sewage in a covered hole “outside the camp.” (Deuteronomy 23:12, 13) If they touched a dead animal or human, the Israelites had to wash with water. (Leviticus 11:27, 28; Numbers 19:14-16) Lepers back then were quarantined until a physical examination confirmed that they were no longer contagious.—Leviticus 13:1-8.

WHAT MODERN MEDICINE REVEALS: Proper sewage disposal, hand washing, and quarantine remain effective ways to fight disease. If there are no latrines or other sanitation systems nearby, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends: “Defecate at least 30 meters [100 feet] away from any body of water and then bury your feces.” When communities dispose of excrement safely, they reduce diarrheal disease by 36 percent, according to the World Health Organization. Less than 200 years ago, physicians discovered that they infected many patients when they did not wash their hands after handling corpses. The CDC still calls hand washing “the single most effective way to prevent the transmission of disease.” What about the quarantine of lepers or those with other diseases? Recently, the Saudi Medical Journal said: “In the early stages of an epidemic, isolation and quarantine may be the only and last resort to effectively control infectious diseases.”

WHAT DO YOU THINK? Would you expect any other ancient holy book to harmonize with modern science? Or is the Bible unique?



“No one can fail to be impressed by the careful hygienic precautions of the Mosaic period.”—MANUAL OF TROPICAL MEDICINE, BY DRS. ALDO CASTELLANI AND ALBERT J. CHALMERS
Who
2015-06-05 10:41:59 UTC
depends what you would require to "disprove" something



at this time the scientific laws and theories we have say

1) a "god" cannot exist outside our universe

2) a "god" existing outside our universe cannot have created our universe +stars+planets

3) a "god" existing outside our universe cannot have created life



Can I prove that those laws and theories will never change? - no I cant



but that also goes for anything you can ever imagine

those same laws say you cannot travel in time, and you cannot go faster than light

But nobody can prove THOSE laws will never change either



So can "god" be disproved? - as I say, it all depends.



A few things to ponder

Union College, Lincoln, Nebraska,

a Seventh-day Adventist institution

so no wonder a creationist thinks the bible is magic



"One could perhaps describe the situation by saying that God is a mathematician of a very high order, and He used very advanced mathematics in constructing the universe"

describing something in biblical terms does not make the bible valid or true. It just makes what you are trying to teach them more understandable to the mathematically illiterate.

A more direct and specific quote from paul dirac

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination"



Think that puts some peoples claims into perspective.
?
2015-06-06 15:11:03 UTC
No, Science and Faith are both given by God.

A better question would be. Since Science cannot disprove God. When will it be that Science Prove's that God exists. Of course that has occurred many times thru the secular scientific study of Item that are impossible to explain by science, what the church calls miracles
Davros
2015-06-04 12:11:48 UTC
No. God as a supernatural entity is beyond the scientific remit in the examination of natural phenomena.

Science cannot be used to prove God either. Something that someone should really mention to the Discovery Institute.



Specific claims made by religions though, such as the efficacy of prayer can be disproven.
The Lightning Strikes
2015-06-04 15:43:37 UTC
No, Though science (secular science that is) creates more ways to fabricate evidences through brainwashing so as to eliminate God to achieve their agenda, In order to state there is no proof for God's existence, the atheist would have to know all alleged proofs that exist in order to then state that there is no proof for God's existence. But, since he cannot know all things, he cannot logically state there is no proof for God's existence.



At best, an atheist can only state that of all the alleged proofs he has seen thus far, none have worked. He could even say he believes there are no proofs for God's existence. But then, this means there is the possibility that there is a proof or proofs out there, and that he simply has not yet encountered one.



Nevertheless, if there was a proof that truly did prove God's existence, would the atheist be able to accept it, given that his presuppositions are in opposition to the existence of God? In other words, given that the atheist has a presuppositional base that there is no God, in order for him to accept a proof for God's existence, he would have to change his presuppositional base. This is not easy to do and would involve a major paradigm shift in the belief structure of the atheist. Therefore, an atheist is presuppositionally hostile to any proofs for God's existence and is less likely to be objective about such attempted proofs.
2015-06-04 12:25:26 UTC
God is Spirit, therefore science cannot refute God. However, as a Christian that study science, it can be agreeable with God. Science theorize big bang, though the big bang is illogical, however Genesis 1:1-2 can be agreeable with it.



God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was void and without form, and darkness was upon the face of the surface. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.



If you believe in big bang, something caused the big bang. You can reject that it was God, however, you can't refute it.



There has to be something that always existed, that is God He isn't limited of what He created.



Since the beginning of the world, His invisible attributes could clearly be seen, being understood by the things that He made.
Art M
2015-06-04 18:25:28 UTC
Nothing can be scientifically disproven, only proven.



This is not a widely understood fact. That misunderstanding is the main difference between Atheists and Agnostics.



Atheists are constantly in dissonance about their inability to prove that something is NOT true. Agnostics can accept that it MIGHT be true
?
2015-06-04 12:12:32 UTC
No. 'God exists' is not falsifiable since it asserts nothing about the world we experience, if it's true then the results in the observable world are no different to if it's false. But not being capable of being falsified is a weakness of a claim, not a strength.



"The skeptic doesn't agree, and asks how a so-called invisible, intangible, elusive God differs from an imaginary God, or even no God at all."
?
2015-06-05 00:17:17 UTC
Science may not have disproved God (i.e. the Abrahamic god) for example. However, science has made the need for a god (any god) unnecessary. If you have a natural explanation for something, there is no need for a supernatural one because a supernatural explanation when in the face of a natural explanation is an unnecessary assumption. For example, should we accept the cause of lighting to be a bunch of ice particles colliding in the clouds alone, or should we accept that Zeus uses this natural process to then create the lightning? The first option of course, because Zeus is an unnecessary assumption, natural processes don't require the use of any supernatural force to operate them. Occam's Razor is the key.
Uncle Remus 54
2015-06-05 10:44:40 UTC
NO.



The simple reason is science's mission is about all things science. God is a religious issue.



One of the natural forces in the universe that is known but not provable is the gravity wave and it's graviton particle. In theory it does. But we do not know what the nature of is and has not been proven in Einstein's relativity theory or quantum mechanics. It is required in the string theory and theoretically proven but not in the lab. Nothing tangible. The existence of all that is still unexplainable. Yet we know as human beings that "existence" for us is known because we live in it.



