Jump to content

Disproving God using science?


Recommended Posts

YouTube video link disabled by Moderator per rule 2.7

I came across this video today. While I think the arguments are definitely irrefutable (it's hard to argue with math), do you think science can disprove God?

Edited by Phi for All
removed link to advertise YT channel
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 112
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The mods here sound like they might be theists.   LOL Or at least the mod who posted the above warning about the YouTube video disproving God. I mean, hey, I'm new here but is not deciding the val

Science can't prove or disprove God. 100% proof does not exist in science.

I find this constant harping on the Miller-Urey experiment to be frustrating, distracting and misguided. I do not refer to you specifically Rob, but to almost everyone who quotes it in fora such as th

!

Moderator Note

You've been warned about this, but did it again. We need to see a synopsis of what you're talking about, because nobody wants to invest even a few minutes on some untested, unknown YouTube nonsense. Give us a good reason to make the investment by posting some discussion points.

 

It would be helpful if you could somehow incorporate the fact that science doesn't "prove" anything. Rather it gathers evidence to either support or refute.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

YouTube video link disabled by Moderator per rule 2.7

I came across this video today. While I think the arguments are definitely irrefutable (it's hard to argue with math), do you think science can disprove God?

 

 

 

In a way the null hypothesis already does.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

Edited by dimreepr
Link to post
Share on other sites

We can't explain everything scientifically, so there is always an argument for those who believe (God did this, God did that).

 

What specifically can't we explain scientifically? And why argue for a supernatural explanation when science has done so well with the natural ones?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What specifically can't we explain scientifically? And why argue for a supernatural explanation when science has done so well with the natural ones?

We can't explain abiogenesis. We know about the evolution of life. But how life got there is still unsolved.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Miller Urey (and many experiments that came after) proves organic molecules can spontaneously (with electricity) form.

It's not about abiogenesis.

I don't think the origin of life demands something supernatural.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Miller Urey (and many experiments that came after) proves organic molecules can spontaneously (with electricity) form.

It's not about abiogenesis.

The organic molecules were formed starting with inorganic precursors, as the link mentions. How is that not abiogenesis? This experiment is normally considered the hallmark piece for a purely chemical origin of life.

 

I don't know if panspermia has this much evidence to support it, but it's also another theory that describes mechanisms that might account for our origins.

 

The point is, I was objecting when you claimed "We can't explain abiogenesis". We have some great explanations. It's up to you to decide which version has the preponderance of evidence on it's side. That's how science works.

 

I don't think the origin of life demands something supernatural.

Excellent. I was also objecting when you claimed "There is always an argument for those who believe". I don't consider the supernatural to be an argument either, so now I'm curious why you think this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Miller Urey points to the 'fact' that the origin of life does not demand anything supernatural.
Inorganic matter can create organic matter without the help of a pink unicorn. :)
I did read a couple times that the inorganic molecules in the Miller Urey did not correspond with what was present on the early earth.

Edited by Itoero
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Miller Urey points to the 'fact' that the origin of life does not demand anything supernatural.

Inorganic matter can create organic matter without the help of a pink unicorn. :)

I did read a couple times that the inorganic molecules in the Miller Urey did not correspond with what was present on the early earth.

I suppose someone could point out that the Miller Urey experiment was done in a lab. It didn't happen on its own. I am tending to your view but I'm thinking about where this place was that was just right for the experiment to be 100% natural and with no need for Unicorns. As you say there are some doubts about the conditions of the Miller Urey experiment and I've read that from time to time too but those references can be hard to find when you need them.

So if you see them again link them to a post in this thread please.

Edited by Robittybob1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it in principle possible to explain abiogenesis using science? Yes.

 

Do we have multiple high probability hypotheses that adequately explain abiogenesis? Yes.

 

Have experiments been conducted to support the viability of those hypotheses? Yes.

 

Do we require more work to be done to increase our level of certainty on this topic? Yes.

 

Is there any satisfactory reason to accept "goddidit" as the most likely and helpful explanation? No.

 

Now, back to the thread, define "god" in a way that doesn't rely on ambiguous wishy washy wish thinking and woo.

 

Until you do so in a clear, consistent, falsifiable way then you may as well be asking if science can disprove wakkernupps or befelflumps or some other invented meaningless term that means different things to different people.

 

Without a clear shared definition you're essentially talking nonsense, science has nothing to say (unless perhaps we are talking about psychology and/ sociology), and rightly so.

Edited by iNow
Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose someone could point out that the Miller Urey experiment was done in a lab. It didn't happen on its own. I am tending your view but I'm thinking about where this place was that was just right for the experiment to be 100% natural and with no need for Unicorns. As you say there are some doubts about the conditions of the Miller Urey experiment and I've read that from time to time too but those references can be hard to find when you need them.

So if you see them again link them to a post in this thread please.

I find this constant harping on the Miller-Urey experiment to be frustrating, distracting and misguided. I do not refer to you specifically Rob, but to almost everyone who quotes it in fora such as this. It is as if it was the only such experiment ever carried out and as if its results were of extreme importance to the theories of abiogenesis. Neither is the case.

 

The important thing about the Miller-Urey experiment is that it occurred. It thereby demonstrated that questions regarding the origin of life could be subject to sound scientific experiment. It opened the door to the respectable investigation of the subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose someone could point out that the Miller Urey experiment was done in a lab. It didn't happen on its own.

