Can science prove that god doesn't exist ?

[poor mystic]

Hi Guys
May I please interject? I have only recently begun to post here and have not really studied your thread. Yet the starter for the thread is a tease, and I need a break from cutting code, so...

Now I'm only a poor mystic,and very easily confused. But it seems to me that any God who couldn't utterly transcend the thinking powers of such as we must indeed be a reduced specimen.

It seems to me that in referring the question of whether God exists to logic, you merely exchange one religion for another. No longer content to build your world on the judgements of Christianity or whatever you call religion, you instead choose logic on which to build the foundations of your world.

What is this weird faith in logic? Consider the following question.
Let a single truth exist whose unfolding has given rise to all of that which is. Let Jack be a physicist who seeks this truth. I say that Jack can never achieve his goal for as long as he relies upon logic.
This is because the process of logical analysis relies on the existence of an alternative construction of every assertion so that the 2 constructions can be shown to agree. Yet the single truth Jack seeks is single, there can neither be proof of it nor arguments that lead to it.

Hence it is demonstrated that in some kinds of question logic is of no application.
Here is a favourite joke: Anything provably true (about the ultimate, single truth) is proven to be false! (in that nothing can be truthfully said about the single truth.)

Hence the application of logic to questions within domains within it has not been thoroughly tested is hazardous, and I feel that reliance on its results in such matters amounts to atheistic religion.

To conclude, I declare that the question has been answered in the manner of its asking, which has already concluded that belief in God is false.

I now ask that you shoot me down in flames

thank you for your patience

 

[Mkorr]

Logic is not based on faith. We use logic because it works and because they are universally true statements (they cannot be wrong). It is an effective method of computation and for non-contradictory communication. Furthermore, all attempts to argue against the validity of logic presupposes the validity of logic, making all such attempts self refuting statements and contradictory.

How do you know that "in some kinds of question logic is of no application" (logic or rational thought)? By using logic and rational thought of course, but that just exposes the fact that you implicitly presuppose that which you explicitly deny.

I refuted the "naturalistic presupposition" claim in the post above yours.

 

[BW338]

... Anyway, we are basically in agreement that without agreeing on a definition there is no discussion to be had.

What is the definition of "science"? Or, if "science" is one's absolute, or god, or deity, then "Science".



btw: Hello. I'm new here. Just jumped-in at the first spot that caught my eye.

Bruce

 

[BW338]

... a brain cannot emerge from a mind.

Sure it can! God, who has/is a mind, created our brain.

 

[BW338]

Oh. To address this threads question: No.

A better question is, Why is "science" spelled wrong?

 

[poor mystic]

Logic is not based on faith. We use logic because it works and because they are universally true statements (they cannot be wrong). It is an effective method of computation and for non-contradictory communication. Furthermore, all attempts to argue against the validity of logic presupposes the validity of logic, making all such attempts self refuting statements and contradictory.

How do you know that "in some kinds of question logic is of no application" (logic or rational thought)? By using logic and rational thought of course, but that just exposes the fact that you implicitly presuppose that which you explicitly deny.

I refuted the "naturalistic presupposition" claim in the post above yours.

I fall about laughing ! You said " We use logic because it works " and if that isn't an faith-based argument i don't know what is.

 

[Mkorr]

I fall about laughing ! You said " We use logic because it works " and if that isn't an faith-based argument i don't know what is.

That is like saying that it is faith-based to say we use antibiotics because it works. If antibiotics or logic did not work, we would not use it. This is based on reason and evidence, that is, the very opposite of faith.

Furthermore, you did not address my claim that logical absolutes, such as the principle of non-contradiction, cannot be false (because its falsehood is impossible).

 

[Mkorr]

Sure it can! God, who has/is a mind, created our brain.

But now your argument against mind/brain physicalism presupposes the existence of god. But if you need to presuppose the existence of god in order to defeat an argument against the existence of god, then you have made a circular argument.

The point is that since we know that a mind requires a brain, disembodied minds probably do not exist.

 

[magpies]

I don't see how you can say mind requires a brain when your definition of mind is brain.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I don't see how you can say mind requires a brain when your definition of mind is brain.

You get really hung up on turns of speech.

 

[Mkorr]

I don't see how you can say mind requires a brain when your definition of mind is brain.

