Did science kill god, or did science prove the non-existence of god?

Question

And a f/u question: How far can faith be used to rely on the existence of god?

I'm sorry if it sounded like im baiting the 'believers', but from their perspective, i guess the questions are flawed. I'm an atheist, so how could science kill something that's not there and proving a negative is logically impossible. So why do i ask? Hmm, to see how pple would answer.

Answer 1

No,,,,,,, science may also be a way to prove HIS LOVE...


...

Answer 2

Science is based on facts or probable notions.
If the factors in science is absolute, why do you
need infinite studies and endless supposums to support what is an irrefutable conclusion.

Therefore, on a scientific level there is no existence of God. But by the same token
how does one prove the existence of atoms, protons, neutrons, and electrons. Your eyes cant see it. But no one will question that they are there.

Inspite of my cynicism I believe in God.
To find faith is a journey, not a destination.
We are a species of convience. If thing are not
catered to our way, we merely turn our back to them. With all the technology at our whims, we
can't solve the ill effects of poverty, starvation,
political and religious oppression, racism, nationalism,apathy, class war-fare to name a few.

Man made religion has a lot to answer for.
But so does man made science. If science is such a noble endeavor how do explain the intent to use nuclear power as a weapon. All the while knowing, it can destroy the whole planet.


Was it noble for science to inject plutonium into
unsuspecting people just to see what the effects would be? Our food is being radiated for longer
durations inside our favorite markets, does any know what the long term effects will be.

Science is beneficial. It is also manical and destructive. Where scientist went on a destination
to cure disease, now through chemical war-fare they seek to spread sickness and death. If science is a merciful god by these standards, I prefer to go about life as an athesist of such
a god.

Answer 3

Note: I'm an atheist/agnostic

I think that the scientific viewpoint coupled with the theory of evolution helped many people to see that the belief in God as seen in the major monotheistic religions is not plausible.

I do not think that science is responsible for all of the people who claim to be Christian or Jewish or whatever and don't really follow the tenets of their religion. I think that's just the nature of the beast and that decay of morality is the fault of the practitioners of the religion and not of science.

Science has not proven the non-existence of God. I think most scientists who are honest will take the view point of Richard Dawkins: It is possible that God does exist but the probability of this is fairly small and it is difficult to tell who is worshiping the correct God. How do we know that Zeus isn't the right God? There is no evidence.

So this is a flavor of agnosticism that is just one shade above atheism. I believe this is the correct viewpoint.

Answer 4

I don't think science has either killed, or disproven (disproved -?-, perhaps) the existence of God. Science has come to be an alternative belief system. Fashions change, and, perhaps, God has, as a result, become less important (or not important) to some people.
As for faith, you've worded your question well. Faith as a means of relying on the existence of God? That would be very much up to the individual, I would think. Faith as proof of God? Well, you didn't ask that. Clever. I like your style.

Answer 5

It's impossible to completely disprove religion - the only possible conclusion these days would be to PROVE it. As in an apocolypse or something. Obviously its based on faith, the very idea of faith is that seeing is not everything to do with believing. So for those who need proof/disproof the ONLY possible conclusion would be to see, but this MAY never happen!
(as a side note i do not believe but that doesnt change a thing)

Answer 6

As long as He is in my heart He is very much alive. And so far no one has offered me any scietific proof that he does not exist? And the day someone does is the day I'll stop believing.

There is however, scientific proof against evolution, and so if neither theories are correct then one must ask himself how are we here? What do we do? When will it end? What comes next?

So I'll stick to God. Here are the probabilties.

If there is a God. Then I'll have given up roughly 80 years of partying for Eternal Life. If there is no God then I'll have given up 80 years of partying and when I die I'll no longer exist, so it won't matter to me then.

I'll put my money on God. What have I got to lose?

Answer 7

Science deals in testable/measurable facts, religion deals in faith. Science can not be used to prove/disprove the existence of a god.

Science can say that the Plague was caused by a bacillus, but it can't prove that God/a god didn't cause that bacillus to come about in the first place.

Science can be used to argue against specific articles of religious faith such as literal interpretation of the Biblical story of the age of the earth, but that doesn't necessarily argue against the existence of a god.

Answer 8

Both of your questions are 'not good' as questions, because the way each of them is 'stated' presumes something that may or may not 'be true' ... i.e., in the first question the 'assumption is' that there is 'no God' now ... and in the second question, you used the word 'rely' in a way that says people can use 'reliance on their faith' to 'prove' (unstated, but implied) the 'existence of God.' I don't think that you 'believe in God' but I do think that you must learn to ask 'good questions' if you are really serious about learning more about whether there 'is' or 'is not' a God to 'believe in.'

Answer 9

During 1800s, Anthropologists had a problem as to how
to classify human beings. One researcher proposed the
expression "intelligent animal". After advanced studies
on monkeys, it was dropped. Another researcher proposed
"tool using animal". After observing some animals
making wooden tools and sharpening them with knife like
stones, it was dropped. Another researcher proposed
"weapon using animal". A decade ago, a rare film was
shot in African forests. One short monkey was hit very
badly by a big monkey. The short monkey prepared a
wooden knife using stones and hid it on the top of a
tree. After some days, when the big monkey came to
attack the short monkey, it ran up to the tree for the
weapon it has hid and killed the big monkey. The one
thing that the anthropologists found with any group of
human beings, even if they did not have contacts with
the out side world for thousands of years, is
spirituality with some form of religion. So, man is a
"spiritual animal" if you want to call him that way.

The Upanishads say that "Manush" (human) was so named
because he has "Manas" a mind higher than that of the
animals which realizes the divinity in creation. It was
present since the creation of human beings. Religion is
the characteristic feature of most of the human beings.
It is as eternal and and as unchanging as the Almighty.
Disbelief by a few will not affect it.

Answer 10

It's nothing to do with science to prove the existence or non-existence of god. It's more to do with our common-sense, perceptions and beliefs. God is not an entity. God is an idea, a metaphor, a personification of an idea. I'd say God is a very obscure and a clever "word" coined in the history of a mankind which has always baffled people and made us think. God concept is widely (mis-)interpreted by people.

Answer 11

that's a good theory yet unrealistic. via fact god is familiar with greater advantageous than our little brains can ever comprehend. you go with to comprehend the real reason he leaves you thinking? If god got here out to the worldwide and informed definitely everyone that he existed, you will do your maximum suitable to be a solid man or woman no count if or no longer you incredibly have been. it fairly is the subject. God is obviously filtering out the righteous from the non. And he's conscious the "genuine" man or woman you're via silently staring at interior the history no longer letting you comprehend he exists. that would desire to be the super thank you to do it. Why clear out? First comprehend that we are the main state-of-the-paintings beings interior the universe yet heavily limited. 2nd, comprehend what you would be able to desire to do to make a society greater efficient. 0.33, have faith that your needs are in accordance with what's at present available to you. you won't be able to comprehend the subsequent point of rewards once you are the deserving one.