Is it intellectually honest to say there's no god because if there was science would acknowledge it?

Question

Science doesn't enter discussion about intelligent design, or astrology simply because there's no real evidence to say it's real...so doesn't that implicitly mean there's no god? (else science would explore it as it does everything else it can show evidence to be real)

Answer 1

No!!!

The power of science is in the scientific method. Basically you start with an idea and then you test your idea through observations and experiments. Based upon the results of your tests you refine you original idea, and then repeat the process over and over. This is science.

A very subtle but important part of the process is that any good scientific idea has to be capable of failing a test. This does not mean the the idea will fail the test.

For example take the theory of gravity. In its simplest form it states that two massive bodies will attract. A test that could disprove this theory would be throwing a ball in the air. The theory says that gravity will cause the ball to slow down and fall to the earth, so if throw a ball in the air and all of a sudden it starts to accelerate away from the earth, then you will know that the theory of gravity is in error.

There is not a test capable of disproving your statement that there is no god. No matter what you do, one could always argue that god made the laws of the universe in such a way to produce your results. So in the end the debate over the existence of a god lies not within science.

Answer 2

That is not a logical conclusion.

Science acknowledges that it is valid over a certain domain (matter, energy, fields, forces), that there are things it does not know (origin of life, origin of the universe, why gravity exists), and there are things it is not equipped or qualified to address (the existence and properties of God).

Far too many scientists make claims which are in no way supported by science, often because they refuse to even consider the possibility that there is a moral authority to whom they are accountable.

Science cannot prove the existence of a God whose substance is not material or temporal, and who may be the author of space, time, matter, and energy. But neither can science disprove it. It simply does not have the tools.

Science can look at the mechanism of DNA and understand how it works. Science can acknowledge that it doesn't know how that mechanism came about. A rational human being can look at this and see that it's much more likely that this complex and efficient mechanism was designed than that it came about by chance. But they will also acknowledge that they can't prove either, and will keep their mind open to both possibilities.

See the reference for an extremely thoughtful discussion of these subjects by a renowned scientist, head of the Human Genome Project.

Answer 3

Science is concerned with what can be observed, either directly or indirectly through a strictly rational chain of argument. The object or phenomenon is preferably measurable in some way and the object or phenomenon is preferably reproducible.

It is usually not possible for science to investigate "ghost" stories for instance if the ghost does not appear on a regular basis. If you don't know when or if something will turn up it is next to impossible to observe it on a regular enough basis to make some judgment of it's intrinsic properties, behavior, temperature, length, duration of appearance or whatever.

Where observation is indirect, in most, perhaps virtually all cases there strictly rational chains of argument than can lead back or forward to some directly observable and usually measurable object or phenomenon. The arguments are usually guided by well established theory.

A scientific theory is not a vague conjecture that something is connected to some thing else. Formulation of a theory is guided by several well understood principles, including Occams / Ockhams Razor (which you can look up). If the theory is any good, it can be used to predict an effect starting from a cause. It will also have evidence that is consistent with it. Good examples are theories of gravity, combustion and in actual fact, the theory of evolution.

In nearly all cases it possible to use strictly logical argument, usually but not always guided by well established theory to connect some phenomenon with some cause without requiring the presence of a supernatural being to interfere in the process somewhere. But just because there is no evidence of a supernatural being involved in a process does not mean supernatural beings do not exist.

By analogy - I have no involvement in the production of electronic games equipment, I don't even own any apart from this computer. So the process of making an X-box does not involve me. But I still exist and so do thousands of others who perhaps have never even heard of the things.

If some scientists say there is no god or gods, then they are stating an opinion, not a well established fact. If another group of scientists say there is a god or gods, then they are stating an opinion, not a well established fact.

In the case of astrology, ordinary observation is sufficient to show that there is no connection between the relative positions of stars and planets and the personality or fate of people born at particular times. If it were true, schools would be dividing school children into classes based their horoscopes.

Astrology has actually been investigated on a scientific basis with an assessment of the horoscopes of well known French people born over the hundred or so years up to about 1980.

Comparison of horoscopes with their known careers showed there was no connection between them. There was one exception, a very slight correlation between the supposed influence of Saturn and a subsequent career in science. But as should be obvious, there would have been hundreds of other babies born about the same time and by no means all of them became scientists or even laboratory assistants.

Incidentally I know someone with a PhD in chemistry who is Hindu and quite religious. So

Answer 4

If any evidence for god existed, science would explore it. But science only deals with the natural world - things that actually exist. So far, there has been no evidence that god exists, so science merely says 'doesn't seem to exist, nothing to test, not there' and leaves it at that.

Answer 5

Science,at our level is limited. During the MIDDLE AGES, so called science believed in things that we would laugh at today. God exists to those that have faith,woe be to you of little faith,sound familiar?I guess we will all find out in the end..Does science imply there is no GOD,I would have to say yes.

Answer 6

that's a good question, but you must realize first that science is as inperfect as everything else in this world. From the other point of view you can argue that there is no real evidence that there is NOT a God. Are you familiar with probability at all? my point to that question being that if you truly took into the evolutionary theory you find that it claims that genetic alterations enhanced the human and animal races, BUT if we look at what is common knowledge in the scientific world today you will see that any genetic alterations to humans are viewed as deformities and impare rather than improve the species. While saying this I'm not arguing natural selection, natural selection is completely accurate but the possibility of genetic alterations which would be NECESSARY for a creature to change species would be if not impossible, EXTREMELY improbable. Looking at nature as it is today. For example: a simple leaf on a tree. That leaf is an intricate factory that self sustains and is more complex than any modern factory known to man, to say that it was not created and designed would be like saying you could take scrap metal, throw it into a pile, and make a supercomputer! Anyway, back to the imperfection of science. Science literally is composed of the best guesses and beliefs of the majority of scientists. I don't meant to insult by this, but what if those beliefs are inaccurate? nobody is perfect and therefore nobody's opinion can be FULLY trusted. You shouldn't even take MY opinion at face value, because I"m not perfect and I can't even pretend to have this all figured out. Truthfully, there IS direct evidence that God exists. I have had firsthand experience with things that simply cannot be scientifically explained, miracles, if you'll indulge my use of the word. But I have a feeling you wouldn't believe me unless you saw one firsthand and could not explain it away for yourself. One I have for example was a young woman who was deathly allergic to bees being attacked by a SWARM of killer bees and living to tell about it without any treatment at all, THAT can't be explained away. Another was a friend of mine who had a growth on his cornea in his eye which should, according to all medical research, have blinded him, and yet he had perfect vision. I hope this gives you some answers and if it doesn't I hope you can find them something that does give you some answers

Answer 7

No. You can't scientifically prove that something doesn't exist. All you can honestly say is that there is no physical evidence for the existence of any supernatural being. For that matter, there are no doubt many *natural* phenomena of which science is not yet aware.

Answer 8

I know that you can't prove a negative. So I won't bother. God is not a reality - He is a fiction created by man over time. He is not even a theory - just myth.

Answer 9

god is a theory, its a belief, its not a concrete physical person somewhere in the clouds.

Just like I don't think heaven is a physical place.

Answer 10

Your asking 2 quite a number of issues. faith and faith at the instant are not an analogous factor. technology affirms the certainty of the Bible and God while technology is intellectually common and does not suppress the certainty. advise you study "The Biblical foundation for cutting-ingredient technology" with the aid of Henry Norris.