How does science prove God?

Pretty sure it doesn’t.

A lot of things prove god to be real to some individuals.
But it just so happens that no science (to date) proves god unanimously to all observers.

Science does not prove things, but supports it’s findings with evidence.

There is no evidence for any gods ever.

Where does the poster state that science proves God? I don’t see it.

A few actual scientists’ positions:

So you’re made of detritus [from exploded stars]. Get over it. Or better yet, celebrate it. After all, what nobler thought can one cherish than that the universe lives within us all? – Neil deGrasse Tyson

It is impossible to answer your question briefly; and I am not sure that I could do so, even if I wrote at some length. But I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God; but whether this is an argument of real value, I have never been able to decide. – Charles Darwin when asked about his belief in god

Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive. – Albert Einstein

God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand. – Richard Feynman

I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science. – Wernher Von Braun i am an atheist and i love this one

What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn’t prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary. – Stephen Hawking

@dxs: This statement appears in the middle of the paragraph that @Rarebear cites.

I am not against science, a lot of science prove God, (sorry I had to mention that name that is so REPUGNANT, to you.)

It does not.
Au contraire, it has disproven many claims surrounding god.

@gailcalled Oh I see it! Thanks. I was looking at Dutchess_III’s response. That’s the one that looked like it was linked.

@Blondesjon I always have liked Feynman’s quote.

Science is the alternative to mysticism. God and science do not really mix.
I am sure that some scientists have sort of tried to integrate their objective science with mystical subjectivism, but I bet they were only trying to keep their jobs.

The existence of God has no real world consequences that anyone can point to. There is, quite literally, nothing to prove, or to disprove for that matter.

Seems to me that it would be a very bad idea to use Science to definitively prove the existence of a God who insists He will eternally torture everyone in hell fire who doesn’t accept his existence based on faith alone.

@ETpro

Why didn’t I think of that?

Proof needs agreement to be acceptable.
Science is establish through through disagreement and is always inconclusive.
God is absolute…

Man alone requires proof not science nor god
men is argumentative.

The problems lies with man…not God nor science.

So in the end to some nothing can ever prove God.
To others everything and anything is proof of God.

Science does not prove god, I wish it could provide a cure for theology though.

Science doesn’t prove anything. And if it did, and proved God existed, I’m pretty sure we’d all know it by now.

@ETpro

Excellent point.

@ETpro Doesn’t the devil torture one in hellfire for eternity and God give a choice?

I never understood the concept of “proving God”, especially if we’re talking about the Abrahamic God. If God were proven, wouldn’t that negate the purpose of faith? So then why pursue “proof of God”?

I have no idea what the original quote was, but I will say it here, as I stated in ETPro’s Q on Quantum Physics, and nobody called me out as making stuff up. I wonder how the same answer will be received on a religious question.

There is no History without observation All of our best theories imply a future singular observer.. Which implies an ultimate, Godlike observer. So, science kinda implies a god.

I will now wait to hear how people who agreed with me when I was not talking about religion will find my science lacking.

@LornaLove You may subscribe to whatever theology you wish. Many people claim to be this or that faith, but actually follow a belief system entirely of their own invention. But the Abrahamic God makes some very grandiose claims in the Torah and the New Testament. According to various claims found there, He is all-powerful, all-knowing and nothing happens unless he ordains it. It’s pretty hard to find our free will in there, but He also says we have that even though he set the course for everything before the world began and knows how it will all come out. And it also claims that God (if you are Jewish or Muslim) or Jesus (If you are Christian) will judge us all and condemn to torture in Hell all who had previously failed to accept the divinity of Jesus. That would be almost all humans ever born. Oh, and it also says God is Love.

@Imadethisupwithnoforethought I didn’t reply to it because I now try to avoid picking fights on my own threads. They often derail the discussion. And frankly, I had no idea what you were trying to say.

@ETpro Nope. I am not picking a fight now. I stated what was an obvious interpretation. You had no problem with my understanding of physics versus yours. Until I mentioned that it implied an ultimate observer. Which you have decided, for religious reasons, to reject.

It doesn’t (imo), which is why it requires ‘faith’.

“Whomsoever believeth in me shall not perish, but have everlasting life.”-Jesus

P. T. Barnum made a great deal of money based on faith.

In my opinion science hasn’t proved nor disproved ‘God’. I post on other sites where many intelligent theists of the nonreligious variety debate these issues quite frequently. I think the real argument (at least from theists that I know) goes something like what a John Lennox would argue: that it appears there’s more evidence for an intelligent structure to the ‘design’ of the universe then there is for the existence of a near infinite amount of universes each with their own unique laws of physics.

Nontheists will claim that theists try to put another unknown in place of another as an answer. However, some theists will claim that nontheists are doing the same thing since there’s virtually no evidence for multiple universes or cosmic strings. Obviously the current null hypothesis sides with nontheists, but it’s still a hypothesis nonetheless.

I can’t speak for the user who made the statement that prompted this question, but the few theists that I’m familiar with from other sites usually don’t make such bold claims. In some ways it seems that theists in my camp may be more agnostic than anything else. Personally I find it irrelevant to argue for a transcendental god’s existence, though some theists might accuse me of using a strawman there.

