Jump to content

Disproving God using science?


Recommended Posts

Gods in general cannot be disproved, but a God specifically can be, for instance it is pretty obvious that the god of the holy bible as described in the Bible is false..

It depends what in the bible you consider to be true or false. Edited by Itoero
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

  • 1 month later...

Excuse me, I organized my statements (With dubious reasoning of course as it was late at night, but they still stand) using a neutral standpoint as the scientific method dictates, and clearly stated my own neutrality as once again dictated by the scientific method, I am neither for nor against because it is:

 

1 a mute point

 

2 a non-realistically debatable topic as there is not enough proof on either side to form a concluding statement for either side

 

Well stated!

 

Only when one deliberately keeps themselves neutral on the matters of God, can they reasonably contemplate on the knowledge available to them. Preconceived beliefs on the matter of God, lead to an argumentative discussion, and less a conversation on the matter. One must look at the knowledge, as the most impartial judge they can be, and be diligent in their studies.

Things I took from reading this thread:

 

Considering God, is classified by many to be anti-science. Where only fundamentalists dispute science in favor of God.

 

Those against the notion of God, always use the God hypothesis of fundamentalist, as their view of God. This is most likely due to their ignorance of the larger body of non-fundamentalist views about a God.

 

There has never been any experimental attempted to prove or disprove God, so the answer should be, we don't know and we don't care. If one does not know or care, why do they always respond?

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

 

Well stated!

 

Only when one deliberately keeps themselves neutral on the matters of God, can they reasonably contemplate on the knowledge available to them. Preconceived beliefs on the matter of God, lead to an argumentative discussion, and less a conversation on the matter. One must look at the knowledge, as the most impartial judge they can be, and be diligent in their studies.

Things I took from reading this thread:

 

Considering God, is classified by many to be anti-science. Where only fundamentalists dispute science in favor of God.

 

Those against the notion of God, always use the God hypothesis of fundamentalist, as their view of God. This is most likely due to their ignorance of the larger body of non-fundamentalist views about a God.

 

There has never been any experimental attempted to prove or disprove God, so the answer should be, we don't know and we don't care. If one does not know or care, why do they always respond?

Thank you but I'd like to state two things: I retain a neutral stance on this, but at the same time you must never rule out a possibility until it has been concretely proven that such a possibility is actually an impossibility. There is no proof, for either side of this thread because there is no verifiable evidence. That is why I recommend to all of you to remain neutral in this topic, as taking one side or another will not only reflect badly upon you, but it can lead to bigotry and even falsification of, or manipulation of factual information that supports one side or another, and among others, pseudoscience.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no proof, for either side of this thread because there is no verifiable evidence.

 

Science doesn't look for proof. It's important that you accept this.

 

We're not looking for answers here, we're looking for the best supported explanation. If we thought we had proof of something, or that we had "The Answer", we'd stop looking.

 

Theory keeps us searching for better explanations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We can't explain abiogenesis. We know about the evolution of life. But how life got there is still unsolved.

That is basically a God of the Gaps argument.

Science can't prove or disprove God.

100% proof does not exist in science.

'Proof is for lawyers, mathematicians and makers of alcohol.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Science doesn't look for proof. It's important that you accept this.

 

We're not looking for answers here, we're looking for the best supported explanation. If we thought we had proof of something, or that we had "The Answer", we'd stop looking.

 

Theory keeps us searching for better explanations.

So if I'm not mistaken you're saying proof, which is synonymous with evidence, is not something science looks for. OK then. That's a little unusual but I guess your right on that we keep searching for better explanations, I guess it's just like an old quote of Max Planck's " A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

Link to post
Share on other sites

So if I'm not mistaken you're saying proof, which is synonymous with evidence, is not something science looks for.

 

You are mistaken. Evidence doesn't equal proof. Or truth. Evidence either supports, refutes, or has no impact on an idea or explanation.

 

Proof is the wrong term to use in this context.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Evidence doesn't equal proof. Or truth. It either supports, refutes, or has no impact to an idea. Proof is the wrong term to use in this context.

Ah. My English apparently confuses things for me occasionally. Swedish is much better, Jag älskar svenska!

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 validity of worth of a members link OUR job? And indeed part of the whole debate and discussion process. Part of the scientific empirical process?

