Can anybody prove the existance of god through science?

Question

besides me

Answer 1

In the Bible God was asked to prove he exists by stopping time.
The sun move backwards. Recently scientists were going to send a satellite into space. I don't recall what it was for but they needed to program it from day one to the present time. When the calculations were done one whole day was miissing. They could not fine anything wrong with the equipment nor could they find an answer. One of the scientists stated that when he was young and attended sunday school his teacher stated that one day time stood still. They found it in the scriptures and found that the time it stood still was exactly the same time as was missing.
The scientist who wrote the article said it was a life changing event for him.

Answer 2

Well, ask yourself what science is. Science by definition uses what is called the scientific method to explain phenomena through the use of reproducible observations in a controlled environment. The keywords are reproducible and controlled, so essentially science is assumptions based on its observed probability. Thus everything in this universe, ultimately cannot be proved 100% percent, rather, the observations that we make in experiments are consistent enough that we assume the outcome. Likewise, proving that electricity is the movement of cannot be done, but we can make experiments with observations that are consistent enough to support this idea.

So technically, proving that god exists is no better than proving that electricity is the movement of electrons or an electron has a specific mass. Rather we need to have faith that these observations are accurate. Everything in our universe takes a leap of faith, and thus anything is probable but not 100 % possible. And therefore science is part of god, because everything revolves around having faith.

Answer 3

"God" exists but not in the way taught by the bible or church.
The fact that this question is being asked and answered shows that there is the idea of god(s) floating in our culture, history and people's minds.

Even if we do not believe in a / any deity ourselves, we have to deal with the different believes of others and it is affecting us indirectly in physical ways. (I.e. wars, rights and social behaviors)

Also, there is this problem of an "immaterial soul". Depending on what your believe system is, you have different definition of the soul and how it works -- or even lack-there of a soul.

It is possible that our thoughts are stored physically much like data is in computers by electrons. So the idea of god(s) would also be similar and we could point to the storage medium and say "There's your god."

One argument against this line of thought is that computers and living beings differ in that computers have no soul while living being -- human -- have souls. That computers are not self conscious beings, while humans are.

However, it has also been said that the soul and the body could not be separated. This to me points to a strong pro for a material soul which would support the storage of thought argument.

Lastly we have one more hurdle to jump. That is the thought and entity argument. That's the same one René Descartes faced. In that, one could claim that the thought of an entity is not the same as the conscious self of the entity.

"I think" does not necessary conclude to "I am" because the thought may not have been created by the "I" in question.

Applying to our argument, I could say god(s) has / have been written down on books, but people wrote the books, so it is not real.

Yet, I could still claim that god(s) exists in a virtual reality -- created by human and affecting human affairs, our culture, books and most importantly thoughts. Those became real issues simply because some people do believe!

Answer 4

Depends how you define "God".

If God is whatever force/principle to which we attribute phenomena that can't (yet) be explained by science, e.g. "God decided that the speed of light must be 3E8 m/s", then I think there will always be room for God since we'll never know everything. But God will have to change his scope as science makes progress. There's no scope anymore for a God that creates lighting by throwing his hammer at the clouds, nor is there scope for a God that created complex life.

If God is whatever force/principle to which we attribute phenomena that are essentially impossible to explain, then there can probably be proved to be some scope for God but I don't think it will be very useful to ordinary people to have such a God since he would only deal with very abstract philosophical stuff that only concern philosophers.

If God is whatever authority decided on the moral values that everybody should acknowledge no matter what Bill Gates, the Pope and the Public Opinion says, then it's outside the scope of science. Of course, social scientists might have some ideas about the good and bad implications of such a "God" concept but I suppose that's another issue.

Answer 5

Actually they can't. Because the fact that the earth revolves around the sun will not be accepted (and it is proven by science) because early christians believe that the earth was made by god and that it is the center of the universe.

Answer 6

The answer regarding a satellite and a missing day is absolute nonsense, from beginning to end. There's no way that any such situation could take place, it's nothing more than an urban legend. See link.

Answer 7

read "Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy" by Rene Descarts. he "proves" the existaence of god by doubt. it goes like this: how do i know i exist? i know i exist because i doubt my own existence and i cannot doubt my own existence if i dont exist. now i know i exist, but i know im not the most supreme being, but wait, wehere did i just get the idea of a supreme being (god). then it means that this supreme being had implanted that idea of "it" in my mind previously. meaning if the supreme being implanted it in me, then "god" must exist because if god doesnt exist then how did i get the idea of a more supreme being thant i, and i know i exist.

that's not exactly science but it's reason. though i dont buy that, because descarts basis his "proving of god" oh the concept of apriori, meaning u already had a previous idea of god in ur mind. but we know our parents instill that in u. and the concept of apriori doesnt work because how do u know what u get when u add one apple plus another apple and u havent gone to school or was taught any sort of math. u know u get two apples. it doesnt mean that just because u had the idea of one apple plus another apple equal to two apples that the apples implated the idea of apple superiority in u.

and the existence of god cannot be proven by science becuase science can't prove that god doesnt exist.

religion and the believe in a god or gods for that matter, is just an opinion. and opinions are just like *** holes. everyone has one, y should your's be so important. if i tell u a story of me going through the woods and running into a tiger, and i climb up a tree as fast as i can, but the tiger still manages to rip off one of my legs and then i wake up and i dont have a leg and im in the hospital. and then i tell u the same storie but i tell u that instead of the tiger, i had just decided to climb up a tree just to see how fast i could do it. and i woke up in a hospital without a leg because maybe i fell and a stake went through my leg nd got infected and had to be removed....which story would u rather hear from me. the one with the tiger, or the one without the tiger. most people say the story with the tiger. y? because it's more exiting, it's got a plot, structure, a rising point, climax and all that good stuff. and othe other story doesnt.

so now, what story do u like best, the one wiht a "god" that "hears your prayers" somehow, or the story of how u get hydrogen and oxygen to bong. because the story without god is a story of atoms and molecules and all that good stuff.

"god" cannot be proven, if god exists, then what is god. god must be perfect, right? cuz, it's god. is god an it. a cloud of evergy. is god a woman. if god is perfect, god cannot lack anything. because something that's perfect has everything. if god is perfect, which god should be because it's god. then, is god the devil as well. am i god? i could be. is the dog god? maybe. if god is everything, cuz god doesnt lack anything. then everything and anything that surrounds us, and whatever we consider to be imperfect, is god.

god is just an opinion. form ur own.

Answer 8

Time. Time will say the truth.
Many scientists tried but failed and others are trying, some of them are biased and explain accordingly. If anybody proves with contemporary science it will not sustain due to present limitation of information.

Answer 9

I have to say SMITA's post above is misleading. Clearly, a real life professor would not have answered "cold exists" in the first place. The writer give him an identity (a professor, not any person) and made him answer Yes so that he could play with the analogy. Tricky and deceiving indeed... Typical.

Answer 10

Issac Newton once did. Many scientists choose not to include it in his works though. I forgot exactly what he said (my phys teacher explained what he wrote, but I forget things the instant summer starts), but it had to do something with being unexplainable, and unexplainable things are miracles, and only god can perform miracles, therefore "I Issac Newton have proved God exists"
and apparently all of newtons scientific works were towards the goal of finding out more about God