And this is the state of the believers life to the world. We know God exists, but the unbeliever it is make believe or a fairy tale. And that is the nature of life. It is a paradigm where one looks at a picture of the world and sees God and the other looks at that same picture and does not see God.
SC
2015-06-06 05:50:03 UTC
Agree with Supernovamike! Talking about GOD and Science, its like measuring the distance between the Sun and the Earth using a measuring tape. God begins where Science ends.... Science deals with the Mind whereas GOD is beyond Mind. And a little Mind cannot decipher the magnanimity of GOD its own creator and energiser! Therefore Science neither prove nor disprove the existence of GOD... It is a matter of one's faith in GOD! And all that IS can be felt and observed in daily life! And needs practice to achieve that state of connection. Does not need any degree of qualification, more the faith and practice more the results. Try it :-)
Trilobiteme
2015-06-04 15:13:36 UTC
I can prove God exist and that Jesus Christ is Lord



Question would the jews believe a holy book written after Jesus Christ resurrection? Jews don't believe he is the messiah so the prophecy was written before it happened



The prophecy of Daniel 9 you can believe or not you can wish it wasn't there but it is. It was written before the events occurred it was prophecy. The reason we know is because it was translate into greek from along with the rest of the old testament. Jews and Christians both have this prophecy in their writings



Jesus is Lord and the bible can be proved God left a road map for his saints It's is Daniel 9. Jesus Christ said himself that Daniel holds the key to end time prophecy Matthew 24. Daniel is a book for a mature Christian who understands the power of God



Unless the Holy Spirit touches your heart you will not believe but since you asked I tell you The temple mount and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 proves the truthfulness of prophecy and that Jesus Christ is the Messiah



Jesus Christ is Lord. It can do what no other faith or religion can do it can declare the end from the beginning



Isaiah 46:9 9"Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, 10Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure



Well Jesus Christ on the day he declared himself the messiah said that since the jews leaders did not realize that He was the messiah that the temple would be destroyed.



Luke 19

Jesus Christ referring to a vision by the prophet Daniel that gave the timeline of the messiah



Daniel 9

25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.



26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.



The Christian and the Jewish view point on this prophecy it was written before it occurred

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lcye3OtZS64

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAVvbB1Zgeo
A
2015-06-04 15:23:52 UTC
No. Science shows that life always comes from life, never from inanimate things or nothingness. However in order for all things to have come into existence, it would take an enormous amount of energy, and Jehovah Himself is the source of that energy according to the Bible. (Isa.40:26, Rev.4:11) Then there's also the notion that energy can't be destroyed, just transferred once created. Almighty God can never be destroyed, and was responsible for the creation of the energy to begin with.
2015-06-05 13:03:49 UTC
Actually, I think it's possible. Science may have already found the answer. For personal deities, at least.



Most personal deities- like the abrahamic one- claim there is a heaven and a hell and that your "soul" leaves your body after death. This would mean that there is "energy/information" (for lack of a better word) that persists after you die.



With the discovery of the higgs boson, our understanding of the practical world around us (but not the universe) has been maximized. There is nothing more to learn about the world in which we walk around in. If there was an afterlife, there would have been some particle associated with souls leaving our human bodies. We would have detected it.



But we haven't.



This leads us to conclude that there is no such thing as a soul or an after life. In turn, it also means there is no such thing as a personal deity.



Sean Carroll says it much better than I ever could:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40eiycH077A





That's just one of his lectures. There are many more by him on the subject of afterlife.



In addition, watch this debate:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0YtL5eiBYw



Steven Novella points out that "the mind is what the brain does". The mind is essentially the process of the brain. You can't have the mind "leave" your body and go someplace else after death because it's a process of the brain. After the brain shuts down and dies so does your mind and, essentially, you "stop happening". You stop existing. He points out many examples that proves this point.



He says it much better than I can, of course, so you should watch it.
thomas_tutoring2002
2015-06-05 05:31:05 UTC
NO! BECAUSE he is the greatest scientist, mathematician etc. Please note some commentaries:



*** w61 12/15 p. 755 Nothing Unscientific in the Bible ***

Nothing Unscientific in the Bible

In his Studies in Creationism, Frank Lewis Marsh, professor of biology, Union College, Lincoln, Nebraska, observes: “As scientists come to a careful study of the Guidebook of the Christian religion, they find that actually no ground exists for any conflict whatsoever between scientific facts and the Christian religion. Although the Bible contains some of the greatest truths, still it is not a scientific treatise.

--This situation in the Bible is most worthy of careful consideration. If Moses had written down the very best scientific opinion of his day, advancing science would have discovered its inaccuracy long ago. But the scientific facts stated in nonscientific language thousands of years ago are still completely accurate scientifically. That is one of the marvels of the Bible. That Moses, who was ‘learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians,’ and that Daniel, in whom the Babylonians considered that the spirits of the gods of wisdom dwelt, should write into their messages nothing of the accepted doctrines of beginnings of their day places the Bible outside of natural sources. Only those things were stated which evidently were everlastingly true. To the present moment no scientific inaccuracies have been discovered. True science can have no conflict with such a book.”—Pages 206, 207.



*** g99 6/22 p. 9 Did It Just Happen, or Was It Created? ***

Famous physicist P.A.M. Dirac, who was a professor of mathematics at the University of Cambridge, concurred: “One could perhaps describe the situation by saying that God is a mathematician of a very high order, and He used very advanced mathematics in constructing the universe.”



*** g 2/10 p. 23 Is Belief in God Reasonable? ***

Blind Chance or Purposeful Design?

Years ago, British mathematician, physicist, and astronomer Sir James Jeans wrote that in the light of advancing scientific knowledge, “the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine.” He also stated that “the universe appears to have been designed by a pure mathematician” and that it provides “evidence of a designing or controlling power that has something in common with our own individual minds.



AS TO INVENTORS:



*** ce chap. 12 p. 152 Who Did It First? ***

Who Did It First?

“I HAVE the suspicion,” one biologist said, “that we’re not the innovators we think we are; we’re merely the repeaters.”1 Many times, human inventors only repeat what plants and animals have been doing for thousands of years. This copying from living things is so prevalent that it has been given its own name—bionics.
?
2015-06-06 21:57:44 UTC
No. In fact Science tends to agree with the concept of spiritual creation however it's worded differently.

Conventional science deals with what can be known about our physical universe, but to reveal the truth about origination of our universe, we need to look at quantum physics instead. Quantum physics deals with the very substance of matter and energy and finds that in the sub atomic world, nothing works in the same way as standard physics, in fact the quantum world is stranger than religion, but, to put it in a nut shell, quantum physics indicates that all matter/energy is the product of observation. In other words, everything exists only because it was thought into existence.

