Is it possible to prove God's existence using science?

Question

I know it is impossible to disprove the existence of something, but I saw this guy on TV who said he could prove God's existence only using science. Too bad his analysis was so convoluted, it would have been nice to put it all to rest once and for all...

Answer 1

it depends on your definition of god.

Answer 2

I think that there are three things that can scientifically prove God exists. The first is the fact that scientifically start with stuff to make the universe. molecules just didn't come into existence. These things had to be created. The second is that human emotions can not evolve. evolution states that only the fit can survive. So how does compassion come into play. It can't unless we were created in the image of God. Morality makes no sense in the world created by evolution. Which leads me to my third point the feeling of guilt. Scientifically, unless there is a God and laws set by God and the fact that we feel guilty when we break those laws, then there must be a God.

Answer 3

Maybe some day, but not yet. There may be proof but it has not been discovered yet. The best the pro-God people can come up with (and it is pretty good actually) is the fantastic coincidence that the physical laws of the universe work the way they do. Some brilliant scientist said that in understanding the laws under which the universe operates we are getting a glimpe in to the mind of God, and Stephen Hawking speaks freely about a Creator in A Brief History Of Time. But this God would not necessarily be the one recounted in the Bible. The Bible was a nice try but not scientifically accurate.

Answer 4

Actually, science tends to disprove that a being of the traditional description of "God" exists. God's role is continually shrinking as science discovers the mechanisms for more and more aspects of nature. Before, people thought illnessess, natural catastrophes, etc. were caused by god. Now we know better. Although you can still find people who are superstitious enough to think god is behind it all.

The gaps in our knowledge are getting smaller and fewer - the main ones now are "what happpened before the big bang?" and "how does abiogenesis occur?"

Victor Stenger recently published a book called, "God: the Failed Hypothesis" in which he takes on this topic. His treatment, unfortunately, is aimed at the general public and is much too superficial to be very convincing, but it is a good overview of the arguments.

Answer 5

Those that don't believe in God, there will never be enough proof.

Here is a simple example:

Like DNA code.
Which is really a program. A super sophisticated program that has the instructions for building virtually ALL living creatures.
It also has programmed information throughout the life span of the creature that controls life changes.
This program is so complicated we have just decoded the letters of it and are beginning to make out some words.
Also, this program is microscopic, written on every cell.
Programs require intelligence.
They don't happen by accident, yet that is exactly what evolutionary theory proposes.

Would you believe Bill Gates used random number generators to create Windows?

Of course not. He hired intelligent programmers.

DNA is prima facie evidence for the Creator.

But people would rather believe a ridiculous theory rather than in God, because if there is God, than there might be moral accountability

Answer 6

Yes, but as you said, it's convoluted, and those who do not WANT to believe won't bother reading let alone studying it. Here's a 'quick' logic exercise:

- Proving the Existence of God -

THE BEGINNING

If we do indeed exist, there can be only two possible explanations for such a phenomenon. Either we had a beginning or we did not. The Bible says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). The atheist has always maintained that there was no beginning. The idea is that matter has always existed in the form of either matter or energy; and all that has happened is that matter has been changed from form to form, but it has always been. The Humanist Manifesto says, "Matter is self-existing and not created," and that is a concise statement of atheistic belief.

In order to decide whether the theist or atheist is correct we must ask after science to discover what it says regarding this question. In the local 'brane' of the cosmos are a number of galaxies like our own Milky Way. These galaxies are accelerating away from each other with every passing moment. We live in an expanding universe that gets bigger and bigger with every passing day. Now if we suppose that time can run backwards, we could see that all galaxies must come together at a beginning, at a point of universal expansion which scientists call a singularity. This puts the lie to the idea of an eternal universe. It had a beginning.

A second proof is seen in the energy sources that fuel the cosmos. Like all stars, the sun generates its energy by a process known as thermonuclear fusion. In every second, the sun compresses 564 million tons of hydrogen, fusing its components into 560 million tons of helium with 4 million tons of matter released as energy. In spite of that tremendous consumption of fuel, the sun has only used up 2% of the hydrogen it had on the day it was born. This incredible furnace is not unique. Indeed, this process takes place in every single star in the universe, as well as some gas giant planets such as Jupiter in our own solar system.

Now for a simple logical question: Throughout the cosmos there are 25 quintillion stars, each converting hydrogen into helium, thus reducing the total amount of hydrogen existing in the cosmos. Now if everywhere in the cosmos, hydrogen is being consumed, and if that process has been going on 'forever', how much hydrogen should be left? Obviously, the universe should have run out of hydrogen long ago. The fact is, however, that our sun has 98% of its original hydrogen still available.

Hydrogen is the most abundant material in the universe. Everywhere we look in space we can see the hydrogen 21 cm line in the spectrum - a frequency of light only given off by hydrogen. This would not be possible unless we indeed had a beginning.

A third scientific proof that the atheist is wrong is seen in the second law of thermodynamics. In any closed system, things tend to become disordered. If an automobile is never repaired, for example, it will become so disordered that it will eventually cease to run.

Getting 'old' is simple conformity to the second law of thermodynamics. In space, things also get old. Astronomers refer to this aging process as 'heat death'. If the cosmos is "everything that ever was or is or ever will be," as Dr. Carl Sagan was so fond of saying, then nothing can be added to it to improve its order, or to repair it. Even a 'bouncing' universe that expanded and collapsed forever would eventually die because it would lose light and heat with each expansion and rebound.

The atheist's assertion that matter/energy is eternal is scientifically impossible. The biblical assertion that there was indeed a beginning is in complete agreement with scientific principals.

