# Can science disprove God? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 7, 2013, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301 "2013-11-07T03:01:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![cornopean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8c91f0/32.png) [@cornopean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cornopean)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/181 "2013-11-08T01:56:38Z")
> [@simster](#): > > what does that have to do with anything? > > Are you talking about Philosophy? Mathematics? what? > > You are avoiding the questions with more questions - in short - you are doing a ‘gish gallop’ and its getting old. I am talking about things that have to be assumed before you can know anything at all. For instance, we all have faith in the laws of logic before we engage in any kind of scientific endeavor. If we don’t have this kind of faith, we can’t know anything. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/182 "2013-11-08T02:00:56Z")
> [@cornopean](#): > > For instance, we all have faith in the laws of logic before we engage in any kind of scientific endeavor. That’s not “faith”, that’s a combination of earned trust and practicality. We trust logic because it works, and because we don’t have any choice if we want to accomplish anything. Faith in logic would be following logic if logic consistently failed, or at best accomplished nothing. Faith is believing things that are baseless or wrong, not in things that work or have evidence for them. ---
**Author:** ![cornopean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8c91f0/32.png) [@cornopean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cornopean)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/183 "2013-11-08T02:06:39Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Is it? We execute killers, we try not to execute apes. Science can measure the intelligence of apes and humans. Science does not define good and evil, but it can give you information to make a decision. As for religion - I’ll get to that later. so you question my assertion that the life of an ape is less valuable than the life of a human. and this is why atheism is a scary world to live in. > [@](#): > > No, when we look at vacuum we see it is not empty. Heisenberg tells us it cannot be empty. We’re still working out the details. It takes longer to explore this stuff than it does to write down a holy book. so is it irrational to believe that something can come from nothing? or is there really no such thing as nothing? > [@](#): > > Can religion? well yes, religion has an explanation for this. they claim that a moral God imprinted His morality on the soul of human beings. you may not like this explanation, but is it irrational? can science disprove it? > [@](#): > > There is the field of ethics which covers this stuff without reference to deities. It doesn’t home in on an answer (unlike science) because there probably is no answer. Granted there are ethicists who do this. but no scientist is using his test tubes and microscopes to try to find out if causing people pain is evil. > [@](#): > > A primitive view. We know that fiddling with the brain changes the mind. We observe no mind without associated matter. We see animals with different levels of intelligence as the brain gets more complex. The evidence is all for mind as a product of matter. I agree there is some mysterious kind of connection between body and soul. but it is very unscientific to believe that mind comes from matter. no scientist has ever observed this in a laboratory or anywhere. ---
**Author:** ![cornopean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8c91f0/32.png) [@cornopean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cornopean)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/184 "2013-11-08T02:09:07Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > That’s not “faith”, that’s a combination of earned trust and practicality. We trust logic because it works, and because we don’t have any choice if we want to accomplish anything. > > Faith in logic would be following logic if logic consistently failed, or at best accomplished nothing. Faith is believing things that are baseless or wrong, not in things that work or have evidence for them. well we have different defns of faith. I take faith in this context to be accepting something to be true without proving it to be so. We can’t prove logic to be true. We have to accept it as true before we can know anything at all. and again, science is of no help here. science cannot prove logic to be true. so, all knowledge that we have is not the result of observation. ---
**Author:** ![cornopean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8c91f0/32.png) [@cornopean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cornopean)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/185 "2013-11-08T02:10:23Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Well then, what is the mind, and how can we observe it? And how does the idea that the mind is not the brain gel with the vast degree to which we can observe how brain injury affects the personalities and thought processes of those around us? Here you go again, using complex, multifaceted terms and NOT DEFINING THEM. you are still operating under the assumption that we can only know observable things. I don’t accept that. I have pointed to first principles and morality as two things that we know but are not observable. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/186 "2013-11-08T02:11:34Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > Assuming God and the Creator are the same I would say yes. Some claim evolution is no longer a theory and has been proven true with nothing in the fossil record to back them up. I would think if evolution were true the fossil record would have millions of small changes of millions of species. They are hard pressed to find one and if they say they found it, it later turns out to be another hoax. The creation account in the bible matches what is found in the cambrian fossil layer. > Evolution is a 19th century science that has seen its day. 21st century science will continue to expose this lie. I really wish that people with this sort of frame of reference would actually read the science on this topic before they posted such nonsense. First: It is utterly false to claim that there is “nothing but the fossil record” to support the Theory of Evolution. If you are not aware of that, you need quite a bit of study before you join this sort of debate. There is the fossil record, (which probably has more information that you can imagine). There is also the DNA record that presents an equivalent documentation to the fossil record, even going