Question:
Science vs. God? So, you can't disprove or prove Him?
anonymous
2010-05-06 21:05:20 UTC
Many say they found science and left God. In my experience I find it interesting for that to happen. In my search and study, I feel science brings one closer to God. Even after studying evolution. I mean there are things I don't know, or may not perfectly understand how God fits in it. But there are scientist who don't understand or can't explain God in or out of it.

I know the common phrase to use is that "God is outside of Science" so you can't prove or disprove Him. But studying cosmology, I just don't understand how science can't prove God, unless God himself decides not be be found this way.

Anyone watch Hawkings Documentary on Time Travel? crraaaaazy!

Okay I know this wasn't a question, I just like discussing this topic and wanted to have a rational conversation. No bashing, I just want to learn your POV.
36 answers:
Jesse bear
2010-05-10 17:59:56 UTC
When you think about it there is no possible way for God not to exist without God people wouldn't have this perfect system this perfectly balanced world we live in today or even science how can you even think that this absolutely perfectly balanced ecosystem happened on accident? that's like saying the monalisa was painted by throwing a bunch of paints at a canvas or that "The Thinker" was sculpted by dropping a big rock of a cliff and it broke into this famous statue it's impossible and just plain silly :) plus what they're saying is just as silly to us as God is to them either the earth appeared out of thin-no not even thin air just nothing it appeared out of nothingness or some chemicals did something and the world was created but where did the chemicals come from? And who said that one chemical with another chemical equaled earth? think about it :)
gribbling
2010-05-10 06:04:53 UTC
> "I know the common phrase to use is that "God is outside of Science" so you can't prove or disprove Him. But studying cosmology, I just don't understand how science can't prove God, unless God himself decides not be be found this way."



That's exactly the point, though.

God is omnipotent, omniscient, etc. - so He absolutely violates all the laws of physics (He is Supernatural; "above nature"). So science CANNOT use those natural laws to investigate His existence or nonexistence.



It is true that, assuming God exists, He could (hypothetically) chose to reveal Himself to science. But just because He has not yet done so cannot be used as evidence to say He doesn't or does exist.



> "I feel like God could be used to theorize the Big bang."



He could indeed - which is why the Catholic Church (for example) accepts the Big Bang theory.



> "Scientists are really looking into how that happened now. Right now they don't know, all they can say about it is that it had to be something outside of time to create a finite universe."



Not so.

Anything happening "outside" or "before" our universe does not need to obey the physics of our universe. One example of the physics of our universe is the Law of Causality - the idea that anything that happens has a cause.

Since any origin of the universe was obviously "before" or "outside" of the universe, there is therefore no reason why causality needs to apply; so it could simply have sprung into being with no cause.



Also - we know that even within our universe, causality does not always apply. Subatomic phenomena can and do happen "just because", with no causation. The singularity that was the "seed" of the Big Bang was exactly such a subatomic phenomenon (a point of zero volume and infinite density). So even if the physics of our universe does apply "outside" it, it could still have appeared "just because".



> "But what about statics Christians have about the validity of the Bible, Moral Law, probability of spontaneous generation.. and stuff?"



I have no idea about statistics on the validity of the Bible (though I do know that geology, astronomy, biology, cosmology and physics all demonstrate the inaccuracy of the Old Testament, at least).



The question of Moral Law is an interesting one; but the idea that all morality *must* spring from God is abhorrent. Does that mean atheists must be amoral? Or that non-Christian societies (like China, India, Japan, etc.) are also amoral?

Many philosophers in the 17th and 18th centuries wrestled with the idea of what is "good" and "moral", and they managed to find ways of modelling and describing them without reference to God; the constitution of the USA is based of one such model, after all.