Strange but true, do a search for quantum mechanics or quantum physics, and while you're at it, take a look at 'holgraphic universe' as well.

You'll be surprised at what sciences real view of a creator is.
Duane
2015-06-04 15:10:01 UTC
Most scientist utilize math to prove or disprove theories. Hmmm... Well, math tells us that SOMETHING cannot come from NOTHING (i.e. 0 + 0 = 0, 0 x 0 = 0, 0/0 = 0, and 0 - 0 = 0). Well, the fact that anything exist today is clear and concise mathematical proof that something has ALWAYS existed and what else but a GOD could exist without being created?
?
2015-06-05 05:05:32 UTC
Can God be scientifically DISPROVE ? To be dis- proven something has to be first proven



Proven defined as established truth genuineness of evidence establish Authenticity and validity show objective existence



The problem with religion , is they have been Claiming a god for so long without validation or proof . and people believe it . Believe merely means to accept as true . that does not verify it as true or fact only that certain people accept it as the answer they Chose . it does not validate nor make it fact



. A child can believe in Santa or a person can believe in Big Foot or ET's or that a dog talks English or a snake can talk , it does not make it TRUE nor Fact



. Science deals only with reality Science defined as the observation , identification. description , experimental investigation and theoretical explanation of phenomena - natural , occurring in reality knowledge of and facts related to Fact something proven to exist or occurred in reality



God defined as a being CONCEIVED as perfect Omnipotent omniscient originator and ruler of the universe , projected by monotheistic religions key word conceived a thought , concept - defined as a unifying theme ideal



Ideals, thoughts, concepts , imagined . dreams and hallucinations are not defined as real for they do not exist outside ones mind . God is a concept . the only source of god is the biblical writings , which are the thoughts of men over 3500 years ago of a particular society , not proven as fact nor validated , so those also remain Ideal, thoughts and concepts , not FACT proven to have happen +or validity of existence of the god



Science has no part in religion nor god it is not an observable occurrence by definition not a phenomena , merely a concept perpetuated and claimed by the religious . Gods have a long history maintained by belief and faith , and man has a long history of inventing them and abandoning them, then they are termed Mythology
2015-06-05 10:48:55 UTC
No, God cannot be scientifically disproven, there actually is a scientific evidence to prove God's existence.
Robbie
2015-06-05 13:03:38 UTC
Alright, screw these guys, here's the truth here.



No matter how much 'science' you dig up, it doesn't disprove god, sure, it disproves the bible

(which smart people stopped believing in hundreds of years ago anyway) but there is neither proof nor discredit to God's existence. Deal with it, you sciencewhores and religionfags.



Fedora is tipped to you, good sir, for managing to get the butthurt replies of both sides breathing heavily and

typing pointedly at eachother. Truly a troll at his highest filth.
marsel_duchamp
2015-06-04 12:11:22 UTC
No. And god can't be proven to exist either. And to believers it wouldn't matter if god was disproven. Astrology, crystal healing or power, and magic have been shown to be frauds and people still persist in their belief.
?
2015-06-05 18:25:36 UTC
An atheist states that they know that God does not exist. That God has not existed in the past, God does not exist now, and God will not exist in the future. That in all possible locations in the universe, there is no God that exists. That for all possible states and statuses, for all locations, and at all times, there is no God that exists.



The human brain is a wonderfully complex object. But as a physical object, it is subject to certain physical limitations. Namely, it has a limited amount of data storage available to it. Both science and the bible tell us that the universe is expanding. So the number of possible locations within the universe is growing. It is impossible for the human brain to be aware of all possible locations in the universe, let alone know their state or status for all possible times from the instant of the big bang, to the heat death of the universe. That is simply far too much information to be stored in a human brain.



So, when an atheist tells you they know that there is no God, they are actually making a claim based upon insufficient data. At best they can claim that they believe that there is not God, but that belief is not based upon proof, and the proposition cannot ever be proven. It is a physical impossibility. So, by making a statement of belief, without sufficient proof, atheist are expressing a statement of faith in their belief in the non-existence of God.



By contrast Theist state that they have sufficient evidence to bring them to the conclusion that God does exist. We might discuss whether this evidence is sufficient and convincing, but we cannot state that it is physically impossible for such evidence to exist.
?
2015-06-05 03:55:27 UTC
God cannot be proven or disproven as real or existing. But subjectively and when He is needed, God will be made available. Don't get it wrong--it may be impossible to get such cooperation from the environment to charge as unavailable. It may even be hostile to people around you.
Jaiden
2015-06-05 14:41:20 UTC
Maybe, gods body would of decomposed by now i think, or if he dosnt have a body, hes insides would spill out, i think, or he would get an infection and die, i think, or if hes a spirit, hes like a ghost, and humans cant see or come into contact with ghosts. scientificly, i think ghosts wouldnt even exist if they were there. So even if god is there, he dosnt exist if he is a spirit. I think I just scientifically disproved god. I came up with this stuff as i went along by the way :).
?
2015-06-05 12:41:34 UTC
No, not 100 % but neither can Santa Claus, The Tooth Fairy or Unicorns. We can definitely say that science has proven the bible wrong in many ways but there's probably no way for science to disprove god 100 %, although you don't even have to look at science to see how there is no god-just read the bible to see how irrational this hypotheis is.
James O
2015-06-05 08:13:53 UTC
No, not in the least

false concepts of god/s can be logically eliminated but not by the process of the physical sciences



Sciences are not on the side of atheism and many forms of theism are perfectly compatible with the physical sciences



Mathematical probability has been used as evidence of a Creator Ultimate Un-Caused Cause and Ultimate planner but there is no absolute incontestible proof



Atheism, however, seems to have no evidences at all
2015-06-06 02:18:30 UTC
No, this place being created and it's makers cannot be scientifically disproven.



But the bibble, esp. as presently written can be. But because you can disprove this book doesn't mean it wasn't made by someone.



