Can science prove that god doesn't exist ?

[atyy]

Define God = laws of physics.

Science assumes that God exists. Hence science is a religion.

 

[zomgwtf]

Define God = laws of physics.

Science assumes that God exists. Hence science is a religion.

Hence you get my fist to your face!

(just joking.)

 

[DaveC426913]

Define God = laws of physics.

Science assumes that God exists. Hence science is a religion.

I don't understand either of those statements.

 

[brainstorm]

The dead end scientists run into in trying to study god(s) is that they approach the phenomenon in terms of physical existence of an entity, "God/god(s)"

Karl Jung actually came up with the best scientific way to study "God/gods," i.e. as an archetype of the human psyche. Jung actually found that once he had devoted sufficient study to understanding the archetype or psychology of God/god(s), he actually came to understand God/god(s) in the terms of a believer, and henceforth believed that he had truly discovered "God."

Freud found this ridiculous and chastized Jung for failing to relativize this what Freud thought of as infantile superstition. I agree more with Jung, and I have found that by studying the concept of God, it is possible (even as an atheist, which I was/am) to understand the theology so well that you are able to understand literally what it means to believe in God.

I have to be careful, because this forum prohibits religious peddling, and I don't want to do that. I just can say that I think the best way to study religion as a social scientist is to study it from the inside by becoming a believer. In other words, figure out what you have to do to believe in God, and then study your own experience and beliefs in doing so.

That is the only way for science NOT to prove that God/god(s) don't exist, because theology isn't a materialist but rather a symbolic/spiritual discourse. Again, I'm hesitant to refer to scripture, but this is actually clearly recognized explicitly when Christ is said to have referred to the distinction between matters of flesh and spirit, implying that trying to make sense of spiritual things in materialist logic makes no sense, using the example of being "born again" as returning to one's mother's womb to literally be born again.

Obviously, even devout atheists recognize that being "born again" refers to something other than physically returning to your mother's womb, but this is the same with God/god(s); i.e. you're not going to find God/god(s) in any caves or on a distant planet. God/god(s) is a spiritual phenomenon of faith-knowledge, i.e. theology, and outside of that God/god(s) can't exist because materialist/positivist science only studies things in a way that isolates the material from the spiritual.

If science can find an individual that doesn't contain some archetype/knowledge of what "God/god(s)" means in a subjective sense, that would be proof that God/god(s) doesn't exist for that person, but I seriously doubt that there is an individual human alive that doesn't have some theological knowledge in some form. Maybe individuals with severe learning disabilities might be an exception. It would be interesting to figure out how they experience their own power and creativity, and whether that experience is similar to what other people conceptualize in reference to the "God/god(s)" mythology they have been exposed to.

 

[DaveC426913]

Karl Jung actually came up with the best scientific way to study "God/gods," i.e. as an archetype of the human psyche.

Mmm... OK. We'll add a clarification that we heretofore have all thought went without saying:

Can science prove that god doesn't exist as an independent entity and not just the collective figment of Mankind's minds?

Moving on.

 

[kishore_13]

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.

I know it is difficult to digest.:)...
May be we need to get used o it.

 

[madness]

Mmm... OK. We'll add a clarification that we heretofore have all thought went without saying:

Can science prove that god doesn't exist as an independent entity and not just the collective figment of Mankind's minds?

Moving on.

Unfortunately a clear separation of God existing as an independent entity and as an imagined entity isn't always easy. I'll quote Descartes' ontological argument from Discourse on Method and the Mediations:

"Following this, reflecting on the fact that I had doubts, and that consequently my being was not completely perfect, for I saw clearly that it was a greater perfection to know than to doubt, I decided to inquire whence I had learned to think of something more perfect than myself; and I clearly recognised that this must have been from some nature which was in fact more perfect...and because it is no less contradictory that the more perfect should proceed from and depend on the less perfect than that something should arise out of nothing, I could not hold it from myself; with the result that it remained that it must have been put into me by a being whose nature was truly more perfect than mine and which even had in itself all the perfections of which I could have any idea, that is to say, in a single word, which was God.

So Descartes' argument basically says - I can imagine God, therefore he must exist.

 

[brainstorm]

Mmm... OK. We'll add a clarification that we heretofore have all thought went without saying:

Can science prove that god doesn't exist as an independent entity and not just the collective figment of Mankind's minds?

