The debate "Science Proves God's existence" was started by
July 3, 2019, 4:09 pm.
39 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 91 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Light posted 23 arguments, Nemiroff posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 18 arguments, Allirix posted 7 arguments, JDAWG9693 posted 15 arguments, mwest0097 posted 4 arguments to the disagreers part.
Deat, romeroa251, suwani, Light, jrardin12, bigbuttgal and 33 visitors agree.
JDAWG9693, Allirix, MADHURA, YonkiMonoso, sk25, historybuff, ototoxic, shubham90012, Communistguy, fry, BakitGalit, Nemiroff, jennalyse, mwest0097, A, Nteby5, Steelheart, milk_tea, The_Pyschoone1, jbusey, mtbtheboss, Sumit082, codyray16 and 68 visitors disagree.
I think Jdawg's argument is very underestimated in most debates. however it does have its limits when it comes to the question of the laws and properties of physics. if they were different, matter would simply not form, or not interact. It would be wildly different, if possible at all, for anything to form in a universe of loose subatomic particles.
if there is an underlying structure necessitating the convenient qualities of the universe as is, then the question becomes who made this convenient underlying structure. I think the automatic fine tuning argument moves closer to the idea of a designer. so far, whether it's the formation of life, or our spot in the goldilocks zone, it seems nature's answer to fine tuning is massive opportunities for random chance to work out. it inevitably works given enough time, but to claim it was structured this way hints at a designer.
considering the information that is known, I think a multiverse hypothesis is the most likely. of course I am guessing here.
and of course no matter the conclusion one can fit a god/designer above it all. the question being how do we detect/prove him, and how do we explain him. both questions are impossible and place God firmly within the realm of philosophy and banish him from any science. science does not do guesswork.
I was just providing factual nuance. I often find myself arguing against both sides. however I must clarify that the complexity does not suggest a designer.
first my argument made no mention of complexity, just coincidence, and it is my opinion that a multiverse explanation is just as compelling. I would indeed argue that the universe is not that complex. it is governed by a handful of laws, and contained a very small variety of matter (hydrogen, helium, and barely any lithium) at first. things got complicated over time, but that complexity came from very simple causes.
furthermore I reject that a designer needs no explanation himself, which puts me at odds with most religious views. I believe that a non sentient universe filled with just 3 gases and some laws is vastly less complex then an all powerful sentience that just always has been or came from nothing. in my opinion, God is not an answer but a further regression of questions. where did he come from? what could explain the origin of such a super powered consciousness?
I was not basing my odds off something in Genesis. I think Nemiroff did an excellent job of explaining it. I agree it does not point to a God by default. The complexity does however suggest that their may have been intelligent design (doesn't have to be God). The point is that it is not absolute as so many believe.
It seems fine-tuned because we were tuned to it. Again, we became in the universe, not the universe became for us
The problem is we don't know why there's an apparent fine-tuning of cosmological constants. There may be some underlying structure that require those values. Like, pi had a 100% chance of being 3.14159 because of the structure of a circle. If we just looked at pi without understanding the structure of a circle we'd be amazed at the apparent fine-tuning. Maybe the cosmological constants had a 100% chance of being as the are.
I shall have to defend the small odds of existence.
although the chemical odds are in our favor (most abundant and reactive materials are in life). and the physical requirements have many many chances considering the multitude of stars and planets. however the laws of physics have no standard and more then likely could have resulted in a completely nonfunctional universe. we do not know the exact odds, but they are likely incredibly slim. much more so then the goldilocks conditions.
it is a valid complaint, one we have no answer to, however it doesnt disprove science's long term track record of eventually finding answers, nor does it point directly to a God by default.
one easy explanation would be a multiverse, with the same reasoning as the rare goldilocks conditions (play the lotto enough and even a 1 in 200million becomes a certainty). have enough universes and one will inevitably function. but atm this is just a hypothesis or philosophy. we cant find the edge of our universe yet, forget about looking beyond.
@Light, so you don't actually know what the odds are, how the odds were arrived at, or how likely the number makes such a situation.