If the mods here continue to display such Jack booted thuggish mentality, with heavy- handed censoring I don't think I'm gonna last too long.

I despise censorship among consenting and educated adults in any form.

Thanks.

Oh...as far as science disproving God, I would love to see it happen and indeed think it one day may, but I also think Carl Sagan with his parable of the Invisible Dragon in My Garage showed us all how difficult it is to disprove even the most absurd claims.

 

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Dragon_in_My_Garage

Edited by Velocity_Boy
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 validity of worth of a members link OUR job? And indeed part of the whole debate and discussion process. Part of the scientific empirical process?

 

If the mods here continue to display such Jack booted thuggish mentality, with heavy- handed censoring I don't think I'm gonna last too long.

 

I despise censorship among consenting and educated adults in any form.

 

Thanks.

 

Oh...as far as science disproving God, I would love to see it happen and indeed think it one day may, but I also think Carl Sagan with his parable of the Invisible Dragon in My Garage showed us all how difficult it is to disprove even the most absurd claims.

 

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Dragon_in_My_Garage

You're really asking for Phi or Swansont to swing the almighty ban hammer aren't you....... Censorship has a purpose, that is to protect the innocence of people who should not know about gruesome and explicit things, such as children. It also preserves the power of a word such as @$%@ or @&*! that you claim to be so fond of using. I think it's time that no matter how old you are, you do a bit of growing up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 validity of worth of a members link OUR job? And indeed part of the whole debate and discussion process. Part of the scientific empirical process?

 

If the mods here continue to display such Jack booted thuggish mentality, with heavy- handed censoring I don't think I'm gonna last too long.

 

I despise censorship among consenting and educated adults in any form.

 

The site owner has Mods to enforce rules. One of them is that we're not here to promote people's yootoob channels. They probably also don't like members luring other members away to other sites to do who knows what. Most here don't want advertising, and so we ask for a written synopsis so people don't have to watch a video.

 

But thanks for jumping to jackbooted conclusions, Velocity_Boy. We despise people who don't read the rules but accuse us of censorship. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

As indicated in another post, I am new so please bear with me. Reading this thread I am reminded of this very relevant sticky: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/66260-defining-god/ and an earlier post in this thread by iNow (#13) that both raised the question i.t.o. this topic as to exactly which god was referred to. I am of the opinion that most popular folklore deities can indeed be debunked. "Disproving" them in the real sense of the word, or scientifically speaking, may therefore be entirely irrelevant.

 

The irony of religious people questioning evolution is also not lost on me. There exists a very convincing argument that states that religion (or superstition) was an unintended by-product of evolution. Robert Wright explained it very eloquently in his book "The Evolution Of God" as summarised here.

Edited by Memammal
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am of the opinion that most popular folklore deities can indeed be debunked. "Disproving" them in the real sense of the word, or scientifically speaking, may therefore be entirely irrelevant.

 

 

No scientist could honestly agree with that.

 

 

The irony of religious people questioning evolution is also not lost on me. There exists a very convincing argument that states that religion (or superstition) was an unintended by-product of evolution. Robert Wright explained it very eloquently in his book "The Evolution Of God" as summarised here.

 

 

 

No doubt religions are “an unintended by-product of evolution” but just because religions are out of date and easily picked apart logically, that shouldn’t be a reason to dismiss them out of hand; try reading the texts of various religions, from the POV that what’s written was intended to provide a peaceful and contented society; there’s much to learn with an open mind.

Edited by dimreepr
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am of the opinion that most popular folklore deities can indeed be debunked. "Disproving" them in the real sense of the word, or scientifically speaking, may therefore be entirely irrelevant.

 

The things claimed in a deity's name can be examined scientifically for a natural explanation, but an unobservable deity can't be. As soon as it's claimed that a deity exists but can't be directly observed, science is no longer the tool to use to debunk it. If we can't observe it, or support its existence through natural mechanisms, then it's supernatural, and science has to shrug and say, "We don't know".

Link to post
Share on other sites

No scientist could honestly agree with that.

With what? Would science attempt to prove or disprove anything outside the natural realm?

 

PS. I agree with the last post above ^... I did not mean to imply that science per se should be the tool to debunk said deities.