Moving on.

Of course science will never find proof of God, but the question is whether the impossibility of God's/god(s)' existence from the perspective of materialist/positivist science is sufficient to prove its nonexistence?

In order to establish nonexistence through science, you would have to be able to establish sufficient proof that God's/god(s)' nonexistence as a physical entity is sufficient to establish nonexistence more generally.

That's when you get into debating the existence, status, functioning, etc. of subjectivity, which is where you get into the approaches of people like Jung and DesCartes (thanks, btw, whoever posted about DesCartes - I forgot about his search for God).

So if God doesn't exist physically, does subjectivity exist and if so, do subjective things exist to the people who experience them subjectively. E.g. Do dreams and thoughts exist inside the dreamer/thinker, and if so what is their significance?

 

[Kerrie]

If an omnipotent creator with a human like conscious does exist, I bet he or she is laughing at us right now.

Can the limitations of our minds even define god to prove or disprove his/hers/its existence?

 

[magpies]

I had a thought let me know if this sounds right. "Proof isn't really proof until everyone believes it." Seems true imo but who knows.

 

[DaveC426913]

I had a thought let me know if this sounds right. "Proof isn't really proof until everyone believes it." Seems true imo but who knows.

Well, for one: everybody believing a thing does not make that thing true; a pitfall Mankind has succumbed to repeatedly.

I'd say more like "proof isn't proof until anyone who has the inclination and resources can confirm it for themselves independently."

 

[brainstorm]

Well, for one: everybody believing a thing does not make that thing true; a pitfall Mankind has succumbed to repeatedly.

I'd say more like "proof isn't proof until anyone who has the inclination and resources can confirm it for themselves independently."

This is true. There is an important distinction between an objective fact and a social fact. I wouldn't even say that social "facts" are actually facts as much as they are social behavior that attempts to simulate the level of acceptance of something that is objectively incontrovertible.

On the other hand, I think it is in a way correct that proof isn't proof until someone is convinced by it. This of course assumes that someone is reasonable and open to the possibility of reasoning about the proof. Sometimes people's desire to believe something is strong enough that they refuse to even look at evidence to the contrary.

Still, there are also people who are so interested in gaining the authority-status that comes with agreeing with other authorities, that they avoid questioning facts or proof that they know will win them discredit among the people whose approval they are concerned with maintaining.

Proof becomes proof when it is reasonably accepted as defensible proof. If it is just accepted as support and taken as proof because of a preponderance of evidence, it is not really proof. Proof is defensible when it can be logically or otherwise reasonably shown to demonstrate the incontrovertibility of a claim. If the critic can provide a reasonable basis for invalidating or qualifying the basis for accepting evidence as proof, then it is not proof in the context that disqualifies it.

E.g. Even if it were possible to absolutely prove that God/god(s) do not exist as physical entities, the qualification that God/god(s) exist as subjective entities makes it impossible to prove that God/god(s) don't exist, unless subjectivity itself can be proven not to exist - or you have to define "existence" as only meaning "physical existence." If you admit that subjective existence is also a form of existence, the question becomes what relevance is it that God/god(s) exist as subjective phenomena. I.e. What is the relevance of subjectivity and the ontology of experiential phenomena?

 

[SixNein]

Before I start the discussion, I would like to point out that I am not a very religious person neither am I an Athiest, I’m not trying to provoke any science Vs religion argument, would just like you to share your thoughts.

Ok, my understanding of science is that it is an analytical subject, what I make of it is that it analyses entities, it studies this entity and then tries to describe what is going on using the laws of physics and attempts to describe why it is happening. So from this logic, in order to prove that god does not exist, it would need to find a “god”, put it under the microscope, study it and then say that it is not “god”. I’m sure you can see the error in how it can prove god doesn't exist. What are your thoughts ?

Understanding the problem is half the battle. Unfortunately, nobody can understand God.

 

[brainstorm]

Understanding the problem is half the battle. Unfortunately, nobody can understand God.