My point is, a universe appearing is not something we have observed, and even if we did know exactly how ours came about, we don't have other universes to compare that to. Also, given what we know about singularities and that the cosmological constants didn't exist before the universe did, we have no real idea what the odds would be. The odds we can calculate can only relate directly to the kind of environments we know and have been able to measure. Odds are comparative. How do you know the odds of a universe beginning to exist in a place where there is no universe, no laws of physics, etc.?
I have a strong suspicion that you're basing your "math" on something you read on answers in Genesis or the like.
And those elements are the most common things in the universe
We still know there are certain conditions that must be met.
We don't yet have an accepted theory of abiogenesis so we don't know the odds on the chance of life occurring.
Scientists calculate that by looking at everything that would have to happen for life to exist and then they can calculate the odds that it happened naturally.
My comment was in response to you saying that your argument for a creator was the mathematical improbability of a universe coming into being naturally. But you didn't answer the question, only said you "know" because the Bible says so.
You were basically saying I cannot believe in something and believe its real because its all made up and everyone knows that. My comment was in response to that.
@Light, well if that's all we need, then I know exactly how it happened because the Bhagavad Gita tells me so. and it happens to be different from what you know to be true. What argument befitting a debate platform would settle the difference?
Do you have extra-biblical evidence that it happened as the Bible says so?
I didn't say I didn't know how it happened. I know exactly how it happened because God tells us through the Bible.
@light, how do you know the mathematical probability of a universe coming into being from natural means? what are those odds and how did you calculate them?
As far as I know, not knowing how something happens does not mean you know how it happened and it happened by magic. that's an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy. Not a good argument.
i argue that, If i make a choice now & decide to act on it. It will affect me in the future. But the options or driving factors for my decision may have been triggered by my environment & background. For example, I decide to become a musician one day, although I am a physics student who finds himself in a society of people who mainly aspired to be Entrepreneurs but it just so happens that a family member of mine, who I spend a lot of time with, is always playing music & with this person, who may have even talked about it everytime I was there, his passion for music rubbed off on me but because I live a different lifestyle, it lead up to me deciding to become a musician even though this person isn't one. No one tricked me into the decision but throwed the different options or ideas at my face but my upbringing & character motivated my decision, not the Being who put the options in front of me. ( The "obvious" options that were "in my face" were Physics, Tourism, Entrepreneurship & Music)
This suspension of complete omniscience is also shown in the Bible through Jesus. He no longer knew everything that would happen which is why he could marvel at the centurions faith. If he knew that was going to happen he wouldn't have marveled.
I agree somewhat. Our paths are definitely determined by the laws of physics but the self is able to make choices using that 'physics framework'. I'd argue a soft form of freewill exists in that deterministic view od the universe because our consciousness is still a self-referential, self-actualising piece of matter that has a degree of self determination, even under heavy constraints.
Omniscience may make my self-determined choices perfectly predictable, but without influencing those choices that predictability doesn't remove my ownership of those choices. If I go back to 1938, Hitler's eventual choice to gas Jews over the next few years is still his choice even though I know he's going to do it before him.
All Freewill is lost when a creator has omniscience. They'd know how each of their design choices would reverberate throughout spacetime and determine our choices. Any divine interference follows the same principle. I believe it's this predeterminism that removes freewill, not determinism alone. But an omnipotent creator can suspend his omniscience while making these choices and the universe would be deterministic but not predetermined, not comprising freewill.
if time is still a work in progress and not a prewritten given, it is possibly for an omniscient being to not know the future. although he can probably make some very good predictions. this allows for free will.
furthermore, I believe that physics may be incompatible with free will as every part of us is made of particles simply moving according to the laws of physics. there is no conscious making our decisions for us, but nonetheless our course may be set.
This is where my mind is at right now. I have no rebuttal to:
What if the laws of logic were enough to stop God from making a perfect universe? That's almost like saying he's incomprehensible but there's one dilemma that is logically unavoidable that is at the heart of the Epicurean Paradox. The choice between giving us freewill or blind obedience. Because they contradict and one must exist this dilemma is an example of the law of excluded middle.
I believe a predetermined universe is unavoidable with an omniscient omnipotent creator. But! If he truly valued freewill above blind obedience his omnipotence would give him the power to suspend true omniscience before building our antecedent factors. Maybe his "plan" is just a plan and not perfect knowledge of what will happen.