And the statistics on spontaneous generation are just wrongly applied.
Jenster
2010-05-06 21:19:18 UTC
Proof is the key word here. The Scientific Method is the only way to really KNOW that your science is correct. Since we can not use that method on past events that can not be duplicated (origin of life, evolution, God) these are Scientific THEORIES. Theories are funny things because they like to change based on our current knowledge. How many times have we read a headline similar to "New Evolutionary Discovery Baffles Scientists?" The ideas about atoms, particles, evolution, the growth of the universe, have changed and grown. Point? Theories and not facts, they prove nothing and they are a BEST GUESS.

That said, I love science. Especially biology and physiology. And to me, the way things work just strengthens my belief in a God (despite having an atheist anatomy and physiology teacher who liked to profess otherwise).

To each his own, but I think the extremists (only science or only God) are missing the bigger picture and are just as ignorant as they claim the other is.
anonymous
2010-05-06 21:15:49 UTC
Science is about describing and explaining. Science can try describing 'God' on the basis of the evidence given in sacred texts such as the Bible and can try to explain 'God' by comparing this data with other information from other branches of Science. In this way it has been suggested that human beings have a built-in need to generate a concept of 'God' that helps explain things that are otherwise inexplicable. So, in the past, before Science could explain them, various natural phenomena such as lightning, fire, volcanoes, stars, the seasons etc. were given supernatural explanations. Science cannot 'prove' or 'disprove' 'God' because there is insufficient evidence and the evidence there is, is contradictory. There is no 'evidence' that 'God' exists; there is only faith: the belief in something with little or no evidence to support it: a creation of the minds intellectual capacity to invent and imagine.
wee_bazza
2010-05-06 21:24:42 UTC
Really, really, really think about it. The universe is made up of elements and matter and chemical reactions and whatever. Fact. We have only discovered this relatively recently. Not so long ago, the "creationists" were burning people for daring to suggest the universe did not revolve around earth. Now that was disproved, they are telling us the universe is only 6000 years old, or something equally ridiculous. GOD IS AN INVENTION TO INSPIRE HOPE IN THE HOPELESS. Get with the program.



I would rather believe in a genious in a wheelchair than superman who lives on a cloud
anonymous
2010-05-06 21:21:57 UTC
They went out from us because they were never of us.



Many many many who profess christ have never been baptized into the body of Christ and have only an emotional or head knowledge affection for Him.



See 1 Corinthians 12: 13, and see what a real Christ experience is with the Holy Spirit.



Jesus said He would build his church on Revelation knowledge, and he called it a ROCK. The strength of the witness of the Spirit is considered to be liken to a Rock (not a pebble but a ROCK)

See 2 Corinthians 3: 3-6 and see the trust we have in Christ toward God which speaks of this ministry of the Spirit. This ministry of the Spirit is what many many lack.



Wrong believing doesn't reap right behavior, let alone inherit the promises of God. Try planting corn seed without watering it and see if you will reap a harvest; It won't work.



It takes the Word in the heart and the Water of the Spirit "Living Water" For this reason God gave us the Spirit who bring into fruition the believed for thing of the heart of the Word of God
anonymous
2010-05-06 21:11:39 UTC
To me it's really not a matter of one disproving the other. In reality as much as scientists and creationists can extrapolate the creation and existence of the universe, there is only so much we are able to know. The mystery of life is a wonderful unsolved puzzle that is larger than human comprehension. Just living in awe knowing that there is some greater force out there whether it be god or pure energy in the cosmos keeps me humble. Although science does fundamentally explain certain reasons for occurrences throughout the known universe the fundamental question has not been answered: Why does it all happen? Hawkings Documentary was incredible though! It really makes you contemplate existence doesn't it?
anonymous
2010-05-06 21:13:49 UTC
Science, as you observe, neither proves nor disproves the existence of God.



This is because of what science is. It studies and explains facts about the universe. The reason that science can't address God is that there are no facts about God. He has no mass, energy, momentum or other measurable attributes or measurable effects on any part of the universe.



When you have data, I'll start believing in God.



