Is the modern science able to disprove the existence of God?
can anyone, show me the evidence that enables the modern science to disprove the existence of God.
Of course if the modern science is able to disprove his existences .It's not the job of science to disprove the existence of God. Why would anyone bother trying?
So, the modern science hasn't disproved the existence of God yet ?, right?
Modern science (or anyone/anything else) has the exact same evidence that a god does not exist as anyone has that a god (any god) DOES exist.
i.e. none whatsoever. This should be obvious; it is rather difficult to either prove or disprove the existence of a invisible, indetectable (by definition) thing that leaves no trace. Doubly so if it does not exist, for both states.So, the modern science hasn't disproved the existence of God yet ?
Yes or No ?
if yes tell me why
if No just say noIt is not the task of science to disprove imaginary creatures and thus it has not done so.
But why do you ask? If I said yes, I'm rather confident you wouldn't believe me...
Modern science has also not disproved the existence of unicorns, dragons, ice monsters, Thor, Zeus or the easter bunny. Does that warrant our belief in such things since they are not disproved by science? If so, you would have to believe in EVERY god along with every mythology and mythological creature until the point that science disproves them. You'd have to believe in everything. If you don't, it's simply a case of special pleading (a fallacy) by choosing one thing to believe in while not accepting everything else not disproved.
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Shifting the burden of proof is another fallacy. If someone posits a god exists, they carry the burden of proof to prove it, not on those who don't accept the claim to disprove its veracity.so according to your reply, the chances of god's existence are similar to those of his nonexistence . So i prefer to keep my chances open.
if i believe in God and it turns out that He exist, than i'll be on the winning side
while if i choose to not believe in Him and it turns out he really exist then i'll go to hell
and besides all of that, it's not like if i commit myself to worship God means i commit myself to a shitty life .
So as long as no one can give me a clear logical and for me understandable reason based on facts that God doesn't exist , i won't change my mind.That's pascals wager, a tactic that had been repeatedly debunked. Either there is a god or there isn't. As an atheist, I have a 50% shot I'm right. A theist like you, however, does not. Because the 50% chance that there is a good is divided between every god claim throughout history, so your chances of picking the right one are infinitely small. In addition, is a god not smart enough to know who believes in him just because they're hedging their bets vs sincere faith? Since your chance of picking the right god are so small, you also risk angering a different god if you pick the wrong one.
but choosing not to believe in God at all, isn't rising my chances on standing on the winning side .
and even if i pick the wrong believe ,because if i believe in whatever God you can think off , and the atheist are in the end right , i won't be judged , because nobody will be .
but if i come to choose one God, and i already did, this means i have 16.666% chance that i will pick the right one , at least according to my own research on this topic ( there is only three options available that have a logical origine, so 50%/3= 16.666%) , and it turns out that God exists than i have a chance, while non believers end up in hell .
so i'm not changing my mind, but to be honest maybe you should change yours. in the end what huge difference does it make to believe in a God and so rising you chances on not losing, because if the atheists are right , nobody will know it until he dies. and so being right, has no meaning for an atheist.
while for a believer it means hell or heaven to be right.How did you calculate 16.6% of being right? I can list 100 different gods right of the top of my head.
In addition, if I am right, you have paid a cost. You've spent time and money paint to a being who isn't there, adhering to rules of your religion that aren't accurate, and you've failed to make the most of the one life all people are guaranteed to have.
