Yes, I believe that science has the ability to disprove that a God exists. This is not something that many people want to hear, I'm sure, but I believe it is true. My aunt is currently taking an anthropology class in college and it basically disproves everything in the Bible.
Science is based of off cold hard facts, while the bible is nothing less than an explanation that was created by an ancient people with no knowledge of modern science.
An argument that always comes up is that religion came first. That is an illegitimate argument because the idea of religion was created due to the lack of sciemce in the world at the time. In the days of relgions creation, modern science (or almost any science) was not present because science had to progress from less complex roots. It takes hundreds of years for people to uncover the rules of the universe, while any uneducated person from ancient times could have come up with a fairytale to explain their unknown origins. Religion is nothing more than an uneducated way of explaining the unknown from the past. Religion is outdated.
(Btw I am 15 and I just proved thousands of years of religion worthless.)
The concept of God was created by man, as were all religions. Most people of reasonable intelligence do not believe in any religion or God. Religions are perpetuated through cultural imprinting (cultural brainwashing). Religious parents make sure their children are brainwashed at a very early age; so the belief in this superstitious nonsense gets perpetuated for thousands of years. But, science and reality are causing more and more people to reject this mysticism.
The more educated people are, the less likely they will accept the concept of God and the dogma promoted by the religions. That is why the Catholic Church has such a foothold in impoverished countries were most of the believers are illiterate, Africa, South America, Mexico, Spain, Portugal, etc.
There will never be any proof that God exists. The belief in God is based solely on FAITH.
Whereby, Science deals with observable reality. If it can’t be verified with evidence, it is most likely superstitious nonsense believed by the gullible or politicians that want the votes of the religious.
More and more young kids in America are just saying that the whole God thing makes no sense.
Two-thirds of the teenagers in the UK do not believe in God. Many more countries are very secular: Czech Republic, Sweden, Denmark, Austria, France, Norway, Australia, Japan, and Germany.
It is simple and not one person can answer even with a bible by their side. Who created god? He didn't just appear, that is pure ignorance if you believe so. People are influenced at young age to believe in god because that is what they were taught. Same as when we were little we believed in Santa and that there is gold at the end of a rainbow. God was created because of the ignorance of mankind at such a early age to help explain why stuff existed. Same as the Greeks believed in Zeus, Poseidon, Thor, etc. They were created because of ignorance of not knowing why stuff happened. Science today explains the reasons of why that stuff happens. Yeah science can't prove exactly how life started but there is more scientific proof supporting evolution and big bang theory then a book saying one man created everything. Bible states life started 6000 yrs ago but dinosaurs roamed earth a lot longer before then but when the bible was becoming what it is, no one had the science or technology to date such findings if they found it. Why are we not adding anything to the bible now? We are more intelligent in what we see and can explain things better due to scientific proof for why it is happening. God is old mans best friend because no one wants to believe that once you die that is it. Everyone has a right to believe in what they want but just use facts to try and prove what you believe instead a book written by what they say they seen when they didn't have the tools or technology we have these days.
Ok, maybe we can't prove wrong the entire idea of there being a god, but we can prove wrong the ones being written about such as the bible. The contradictions in timelines and history just makes it impossible, therefore, proving wrong a Christian God. The real point is though that man invented god, god did not invent man. Maybe if we can invent a time machine one day and trace back the origins of the stories and watch evolution unfold, then it can be proven wrong.
For Evolution, what has Christians on the fence is that they are mixing up the two different types of evolution; Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution. Micro-evolution happens over a much quicker period of time and consists of animals adapting to an environment by acquiring new characteristics that help them survive. Macro-evolution is the changing from one kind of species to another. For instance, from ape to man and this type of evolution happens over millions, sometimes billions of years. People only live from 1-10 decades usually and cannot physically see macro-evolution, so they don’t believe in it. While in reality, both kinds of Evolution prove that god is not needed for the adaption or change of species.
What if Science IS in fact God?
One may state that God is energy, around us. Think about it. Energy cannot be CREATED or DESTROYED, but can be changed, God is around us in the form of science. God is an engine, he is the DRIVING force for the energy in the universe.
God did not make man however,
Erich Von Daniken makes an incredibley interesting theory:
A theory that Ancient Aliens fathered humanity as we know it today. If one reads the book "Chariots of the Gods?" you will discover that there is a colossal amount of evidence pointing in the direction that his theory is correct.
For example, Daniken states that the "Aliens" came to earth during the times of which our ancestors were neanderthals. They inter-bred with these beings to create a new race of earth dwellers. These are the homo-sapiens, completely different to that of the Neanderthals in the fact that their brains were THREE TIMES BIGGER than them. This is out of the normal, as their colonies were extremely close to eachother in the northern France region.
IF aliens did inter-breed with Neanderthals, making a new "Homo Sapien" race, then it makes sense that these intelligent "GODS FROM THE SKY" boosted human evolution, by INCREASING their brain size.
Homo Sapiens were incredibly intelligent, we know this via the fact that the Neanderthals were becoming extinct via freezing to death in the Ice Age, whilst the Homo Sapiens were busy making homes in caves and "discovering" fire.