Karl Jung would disagree. My friends who are Jehovah's Witnesses would also disagree. Both would say that by being open to exploring what/who God is, your personal familiarity with the entity/ies and or the concept(s) - depending on how you approach it - continues to increase. No one may ever be able to completely understand and define God/god(s) but I believe that is because of the nature of subjectivity/spirituality. Nevertheless, I believe your understanding (as believer or not) can continue to grow through study and reflection. This is true of other aspects of your subjectivity as well, such as your personality, your life history, your sense of purpose, etc. Nothing subjective is simply there for you to study as an object. It's more like you cultivate and refine your subjectivity as you explore and reflect on it. You end up creating the object of study through the process of discovering and reflecting on it. The further you get, the more it seems like you are discovering something that was always there waiting to be found before you started. Fascinating phenomenon, imo.

 

[SixNein]

Karl Jung would disagree. My friends who are Jehovah's Witnesses would also disagree. Both would say that by being open to exploring what/who God is, your personal familiarity with the entity/ies and or the concept(s) - depending on how you approach it - continues to increase. No one may ever be able to completely understand and define God/god(s) but I believe that is because of the nature of subjectivity/spirituality. Nevertheless, I believe your understanding (as believer or not) can continue to grow through study and reflection. This is true of other aspects of your subjectivity as well, such as your personality, your life history, your sense of purpose, etc. Nothing subjective is simply there for you to study as an object. It's more like you cultivate and refine your subjectivity as you explore and reflect on it. You end up creating the object of study through the process of discovering and reflecting on it. The further you get, the more it seems like you are discovering something that was always there waiting to be found before you started. Fascinating phenomenon, imo.

If an infinite being is indeed infinite, how is your finite mind going to understand the infinite?

 

[Kerrie]

If an infinite being is indeed infinite, how is your finite mind going to understand the infinite?

This is the conclusion I have come to with the concept of "God".

 

[madness]

If an infinite being is indeed infinite, how is your finite mind going to understand the infinite?

Well if you're a Hindu (specifically Vedanta) you would try to realize that "God" and the self are the same thing and that there is no distinction between the self and the universe (or something like that). But this just goes to show the massive range of concepts which are all ascribed the word "God".

 

[Pythagorean]

They are not moochally exclusive.

That's true. I guess I was thinking in the context of creationist arguments, not the more general, deist idea of a creator.

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

While I generally agree, I'm having trouble understanding the context of this response.

 

[brainstorm]

If an infinite being is indeed infinite, how is your finite mind going to understand the infinite?

Infinity is a concept that your mind is capable of understanding because it was invented as a mental concept. Certainly you're not going to be able to grasp everything that is conceptualizable in terms of "creation" at the same time. It's enough to be able to realize that everything your mind is capable of perceiving, thinking, or imagining has be be recreated within your consciousness to be perceivable. That can be hard to grasp; i.e. that everything you can imagine to exists already exists within your imagination. Certainly your imagination/mind is not infinite, but it cannot imagine anything beyond the infinite existence it imagines, so it takes some reflection to realize that all the possibilities of perception in your imagination and thoughts are finite, including that of infinity - but also that your mind is capable of generated infinite thoughts and imaginable possibilities. You can't just sabotage the entirety of subjective potential by claiming the mind is finite and contrasting it with the concept of infinity.

 

[SixNein]

Infinity is a concept that your mind is capable of understanding because it was invented as a mental concept. Certainly you're not going to be able to grasp everything that is conceptualizable in terms of "creation" at the same time. It's enough to be able to realize that everything your mind is capable of perceiving, thinking, or imagining has be be recreated within your consciousness to be perceivable. That can be hard to grasp; i.e. that everything you can imagine to exists already exists within your imagination. Certainly your imagination/mind is not infinite, but it cannot imagine anything beyond the infinite existence it imagines, so it takes some reflection to realize that all the possibilities of perception in your imagination and thoughts are finite, including that of infinity - but also that your mind is capable of generated infinite thoughts and imaginable possibilities. You can't just sabotage the entirety of subjective potential by claiming the mind is finite and contrasting it with the concept of infinity.

I do not think infinity is a invention; instead, I think it was discovered.

 

[magpies]

Really? I was sure santa invented it.

 

[Rico L]

some of my friend are religious but they love science! I've had the same discussion with them before, what they said is that "the science is the how things behave like but god is the answer to why do they behave in such way".

they have their point but personally i believe there is a 50 50 chance that god might exists although i am not religious.

but one day we will find out ..

 

[brainstorm]

I do not think infinity is a invention; instead, I think it was discovered.

