Can science prove that god doesn't exist ?

[zomgwtf]

What is observed thus far scientifically is that the of arrow of evolution of the universe goes from simple structures to more complex structures.

But if our universe was born out of a complex structure, then what is more likely: that the complex structure came from even a more complex structure? or that it came from a simpler structure?

The notion that the universe came from a more complex structure is like saying that the chicken came before the egg.

Ok... that's nice, now tell me what the arrow of evolution, or time, or entropy has to say about outside the universe?

Also why is it relevant what we observe to be occurring with entropy anyways? The only reason it seems to have an arrow is because we observe it as such. It is very convincing though so I'm not going to argue with it, I'm just reminding you... again: Science is only based on what's contained within our physical universe from our vantage point. (this isn't limited to human condition... to me our vantage point includes all types of observation methods we have)

 

[madness]

Brahman in Hinduism isn't a god that's why this general definition does not fit such a concept. .

You might argue that but the word God is often used interchangeably with Brahman. He (it) is often considered to be the one true God which all other Hindu God's are a representation of. Hinduism refers to various and diverse beliefs so some Hindus may not think of Brahman as God.

Just a quick search on Google gives http://www.hinduwebsite.com/brahmanmain.asp - "Brahman is the highest and supreme God of Hinduism".

 

[Kajahtava]

Most 'religions' have no 'omnipotent' gods too, neither are they 'worshipped', Zeus wasn't really a perfect being now was he? He cheated a lot on his wife.

For many religions, their gods are more 'mythological creatures' than the common western concept of 'a god' which is at least omnipotent, a creator, or benevolent.

 

[zomgwtf]

You might argue that but the word God is often used interchangeably with Brahman. He (it) is often considered to be the one true God which all other Hindu God's are a representation of. Hinduism refers to various and diverse beliefs so some Hindus may not think of Brahman as God.

Just a quick search on Google gives http://www.hinduwebsite.com/brahmanmain.asp - "Brahman is the highest and supreme God of Hinduism".

Brahma is the creator God. Brahman is a substance, if the Hindus talk about Brahman as if it is Brahma then yes, what they refer to Brahman as God DOES fit the definition I've given.

I like to think I've studied religions, Hinduism being one of them, but I've never read anything which would indicate that Brahman is a God.

That website you reference to definitely fits the definition I've given, how doesn't it?

 

[zomgwtf]

Most 'religions' have no 'omnipotent' gods too, neither are they 'worshipped', Zeus wasn't really a perfect being now was he? He cheated a lot on his wife.

For many religions, their gods are more 'mythological creatures' than the common western concept of 'a god' which is at least omnipotent, a creator, or benevolent.

This has to be one of the most rediculous comments I've read on PF before. Are you saying that because other religions have gods which do not fit the Judeo-christian god they are just 'mysthological creatures'?

 

[madness]

Brahma is the creator God. Brahman is a substance, if the Hindus talk about Brahman as if it is Brahma then yes, what they refer to Brahman as God DOES fit the definition I've given.

I like to think I've studied religions, Hinduism being one of them, but I've never read anything which would indicate that Brahman is a God.

That website you reference to definitely fits the definition I've given, how doesn't it?

No it doesn't. It says "Brahman, the Universal Self, is described in the Upanishads as the highest, Supreme and absolute God and the Creator of all".

 

[Fredrik]

Experiments can only tell us how accurate a theory's predictions are. If the claim is that there exists something that someone might want to assign the label "God", then the answer is no. This claim doesn't make any predictions, so it can neither be falsified nor proved to be more accurate than other theories.

On the other hand, if we're talking about a "God theory" that makes specific claims about things that can be measured, then we're definitely back in the realm of science, and we can design and perform a series of experiments to find out how accurate the claims are. If they're really bad, then that theory has been falsified.

 

[zomgwtf]

No it doesn't. It says "Brahman, the Universal Self, is described in the Upanishads as the highest, Supreme and absolute God and the Creator of all".

How doesn't it fit the definition. That would help instead of you repeating what I've already read.

 

[Noxide]

Answer: No

 

[DaveC426913]

Zeus wasn't really a perfect being now was he?