I mean to say that there in an incredulous amount of evidence in this theories direction.
Another example is the fact that these "Gods in their sky-chariots" were also depicted in Peru, near lake Titicaca, hundreds of miles away from Europe.
Near lake Titicaca is a "doorway". It is a large arch of a rock, like Mount Rushmore, with a distinct doorway carved into it.
If one looks closely at this doorway, there is a minuscule notch in the direct middle of it. Ancient Peruvian legend depicts the "Gods" descending to their land, and presenting the tribe's king with a "Golden Disc with a JUTTING OUT NOTCH on it. This would have been used to "contact" their Alien brothers from another world. May it have been used to call for their Alien ancestors, who would be "sleeping" as Peruvian legend depicts. This points in the direction that the Aliens were CYROGENICALLY FROZEN for hundreds of years. This means that after they had interbred with the neanderthals, they had dispersed their offspring to inhabit other continents, and would lie in wait for hundreds more years in the earth to await any problems their children would face.
We don't see it, but our "Gods" are Alien scientists, performing genetic experiments on their offspring with earth dwellers.
Reasons for organized religion
Bring morals and natural order unto civilazation. Create an always there cop (god) and spiritual prison (hell) to keep order and encourage people to be good. (like the myth of getting kids to behave with santa (god) always watching and threatening with coal (hell). Brings morals supported by super natural being. Causes people to live good life for they will be judged. A neverending flawless court system that keeps order with no human order. Attribute things not understood to God.
Serve as all rounder to cover up things humans do not understand. Serve as all rounder to cover up things humans do not understand. It is a man made answer so instead of not knowing anything about ones existence or purpose attributing it to a superior being that made everything humans don't understand. God is a crutch to lean on for things we don't understand, and an excuse as to things (creation) came to be.
Be a denial of death by believing in afterlife, so existence of a being never ends, although it does. Denies death and end to all things as in life, something always leads to another. Form of denying the end and continuing life because of fear of death. Afterlife simply carries on ones own existence and life in a different form, for that person fears death and used it as a defense mechanism to shield ones self from the reality of death.
Satisfy emotional needs. Give people hope there is meaning to life and hope that they are important and have a specific purpose. Also that there is something better after life. Gives people something to believe in. Makes people feel loved and accepted. Gives meaning to life instead of accepting the harsh reality. Way to run away from problems, and used mainly in hard times.
They have shown how god didn't make humans or the building blocks of humans or the building blocks of cells, they have proved how animals didn't just appear but were made. They have shown how the world was made, which was meant to be gods creation. It also disproves alot in the bible because of the amount uncoverd.
Im 13 years old and thats what ive learned
Science is based on methodological naturalism, which means we can only investigate the natural causes. Under this model, every causation we can observe is natural, so I don't know what would qualify as supernatural, if it manifests in reality, then it is by definition measurable and therefore natural. Given that this is the case, we can at least for now determine that supernatural causation is currently a nonsensical proposition.
There are two possibilities: either a god manifests in reality or it doesn't. If it does manifest in reality, such as answering prayers, then science can investigate and observe how God manifests in reality. If this were the case we can build a whole new scientific theory to explain the universe. Of all the godlike claims so far, we've found nothing to demonstate that a god exists. If any of the god claims were true, we'd all know about it, and it would be vastly world-changing at an unimaginable scale. We would have a whole new scientific model to explain the universe.
If god exists, but doesn't manifest in reality, then it is indistinguishable from a god that doesn't exist.
So currently, since we can't and haven't thus far discovered any supernatural phenomena or any thing to demonstrate that a god exists, we have no reason to believe that such a thing exists until someone demonstrates it to be so with reason and scientific evidence, the only kind of evidence that matters.
One of the principle things about science is that it deals in natural explanations for natural phenomena. Science does not claim to deal in the supernatural, nor should it.
Consider. Can you possibly prove that an all-powerful, all-knowing, and somehow separated from our time and space entity does not exist? No, because of the very nature of the thing you are trying to disprove. If God is truly something beyond our world, then it is foolish to think that you could every possibly disprove God's existence.
The existence of God is the subject of theology and philosophy, not science. They deal with logic and religion, while science deals with the natural world. Any God is by very nature, supernatural, and thus not in the domain of science.
I am an atheist and I don't believe that God exists. Nevertheless, we can't disprove the existence of God just like we can't disprove magic, unicorn or whatever. But it doesn't really matter anyway. The ones who claim that God exists should have the burden of proof, we don't need to prove or disprove anything.
It is every man and woman's right to believe in God or any other religion. Also, if you read the bible it explains many, many things that have happened and are happening right now. The Bible was made millions of years ago, it also states that a male child will be born from a virgin Mary. This child will be the savior of the world, that was said in the bible back then hundreds of years before Jesus Christ was born.
Of course not. It is a common logical fallacy to claim something is real simply because it cannot be disproved. You CANNOT prove a negative. Ever. God does not exist. There will never be any evidence to prove something does NOT exist. However, the lack of evidence for PROVING there is a God speaks for itself. If you're intelligent.