It was made, all bible aside i think they are very evil.
haru
2015-06-06 19:09:15 UTC
No. But the fact that god has not been scientifically proven to date should give you pause. There is no timetable for you to decide if there is or is not a God. Please, for your sanity, do not be in a race to "prove" or "disprove" God. Just keep an open mind and a merciful heart. Would you treat your fellow man/woman different if there was or was not a God? I wouldn't.
Joe
2015-06-04 16:44:06 UTC
No true science needs indisputable evidence for something to be true this is why that because we are so wonderfully and marvelously made God can not be disproven
?
2015-06-04 12:11:07 UTC
No. The absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence! However, religion can be disproven, which likewise means that God doesn't exist.
Lighting the Way to Reality
2015-06-05 16:55:11 UTC
Yes, god, if you are referring to the god of the Bible, can be scientifically disproven.



That is because the god of the Bible created a cosmos that is not the cosmos is that has been scientifically found to exist.



According to the Bible, the earth is a flat, immovable disk, supported by pillars and covered with a solid vault, the firmament, of heaven, the rim of which is is resting on the perimeter of the disk of the earth, and the stars are just lights set in the vault of heaven.



That this is the correct view of the biblical cosmos is shown by the fact that it describes a structure with parts that are fully consistent with each other. That structural consistency indicates that it accurately represents the cosmos as conceived by the ancient Hebrews and as its writers incorporated that view in the Bible.



For an analysis of the great many biblical verses that support that view of the cosmos, see my answer to this question. (If I had all of that material here, the idiotic Y!A relevance factor would push my answer to the very end where it would go unnoticed.)



https://answersrip.com/question/index?qid=20150420131007AAdmWeU



In addition, according to the Bible, earth is the centerpiece of creation and in the Last Days god will destroy the earth and the heavens and create a new heaven and earth as part of his plan for mankind. (2 Peter 3:10-13).



Is that really realistic considering the vastness of the universe and the enormous number of galaxies that have been scientifically found? In the actual universe that has been scientifically uncovered, the earth is an insignificant mote, even more insignificant than the size of an atom is with respect to the size of the earth.



It is therefore the height of geocentric idiocy to think that the whole universe was created merely for the sake of the earth and its inhabitants.



So, because the cosmos that the god of the Bible created does not exist, then the god who created that cosmos also does not exist.



So, yes, the god of the Bible can be scientifically disproven.

.
imacatholic2
2015-06-05 17:40:27 UTC
No.



Belief in God will ultimately be a matter of faith because absolute proof (or disproof) of the supernatural will never be found. However modern Astrophysics has proven the existence of God beyond a reasonable doubt.



++ First Cause ++



Newton's Third Law of Motion states "For every action there is equal and opposite reaction." Every action in the universe was caused by a prior equal and opposite reaction.



If we logically follow each and every action and reaction back to the beginning then logically there has to be a first action without a prior equal and opposite reaction. Modern astrophysicists call this event the Big Bang.



This first action was completely independent of outside forces. This action was God, the un-caused cause, creating the universe. This proof also fulfills the principle of Occam's Razor.



By the way, it was Georges Lemaître (1894–1966), a Belgian Catholic priest and professor of physics and astronomy, who proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre



++ Fine Tuning of the Universe ++



A universe in which life has a chance to exist can only happen in where a couple of dozen universal constants coincide, including:

+ Minimum interval of space

+ Minimum unit of time

+ Planck's Constant

+ Maximum velocity

+ Gravitational Attraction Constant

+ Weak Force Coupling Constant

+ Strong Nuclear Force Coupling Constant

+ Rest Mass of a Proton

+ Rest Mass of an Electron

+ Electron or Proton Unit Charge

+ Minimum Mass of the Universe

+ Total Visible Rest Mass

+ Boltzmann's Constant

+ Hubble Constant

+ Cosmological Constant

+ Cosmic Proton/Photon Ratio

+ Permittivity of Free Space

+ Electromagnetic Fine-Structure Constant

+ Weak Fine-Structure Constant

+ Gravitational Fine-Structure Constant



A couple of percent difference in any one of these constants would make the universe completely uninhabitable. Roger Penrose, a peer of Hawking, calculated that the chance of a universe capable of supporting life as we know it as one part in 10 raised to the power of 10 raised to the power of 123.



This fine tuning of the universe, while not an absolute proof of God, can be used to help prove the existence of God beyond a reasonable doubt (which is my claim).



====



For credible scientific and factually reliable evidence for the existance of God see the Magi's God Wiki: "Why Believe in God?" http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php/Why_Believe_in_God%3F



I also suggest you read Robert Spitzer's book "New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy"



With love in Christ.
Diogenes
2015-06-05 09:01:52 UTC
It has been repeatedly proved that it is impossible for an incorporeal entity to exist within the objective physical universe. If God did actually exist, there would have to be detectable energetic evidence of His presence and there is none. Modern physics understands the nature of objective reality well enough to eliminate the possibility of invisible magical spirits and impossible gods.



The Bible is fourth century Roman religious propaganda and has no legitimate place within modern civilization.
>
2015-06-05 09:13:26 UTC
Yes, all gods can be scientifically disproven.



http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Harvard_prayer_experiment



The real question is whether or not believers have the ability to accept all gods are fiction.
2015-06-05 09:54:20 UTC
Not scientifically, but historically.



Dr. Gary Habermas' Resurrection Argument at UC Santa Barbara Veritas Forum:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay_Db4RwZ_M&list=PLfdA100jZuHHHy5pcfA9wjKNl116VZS-5

.
?
2015-06-04 12:14:56 UTC
It depends on who is doing the science. If I give atheist scientists the benefit of the doubt, and they are not making an argument out of ignorance, then perhaps they should be less bandwagon trendy and just say they don't know. And I think some do, when they aren't on guard.
2015-06-04 16:38:19 UTC
The Christian one can. The Bible isn't 100% accurate. It's actually full of thousands of contradictions, errors and lies. Proof that it's garbage written by people with conflicting ideas. Archaeology, genetics and fossils have proven genesis to be hogwash. God is clearly fictional. Fables are silly nonsense.
Archer
2015-06-04 12:11:41 UTC
Most of that which has in the past been attributed to the gods (correct term) has already been understood and the gods resigned to myth, lore and legend or simply forgotten. It is not a task of disproving but to understand that which we didn't understand but felt was significant in life which we created the gods to explain.
Gary B
2015-06-04 14:57:30 UTC
In order to prove God does not exists, then He must, in fact, not exist.



But to scientifically prove the NONEXISTENCE of anything is competely impossible. Science can only ptove things exists; it cannot prove things do not exist. The best science can do is prove that something that does exist does not intereat in any given scientific experiment.
neil s
2015-06-04 14:04:29 UTC
Depends on the God. If the characteristics of the God in question make any predictions about the kind of universe we should see, then those predictions are at least in principle testable. If the characteristics of the God make no clear predictions, then they are of course not testable, but also not worth considering, since the idea of that God doesn't help explain anything.
Yoda
2015-06-05 04:14:00 UTC
What is G-d, how is G-d defined?