And now we have another assumed property of a God: that it is "perfect".

 

[madness]

How doesn't it fit the definition. That would help instead of you repeating what I've already read.

He is not worshipped as controlling some part of the world or aspect of life or as a personification of a force. So basically none of your definition fits. The problem with your definition is that you took it from two different sources. God and deity generally have different connotations. And if you already read it, why did you claim that you have never read anything that suggests Brahman is a god?

 

[DaveC426913]

He is not worshipped as controlling some part of the world or aspect of life

I'm sayin' this is nicely covered under "Supreme and absolute God and the Creator of all".

 

[madness]

I'm sayin' this is nicely covered under "Supreme and absolute God and the Creator of all".

Well Brahman isn't worshipped at all actually - hopefully we don't have to debate what worship is defined as. And by creator it means that he is the "substrate" that the universe emanates from - "In the Hindu religion, Brahman (Devanāgarī: ब्रह्मन् bráhman) is the eternal, unchanging, infinite, immanent, and transcendent reality which is the Divine Ground of all matter, energy, time, space, being, and everything beyond in this Universe (Wikipedia)", not the creator in the familiar sense. He isn't thought of as interfering or controlling things in any way, but rather thought of as what the universe and our individual consciousnesses arise from.

 

[zomgwtf]

@madness

In fact it falls very nicely into the definition I gave. You don't think personifying the essence of 'everything' in the universe fits why exactly? As well I never DID read anything which suggested that until I read that website. I've only ever read of BRAHMA being considered the creator god of Hinduism.

++ Props for quoting wiki, I never would have thought to look there but heyyy!

Brahman is the Absolute Reality or universal substrate (not to be confused with the Creator god Lord Brahmā) in Hinduism.

That's what I had learned Brahman to be.

If people begin to worship it and apply 'it created this and that' 'it does this' then yes it perfectly fits within the definition I've posted. As well I didn't use two definitions I used ONE definition of God and I clarified that definition of god by defining deity as well (because god = deity in the general sense... it's only until you start applying religious ideologies that it starts to take on different meanings.)

 

[madness]

@madness

In fact it falls very nicely into the definition I gave. You don't think personifying the essence of 'everything' in the universe fits why exactly?

This is my point, it agrees with common sense ideas about what God is but not with a single part of the definition you gave - he isn't worshipped, he doesn't control aspects of the world or our life and certainly isn't the personification of a force.

If people begin to worship it and apply 'it created this and that' 'it does this' then yes it perfectly fits within the definition I've posted. As well I didn't use two definitions I used ONE definition of God and I clarified that definition of god by defining deity as well (because god = deity in the general sense... it's only until you start applying religious ideologies that it starts to take on different meanings.)

This is the problem, he isn't worshipped and doesn't do anything. He is thought of as "ultimate truth", "the ground of all being" and the source of consciousness that we are all a part of but not an active thing that controls or affects things.

 

[zomgwtf]

This is my point, it agrees with common sense ideas about what God is but not with a single part of the definition you gave - he isn't worshipped, he doesn't control aspects of the world or our life and certainly isn't the personification of a force.

I think you are confused.

This is the problem, he isn't worshipped and doesn't do anything. He is thought of as "ultimate truth", "the ground of all being" and the source of consciousness that we are all a part of but not an active thing that controls or affects things.

Your confusion I believe stems from you using two different interpretations of Brahman, one in which he is a 'creator' of everything and all that... on the website you linked, you don't think that's a form of worship?

The other which you are trying to say is what ISN'T a god... well it really ISN'T a god, even to the Hindu, it's just the 'substrate of EVERYTHING'.

This isn't worshipped but there are other gods which ARE worshipped. Mainly Vishnu, Brahma, Shiva, or Shakti. There are others depending on the Hinduism you speak of (some don't even involve god at all and are all philosophical.) These four gods are what comprise the supreme substrate. They are all worshipped.I still am failing to understand how the 'universal substrate' which all of us come from is not a personification of a force in the universe... It's just EVERYTHING all in one... still being personified you have yet to show how it isn't.

