Atheist keeps suggesting that science and reason disprove God. What science?

Question

Without attacking religion (changing the subject) or making vague refrenses to a theory, name any science that disproves God and explain. Real scientist who've been studying it for decades never attemp to say they have dispoved God yet I see you kids say you believe in science and reason. Reason is much more likely to prove God. We exist. The Universe is an accident? An accident requires and intelligence behind it. Where did order come from. If the universe was an accident there would be no time and everthing would look like a blotch. I dont care how many times I throw a glob of doe on the ground, its not going to get up and walk away.

so many of you children are under the assumption that science has explained existence. You seriously need more science education.

12 responses and no answers

can't anyone answer the question. I'm not asking you to explain your atheism just to name a science that disproves God. (not religion). Can't do it, huh?

Rozzeiro is right. You children should listen to grown ups.

Answer 1

Science can't disprove or prove the existence of God, this matter lies outside of its field of enquiry. Science can only concern itself with what can be empirically verifiable or able to be falsified and relies on what the senses aided by reason can perceive and measure. God is untangible and uneffable. Empirical and empirometric sciences for that reason must remain silent concerning this question.
Because simply put: empirically, how can you proof or measur what you can't perceive or see? And just because something can not be seen does not mean that it doesn't exist, it might not...but yet it may.How can science know? Unless it sees God can science explain, measure affirm or deny any aspect regarding the deity.
So scientists should abstain from decalring that god doesn't exist because they can't proof it.

Now, the existence of God can be deduced from its effects on the world, and from the fact that there is reason and logic in the laws that govern reality, however...this is not an empirically asessed conclusion by general induction, but from deduction of the causes...we can ascend to the neccesary existence of an infinite intelligence that is being istelf and cause of all, this being we call God.

And in this point I agree with you: Reason proves the necessary existence of God.

Answer 2

I am going to assume you are more open-minded than you sound. Saying 'I don't care...' about perceived counter-points makes you 'question' seem a lot more like a 'lecture'. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, if you do the same for me.

The main argument against the existance of of any god is Occam's Razor, of course. Once you have an explanation for things that seem to fit the facts, it is not a particularly reasonable thing to do to set about finding much more complicated explanations for the same thing. But it IS reasonable to look for simpler ones. And conversely, if you have two explanations for the same thing, the simpler one is usually the correct one.

Now, for any given proposition of existence, it is simpler to believe that something doesn't exist than that it does. It is POSSIBLE that somewhere in the universe are fairies, unicorns, and vampires... many fiction writers have even made a living by guessing at the kinds of environments that would cause such creatures to naturally come into being. But since we don't seem to have any evidence that any of these hypothetical environments DO exist, it is more reasonable to believe that they don't (and even MORE reasonable to hold out no firm belief on the matter either way).

This means that any time we can explain things without having to resort to some supernatural god entity, it makes it less reasonable to believe that this supernatural god entity is involved. I know of no reasonable person who overtly and seriously believes that it is a god instead of gravity that holds people down on the planet, or that it is a god that lets electrons flow through metals freely, or that it is a god who makes the sun seem to rise in the sky every morning. Yet these are ALL things that have been seriously attributed to gods in the past.

So if you want to know which science disproves god, the simple answer is that ALL of it does. Any particular fact or theory may not concretely disallow any god from any conceivable interference... each just makes it look more and more inane and unnecessary.

And as long as you insist that your god is still involved in such things, you run the risk of marginalizing yourself just as much as a priest of Zeus who claims that his god personally hurls lightning from the sky would be today. You have been forewarned.

Answer 3

I agree with you that science does prove the existence of God. There's no way this universe was an accident. Evolution does the same thing. Look at how radically different humans evolved fromevery other species on this planet. I can't believe that was just a random event.

But I think were science comes into conflict with Christian theology is in the form of the Book of Genesis. Sceince has pretty well trounced the idea all this was created in six days.

If you're willing to read the Bible not in literal terms, this does not become a problem (how long is a day to God?). But if you are a Bible literalist (6 days = 6 days), then science often becomes your enemy because it contradicts that statement.

Answer 4

I personally think you should ignore him- belief in God has to do with many things such as family, friends, country, interests you have, and if you feel a personal connection with God or not.

I'm an Atheist myself, and to each his own.

But to get to your question, a lot of people (but not all) base a lot on the Bible. I think science has disproved the bible by leaps and bounds. And though things that happen in the bible are called "miracles," they defy all physics and common sense. Radiation dating also takes a big part in disproving many preconceived notions of the time line for the earth.


In all honesty, the best argument I've encountered is this- people think that the soul leaves the body after death... however, it's now possible to bring back a living being 3 hours after it's brain dead! I think that's a very powerful argument.

