Science Can Prove That God Is Unnecessary But It Will Probably Never Prove One Does Not Exist.

Posted by: pozessed

Using logic cause and effect is inevadibly existent in every aspect of our universe. Using that logic for anything to exist, it had to have an action before its conception. Even if the conception can't be explained logics tells us something must have happened before for it to exist. Therefore as long as something exists an action must have happened to cause the reaction and that initial action that started it all may be perceived to some as a creator.

Vote
29 Total Votes
1

Agree

24 votes
6 comments
2

Disagree

5 votes
2 comments
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
johnnyvbassist says2013-09-14T16:27:14.0449406-05:00
Science can prove neither.
pozessed says2013-09-14T16:58:46.6577363-05:00
With the stipulations I present, there is more of a chance to prove a God(s) may exist than there is an ability to prove one doesn't.
Skeptikitten says2013-09-14T20:55:15.1429792-05:00
Actually science can certainly show that no supernatural forces were NECESSARY. As for an "ability to prove a god may exist"- hogwash. Science is the methodological study of the NATURAL world and must be testable, falsifiable, and verifiable. "God" is none of those things. Theists have the Burden of Proof. It is no more up to an atheist to prove an unsupported claim of a "god" is false than for you to prove there isn't an invisible intangible dragon in my garage.
pozessed says2013-09-14T21:06:33.7527673-05:00
God is more plausible than not until we explain who/what got the ball rolling to inflate our universe. Until then I will admit God is not necessary for our universe to progress, but that does not prove one does not exist that created or at least started the universe.
Mikal says2013-09-14T21:08:27.9378323-05:00
Dear God i wish I could debate you if i was not overtaken with debates. I encourage you to challenge sargon to this topic
pozessed says2013-09-14T21:13:09.5348348-05:00
Why debate. I told you simply and plainly what I believe and why I believe it. What is it that compels you to believe our inflation wasn't caused by a creator? What empirical evidence shows that a creator is overwhelmingly unlikely?
Mikal says2013-09-14T21:20:39.5146955-05:00
Everything involving the creation of the universe itself. If it does not need a God for it to be created, then why try to insert a God into that situation.
pozessed says2013-09-14T21:37:29.3559421-05:00
There is no need to. But that does not seem all to overwhelming as to deem a creator as unlikely, only that one is not needed. God may have created the universe to work autonomously. We can make autonomous things, I'm sure a God could make an autonomous universe and make it seem like a God was unnecessary. I'm not claiming that's how things worked either, its just an obvious speculation.
Mikal says2013-09-14T22:12:49.0682001-05:00
Essentially you are saying if you have a working model of something. Then have no evidence to support another theory. The other theory is just as viable as the one with the working model. That is not really true lol
Mikal says2013-09-14T22:13:40.7426771-05:00
While there is a possibility the other theory could be viable, there is no reason to consider it logically sound until evidence is presented that shows it is accurate.
pozessed says2013-09-14T22:23:20.9458451-05:00
What you seem to be ignoring is that a theory of a creator can be changed to fit the aspects of a working model until a creator is disproved. The fact that any molecule exists would be proof that something happened before it existed, even if it can't be explained.
Mikal says2013-09-14T22:28:35.9618327-05:00
There is a difference between a working theory compared to a theory, or evidence when compared with empirical evidence. I could claim (x) created the universe. I could place any value as (x) and there would be no way to disprove it. That is a theory, that (x) created the universe. Now I can say since it seems improbable than nothing created itself that (x) created the universe. Therefore I have a theory with evidence to support it. The difference is that it is not a working model or a rational model. A working model of the universe is that quantum fluctuations can produce matter and energy from nothing, or that general relativity shows the universe is not infinite but was created from a singular point in time. Through anti barons barons working against each other with negative force, something could have came from that state of nothing. That is evidence that we can trace back and see through multiple studies which have went on to win noble prizes because they are in fact empirical evidence.
Juan_Pablo says2013-09-15T01:39:15.5627309-05:00
This is something I disagree with, because evidence is trending in the opposite direction. Science is already demonstrating that our universe occupies a very narrow place, by having just the right conditions for life, where matter can congregate to form stars and planets, where the liquid medium of water is possible, and where molecular chemistry exist because the proton and electron are unique stable particles. Eventually science will go on to prove not only that the vast universe is possessed of a rudimentary, all-pervading consciousness, but that the universe is also intelligent - super-intelligent! Science will go on to prove that God exist, just as certainly as we do!
pozessed says2013-09-15T08:28:12.3073823-05:00
I agree with Juan.
pozessed says2013-09-15T08:33:12.1472617-05:00
@Mikal: Spacetime existed for those theories to be possible. For spacetime to exist something came before it. As well, something had to have happened somewhere for those particles to poof into existence in our universe. We can't study where those particles come from to prove that science is correct on that theory, therefore that theory has as much faith in it as any religion.
makhdoom5 says2013-09-15T09:37:31.0862845-05:00
Well peoples who are ignorant will make science as opponent other wise every thing belongs to him.,
makhdoom5 says2013-09-15T09:37:33.1783064-05:00
Well peoples who are ignorant will make science as opponent other wise every thing belongs to him.,
Mikal says2013-09-15T11:58:36.0177300-05:00
Every points at the fact was created at an equal point in time. Science can show how that can happen. Every point in time after the big bang (X) is preceded by additional moments in time (>) up until this very moment X>>>>>>>Y. The theist must show that there was time before this >>>X>>>>Y
