How to prove that god does not exist, scientifically?

Question

I have to speak on the topic 'Birth of science Death of god'. I am speaking 'for' the topic. Also give some info 'against' the motion.

Answer 1

this is an interesting quote

---: "A little science estranges a man from God; a little more brings him back."

- Francis Bacon

Answer 2

Impossible. Proving an absolute negative, while not impossible, is very difficult. The problem with disproving the existence of "god" is that the definition of "god" is unclear. Without a concise definition and identifiable attributes, you're not gonig to be able to prove non-existence. It like trying to proove that there are no "gabble-froodle-googles" out there. If you don't have a clear picture of what a "gabble-froodle-google" is, you can't draw logical conclusions about it.

If I were you, I would address the topic from a historical perspective, focusing on the waning power of organized churches since the development of the scientific method.

Take a look at the Wikipedia article (link below) on the "god of the gap" principle. It explains the trend that I'm talking about fairly well, and may give you a few good ideas to start on.

As in all public speaking, remember not to alienate your audience! Your success as a speaker depends not only on the strength of your argument, but also on your ability to get your audience to accept it. These are confrontational ideas. It's best to coax your audience into it, rather than beating it into them.

Good luck!

Answer 3

If one thinks of God as creating each life form from scratch, making the sun, moon and planets move through the sky, and sending the lightning bolts and storms (all of which people in the past assumed to be true), then science has challenged the idea that God's activity can be discerned in these places. There are now natural explanations for the development of life's diverse forms, the movement of the earth, and meteorology. This doesn't affect all ideas about God, but it certainly challenges and potentially disproves some ideas and claims about God and God's activity.

Answer 4

You don't.
In most cases you cannot prove a negative with logical argument. Disproving quite a few religions is easy but God is not so easy to disprove. Neither can you disprove god by showing that there is a factual explanation for everything in creation because we lack the knowledge to prove that either.
You can say that other explanations are probable or more likely but your on dangerous ground because you will be venturing into opinion instead of fact.
If I had to either speak or debate on that topic, I would make it about the number of believers, growth or decline of major religions and compromise of religions to science on various points. I wouldn't attempt to disprove god because anyone with the opposite assignment could cut you to shreds.
You will be on safer ground if you turn the topic into a discussion on religious decline.

Answer 5

Science has no clash with God. Science in fact is by the God, God is not by Science. We should improve and do advancement in science for the betterment of the mankind.

Science gave us electricity ie energy. But imagine if earth would not have had the magnetic poles, it wouldn't have been possible to have magnetic fields,and thus a electricity producing generator would not have been possible.

If there were no sun, agriculture would not have been possible. If there was no water we would not have existed to see the benefits of science.

Answer 6

Science gives us a way to distinguish between good ideas and bad ideas - i.e. to show which explanation is the most consistent with observable reality. Science shows us that great complexity does not just arise spontaneously. It is inconceivable that even the simplest bacterium could exist without something being responsible for the complexity of its structure, its biochemistry and so on. It would take the lifetimes of a billion universes for it to appear spontaneously, by pure chance - in fact it is probably safe to say that it simply could never happen. This goes all the more for human beings. It's surely no coincidence that the only thing that we regard as truly intelligent - the human brain - is also the most complex thing in the known universe. Intelligence requires enormous complexity, far beyond anything that could conceivably exist without something being responsible for its existence. By the same reasoning, it's infinitely more unlikely still that an intelligent entity capable of designing and creating an entire universe and everything in it could just exist from nowhere, from nothing, without anything being responsible for its existence. Complexity, and especially the massive complexity required for intelligence, can therefore only arise from an antecedent, non-intelligent process - In the case of life on Earth, this means biological evolution, a fact which is attested to by a vast amount of real objective evidence and valid argument. So, to the extent that science allows us to reliably distinguish between plausible ideas and implausible ideas, it effectively rules out the possibility of an intelligent entity as the uncaused cause of everything that exists.

Here's another perspective: Quantum Mechanics strongly suggests that nothingness is a state that cannot exist in reality, since that would be 100% deterministic, and QM says that existence is probabilistic rather than deterministic. Experimental evidence supports QM. If true, then this also precludes the existence of a creator, since it would be impossible to have a state of complete 'nothingness' from which a 'something' could be created.

Also: Anything that holds information or knowledge must be made of discrete parts, such as a brain (neurons and their connections) or a computer (memory locations). Anything that is made of parts cannot be self-existent - it must be made of something pre-existing. Therefore an intelligent entity cannot be self-existent and cannot be the source of everything that exists.

Answer 7

well, if you are talking about the christian god, the only thing you have to prove his existence is the bible. All the church dogma stems from that. One reason that the professional bible thumpers get so uptight about things like science proving that the world isnt flat, that the sun doesnt revolve around the earth (pulled by chariots even if you are greek), and stuff like evolution is that it seems to be an attack on the existence of god. If you prove the bible is not true, then there is no god. OR, that it cannot be taken literally, then they are mistaken in their interpretation and lose respect and power over others, whiich one is worse in their eyes I dont know.

Answer 8

How would you prove that a cell has organelles without a microscope? How do you prove that their are distant galaxies without a telescope?

The idea that what cannot be proven does not exist is beyond the ridiculous. It makes the assumption that science has reached the pinnacle of knowledge- that we have learned everything that there is to learn- what is that sound? I think it is God laughing.

Answer 9

Scientifically speaking, a thing, a phenomena exists only if it can be proved. Existence of God has not been proved so far hence scientifically God doesn't exists.

Answer 10

You can't prove a negative.

Of course, you can't prove scientifically that god does exist, either.

It's a matter of what seems logical to you, and your faith in your own logic.

Most religions have historically been created by uninformed cultures who desperately need to believe that there is a master plan that explains everything; the alternative is more frightening than they can bear.

Answer 11

i have yet to see an atheist prove that God doesnt exist

they just cant

their arguments are weak and can easily be overridden

sorry guys you will not convince me!

God bless

p.s. good luck with your speech even though i dont agree with the topic!