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? … cals_wager
Not to mention, you don't choose your beliefs. I cannot choose to believe that gravity isn't real and expect to fly. I can't just decide to believer in a god without any evidence any more than you could wake up tomorrow and choose to stop believing.there is only 3 religions with a logical background , no more no less ( Christianity, Islam and Judaism) the rest has no real background . so if i have a 50% chance then , 50/3= 16.66 , that's how i calculated it .
i followed the link and what was written there, doesn't change the 50% of God being real.
it's just a way to say atheists are to 100% right. and God just doesn't exist .
how i mentioned earlier , no logical proof for the non existence of God, no way that i'll change my mind.Why did you ask then? Your concept of a god is no more "logical" than any of the other choices from man's large inventory, yet you have determined to believe in just one (the god of Judaism, Christianity and Islam is one, not three choices). Given that you refuse to examine that god in an objective light, why bother to ask if it has been disproven? It would seem the better road to ask for proof before believing.
obviously, to see if someone can bring up some evident proof to justify his or her choice, and so maybe change my mind. I clearly have a reason why i want to believe in God ( i'm afraid that i could go to hell, which is completely understandable , i mean who wants to go to hell) . while no one has named a understandable reason for his choice, i mean if you atheists only believe in science then there should be a plausible reason, except the sentence, no one has proved his existence, because no one has proven his nonexistence too. guys don't take the things here too personal or something, okay , we are having just an open discussion, where everyone can tell the rest about his opinion, and try to explain it, so that we can all profit from each other .
First, Hell is a construct of the Christian organized religion; there is no such place in scripture and thus no reason to fear. Plus, of course, fear of a kind, loving and gracious god is irrational at best.
Second, just as you point out there is no evidence for a god, so why believe in one? Pascal's wager (your purported reason for belief) is thoroughly debunked, leaving no reason for belief at all.first, the word is very well mentioned in the old testament, 31 times to be precise even though it was in Hebrew not in English (the bible's original comes from the old testament, so ), i should mention that Jesus spoke an old version of Aramaic, which makes it hard to really say if that version of the bible is to 100% original and wasn't during the history manipulated, but it's very well mentioned . And it was mentioned in the Quran exactly 145 times ( it's actually the word Al-Naar which means fire , and in Islam it refers to hell ) and Mohamed spoke Arabic, the very same language that the Quran is written with, so there is a clear reason to consider the existence of hell and so God .
and when you said purported reason for belief , i see it as a better option than closing the doors towered options that hasn't been disproved yetWhy are you even going on about it? Either you believe or you don't. If you are trying to convince us of Hell, then you are just fear mongering.
i'm not at all trying to convince of nothing, so don't take the things here personal, okay.
And the Topic is about , if some one can disprove God's existence or not , that's it, no more nor less.
But the Jews don't believe in a hell, at least not until the babylonian captivity, where they picked up the concept of eternal fire from the babylonians. Prior to that, they believed in Sheol, where ALL the dead went. so part of your point fails right there. Secondly:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/godlessind … hould-too/
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/godlessind … hould-too/
One more
http://justjohnwright.com/print/10-reas … e-in-hell/what about the 145 times, that were mentioned in Quran ?
and the second part : a nicely written article isn't proving much , i don't even understand why showed me that , but if i missed any evidence that disproves god's existence then please tell me .Is there a reason to believe the Quran over the Bible? Or either of them, for that matter?
Although evidently widely known during the development of the Hebrew Bible canon, 1 Enoch was excluded from both the formal canon of the Tanakh and the typical canon of the Septuagint and therefore, also the writings known today as the Deuterocanon.[7][8] One possible reason for Jewish rejection of the book might be the textual nature of several early sections of the book that make use of material from the Torah; for example, 1 En 1 is a midrash of Deuteronomy 33.[9][10] The content, particularly detailed descriptions of fallen angels, would also be a reason for rejection from the Hebrew canon at this period – as illustrated by the comments of Trypho the Jew when debating with Justin Martyr on this subject. Trypho: "The utterances of God are holy, but your expositions are mere contrivances, as is plain from what has been explained by you; nay, even blasphemies, for you assert that angels sinned and revolted from God."
During canonization of the Hebrew Bible, here is an example of "content" that is being rejected, because they did not like what it was saying.
To illustrate further, New Testament books, 1st 2nd century, show narratives speaking of satan and hell, demons etc, and there are no objections to these concepts. i.e. no one says : "Hey Jesus or John or whoever?, What are these concepts of satan and demons and hell? Can you explain that stuff to us? "
There is a possible suggestion, that these concepts were understood or accepted at that time, based on, albeit, circumstantial or by omission.
