No proof in Science to prove or disprove God.

[Excubis]

Seems to me that there is a perplexing ideal by atheist that science proves no God and theist saying it proves there is.

My stand point is neither, there is no proof of god nor any disproof as well within a scientific field of study. An unknown is not proof if it was known that would be proof and undeniable. Although as an atheist I accept I cannot disprove God but take a hard stance to those who say these unknowns are proof. I continually see quotes posted from scientist that believe in God so therefore this position must be true. No unknowns are a matter of opinion and personal belief not certainty, and is not scientific at all.

Science is not to prove or disprove god only the workings of the natural world and you either see it as the hand of god or you do not, both are based on personal ideals. It is very true more Nobel laureates were indeed believers yet in the papers published of research that won them the Nobel prize the paper/research did not mention god, only the science. An individual here told me "I do not care what they believe only what they can prove." Well both believers and non believers leave their own beliefs out of scientific studies so in turn I say the same. I do not care what they believe only what they can prove. Yet that is why I am willing to accept a theist work when peer reviewed and substantiated but not their beliefs. I choose to form my own opinion on my view and accept this as my beliefs and do not need to substantiate them through science but will engage in debate on the reasons for my logic and attempt to engage others into the reason for there logic.

So question is do you see science proving either by current scientific proof?

[Divine Insight]

So question is do you see science proving either by current scientific proof?

You need to first define the term "God". It's impossible to prove or disprove an undefined term.

Only after you are willing to define what you mean by your term "God" can anything be said about it.

Also, science itself is widely misunderstood. Science too can mean different things to different people. For example, some people reduce science to "physics" as being the foundational of all scientific research. This comes from the fact that science requires "observation" of phenomenon. However, other people define science solely by appealing to the "Scientific Method of Inquiry". In which case observations may be more abstract. Such as in the physiological sciences in studying human "behaviors".

Once we allow behavior to qualify as something objective that we can observe, then if you explain your God's behavior we can say things about your God based upon your God's behavior.

Science also uses both logic and mathematics as a foundational basis. Neither logic nor mathematics requires anything to be "physically real". Therefore if we can apply logic or Mathematical reasoning to your God, then we can claim to be using the "Scientific Method of Inquiry" to draw conclusions about your God.

So before we can say anything about the "God" in question we must know something about the God so that we can apply logical reasoning to these observations.

In the case of the Biblical God there is plenty of information of what this God must be like, both in character and behavior. There are also rumors about physical miracles that this God has supposedly performed, and curses he has cast on various humans.

Many people argue that the physical miracles described in the Bible are impossible by the laws of physics. Also, stories such as the Great Flood can be scientifically proven to have never occurred (at least not unless we allow that this God covered the evidence after the fact).

As far as I'm concerned there is no need to even appeal to the physical sciences to dismiss the Biblical God. Logic alone is all that it required. The Biblical tales of this God are extremely self-contradictory and self-destructive. Therefore these tales disprove their very own God. No science require. Simple logic will suffice.

So that's a specific God that we can indeed disprove.

However, to disprove a generic undefined abstract God concept would be impossible. We need to at least know something about the God before we can say anything about it. And there are picture of God that cannot be disproved. Most of those come from Eastern Mystical religions.

So there do exist some pictures of God that are impossible to disprove. But the Biblical God is not among them. The Biblical God is disproved by the Bible itself.

So you really need to define what you mean by the term "God" before this question can even be addressed.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 1 by Excubis]

I can't think of any of the defined gods that could be proved to exist by science. Science does a nice job of declaring certain gods to be very unlikely, but usually the believer relies upon some excuse of non-detectability or "mysterious-ways-working" to resolve that cognitive dissonance.

[JoeyKnothead]

Kinda tangentially related, but the deal that science can't prove God doesn't exist should not be held to claim he does.

[Ancient of Years]

Kinda tangentially related, but the deal that science can't prove God doesn't exist should not be held to claim he does.

Actually right on the mark.

When a hypothesis is strongly confirmed by evidence (science does not use the word proof) and survives real attempts to falsify it, the hypothesis then becomes a Theory with a capital T. If an attempt to confirm hypothesis X does not succeed, it may still be possible to confirm it later with better data. But if the evidence appears to run counter to X, it does NOT confirm not-X. It is necessary to set up not-X as a hypothesis and provide evidence to support it and attempts to falsify it.

EDIT: I accidentally left out the part that X would have to give a better account of the evidence than competing hypotheses to become a Theory.

[Excubis]

Well you cannot define "God" since belief is personal, and therefore the definition is subjective to the individual. Yes the word "God" as to Websters means:
capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as
a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2
: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3
: a person or thing of supreme value
4
: a powerful ruler

I will also add yes science does use the word "PROOF" depends of field of study and tense. Although not found in nomenclature specific to the methodology, it is used widely. Many words can be used in the observation period in the method does not always mean just to observer, it also can mean research, experiment, and proof(math). There is a broad range of linguistics applied to field of study, not a narrow one. It is unfortunate so many get stuck of specificity without context.

