When discussing the argument of whether or not God has been refuted by science one must think constantly about the argument at hand and think about how well science develops itself in disproving that the existence of a "creator". Science has thoroughly explained most of the skeptical stories that the bible has push forward and used logical and observational reasoning in showing that those stories of the bible are nothing more than scientific observations at hand. Also science disproves that the existence of a God who could perform "miracles" is a violation of the most basic scientific and natural laws that govern the physical a world and trying to retort with the claim that god has abilities beyond that of a human and could interact with the physical world does not mean that his/her interactions would not have to obey the laws. God after all was the creation of the human kind not as a tool to explain how all life on earth began, but as a way of controlling the masses through fear and intimidation, when the government itself has failed. We as humankind have evolved from that state of allowing the church to control and this is due to the many intellectual and scientific revolutions that have happened throughout history and we now as a species have the capability to evaluate and observe the world as it is and we have proven more than enough to incontrovertibly refute the existence or need of God
Well, science has been proven to be like a religion in many ways, and to be incorrect in many ways. There are many things in science that we can't 'see', but we accept it as real. I can't see what's on the other side of the galaxy, but I have to accept that what science tells us about it is true. But then again, there are things in the Bible that can be related to stuff that deal with science. The Bible speaks of the beast from the sea. There is a major thing in this world that is a result of science that can be considered the 'beast from the sea'.
And yet again, there are scientific things that have proven that things in the Bible are real. I'm in between on this issue, so I just chose one.
1. Science Is The Most Powerful Tool We Have For Understanding The World
2. If God Is In The World, Then Science Applies
3. If God Is In The World, Then Science Proves God Does Not Exist
4. There Are At Least Two Types Of Knowledge
5. If God Is Not In The World, Then Science Does Not Have Much To Say
6. If God Is Not In The World, Then Historical Religion Is Fiction/Wishful-Thinking
see also www ScienceRefutesReligion dot com
In science we assume that everything is false if unfounded. So far, there is no need for a God in science. For example, Scientifically, we assume there is no cupcake revolving around the galaxy. This is not because there isn't a possibility, but because there is not proof supporting it (Richard Dawkins). Therefore, I will concede that philosophically science does not debunk God, but scientifically it does by default.
Yes, I believe science refutes God. Everything that has been proven thus far through scientific breakthroughs has been backed up by evidence. Religion, on the other hand, has not had any concrete evidence to prove it exists, hence the stress on "faith" that almost all religions emphasize. Furthermore, science has refuted that God and religion exist, because many of the facets of religion would be scientifically impossible, like a God who is omniscient or can walk on water.
As we do not have proper evidence to answer the fundamental questions of our existence (such as "why are we here?" Or "why is there something rather than nothing?”) science cannot disprove God. Furthermore, proof in the existence of God is rooted more in philosopy than science, as it is impossible to find empirical evidence for his existence. Nevertheless, even if it doesn’t prove God, it definitely doesn’t disprove Him at this point.
I find the idea of any type of deity being responsible for the existence of the universe highly unlikely. However, the idea that science outright refutes or God(s) and religion stems from a general ignorance of what both science and religion actually are. Science, put simply, is a tool through which we can understand the universe that we live in. It explains "how" the universe works. It does not make an attempt at explaining the "why". The theory of evolution, for instance, explains how organisms change overtime (and organisms DO change overtime, this is observable). It theorizes, and by theorize i mean it has been well thought up, peer reviewed thousands of times, and draws evidence for multiple fields of study (Biology, Geology, Antho/Archaeology), that organisms can change both psychologically and physiologically through the processes of natural selection, selective breeding, and genetic mutations. It further theorizes that all life on earth has evolved from simple celled organism that lived and died billions of years ago. It does not claim to know "why" it happens this way or "what" caused these simple organisms to form in the first place (however there are promising studies that may show "how" simple celled creatures may have formed). This absolutely refutes most religious creation myths, but that does not mean it absolutely refutes god/gods. I believe some fundamentalist religious sects take their book way to literally and as a result become willfully ignorant of reality and fact.
I don’t think that science refutes God. If anything, science is further proof of God’s
existence and genius. From the tiniest
atom to the biggest planets and stars, the beauty of God’s creation is there
for all to see. I even think that
evolution is further proof of God’s existence.
Most religions do not take a stance on science. This includes Christianity. While there are moments where laws of physics may be broken in the Bible, this does not mean that Christianity is refuting God. The God of the Bible is perfectly capable of breaking physics, so it makes sense that he would. Also, it is perfectly possible to believe in science and God.
There are so many indications that there is a God. This world and this universe are just too complex to be a result of randomization. Saying the Earth came to be this way from explosions is preposterous. That is like put a flashlight in a bag and shaking the bag and saying it will eventually all come together. Also evolution is not totality fake I believe in micro evolution but I do not believe that we use to be monkeys that is just ridiculous. One more thing if you truly call yourself a christian you know as well as I do you shouldn't always start debates over this it just causes anger but you should just love one another.
The most common argument for notion that science refutes the idea and concept of religion is the theory of natural selection or Darwin's theory of evolution. Atheist commonly cite his work and theory as a means to disprove and discredit the notion of god and religion as a whole. However what these anti-creationists fail to realize is that evolution does not explain the creation and genesis of life on earth but rather seeks to explain the proliferation of life on the planet. The theory defines evolution as the change is allele frequency in the gene pool over a period of time, hence leading to a differentiation of various life forms on the planet. One might question whether these atheist with their so called faith in science really understand and comprehend this basic theory in the first place?
Setting aside organized religion and just talking about the idea of a higher power that created the earth - separate from "creationism" "reincarnation" or any other religious ideas about life, science does not disprove anything about a god. Following the likely conclusion that a sort of big bang created the earth, what created that? Interactions between particles in empty space, and what created those? Whether or not you are religious how can there NOT BE something infinite at the end of the "why" question?
Yes, science may refute the Bible itself, but that does not mean that God doesn't exist. The Bible isn't the all powerful word of God, but just the testament of a variety of his followers. I believe God is responsible for the creation of science itself. Someone had to write the laws that the universe follows, just like someone had to create the code made to write this program. The Church and God are two different entities. I personally don't believe in the whole "Adam & Eve" type stories, because they weren't meant to be taken literally. They are just stories made to teach whoever reads them basic morals. Science can prove the Universe had a beginning, but it can't prove what made it begin.
No it is not possible to refute god since god does not exist in our world. Or he exists on another plane of existence. God in a sense can be taken as impossible to prove or refute since it is impossible to gather data and evidence for or against his existence. What science does is it takes facts based on EVIDENCE and disproves wild claims made by religious zealots, holy texts, and whatever other stuff comes out of religions mouth.
Scientific endeavor may be characterized by its scope and its methodology. Science does not address every possible question one can come up with; it has its own domain of study. Questions like "Is this painting beautiful?", or "Is it wrong to kill wild animals?", or "What is freedom?", are not addressed by Science. Neither is the question "Does God exist?". That is a philosophical question which can, of course, be approached by making use of some scientific results or none at all while constructing and analyzing arguments, but is nevertheless out of the scope of pure scientific inquiry. This does not mean that Science will not address this question in the future, once it finds an adequate way to investigate it through its usual methodologies, but as of today Science neither proves or refutes God's existence: it's simply mute on that subject.