There are mindless brains, for sure, but there are, probably, no brainless minds. So I am not trying to pull a definitional argument on you, but I am appealing to the empirical evidence.

Here are some questions for you:

- If minds do not require brains, why have we mapped cognitive faculties and other properties of the mind to physical structures of the brain?
- Why are people with a damage occipital lobe blind?
- Why can drug use cause hallucination?

 

[brainstorm]

No, this argument is not based on a naturalistic presupposition. In fact, it is the exact opposite. The idea of "X" here makes empirically testable predictions, predictions that could in theory be confirmed or falsified with experiment.

- If X does make empirical predictions, these predictions can in theory be confirmed or refuted by science.
- If X does not make any empirical predictions; if a world where X existed is identical in every conceivable respect to a world where X did not exist, then what on Earth does it mean to say that "X exists"?

I will tell you the method that I think works, but there's a good chance you will refute it from a materialist perspective. You have to begin with the core meaning of the term, empirical. Empiricism means proceeding from sensory observations. Empiricism doesn't actually address the materiality of whatever is causing the sensory observations, just the perceptions themselves. So now, I ask you if you can empirically observe something subjective? Can you empirically observe a thought or feeling occurring inside yourself and recognize that observation as empirical? Obviously the problem is that no one else can verify your observations, unless they conduct their own and describe similar occurrences. Studying subjective phenomena in this way, you can explore inner life in the way that early psychologists did in trying to understand what was happening inside of people that caused behavior, neuroses, and the like.

From a psychological perspective, materialist consciousness basically entails the belief that things can exist independently of subjective perception. Psychosis is when people become unable, or perhaps unwilling, to distinguish between subjective perceptions as being caused by their mind or by external material phenomena. You can go to a psychiatric ward and observe people's behavior while they're living with psychosis, but it won't help you observe what's actually going on in their perceptions, because only they have access to that. If you are not afraid of losing the capacity to distinguish between psychosis and reality, however, you can explore your mind's ability to perceive non-material based subjective phenomena, that of God and divinity included. However, if you return to materialism as an instrument to verify you subjective perceptions, you will only ever replicate the distinction between objective and subjective that renders your non-objective perceptions immaterial and therefore non-real. So objectivism/materialism can only ever disprove the "existence" of subjective phenomena outside of inner-experience.

Here is what you need to provide in order to, for me, establish the existence of X.

1. Provide a coherent and meaningful definition of X.
2. Provide a system of norms for comparing a naturalistic and a supernatural explanation.
3. Provide evidence for X, that is, show that testable predictions from the existence of X conforms to reality.

By studying what you discover about your subjective perceptions of God and divinity, you could take note of your observations and compare those with what others have written or otherwise expressed about the same phenomena. You could attempt to falsify your own observations or what others have written by exploring alternative ideas. For example, you could attempt to conjure up the idea of God as an energy-being and compare what that would mean in contrast to constructing God as a father figure, etc. You might find that you are capable of imagine God in either form, or you might find that you are limited to conceptualizing God beyond human form, etc.

Notice that no where in this does a naturalistic presupposition enter into the equation. If the above is reasonable, then "philosophical naturalism" (or "materialism") would be a conclusion not a presupposition. This method outlined above does not, in any shape or form, prevent you "from ever exploring the existence of anything non-material/non-physical ever again".

Yes, materialist philosophy includes the ability to conclude that materialism is the best or only true means of perceiving a "real reality." This is why many people get locked into materialism as the measuring tape for all perceptions. They keep asking if things are real in order to subject them to materialist testing. In this way, materialism takes over people's consciousness and renders them impotent to explore other forms of thought.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't see how you can say mind requires a brain when your definition of mind is brain.

A brain is an organ. Even a dead brain is still a brain.

 

[poor mystic]

Hi everyone

I guess the whole thing for me is the question: "Who in their right mind would ever want to prove that God doesn't exist?"

But also:

I apologise, it was rude to fall about laughing, especially when I hadn't made clarifying reference to my (justifying) earlier post in which I give a case in which logic fails us.
I refer to post 141, which I submit shows that logic in fact does NOT work.

I should probably make some reference to a Persian poet at this point but you'll figure it out in the end.(maybe I should change my user name to smarmy mystic)

 

[DaveC426913]

I guess the whole thing for me is the question: "Who in their right mind would ever want to prove that God doesn't exist?"