THE CAUSE

If we know that creation has a beginning, we are faced with another logical question - was creation caused or was it not caused? The Bible states, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Not only does the Bible maintain that there was a cause - a creation - but it also tells us what the cause was. It was God. The atheist tells us that "matter is self-existing and not created." If matter had a beginning and yet was uncaused, one must logically maintain that something would have had to come into existence out of nothing. From empty space with no force, no matter, no energy, and no intelligence, matter would have to become existent. Even if this could happen by some strange new process unknown to science today, there is a logical problem: In order to say that matter can come from nothing, we would need to invalidate all scientific laws dealing with the conservation of matter/energy, including those of chemistry. Aand conservation of angular momentum would have to be wrong, invalidating all of physics. All of our laws of conservation of electric charge would have to be wrong, invalidating all of electronics. In order to believe matter is uncaused, one has to discard most if not all known laws and principles of science. No reasonable person is going to do this simply to maintain a personal atheistic position.

The atheist's assertion that matter is eternal is wrong. The atheist's assertion that the universe is uncaused and self-existing is also incorrect. The Bible's assertion that there was a beginning which had a cause is supported strongly by the available scientific evidence.

THE DESIGN

If we know that creation had a beginning, and that the beginning had a cause, there is one last question for us to answer - what was this cause? The Bible tells us that God was the cause. We are further told that this God did the causing with planning, reason and logic. Romans 1:20 tells us that we can know who God is "through the things he has made."

The atheist, on the other hand, will try to convince us that we are the product of Chance. Julian Huxley once said: "We are as much a product of blind forces as is the falling of a stone to earth or the ebb and flow of the tides. We have just happened, and man was made flesh by a long series of singularly beneficial accidents."

The subject of design has been one that has been explored in many different ways. For most of us, simply looking at our newborn child is enough to rule out chance. Modern-day scientists like Paul Davies and Frederick Hoyle and others are raising elaborate objections to the use of chance in explaining natural phenomena. A principle of modern science as emerged in the 1980s called "the anthropic principle." The basic thrust of the anthropic principle is that chance is simply not a valid mechanism to explain the atom or life. If chance is not valid, we are constrained to reject Huxley's claim and to realize that we are indeed the product of an intelligent God.

Answer 7

The existence of God is all based on faith. For me, when I started studying anatomy, it really became real. The body is a glorious creation of design.
We breath not because we have a low oxygen level but because we have a high carbon dioxide level. Since oxygen is what keeps the body running, if it were because of a low oxygen level, it would always fail.
The trachea is in a C shape so that if it is hit, it will give rather than collapse or break.
And then there is the whole miracle of conception through birth. From two separate cells to a cognizant being of billions of cells.

Answer 8

No.
Care to offer more than "some guy in tv?"
You can prove beyond a REASONABLE doubt that he doesn't exist using science.
Evolution through natural selection explains the complexity and diversity of life. The big bang theory explains the creation of the universe.
These are working theories.

It's easy to say "God created everything, because the bible says so" Or, "God is the only logical alternatives to what science cant explain." This is such an easy cop-out.
What makes you so sure its your God? Why not Zeus or Thor?

And to "Would you believe Bill Gates used random number generators to create Windows?"
You clearly do not understand genetics or evolution.
The human genome wasn't randomly created. Early primitive genomes were small and barely coded for anything. Genomes evolve, they get bigger and collect more genetic junk (non-protein coding inactive codons). Most genetic mutations occur in non-coding regions of DNA.
I'll use your windows analogy.
Windows started off a relatively simple program. The programmers added little improvements here and there. Each new release of windows is a modification of an earlier windows version. And if you haven't noticed, Windows installations tend to build up junk in the registry, slowing down your O.S. Similar to your body which accumulated mutations with age. Sometimes this leads to cancer. etc.

Answer 9

naaah.. I can't see how you could unless God magically appears before a group of scientists and scares them half to death. Using only theory and no physical data, I believe it is impossible. I agree with one of the last posts I read in that the whole point of a faith-based religion such as Christianity is to give God's existence the benefit of the doubt and have faith that God is there without requiring any proof. For a Christian to try to prove God's existence by any means kind of defeats the purpose of believing at all.

Answer 10

in actuality, you are able to purely particularly disprove hypotheses (not instruct them) via figuring out a contradictory situation - so its all proper to the way you placed up the hypothesis. So in a scientific experience you're able to say that any sort of observations that supported the existence of god (of which there are at the instant precisely none) could be contradicted via a single opposite fact. This finally ends up in some double think of while utilized to god - a lot of folk say "you won't have the ability to disprove god's existence". yet in an analogous way you won't have the ability to disprove the existence of a small fluffy invisible pink bunny called eric in low orbit around pluto - it would not advise he exists. in actuality, scientifically is is way less complicated to construct a physique of info that god would not exist. the finest way is to apply one in all those statistical argument that many arguing for god use (eg its so unlikely that elephants could evolve from slime that there could be a god). in accordance with any of those it extremely is trivial to instruct that if the statistical fact is authentic, then it extremely is statistically much extra unlikely that god promises an evidence. yet i think of your baisc probelm right this is truthfully which god could you prefer to attempt the existence of. Hinduism has 330 million gods on my own via some money owed. No cultural imperialism allowed.

Answer 11

Only if someone could come up with a scientific test.

You'd have to have some thing that, if there IS a god, conducting this test would yield x result; if not, y result.

Since the idea is untestable, it's impossible to prove.

Unless, as the nut-cases say, suddenly the world goes wonky, and people start floating up to heaven naked.