"How can science prove there is no ''Gods''? " science can disprove religious texts about God(s), but not that a destic God may or may not exist somewhere people used to believe in a Sun God, once we learned the truth about the Sun, it was easy to disprove the discovery of Evolution did the same to the Creation myth .
Science does not bother with useless questions, it focuses on important and useful things. The God hypothesis failed to graduate to theory and was dismissed as irrelevant long ago.
Not sure where you're headed with all this broken up misplaced verbiage, but I can tell you one thing for certain= The space you think you see in the sky is not real. We live on a Flat Plane, inside a solid dome. We are heated from beneath and the sun and moon are much smaller and much closer than what Big Science would have us believe. These assertions are the result experiments which use the Scientific Method and are testable, repeatable and empirical. That being said, it is therefore quite obvious that our arena of physically manifested existence was indeed Created by some form of intelligent consciousness. This is an unavoidable truth we must all come to terms with at some point in our short, fragile created lives.
Tell me what the "truth" about the Sun is. You've never been there, and no one you know will ever go there either. You cannot prove its distance, weight, mass or speed without baseless postulation and assumptions nobody can validate for certain.
Hmmm, I suggest you read this https://theoristexplains.wordpress.com/2015/11/16/the-firmament-of-the-minds-illusion/
Science can't disprove there being gods in a vague sense. It can however disprove gods in which people make claims about them. The Biblical god is disproved as we know that the stories about it are false. The world was not created in 6 days, etc. However, that only disproves the claim, it doesn't disprove that there may be gods.
Science will never be able to disprove God since now there are believers that say that God lives outside the universe. Or above it, or beyond it, it's different every time. They've perfected the ultimate moving goal posts because they just go ahead and toss em right out of the entire universe. God went from "Lift up the stone, and you will find me there." to doesn't even exist in the universe.
the truth about the Sun is that it is not a God, we now understand the processes that allow the Sun to do what it does
Science cannot prove or disprove God. Science is a method to describe the natural world. God is of the supernatural world. I'm a scientist and I believe in God. There is no scientific reason not to believe in God (nor is there a scientific reason to believe in God). - - - Updated - - - Then it's impossible. You can't create something from nothing.
So as a scientist, you should be objective, so how can we prove that the mind is limited and there is a firmament of the mind that can not be surpassed, and anything after that boundary is pure imagination and simply not fact? Would this itself not show at least the accuracy of how God(s) were denoted?
The Bible was not meant to be interpreted literally (only atheists and fundamentalist do that). Jesus taught in parables, the Old Testament is an extended parable. I am objective about the natural world (i.e. the world of science). Religion is not of the natural world. Or to use Stephen Jay Gould's terms, science and religion are non-overlapping magisteria. www.colorado.edu/physics/phys3000/phys3000_fa11/StevenJGoulldNOMA.pdf
Gods existence apparently does not depend on space, so that wont work. Einstein said that there is no such thing as space. If the godhead is the unmanifest unconscious void that gives rise to the unmanifest firstborn source of consciousness and energy, which then becomes the manifest manifold (the Logos, or Holy Ghost), then science is hard put to offer something better. Science would have to replace God in order to disprove God. Hawking claims to have eliminated the necessity of God by providing an explanation for ongoing creation of universes, but has not accounted for the origin of the multiverse. Thus science is still at a loss in trying to meet such a challenge. Science need not be limited to investigating the natural, material realm of our universe. Scientific methodology has already been applied to collection of information produced by simultaneous real-time observations made by out-of-body explorers who visit other universes (Tom Campbell & collaborators). The full hierarchy of the multiverse is beyond our perception. In general, at some point there is always a successive cause that is out of reach, in effect mystical. As far as we know, there isnt anything that can be the cause of itself. Progress made by advanced physics in multiverse theory, its mathematical confirmation, and production of quantum computers is reported to have enabled calculation of odds against God existing, but the odds do not quite eliminate that possibility. Information purported to be of alien/extraterrestrial origin confers the notion that God is referred to as the undying Creator. If thats what the reality is, then science has poor prospects of disproving God.
Nobody can prove the non existence of something. Therefore the burden of proof always is on those claiming that something exists. Until that proof is not provided, it doesn't exist.
Not really. Things exist regardless of whether they are proven or not. For example, lightning was electricity (and always has been electricity) before Ben Franklin proved it was electricity.
Science cannot disprove the existence of God for it only investigates observable phenomena As he is invariably metaphysical by definition then it means he is beyond the remit of science However since every thing that exists is physical then the non physical can not logically exist I am an apatheist and so do not think he does exist though it would not matter to me if he did
How can science prove there is no ''Gods''? What a dumb question. There is no proof that god exists. In science, for science to prove something, that something has to have piles of evidence to back it up. Not just hear say. So a better question would be "how can religious groups prove to science that there is a gods?" With NO evidence to prove god, the answer is obvious What people seem to not understand is that science is not a thing, it's a meathod So you are basically asking "how can the scientific meathod prove that there is no god" If you knew anything about the scientific meathod, you would know how retarded this question is. Science the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
And science can prove nothing. Science primarily disproves. It's impossible for science to prove or disprove God. God is part of the supernatural world, not the physical and natural world.
Science cannot prove or disprove God. Science is a methodology for understanding natural phenomena. There is nothing to examine relating to God.
If god WERE PROVED by science What would be the role of FAITH it seems to me that the very basis of religion is the issue of faith Which pre supposes uncertainty regarding god Science could never prove or disprove a reality whose fundamental nature and existence is defined as being beyond our certainly and understanding There is no scientific evidence of god But that does not prove non existence . Religious faith is a matter of faith... What ever it is, is simply outside the realm of science
Science cannot positively prove anything anyway because that is the remit of axiomatically deductive systems of logic such as mathematics and syllogisms. Whereas it is primarily an inductive discipline that deals in evidence. However it can determine negative or non proof
I was taught from my 2nd grade English book that the g should be capitalized when "God" is used as a proper name for a deity. Similarly, the first letter of any word being used as the name of a deity would be capitalized. For instance, the op is claiming that Space is God. Hence, when referencing Space as the godlike entity of the op's belief system, it is appropriate to capitalize the s. It only shows respect or lack thereof for proper grammar, punctuation, and capitalization. It does not mean someone believes in fairy tales. For instance, one would capitalize the name "Superman" when referencing the DC comics character, but not when referring to a certain English interpretation of Nietzsche's concept of the übermensch. This would not imply that the writer actually believes Superman really exists.
Assuming the scientists working in the lab also do not exist, right? They would be the analog for God in this experimemt.
Hahaha. Does your ignorance have no end? "Science can prove nothing." So all the things that the sciencé made possible...from computer,to purifiers, to jet engines, to car engines, to nuclear energy, to electricity itself. Virtually everything that we know of today is based on scientific discovery. We have all these things because all of those scientists couldn't poverty NOTHING? Very interesting. Just when I thought people couldn't get any dumber. Here's a question for you. How can science prove that there is no Santa or Easter bunny? It can't so Santa and Easter bunny must be real. Seriously? Hahaha. Now I have heard it all. This thread is retarded.
I misspoke about disproof, you really can't disprove in science, you can just show that under certain conditions something is not true. You obviously have little or no scientific background past high school. Science cannot prove anything. That's not how it works. Science mainly works by proposing hypotheses and testing them. There is no way to prove anything. Here are some references http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/can-science-prove-anything/ https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof http://physics.about.com/b/2011/03/26/scienceproof.htm Study some more before you continue to spout ignorance about the nature of science. If you want to get in more depth on this subject you need to read Popper. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/popper-logic-scientific-discovery.pdf