I'd personally choose to live in a perfect world where freewill is an illusion and God carefully handcrafted everything to create a perfect Utopia. But maybe God thinks differently.
Also, as an aside, maybe we are a result of an omniscient thought simulating every possible scenario at once so he can find out how to handcraft the perfect universe. He is 'outside time' so maybe this thought happened instantaneously but we're feeling the effects of time.
I would say that most people in that situation are a lot more bias than they'd like to admit and are more looking for a God than they think.
And, those who actually are looking for truth and happen to find God would, in my opinion (obviously I don't have statistics or anything) be an anomaly
But what about people who may questioned their faith, who, sure, may have looked for evidence to see if their belief can be validated (scientifically even) by being open to any kind of conclusion, even if it means losing faith, but ended up finding themselves even more convinced than ever before? For example, Me.
(I'm going to be out for a while so this is my last post. You consider this question to be rhetorical)
I agree with you when you say that one should look for what is true.
I have been asking him for years and have gotten nothing.
That aside, if we have no answers we should NEVER assume an answer. One should never look for an answer, we should look for the truth. Don't look for God, look for what is true. If God is what is true, then you will find him but you will know you found him honestly without specifically looking for him. But the only way that you can find God is if you look for him (and are an Olympic gold medalist in mental gymnastics)
That last remark was rhetorical...
Whatever you want to call it. I mean, you can even ask me if God can make Himself even more powerful than All-powerful but you'd be recycling the same question all day. I've admitted that I cannot answer that (Seeing as how I am not God) & stated that nobody can truly answer it except for Him so why don't you just ask Him?
I assume they did have a word for "sphere". Or at least "ball". And, even if they didn't, it's not a difficult concept. Why didn't God just make a new word? Seems like a super easy solution that God chose not to do just to be unhelpful.
And, all-powerful with limits is not all-powerful. I know it may seem like semantics, but by admitting that there are laws that limit God's power (the laws of logic), you immediately admit that God is not omnipotent. He may be very powerful and even the most powerful, but not all powerful. For practical purposes he is all-powerful, but in a philosophic sense he is only very powerful. And, this is a philosophical discussion
You want me to prove that we cannot understand His power fully??
Just My opinion on the matter : I'm aware of that story. The Bible says that God stopped the Sun & all of that but I don't think that's meant to be taken literally. What I mean is that the Bible says He stopped the Sun & Moon but in order to be time relevant (To an age & area where those people probably didn't have the knowledge about the Solar system we have today)God let them describe things like these however they could've best put it together. An example would be Isaiah: 40. 22. "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in". Note two things about this verse. ONE : It uses the word "circle" to describe a sphere (I assume that the word "sphere" wasn't in their vocabulary at the time or if there was even a word in that language in time like "sphere") which can be misinterpreted as being an error but if Isaiah really did get this from God Himself (Which of course He did) then God probably won't use vocabulary that the prophet was not introduced to yet to explain & stuck with his (Isaiah's) basic vocabulary. God is being Time relevant. God knew that the Earth's shape will be called spherical but also knew that the prophet he's revealing this to does not know that, so He went along with what the prophet thought because He knew we would understand it in the future & the same goes for God "stopping the sun", He knew those particular people don't even have a clue how the solar system works ( They probably thought the earth sat on some giant's back at the time) .TWO. The Bible then says that God "stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in". Science has confirmed the Bible on this by proving that the universe is unfolding or expanding.
yes, assuming God, yes he can. HOWEVER it would be a monumental task as stopping the sun would require stopping the galaxy, as other stars would continue moving... possibly bringing catastrophe to our region. this may even effect intergalactic gravity, and who knows how far the ripple would spread. perhaps he would have to bring the entire universe to a halt.
but this actually brings me to a new, but minor conundrum. the bible said he stopped the sun, but relative to us the sun isnt really moving much. we are moving around the sun. but that would be a yearly cycle, what God actually stopped was the spinning of the earth around itself... which is not what the bible described. if he did actually stop the sun, I don't think we would notice any change in our day to day cycle (until a nearby star comes crashing through our neighborhood).