Until then, the most reasonable explanation of the lack of evidence is that there is no such thing as a god. But if there is a god or gods, we have no way of knowing anything about them.
anonymous
2010-05-06 21:18:30 UTC
Jade, the idea of science is not to disprove things. Technically anything is possible but the scientific theory is used to help prove the existence of things. We can't really prove there is a god but it is also something that we can not disprove. In that sense, there could be a god, and I have heard of some scientists would do believe in the combination of science and religion. Personally I don't really believe in god but I could see how someone still could.
Zombie
2010-05-06 21:10:32 UTC
Anything that doesn't adhere to testable, predictable, falsifiable behavior is outside the scope of science. This includes gods, magic, demons, fairies and schmillowiffs. Science is necessarily materialistic. Whoever told you that was correct, but you apparently didn't get it.



Growing "closer to God" by studying science is simply the gushy nonsense you drown yourself in while trying to rationalize the argumentum ad ignorantiam that your entire world-view rests upon.



Thumb down this answer if doing so makes you feel better, but I'm still right.



---



>> "I feel like God could be used to theorize the Big bang."



You don't theorize "god did it" any more than you theorize that "magic did it," because neither claim can be falsified.



>> "Right now they don't know"



Correct. And saying "God did it" on that basis is an argumentum ad ignorantiam.



>> "all they can say about it is that it had to be something outside of time to create a finite universe."



Incorrect. There is no such thing as "outside of time." You can't even describe time prior to the big bang without using temporal language (like "prior to").



>> "Which is silly, because we know what a jelly donut is made of!"



Maybe it's a magic jelly donut that resides "outside of time." You really don't know.



>> "statics Christians have about the validity of the Bible,"



Christians have no such "statistics."



>> "Moral Law"



There is no "moral law," except that which we invent for ourselves. Morality is relative to culture, upbringing, environment and the individual's own application of preference and reason.



>> "probability of spontaneous generation"



I suspect you mean abiogenesis, which really isn't the same thing. Given billions of simultaneous trials under a variety of shifting conditions, and given that we are here, the probability is 1.



>> "I just hate condescending assholes.."



Well, then don't be one.
anonymous
2010-05-06 23:36:24 UTC
Study? Really then why are you so wrong in all this? Surely as the christian churches say your thinking is screwed!!



Lord Carey the former Archbishop of Canterbury put it rather well – “Creationism is the fruit of a fundamentalist approach to scripture, ignoring scholarship and critical learning, and confusing different understandings of truth”!!



Nice that christians and atheists can agree and laugh together even if it is at your expense!!



Sure you are not just another fundamentalist striving so hard to destroy christianity by turning it from a religion to an ideology!!!!
?
2010-05-06 21:13:21 UTC
In my opinion, Science has alot to do with God. Some people's theory is the world came about a big bang.. But if thats true.. There had to be something to exsist before "this big bang". I am a believer in God and I think it all connects to him. How is it possible that the stars, planets, and everything on earth came about? Some people dont wanna hear "God made the world in a week and rested on the 7th day" but I always been a believer that he exsist. I know not much on an answer but thats my POV =)
anonymous
2010-05-06 21:12:32 UTC
Yeah I don't understand why everyone thinks the two have to be mutually exclusive.



What I find funny though is how science increasingly finds God-like explanations for things that scientists simply can't explain. Contemporary science explains strange and unexplainable phenomena in the most roundabout and nonsensical terms, so severed from the reality that it seems 100 more absurd than just "God causes it."
Tristen
2010-05-06 21:22:02 UTC
The "creation" only qualifies as evidence of God. It does not qualify as proof because the same evidence can be interpreted to reach a different conclusion.



God can only ever be evidenced through science. God is a supernatural entity, which by definition, places His existence outside of the scope of natural science. Therefore, it is equally irrational for anyone to request proof, either for or against God.