Tanakh (bible) says:

Body or no body? Answer = no body (incorporeal)

Infinite or finite? Answer = infinite (no boundaries/limits) e.g., omniscient (all knowing), omnipotent (all reaching).



E.g., G-d is defined via negativa (by saying what G-d is not).



The scientific method involves:

1) Making a hypothesis (theory),

2) Making measurable predictions based upon that theory,

3) Designing an experiment to test the predictions

4) Measuring the experiment outcomes,

5) Analyzing the data to see if the predictions (extended from the theory) are accurate.



This is where measuring G-d becomes a problem: science can only measure things, and G-d doesn't 'qualify as a thing, because G-d is infinite.



In order for a thing to be measured, it has to have finite attributes.

You can call me a thing because you can define me by the attributes of my body (height, girth, weight, proportions, eye colour, hair colour, skin colour, nose size/shape, ears etc. G-d has no body!

You could also define me by my habits or my beliefs. My beliefs are based upon a finite stock of experiences and the way in which I relate those experiences (my neural network connections). In that way, if you get to know me, after a while, my behavior (to a certain extent) may become predictable. G-d is all knowing (omniscient), which means that G-ds beliefs (if G-d has any) are based upon such large amounts of information, that we as humans have no way to measure them and come to any predictions. This means, if I could take G-d for a drink in the bar every week, I'd never be able to predict what drink G-d might pour into his non-body (for instance).



Things only stand out---to the mind---if they have finite attributes that can be measured: a ball, a tree, a person etc., all have finite attributes. Even though you could probably generate many more attributes about these things than those which you keep in memory, the attributes you associate with these things helps you to relate to those things in a useful way.



Without a body, G-d doesn't stand out. We have no way to measure G-d. G-d is not detectable using any of our senses, nor with any equipment we possess. This is the key point: the Romans had a word for objects that stand out---exsisto (from the prefix ex- "out" + the root -sisto "to stand"). The modern English word "exist" derives from the Latin word exsisto! As G-d cannot be sensed or measured, G-d doesn't stand out, so doesn't exist.



Now, you're going to say to me: "hold on, lots of things that now exist---electrons, the higgs boson etc.---didn't exist before, so maybe one day in the future, science will build a machine that can measure G-d?"

That would be possible if G-d were defined by a set of finite attributes that could be measured in some way. As G-d is a concept without relative value (i.e., because G-d is infinite), there is no hope of ever relating G-d to anything.



People often ask, is there anything bigger than infinity, but this shows that people wrongly think that infinity is a number. Infinity isn't a number, and it has no numerical value whatsoever in math.



We use the word infinity in two senses:

1) no boundaries (i.e., nothing)

and

2) without end (e.g., continuous division, continuous addition, eternal etc.)



The word infinity (Latin) actualy means "not perishable".

The Hebrew phrase for infinity is Ayn Sof, and that means "without clarity/boundary/end".

The Sanskrit word for infinity is ananta (an- "without" + anta "end").



As G-d is a Hebrew concept, we have to cede to the definition of Ayn Sof: "without clarity/boundary/end". In our terms, nothing is without boundary, because all things have boundaries e.g., the shape, the colour, etc. Even subatomic particles can be defined. Therefore, it would be safe to say that "nothing" is Ayn Sof, and therefore G-d is nothing (not a thing).



Does that mean: there is no G-d?

Yes, and No!

There is no "thing" G-d!

Is there anything beyond ''thing''?

Well, maybe, but you'll never ever measure it!
?
2015-06-07 14:09:56 UTC
Yep.



But so can the sun by a blind person.



So can music by a deaf person.



And so can life itself to something that's undead.



Science only serves to support a perspective, which doesn't make what it discovers and presents absolute.



It merely serves that perspective's needs.
?
2015-06-05 11:15:10 UTC
Although you can t see him, it s a matter of believing in him. Yes, science can say that God doesn t exist because of the Big Bang theory. The world is so beautiful and God is so powerful and loving so he must have made our world because only he is powerful enough.



Science can and can t disprove his existence. You just need to believe.
Smarty
2015-06-08 17:07:27 UTC
Well since God is the energy that created the universe, the very existence of energy is proof that God exists.



As for the verses in the Bible that people are referring to an "crazy". That is because they don't understand the symbolism being used in the language.
2015-06-07 02:11:55 UTC
Well i don't want to disrespect any religion,

but my idea is that if there's a god who created us, then who created the almighty god? if that almighty god is created by another god then who created that god? and so on.

Did he appear on thin air or the mother nature created him?



My idea is that we all humans, and animals were created by mother nature on natural phenomena. not by a god, but what those god centered religion teach are very good, not harm any one and love all are very good ideas that need for the society.



Our mind and heart that we have to make similar to the concept of god, from that we can respect the concept of god, THis is just my idea.
?
2015-06-04 12:16:49 UTC
First off, you have to scientifically PROVE gods exist, before you can even start to worry about disproving them.
Alex
2015-06-15 05:57:16 UTC
Yes, it can. Yes, I believe that science has the ability to disprove that a God exists. This is not something that many people want to hear, I'm sure, but I believe it is true
?
2015-06-06 16:00:42 UTC
The revolutionary evolutionary theological theory of Pandeism fully accounts for all other religious positions and religious experiences, discerning a greater Creator whose means are discovered by science, instead of seeming to conflict with it.
?
2015-06-11 21:02:28 UTC
No because God is non linear and science is linear. You can't prove the non linear using linear techniques. It's like trying to test air under water. They are two different mediums with different laws.
2015-06-04 12:13:24 UTC
For now you can't really prove or disprove the existence of a god or gods.
?
2015-06-10 04:27:37 UTC
Myu limited understanding of science is that it cannot prove anything beyond a doubt, it merely puts forward a likely realistic senario. SOunds pretty sensible to me. It definately cannot prove the non existance of god doubr, but at the same time the bible relgion cannot prove his or her existance beyond a doubt either.
?
2015-06-04 12:10:44 UTC
Yes. The established facts concerning the known origin of the universe and all life does not correspond to any creation myth. No "god," no Yggdrasil tree, no tales about Prometheus, nothing. If all the creation myths are false one can rightly assume that the faiths asserting those mythologies are true are equally false. No "god" or "gods" exist.
?
2015-06-05 23:43:17 UTC
As far as I know, a negative cannot be proven. That is, we can't prove what isn't, only what *is*. The existance of a god has never been proven - nor is there any objective evidence for one.