so far as to support it where it has been compared. Then there are the examples of evolution that we have actually witnessed, (ever wonder why they need a different set of flu shots each year?). Second: Your misunderstanding of what would be available in the fossil record is demonstrably wrong. It takes a specific set of conditions to create a fossil. The overwhelming majority of plants and animals die without ever being subjected to those conditions. To create a fossil, we must have an animal that is swiftly buried in an anaerobic situation (so that they do not rot through bacterial action) and are not torn apart and eaten by scavengers. The soild in which they re buried must not bee too acidic, causing them to be “burnt” away. The soil in which they are buried must be of a composition that will permit it to harden into stone, so that it does not simply erode away. In the 19th century, millions of bison were killed on the Great Plains of the U.S. It is likely that not one of them will ever become a fossil. Throughout the history of the world, the vast majority of plants and animals were eaten by scavengers or bacteria, were torn apart be erosion, or were deposited in acidic soil in which they were dissolved. So there cannot be as many fossils as you would like to conjecture. Despite that, of course, we do have an enormous number of fossils that provide a detailed history of various life forms as confirmed by the stratigraphic record of the earth in which they are found. Your claims about hoaxes is nonsense. There have been a very few actual hoaxes, few of them actually accepted by the scientists at the time they were planted. In contrast to your absurd clam of a “19th century” science soon to be overthrown, Darwin’s theory did not yet have sufficient evidence in the 19th century to confirm it, but it was confirmed by Dobzhansky in the twentieth century and nothing discovered in the 21st century has come close to disproving it. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/187 "2013-11-08T02:12:00Z")
> [@cornopean](#): > > well yes, religion has an explanation for this. they claim that a moral God imprinted His morality on the soul of human beings. you may not like this explanation, but is it irrational? can science disprove it? Yes. One word. “Sociopaths”. What do I win? ---
**Author:** ![Canadjun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@Canadjun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Canadjun)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/188 "2013-11-08T02:18:21Z")
> [@cornopean](#): > > I am talking about things that have to be assumed before you can know anything at all. For instance, we all have faith in the laws of logic before we engage in any kind of scientific endeavor. If we don’t have this kind of faith, we can’t know anything. \*If “A implies B” is true and “B” is true, then “A” must also be true. \* Why are you considering logic statements like the above to require faith but “combine hydrochloric acid with sodium hydroxide and you get water and sodium chloride” not to require faith (if you do in fact consider basic chemistry to also be faith then it seems like you consder all science to be faith, which makes any discussion rather pointless). ---
**Author:** ![cornopean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8c91f0/32.png) [@cornopean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cornopean)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/189 "2013-11-08T02:19:07Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Of course. so I assume that bad consequences mean an action is immoral. but what is a “bad” consequence? what is badness? Can science tell us what makes something bad or good? Science can certainly tell us what kind of consequences a given action is likely to have. but how does science help us identify which consequences are evil and which are good? Science is of no help. ---
**Author:** ![cornopean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8c91f0/32.png) [@cornopean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cornopean)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/190 "2013-11-08T02:20:19Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Yes. One word. “Sociopaths”. > What do I win? Is a sociopath a good thing or an evil thing? what answer does the scientist give to this? ---
**Author:** ![jstucker15](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@jstucker15](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jstucker15)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/191 "2013-11-08T02:23:19Z")
If your a true believer in evolution then you would have to admit that religious people are the product of millions of years of evolution and they are the fittest. Non religious people must be the weak. All the ancient peoples believed in one or more gods. Why did evolution favor religious people? What advantage did being religious give them over the non religious weak? ---
**Author:** ![cornopean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8c91f0/32.png) [@cornopean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cornopean)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/192 "2013-11-08T02:23:51Z")
> [@Canadjun](#): > > \*If “A implies B” is true and “B” is true, then “A” must also be true. \* > > Why are you considering logic statements like the above to require faith but “combine hydrochloric acid with sodium hydroxide and you get water and sodium chloride” not to require faith (if you do in fact consider basic chemistry to also be faith then it seems like you consder all science to be faith, which makes any discussion rather pointless). The basic law is A = A. The law of identity. We have to assume this to be true before we can find out if combining hydrochloric acid with sodium hydroxide results in water and sodium chloride. You also have to assume that your senses are feeding you correct information and that some playful demon isn’t playing games. Then you have to assume that the universe is uniform and that tomorrow combining hydrochloric acid with sodium hydroxide will result in salt and pepper. Then you have to believe the truth that people have minds with which to understand what you are claiming. So…no I am not saying that chemistry is faith. I am saying, that the whole endeavor of chemistry rests upon some very basic principles that are not themselves provable by science. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/193 "2013-11-08T02:26:21Z")
> [@cornopean](#): > > The basic law is A = A. Rand was wrong, and so are you. Photons are both particles and waves at the same time. Quanta are both here and there at the same time. A = ~A > [@cornopean](#): > > I am saying, that the whole endeavor of chemistry rests upon some very basic principles that are not themselves provable by science. Are you unaware of Godel’s Incompleteness? ---