I cannot prove that God does not exist in the same way I cannot prove that leprechauns and unicorns do not exist. Even still, I do not believe in God, leprechauns, or unicorns.
Firstly, evidence that the universe began and the logic that everything that begins has a cause.
Secondly, we have seen how astonishing it is that the Big Bang should have been so finely-tuned as to be capable of creating a universe supporting human life.
Science will never prove God does not exist.
Science provides us with the definition for what we now to be real, and does not refute what we don't know to be real.
If a being was born in an room with no windows, doors, or any other sensory access to the outside world and only resources to support it's existence, would it's accept that the room was the bounds of the known universe? Or would it consider that there was something beyond the room, which to it at that point would be beyond it's imagination, having never experienced it.
We cannot comprehend anything beyond the existence we are in, because we are in it, in the same way we cannot fully comprehend dimensions beyond the dimensions we understand we occupy. Just because something is not accessible, does not mean it doesn't exist.
There is too many things to prove GOD as much as disproving GOD. GOD is based on faith, so it is irrevlant to science. Science starts with proving or disproving something with the scientific method, and GOD is not physical. GOD does lines up with LOGIC and Reason, which is
Science cannot disprove god because simply god could be behind everything. Science is just descriptions of what we see just because we call an atom an atom doesn't mean we know what it is, it's still just a form of energy. Overall in my opinion science could never disprove a spiritual belief in the first place anyways.
The philosopher Keith Ward can say it all much better than me: http://www.Gresham.Ac.Uk/lectures-and-events/the-boyle-lecture-%E2%80%93-misusing-darwin-the-materialist-conspiracy-in-evolutionary
Here's the beginning of his lecture transcript notes. See link for more.
Science and Materialism
'...We take the side of science...Because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door'.
Sometimes people can be more embarrassed by their friends than by their enemies. It is surely embarrassing for science to be defended on the grounds that it is founded on an absolute prior commitment to a highly disputed and deeply problematic philosophical view. If ever there was a dogmatic, unquestioning faith that zooms well beyond the evidence, this is it.
Who could say such a thing? It was Richard Lewontin, a highly respected Harvard professor and evolutionary naturalist. Admittedly he said it in the New York Review of Books in 1997, but even so he presumably meant it.
He is not alone in thinking that evolutionary biology is often driven by a prior commitment to materialism. Francis Crick is on record as saying - again in a newspaper, the Daily Telegraph of March 20, 2003 - that it was his distaste for religion that largely motivated his search for a purely chemical basis for life. Once again the dislike of divine feet drives the search for mechanical causes, and nothing but mechanical causes, of all events in the cosmos.
A lead article in the science journal 'Nature', in June, 2007, contained this sentence: 'With all deference to the sensibilities of religious people, the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside'. It went on to suggest that 'scientific theories of human nature' are necessarily in conflict with out-dated religious views - with all deference, of course, to the millions of out-dated people in the world. If the scientific account is accepted, the suggestion is, it is no longer possible to hold that there is something special about humans that gives them a particular function or form of conscious relationship to a God.
The same journal, in an editorial published in the issue of July 19, 1984, declared that all supernatural causes were absolutely ruled out by science - so that miracles, for examples, were shown to be impossible by science.
Why is the possibility of divine causality so disliked and even dogmatically denied? One reason can be found in a major article called 'Evolution: the Ultimate Guide' in the New Scientist for 19 April, 2008. The writer, Michael le Page, says, 'The genomes of complex creatures reveal a lack of any intelligence or foresight...The inescapable conclusion is that if life was designed, the designer was lazy, stupid and cruel'. He goes on to say that humans are far from being perfect finished products. Humans are rather 'a crude early prototype thrown up by a desperately cruel process'.
There are many misinterpretations of the Bible. Different versions can give the appearance of having different meanings. Science selects the few "faults" in the Bible and use this information to attempt the disproving of God and creation. These "Faults" are merely misunderstood and appear to give off different meanings. The Bible has one purpose, one set story, but everyone views the world differently. Try putting on the opposing person(s) glasses on and try to see where they are coming from. Its easier for some, impossible for others. I am a Christian, obviously, and if you have even bothered reading this far your are 1, looking for any fault that i might have, 2, interested in what I have to say, or 3, you don't care what i have to say, you are just reading to entertain yourself with hateful comments towards science. Well now that I have all of your attention, I respect you and what you think about what I have to say. I try to see everything from every kind of worldview as possible. As the prompt reads, "can science disprove (Christian) creation?" think to yourself, have i even bothered to try to understand creation or science? I know what i sound like when i say this but keep the peace. No need to hate an individual or individuals because of what they believe. And I'm sure nobody wants a repeat of the Holocaust(Not saying anyone will cause one). There are Christian extremists just as there are science extremists. They will kill for what they believe. I've really rabbit trailed on this but I hope that I helped a bit.:) BTW I'm not some super Christian guy, I'm just your average Joe trying to help people out, no need to quote me on anything.