"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." - Isaac Asimov
JORGE N
2015-06-04 14:18:18 UTC
Why would science even try? It has a lot other things to do like find ways to help us get over the damage done to us by god in His strange way to make us evolve.
?
2015-06-13 10:49:32 UTC
Most religious conceptions of "GOD" go counter to reality so the answer is yes and also it depends on how you define the three letter word.



In these forums, the word "god" refers to widespread conception of one of the Christian versions of "god" generally.



This is because most users here have been subjected to religious INDOCTRINATION to more or less degrees during their lives with the exception of those who were raised in Muslim countries or even in western countries but within a Muslim culture.



So you see, any/ all references to "god" on these forums lack distinction of clarification which is why some of the commentators submit walls of individual doctrinal texts highlighting their particular preferences or versions of "god."
naoise
2015-06-06 03:49:12 UTC
Yes
?
2015-06-05 18:30:30 UTC
Can God be scientifically proven?
Suzy
2015-06-08 09:01:21 UTC
No, because those that are scientific, were created by Him in the first place. We wouldn't be here if not for Jehovah God.
DanRSN
2015-06-05 03:14:03 UTC
Forst of alll you need to define god. Second, show us the proof of its existence. Then we'll review your evidence, check thet it stands up to scrutiny. If it does, then I think a Nobel prize will be yours.



If there is an absence of evidence then we can conclude it doesnt exist.
Freethinking Liberal
2015-06-04 12:34:20 UTC
It is as possible to scientifically disprove the Christian god as it to scientifically disprove the the existence of Zeus
2015-06-04 12:08:59 UTC
Irrelevant.
?
2015-06-05 04:32:27 UTC
At some point in future maybe, science is a continuous process of research and discovery.
?
2015-06-07 10:35:28 UTC
god EXIST okay he has been here forever why do people have to prove that god isnt real he is real okay and the big bang theory dose not even make sense a star goes ka--boom we all lived no no no God created the heaven and earth with his beautiful hands and he sent his beautiful son Jesus christ to save us from sins okay thats what i truly know that happened i do believe it i know it god is real and jesus too he still loves u no matter what and when i die i will finally meet my father god and you will too
?
2015-06-05 10:38:49 UTC
No...cannot prove that somebody doesn't exist......can you prove The Tooth Fairy doesn't exist? No of course not. Mo University Lecturer Atheist
?
2015-06-04 13:35:20 UTC
Yes , The perfection of the kosmos did convince Einstein that there is a Creator called God.
?
2015-06-06 05:47:43 UTC
He can't be proven or dis-proven, it is just as absurd to believe in God as it is to deny his existence. At the end of the day, the only thing we have is gut instinct. If you are religious it is faith, if you aren't religious then it is doubt.
a_sojourner_withyou
2015-06-08 14:17:02 UTC
If you don't believe in God, there is nothing to disprove. If you believe in God there is nothing to prove. It is by your belief or disbelief that a question is posed and a answer need be found.
?
2015-06-05 09:42:50 UTC
No.

However, imho, the fact that he exists is obvious just by looking at the world around you. No way is all this an 'evolutionary' accident.
Thrill K
2015-06-10 10:13:26 UTC
No. Nobody can prove something doesn't exist. The person making the claim that something does exist gas the burden of proof, not the other way around.
?
2015-06-06 23:31:06 UTC
No, as the original scientist, science can only confirm the complex order of creation that was created by the omniscient God.
?
2015-06-05 06:08:29 UTC
Science is what optical nerve & retina of the eye perceive because of light & send it to brain for processing. God is beyond that light, He's spirit not flesh.
bettyboop
2015-06-04 16:46:48 UTC
God is a fact..

He's not a science anything,....

My thoughts, of course
2015-06-05 10:27:06 UTC
Nothing to disprove. Let the believers in a God stand up and show us the light, I mean the proof.
2015-06-06 07:47:58 UTC
God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, meaning there is no way to prove it false. The burden of proof lays on the side of the believers.
laidawestbrook2
2015-06-08 09:11:27 UTC
No. Ro 1:20 For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.
?
2015-06-05 22:10:08 UTC
No, God cannot be scientifically falsified/verified.
?
2015-06-05 09:01:08 UTC
Yes.

It would not be the first time that science had given a version and then changed it afterwards, so yes science can prove and disprove many things.
ALEX
2015-06-05 22:38:54 UTC
Can God be scientifically disproven?



Scientific discoveries have repeatedly shown that a god's magic wand was never necessary for anything, but even without science it's fair to say the god fantasy is obviously a ridiculous fantasy.
Shahzaib
2015-06-05 20:57:09 UTC
I think YES. many people will not be satisfied by me. but i think that when we are dealing with a nature opposite thing named as science then we can do anything, people think animals can gave birth to animals and this include the God because HE made everything but here humans are making clones..

in science we have to think in the limitations of laws and theories while GOD is beyond this.so when it comes to believing miracles everyone is finding a reason behind this beside taking it as a miracle of God



scientifically yes. but if we think of very start of universe then we stuck and Have to believe that without a almighty power nothing like this can made.
Campbell Hayden
2015-06-04 15:54:03 UTC
Plain & Simple: At this time, and in this place = No. Science can *not* disprove God.
2015-06-04 12:09:45 UTC
You can't disprove something that never existed to start with.
?
2015-06-04 21:33:48 UTC
Not with the phony science taught in dumb down educational facilities used in today's school.
?
2015-06-06 19:12:45 UTC
Science proves you can not make a viable population with two individuals
?
2015-06-05 18:54:59 UTC
Three words. Big. Bang. Theory.
2015-06-04 12:09:56 UTC
Science doesn't concern itself with such things.
?
2015-06-04 12:10:38 UTC
Try proving his existence scientifically first, then we can go from there.
?
2015-06-13 10:07:35 UTC
No he cannot science requires PHYSICAL evidence that can be seen by the eye, magnifying objects, or machine and since you cannot physically see god than no
?
2015-06-04 19:38:33 UTC
No, He can't. Science provides "evidence" to His nonexistence, while religion provides "evidence" to His existence. In the end, I suppose we'll find out one day.
No More Democrats or GOP, please
2015-06-06 18:39:14 UTC
The non-existence of God does not need to be proved. The existence of God does.
?
2015-06-05 02:54:38 UTC
life is an exam about believing in god or not



if someone tells you the answer there wouldn't be an exam at all.
?
2015-06-05 11:58:31 UTC
No, it cannot be scientifically disproved, as there are no facts to consider.
Maid Angela
2015-06-06 03:03:46 UTC
I think you mean disproved and the answer is no. Nor can you disprove fairies, the spaghetti monster or giant humans that live under water
mackhuntjr
2015-06-05 03:22:22 UTC
No! true science proves the exist of an almighty creator.
?
2015-06-05 07:26:26 UTC
It is a waste of time to disprove something that does not exist.
Lord Aizen
2015-06-04 12:18:19 UTC
The burden of proof lies on the people who claim something from a lack of evidence.