I do know one thing though, that if this god only accepts believers into heaven and tortures nonbelievers by default that I would hope atheists are right. In fact I would never even worship such a god even if it was proven to exist. I don’t find anything exciting about the latter scenerio being potentially true. Who knows what people will be debating several hundred years from now, as science always changes paradigms, along with acquiring different mindsets from generation to generation.

Science does not prove or disprove God.

^Ironically this verse just landed before my eyes..

Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God? But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows.
~Luke 12:6–7

@Imadethisupwithnoforethought I can’t engage you in a serious debate about your claim because it is unclear to me what it is founded on. I don’t get it. That goes for both threads. It makes no difference whether we are discussing physics or theology. Sorry, but I cannot debate things that are incomprehensible to me.

Paradox. Awesome answer thanks.

@Imadethisupwithnoforethought

” There is no History without observation All of our best theories imply a future singular observer.. Which implies an ultimate, Godlike observer. So, science kinda implies a god ”

At least a false syllogism. No history without observation?!? Perhaps NO RECORDED history.

@Neodarwinian Yes, and what left me confused about the whole statement is that there was no history before 5000 years ago. With the universe beginning 13.72 billion years ago, that means there was no history for the first 13,719,995,000 years. And as the Universe approaches heat death, there will be a much longer period where, again, there is no history.

@Neodarwinian I do not know you, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt, that you misunderstood my statement. Based on Quantum Theory, there is, in fact, no history without observation. Your point about recorded or not, makes zero difference.

@ETpro Is trying to tell me he believes in quantum physics, that an observer can change the past, but he knows for very certain that no final observer exists.

@Imadethisupwithnoforethought I said nothing of the kind. I am truly confused about what you are getting at. Please explain in clear detail what you mean. I’ll do my best to deal with it. I have no particular belief system I feel a need to defend.

@ETpro Maybe I misunderstood. Reading your final response, I took you to mean that in the period approaching heat death, there are no witnesses. I am under the impression that in many credible analysis of Quantum Theory, that is the only witness who matters.

@Imadethisupwithnoforethought It is my understanding that what goes on at the quantum level goes on just fine with no witness required. Observing a particular particle’s spin collapses its waveform and let’s us then write into a history whether it happened to be spin up or down at the moment of observation. But the quantum particle feels no “need” to be observed and have its spin noted in a history. The Universe can proceed just fine with no observer. In fact, observers interfere with its waveform progression.

http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1240:_Quantum_Mechanics

Good grief! The relevant question is not whether God exists. Before we ask that, we have to ask what difference if makes whether or not there is a God. What does anyone do differently based on their belief in God? I have asked this a number of times and have yet to receive a decent answer. Belief in God has no consequences, making it inconsequential. Things that are inconsequential are not worth bothering with. The problem of the idea of God is not that it is wrong, but that it has no meaning.

Here’s a good question for science, why are we “programmed” for the lack of a better word to always need a leader of some sort. If this is not a God, it is a boss, it is most definitely the government, kings or prince’s that we may look up to.

This was nicely stated in the movie The Master in this quote:

If you figure a way to live without serving a master, any master, then let the rest of us know, will you? For you’d be the first person in the history of the world.
~Lancaster Dodd,

Same reason wolves do.
Basic group hierarchy.

@KaY_Jelly Here is a strange story of a family of 5 that lived alone and unknown in the remote reaches of the harsh Siberian taiga. They never knew WWII happened. You have to read most of the way through to discover that after a Russian geology expedition discovered them in 1978, all but one daughter died off in rather rapid succession. They all refused medical assistance due to their Old Believer religious prohibitions. The one surviving daughter, Agafia, lived on another 20 years completely alone in the family hovel.

@madethisupwithnoforethought

No, I did not misunderstand you and I will not give YOU the benefit of the doubt.

Do you know Deepak Chopra? Because your point is nonsense. ” I am under the impression that in many credible analysis of Quantum Theory, that is the only witness who matters.”

Chopra thinks this to and he is dead wrong.

That ” believe in ” phrase rather gives you game away so we are through here.

Is this site filled with these type people also?!?!?

Well group hierarchy is not really what I mean, I suppose that is one idea but not what I was talking about.

Oh heck let’s go for that idea and let’s tell most people that is what their domesticated dog has when it has an “attitude” towards us in our homes and our lives and we can maybe call that the “dominance theory”, or we can just use a nicer word and call it “leadership”.

But there seems to be a group of —humans—that prefers to think of domesticated dogs as human children so when we investigate these ideas more closely we get different stories and ideas of how hierarchy/dominance theory/leadership should be applied.

So then we can talk about this and how it seems according to this article that science or Ian Dunbar,—I don’t know who is taking the credit,— has decided that domestic dogs indeed do not follow a wolves dominant/submissive hierarchy approach but more of a human positive reinforcement style of psycology.  o_O

What can I say?  That’s not the argument.  But no matter what, we all have “rules” to follow even living in the middle of nowhere, the point being is that in the middle of nowhere the rules that may be applied there are different than in this modern society such as no tv, no internet, but we always seek some sort of shelter to call home sweet home, even if it is built from dung in the middle of nowhere, where we can play by our own rules if we do not want to live by modern rules, if there is more than one person then there usually are rules.