Mikal says2013-09-15T11:58:36.3550750-05:00
Every points at the fact was created at an equal point in time. Science can show how that can happen. Every point in time after the big bang (X) is preceded by additional moments in time (>) up until this very moment X>>>>>>>Y. The theist must show that there was time before this >>>X>>>>Y
Mikal says2013-09-15T12:24:26.8825235-05:00
As far as different type of theories take cancer for example. Everything we know points to the fact that it is caused by rapid growth in a single cell. Instead of dying, it continues to grow and form more dangerous cells. It can grow into other tissues. All this because of deoxyribonucleic acid. Strands of this make up DNA. Normally if DNA is damaged it is repaired or dies off. Without Apoptosis( Programmed Death of the cell), or the ability to repair itself, essentially the damaged DNA/cell goes around created more of itself instead of dying. This leads to the spread of cancer. That is a working theory. That is similar to stuff we know about existence. While we can not physically see it happening, we can understand how and why it happens and happened. The equivalent would be saying, that because we do not understand or did not understand about cancer, is that satan caused it. Working/Empirical theory and evidence vs a normal non rational theory.
Skeptikitten says2013-09-15T12:52:12.8708248-05:00
Since "god" is supported by absolutely zero evidence and is also unnecessary, it is in no way "more plausible than not". In fact it is more IMPLAUSIBLE than not. These folks seem to gravely misunderstand a little thing called the burden of proof, and the fallacy of ad ignorantium. Apparently in their illogical world, substituting magic for the gaps in knowledge is perfectly acceptable even though it makes no sense, has no supporting evidence, and is absolutely unnecessary. Perhaps someone should introduce them to Occam's Razor. This claim of "god" being plausible is like saying that if you come home to find your living room window smashed and your TV gone, it is exactly as plausible that your TV grew legs and jumped out on its own as someone stealing it.
pozessed says2013-09-15T13:09:21.6335134-05:00
The burden of proof is shifted when the claim is made "the universe exists so a creator of the universe must exist." Claiming that's preposterous because one is not necessary without proof one is not necessary is what I think is preposterous.
pozessed says2013-09-15T13:17:29.0835319-05:00
Claiming God didn't create the universe to people who understand cause and effect is like eating a cake that was obviously created and saying it exists due to no happenstance before it.
Mikal says2013-09-15T13:41:43.3957749-05:00
The difference is you can trace and verify the origins of the cake. You can go around and find who made it , meet them and talk to them. While it is logical to assume it did jut not appear, it is also as logical to assume there is no way to find out whom made it. You can't do that with God, you are left with only faith which is fallacious.
pozessed says2013-09-15T13:54:11.0058708-05:00
"You can't do that with God, you are left with only faith which is fallacious." That completely contradicts your previous statements in that paragraph.
Mikal says2013-09-15T14:02:26.6375623-05:00
Faith in something that is logical and that you can verify is different than faith in something without evidence. I can have faith a chair will hold me up because 99 percent of the time it does, If i had faith if I were to close my eyes and just try and sit down anywhere and expect to have the same result it would be fallacious.
pozessed says2013-09-15T14:10:32.0216053-05:00
Having faith that something started the universe and things don't exist for no reason is illogical? Of course not. According to your theory of cosmic evolution "since particles (or w/e) come into existence in spacetime God is not needed and thus does not exist" yet there is no explanation of what propelled them into this existence, nor can there be. Yet you have faith in something that is far from being proven. Please correct me if I am mistaken on your view.
Mikal says2013-09-15T14:36:29.8406744-05:00
There are theories as to how and why particles were used. Quantum fluctuations allow particles to pop in and out of existence when there is nothing. I would take it in a debate, but hate posting this much of threads lol. Read a universe from nothing, it breaks it down. The theory itself behind it won the nobel prize.
Mikal says2013-09-15T14:36:30.1838766-05:00
There are theories as to how and why particles were used. Quantum fluctuations allow particles to pop in and out of existence when there is nothing. I would take it in a debate, but hate posting this much of threads lol. Read a universe from nothing, it breaks it down. The theory itself behind it won the nobel prize.
pozessed says2013-09-15T14:47:46.4230578-05:00
"Quantum fluctuations allow particles to pop in and out of existence when there is nothing. " I understand that, but those fluctuations are coming from somewhere. Science does not explain that and it can not explain that. But you consider that gap worth ignoring and claiming "science can't be studied that far so it doesn't exist. It's only necessary to know that these particles exist, not how and why they exist, or where they came from". Again, correct me if I'm assessing you wrong.
Deathmonkey7 says2013-09-15T22:56:39.0537818-05:00
@pozessed: There's a problem here though. You seem to be arguing that science can not explain what caused existence as it is known, and seem to be using that as way to claim that a supreme being is probable. However, this is no better in any form than simply claiming ignorance, for explaining that a being created the universe is simply moving the same problem elsewhere. If a being just popped into existence to create the universe or existed infinitely then why, too, can the universe not just pop into existence or exist infinitely?
pozessed says2013-09-15T23:49:04.8086948-05:00
@Monkey: I understand that. I am not claiming a supreme being still exists though. Only that one was probable to start the existence of the universe. I am also not claiming that what/who ever created the universe didn't have a creator as well. My whole point is that logically speaking a literal form of nothing can not create something.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.