Atheists like to utilize the false dichotomy between God and science in order to present themselves as scientifically superior to other beliefs. It also helps them circumvent legal requirements placed on 'religions' in some countries. Promoting the separation of science from God allows atheists to propagate their beliefs in circumstances where other beliefs are banned.
free spirit
2010-05-06 21:06:50 UTC
Scientifically, God Does Not Exist: Science Allows us to Say God Does Not Exist

There is No Role for God in Science, No Explanation that God can Provide



What does it mean to exist? What would it mean if "God exists" were a meaningful proposition? For such a proposition to mean anything at all, it would have to entail that whatever "God" is, it must have some impact on the universe. In order for us to say that there is an impact on the universe, then there must be measurable and testable events which would best or only be explained by whatever this "God" is we are hypothesizing. Believers must be able to present a model of the universe in which some god is "either required, productive, or useful."



This is obviously not the case. Many believers work hard trying to find a way to introduce their god into scientific explanations, but none have succeeded. No believer has been able to demonstrate, or even strongly suggest, that there are any events in the universe which requires some alleged "god" to explain. Instead, these constantly failing attempts end up reinforcing the impression that there is no "there" there — nothing for "gods" to do, no role for them to play, and no reason to give them a second thought. It's technically true that the constant failures don't mean that no one will ever succeed, but it's even more true that in every other situation where such failures are so consistent, we don't acknowledge any reasonable, rational, or serious reason to bother believing.
LG71
2010-05-06 21:13:58 UTC
Why do scientists need to prove that God is real. You cannot explain miracles, yet they happen. Just because you can't see something or someone doesn't mean that it or they aren't there. I believe in God. Scientists can't explain him. They came up with the big bang theory. One atom exploded and created the universe. Where did the atom coe from? The overall theory of God not existing is hipocracy in the scientific field. There are countless things we cant explain. That doesn't mean we can't believe in them or that they aren't real.
xscout9094
2010-05-06 21:16:04 UTC
Science cannot disprove god, because it is impossible to disprove a negative. You can't prove that bigfoot doesn't exist, but if it did you could prove that. In a more scientific context you cannot prove that monopoles do not exist, but if one were found and documented it would prove conclusively that they do exist.



On the subject of god. The hypothesis of a god is only feasible in those questions that science has not yet answered. Given that any good scientific theories evoke more and deeper questions; so anyone who insists on believing in god(s) will find room for him, but basically when one turns to good as an answer to scientific questions he/she has given up on finding the real answer.
Abernathy the Dull
2010-05-06 21:11:45 UTC
It depends on the God you're talking about. 99.9% of the gods out there can be disproved because they're portrayed as being part of the universe. They haven't been detected so absence of evidence is evidence of absence. However, the God of the Bible is transcendent and is portrayed as existing before and outside of the universe. So he cannot be directly detected by science.



However, he can be inferred by science. People point to the design evidence in nature and the extremely fine tuning of the universe and our planet. For example, the dark energy of the universe is so finely tuned that if it was off in one part in 10 to the 97th, no form of life could exist anywhere in the universe.



Also, the Bible makes accurate scientific statements that couldn't have been known by the writers.



Inferring intelligence is allowed in science, despite what some atheists say. Inferred intelligent acts are allowed in court from just circumstantial evidence. Archeologists dig crude stone tools out of the ground and say an intelligent mind produced them, and no one doubts it.
anonymous
2010-05-06 21:15:18 UTC
What science are you talking about? The scientific method explicitly excludes the use of supernatural explanations. God's existence (or not) is not a scientific question - you cannot ask it, study, or answer it.



And, where is your evidence for these "many people" who say that the "found" science and "left" God.



I've been an atheist since I was 13 - long before I really knew what science was; much less did I know that i would up to become one.



=====



edit --



Moral law?



Christians are over-represented in jails and prisons compared to atheists.



Atheists are over-represented in science and higher education compared to Christians.



Christians have higher rates of divorce, STD infection, teen pregnancy, and illiteracy than atheists.



