Jump to content






Photo

Can We Disprove God? Part One

Posted by Supersquatch , in Science vs. Religion 02 September 2012 · 1,021 views

god scientific method
A well-used argument by many creationists is that you can't disprove God, therefore he exists. (I don't understand the logic in this one.) Atheists may give an answer similar to, "You also can't diprove Allah, Jehovah or even a flying spaghetti monster from that perspective." However, can we really disprove God? The answer short and simple, yes.

The scientific method consists of these four basic steps:
  • Ask a question
  • Form a hypothesis
  • Create an experiment in attempt to disprove your hypothesis
  • Collect and analyze the data from your experiment, draw a conclusion
Creationists seem to skip some steps:
  • Ask a question (Where'd the earth, the sky, the universe, etc. come from?)
  • Form a hypothesis (A supreme being, or deity, created the earth, the sky, the universe, etc.)
  • Draw a conclusion (A supreme being created everything.)
As we can see most notably, there is no attempt to disprove the hypothesis that "A supreme being, or deity, created the earth, the sky, the universe, etc." Every hypothesis that can be disproved is not a good hypothesis--obviously--but there has been a total lack of effort into disproving God.*

Let us try using step three of the scientific method, shall we?

TO BE CONTINUED...

Footnotes

* I applaud Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion for being one of the only books of its kind.





Anonymous User
Sep 02 2012 03:01 AM
I think you may have misrepresented the believers position here-- they don't argue that because god can't disproved it means that a god must exist, they use it as a justification for their right to believe, not an argument for it.

At least that's what I get from the "you can't disprove god" statement.
  • Report

Supersquatch
Sep 02 2012 03:07 AM

Thomas J, on 02 September 2012 - 03:01 AM, said:

I think you may have misrepresented the believers position here-- they don't argue that because god can't disproved it means that a god must exist, they use it as a justification for their right to believe, not an argument for it.

But what if you were able to disprove the existence of God?
  • Report

Anonymous User
Sep 02 2012 03:30 AM

Taylor Reints, on 02 September 2012 - 03:07 AM, said:

But what if you were able to disprove the existence of God?
Well if that were possible, it isn't hard to see the flaws in a statement saying it isn't possible.

The problem with god is though that just because of the properties its been given (omniscience, omnipotence, ect) we aren't able to disprove/falsify such a deity because the believers constantly resort to those properties, which don't allow the concept to be falsified.

Philosophical arguments may be made against them, but they are far to complex for the average believer.
  • Report

Supersquatch
Sep 02 2012 03:36 AM

Thomas J, on 02 September 2012 - 03:30 AM, said:

The problem with god is though that just because of the properties its been given (omniscience, omnipotence, ect) we aren't able to disprove/falsify such a deity because the believers constantly resort to those properties, which don't allow the concept to be falsified.

That's a horrible argument. Where in the Bible does it even say God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omnipresent, etc.? I think creationists need to work on their arguments.
  • Report

Anonymous User
Sep 02 2012 03:42 AM

Taylor Reints, on 02 September 2012 - 03:36 AM, said:

I think creationists need to work on their arguments.
Agreed. Unfortunately from a believers perspective it's considered valid reasoning.

I couldn't tell you the verses off by heart, but I can assure you the bible does make such statements. Anyway, by definition in order for something to be classified as a "god" it must have those properties. The definition doesn't depend on the bibles account.
  • Report

Supersquatch
Sep 02 2012 03:49 AM

Thomas J, on 02 September 2012 - 03:42 AM, said:

Agreed. Unfortunately from a believers perspective it's considered valid reasoning.

I couldn't tell you the verses off by heart, but I can assure you the bible does make such statements. Anyway, by definition in order for something to be classified as a "god" it must have those properties. The definition doesn't depend on the bibles account.

What about imperial cults?
  • Report

Anonymous User
Sep 02 2012 03:55 AM

Taylor Reints, on 02 September 2012 - 03:49 AM, said:


What about imperial cults?

According to wikipedia at least, you would need to be more specific in which "thing" you're referring to:

"An imperial cult is a form of state religion in which an emperor, or a dynasty of emperors (or rulers of another title), are worshipped as messiahs,demigods or deities. "Cult" here is used to mean "worship", not in the modern pejorative sense.

- - -
G2G.
  • Report

Alienated Being
Sep 02 2012 04:25 AM

Thomas J, on 02 September 2012 - 03:42 AM, said:

Agreed. Unfortunately from a believers perspective it's considered valid reasoning.
That doesn't make sense. Just because you believe in something, that doesn't indicate that there's any truth to it. Also, don't retort with the age-old mantra of, "Well, it's true for me", as It's either true, or it's not true. If you're saying that your god is true, what about Zeus, Thor, Ra, Vishnu, Sheba, Gaia, Satan, Apollo, Mars, etc.? How do you know that they do not exist? Using the age-old logical fallacy known as argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument from ignorance), you cannot prove the gods of polytheistic religion to be untrue, therefore... they must be true. Using that same logical fallacy, we can assume the existence of unicorns, elves and faeries.

Do you see what I am getting at, here?