Agreed @Nemiroff he can't change make the sun stationary and not stationary at the same time. His omnipotence however is the face that he is able to change whether or not it is stationary or not whenever he wants.
That makes sense
i meant can God make the sun both stationary and not stationary at the same time. and my answer is: no he cant.
there is no amount of power that allows you to do the absurd.
the laws of logic are not our ability to use logic. the laws of.logic state that:
1. it is impossible for A to not = A. aka the law of contradiction.
2. A is, or is not. there is no middle option, nothing can exist and not exist at the same time. aka the law of excluded middle
3. if A=A, then A must always = A. aka the principle of identity.
these laws superceded God. even God is bound by them.
The way I see it, If I could prove that God is Incomprehensible, I would be God.
logic is basically reasoned and reasonable judgment. But since we cannot comprehend the INFINITE God's nature, we cannot make assumptions like these about a Being we cannot understand. Because according to your thinking, "it is impossible for an Infinite God to create a universe out of nothing".
When I said "logic", I was actually referring to the our basic sense of understanding. So just because we don't understand it, it doesn't mean that it wouldn't work. By "move", do you mean drive the sun out of it's original axis or rotate the sun?
I can understand the belief that God is beyond the laws of physics, but not logic. logic is extremely fundamental. are you saying that before God changed it, something could be itself and not itself at the same time? that's silliness.
in the bible God was able to stop the sun.... but he cannot stop the sun and make it continue moving at the same time. that is absurd. even God is bound by the laws of logic. they are even more fundamental then he is.
Prove that his power is incomprehensible
prove what, exactly?
The Second would be that if you should try to lift the rock you can if it's in your (physical/biological) capacity to do so. So, altogether, It's two factors I've put out. One being willpower & Two being physical prowess. (That is of course when talking about an average human being). With God, it's a different ball game, because we're now talking about a being who actually CAN alter his capabilities at will. His power is Incalculable, Immeasurable & paradoxical. It would be contradictory for any being that's of this plane of existence (but because Logic & science disproves it) to do anything like that but not for a Being that (let's just say) is beyond reality itself, having even created this limited reality. Logic & science are not a factor because He ultimately created those things & this dimension as a limited one for us. He can create a Five star Hotel out of nothing because He is beyond this reality and our limited universe & To completely understand His nature, you would probably have to be God.
Prove that he created the lass of physics, logic, etc. You make a lot of claims with no evidence which means that I can dismiss them without evidence
The thing is, you cannot assume that the normal laws of physics would work the same way with God (He did create them after all ,so they don't apply to Him because He is beyond them). Saying "that's not how it works" implies that you assume that God cannot break the normal laws of physics & defy "logic" in order to do whatever it is He likes.. Besides, the example you used can be responded to in two ways, in YOUR CASE (assuming that you're referring to your own natural self), We can be literal, showing that you definitely will not lift an object you did not decide to lift, meaning that you would abandon the task altogether e.g "My phone weighs less than a kilogram but I cannot lift it if I didn't make the conscious decision to". So I can but I won't.
What you just said is that he canNOT create an object that he can't lift. That's like me saying, "That rock over there, yeah? I can't lift it unless I choose to." Like, yeah, that's how it works.
I have been unavailable (& I still don't have much time to give) but I'll just get to it...The omnipotence paradox can be solved with one answer = The will of God. What I mean by this is that God can create an object that he cannot lift BUT his omnipotence allows him to have the option of simply deciding whether or not he should limit himself.... Simply put in a scenario : God creates this incredibly heavy object but because He is INFINITELY powerful he can decide to be able to lift (A good example of a similar case is Jesus Christ, because He is the Infinite God who willingly gave Himself human limitations, limitations He could lift as soon as He decides to). So to answer your question, yes, but only in the sense that He would have to allow Himself to have a limit to how much He can lift but can still decide at anytime to break those limitations.
then is it not right for our inborn conscious and logic to have priority and judging his book?
sure that will.leave room for disagreement, but is it right to let another human make that judgement for you? if anyone is to clarify, it should not be another human. you are just as valid as he would be.