Anyone who seeks the truth.

If he exists, we'd want proof; if he does not, we'd want to know that too.

 

[poor mystic]

Anyone who seeks the truth.

If he exists, we'd want proof; if he does not, we'd want to know that too.

Yes, I see that.
It would be better than nice to be ab;e to resolve the question, wouldn't it?

I suggest however that question of the existence of God is equally well addressed by a philosopher who attempts to argue that God *does* exist.
Of course if it weren't for the importance for the philosopher's feelings, it wouldn't make any difference either way.
However the philosopher who argues for God's existence may well enjoy his life more than his opponent in the debate, and given that neither can reach a conclusion I feel that the supporter of God is much better off.

 

[DaveC426913]

However the philosopher who argues for God's existence may well enjoy his life more than his opponent in the debate, and given that neither can reach a conclusion I feel that the supporter of God is much better off.

Yes, this is pretty much the definition of choosing to believe what you want to believe.

Which is pretty much antithetical on a science board. Ideally, we are all here because we have made a choice to see the world as it is, rather than as we want it to be.

 

[poor mystic]

Yes, this is pretty much the definition of choosing to believe what you want to believe.

Which is pretty much antithetical on a science board. Ideally, we are all here because we have made a choice to see the world as it is, rather than as we want it to be.

Yes I agree with that, too, while at the same time it seems to me that you have made your choice to disbelieve, based on a faith that what you can measure is all that exists.

I say the division between the material and metaphysical philosophies arises at the point of our deciding on whether or not to admit the existence of that which cannot be measured. For me, the responsible physicist or other philosopher does not make his mind up on questions he is unable to resolve, through measurement or otherwise.
The question of the existence of God is surely moot, so why say it is determined?

I must point out also, that the whole thread just begs for a mystic's input. Otherwise it's just a bunch of guys sitting round agreeing that the putative question has already been anwered in the negative.

I think I can show a reasonable fight from my corner of the question, always remembering that this is no place for angry feelings!

 

[GeorgCantor]

A brain is an organ. Even a dead brain is still a brain.

Reading this, i am reminded that people constantly and continuously disregard the basis of our knowledge of matter. If anything can be stated with relative certainty, it's that the material world is more immaterial than material. It is the immaterial principle that makes a thing to be what it is, not little atomic billiard balls. Think of it in terms of the exclusion principle of Pauli and the stability of matter. To really understand this, we have to learn to disregard our imagination. We cannot "picture" the ultimate constitution of matter, so the the division into physical and non-physical, and by extension - brain and mind is deeply blurred. It is blurred because we get a wrong idea of what matter is and how matter is through our perception. So a picture drawn solely on how we perceive a physical brain is very misleading. The whole notion of "physical" is a great enigma, based more on immaterial principles, then on material ones. Physical objects do look pretty material on the macro scale, but on a closer inspection, there appear to be just immaterial and rather mathematical principles and relations. To me, a "physical" brain is just an event that takes place, like all other registered events that we label "objects", "space" or "time"... and in my view, the primacy of mind appears much more consistent with everything that comes out of experiments and physics in general, than the primacy of matter or objects.

If modern physics reveals anything, it is that the old atomism is dead. Physicists have begun to realize that we just can't explain things in a reductionistic way anymore. Modern physics has actually helped to "de-materialize" the material world.

 

[GeorgCantor]

Which is pretty much antithetical on a science board. Ideally, we are all here because we have made a choice to see the world as it is, rather than as we want it to be.

What do you mean by "we have made a choice to see the world as it is"? How is the world?

 

[GeorgCantor]

Anyone who seeks the truth.

If he exists, we'd want proof; if he does not, we'd want to know that too.

I wish to have proof that you exist objectively, but technically, this can't be proven. Lots of things are unproveable, limited as we are, we are holding dearly onto our assumptions, sometimes forgetting and applying those assumptions way beyond the reasonable scale of applicability. Make-believe, eh? Surely, we can't live without it, we have to believe in something or else we start to look lost and disoriented.

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes I agree with that, too, while at the same time it seems to me that you have made your choice to disbelieve, based on a faith that what you can measure is all that exists.

No, (we) have made a choice to realize that we cannot prove God does not exist. Nor do we have compelling evidence that he does (though evidence could yet present itself).