Further, in the Book of Daniel: And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
It is my belief that Catholicism morphed into more preoccupation with Mary, than is textually supported via catechisms or whatever.
The same is true with Judaism - in my opinion , based upon Daniel, New Testament books and as I mentioned how the canonization of the Hebrew Bible was excluding material based upon the rejection of content, it would appear to me that they did not like certain content and there was some morphing of the beliefs over much time, even centuries.
I studied the Quran very well, and for me the logic behind way too many rules and laws in it are pretty convincing, the same goes for the bible there is many rules similar to the ones in the quran , and you may find some Contradictions while this isn't the case with the quran .
That is not at all what that link says, so I don't believe you went there. Logical basis avoiding to whom? There are millions of Hindus and Buddhists in the world, how are they not logical? Hinduism Is even older than the three religions you named, and they found it incredibly logical. You're just deciding the Abrahamic faiths are more logical out of special pleading with no actual evidence, aren't you?
well, what the link say is pretty simple it tries to justify some believers choice, as pure fear from going to hell , this is the general idea . and honestly the paper shows it as a jock to believe in god because you fear his punishment, at least that how i see it but that's my opinion i guess, i admit it i'm afraid from going to hell and i don't have a real reason to quite believing in Him for no reason .
and i made a lot of research that convinced me that the Abrahamic religions are the most logical ( i might make a hub if i get the time ) .
And to the point where you mention Hinduism Buddhism , there understanding of after life is Reincarnation which is not related to hell or haven and so even if i don't believe in their god and it turns out they are right i'll be reborn . So ....Why would you believe in something that has no evidence anyway "just in case" is god not intelligent enough to know that the only reason you believe in it is because you're afraid of what will happen if you don't? In the new testament, Jesus himself says that not all that call upon him will be saved either, do you still might be out of luck if the only reason you have faith is out of fear. That's not faith at all. It's fear. I'm not an atheist because of science. I'm an atheist because there is no evidence for god which would justify belief, and if the biblical god is represented accurately, I don't think it's a being worthy of worship regardless.
trying to believe is better than just giving it all up , and besides all of that i don't thing that billions of people around the world, who choose to believe in god are all wrong , there has to be something true in it, don't you think so .
That's another fallacy, the appeal to popularity. The older of something has absolutely no bearing on whether or not its true. The Roman and Greek emotes all believed in their pantheon of gods, do you think that means there must be something to it?
Additionally, you can't just force yourself to try to believe in something. You either believe or you don't. If you don't think that's true, go to the window and try to force yourself to believe that gravity isn't real.but the existence of gravity is proven so if i jump outside the window i'll for sure fall down , while the existence of god hasn't been disproved yet , so i might fly after all ( I find your example with the gravity a bit funny even though i'm not ready to compare God with gravity )
The existence of gravity is proven, yes. The existence of god, ANY God, is not. Do you see the difference? You're shifting the burden of proof again. Why not refuse to believe in gravity because it's not disproven, if you're going to go with the negative case - or withhold belief in God until it IS proven. You're arguing both sides of the coin and using different standards for both, which is not logically sound.
i completely understand what you're trying to say , but if i choose not to believe in god because people can't prove it , and just keep going , how can i be sure that i making the right choice? , you don't need to answer that , because you simply can't know it you die . i'm not saying that you need to apply this way of thinking on every single unproven thing , but we are talking about religion , God and hell so....
If you're deciding what may be the ultimate question, isn't it better to wait until you can make an evidence-supported reasonable decision, as opposed to guessing and crossing your fingers?
You need to decide whether you're looking for proof or evidence. There's a difference. One doesn't find "evidence that something is disprovable". It either is proven, or it isn't. If an a concrete "yes" or "no" answer can be given, then we use evidence mount a case.