>Increased religiosity is correlated with more homicide, mortality, STD infection, youth pregnancy, domestic violence, and just about every other individual and socially dysfunctional behavior you can think of.



http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html



>“Unwed pregnant teens and 20-somethings who attend or have graduated from private religious schools are more likely to obtain abortions than their peers from public schools”



http://www.livescience.com/culture/090601-religion-abortion.html



>Teen Birth Rates Higher in Highly Religious States



http://www.livescience.com/culture/090916-religion-teen-pregnancy.html
?
2010-05-06 21:40:05 UTC
Scores of distinguished scientists have carefully examined the most basic laws of nature to see if Evolution is physically possible - given enough time and opportunity. The conclusion of many is that Evolution is simply not feasible. One major problem is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.



[ 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: Physicist Lord Kelvin stated it technically as follows: "There is no natural process the only result of which is to cool a heat reservoir and do external work." In more understandable terms, this law observes the fact that the useable energy in the universe is becoming less and less. Ultimately there would be no available energy left. Stemming from this fact we find that the most probable state for any natural system is one of disorder. All natural systems degenerate when left to themselves. ]



Evolutionism claims that over billions of years everything is basically developing UPWARD, becoming more orderly and complex. However, this basic law of science (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) says the opposite. The pressure is DOWNWARD, toward simplification and disorder.



The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics describes basic principles familiar in everyday life. It is partially a universal law of decay; the ultimate cause of why everything ultimately falls apart and disintegrates over time. Material things are not eternal. Everything appears to change eventually, and chaos increases. Nothing stays as fresh as the day one buys it; clothing becomes faded, threadbare, and ultimately returns to dust. Everything ages and wears out. Even death is a manifestation of this law. The effects of the 2nd Law are all around, touching everything in the universe.



Each year, vast sums are spent to counteract the relentless effects of this law (maintenance, painting, medical bills, etc.). Ultimately, everything in nature is obedient to its unchanging laws.

It is well known that, left to themselves, chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex. Outside forces can increase order for a time (through the expenditure of relatively large amounts of energy, and through the input of design). However, such reversal cannot last forever. Once the force is released, processes return to their natural direction - greater disorder. Their energy is transformed into lower levels of availability for further work. The natural tendency of complex, ordered arrangements and systems is to become simpler and more disorderly with time.



Thus, in the long term, there is an overall downward trend throughout the universe. Ultimately, when all the energy of the cosmos has been degraded, all molecules will move randomly, and the entire universe will be cold and without order. To put it simply: In the real world, the long-term overall flow is downhill, not uphill. All experimental and physical observation appears to confirm that the Law is indeed universal, affecting all natural processes in the long run.



Naturalistic Evolutionism requires that physical laws and atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex and beneficial, ordered arrangements. Thus, over eons of time, billions of things are supposed to have developed upward, becoming more orderly and complex.



However, this basic law of science (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) reveals the exact opposite. In the long run, complex, ordered arrangements actually tend to become simpler and more disorderly with time. There is an irreversible downward trend ultimately at work throughout the universe. Evolution, with its ever increasing order and complexity, appears impossible in the natural world.



"There is no recorded experiment in the history of science that contradicts the second law or its corollaries…"

[ E.B. Stuart, B. Gal-Or, and A.J. Brainard, editors, Deductive Quantum Thermodynamics in a Critical Review of Thermodynamics (Baltimore: Mono Book Corporation, 1970), p. 78 (emphasis added). ]



"It is probably no exaggeration to claim that the laws of thermodynamics represent some of the best science we have today. While the utterances in some fields (such as astronomy) seem to change almost daily, the science of thermodynamics has been noteworthy for its stability. In many decades of careful observations, not a single departure from any of these laws has ever been noted."

[ Emmett L. Williams, editor, Thermodynamics and the Development of Order (5093 Williamsport Drive, Norcross, Georgia 30092: Creation Research Society Books, 1981), pp. 7-8.]

