We can't prove that God exists... BUT!!!?

Question

BUT! The thing is, although we have theories to explain the creation of the Universe and Life, those theories still do NOT directly disprove the existence of a higher being. What do you think?

to nondescri...:
Such as?

ps. Atheist here.

Yes I agree, there is not much evidence supporting a higher power, and that is my main criticism as an atheist of religion.

to Lori S
Energy is really just atoms rubbing against each other. It doesn't take much for that to happen...

I've read the IPU, Flying Spaghetti Monster, and Teapot in outerspace theories. Those put things into perspective...

Answer 1

the lack of evidence against something existing does not constitute evidence for it existing.

Again, it is the invisible pink ponies argument. I can't prove invisible pink ponies don't exist yet nobody seems very worried about that. Why?

Answer 2

Both religion and science have the same problem, just stated a bit differently. Science can't explain where the energy of the Big Bang came from or anything prior to the first moments of the Big Bang and religion can't explain where God came from.

The difference in the approaches, for good or ill, is that, science's inability to explain the universe at time index = 0 is a source of great frustration and a major sticking point in all the cosmological theories. For the God based approach or religion, this question doesn't arise because it has no meaning. Time is a creation of God, as is the physical universe, therefore, God must exist outside of time and space....and as such, any questions of God's origins, which can only be expressed in terms of the physical universe and time are absolutely nonsensical. God exists. PERIOD....and our limited intellect will never be able to understand that existence as we are bound by space and time.

Answer 3

You can prove that G-d exists and you can have it in the logical way: Imagine, you come to the Moon and see a Swiss knife with initials. Would you say, that it formed randomly in hundred thousands of years? Everyone, that has a bit of common sense will say, that somebody has already been here and forgot his knife, right?

Here a story about Newton (The one who found the law of gravity). He was a G-d fearing person and he had an argue with somebody, who wasn't a believer. Newton constructed a small model of our sun system - the sun in the middle and 9 planets, everything was moving in a perfect way. He showed this to his opponent. The opponent was astonished, he asked, how did you do such a beautiful thing? Newton said, that it wasn't him, rather his cat was jumping and playing with balls and ropes and in the end it had this system formed. The man said, that Newton must be joking, everyone can see, that it's a human-made model. Newton answered him, on this small model you're saying, that somebody did it and it was not randomly created, how can you say on the big one, our world, that it was randomly created, just because it's big?

These two examples come to show us, that our world has a creator, it can't be otherwise. Look on the nature, on animals, human body, you see the deep wisdom, which cannot be random or human, it must be something from above. All these theories are nice, but they are still stay theories. You can't say it's a law if you can't prove it. Reality is much more stronger than the theory, just look around and you will understand. Good luck

Answer 4

My friend, you are not atheist, you are agnostic. An atheist would not consider the corollary that if God cannot be proven, then the total absence of something beyond our understanding also cannot be proven. Atheism is black & white as far as religion goes.

But just because something sounds catchy doesn't make it true. Case in point, the eternal Pascal's Wager assertions or the phrase, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!" They sound logical to some, but they still do not offer proof.

I am agnostic. I do NOT think that there is a "higher being" that I am looking for in life (the standard definition of agnostics), I just cannot logically discount the fact that we don't know everything about the universe. There may be an underlying energy that we are all a part of, or it may all simply be an extension of our own egos.

As far as I know, this life is all we get. But it's nice to wonder about what may happen afterwards. Until then, I'm going to make the most of my time here.

Answer 5

You cannot use science to prove the existence of God, but you cant use science to prove He does NOT exist either. Science cannot even prove or disprove the existence of Abraham Lincoln or Admiral Nelson either.
These all require indirect evidence for their proof, and the things you cite are the indirect evidence of a Supreme Being, a Designer for the obviously designed universe. Too much pseuro-science, or "scientifical" dogma is aimed at ignoring this evidence and trying to make God go away.

Answer 6

I think you're right. Our explanations for the beginning of life and the universe do not disprove higher powers.

But NOT disproving a higher power isn't reason enough to believe in a higher power. For that you really should have evidence of that Higher Power. Otherwise we'd all have to accept the credibility of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn...and that Yahweh guy.

Answer 7

Some of you speak of Energy being the creation of matter and question the origin of that energy.

I am playing around with kinetic energy at present in the Joecell and can burn water! Recall predawn history? dinosaurs occupied earth for 1.5million years prior to the coming of homonids on the planet.

That buggars up .."In the beginning".. Which beginning?

There was a great cataclysmic bang and the earth was shrouded in microcosmic dust that possibly killed off life due to lack of sunlight. It is after this event that science is beginning to find evidence of homosapien life. Maybe that was the event of energy that brought man into creation. Kinetic energy derived form whatever fell to earth. Nothing to do with a God

Answer 8

You're right. I wonder if most theists out there realize that science still does not know what happened at the exact moment of the Big Bang, or what caused that event to take place. All they have to do is say "God started the Big Bang" and they've got a statement that (so far, anyway) science can't really argue against. That's not to say that science will NEVER have the answer, but right now, the deity hypothesis is as good as any.

Answer 9

You're correct...there are no legitimate theories or a hypothesis that suggest that God doesn't (or does) exist. A theory is a crucial part of the scientific method. The scientific method includes the ability to prove that something CAN'T be done or DOESN'T exist as much as it does the opposite.

The element of Falsifiability is what stops scientists (either way) dead in their tracks...
The scientific method involves the following basic facets:

Observation. A constant feature of scientific inquiry.

Description. Information must be reliable, i.e., replicable (repeatable) as well as valid (relevant to the inquiry).

Prediction. Information must be valid for observations past, present, and future of given phenomena, i.e., purported "one shot" phenomena do not give rise to the capability to predict, nor to the ability to repeat an experiment.

Control. Actively and fairly sampling the range of possible occurrences, whenever possible and proper, as opposed to the passive acceptance of opportunistic data, is the best way to control or counterbalance the risk of empirical bias.

Falsifiability, or the elimination of plausible alternatives. This is a gradual process that requires repeated experiments by multiple researchers who must be able to replicate results in order to corroborate them. This requirement, one of the most frequently contended, leads to the following: All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof. Thus, there is a point at which there might be a consensus about a particular hypothesis or theory, yet it must in principle remain tentative. As a body of knowledge grows and a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results, confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases.

Causal explanation. Many scientists and theorists on scientific method argue that concepts of causality are not obligatory to science, but are in fact well-defined only under particular, admittedly widespread conditions. Under these conditions the following requirements are generally regarded as important to scientific understanding:

Identification of causes. Identification of the causes of a particular phenomenon to the best achievable extent.

Covariation of events. The hypothesized causes must correlate with observed effects.

Time-order relationship. The hypothesized causes must precede the observed effects in time.

Answer 10

God cannot be proven or disproven but it can certainly be discredited...

If God exists why didn't He sent His message in ONE Burst of Revelation simultaneously,(which means at the same time), to all the corners of the Earth (to all ethnic groups)?

If one of the main religions is God inspired then I would say to that God that He was negligent by the way he disseminated his message targeting one ethnic group and hoping that His Word would be accepted by the rest of humanity.

Since He knows Human Nature better than anyone He knew that his message had very little chance to be accepted universally and knowing that Satan would sponsor other religions starting in other ethnic groups THIS WOULD LEAD TO HATRED AND RELIGIOUS WAR, MURDER , Holocaust.

No religion is God inspired that's why they all start narrowly ethnically centered.
The odds are there is no God or He is certainly a rotten character.