 

[dacruick]

It is impossible to prove that God doesn't exist. Everything has tried, and nothing has succeeded. There is, to me, a lot of things that point to the notion of God being made up. One such thing is that every culture in the world has its own God(s). How can that not point you in the direction of non-existence. Also, it is extremely probable to me that people create something such as God because they are afraid of the unknown. The bottom line is, life is better when there is heaven. And life is better when there is someone of all encompassing power watching over you. This is a philosophical argument though, not a scientific one. As I think DaveC said at the beginning of the thread, "you cannot prove the non existence of something"

 

[madness]

Your confusion I believe stems from you using two different interpretations of Brahman, one in which he is a 'creator' of everything and all that... on the website you linked, you don't think that's a form of worship?

I explained in a previous post that Brahman is not a creator in the usual sense - Hindus believe the universe always existed. And no he isn't worshipped, the deities you mentioned are (except Brahma who is almost never worshipped).

The other which you are trying to say is what ISN'T a god... well it really ISN'T a god, even to the Hindu, it's just the 'substrate of EVERYTHING'.

As I said when I first brought up the topic of Brahman, the words God and Brahman are often used interchangeably when translated to English. You're right that he isn't a God by your definition, but he is considered a God by most Hindus (the same ones who consider him the substrate of everything). This is the whole point I'm trying to make.

This isn't worshipped but there are other gods which ARE worshipped. Mainly Vishnu, Brahma, Shiva, or Shakti. There are others depending on the Hinduism you speak of (some don't even involve god at all and are all philosophical.) These four gods are what comprise the supreme substrate. They are all worshipped.


I still am failing to understand how the 'universal substrate' which all of us come from is not a personification of a force in the universe... It's just EVERYTHING all in one... still being personified you have yet to show how it isn't.

Brahman isn't usually considered a personification of anything, that's what the various deities are for. Do you think the laws of nature are a personification of a force? Or the universe itself? Brahman is to be understood in similar terms.

 

[DaveC426913]

So, are we agreed? Trying to define if God exists is utterly meaningless because we don't even agree what it might be? :shy:**

**Since I only have access to the first 9 smilies,I am going to start using random smilies until the IE8 smilie dropdown bug is fixed.

 

[MotoH]

Quite an interesting thread, bantering about something that wasn't defined. :zzz: :shy: :!)

Use firefox.

 

[Pythagorean]

What caused the big bang then?

 

[magpies]

What caused the big bang? How can we ever discuss something so unwell defined?

 

[madness]

So, are we agreed? Trying to define if God exists is utterly meaningless because we don't even agree what it might be? :shy:**

**Since I only have access to the first 9 smilies,I am going to start using random smilies until the IE8 smilie dropdown bug is fixed.

We are basically in agreement, the only disagreement was that I assumed it was acceptable to assume a common western conception of God in order that a discussion could be had.

 

[sylas]

What caused the big bang? How can we ever discuss something so unwell defined?

Is that sarcasm? The Big Bang is very thoroughly defined indeed; with clear indications of what is known and what is still unclear. This is a very stark distinctions between the domains of science and religion. I don't mean that as one being "better" than the other -- it isn't necessarily sensible to apply the methods of one domain to the other. But science is by its nature much more well defined, in the sense that there is very wide agreement on fundamentals and on the standing of different scientific models.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[kishore_13]

I don't entirely agree. At least as a mathematical/logical game you can prove something's non-existence by contradiction. There are several well-known attempts to disprove God's existence in this sense, namely by showing that his properties are self contradictory - can God create a stone so heavy he can't lift it? If God is all loving and all powerful and all loving, why does he allow suffering to exist?

Even so, I do agree that you can't disprove God's existence, since these logical games needn't apply to some transcendent all powerful being, and arguably needn't even apply to our regular non-transcendent universe.

When 74% of the universe,according to science is dark matter(unknown)..how can it prove the non exisence of a thing or an entity or an event or whatever

 

[Fredrik]

What caused the big bang then?

Why are you asking something that's completely unrelated to the topic of this thread?

 

[zomgwtf]

When 74% of the universe,according to science is dark matter(unknown)..how can it prove the non exisence of a thing or an entity or an event or whatever

I don't understand what you mean when you say 'dark matter(unknown)'. Are you saying that dark matter is something that is 'unknown' or that it's existence is uncertain?