 

 

No doubt religions are “an unintended by-product of evolution” but just because religions are out of date and easily picked apart logically, but that shouldn’t be a reason to dismiss them out of hand; try reading the texts of various religions, from the POV that what’s written was intended to provide a peaceful and contented society; there’s much to learn with an open mind.

I agree that parts of various religious texts (or oral lore) did intend to organise their society's behaviour (like the Code of Hammurabi). That has nothing to do with the origin of what started out as primitive superstitions and over time developed into organised religions though. It also does not imply that religion was a prerequisite for morality or ethics, if that is what you were suggesting. There are examples of ancient ethical codes dating back before the dawn of religions (http://genealogyreligion.net/the-earliest-moral-ethical-laws-were-not-religious). Today there are many peaceful and contended secular societies.

 

A more interesting angle to the idea that superstition (more specifically spirituality) was a by-product of evolution is the suggestion that on a psychological level our species has the urge (for lack of a better term) to be spiritual. The specifics of the "god" is less relevant, the need to believe in something, or to be spiritual, however, appears to be deeply rooted.

Edited by Memammal
Link to post
Share on other sites

With what? Would science attempt to prove or disprove anything outside the natural realm?

 

PS. I agree with the last post above ^... I did not mean to imply that science per se should be the tool to debunk said deities.

 

 

I agree that parts of various religious texts (or oral lore) did intend to organise their society's behaviour (like the Code of Hammurabi). That has nothing to do with the origin of what started out as primitive superstitions and over time developed into organised religions though. It also does not imply that religion was a prerequisite for morality or ethics, if that is what you were suggesting. There are examples of ancient ethical codes dating back before the dawn of religions (http://genealogyreligion.net/the-earliest-moral-ethical-laws-were-not-religious). Today there are many peaceful and contended secular societies.

 

A more interesting angle to the idea that superstition (more specifically spirituality) was a by-product of evolution is the suggestion that on a psychological level our species has the urge (for lack of a better term) to be spiritual. The specifics of the "god" is less relevant, the need to believe in something, or to be spiritual, however, appears to be deeply rooted.

 

 

 

They started out as primitive superstitions, at the tribal level (a god of trees is very useful for a tribe that depends on trees) but as the tribes got bigger and more sophisticated there comes a separation point; a point where a complex society creates more, and more, dependences/gods, each with an IRQ and that just creates even more complexity, so religions flipped to a one god system; that may seem like a natural evolution, until one adds the wildcard that is ‘enlightenment’ and the general timing of the flips.

 

Edit/ Hinduism is the perfect example...

With what? Would science attempt to prove or disprove anything outside the natural realm?

 

PS. I agree with the last post above ^... I did not mean to imply that science per se should be the tool to debunk said deities.

 

 

So why the question?

Edited by dimreepr
Link to post
Share on other sites

So why the question?

Sorry... I first responded to your quoted part and only then noticed Phi for All's post. My agreement was with his post in its entirety. My original post should be read within the context of the references that I made therein to the sticky and an earlier post by iNow. What I meant to imply was that if we know which god was being referred to in stating the original question under discussion, it would likely be possible to debunk it via other means than through a specifically targeted scientific process. For example, if it is believed that the Bible is the word of the Christian God, it will be possible to point out certain vital shortcomings in this proposed divine word by virtue of the knowledge that we have since acquired. It is therefore possible to refute said deity indirectly by means of questioning the historical claims put forward by his/their followers' religion or their religious scripts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry... I first responded to your quoted part and only then noticed Phi for All's post. My agreement was with his post in its entirety. My original post should be read within the context of the references that I made therein to the sticky and an earlier post by iNow. What I meant to imply was that if we know which god was being referred to in stating the original question under discussion, it would likely be possible to debunk it via other means than through a specifically targeted scientific process. For example, if it is believed that the Bible is the word of the Christian God, it will be possible to point out certain vital shortcomings in this proposed divine word by virtue of the knowledge that we have since acquired. It is therefore possible to refute said deity indirectly by means of questioning the historical claims put forward by his/their followers' religion or their religious scripts.

 

 

 

That's a rather dishonest apology.

 

Now try addressing my main point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it was not dishonest; just a mishap. I reacted to your post and while posting it the other one came along. I edited mine with a PS and a reference ^ to the post above mine. Hope it clears it up.