If there is just one person well then you might as well be stuck on an island with Wilson

So what we have here is a failure to communicate.
:-C

What I am really talking about is the fact that no matter how we apply the rules, they have to be applied.

If a lightening storm comes what do you do?  Well you don’t stay out in it, that’s for sure.

So we need all these rules for a reason.  We need leadership and we need people to follow rules and I guess that’s what I am saying.

Say for example one ”morning” we all wake up;

24—But in those days, after that tribulation, THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT,— 
25 AND THE STARS WILL BE FALLING from heaven, and the powers that are in the heavens will be shaken.

~Mark 13:24–25

and the above quote happens, well then that would be against the rules that you know to be true but according to the bible that would be the second coming and according to science maybe some are just fubar or just some mighty fine margarita chillers.

Humans do not have the answer whether God actually exists or not, until then just pick what you believe is the best depiction for you based on the evidence or “lack there of” perhaps some will say.

@Neodarwinian I am sorry. I know who Deepak Chopra is. I thought we were discussing how science might prove religion. You seem to be saying that one of the “Top Five Outstanding Speakers” award winners from Toastmasters International is a deep thinker whom I should grant deference to.

@ETpro But there are observers. And source.

@KaY_Jelly Thanks for the longest single tautology I have recently read.

@Imadethisupwithnoforethought There are observers now. On what authority to you assert that there were observers at the moment of the Big Bang? I need to see some proof for such a extraordinary claim before I accept it.

Everything we know has a source, but I would caution that the set of things that we do not yet know is a whole lot larger than the set of things we do know. And; despite the plethora of conflicting claims that it was Yahweh, the Trinity, Allah, Brahma, Mbombo, Unkulunkulu or any of the thousands of other gods man has claimed to be the one true creator; one of the things none of us really know is what caused the Big Bang.

^lol I just read that. I actually was drinking margaritas when I wrote that…it’s a case of drunken fluthering shall we say. Lmao! I literally had booze on the brain. o_O

Yes sometimes I fluther too much and I know I’ve been a jelly watch too long when… and yes o_O I already answered that question.
;-)

@ETpro I do not suggest observers at the Big Bang. As I said, history fills in by observation, and you did not seem to argue.

I suggest a final observer, which would collapse all of our quantum histories into a coherent whole. That seems a lot like God to me, and would explain a lot of the behavior of quantum mechanics.

@KaY_Jelly Been there. Done that. I sure can’t cast the first stone.

@Imadethisupwithnoforethought As I have said several times before, I decided to let your comment stand unchallenged in the thread on quantum mechanics because it did not make sense to me and it did not seem to advance the topic of discussion. Please give up the false claim that saying nothing is tacit agreement. It is not.

I see no indication that history fills in. It is written. It can only be written by an observer who knows how to write. That’s the very definition of history.

You can suggest a final observer, or an initial one, or one that’s eternal and has been observing all along. Fine. What evidence can you provide to support that suggestion? What can you predict and then test that could only be true if that suggestion is accurate?

Sometimes spell-check can make a person look drunk too. :/ watch supposed to be wayyy.

@KaY_Jelly No can find with Google. Link please.

It can’t. Science can’t even prove science. You can’t use scientific method to show that scientific method is correct. You can’t use math to prove or disprove every mathematical statement. What you can prove is that there are inherent limitations in all of these formal systems.

The rub is, as you can see here, people will only accept facts they choose to believe in or one that smacks them in the face so hard they cannot refute it. Many things in science cannot be proven but because so many chose to believe in what they see, or think they see, they coin it a truth and certainty. If one looked careful enough they would see God all through creation. Sadly, much of what some observe they want to refute even though there is no way to prove otherwise, they chose to simply chalk it up to ’unknown”. Why is the Pacific not at the same level as the Atlantic? I am sure scientist have their theory about how it happens which they can’t really prove or if they could they could recreate it anywhere. According to physics, liquids have no choice but to seek its own level, yet in this case those levels are not level. It would be as if I placed a canal around my property and had the water level in the front be higher than that of the back when they are all connected. Each time you see clouds, in essence it is 100s if not thousands of gallons of flying water, regardless of the state, it comes back as water, not only that, if it evaporated as bad water unless there is something airborne to contaminate the rain, it comes down fresh. If it were a simple mechanical process, if I were able to fill Lake Tahoe with root beer, some should evaporate, condense in the sky and come back as root beer rain. It would not, though, seems only water can do that. Everything that has wings, be it insect, or animal unless it lost its ability to fly, flies, the four membrane wings of a dragonfly, the flesh wings of a bat, any feather wings of many birds, the bee-like wing movements of a hummingbird, etc. People say it was trial and error of nature as if it were something that could experiment until it got it right. If it were simply whatever going through trial and error, why is there not 30–50% of winged creatures that have wings that doesn’t do anything, that doesn’t fly? Science is good to show how God did what He did. It comes down to what sort of clues you care to accept.