 

[kishore_13]

I don't understand what you mean when you say 'dark matter(unknown)'. Are you saying that dark matter is something that is 'unknown' or that it's existence is uncertain?

Dark matter is that part of the universe(perceived by us) as something which we have no idea on.I mean its properties and laws so on so forth.And the percentage is huge 74%.I donno what we perceive as 100%, is complete too.

 

[zomgwtf]

Dark matter is that part of the universe(perceived by us) as something which we have no idea on.I mean its properties and laws so on so forth.And the percentage is huge 74%.I donno what we perceive as 100%, is complete too.

Yeahhh... and where'd you learn that we have no idea on? Just because it's invisible doesn't mean it has no physical effects in the universe, just has to do with how it interacts with electromagnetic forces.

Besides, I'm pretty sure that dark matter accounts for under 30% of the observable universe. Someone correct me if this is wrong.

How exactly does this have anything to do with the discussion at hand again?

Also if we observe the effects of dark matter then it certainly does fall into the 'what we perceive'... it's just not matter so we perceive it differently than we would a baseball or a rock.

 

[kishore_13]

Yeahhh... and where'd you learn that we have no idea on? Just because it's invisible doesn't mean it has no physical effects in the universe, just has to do with how it interacts with electromagnetic forces.

The universe is believed to be mostly composed of dark energy and dark matter, both of which are poorly understood at present. Less than 5% of the universe is ordinary matter, a relatively small perturbation.reference-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#Size.2C_age.2C_contents.2C_structure.2C_and_laws

Besides, I'm pretty sure that dark matter accounts for under 30% of the observable universe. Someone correct me if this is wrong.

How much of the "observable" universe is the complete universe(if ever there is one).

How exactly does this have anything to do with the discussion at hand again?

Definition of a superset is only complete when it has its every single subset defined.

Also if we observe the effects of dark matter then it certainly does fall into the 'what we perceive'... it's just not matter so we perceive it differently than we would a baseball or a rock.

Its not matter only because "we" cannot quantify it "yet".

 

[Antiphon]

To the OP 's question: If God exists science may or may not be able to find him. It all depends on whether he would want it possible to be found or not.

If he doesn't exist, science will not be able to state so.

Assuming it's a 50-50 toss up as to whether he would want to be dicoverable and a 50-50 toss up as to whether he exists, the odds of science detecting the existence of God are 1 in 4.

 

[kishore_13]

To the OP 's question: If God exists science may or may not be able to find him. It all depends on whether he would want it possible to be found or not.

If he doesn't exist, science will not be able to state so.

Assuming it's a 50-50 toss up as to whether he would want to be dicoverable and a 50-50 toss up as to whether he exists, the odds of science detecting the existence of God are 1 in 4.

Now why is there so much hush about science.Science means knowledge and in a universe which has nothing unprovable..anything can be proved right ..even vagueness and absurdity.

 

[madness]

Now why is there so much hush about science.Science means knowledge and in a universe which has nothing unprovable..anything can be proved right ..even vagueness and absurdity.

What makes you think that nothing is unprovable? There have been claims in this thread that the non-existence of something cannot be proved, but not that anything can be proved. If that were the case we would have to give up on logic altogether.

 

[Pythagorean]

Why are you asking something that's completely unrelated to the topic of this thread?

I didn't realize there was another page. The post I was directly responding to (waht's post at the end of page 1) was making the argument of infinite regress as a criticism against a God.

Of course, I'd put my money on the big bang over a creator, but my point is that the argument of infinite regress applies to the big bang, too. What caused the events leading up to the big bang? What caused those events? Etc, etc.

I.e., if it was a valid argument, it could be just as easily applied to the big bang.

 

[DaveC426913]

Of course, I'd put my money on the big bang over a creator,

They are not moochally exclusive.

but my point is that the argument of infinite regress applies to the big bang, too. What caused the events leading up to the big bang? What caused those events? Etc, etc.

I.e., if it was a valid argument, it could be just as easily applied to the big bang.

Precisely. Which is why the invokation of God as a causal factor doesn't get us further ahead.