jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (42 posts)

Is the modern science able to disprove the existence of God?

  1. amine-sehibi profile image76
    amine-sehibiposted 2 years ago

    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 .

    1. janesix profile image60
      janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      It's not the job of science to disprove the existence of God. Why would anyone bother trying?

      1. amine-sehibi profile image76
        amine-sehibiposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        So, the modern science hasn't disproved the existence of God yet ?, right?

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          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.

          1. amine-sehibi profile image76
            amine-sehibiposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            So, the modern science hasn't disproved the existence of God yet ?
            Yes or No ?
            if yes tell me why
            if No just say no

            1. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              It 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...

    2. JMcFarland profile image89
      JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      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.

      1. amine-sehibi profile image76
        amine-sehibiposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        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.

        1. JMcFarland profile image89
          JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          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.

          1. amine-sehibi profile image76
            amine-sehibiposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            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.

            1. JMcFarland profile image89
              JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              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.

              1. amine-sehibi profile image76
                amine-sehibiposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                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.

                1. wilderness profile image94
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  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.

                  1. amine-sehibi profile image76
                    amine-sehibiposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    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 .

                2. JMcFarland profile image89
                  JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  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?

                  1. amine-sehibi profile image76
                    amine-sehibiposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    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 ....

    3. R K Beran profile image59
      R K Beranposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      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.

      1. amine-sehibi profile image76
        amine-sehibiposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I partly agree with you , actually you reply is very Good . thanks

        1. R K Beran profile image59
          R K Beranposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          You're welcome!

          Oops! Also noticed a typo. It should say, "If a concrete 'yes' or 'no' *cannot* be given..."

    4. ahorseback profile image46
      ahorsebackposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Have you ever learned the meaning of faith ?

  2. Aime F profile image84
    Aime Fposted 2 years ago

    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.

    1. amine-sehibi profile image76
      amine-sehibiposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      i still see it as better than not believing in him, and how it was mentioned in that link " what if you're wrong ? "

      1. Aime F profile image84
        Aime Fposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        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.

        1. amine-sehibi profile image76
          amine-sehibiposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          So you say, you don't mind going to hell even if you would believe in the hell's existence and God ?

  3. Paul Wingert profile image77
    Paul Wingertposted 2 years ago

    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.

 
working