Can Science Disprove The Existence Of God?

talk72000 wrote:

The supposition that there was nothing before the Big Bang is a violation of the Conservation of Mass and Energy.

To say that we don't know if the universe existed before the Big Bang is not the same as saying that there was nothing prior to the Big Bang. We have no theory to account for the Big Bang. Scientists theorize that it happened because the universe is expanding and because of the microwave background. We have no idea why or how it happened. Therefore, we have no idea what universe, if any, existed before the Big Bang. You are correct that there is the law of conservation of mass and energy, but we have no idea what state this mass and energy was in prior to the Big Bang. To say that the Big Bang was the result of a giant black hole is pure speculation.

Quote:

To suggest that god is not complex is an absurdity as god has been described as omnipotent, omnipresent and omnipotent. To claim that God, who has the capability to create a complex universe such ours, is not complex is the height of absurdity.

God has been described lots of different ways in different religions. That doesn't mean those descriptions are correct. You are projecting a religious description of God as an "omnipotent and omnipresent" entity, a description that I don't believe is correct. I have told you my view of God as the higher Self, consistent with advaita Vedanta. Such a God is pure consciousness and intelligence, perfect Unity. Intelligence is not complex, it is simply intelligent.

0 Replies

Intelligence is a handmaiden of complexity.

0 Replies

talk72000 wrote:

It could be that prior to the Big Bang the Universe collapsed having spent its energy with all hydrogen gas consumed and exhausted stars' to be sucked into a giant black hole thus the beginning of the new Big Bang.

So 'having spent all it's energy', where did the energy come from to expel the universe from this black hole?

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

baddog1 wrote:
Informational purposes. Most on here make emotion-laced claims that god cannot be scientifically proven therefore cannot exist.

Many people agree that god cannot be scientifically proven. But none that I have seen (on S&R forum or others), follow that observation with the conclusion that god cannot exist.

Who in particular makes the claim that "god cannot be scientifically proven therefore cannot exist"?

Hi Ros:

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2560562#2560562

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2561024#2561024

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2848329#2848329

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2848552#2848552

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2848561#2848561

0 Replies

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

I'll leave you with a hypothesis.

Starting with these ASSUMPTIONS not CONCLUSIONS:

I assume that Baddog1 has no integrity or shame.
I assume that he will continue to misrepresent what others have said and spin things to suit his needs.
I assume that he is psychologically incapable of doing anything else.

My hypothesis is he will go along as he always has, dodging direct questions while accusing others of doing this, using semantic gymnastics rather than the scientific method to defend his statements, and insisting that it is HE who knows science not the experts that have created it and the people who taught it to you and me.

Great 'scientific' work here, TCR.

'My assumption is that baddog is a dishonest, pathological liar' (your 3 assumptions rolled into 1 statement)

'My hypothesis is that I will always be able to accuse him of not answering my questions'

Is this your version of 'science', TCR?

Sounds just like more of the petty insults that you were called on previously.

Can you discuss anything without using ad homs?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

TheCorrectResponse wrote:
I'll leave you with a hypothesis.

Starting with these ASSUMPTIONS not CONCLUSIONS:

I assume that Baddog1 has no integrity or shame.
I assume that he will continue to misrepresent what others have said and spin things to suit his needs.
I assume that he is psychologically incapable of doing anything else.

My hypothesis is he will go along as he always has, dodging direct questions while accusing others of doing this, using semantic gymnastics rather than the scientific method to defend his statements, and insisting that it is HE who knows science not the experts that have created it and the people who taught it to you and me.

Great 'scientific' work here, TCR.

'My assumption is that baddog is a dishonest, pathological liar' (your 3 assumptions rolled into 1 statement)

'My hypothesis is that I will always be able to accuse him of not answering my questions'

Is this your version of 'science', TCR?

Sounds just like more of the petty insults that you were called on previously.

Can you discuss anything without using ad homs?

Thanks RL. TCR is a young guy who believes in what he's learned. He has not realized that there is equal importance in what he has not yet learned. Much like science - there is value in what we do not know.

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

. . . Thanks RL. TCR is a young guy who believes in what he's learned. He has not realized that there is equal importance in what he has not yet learned. Much like science - there is value in what we do not know.