 

 

They started out as primitive superstitions, at the tribal level (a god of trees is very useful for a tribe that depends on trees) but as the tribes got bigger and more sophisticated there comes a separation point; a point where a complex society creates more, and more, dependences/gods, each with an IRQ and that just creates even more complexity, so religions flipped to a one god system; that may seem like a natural evolution, until one adds the wildcard that is ‘enlightenment’ and the general timing of the flips.

I am in full agreement that certain cultural paradigm shifts had profound influences on the gene/environment interplay and as such also on the way our forefathers perceived these matters. The example of the era of enlightenment is very relevant. Descendants of pre-enlightenment generations (those that were never exposed to that paradigm shift) seem to find it much harder to adapt, or change. A lot of them got stuck; not through their own unwillingness or blissful ignorance, but by virtue of their inherited gene/environment make-up.

 

As for the transition to monotheism, that is dealt with- and explained in the book that I previously referenced (The Evolution Of God). I don't really want to expand on that too much at this point in time as I don't consider it to be implicitly relevant to the topic. Maybe a discussion for another day..?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it was not dishonest; just a mishap. I reacted to your post and while posting it the other one came along. I edited mine with a PS and a reference ^ to the post above mine. Hope it clears it up.

 

As for the transition to monotheism, that is dealt with- and explained in the book that I previously referenced (The Evolution Of God). I don't really want to expand on that too much at this point in time as I don't consider it to be implicitly relevant to the topic. Maybe a discussion for another day..?

 

 

Another mishap?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sarcasm..? How will that help in furthering this discussion? Kindly be more specific with where you were heading with your argument in order for me to respond to it in an appropriate manner. You previously wrote anything that was meaningful here:

They started out as primitive superstitions, at the tribal level (a god of trees is very useful for a tribe that depends on trees) but as the tribes got bigger and more sophisticated there comes a separation point; a point where a complex society creates more, and more, dependences/gods, each with an IRQ and that just creates even more complexity, so religions flipped to a one god system; that may seem like a natural evolution, until one adds the wildcard that is ‘enlightenment’ and the general timing of the flips.

Hinduism is the perfect example...

I dealt with the era of enlightenment. In that respect I referred to what is defined as: "The Age of Enlightenment (or simply the Enlightenment or Age of Reason) was a cultural movement of intellectuals beginning in late 17th-century Western Europe emphasizing reason and individualism rather than tradition. It spread across Europe and to the United States, continuing to the end of the 18th century." What exactly is the point that you were trying to make with "religions flipped to a one god system" in relation to said enlightenment and your reference to "the general timing of the flips"? I don't follow, so I can't react to that specific part other that to perceive the first-mentioned as the transition to monotheism. I.m.o there was nothing extraordinary about the last-mentioned transition, it was just another and supposedly more meaningful way of cultural tribes (re)packaging their deity. Is this the point that you would like to debate? Are you implying that the topic under discussion deals with a specific monotheistic religion and therefore a specific god?

Edited by Memammal
Link to post
Share on other sites

A more interesting angle to the idea that superstition (more specifically spirituality) was a by-product of evolution is the suggestion that on a psychological level our species has the urge (for lack of a better term) to be spiritual. The specifics of the "god" is less relevant, the need to believe in something, or to be spiritual, however, appears to be deeply rooted.

 

I believe it has more to do with the selection of story telling as a beneficial trait helping us to prepare for potential future interactions with the world, of surviving more robustly by listening to parents and tribal elders and this tendency of idolizing paternal figures logically extending to some amorphous "ultimate" or "first" parent that we now call god, and also with comforting ourselves emotionally with explanations that assist us in escaping the anxiety of uncertainty... prioritizing the simple over the accurate. An invalid explanation was better than none at all and these stories spread verbally through song over camp fires. Those who were by the fire and who sang with the pack survived and reproduced far more frequently than those who did not. Edited by iNow
Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ Solid explanation.

 

 

Another mishap?

Mmm... I am starting to wonder if you were not implying (all along) that this part of religious transformation (towards monotheism) was the unfortunate (or unnatural) part thereof, i.e. the notion that monotheism has ended up being a toxic brand of religion..?

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.