**Author:** ![cornopean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8c91f0/32.png) [@cornopean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cornopean)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/194 "2013-11-08T02:28:53Z")
Here is a quote (I have no idea what his 2nd sentence means): Whitehead wrote, “All science must start with some assumptions as to the ultimate analysis of the facts with which it deals. These assumptions are justified partly by their adherence to the types of occurrence of which we are directly conscious, and partly by their success in representing the observed facts with a certain generality, devoid of ad hoc suppositions.” > **[Philosophy of science](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Axiomatic_assumptions)** > > Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions of this study concern what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science. This discipline overlaps with metaphysics, ontology, and epistemology, for example, when it explores the relationship between science and truth. Philosophy of science focuses on metaphysical, epistemic and semantic aspects of science... ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/195 "2013-11-08T02:30:10Z")
> [@cornopean](#): > > so you question my assertion that the life of an ape is less valuable than the life of a human. and this is why atheism is a scary world to live in. Ah, the old “atheists are all evil monsters” routine. And I fail to see why living under the rule of an omnipotent egomaniac isn’t scary. > [@cornopean](#): > > well yes, religion has an explanation for this. they claim that a moral God imprinted His morality on the soul of human beings. you may not like this explanation, but is it irrational? can science disprove it? Yes it’s irrational; claiming that gods exist and making claims about what they want is irrational. That’s why it’s called faith. Nor is “God” as normally portrayed remotely moral, nor do such claims match reality, nor is there any evidence for those claims whatsoever. And claims about the various gods\* nature and powers go against pretty much every scientific discovery there is; that’s about as close to disproving something as science ever comes. \*And of course you are still talking like the Christian god is the only possible one. > [@cornopean](#): > > I agree there is some mysterious kind of connection between body and soul. but it is very unscientific to believe that mind comes from matter. no scientist has ever observed this in a laboratory or anywhere. Nonsense; scientists who study the brain see it all the time. > [@cornopean](#): > > so I assume that bad consequences mean an action is immoral. but what is a “bad” consequence? what is badness? Can science tell us what makes something bad or good? Science can certainly tell us what kind of consequences a given action is likely to have. but how does science help us identify which consequences are evil and which are good? Science is of no help. It’s plenty of help. Telling us the consequences lets us judge what is good or bad instead of making a wild guess. And religion is _utterly worthless_ on this matter, so your complaints about science are useless. Religion corrupts people morally, it doesn’t improve them; it distorts their judgement massively, and has no basis for any moral claims it makes. Claiming that science is useless doesn’t make religion use_ful;_ religion is worthless regardless of what science can or can’t contribute. As for where our morality comes from; it’s a combination of instinct, millennia of collective experience, and the unspoken rejection of religion. Because yes, being moral requires that a person reject or ignore religion, regardless of if they admit that’s what they are doing or not; a person can’t be moral while they follow the falsehoods of religion. Being moral requires that you pay attention to the real world and the real people in it; not the fantasies of religion. ---
**Author:** ![cornopean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8c91f0/32.png) [@cornopean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cornopean)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/196 "2013-11-08T02:30:14Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Rand was wrong, and so are you. Photons are both particles and waves at the same time. Quanta are both here and there at the same time. A = ~A some people think it is irrational to believe this since it contradicts all of their experience of how this world works. is that ok? > [@](#): > > Are you unaware of Godel’s Incompleteness? never heard of him. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/197 "2013-11-08T02:30:35Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > If your a true believer in evolution then you would have to admit that religious people are the product of millions of years of evolution and they are the fittest. Non religious people must be the weak. So, in other words, you have no idea what evolutionary biology actually says. No, religious memes have showed increased fitness relative to other memes due to factors that can be debated, but the prevelance of memes does not speak to the fitness of genes. > [@jstucker15](#): > > All the ancient peoples believed in one or more gods. Why did evolution favor religious people? What advantage did being religious give them over the non religious weak? You do realize that as there were no atheistic societies, that there were no selection pressures which could have acted on that kind of a homogeneous population group? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/198 "2013-11-08T02:30:48Z")
I’ll admit it - science has disproved God for all practical purposes, though by indirection in leaving fewer places for “God” to hide. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/199 "2013-11-08T02:32:07Z")
> [@cornopean](#): > > some people think it is irrational to believe this since it contradicts all of their experience of how this world works. is that ok? What, that you’re dodging a factual refutation? Probably not okay, no. That people want to ignore reality because it conflicts with their errors? Probably not okay either, no. > [@cornopean](#): > > never heard of him. Read more. Post less. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/200 "2013-11-08T02:33:20Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I’ll admit it - science has disproved God for all practical purposes, though by indirection in leaving fewer places for “God” to hide. The God of the Gaps is a constantly fleeing invisible friend. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301.md?page=11)