As janesix said, it's not the job of science to prove or disprove God. Science is limited to the domain of the physical universe, and more specifically, to the things we are able to observe and test within it. God isn't something constrained the the matter-energy, space-time universe.
Therefore, expecting science to be able to definitively tell you if there's a God or not is akin to staring at a painting and using only an analysis of the brushstrokes therein to "prove" that the painter was a deaf-mute. It's just not possible.
At best, science can be used to evidence God's existence (or absence). But at the end of the day, the only way we can take an absolute position on the issue is by faith.Have you ever learned the meaning of faith ?
I never really understood the argument for Pascal's Wager. On the surface it sort of makes sense, to some extent, but it's all very superficial. Does God really want people to believe in him just because they've done calculations and tried to figure out the way they're least likely to go to hell if there is such a thing? To be honest, that doesn't sound like any more faith in God than someone who doesn't believe. You would think God would be smart enough to see the difference between someone who believed in him because they had faith and someone who believed in him because they did some math and don't want to be wrong.
Anyway, I doubt science will ever explicitly disprove the existence of God, just like science will probably never disprove the existence of the planet inhabited by giant talking shoes that I just made up. Because it's impossible to disprove something that has no evidence of existing in the first place.i still see it as better than not believing in him, and how it was mentioned in that link " what if you're wrong ? "
Then I guess I'll burn in hell. But personally, I'd rather not spend eternity with a God who only cares that people worship him and not about how they lived their lives or if they actually had any faith.
So you say, you don't mind going to hell even if you would believe in the hell's existence and God ?
Science can prove that there's no need for a god. History can be damaging. The Bible itself says that more than one witness is need for a conviction. So with that in mind, the Bible and god (Yahweh) can easily be debunked. Using another source for information outside the Bible (a second witness), we find that 90% of the heroes like Moses, Adam & Eve, and even Jesus don't exist outside the Bible. We can look through Egyptian history and discover that they never heard of Moses or ever kept Hebrews as slaves. Yes Hebrews did live among the Egyptians and eventually migrated, but it was a small event and they would of took one of the many trade routes to Canaan - this this 40 year odyssey used to make a wild story. We also learn that Yahweh was one of 33 deities worshiped by the Canaanites and probably invented in the early Bronze age. By studying Mesopotamian myth we learn that Adam,Eve, and the Noah story is a rip off of an earlier Sumerian myth. Jesus was a product of the many councils appointed by the Roman emperors throughout the 3rd century.
Related Discussions
- 466
How can you be an atheist if you can't disprove the existence of God?
by Jake Ed 8 years ago
How can you be an atheist if you can't disprove the existence of God?What validity is there to the double negative argument for the existence of God? Is it really rational to justify belief in something by the mere fact that it cannot be disproved? You also can not disprove the existence of...
- 883
Believers Have to Prove the Existence of God
by Mahaveer Sanglikar 3 years ago
Many believers like to say that Atheists should prove that there is no God. Believers should know that existence has to be proved, not the non-existence. If a thing exists, it is possible to prove its existence. So believers should prove the existence of God if he exists. But if they want to do it,...
- 710
Does anyone have any evidence for the existence of God?
by Luke M. Simmons 7 years ago
Does anyone have any evidence for the existence of God?I am an atheist, which to me only means that I haven't been shown requisite evidence to convince me of an omnipotent, all-knowing deity of any kind. If you would, please bring forth this evidence and deliver me from a fiery...
- 319
Is there any scientific evidence for the existence of god?
by Sean Thomas Gartland 11 years ago
If you have any evidence please present it.
- 90
What Is The Best Evidence For The Existence Of God?
by PhoenixV 8 years ago
What Is The Best Evidence For The Existence Of God?
- 146
The Dilema of chosing a Spiritual Path
by mischeviousme 12 years ago
"I am not an atheist. I have a rational fear of God, and yet the common sense to ignore it." The Bible gives us an idea about how to be accountable for our actions, while also giving us a pair of scapegoats. On one end you have Hell (a place we go when we have sinned too much). On the...