If there is no evidence, then it is false by default.



~Aizen
steve
2015-06-05 02:49:39 UTC
Yes!..Thats been scientifically proven.
Phillip
2015-06-07 09:00:39 UTC
Simple carbon dating has done it countless times.
cymry3jones
2015-06-04 22:21:25 UTC
No more than scientists can explain what caused the 'big bang'.
harpertara
2015-06-04 12:19:31 UTC
No more than It can be scientifically proven.
Lt Kije
2015-06-05 00:27:08 UTC
Yes. Just look around. You will find NOTHING to support his/her existence. "Faith" is only a lie dreamed up by slave owners to keep them quiet and submissive.
Your Word is a light to my roadway
2015-06-04 12:10:39 UTC
No, he can't.How do you disprove anything from the spirit realm?
KENNETH D
2015-06-05 11:27:55 UTC
No as we humans are His creation and He knows infinitely more than we ever could
Infinity
2015-06-14 12:32:24 UTC
It depends ojn what you mean by God
oldprof
2015-06-04 16:35:00 UTC
No. Nor can it be proven. That's why religions are faith based, not fact based.
?
2015-06-04 16:32:40 UTC
No. If god didn't exist then who created Adam and Eve? Then why is God (Allah) in arbic carved on the human ear? http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=allah%20is%20written%20on%20the%20humans%20ear&qs=n&form=QBVR&pq=allah%20is%20written%20on%20the%20humans%20ear&sc=0-12&sp=-1&sk=#view=detail&mid=DBD1C5A39AF81E9BC6C5DBD1C5A39AF81E9BC6C5
2015-06-05 06:59:27 UTC
He is made up by humans. There is zerro evidence for his existence.
Colton
2015-06-04 12:09:34 UTC
No. You can't prove nor disprove god(s).
?
2015-06-04 12:11:04 UTC
you don't have to disprove things that have no proof, they are self refuting
?
2015-06-04 12:09:16 UTC
No. But he can't be proven either.



The unknown =/= god
D'melo
2015-06-05 05:23:25 UTC
no you cannot prove or disprove him since loads of proofs are available witnessing his indirect presence and reasons/proofs to say he is absent or docile to whatever prevailing in the world.
Abundance
2015-06-05 20:20:50 UTC
God is Love and Love is Real! :)
?
2015-06-04 14:24:49 UTC
no one theory talked about god before



i think
2015-06-06 17:37:01 UTC
2000 years of My Beliefs they have failed
2015-06-06 13:26:50 UTC
No, but Atheism can and already has been objectively disproved.
LoveGod1Man2
2015-06-04 21:39:45 UTC
NO WAY!

Simply b/c GOD is the CREATOR in spirit but SCIENCE is human product from the CREATURE
Chris Ancor
2015-06-04 15:06:22 UTC
Yes. It has already been done some time ago.
banana
2015-06-05 10:48:19 UTC
God CREATED science so NO.
2015-06-05 06:41:52 UTC
It depends on what your concept of God is.
2015-06-06 04:23:14 UTC
yes
SAIKANTA
2015-06-05 02:53:52 UTC
No science cannot explain everything.
Art
2015-06-04 12:57:50 UTC
Definitively , no. But he she or it can definitely be pushed to the far fringes of credibility.
John
2015-06-05 14:18:05 UTC
you are god doing gods work
Chelsea Chick
2015-06-04 21:29:31 UTC
Here, watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQVm8RokoBA



Just give it five minutes. It's not going to kill you.
zephyr
2015-06-09 21:49:04 UTC
Maybe. But, HE does not need to be proven either.
Roger
2015-06-05 13:15:33 UTC
No, no one can disprove that I can fly while no one is looking.
2015-06-07 13:34:37 UTC
Which god??
doug g
2015-06-05 16:44:35 UTC
I will ask him he is sitting right here.

Oops, I think we pissed him off.
Joel
2015-06-04 13:52:53 UTC
No---Nor proven---That is exactly where Faith comes into play.
?
2015-06-06 12:04:20 UTC
god is real
?
2015-06-14 23:24:52 UTC
Well yes. but also if you have logic, the truth should be pretty clear.
?
2015-06-06 12:53:11 UTC
I'm sorry... You've lost me.
?
2015-06-04 20:53:09 UTC
usually when i hear something, i ask myself: does that even seem remotely possible?
richard
2015-06-05 14:11:43 UTC
h
?
2015-06-05 17:33:07 UTC
depends
Pawel
2015-06-07 07:42:27 UTC
yeh
?
2015-06-05 11:01:32 UTC
nah
?
2015-06-04 14:21:38 UTC
No but science can be.
?
2015-06-14 15:31:06 UTC
Can grass think?
?
2015-06-05 09:21:50 UTC
can someone plz help me with a question plz
2015-06-05 11:29:54 UTC
Only when you die, will you see.
Gonzo
2015-06-11 16:12:12 UTC
We will only know when we die.
?
2015-06-06 04:45:20 UTC
No
Sherry
2015-06-04 14:19:32 UTC
No
big joan
2015-06-04 13:50:04 UTC
No
2015-06-06 06:13:23 UTC
it depends on your faith, but generally no.
E
2015-06-06 20:39:18 UTC
NOPE
?
2015-06-06 13:32:42 UTC
not sure
?
2015-06-07 10:07:07 UTC
no
2015-06-06 09:50:39 UTC
no
?
2015-06-05 17:25:03 UTC
no
2015-06-04 16:50:22 UTC
no
Hector
2015-06-05 14:56:10 UTC
no not at all.
Truth
2015-06-06 00:35:00 UTC
The supernatural has metaphysical connotations that suggests that God is above or beyond the natural Universe; the "Master Planner" who is claimed by some to have designed, created, maintains and perpetuates existence. Religionists/spiritualists rarely suggest that God exists in an actual place beyond the Universe because this is easily refuted deductively by the constituent definitions of "Universe" and "Beyond". They more often suggest that god exists without being subject to causal law and the law of identity. The term also has epistemological connotations. Epistemologically this would put God beyond human understanding. Unknowability is derived directly from the concept of the supernatural.

