Quickest Way To Get A Gift To My...
ChatterBank0 min ago
Explain In Detail How, Using The Scientific Method, One Would Prove/ Disprove The Existence Of God?
63 Answers
What men do can never make God false or prove God false.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by goodlife. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
No one can prove or disprove the existence or otherwise of a god or gods by any means whatsoever, neither can they realistically claim that the bible is ‘proof’ of anything - which is no doubt where your dubious 'question' is heading. However, if you have read it and actually believe what it says without adding your own comofrtable little spin on it, there’s no doubt that god was not what he is alleged to have been. His followers have endowed him with attributes he clearly didn’t possess. Next!
I don't believe that it's in general possible to prove or disprove God's existence and indeed there are many, many scientists who are also religious and would generally argue that there is not a contradiction, or perhaps that their Science enhances their faith. Equally there are many Scientists who are atheist, perhaps because understanding the Universe better can lead to questioning why it's all here for us or some such. Basically, I think people see in Science what they want to see when it comes to religion.
What I DO believe is that Science, as far as it goes, is correct and the best system we have for understanding how our Universe works. This can of course sit comfortably alongside the "Why" of religion. But there is a big "BUT". Which works something like this:
1. Scientific study has led to fact A being true to a high degree of probability.
2. My interpretation of religion appears to work only if Fact A is false.
3. Therefore we have arrived at a contradiction between Science, whose work leads inevitably to A, and religion.
While this isn't using Science to disprove God in general, it does mean that certain interpretations of religion are surely false. The question then is whether or not that interpretation is the correct one.
So my views on this question are that Scientific facts are the closest to certain knowledge we can practically get, but that the question of existence or non-existence of God is primarily a religious question. Science enters in only at the very end, and only if a religious view finds itself in disagreement with Science.
What I DO believe is that Science, as far as it goes, is correct and the best system we have for understanding how our Universe works. This can of course sit comfortably alongside the "Why" of religion. But there is a big "BUT". Which works something like this:
1. Scientific study has led to fact A being true to a high degree of probability.
2. My interpretation of religion appears to work only if Fact A is false.
3. Therefore we have arrived at a contradiction between Science, whose work leads inevitably to A, and religion.
While this isn't using Science to disprove God in general, it does mean that certain interpretations of religion are surely false. The question then is whether or not that interpretation is the correct one.
So my views on this question are that Scientific facts are the closest to certain knowledge we can practically get, but that the question of existence or non-existence of God is primarily a religious question. Science enters in only at the very end, and only if a religious view finds itself in disagreement with Science.
God's existence is not testable via the scientific method since it is by definition non-naturalistic and unfalsifiable.
Read what Russell's Teapot is about, and perhaps a glimmer of understand may dawn. http://
Read what Russell's Teapot is about, and perhaps a glimmer of understand may dawn. http://
As been mentioned numerous times, the onus is on the person suggesting a solution to show it is viable. That's not to say in the spiritual debates one has to apply rules that work for checking things in this material world, but it does mean that differences of opinion are to be expected and the idea of proof not really relevant. The scientific method isn't really applicable.
#What men do can never make God false or prove God false. #
Here is a picture of my IPU God.
If you can't see it that proves it not false.
#Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power. We know this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them. — Steve Eley[7][8]#
Here is a picture of my IPU God.
If you can't see it that proves it not false.
#Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power. We know this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them. — Steve Eley[7][8]#
In my IPU holy book it is clear that it is not false .
# In the beginning The Invisible Pink Unicorn created the heavens and the earth...and the Spirit of The Invisible Pink Unicorn was hovering over the waters. And The Invisible Pink Unicorn said, "Let there be light," and there was light. The Invisible Pink Unicorn saw that the light was good, and she separated the light from the darkness.#
—Genesis IPU 1:1
# In the beginning The Invisible Pink Unicorn created the heavens and the earth...and the Spirit of The Invisible Pink Unicorn was hovering over the waters. And The Invisible Pink Unicorn said, "Let there be light," and there was light. The Invisible Pink Unicorn saw that the light was good, and she separated the light from the darkness.#
—Genesis IPU 1:1
The scientific method is based around observing and measuring evidence.