So we go about exploring our world without the assumption either way.

If we ever encounter something that requires the existence of a God to explain it, then we revisit our theories.

So far, we haven't hit any roadblocks that require God's existence. So our progress is not impeded.

For me, the responsible physicist or other philosopher does not make his mind up on questions he is unable to resolve, through measurement or otherwise.

I think every rational person on this board agrees with this. We do NOT make up our mind on such things. Which is why science has absolutely nothing to say on the subject.

However, they still have their private beliefs, like everyone else. Many simply believe (without compelling evidence) that God likely does not exist.

I think I can show a reasonable fight from my corner of the question, always remembering that this is no place for angry feelings!

That particular discussion will almost surely violate explicitly laid-out forum rules.

 

[DaveC426913]

What do you mean by "we have made a choice to see the world as it is"? How is the world?

Hang on. If you review, you'll see that the comment came immediately upon the heels of mystic's comments about people who live happier lives by choosing to believe in God.

The counter-position I made is for those who choose to view how the world appears to be, independent of what they want it to be.

I'm not saying they know any more about what "is"; I'm simply saying they remove their wants and needs from the analysis.

 

[DaveC426913]

I wish to have proof that you exist objectively, but technically, this can't be proven.

Yes. Since we can't prove it or disprove it, there is nothing we can do about it. We simply make it an axiom and move forward. The issue drops out of the equation.

Surely, we can't live without it, we have to believe in something or else we start to look lost and disoriented.

Well, that's true for some people, yes. Which is one of the chief complaints around these hyar pawrts...

 

[Boy@n]

Our very existence tells me that existence of God is way more probable than non-existence of God.

Why? The fact that we exist proves that existence must be eternal, for existence cannot arise out of non-existence.

Now, given eternity, isn't it most probable that an entity with self-awareness reached a very high state of beingness, perhaps highest posible sate of beingness / awareness / existence?

And that's perhaps what we might call God, or better, state of God.

And that perhaps is a state human race might one day reach, and in a way we'd become one with God.

Dreaming? Today of course, perhaps tomorrow not anymore :)

 

[DaveC426913]

Our very existence tells me that existence of God is way more probable than non-existence of God.

Why? Well, the fact that we exist proves that existence must be eternal.

Why? Because existence cannot arise out of non-existence.

Thus there cannot be beginning of existence, but it must be eternal.

Now, given eternity, isn't it most proable that an entity with self-awareness reached a very high state of beingness, perhaps highest posible sate of beingness / awareness / existence?

Well, if we grant your logic for the moment, what you've demonstrated is that a God-like creature could exist, but if so, he did not create the unverse, since he is of the universe. Thus he is not God.

All you've shown is that there must be a very powerful (but bored) alien out there.

 

[Boy@n]

What makes you think He's bored?

Cannot He be of this Universe and beyond?

So, what is the most important 'thing' of existence?

 

[zoobyshoe]

If anything can be stated with relative certainty, it's that the material world is more immaterial than material. It is the immaterial principle that makes a thing to be what it is, not little atomic billiard balls.

What we have are fields. Electric fields and all their epiphenomena. Macroscopically they present as matter. Microscopically their behavior is sometimes elusive and counter-intuitive. That doesn't mean they are immaterial. In fact, they are the essence of material.

 

[DaveC426913]

What makes you think He's bored?

It was facetious. He is (almost) as powerful as a god, yet he did not create the universe.

Cannot He be of this Universe and beyond?

You said he is as powerful as he is because he has had eternity to get here. He is a product of this universe.

 

[GeorginaS]

Anyone who seeks the truth.

If he exists, we'd want proof; if he does not, we'd want to know that too.

I wish to have proof that you exist objectively, but technically, this can't be proven. Lots of things are unproveable, limited as we are, we are holding dearly onto our assumptions, sometimes forgetting and applying those assumptions way beyond the reasonable scale of applicability.

Wait, wait, wait. I feel as if I'm missing something, here. We can't objectively prove that Dave exists? Or that he exists objectively? (Can you "exist objectively"? Is that even a concept?) I'm going to go with objective proof that Dave exists. I realize our senses can't be trusted and all of that, but the question here is whether science can prove that god doesn't exist. Can science not prove that Dave does? Or are we suggesting that that's subjective? Did I miss something really important?

