What Science Can't Prove

[ellapenella]

If science can not disprove the existence of unicorns, how can it disprove the existence of God ?

http://www.str.org/articles/what-science-can-t-prove#.VEFXNlfgXcw

by author : Greg Koukl

I really appreciate honest thinkers like this gentleman.

[theotherguy]

Science and religion are different aspects of life. Science hasn't really proven the existence of ethics, or morality or lack thereof, or any sort of thing, beyond the same sort of questions people ask about the existence of God. Is it possible to scientifically prove I am a good person? You can look at my record of trustworthiness, reliability, generosity, probably even throw a brain scan in there, but what does that prove?. "Why did you help that guy out of the tree?" "Because it was the right thing to do." "No, give me a scientific and provable reason for helping him down." I agree that science can't and won't disprove God, but it really doesn't have any business trying to do so. Likewise, you can't philosophize your way to (M₁ x M₂) / r².

[seeder]

If science can not disprove the existence of unicorns, how can it disprove the existence of God ?

http://www.str.org/a...ve#.VEFXNlfgXcw

by author : Greg Koukl

I really appreciate honest thinkers like this gentleman.

Why would science waste its time on myths?

[ellapenella]

Science and religion are different aspects of life. Science hasn't really proven the existence of ethics, or morality or lack thereof, or any sort of thing, beyond the same sort of questions people ask about the existence of God. Is it possible to scientifically prove I am a good person? You can look at my record of trustworthiness, reliability, generosity, probably even throw a brain scan in there, but what does that prove?. "Why did you help that guy out of the tree?" "Because it was the right thing to do." "No, give me a scientific and provable reason for helping him down." I agree that science can't and won't disprove God, but it really doesn't have any business trying to do so. Likewise, you can't philosophize your way to (M₁ x M₂) / r².

I guess I don't really see science and God and different. I just see God as more intelligent than science though science is like a fingerprint to all things concerning God, and I mean all things.

I guess I relate them like , science is like reading a book written by the author ,but it isn't the actual author.

[Philangeli]

If science can not disprove the existence of unicorns, how can it disprove the existence of God ?

http://www.str.org/a...ve#.VEFXNlfgXcw

by author : Greg Koukl

I really appreciate honest thinkers like this gentleman.

I don't think it is science's remit to disprove anything.

Who, in their right minds, would fund scientists to investigate whether unicorns, goblins, fairies, pixies, gremlins, hobgoblins (whatever they are!) exist or not?

Notwithstanding, I do have much sympathy with your viewpoint. But, when it comes to whether something exists or not, we are forced into the realm of the physical, where the 'existence' of something depends on the current views of scientists who use current technology to investigate what is out there, so obviously, they can only receive results which they can analyse and which accord with their current education and research.

Edited October 17, 2014 by Philangeli

[+OverSword]

Why would science waste its time on myths?

Myths such as the silverback gorilla used to be?

[seeder]

Myths such as the silverback gorilla used to be?

It wasnt a myth to the locals was it?

[Bendy Demon]

At least science made an effort to study something like gorillas (silver backed ones) based on actual reality and previous studies whereas imps, faeries, etc were invented by ignorant, illiterate people who were all too happy to blame anything and everything on imaginary things.

[Philangeli]

Myths such as the silverback gorilla used to be?

Exactly.

Science does not accept anything 'exists' until it has been discovered and quantified. There may come a time, when science, begrudgingly says, in the light of quantum theory (and all that stuff), admits, 'Well, actually, these things might exist, albeit on a different plane to what we are accustomed to.

[Rafterman]

If science can not disprove the existence of unicorns, how can it disprove the existence of God ?

http://www.str.org/a...ve#.VEFXNlfgXcw

by author : Greg Koukl

I really appreciate honest thinkers like this gentleman.

I'm still trying to find someone out there actively trying to disprove that there is/are a god(s).

I happen to know a lot of scientists who are spending untold hours trying to tackle some very deep and meaningful questions and not a one of them is trying to disprove god(s).

[Lilly]

In science you don't start off with the assumption that something exists. In science one looks for the evidence that something exists. So, from a scientific perspective one seeks to provide evidence to support existence, not to go forth and just believe something exists then look for ways to disprove said existence.

[DecoNoir]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but am I seeing "You can't disprove it!" being used as some kind of trump card here? Absolutely not! If you want people to accept something exist its up to you to prove it, or at the least gather evidence supporting it exists. Believers don't just get to sit on their asses and expect the rest of the world to follow.