To exist beyond the framework of causal laws would be to exist beyond existence. This is derived directly from our first assumption. Existence by definition encompasses all that is. There is no alternative to existence ("non-existence is not a fact, but it is the absence of a fact." [). "To be is to be something as opposed to nothing, and to be something is to be something specific. If a God is to have any characteristics (which it must to exist), these characteristics must be specific but to assign definite attributes, to say that a being is this as opposed to that, is to limit the capacities of that being and to subject it to the uniformity imposed by those capacities. A supernatural being, if it is to differ in kind from natural existence, must exist without a limited nature-which amounts to existence without any nature at all."[Smith; Atheism the Case Agai nst God} Further, existence possesses a specific identity which it is necessarily limited to a being who exists without a nature (identity) is to exist without existing. To exist without existing is to commit ones self to a contradiction. Therefore, the concept of a supernatural being is inherently contradictory. This renders the notion invalid and void of cognitive content.A supernatural being, if it is to differ in kind from natural existence, must exist without a limited nature-which amounts to existence without any nature at all."[Smith; Atheism the Case Against God,41] Further, deriving from the first assumption that existence possesses a specific identity which it is necessarily limited to a being who exists without a nature (identity) is to exist without existing. To exist without existing is to commit ones self to a contradiction. Therefore, the concept of a supernatural being is inherently contradictory. This renders the notion invalid and void of cognitive content.

The Primary Consciousness

Religionists/spiritualists assert that God is Metaphysically primary or axiomatic. God is said to be omnipresent and that his existence is his essence and vise versa. God's essence and existence are said to be indistinguishable because they are one in the same. "Essence" refers to what a thing is; "existence" refers to that a thing is. The essence--existence dichotomy applies to every being except God because he is not made of component parts. The bible says that "I AM WHO I AM" is the only adequate answer to "what is God?". If there cannot be distinction between the essence of God and his existence then you cannot distinguish him at all since man comprehends in terms of essence and existence. If  these categories cannot be applied to God then a god cannot be comprehended. Recall now that we derived incomprehensibility from the supernatural element as well. The concept of a supernatural being and a primary consciousness both go to the thesis that the concept of God has no cognitive content. With every attribute that the religionist/spiritualist proposes they fling themselves farther into agnosticism which is a branch of atheism.

If one is conscious, one exists. If one exists then one is subject to the law of identity. If ones consciousness is subject to the law of identity then it cannot be primary or axiomatical because it presumes that it exists and has an identity. The concept of a primary consciousness is inherently contradictory hence it cannot exist.

The Inherently Unknowable Being

God is said to be unknowable or incomprehensible. This is stated explicitly in many sources as well as derived from other fundamental attributes of God. If God is different in kind from natural existence then he is unknowable and if God is unknowable then the religionist's claim to have knowledge of God is an impossibility.  If God does not exist then we could have no knowledge of him and if God does exist, we again could have no knowledge of him. This unfalsifiable element makes the attribute useless and again adds no cognitive content to the concept of God.

The Omni Attributes

To exist is to be. To be is to be something. To be something is to be something specific, possessing specific properties. The omni attribute is defined as totally unlimited. This analyzed with the primacy of existence demonstrates that an omniattribute cannot exist. An entity must be limited to it's identity. While the concept of a metaphysical infinite is a potentiality, epistemologically it remains an impossibility. The religionist/spiritualist suggests that God exists without a particular nature which means that he has no nature at all, which means that he is different in kind from the natural universe which makes him incomprehensible or that he/it simply cannot exist. These are the only two options that can be derived from this attribute and both lead to zero cognitive content.

Omnipotence

There can be no obstacle to an omnipotent being, no difficulties that God must overcome. The necessity of employing means to accomplish an end is the consequence of limited power (or an identity, as we have seen). Therefore God cannot be said to employ means in any sense. God cannot be said to act in any manner because an action is required by a being that employs means to an end. Nor can God be said to have a purpose because purpose presumes an unattained end.

Omniscience

God is said to know the past, present and the future infallibly and absolutely. If God or any other being knows the future then that would mean that the future is predetermined. The concept of salvation violates predetermination, therefore salvation is a farce. People would have no choice as to what they believe. The religionist/spiritualist tries to side step this dilemma by stating that God does not impose his supposed foreknowledge on the course of events but this does not change the fact that if one knows what will happen then it must happen. If God knows without fallibility the future he cannot be omnipotent. If he can change the course of events he cannot have infallible knowledge of the future, hence he cannot be omniscient.

Omnibenevolence

Obviously there is what is called evil in the world, such as murder or rape for example. If the religionist/spiritualist claims that man’s concept of good and evil is invalid and God’s is the only appropriate one that is unknowable then the claim that "God is good" is equally invalid.

To be benevolent there must be a choice between good and evil. If God chooses to do evil over good and he has total power he would be immoral. If God does not know there is evil but cannot prevent it he cannot be omnipotent. If God knows there is evil and can prevent it but chooses not to he cannot be omnibenevolent.

Final Note On Omni Attributes

If God knows there is evil and can stop it but chooses not to he cannot be omnibenevolent. If God knows there is evil and cannot stop it then he cannot be omnipotent. If God does not know there is evil then he cannot be omniscient.

The Only Logical Conclusion

No attribute of "God/Master Planner" can hold up to a critical evaluation. Every attribute of this concept has been found to be either internally inconsistent or in contradiction to the fundamental primacy of existence. This conclusively demonstrates that God cannot exist hence does not exist (except as an irrational belief).

Orator

RealityVsReligion

http://forums.delphiforums.com/JesusSatan





Edited 6/10/2005 1:09 am ET by Orator (TruthOrator)
Teachercop
2015-06-04 16:11:28 UTC
No.
?
2015-06-04 12:16:07 UTC
No.
spider
2015-06-08 08:53:23 UTC
No.
Gabby Little Angel
2015-06-05 09:18:53 UTC
No.
?
2015-06-05 02:55:26 UTC
NO
?
2015-06-05 14:48:50 UTC
no.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...