Does Science accept the existence of God?... What argument they pose to resist or accept it?

Question

Great Scientists like Edison have B'lieved in the existence of Super Natural Power...Whereas some people who read and like science say God is not there and its all foolish caz there is no proof for anything!!

Answer 1

When asked questions that they cannot answer, scientists normally say "that is a matter of religion". I dont think scientists generally set out to disprove God or religion, but to enhance the quality and understanding of life through numbers and evidence. In essence, I guess you could say that a good portion of science is based in faith to seek out answers that everyone wants to know about life.

However, there is a trend in society in which science is becoming the more popular choice for such answers.

Answer 2

Science is only concerned with the natural world/universe, and has the assumption that if there is anything outside this universe, then it appears to have no effect on this universe.

Science is agnostic with respect to a supernatural being, insofar as their is no evidence that any supernatural beings ever exert any influence on the natural world.

Many scientists are agnostic or atheist, but many are not. Compared to the population as a whole, scientists are less religious, but you can't use that information to make any claims about any one scientist, or to point to one scientist (like Edison) and then make claims about Science.

Answer 3

Every "scientific" statistically crunched experiment has one very important residual reminder that at one time, religion was the proponant of science: every experiment is tested against the null hypothsis (in other words, that we cant affect this variable, to make a long store short - long ago, it was inferred that if "we" as scientists couldn't manipulate that variable, how it acted was the will of god....)
There really is no conflict between god and science -
If you look at the Strong Anthropic Principle (from Astronomical Physics) it believes that our ability of comprehend the universe is directly related to the universes ability to express itself....
As an example - if the universe wanted me in detroit to talk to you where ever you are over a computer, it couldnt have happened in 1790....first we needed radio, then TV, then big blue, etc....
It gets big and philosophical - but most scientists are doctors of philosophy, because when all is said and done every science - EVERY ONE - comes down to two questions....
Why are we here and what is the meaning of life....

Answer 4

Science cannot accept or deny the existence of God, for science is the study of the natural universe in natural terms. Nothing supernatural falls within the purview of science. Edison as a person may have believed in a supernatural power, but when he was speaking of it he was not speaking as a scientist.
.

Answer 5

Edison did not believe in God.

"what my reason compels me to deny, is the existence of a Being throned above us as a god, directing our mundane affairs in detail, regarding us as individuals, punishing us, rewarding us as human judges might." Thomas Edison.

More than 90% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences are Atheist/Agnostic.

Answer 6

confident, form of. technology explains organic phenomenon, by organic procedures. It provides a probability factors for a manner issues take place. It does in no way make determination approximately what's needed and sufficient as a proof and is carefully incapable of doing so. What I mean via needed and sufficient: needed which ability this explanaiton might desire to be the spectacular one with the intention to have spoke of the organic phenomenon we've spoke of. sufficient which ability there's no longer something that would desire to be extra to the reason. So technology makes no declare with regards to the existence or non-existence of a god or numerous gods. be conscious the various atheists (no longer all) who rather don't understand technology, yet declare some psychological superiority using fact of their ideals. they think of that using fact purpose won't have the ability to be measured via technology it does no longer exist. Therein lies the subject, in case you have faith you have purpose, then atheism is inadequate. i've got faith I actual have purpose. i visit freely admit that i would be incorrect, however the religion required to have faith in numerous universe to describe away the prepared complexity of the universe is a minimum of the religion the have faith in even their made up flying-spaghetti monster. in actuality all religions actual require much less faith. They a minimum of have claims of supernatural miracules finished, while it rather is totally clean that the flying spaghetti monster and numerous universe is basically made up via guy with out data. between no data and basically testimonial data, i elect the latter.

Answer 7

Science ignores the existence/non-existence of God because it is not a scientifically valid concept. Furthermore, scientists don't copy the religions of other scientists. Just because Einstein believed in God doesn't mean that everyone who believes the Theory of Relativity has to.

Answer 8

while undoubtedly there are scientists who believe in god, Science cannot accept god's existence because science doesn't accept the existence of anything it can't find proof (or at least some verifiable and strong evidence) of.

Answer 9

Well here's one of the best articles i've read where two scientists pose thier own very different perceptions on the matter
if you're serious about this question this is must read material

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132,00.html

Answer 10

Science deals with the physical world while God is in the spiritual world.

Science cannot examine or explain the soul/personality of a body. It is spiritual. They can't even explain, from a scientific standpoint, how a person has a seperate personality and what makes them who they are.