A couple posts ago, you claimed that humans aren't capable of grasping infinity - and now you're saying that they discovered it? What is infinity other than an ideal concept? Any practical effort to count or measure anything results in a finite number, doesn't it? The only way to arrive at infinitude is to apply logical or mathematical formulas that operate at the conceptual level.

The fact that human minds can conceptualize infinity but never have access to empirically observing infinitude outside themselves suggests infinity is a conceptual invention, not a discovery, since humans are incapable of discovering infinity through direct counting or measurement. "Ad infinitum" includes the "ad" to indicate the shift from empirical account to conceptual extrapolation of a pattern.

 

[The Watcher]

Ok, my understanding of science is that it is an analytical subject, what I make of it is that it analyses entities, it studies this entity and then tries to describe what is going on using the laws of physics and attempts to describe why it is happening. So from this logic, in order to prove that god does not exist, it would need to find a “god”, put it under the microscope, study it and then say that it is not “god”. I’m sure you can see the error in how it can prove god doesn't exist. What are your thoughts ?

Greetings

This is my first post on this Physics Forum and the question “Can science prove that god doesn't exist?” is hard to answer – most importantly because there needs to be a definition regarding ‘what GOD is” as DaveC426913 points out on more than one occasion in this thread.

I realize that this threads last comment is a month ago no doubt due to lack of any real conclusion.

If there is a GOD and this is defined broadly as something intelligent which created this universe and also has the ability to commune with the individual, as two examples of commonly accepted definitions, neither definition goes very far as helpful to science for the purpose of measurable evidence.

The question though, is “can science prove that GOD doesn’t exist?” and the answer would have to be something along the lines of “Yes – once GOD is defined.”

Even with the two examples of definition given as to “What GOD is” – these can only be answered by science honestly as something like “Then GOD does not exist because Science can prove that these definitions prove that GOD does not exist.

Thus as soon as GOD is defined, Science can prove it does not exist.

Why?

Because GOD by any definition exists outside the definable Universe and thus all definitions which are used to describe that which is indefinable are un-provable while they remain outside the definable boundaries of the universe.

Now some definitions of “What GOD is” merge the creator with the creation and say that all that is, is GOD and more personally GOD is within the conscious experience of the Universe and thus we are part of “What GOD is” which might give science something to measure and come to some conclusion about, but…well…if this were so then science is already doing this very thing and at present time the discovery process is still happening …and presuming that humanity makes it through these times, will still be happening for some time to come.

If the content of the above paragraph were true, then what is really occurring is that GOD will eventually prove Itself and science will have something to do with that process.
Also, IF “What GOD is” happens to be something like ‘God is the conscious experience within the universe,” then the consciousness itself will define ‘What GOD is” as IT discovers Itself

Conclusion:
Science is not, and never will be an instrument/entity/method in which to ‘prove that GOD does not exist.’

 

[magpies]

The reason I don't think science can prove if god exists or not is because science isn't a person and only people have the capacity for proof. Proof is not something you toss in somebodys face and say accept the facts or else. It's something someone makes a choice to believe true or not. This is the problem of freewill in essence.

 

[brainstorm]

Atheism can utilize materialism to deny God's material existence. But materialist atheism cannot erase God's existence as an idea, belief, or other subjective phenomenon because materialism is paralyzed where subjective matters are concerned. The best it can do is claim that subjectivity is meaningless in comparison with materiality. Yet the material reality of human experience is that it is all filtered through subjectivity such that nothing is meaningful or even perceivable EXCEPT as it is processed by subjectivity/consciousness. Thus you have the problem of the computer monitor: the monitor may have very little to do with how the computer works, but without an interface, nothing about the computer can be known, experienced, or perceived. So even if you manipulate the idea of God in such a way as to disprove it materially, what do you do with the idea of God? Karl Jung studied it as an archetype of the human psyche, and by doing so discovered what it means for God to "exist." Understanding God's existence subjectively is, imo, the only way to legitimately study it scientifically, because God has no directly observable existence outside of subjectivity. He does, however, exist extensively in human subjectivity and expression - and if you are interested in "God," the way to study "Him" is through study of subjectivity, both in the form of external representations but also introspective reflection on one's own subjective knowledge.

 

[magpies]

Wow just wow well said.

 

[Gokul43201]

If an infinite being is indeed infinite, how is your finite mind going to understand the infinite?

Oh jeez! How is your finite mind going to understand the set of positive integers?