[Divine Insight]

I will also add yes science does use the word "PROOF" depends of field of study and tense.

I agree, even though many scientists shy away from using this term.

Science fully embraces mathematics. It not only embraces mathematics but it openly endorses the idea that physical phenomenon can be quantified. In fact, quantifying physical phenomenon is often at the very heart of scientific experimentation.

Therefore, because in mathematics quantitative "proofs" are not only possible, but are also widely accepted as being "valid proofs", science too uses this type of "proof" to make physical statements about the world.

In science it is routinely accepted that it has been "proven" that no massive objects can travel faster than the speed of light. This "proof" is a mathematical proof that came about because Einstein was able to make quantitative statements about the speed of massive objects through the fabric of spacetime.

So these things have mathematical "proofs" behind them.

For scientists to say that these are not "proofs" seems counter-productive to the obvious marriage relationship that science has with mathematics. It's almost like being in denial of their "marriage vows".

Science and mathematics are indeed deeply married. In fact, if they were to go through a divorce that would be a serious blow to science itself.

So if things can be proven in mathematics, then they can be proven in science as well.

[Excubis]

[Replying to post 7 by Divine Insight]

Yes they prefer to use the word evidence as term to substantiate a hypo. into theory. I would concede on this aspect. Yet this too is field specific, since evidence can be interpretive and not necessarily empirical, unless subjected to experiment or correct predictions. So empirical data, that which has been confirmed by experiment repeatedly can be and is thought of as proof. Since theory is term defined by evidence not proof it is therefore not used. Like so many General Relativity is no longer a theory despite some claims made, so therefore there is proof not just evidence. Although not widely accepted by general public general relativity is a law and the theory is Special Relativity not General Relativity any longer. Just adding that since GR is thrown around as theory it is not, it is a law of modern physics same as QM. Just as no one says DNA is a theory because we have proof, by empirical means.

[Divine Insight]

I agree that GR and QM are both "laws" of modern physics. In fact, they are often referred to as the "Pillars" of Modern Physics.

They predictions of these theories have been confirmed. They are no longer questioned in terms of many of their predictions. The only questions that truly remain are questions of "completeness".

Just as Classical Newtonian physics was never actually "wrong", GR and QM are not imagined to be "wrong" either. Instead, very much like Classical Physics, they are simply seen as being incomplete and in need of further modifications and refinements.

They may even take radical turns, just like Classical Physics did. Both GR and QM are radically different worldviews from Classical physics. And in a sense we could say that Classical Physics was indeed "wrong" as a complete picture of reality. But the fact still remains that it's not wrong within a certain domain of applicability.

I'm pretty sure that scientists feel the same way about GR and QM. I certainly do. They may indeed be replaced by further enhanced theories that make radically new discoveries. Changing our worldview even more radically. None the less, GR and QM will remain viable within their domains of applicability. And int his sense then will never be thought of as having been seriously "wrong", just as Classical physics isn't seen as "seriously wrong". It was just seriously incomplete.

Both GR and QM are also currently "seriously incomplete".

Although if Neil's Bohr and Werner Heisenberg have their way, QM will forever remain incomplete. It has already made the prediction that it cannot be made complete. This leave GR open to modifications to become compatible with QM. And that's what all modern physicists are working toward.

Everyone is working toward a theory of "Quantum Gravity".

No one is even remotely considering a "Quantum Continuum" (which would clearly be an oxymoron)

So the current belief in the scientific community is that QM is basically right, and GR is what needs to be modified.

I actually know the answer to this riddle but I'm too lazy to write a book on it.

[Enoch2021]

An individual here told me "I do not care what they believe only what they can prove."

My ears were ringing

Well both believers and non believers leave their own beliefs out of scientific studies so in turn I say the same.

You'd like to think so but it's just not the case...

‘Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective “scientific method�, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology.
Stephen Jay Gould, 1994, Natural History103(2):14.

Yet that is why I am willing to accept a theist work when peer reviewed and substantiated but not their beliefs.

Peer-Reviewed? As long as it's not "Peer Pressure". The system is RIPE for corruption (which has been documented), depending on who the "Gate Keepers" are. This is also a Procedural rather than Substantive Argument. The Only aspects that should be reviewed are the Conclusions and Study Methods and Design (because if you had any experience in reviewing them, you know that there's a healthy chunk that are tear jerkin belly laughers).