 

But it was intended to reproduce conditions that occur in nature, so it could have happened on its own. (Whether those particular conditions actually occurred or not is irrelevant, as both Ophiolite's and iNow's posts make clear.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find this constant harping on the Miller-Urey experiment to be frustrating, distracting and misguided. I do not refer to you specifically Rob, but to almost everyone who quotes it in fora such as this. It is as if it was the only such experiment ever carried out and as if its results were of extreme importance to the theories of abiogenesis. Neither is the case.

 

The important thing about the Miller-Urey experiment is that it occurred. It thereby demonstrated that questions regarding the origin of life could be subject to sound scientific experiment. It opened the door to the respectable investigation of the subject.

Thanks for I wasn't harping on about it at all but expressing the need to have a reference of evidence for and against for we often see statements negating the M-U experiment but when you try and find the references to the detractions they are hard to find, but if there was a library of references everyone could make a better judgement (well an opinion at the least).

 

But it was intended to reproduce conditions that occur in nature, so it could have happened on its own. (Whether those particular conditions actually occurred or not is irrelevant, as both Ophiolite's and iNow's posts make clear.)

Where did those conditions occur? Somewhere in nature? The M-U experiment may now be irrelevant because it has been superseded and the idea of a library of references would assist in keep the ill informed better informed.

Inow's post #13 had nothing to do with the ideas I expressed. I said nothing about God at all in #12.

Edited by Robittybob1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Life is the ability to maintain and to replicate a set of interdependent component parts forming a intricate whole.

So, the Miller-Urey experiment has to do with life the same as the experiment producing oil paint has to do with Da Vinci's Mona Lisa.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Life is the ability to maintain and to replicate a set of interdependent component parts forming a intricate whole.

So, the Miller-Urey experiment has to do with life the same as the experiment producing oil paint has to do with Da Vinci's Mona Lisa.

Like a precursor, a prerequisite, a necessary ingredient. Thoughts along this line? Without the paint you can't paint the picture.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like a precursor, a prerequisite, a necessary ingredient. Thoughts along this line? Without the paint you can't paint the picture.

Then the appeal to the Miller–Urey experiment in the context of this topic is beside the point. God is invoked because life is characterized by the way building blocks are organized, and not because building blocks contain carbon atom in their structure.

Edited by forex
Link to post
Share on other sites

YouTube video link disabled by Moderator per rule 2.7

I came across this video today. While I think the arguments are definitely irrefutable (it's hard to argue with math), do you think science can disprove God?

Abiogenesis? This thread is about adiogenesis, isn't it?

 

As a teenager I struggled with my family's explanation that God always existed and created the Universe. I thought, "Why couldn't the Universe always exist (without a god)? I didn't need proof, just doubt, which is sufficient..

Edited by EdEarl
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

In a way the null hypothesis already does.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

By the same token, evolution and abiogenesis are disproved also.

The null hypothesis is generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise.

The null hypothesis - "natural processes are not able to create life" has never been refuted.

The second null hypothesis - "evolutionary processes are not able to create new genes" has also never been refuted. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/90622-how-can-a-rational-person-believe-in-evolution/?p=881811

Without new genes evolution is not possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Life is the ability to maintain and to replicate a set of interdependent component parts forming a intricate whole.

So, the Miller-Urey experiment has to do with life the same as the experiment producing oil paint has to do with Da Vinci's Mona Lisa.

 

That's a poor analogy. M-U was designed to show that life was possible through chemical reactions in the early Earth environment. It had no obligations to form an intricate whole, when it had billions of years to work on it. Billions, not thousands.

By the same token, evolution and abiogenesis are disproved also.

The null hypothesis is generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise.

The null hypothesis - "natural processes are not able to create life" has never been refuted.

The second null hypothesis - "evolutionary processes are not able to create new genes" has also never been refuted. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/90622-how-can-a-rational-person-believe-in-evolution/?p=881811

Without new genes evolution is not possible.

 

Except we see it every day, so your argument fails the reality check. Evolution is a fact, and the theory of Evolution describes its mechanisms. Sorry about what that does to your beliefs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Inow's post #13 had nothing to do with the ideas I expressed. I said nothing about God at all in #12.

Just because the post immediately followed yours does not mean it was a direct response to you. I intended it as a broader point that spoke to the larger thread discussion occuring. Apologies for any confusion.

 

 

...need to have a reference of evidence for and against for we often see statements negating the M-U experiment but when you try and find the references to the detractions they are hard to find...

Maybe this will help: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html#Reducing-atm Edited by iNow
Link to post
Share on other sites

The second null hypothesis - "evolutionary processes are not able to create new genes" has also never been refuted. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/90622-how-can-a-rational-person-believe-in-evolution/?p=881811

 

 

You have conveniently 'forgotten' the evidence i gave for this on that very thread.

 

On the plus side you provide a classic case study for how the anti-science establishment debates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You have conveniently 'forgotten' the evidence i gave for this on that very thread.

 

On the plus side you provide a classic case study for how the anti-science establishment debates.

 

I'll never understand the intellectual dishonesty that let's some people "forget" evidence that doesn't support their position. I'm sure, even after this upbraiding, that forex will continue to spread the lie that makes his argument sound valid.

 

I tend to attribute anti-science sentiments to those who found some reason not to study in school. They often spend years trying to justify their mistake by claiming science is wrong, often more years and more effort than it would have taken to learn mainstream knowledge. This leads them, inevitably it seems, to the problem of not knowing what they don't know, and building conclusions on very shaky foundations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.