A question for Athiest scientists...?

Question

I've heard many times that science disproves the existence of God, but I've yet to hear the explaination of this claim. Am I misunderstanding the arguement or have I just run into people who don't feel like explaining? So my question is, if science disproves the existence of God, how does it do so?
Note: I personally believe that science neither proves nor disproves the existence of God.

Thank you everyone who has answered seriously. I think I was definitly misunderstanding the argument being made. It makes a lot more sense to me now, thanks.

Answer 1

Here's how it disproves God:

In ANY science that is empirically tested, there is something called the "null hypothesis".

The Null Hypothesis means than an effect does not exist.

Now, to toss the Null Hypothesis, one needs to PROVE that there IS an effect.

The null hypothesis is: God does not exist.

To show that he does, one needs to have sufficient statistical power in an empirical study to show that he does.

ty.

Answer 2

You simply cannot logically 'prove that something doesn't exist' - but that's no reason to believe that it does. There is no more likelihood that the universe was created by the Xian deity than that it was sneezed from the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure.

So God is in a sticky position at step 1, with zero points.

The primary 'evidence' to support the existence of God is that He's supposed to have created the universe, created the Earth, filled it with critters, and created Man.

But there are excellent ways in which these things could have come about without the need of a supernatural deity.

The details of the natural ways these things arose are complicated. It takes work to understand how they function.

So even though God is a monstrously unlikely entity, it's always easier to say 'Goddidit' than learn the real reasons.

CD

Answer 3

Any true scientist (or those who understand science) would never claim that science "disproves" the existence of god. I can no more prove god doesn't exist than you can prove he does.
What science *has* shown us, however, is that the biblical myths relating to creation, adam & eve, the great flood, the tower of Babel, etc. are all completely without basis in fact; that the bible contains many, many historical and factual errors; and that the god as defined in the bible (and expounded upon by millenia of christian apologists since) cannot exist -- that "god" is a logical fallacy.

It also shows us that there are natural explanations for our existence, the existence of our planet and universe, for our evolution from other life forms to our current form, and for all of the laws of physics -- all these natural explanations have no need of any "god" or any other supernatural cause to work, nor is any found. Given the whole body of scientific evidence, what science tells us is that the likelihood of any "god" of any kind existing is infinitesimally small. In other words: possible, but not at all likely.

Peace.

Answer 4

I agree with you here - nothing Science does can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God.

To prove the existence of God, you need irrefutable evidence. A holy book written by man is not irrefutable evidence, because it does not rise to the level required. As such, no holy book is enough to prove the existence of God. A miracle can be explained by any number of things, so that is not irrefutable evidence. A disaster is the same as a miracle. As such, to date, there is not irrefutable evidence of God.

The only irrefutable evidence would be for God to present himself - that is not science, that is witnessing an event.

You cannot disprove the existence of God. You cannot prove a negative (e.g. prove there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster). It's impossible - logic wise.

Therefore, it is impossible for science to either prove or disprove the existence of God.

Answer 5

Actually, I use logic to disprove the Christian god, since he is believed to be all-powerful. This is the question which must be answered: can god create a mountain so large that he cannot destroy it?

If you say yes, then god cannot destroy something, so by definition he cannot be all-powerful.
If you say no, then he cannot create something, so by definition he cannot be all-powerful.

There it is, simple logic that disproves an all-powerful god.

As for science and religion, the two are separated by central focuses. Religion relies on faith; science relies on observations. Also, science is only concerned with the processes, that is, how things work. It does care why they are here. That is a question for religion and philosophy. Science can neither prove nor disprove god in general, but it can disprove certain claims made about god. We know it is not possible to rise from the dead after days, since after only minutes, brain damage occurs.

Answer 6

Science doesn't disprove the existence of God.

You can't prove a negative (as in proving that God doesn't exist), so anyone who claims they can prove God's nonexistence using science, or anything else, is mistaken.

Science mostly points to the lack of necessity of some God.

Answer 7

Well, science isn't really a thing. It's a way of thinking about things.

If you look at "the bible" or "god" in a scientific way, basically it says "great, Your hypothosis is that god exists, now prove it." And since you can't really prove an invisible, incorporal being (and the burden of proof rests on the person making the claim) then you can't really prove it.

You can't prove god doesn't exist thru science, but you definately can't prove that he does.

Answer 8

Science disproves the existence of god by default!
The argument is this: science cannot explain the existence of the non existence! (god, spirits, and all other claims of supernatural phenomena) Got It?

Answer 9

Science disproves every scientifically testable claim about the supernatural. It also disproves the physical evidence of God that has been brought forth by believers.

Science cannot prove a negative, so you can say "it is not possible to scientifically disprove the existence of an omnipotent being", but one thing that is perfectly clear:

If you scientifically evaluate the evidence for and against the existence of God, the evidence against the existence of God stands up to scrutiny, the evidence for the existence of God does not stand up to scrutiny.

Answer 10

The purpose of science isn't to prove or disprove God.

Answer 11

First off science has to address a broad question with a broad answer. since this is a question about religion(myth)and blind hope(Sedative for the masses)
Reigion teaches the same way you would teach your children the right and wrong in life,that is the reward-punishment method,based primarily on life lessons and emotion,whereas science does it with investigative-factual-thats the way it is - method ,so that there is no punishment or reward involved,thus no personal motivation ,such as mass controlled populations etc...
I guess I could go on but I think the point has been made.