Make-believe, eh? Surely, we can't live without it, we have to believe in something or else we start to look lost and disoriented.

That's a completely mistaken idea.

 

[zomgwtf]

Wait, wait, wait. I feel as if I'm missing something, here. We can't objectively prove that Dave exists? Or that he exists objectively? (Can you "exist objectively"? Is that even a concept?) I'm going to go with objective proof that Dave exists. I realize our senses can't be trusted and all of that, but the question here is whether science can prove that god doesn't exist. Can science not prove that Dave does? Or are we suggesting that that's subjective? Did I miss something really important?

I agree with what your saying here Georgina. For some reason the other poster has brough up objective truth values where the question is specifically about science. (Something subjective to humans).

Science is necessarily from a human perspective etc. and as such can't be considered 'objective' in the way that the poster is using it so alluding to 'proof' of such existence from science is necessarily flawed. (does that make sense)

Now to our subjective experiences we can prove to one another that we do indeed exist (assuming they are normally functioning humans) and we can conduct scientific experiments with each other to show to each other that we continue to subjectively exists, further making this idea of 'existence' appear to be concrete to us. (It's approaching objective truth I guess you could say, from a human perspective though)

Now can the same be said about God? In my opinion: No. Only certain RELIGIOUS ideologies of God(s) can be proven/disproven. The general concept of God however can not be.

 

[GeorgCantor]

What we have are fields. Electric fields and all their epiphenomena.

Quantum fields are very definitely NOT real, unless you believe you are everywhere at once. Their collapse/decoherence can be said to be real. What do you mean by 'Electric fields' and how is this related to matter? Or did you mean electromagnetic field as in one of the four interactions?

Macroscopically they present as matter. Microscopically their behavior is sometimes elusive and counter-intuitive. That doesn't mean they are immaterial. In fact, they are the essence of material.

Draw me a molecule passing thorough both slits of a twin slit experiment. Then draw me a picture of an electron and of an electron tunneling through a classically forbidden barrier. And did you read my post? I said "more immaterial than material", i can elaborate if you are still taking this to mean that I implied(HOW??) that quantum objects are 100.00% immaterial. Read what i said, not what you think i said.

 

[GeorgCantor]

Wait, wait, wait. I feel as if I'm missing something, here. We can't objectively prove that Dave exists? Or that he exists objectively?

Yes, technically we can't. I don't experience Dave's existence directly, but through my mind, so i assume he exists objectively. Seems like a reasonable assumption to make, though i cannot prove it technically, as whatever experiment i choose to implement, it has to take place in my mind as well.

(Can you "exist objectively"? Is that even a concept?) I'm going to go with objective proof that Dave exists. I realize our senses can't be trusted and all of that, but the question here is whether science can prove that god doesn't exist. Can science not prove that Dave does?

Yes, science cannot prove beyond any doubt that Dave exists. Science doesn't prove anything, if you want proofs you go with religions or mathematics. The whole idea about science proving that God doesn't exist makes as much sense as this:

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/5573/dartvader.jpg

That's a completely mistaken idea.

That's probably because you misunderstood what i said. People need to believe that they know what it is that is actually going on and why it is going on, otherwise you are just one step from lunacy. Everyone has their beliefs in this respect, whether his name is Rovelli, Einstein or Smolin, but in the end it is still just that - a belief.

 

[GeorgCantor]

I agree with what your saying here Georgina. For some reason the other poster has brough up objective truth values where the question is specifically about science. (Something subjective to humans).

You have misunderstood my points completely. Hopefully, with what i said in the above 2 posts, it would be more clear.

 

[Boy@n]

It was facetious. He is (almost) as powerful as a god, yet he did not create the universe.

You said he is as powerful as he is because he has had eternity to get here. He is a product of this universe.

He as well might co-create it.

For me word God represents highest state of existence, and such existence can be eternal too, as existence is. Such existence is unchangable, it's absolute, always perfect, but that doesn't mean that God cannot use own essence to create another kind of existence, relative, and one of the kind can be our own Universe.

One might wonder why God would create somehing 'lower' than Self. Well, perhaps beause tha too is just process of eternity, being natural, happening spontaneously and effortlesly.

Eternal progression of all relative (aka humans) becoming asolute (God) is circle of life.

Since all life is beautiful, or call it valuable, then this anwers why.