Our inborn conscious
what do you think is more accurate of gods will? your inborn conscience and other tools with no other possible source? or an editable text that has even in human hands throughout dark portions of our history?
No I don't believe there is any other source for those three aspects.
God gave you indisputable tools to find your way through the world, and I'm not talking about an editable text that has been in human hands through extremely corrupt times in our history. I'm talking about your mind, your logic, and your conscience. do you think there is any other source for those 3 aspects of self other than God? I trust that far more then a book in the hands of human priests.
I honestly don't know. However it's not my place to understand everything about God. If we understood everything about him then he would no longer be the God he is claimed to be.
perhaps. but that lack of explanation is how you would deal with a child. have you tried explaining quantum physics to a child?
also, he told other people not to eat beef, but allowed pork. others like Christian's were given no dietary restrictions.
it's all very contradictory. explanation free commands do not sound like a good God to me, and if he did choose that method of communicating with his followers, what makes you think he would give detailed explanations of the inner workings of his creation when he cant trust them to make good diet decisions without threats?
Or god simply could have said though shall not eat pork in order to protect them and they may not have misinterpreted it.
one can believe that the bible is the moral testament of God while understanding its historic and scientific significance as nonliteral.
I disagree. I think it is extremely easy to disprove the bible. it is far more difficult/impossible to disprove God.
first off, assuming the evidence of God and his participation in the bible, why would God bother to explain evolution and quantum mechanics to people just learning to live with each other and respect each other's rights? it seems much more likely that the purpose of his message was to advise them on how to treat each other and not a detailed explanation of the workings of his creation.
I can totally see how early men could have completely missed his message as well. God could have told them to moderate pig meat because of heart disease... which they interpreted as "thou shalt not eat pork for it is a sin". simple answers for simple people.
I agree Science is unable and will never be able to prove aspects of God such as and of the Omni's we can however you it to prove or disprove the bible which is tied to God if you disprove the bible then you disprove God, but if you prove its true then you've taken a step towards proving God.
gods existence, or any measurement of a "divine" is as far as we can tell, beyond sciences ability to objectively detect. thus science cannot prove god.
it is very possible. however outside of science it is unlikely we will be able to find an objective explanation. the purpose of science is to find objective information.
I'd argue its not a random guess its backed by facts that have never been sufficiently disproven.
Is it impossible that there could be something that science simply cannot explain.
one can simply say "I dont know" without making a random guess. at one point we didnt know where lightning and disease came from. we declared them workings of the God out of ignorance. how else could we explain it? well we can explain it now.
science doesnt need to answer all questions, it just needs for the answers it does have to be fact, not guesses.
Yes but if you don't believe that it could have happened by random chance then that is illogical because of how mathematically impossible it is.
but if you dont believe then it doesnt.
all illogical scenarios are possible if you believe in an all powerful supernatural. I wouldnt call that a convincing argument.
If you believe that all of that material could have been created from nothing just by a supernatural power speaking then it works.
because the heavier materials that make up rocky planets was created in the fusion reactions in the hearts of stars. no stars, no heavy rocky materials.
and our planet was formed from the left over material from our sun... how can left over material form before then item that it is left over from?
Why is it so ludicrous that the Earth may have come before the Sun and stars.
the bible states the earth came before the sun or the stars. that is ludicrous.
a fighter plane is made of inert metals. of course it wont form anything unless you heat it to massive temperatures. if you take the much more reactive elements of the upper right corner of the periodic table, put it into a fluid solution and add energy (the sun), yes it will form into complex chemicals and eventually life.
I disagree with the limitations problem if the limitations are nonsensical. making something he cannot lift is not a limit on his power, it's a contradiction. you cannot make something of infinite mass because infinite is not a number or a measurement. it's a concept. mass is physical. when creating mass, one must assign a weight to it, no matter how large. it must be a number. and no matter how high the number, it is less then infinity, thus he can lift it.
I think the 2 sided triangle is an excellent example I have not heard yet.
"infinite power" with limitations is not infinite power. It may be super duper powerful, but it is not ALL-powerful.
