Is Science incapable of proving God's existence?

Question

Atheists point to not having "scientific proof" as the basis of their disbelief in God. But here is a thought I had...(sorry if I unconsciously plaigerised some philosopher's work here)

Say you are atheist, and that you are married. Can you "prove" that your spouse loves you? You can physically observe your spouse wearing a ring, you can hear them say "i love you," and their daily behavior may also persuade you. But, there is no possible way to know for certain based solely on observation, because you cannot get inside of your partner's head to know for sure. Your spouse may in fact hate you, simply tolerate you, be indifferent to you, or hopefully, they do love you. Its all taken in, er...faith.

The point is, love is impossible to prove, but it exists (and I dont buy that it's only pheromones, that leaves a LOT unexplained). So I argue that just because something can't be "proven" by scientific method, that doesnt mean it can't exist. Perhaps this applies to "god" as well

My point is to not simply say "love exists, therefore God exists" but to merely point out that it is possible for something to exist that can't be proven by scientific method. This is just an analogy I came up with.

Answer 1

The point is that you can walk up to your wife and ask. You can also expect and answer that you can hear and expressions that you can see. In the case of God you have a better chance of finding out if a wall loves you because, at least the wall is there.

Answer 2

God doesn't exist because science can't disprove his existence, but that doesn't mean he exists either.

There isn't any "proof" either way you look at it.

Faith is what a particular individual makes it out to be.

In your example of the married couple, "It's all taken in, er...faith" is your impression. A married couple does not necessarily have to love each other. Why should being married have anything to do with being in love?

But let's say marriage "should" mean love for each other. So what is the criteria for being in love? The examples you give above for the spouse to remain married may be true. But you figure there is some type of "love" keeping them together, or preventing the spouse from leaving...?

After all, "Actions Speak Louder Than Words"

The story of God is just that. Science may or not be able to determine if it is Fiction or Non-Fiction. A lot of this problem is due to impression. What is the "proof" that God exists? Mostly scriptures right? It certainly hasn't been passed down from time in a language that is undeniably comprehensible to us today. Even stories written today are difficult to determine what exactly the author may be writing about.

You don't believe everything written in American History books (for example) is correct do you? Recent discoveries have proven some information wrong. Perhaps this will apply to "god" as well.

Answer 3

Science can only prove those things that are in the relm of the natural, but God is super-natural so science can not deal with Him.

Science can prove some things that the Bible tells us about, and this would prove the Bible true, and this would mean that God is real, but they do not count those things as scientific so that they can continue to denight God.

Many atheists believe in evoltion, and evolution says that man came millions of years after the dinosaurs. But there are places where there are human and dinosaur footprints in the same rock. They say that in the last ice age the wooly mamoths died out, but there have been mamoths found with tropical food in their stomuchs. How did they get tropical food? How come it did not get digested? How come their insides did not start to rot? Evolution can not answer these and so they mostly ignore these facts, but the Bible can answer them because it has the mechanisim that evolution is still looking for. There use to be a ice shield over our atmosphere according to the Bible, and during the flood it came down. It collected mostly at the magnetic poles (ice at -300 F has a magnetic property) this ice was able to freeze the mammoths solid fast enough to keep the food from being digested (even at -100 F it would have had time to digest). This helps to show that the Bible is true, and who could have known such things in the past? God, but this is not the answer many atheists are looking for.

Answer 4

There's a difference between faith based upon logical conclusion and repeated experience and faith based upon complete lack of evidence. You're playing with semantics here to get your point across.

There is reason to believe that my spouse loves me by what you have said... her behavior. Would it be reasonable to conclude that it's all a facade? No. You are right that there is a chance that my spouse hates me, but you have to admit that if she does, she's doing a poor job of proving it. This analogy is irrelevant, anyway. If a god exists, and I don't believe in it, I'm pretty much doomed.

Fortunately, you cannot prove that this god exists, so I can make the reasonable conclusion that the complete lack of evidence suggests.

Answer 5

Love can be measured by chemical processes in the brain. I will not deny that there is still a lot that can not be measured, or observed at this time.

When we look at the statements made in the Bible and compare them with what science shows us to be fact there are many errors present. When we look at the description of Jehovah and apply logic we can come to a reasonable conclusion that such a God does not exist in reality.

But love can be proved to exist. It can be measured, and it can be manipulated.

Answer 6

I believe that god excists, but just because we cannot prove something now does not mean that we will not be able to prove it in the future. Thats what scientiffic progress is. Knowing today what we didn't yesterday.
Who knows, we may sometime find out that love is actually just scimbiotic virus, producing certain chemicals in your bloodstream causing you to feel love, causing you to release a love related hormone to which the virus feeds on. Can this be proven false? (well possibly, but you get the point).

Answer 7

First of all, it is not the purpose of scientists to prove or disprove a deity. Religion is not, nor has it ever been, a topic for scientific investigation. We cannot prove or disprove God and don't intend to try.

Don't confuse psychology and philosophy with science.

As for your remarks regarding the love of a spouse, that's a straw man and as such is irrelevant to the question of the existence of a deity.

Answer 8

Some good points, but you wont hear an unbeliever acknowledge that because their denial is not based on logic as they claim, it is an issue of the heart that defies logic. I think that if God could be proved by scientific method it would limit Him to actually being defined by scientific method. How great and mighty could He be if He could be apprehended by mere intellectual process. He exists outside of creation and does indeed reveal Himself through creation, but cannot be defined solely by His creation....that includes the scientific process which we use.

Answer 9

i assume we've a lot in trouble-free, you and that i. i'm an agnostic atheist and that i do experience that i've got not got into info concerning the Bible. whilst i grow to be youthful i grow to be required to memorize a verse an afternoon. I admit, I memorized yet I wasn't awareness it to the main. because of the fact regularly human beings positioned a lot complicated ideas on each and each verse, and each and each has an interpretation of their own. i think of that this loss of "awareness" is what we've in trouble-free. in case you extremely had an open ideas approximately technological awareness regularly, and how evolution and how existence began on earth, then consistent with danger you may get the jist of what we mean by skill of "information". whether it extremely is not a demanding adequate information for each man or woman, i've got self assurance and that i positioned merely as a lot faith as you do interior the Bible that technological awareness can instruct no longer all, yet of maximum of existence's mysteries. because of the fact in my ideas, the universe of that have been a factor of is merely archives, ever so changing and timeless on the comparable time. you seem as though a clever inteligent guy and that i do understand your ideals. yet one element that we maximum possibly can agree on is that we the two have a diverse philosophy on existence, and no matter how demanding we or you attempt, we on no account can get on the comparable internet site whilst it is composed of religion. whether we can attempt, won't be able to we?

Answer 10

Science is using theories, and disproving them. Science isn't used to prove anything, it is used to disprove. Everyone was taught that in school in like grade six. For example, you see a mouse with a tail, so you assume all mice have tails, what science does is finds a mouse without a tail. Until you can disprove a theory, it must be right. Same as the innocent until proven guilty, is actually innocent until disproven.