 

[Gokul43201]

Oh, and by the way, science does not deal with proving that stuff doesn't exist (proof of a universal negative). That's only something that mathematics can do, so long as the "stuff" involved is a mathematical object. So to address the thread title, science can not prove that god doesn't exists, nor can it prove that leprechauns, elves or gremlins don't exist.

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialscien...ER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm

 

[brainstorm]

Oh, and by the way, science does not deal with proving that stuff doesn't exist (proof of a universal negative). That's only something that mathematics can do, so long as the "stuff" involved is a mathematical object. So to address the thread title, science can not prove that god doesn't exists, nor can it prove that leprechauns, elves or gremlins don't exist.

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialscien...ER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm

Good point. The realism of plausibility is a subjective art, not an objective science.

 

[The Watcher]

Atheism can utilize materialism to deny God's material existence. But materialist atheism cannot erase God's existence as an idea, belief, or other subjective phenomenon because materialism is paralyzed where subjective matters are concerned. The best it can do is claim that subjectivity is meaningless in comparison with materiality. Yet the material reality of human experience is that it is all filtered through subjectivity such that nothing is meaningful or even perceivable EXCEPT as it is processed by subjectivity/consciousness. Thus you have the problem of the computer monitor: the monitor may have very little to do with how the computer works, but without an interface, nothing about the computer can be known, experienced, or perceived. So even if you manipulate the idea of God in such a way as to disprove it materially, what do you do with the idea of God? Karl Jung studied it as an archetype of the human psyche, and by doing so discovered what it means for God to "exist." Understanding God's existence subjectively is, imo, the only way to legitimately study it scientifically, because God has no directly observable existence outside of subjectivity. He does, however, exist extensively in human subjectivity and expression - and if you are interested in "God," the way to study "Him" is through study of subjectivity, both in the form of external representations but also introspective reflection on one's own subjective knowledge.

I think that the ‘extensive human subjectivity and expression’ can not equate to scientific method due to the amazing differences regarding ‘what GOD is’ between the various religions and other type entities.

The differences of expressions are also evident within the same or similar religions which proclaim ‘What GOD is”. Therefore it is not a reliable thing to study subjectivity while there remains the element of outside influence on any individuals own understanding of what it is they believe GOD to be.

If one were to look a little into the history of culture and religion one could argue that individuals were experiencing something ‘invisible’ which was having an affect on their understanding of reality, and this was quickly noticed by the hierarchy within the tribes and even seen as a possible threat to the established order of things.
History also shows that in matters of belief it is far better to infiltrate the belief and manipulate the believer then trying to silence or eradicate - by giving answer to the various questions that arise when individuals start to explore the unknown realms which they perceive as interacting with their own subjective individuality – often the first persons to share this news with are those in positions of trust and authority and the answers are well developed because the questions (interestingly enough) are quiet the same – the individuals are having very similar experiences – some of which spark the survival emotion of fear and because individuals also do not communicate effectively with each other, they tend to keep things to themselves as not to appear ‘crazy’ – not realizing that others have the same or similar experiences.

Thus the hierarchy becomes the face of trust and wisdom and have explained what it is that individuals are experiencing and “What GOD is” – in many ways taking the onus of responsibility off the busy little believers to find out for themselves ‘What GOD is” and this effectively nullifies any serious attempt to study subjectivity in any meaningful way.

The only thing which can be surmised then, is that a study of human belief systems in their collective range will give a pretty clear indication of ‘What GOD isn’t” so would be a good place to start – or continue – in the discovery to the answer to the definition of “What GOD is”.

What GOD isn’t thus would be something like:

GOD isn’t…
…something to fear
…something to worship
…male or female…
…good
…evil
…something that requires an intermediate between itself and an individual
…a throne sitting human-like judge
…etc…etc…etc…

 

[Annabeth Y]

There is also no scientific evidence saying that he doesn't exist

 

[Evo]

There is also no scientific evidence saying that he doesn't exist

How can you have evidence of something that does not exist? The onus of proof lies with the person making the claim that something exists.

 

[Annabeth Y]

but can you prove God does not exist?

 

[GeorgCantor]

I think it's generally agreed upon that God doesn't exist in New York, in the barber shop, in Monaco or on the Moon. As for whether a creator couldn't exist in a differenet plane of existence, it requires a leap of faith to state that it couldn't or doesn't.