And, I don't personally know as I am not a scientist, but even if nobody knew (which I'm sure there are at least hypotheses), you don't get to claim God without evidence. Any claim given without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Also all you really did was a play on words its like asking if God can create a two sided triangle. He can't because you can't have a triangle without three sides. There are some things that are not within the realm of possibility and God cannot do these. He does however have infinite power within this realm of possibility. There are also some things he can't do such as lie. This isn't because he isn't able to but rather that in his perfection he chooses not to.
If they were just local floods how come the great unconformity is found all over the world.
If it can be proven, then do it. There were definitely floods, and that is what formed things like the grand canyon, but there was never a world flood. The animals still wound not have worked for many reasons; the was too much food among many things and there were predators and prey. Also, they didn't take only two, many species they took seven. And, we can comprehend logic and an omni-god is logically incoherent. Easiest example: can god create an object so heavy that he cannot lift it (super easy and disproves true omnipotence). Also, even if he in incomprehendible, then what good does that do us? That's just a scape goat
An Omni God is possible just beyond our comprehension. If we could comprehend God then he wouldn't really be God. The flood did happen evidence for that includes the Grand Canyon and great unconformity. The animals on the ark worked because they wouldn't take every type of dog just 2 dogs and then after the flood they would have adapted to become what we know them as now. The Israelites being enslaved in Egypt can be proven.
The Israelites were never enslaved in Egypt and there was never a worldwide flood. Also, all the animals on the ark would NEVER have worked. Those are a few that I can think of off the top of my head.
Also, if you believe in an omni-God, that's already impossible
Also I'm intrigued to know what parts you claim you can disprove and your reasoning behind it.
"Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth. Genesis 1:9-10 And God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together in one place, and let dry land appear." And it was so. God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good." I took this straight put of my bible. It clearly claims that god created the Earth. You should check your facts. As for the fact that he created light before stars. He's god he's all powerful he could do that if he wanted.
I can disprove several parts of them bible, or at the very least there are many things that you can't prove with any evidence outside of the bible. Just because a book says something, doesn't make it true. You need external evidence.
And, the bible says that light was made before the stars and it never said thatI her made the Earth.
If he is just a God of gaps then how come nothing about him and the bible which tells how the universe came to be has been disproven. Why do so many atheists that try to disprove it all convert to Christianity.
Even if I were to say that I don't know how the universe came to be (which is only about half true), that doesn't mean that you get to say that you do. Your whole claim of intelligent design is nothing more than a God of the Gaps
If it wasn't intelligent design then how did the entire universe come into existence. Random chance? You would never look at a fighter plane and say that just formed itself yet just the human eyeball is far more complex than a plane and yet its claimed that the eye and all the universe was created by random chance.
Firstly, intelligent design is not a scientific theory. It can barely be considered a hypothesis. However, there is so evidence of a designer and that alone disproves intelligent design.
Intelligent design isn't a scientific explanation. Is that the proposal you're calling scientific?
When people disagree with a scientific proposal or theory, they have to logically & scientifically explain where the person making the proposal got it wrong...
Your comment is a mess. Does science prove God exists or not? If so explain how.
At this point, you have to explain why intelligent design does not work as an explanation. You cannot take a proposal that you may or may not agree with & just say it's not proof, this isn't how science works. You have to provide logical & Scientific reasons why it doesn't work. Plus, my proposal (Not really my proposal) isn't a philosophical one, meaning that my personal opinions have not been used to argue my point. One wouldn't treat a murder trial any differently, why is it suddenly different when it comes to the conclusion that a super interlellect. Plus, the majority of the scientific community has already done what you are accusing me of when they teach school students around the world the big bang collectively ( as if it were a fact when it remains the most widely accepted theory today explaining the origins of the universe) and actively reject other possible explanations, especially Design. If the position we were to look at the arguments from are both theories, then they should both taught equally. Instead non-believing scientists quickly "attack & dismiss" the theory as religious. It's almost as if the scientific community as a whole doesn't 'want' the existence of a "God" to be found. This is indicates personal bias rather than intellectual. " "You can lead a Non-believer to evidence but you cannot make them think"
assumptions based of ignorance are not "proofs". the correct scientific answer regarding God is "we do not know, we dont have the ability it directly measure the divine".
the proofs you refer to are philosophical at best.