It just seems all the preconceived notions that God used to be based on are being disproved. God used to live in the clouds, your soul leaves your body when you're dead, the earth is 6000 years old... And it's hard to believe in God if you can't believe it's most reliable record.

But in all honesty, it's a terrible argument.... the point is it's impossible to disprove something that doesn't exist anyway. For something to not be in existence, it's naturally not going to leave evidence that it DOESN'T exist.

Evolution is a theory and it has MANY holes, but I believe in the overall theory. And there have been many missing links (skeletons) between human and monkeys, but for some reason people don't know this.

On top of that, this is a nice video that tries to disprove God. Please have a go at this video! It's on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06kVaZgqdJ8

I honestly think this person is just aggressively saying that Science has yet to prove God (overall cosmos, human life) so it doesn't exist. It's a weak argument, yes, but it's still an argument.

Answer 5

Science doesn't disprove God. It just disproves the likleyhood of the biblical renditions of him.

Reason doesn't disprove God. It just exposes the inconsistencies, conflicts, and bias in the biblical renditions of him.

You are correct in that science fails to prove God. If/when science succeeds in proving God, you'll have less atheists.

But the analogy that the universe is an accident is erroneous. It's not an accident, it's a series of physical and chemical reactions based on physical laws. The permanence of energy and matter is as valid a concept as the permanence of a supreme being, and far more likely to be proven. And neither of us has any idea the level of complexity that is potentially possible. Of course we exist, but I seriously doubt that life is the most complex feature of the physical universe.

It always astounds me when someone says that reason does not support a permanent universe with fixed physical laws, but that reason instead somehow supports a concept that a permanent intelligent being of far more complexity than the universe constructed a universe of nearly infinite porportion from nothing.

And frankly, your inability to create life by throwing a glob of doe on the ground is not equal to the natural energy and creative potential of the universe. You can't create a bird's nest, but that doesn't make the bird's nest an impossiblity. So arguing something is impossible because YOU can't do it is both ego-centric and fallacious to the argument. However, nothing prevents the concept that someone more able than you will someday create life.

Answer 6

Because "God" is not reason or logic. It is an easy answer for people who are confused about the purpose of life and all the never-ending questions that go with it. God doesn't exist simply because you can't scientifically, reasonably, or logically prove it. It's a faith and a belief in something you don't know for sure because you weren't there when it all happened. Science disproves God because it IS reason and logical and proof of the existence of many, many things. God is just a simple answer. Science is a genius, a deeper look at things, the greatest human knowledge we've ever been gifted with. Don't act like you know everything because you think your religion is the only "right" one. If all religions were true, we'd have like 1000 gods and a bunch of hokey-pokey bullsh*t. Science is the only true answer. Sorry to burst your little God bubble.

Answer 7

God is such an ambigous term. The Chrisitian god? the muslim god? the roman and greek gods?

Plenty of things attributed to the gods have been dispoven,
A great flood could not have existed given the amount of water on earth is constant. Evolution is a strongly supported theory. blah blah.

Not theory can be proven. Right. People will always argue that the 0.000001% chance that a theory is flawed means that there could be a god.

Ok, there could be a god. But he didn't have a son. there is not hell that we know about. There was no great flood. Evolution happened. give me a break,

God might exist but not the god that prophets told of in 2000BC in 700AD etc.

Answer 8

Science doesnt claim to prove that there isnt or is a God, it comes up with evidence, and you choose to believe what you want from the given evidence.
But i cannot see your point behind an accident?
Are you saying that when i trip upstairs, or step in a puddle that i intelligently ained to do so? Accidents are called so because that's what they are, unmeditated occurances.

But i do know of some theories that use undeniable math to give evidence
(Bubble Theory, Multiverse Theory)

Answer 9

*sigh*

By what you've written it appears that you are already extremely well set in your beliefs so I doubt that anything anyone says will change your mind.

Nevertheless, reason most certainly does NOT "prove" or even suggest a god. Your line of reasoning is, quite frankly, full of logical errors, baseless assumptions and non sequiturs. Normally I would take the time to point out step-by-step your numerous factual and logical mistakes and unfounded assumptions, but yours are so many, and your mind obviously already completely made up, that I don't see that it would be worth the effort.

All I can suggest is to please get a real science education, and learn a thing or two about rational thought.

Answer 10

What God do you have in mind? Most would say science has proven that it is not Zeuse who throws lightening.

Most would say science has proven the world was not created in 6 days, and that the world's vast number of species of animal pairs could not have fit on an ark, and more than else, the world population of humans did not come from adam and eve, but evolved over time. I mean, do you really think that women were created from a mans rib? like an order or baby-backs form Chillis? Lol!