Quote

I couldn't tell you the verses off by heart, but I can assure you the bible does make such statements. Anyway, by definition in order for something to be classified as a "god" it must have those properties. The definition doesn't depend on the bibles account.
The Bible can "say" whatever it likes, however, it has been proven in many instances to be self-contradictory. Not to mention, it has to be the most immoral collection of books that I have ever laid eyes upon. The mis-treatment of women (they are considered to be "property"), the selection of "women-children" for personal gratification (numbers [paedophilia]), thou shalt not kill (God convinces Abraham to kill his son, however gets him to slaughter the ram instead), and a great many more.

Secondly, considering a document written between 1400 B.C.E., and 400 A.D. by a variety of anonymous individuals to be anything to abide by, and view as irrefutable truth, is ludicrous.
  • Report
No, you can't disprove the existence of a creator (don't attempt to give this creator a name, so nations can fight over who's creator is the real one). Because that would be the origin behind everything. And we are so far from knowing everything. We are a baby of a species in the grand scheme of things.

Magic 8 ball says ask again later.

Or you can continue inanely to follow your scientific method to prove or disprove the origin of everything. No one has come close to succeeding beyond guesses yet.

But I see it's just going to be the Bible used as hypothetical fodder for discussion here, which is so limiting and ridiculous it's not even worth checking back here. The question is to disprove a creator, not whether some book men wrote is immoral or not. Give me a break.
  • Report

Anonymous User
Sep 02 2012 04:35 AM
Re-read and you may see what I was getting at. As an atheist, I don't see it as valid reasoning and yes, the bible IS ludicrous.
  • Report

Alienated Being
Sep 02 2012 04:41 AM

_Only, on 02 September 2012 - 04:33 AM, said:

No, you can't disprove the existence of a creator. Because that would be the origin behind everything. And we are so far from knowing everything. We are a baby of a species in the grand scheme of things.
And then you would have
So, we should assume that there was a creator? From what we have gathered in the field of science is that matter is neither created, nor destroyed. You cannot create something from nothing, therefore indicating that a creator had to have been created, and so on, and so forth. We may be a "baby" in the grand scheme of things, but I also think that it is juvenile to assume that a creator is responsible for everything. In fact, there are many traces of evidence within physics, chemistry, biology, etc. to contradict any self-respecting creator.

Quote

Or you can continue inanely to follow your scientific method to prove or disprove the origin of everything. No one has come close to succeeding beyond guesses yet.
If science has taught me anything, it is to be critical of what has very little evidence in support of it. Otherwise, we would still be plagued with the belief that the Earth is flat, or that the sun orbits the Earth. If it were not for challenging, scientific minds... calculus would have never been invented, electricity would have never been "discovered" and channeled as significantly as it has, and a great many things would have never been invented. We would not be where we are if it was not for science
  • Report

Supersquatch
Sep 02 2012 05:37 AM

_Only, on 02 September 2012 - 04:33 AM, said:

No, you can't disprove the existence of a creator

And why not?

_Only, on 02 September 2012 - 04:33 AM, said:

(don't attempt to give this creator a name, so nations can fight over who's creator is the real one). Because that would be the origin behind everything. And we are so far from knowing everything. We are a baby of a species in the grand scheme of things.

That's a philosophical argument. We are far from knowing everything, but we have progressed quite a bit.

_Only, on 02 September 2012 - 04:33 AM, said:

Magic 8 ball says ask again later.

Or you can continue inanely to follow your scientific method to prove or disprove the origin of everything. No one has come close to succeeding beyond guesses yet.

The scientific method is the only way we can scientifically prove or disprove something. That's why I'm using it. There is no philosophical argument concerning the existence of God, it is a scientific one.
  • Report

BaalZebul Nehebkau
Sep 02 2012 06:08 AM
No offense Taylor but that entire blog entry of yer's was a strawman of some sorts. Not all creationists hold this simple and flawed view. But of course that isn't to say that none of them do (because many do)
  • Report
If I were god...and Im not saying Im not....I would make sure you could NOT proove my existance, because then I would ultimately be testing your faith....true beleivers would still believe...
  • Report
And its even harder to disprove God part 2

  • Report

Supersquatch
Sep 02 2012 04:46 PM

BaalZebul Nehebkau, on 02 September 2012 - 06:08 AM, said:

No offense Taylor but that entire blog entry of yer's was a strawman of some sorts.

All it said is that you can disprove God. Therefore, the creationist "argument" that you can't disprove the existence of a creator is a fallacy.

I know not all creationists hold this view, but as you can see even on this forum, it's a huge part of the creation-science debate.
  • Report

Alienated Being
Sep 02 2012 05:17 PM
OH, MY GOD MULE! THAT IS FANTASTIC!

+1
  • Report

Get Updates for New Posts

Click the "Follow this blog" button on the homepage to receive updates whenever a new post is written on Supersquatch.

Search My Blog

Short Stories

Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image

Recent Comments

Latest Visitors

  • Photo
    adderiexola
    01 Jan 2014 - 17:17
  • Photo
    QuiteContrary
    25 Jun 2013 - 00:17
  • Photo
    Rlyeh
    24 Jun 2013 - 06:18
  • Photo
    Clockwork_Wings
    18 Jun 2013 - 03:26
  • Photo
    Nathan DiYorio
    16 Jun 2013 - 19:46

Article Categories

Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image