Can science prove God ?

[cornel]

Can science prove God or afterlife?

Is there any evidence for that? I'm not asking about an evidence that proves 100% these ,i know it's impossible ,i'm asking that kind of proofs that increases the chances of a God to exist . If not ,then science disproves God?

Edited September 15, 2018 by cornel

[Strange]

There is no evidence for these things and, arguably, there cannot be evidence for gods. 

On the other hand, science cannot disprove the existence of gods either. Although it can show that some of the things that gods are supposed to have done did not actually happen. 

Edited September 15, 2018 by Strange

[iNow]

Which god(s)? One must first define it in a falsifiable way. 

[John Cuthber]

The question "Science proves or increases the chance for a God to exist?" makes no sense.

God exists , or he doesn't.

Science can't influence that so it can't increase the chance that He exists.

[Hulk]

First you have to define God.

[Itoero]

15 hours ago, cornel said:

Can science prove God or afterlife?

No. The belief in afterlife is often due to wishful thinking.

[Phi for All]

17 hours ago, cornel said:

I'm not asking about an evidence that proves 100% these ,i know it's impossible

Then you need to stop using the word "proof", because that's exactly what it means. There is no evidence that does more than support an explanation, and science looks for the preponderance of evidence rather than "proof". 

Also, the 4th choice should be "... is something science isn't designed to explain." The existence of god(s) is outside of natural examination. Science needs observation and predictability, both of which god(s) lack. 

[DrmDoc]

20 hours ago, cornel said:

Can science prove God or afterlife?

Science can't prove anything; however, with clearly defined and approved parameters and references in science, I think it can provide a methodology whereby evidence can be investigated or found for the existence of "God or afterlife".  Wouldn't a more interesting question be what experiment would we personally designed to provide definitive evidence in science for the existence of god(s)?  Then we might at least be aware at which point in our own experience we would begin to suspect or accept the existence of some omnipotent intelligence.

Edited September 16, 2018 by DrmDoc

[Angelo_Maligno]

On 2018-09-15 at 6:46 PM, cornel said:

Can science prove God or afterlife?

Is there any evidence for that? I'm not asking about an evidence that proves 100% these ,i know it's impossible ,i'm asking that kind of proofs that increases the chances of a God to exist . If not ,then science disproves God?

Well let's say you think of God as some sort of physical being that exists somewhere in the universe or perhaps in some kind of unperceived dimension of space. Let's say we find no evidence of this being within the universe (and it would take us a hell of a long time to explore it all). Then (assuming string theory is correct) we begin to explore other dimensions of space somehow. Let's say we don't find the being. The religious people will still say we haven't explored everywhere yet or concoct some reason to believe God is out there somewhere. Science cannot contend with the simplicity of faith.

Edited September 30, 2018 by Angelo_Maligno

[coffeesippin]

On 9/16/2018 at 9:33 AM, Hulk said:

First you have to define God.

`God is love.` 1 John 4:7     It`s logical that God MUST be love to bless mankind so abundantly despite mankind`s nasty greed that mankind has survived countless wars of greed, especially with the weapons available to mankind. 

[Silvana]

Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. And whether it does or not, those who believe will continue to believe, and those who don't won't.

[iNow]

On 11/19/2018 at 11:26 PM, coffeesippin said:

God is love.

Then, you must first define love...

Am I the only one seeing a turtles all the way down situation developing here?

[coffeesippin]

On 11/29/2018 at 3:38 PM, iNow said:

Then, you must first define love...

Am I the only one seeing a turtles all the way down situation developing here?

I don't know if bible verses will be allowed here, but probably everyone will have seen posters and greeting cars reading, "Love is kind, patient ..."   I'll try this instead:  'Love is that which leads to life.'  

Then we must define life .. biologists will have an opinion on that, and there will be many different opinions, because there will be staunch atheist biologists who believe we return only to dust, and those who believe in the eternal life with God after death hoped for by Jews, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, and many others.

Does the science of Biology itself have anything to say about life after death?  Yes.  There is significant and unexplainable biological life after death according to Alexander Pozhitkov who was a postdoctoral researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology in Germany.   https://medium.com/neodotlife/gene-expression-lives-on-on-after-death-63b204727591  

Is there any practical value to believing in life after death aside from comfort of heaven?  Yes.  "... transplant researchers are exploring whether to keep organs warm on life support instead of chilled in coolers to improve transplant outcomes. It’s not clear the extent to which RNA transcription explains any of the benefits of warm transplants."

     Does biology proving life does not end with death prove God's existence?       That is another question .. but for sure Google knows how to enlarge on a topic.

     

 

Edited December 5, 2018 by coffeesippin
Added a question mark

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

coffeesippin, 

Science  =/= the opinion of one scientist. What you have presented is not science, nor evidence for anything that you claim. In fact, it is little more than another attempt at preaching. Staff will not continue to warn you about this. We will ban you permanently if it keeps up. 