[ Also, see: Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, and Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (New York: Philosophical Library, 1984), pp. 113-165.]



If Evolution is true, there must be an extremely powerful force or mechanism at work in the cosmos that can steadily defeat the powerful, ultimate tendency toward “disarrangedness” brought by the 2nd Law. If such an important force or mechanism is in existence, it would seem it should be quite o
Jess H
2010-05-06 21:21:37 UTC
So...despite the fact that science has replaced supernatural explanations for phenomena thousands upon thousands of times, and natural explanations have been replaced by supernatural explanations exactly...NEVER, you still manage to find a way to decide that science shows that it must be magic?

Not understanding something, or being in awe of something, does not mean that it's magic or supernatural.
Special Sauce
2010-05-06 21:09:36 UTC
"I just don't understand how science can't prove God"



How could it though? A Universe with fundamental forces like ours does not require a God. Science would only be able to "prove" God if God decided to show up and do a bunch of God-like things like breaking all the rules of physics.
?
2010-05-06 21:11:30 UTC
The only evidence that 'proves' God's existence is anecdotal. I suspect that God exists in the same way that ESP and telepathy exists. Possible, but unproven. Some things you just have to take on faith.
neil s
2010-05-06 21:10:11 UTC
Science starts from hypothesis. No reason has been offered why one should even hypothesize a deity. Thus, both agnostics and theists are begging the question.
Green
2010-05-06 21:10:12 UTC
If you're studying science, then you should have stumbled onto the concept of an unfalsifiable claim. Just because you can assert an idea that cannot be falsified, does not mean that the idea is likely to be true.



By the way, I have a magical, invisible dragon in my closet. You cant see him because he doesn't want to be seen.
?
2010-05-06 21:09:40 UTC
The answer is in the Bible. God doesn't want us to find him because if we did we would die, that is why science is left with many questions and no answers just theories. He will not let us see him until the second coming of Jesus when the rapture happens and we all (that believe in Christ)go to Heaven. :) God bless us all.
anonymous
2010-05-08 09:24:17 UTC
Consider this

Darwin's Deadly Legacy (1 of 7)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mxXICZ9mXo



Darwin's Deadly Legacy (2 of 7

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMWGgY6wT30&feature=related



Darwin's Deadly Legacy (3 of 7)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFKbgIr6ngE&feature=related



Darwin's Deadly Legacy (4 of 7)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haDsxjsGP0A&feature=related



Darwin's Deadly Legacy (5 of 7)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmlLjs2rHpI&feature=related



Darwin's Deadly Legacy (6 of 7)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCqRcMXVC5o&feature=related



Darwin's Deadly Legacy (7 of 7)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWdA6-m4ZxQ&feature=related



❝HEROES❞ OF ATHEISM ∅ DARWIN TO HITLER

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgeVGmtMQRc





http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page
?
2010-05-06 21:11:07 UTC
Nature proves Gods existence, e.g.= water flows down hill ?
anonymous
2010-05-06 21:09:29 UTC
Good for you. Really.



I know many reasonably rational Christians who are scientists. They think a lot like you do.
anonymous
2010-05-06 21:07:45 UTC
God can't even prove himself for he resides in the spiritual realm.



Then how the crap did he turn Nile into blood?

.
mrknowitall
2010-05-06 21:12:08 UTC
there is more to this reality than meets the eye.



we dont even posses the mental ability to fathom it all.



almost anything is possible.
anonymous
2010-05-06 21:11:38 UTC
Maybe god's just super shy.
Sev N
2010-05-06 23:39:09 UTC
And christians keep asking why they get ridiculed?
Avery
2010-05-06 21:08:23 UTC
If anything science disproves "God" to the fullest.
anonymous
2010-05-06 21:06:32 UTC
Science makes gods redundant.
Patricia
2010-05-06 21:07:55 UTC
That is the thing, NO ONE CAN 'PROVE' OR DISPROVE HIM.


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