Seeing as God is supposed to be responsible for 'everything' then if God exists then measuring 'anything' by 'any means' will 'prove' the existence - each little flower that opens, each little bird that sings, that sort of thing.
However if God doesn't exist then measuring 'anything' by any means will 'prove' that he doesn't exist - because he doesn't exist.
So the results of any test will be the the same whether God exists or does not exist - so, like others have said, there is no way to test for it scientifically.
Seeing as God is supposed to be responsible for 'everything' then if God exists then measuring 'anything' by 'any means' will 'prove' the existence - each little flower that opens, each little bird that sings, that sort of thing.
However if God doesn't exist then measuring 'anything' by any means will 'prove' that he doesn't exist - because he doesn't exist.
So the results of any test will be the the same whether God exists or does not exist - so, like others have said, there is no way to test for it scientifically.
Easiest thing in the world
If God created it - who created God? - Nobody
If Nobody is a valid answer we can say Nobody created the Universe
We could invoke occam's razor and say God is an unnecessary complication with no supporting evidence.
Under the scientific method unnecessary complications with no supporting evidence are excluded.
Much the same as we might use the Scientific method to elliminate the suggestion that God was created by a Robot called 'Sparky'
Or we might use the scientific method to deduce a contradiction or paradox - when a scientific theory shows a paradox - it is incorrect.
Let's take a classic.
God Is all powerful so he can create a rock so big he can't move it - Paradox
Therefore the notion there exists an infinitely powerful being is incorrect.
Anything else you'd like clarified?
If God created it - who created God? - Nobody
If Nobody is a valid answer we can say Nobody created the Universe
We could invoke occam's razor and say God is an unnecessary complication with no supporting evidence.
Under the scientific method unnecessary complications with no supporting evidence are excluded.
Much the same as we might use the Scientific method to elliminate the suggestion that God was created by a Robot called 'Sparky'
Or we might use the scientific method to deduce a contradiction or paradox - when a scientific theory shows a paradox - it is incorrect.
Let's take a classic.
God Is all powerful so he can create a rock so big he can't move it - Paradox
Therefore the notion there exists an infinitely powerful being is incorrect.
Anything else you'd like clarified?
While the first part I agree with, I seriously don't see how the rock-too-heavy paradox has anything to do with anything. God can't achieve the impossible - so what? All-powerful really means "capable of doing anything that is possible". No rock can possibly exist that is too heavy for God to lift. But never mind, He can do everything else.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
All I am going to say it this, the order in the universe speaks of God’s glory. Everything in nature is so definitely planned and has such a purposeful design that it shows intelligent planning. Why, it has taken the best minds of great scientists to discover only a few of the laws of nature. Are laws made by accident? What intelligent planning exists in regard to our earth! The sun’s distance from the earth is just right. The moon’s distance from the earth is just right. The earth is tilted on its axis just right. The mixture of gases is just right. The relationship between plants and animals is just right. What infinite wisdom is behind that cycle in nature! Animals take in oxygen, exhale it again combined in carbon dioxide while plants take in carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen. An accident? Unthinkable! (Rom. 1:20)
Read more: Explain in detail how, using the scientific method, one would prove/ disprove the existence of God? | Answerbag http://
Read more: Explain in detail how, using the scientific method, one would prove/ disprove the existence of God? | Answerbag http://
It is a mystery to me why anyone bothers answering any of goodlife's 'Questions' - the same happens here as happens every other time - after a suitable time has elapsed to let people opnder and debate, goodlife comes back in with the answer he wants, with a faint sanctimonious air of educating the ill-infomed.
Because Andy, we talk to each other on his posts - Nobody really cares what he thinks.
Interesting jim I thought the first part was actually the weaker - Occam's razor is'nt particularly reliable - I can imagine what Newton would have thought of Quantum Mechanics.
However when you get a paradox - it's an indication that something's wrong.
Much the way that Russel's paradox pretty much crippled the attempts to found mathematics on a rigorous basis
Interesting jim I thought the first part was actually the weaker - Occam's razor is'nt particularly reliable - I can imagine what Newton would have thought of Quantum Mechanics.
However when you get a paradox - it's an indication that something's wrong.
Much the way that Russel's paradox pretty much crippled the attempts to found mathematics on a rigorous basis
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.