 

[Silvana]

How would you define proof, anyway? What measurements would you require? Would there be any way to duplicate results? As long as any of this is in question, you will always have believers and disbeliivers. 

[Siyatanush]

On 9/16/2018 at 4:16 AM, cornel said:

Can science prove God or afterlife?

Is there any evidence for that? I'm not asking about an evidence that proves 100% these ,i know it's impossible ,i'm asking that kind of proofs that increases the chances of a God to exist . If not ,then science disproves God?

The systematic way in which the whole cosmos functions shows that there is a higher power who keeps control. The higher power called 

God does not let things go haywire.

 

[John Cuthber]

10 minutes ago, Siyatanush said:

The systematic way in which the whole cosmos functions shows that there is a higher power who keeps control. The higher power called 

God does not let things go haywire.

 

Do you have any idea how wrong that is?
Everything (as a whole)  is slowly, but definitely getting more chaotic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

[Strange]

34 minutes ago, Siyatanush said:

The systematic way in which the whole cosmos functions shows that there is a higher power who keeps control. The higher power called 

God does not let things go haywire.

 

Things function quite systematically without intervention.

Unless you think that when you let go of an object your god has to intervene to carry it to the floor and ensure that it accelerates towards the floor at 9.8 m/s²

It seems simpler to allow the gravity and other forces to do their job without a god having to be involved in every little movement or change

[Siyatanush]

On 12/16/2018 at 6:17 PM, Strange said:

Things function quite systematically without intervention.

Unless you think that when you let go of an object your god has to intervene to carry it to the floor and ensure that it accelerates towards the floor at 9.8 m/s²

It seems simpler to allow the gravity and other forces to do their job without a god having to be involved in every little movement or change

Do the forces like gravity or others do their job on their own or they are planned to do so by a higher force? 

[Strange]

2 hours ago, Siyatanush said:

Do the forces like gravity or others do their job on their own or they are planned to do so by a higher force? 

There is no evidence of any higher force. Look at the equation for gravity, for example. There is nothing in that equation that represents a “higher force”.

[Carrock]

3 hours ago, Siyatanush said:

Do the forces like gravity or others do their job on their own or they are planned to do so by a higher force? 

If there is a higher force does it do its job on its own or is it planned to do so by a yet higher force?

et cetera

[Strange]

22 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Without a lot more detail, people won't believe you.

Quite. 

A quick search found zero results for noise from a simulation of a Bose Einstein Condensate. So I can't even begin to guess what input source you used. And I cannot imagine what sort of "common algorithm" would turn noise into a synthesised instrument.

Edit: Ah, I see on the other thread where you posted this, you admit it is a guess. I'm afraid your guesses about non-existent musical sounds don't count as evidence for gods. Do try harder. And try to be honest next time.

Edited January 6, 2019 by Strange

[DrP]

On 9/15/2018 at 11:53 PM, Strange said:

There is no evidence for these things and, arguably, there cannot be evidence for gods.

If 'god' appeared in the sky or on the telly and demonstrated his power by giving us a demonstration that it was god...  wouldn't that be 'evidence' of that god?   

(Not saying it would be 'proof' as it could easily be staged or faked..  but it would e considered evidence no?)

Similarly - I expect people take what appear to be answers to prayers to be evidence....  although when it is broken down and assessed then prayer answers come into the realms of standard probability...  but some would consider it evidence (albeit poor). 

 

On 9/15/2018 at 11:53 PM, Strange said:

Although it can show that some of the things that gods are supposed to have done did not actually happen. 

Clearly.

 

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

Quite. 

A quick search found zero results for noise from a simulation of a Bose Einstein Condensate. So I can't even begin to guess what input source you used. And I cannot imagine what sort of "common algorithm" would turn noise into a synthesised instrument.

and surely there would be a better way to reveal your presence than making some harmony in some random background noise....  lol.    It reminds me of the crickets singing in slow motion hoax that was about a few years back....  all the spiritulists and god lot on social media went crazy about it.  Cute though it was... it was total bunk.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, DrP said:

If 'god' appeared in the sky or on the telly and demonstrated his power by giving us a demonstration that it was god...  wouldn't that be 'evidence' of that god?   

Good point. I suppose, if there were gods, they could choose to reveal themselves and provide evidence in this way. They seem oddly reluctant to do this.

What I really mean was doing some sort of controlled scientific experiment. If gods were testable in this way then they would not be metaphysical beings and so, arguably, not gods at all.

[Silvana]

There have been studies trying to prove whether or not payers work as well as studies trying to prove the existence of God. 

This article flips it, and asks if there is a science to prayers? I don't think there is a concrete answer to either question.

http://www.ifcj.org/learn/holy-land-moments/daily-devotionals/jacobs-sword-and-bow-1.html

My take is exactly this from the article: "Ultimately, it’s hard to study something that can’t be seen or measured. For believers, it’s from faith and experience that we know how deeply prayer impacts our lives."

And I would say it is the same for skeptics. What would it take to convince a skeptic to believe, or a believer not to believe?