Actually, TCR did offer this caveat:

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

Science can never tell you what is going on "behind the scenes." There are things that are unknown and forever unknowable to science. With science you can make assumptions, create a hypothesis based on these assumptions, and test the hypothesis against observations. If after these tests the hypothesis can be shown to consistently make useful predictions that cannot be disproved the hypothesis stands as proven. It is always open to new tests and ultimately being disproved. But until then, it is considered proven.

The problem lies in the assumption by some that scientific "proof" is somehow superior to the spiritual.

0 Replies

If dealing with a subject that is within the realm of science, I think is appropriate to ask for scientific evidence.

In that respect, I agree with the quote you noted from TCR.

The problem comes from expecting science to answer for everything, without understanding (or being willing to acknowledge) it's limitations.

There are lots of folks (some of them frequent posters on the S&R forum) who seem to think that nothing can be known unless it's backed by scientific evidence.

As I've said, they give science a bad name.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

The problem lies in the assumption by some that scientific "proof" is somehow superior to the spiritual.

Agreed.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

If dealing with a subject that is within the realm of science, I think is appropriate to ask for scientific evidence.

In that respect, I agree with the quote you noted from TCR.

The problem comes from expecting science to answer for everything, without understanding (or being willing to acknowledge) it's limitations.

There are lots of folks (some of them frequent posters on the S&R forum) who seem to think that nothing can be known unless it's backed by scientific evidence.

As I've said, they give science a bad name.

Exactly. IMHO - the most impressive scientists are those willing to consider that the unknown [whatever that may be] may exist and to do research toward that goal. To take the position of: 'If it cannot be verified by current science - it cannot exist' is very limiting - about any subject.

0 Replies

you cant disprove anything - on the basis that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Its for the believers in the propostion that god exists to come up with some evidence. So far they have provided absolutely nothing. And they've been trying very hard for a long time...draw your own conclusions.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

you cant disprove anything - on the basis that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...

Depends on one's definition of 'evidence' doesn't it? What's yours?

0 Replies

observed fact

whats yours? Wishful thinking?

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

observed fact

whats yours? Wishful thinking?

So only if a person 'sees' something - it is fact? How about we use Merriam Webster's thoughts on the definition of evidence? Does that suit you?

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

observed fact

whats yours? Wishful thinking?

Steve,

Does either dark matter or dark energy exist?

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
Who in particular makes the claim that "god cannot be scientifically proven therefore cannot exist"?

Hi Ros:

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2560562#2560562

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2561024#2561024

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2848329#2848329

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2848552#2848552

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2848561#2848561

None of those posts come even remotely close to answering Ros' question.

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

To take the position of: 'If it cannot be verified by current science - it cannot exist' is very limiting - about any subject.

Agreed, but no one here is taking that position so why do you keep erecting the same strawman?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:
observed fact

whats yours? Wishful thinking?

Steve,

Does either dark matter or dark energy exist?

Probably. And before you say well how do we know if we cant "see" it, I would suggest there is much in the Universe we cant directly perceive with our 5 senses, but nontheless we accept as a fact that they exist. Either by direct observation through instruments, or by observing the affects on a third party. e.g. the "observation" that air exists. (And you certainly know, for a short time anyway, if it doest exist!)

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
baddog1 wrote:
Informational purposes. Most on here make emotion-laced claims that god cannot be scientifically proven therefore cannot exist.

Many people agree that god cannot be scientifically proven. But none that I have seen (on S&R forum or others), follow that observation with the conclusion that god cannot exist.

Who in particular makes the claim that "god cannot be scientifically proven therefore cannot exist"?

Hi Ros:

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2560562#2560562

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2561024#2561024

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2848329#2848329

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2848552#2848552

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2848561#2848561

Hi BD,

Not one of those quotes showed someone concluding that God does not exist due to the lack of evidence. And that was my original point.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2560562#2560562

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2561024#2561024

Hi BD,

Not one of those quotes showed someone concluding that God does not exist due to the lack of evidence. And that was my original point.

Ros (and mesquite):

Here is the quote from the above link stated by member cyracuz: "Extropy is wrong. There is no proof whatsoever that there is any god."

and from member CalamityJane: "You personally believe that there is a God, there is absolutely no proof whatsoever!"

Both members clearly conclude that there is no proof of a God. None! (This would include a "lack of evidence".)

0 Replies

Can Science Disprove The Existence Of God?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know