You need to first define the term "God"

CREATOR of The Universe.
(John 1:3) "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."
(Colossians 1:17) "And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." (Held Together). HE is the Alpha and The Omega...The Beginning and The End. The KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS; He's Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent.....The Almighty GOD!!

Logic alone is all that it required. The Biblical tales of this God are extremely self-contradictory and self-destructive.

Baloney. Sweeping Baseless "contrived" Assertions (Fallacy). For Instance...?

This comes from the fact that science requires "observation" of phenomenon. However, other people define science solely by appealing to the "Scientific Method of Inquiry".

They are One and The Same....The Scientific Method requires "Observing Phenomenon"...it's the First Step. Any "so-called" science that doesn't employ or follow the Scientific Method....isn't "Science". (There's quite a loooong list of Pretenders, if you need them, just ask)

Science fully embraces mathematics. It not only embraces mathematics but it openly endorses the idea that physical phenomenon can be quantified

Mathematics is Immaterial and Abstract. Physics is "Physical"...attempting to "Explain" Physics through Mathematics is Tantamount to "Explaining" Football by describing the length of the field.
@ Best, Math merely "Describes"....it "Explains" exactly ZERO. Science is in the Business of EXPLAINING by VALIDATING (PROVING) CAUSATION of Observed Phenomenon through Rigorous Hypothesis Testing.

Therefore, because in mathematics quantitative "proofs" are not only possible, but are also widely accepted as being "valid proofs", science too uses this type of "proof" to make physical statements about the world

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality."---Nikola Tesla

I wonder what he would say today?

general relativity is a law and the theory is Special Relativity

Great googly moogly!! What on the Earth is this?

Scientific Theory: "EXPLAINS" The How/Why.
Scientific Law: "DESCRIBES" the "What".

If General Relativity is even a VALID Hypothesis....I'm a Mau Mau Fighter Pilot. My 10 year old daughter can send them to the bottom of the Atlantic with basic reasoning. I've refuted them on these threads @ least 10 times without so much as a response. hmmm, wonder why?

General Relativity speaks to Pseudo-Riemannian Geometry. Special Relativity speaks to "Flat Land"; Two completely different animals.

General Relativity IN TOTO and Special Relativity (A Big Chunk) are Tear Jerkin Belly Laughers. I have about 6 Falsifiers, but I'll stick with One here for Brevity, in scuttles them alone....

The "Twin Paradox" and General Relativity "Time Dilation":

Little too much "Anchoring to Fairytales" and not enough applying ground squirrel level basic reasoning skills.

Define Time....? Can you put some in a Jar and Paint it Red? It's a "Conceptual" Relationship between two motions.
Giving Physical Properties to "Concepts" are we?
One MASSIVE Reification Fallacy!!! Reification (Fallacy)--- When an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity -- when an idea is treated as if had a real existence. http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/inde ... eification

Can you "Dilate": Love, Freedom, or Professionalism in State Government (they're all "Concepts")?

It's one thing for Cesium Atomic Clocks to run fast or slow....BUT QUITE ANOTHER, to Extrapolate from that Observation..... that "TIME" is affected.
A football field is 100 Yards Long....is the Football Field Yardsticks?
Use "Gravitational Clocks" (Sand Filled Hour Glasses or Pendulum) then RE-TEST lol....the "theories" will implode in less than a Planck Time. It's MatheMAGICS!

QM takes care of the rest. SEE Alain Aspect 1982 with the Violation of Bell's Inequality. Einstein's theories are still being clobbered out back in the Woodshed by his "Spooky Action @ a Distance".

Richard Hamming (Applied Mathematician, Creator of Computer Science)...

"In recent years it was Einstein who most loudly proclaimed the simplicity of the laws of physics, who used mathematics so exclusively as to be popularly known as a mathematician. When examining his special theory of relativity paper [9. G. Holton Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought, Kepler to Einstein, Harvard University Press, 1973.] one has the feeling that one is dealing with a scholastic philosopher's approach. He knew in advance what the theory should look like and he explored the theories with mathematical tools, not actual experiments. He was so confident of the rightness of the relativity theories that, when experiments were done to check them, he was not much interested in the outcomes, saying that they had to come out that way or else the experiments were wrong. And many people believe that the two relativity theories rest more on philosophical grounds than on actual experiments."Emphasis Mine}
Hamming, R.W., The American Mathematical Monthly Volume 87; Number 2, February 1980.

I'd think twice about wheeling out Black Holes, GPS, ect as "Proofs"...they will meet the same excruciating demise.

btw, Quantum Mechanics actual "Real" Science....takes Materialism/Methodological Naturalism out to the same Woodshed.... with GR and SR, and bludgeons them Senseless, relentlessly. (SEE: Superposition, "Observer"/"Knower", Wave of Probabilities, ect...)
If you care to refute, take up the Quantum Random Challenge, here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.5294


regards