[keithisco]

It is impossible to disprove an idea that has no basis in reason or physical attributes. If you cant test it, quantify, measure its effective parameters,or reproduce it, then the Scientific Method does not apply.

You know, the world has so much more to thank the Scientific Method for in the last 100 years, than any and every Religious doctrine combined for the last 4 thousand years.

[seeder]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but am I seeing "You can't disprove it!" being used as some kind of trump card here? Absolutely not! If you want people to accept something exist its up to you to prove it, or at the least gather evidence supporting it exists. Believers don't just get to sit on their asses and expect the rest of the world to follow.

Extraordinary claims...etc etc

[+OverSword]

It wasnt a myth to the locals was it?

At least science made an effort to study something like gorillas (silver backed ones) based on actual reality and previous studies whereas imps, faeries, etc were invented by ignorant, illiterate people who were all too happy to blame anything and everything on imaginary things.

And just what were the "locals" like where the silver back gorillas live?

Scientific experts of the day were doubted for years before they received funding from the royal society, once they got funding for the research it took 50 years to actually locate and prove the existence of the species.

as a note of interest unicorns were symbolic of Jesus in medevil times

Edited October 17, 2014 by OverSword

[seeder]

And just what were the "locals" like where the silver back gorillas live?

Local brown people. Monkeys, Gorillas, Elephants, Giraffes, Lions were always known to 'them'.

[Bendy Demon]

as a note of interest unicorns were symbolic of Jesus in medevil times

So? That still doesn't indicate unicorns were real. Using religion or religious references to support a claim doesn't really make it more credible.

[keithisco]

And just what were the "locals" like where the silver back gorillas live?

Scientific experts of the day were doubted for years before they received funding from the royal society, once they got funding for the research it took 50 years to actually locate and prove the existence of the species.

as a note of interest unicorns were symbolic of Jesus in medevil times

More importantly Unicorns are a force for good in pre - Christian times. They are Pagan in origin, but a belief "stolen" by Christianity too fool the people into thinking they were worshipping the same deity.

[Philangeli]

I'm still trying to find someone out there actively trying to disprove that there is/are a god(s).

Why?

I happen to know a lot of scientists who are spending untold hours trying to tackle some very deep and meaningful questions and not a one of them is trying to disprove god(s).

Do you? Do you have their names and addresses?

[Rafterman]

In science you don't start off with the assumption that something exists. In science one looks for the evidence that something exists. So, from a scientific perspective one seeks to provide evidence to support existence, not to go forth and just believe something exists then look for ways to disprove said existence.

Hence why more and more people are leaving religion or not embracing it to begin with.

If you don't start with the idea that god(s) exist(s) (or aren't brainwashed as a child) and simply look at the natural world from an scientific and evidence based perspective, you quickly realize that our existence makes perfect sense without the need for an all seeing sky wizard.

[XenoFish]

God does indeed exist, solely within the mind of the believer. As a conceptual being, one that represents the beliefs and ideologies of the culture it created (think of it as a egregore or god-form). It's power is equal to the devotion and belief put in it. It becomes a well structured mental construct that has power over the individual only. For instance the "wraith" of god is just a way of explaining when something doesn't go right and a "blessing" in the same way. A form of association. As for being an objective being, I highly doubt it. There is no marked proof that such a thing exist and if it does then it's nothing like what mythology would have you believing.

[+Hammerclaw]

Of course religion isn't science and there's no scientific way to disprove a non scientific concept or the nonexistence of God. That's why so many atheists are reduced to frustration and their arguments devolve into nothing more than scoffing and belittling. It's as though they their smug condescension should, alone, carry the day.

Edited October 17, 2014 by Hammerclaw

[DecoNoir]

Of course religion isn't science and there's no scientific way to disprove a non scientific concept or the nonexistence of God. That's why so many atheists are reduced to frustration and their arguments devolve into nothing more than scoffing and belittling. It's as though they their smug condescension should, alone, carry the day.

You mean the same way believers think their faith alone should carry the day? As in the same concept the OP is touting.

[+Hammerclaw]

You mean the same way believers think their faith alone should carry the day? As in the same concept the OP is touting.

You got it one shot! Congradulations. Boths sides will argue, ad infinitum, while holding same conclusion: the other side's beliefs are silly.

[DecoNoir]

You got it one shot! Congradulations. Boths sides will argue, ad infinitum, while holding same conclusion: the other side's beliefs are silly.

Except for the fact that non-thiest have mountains of historical evidence disproving accounts in holy books and various sciences have explained away the need for a god to run the universe, sure, call it "silly".