# 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:** 14
**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, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/261 "2013-11-08T05:21:24Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Abiogenesis =/= evolution =/= cosmogenesis, etc… > > Evolution describes how allelic frequencies change. How alleles began is irrelevant. I like science fiction too. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/262 "2013-11-08T05:22:35Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > I remember when they found DNA that did not manufacture proteins they called it junk DNA. Evolutionist said it is what they expected to find, junk DNA, left overs. Without ever researching it. EVOLUTION OF THE GAPS!!! > > Later scientist research and found it wasn’t junk at all. I works like the operating system in a computer, regulating genes. How do you know they didn’t ‘research it’ ? The scientific method at work - they didn’t understand the purpose - it was researched further - they figured it out - they updated the understanding. When was the last time “God did it” changed? ---
**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, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/263 "2013-11-08T05:27:25Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > Changes within animals of the same kind. This detail works. Everything outside this doesn’t work. Wrong, it works just fine. > [@jstucker15](#): > > Evolution is still a theory. If they had proof there would be no controversy. You must have blind faith to believe it. More nonsense. The evidence for it is overwhelming, and evolution is a hard fact. The theory is about the details of how it works, not whether it exists. You might as well deny the sun or gravity as evolution. And the “controversy” is because a subset of religious people don’t want to admit that the primitives who wrote their books of mythology had no idea what they were talking about; there’s no scientific dispute over the existence of evolution. And your “God did it” claim which you are proposing as an alternative isn’t “just a theory”; it’s a _totally baseless_ assertion that outright contradicts the known facts. ---
**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, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/264 "2013-11-08T05:29:14Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > Changes within animals of the same kind. “Kind” is a religious term, not a biological one. Your use of it, yet again, reveals that you are repeating Creationist pablum. As if “irreducible complexity” wasn’t a sign already. > [@jstucker15](#): > > Evolution is still a theory. :smack: What is this, Creationist Bingo? Yeah, evolution is “just a theory”… just like gravitation or that germs cause disease. And no, evolution is a fact. Evolutionary mechanics is a set of theoretical frameworks designed to explain and predict evolution. Just like gravity is a fact but we don’t know if it’s quantized or not. > [@jstucker15](#): > > If they had proof there would be no controversy There is proof. There is no controversy. Only willfully ignorant people who feel threatened by facts that contradict their bronze-age creation myths disagree with the fact of evolution. > [@jstucker15](#): > > . You must have blind faith to believe it. I find the projection and lack of awareness-of-irony here truly hilarious. Religious faith is blind faith, which is why you’re trying to pretend that science has tested for and proven a “creator”; you know that proof and blind faith are different, and you’re trying to appropriate proof. And, of course, you’re using “blind faith” as a pejorative… despite the fact that religion is blind faith. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/265 "2013-11-08T05:31:06Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > You are correct. However, I don’t think it is proper for us to tell believers the characteristics of the God they say they believe in. When one says they believe in a tri-omni god then we can unleash the argument. > I don’t like it when they tell me what atheists are supposed to think, and so I think we should return the favor. I intended it as just breaking the problem into component parts. Not, “You believe in the Tri-Omni God,” but, rather, “If the God in question is a Tri-Omni God, this argument can be used.” I very much agree with you that no one should put words in the other guy’s mouth. I would never say, “If you believe in God, then it has to be the Tri-Omni” God. ---
**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, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/266 "2013-11-08T05:31:43Z")
> [@simster](#): > > How do you know they didn’t ‘research it’ ? > > The scientific method at work - they didn’t understand the purpose - it was researched further - they figured it out - they updated the understanding. > > When was the last time “God did it” changed? Before they had a chance to research it they were claiming it was junk DNA just what they would expect to see. You usually don’t hear about stuff like this. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/267 "2013-11-08T05:35:00Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > Before they had a chance to research it they were claiming it was junk DNA just what they would expect to see. You usually don’t hear about stuff like this. So what? it was their understanding at the time - they learned - they \ evolved! This does nothing to advance the rest of your ‘its just a theory’ nonsense. ---
**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, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/268 "2013-11-08T05:36:06Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > I intended it as just breaking the problem into component parts. Not, “You believe in the Tri-Omni God,” but, rather, “If the God in question is a Tri-Omni God, this argument can be used.” > > I very much agree with you that no one should put words in the other guy’s mouth. I would never say, “If you believe in God, then it has to be the Tri-Omni” God. I don’t believe god is a trinity. This idea was borrowed from other pagan religions. ---
**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, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/269 "2013-11-08T05:39:45Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > I don’t believe god is a trinity. This idea was borrowed from other pagan religions. And what makes you think they are any less valid than your own religion? And, “other pagan religions”? You wouldn’t happen to be one of those people who refuses to admit that Catholicism is Christian, would you? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/270 "2013-11-08T05:42:47Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > . . . Bacteria has 1,000 base pairs for each gene. What are the chances of getting 480 genes each 1,000 base pairs long (actually more than this 580,000 / 480) in the correct order? . . . How many “right answers” are there? Not only every bacterium that has ever existed, but every conceivable bacterium that might exist. Every one of those is a “right answer” for this random puzzle. Every possible life form; every possible string of viable DNA. There are a hell of a lot more answers than just one. (I watched Henry Morris try to pull this out of his hat. The same logic would prove that snowflakes are impossible.) ---
**Author:** ![dasmoocher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/271 "2013-11-08T05:43:15Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > There was selection pressure in ancient history. They had to choose which gods they believed in and whose god they didn’t believe in. I like this one. Is this the take home message? The ancient religious people were selected by evolution–although it doesn’t exist and is a dead theory–because the Abrahamic God, who is the Creator and has been proven to exist, is stronger than pagan gods, who don’t exist, so people that chose God were more fit than people who believed in pagan gods, who in turn were more fit than people who didn’t believe in any gods. My God is stronger than your god. I’m convinced. It is obviously irrational not to believe in things science can’t disprove. Oh. Cells are made up of more than amino acids and DNA, and there are things called ribozymes. What’s the latest on the RNA World, anyways? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/272 "2013-11-08T05:47:13Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > I don’t believe god is a trinity. This idea was borrowed from other pagan religions. I didn’t say “trinity.” I said “Tri-Omni.” As in Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnibenevolent. Your mastery of theology appears to be as wanting as your mastery of biology. ---
**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, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/273 "2013-11-08T05:50:00Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > And what makes you think they are any less valid than your own religion? > > And, “other pagan religions”? You wouldn’t happen to be one of those people who refuses to admit that Catholicism is Christian, would you? According to the bible the Jews kept adopting the pagan religions around them. This was considered very bad. Christendom has the same problem of graphing pagan religious thought into their religion. It makes the bible incomprehensible. ---
**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, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/274 "2013-11-08T05:55:16Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > I didn’t say “trinity.” I said “Tri-Omni.” As in Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnibenevolent. > > Your mastery of theology appears to be as wanting as your mastery of biology. I’ve heard of it but I never see these words in the bible. ---
**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, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/275 "2013-11-08T06:04:06Z")
> [@dasmoocher](#): > > I like this one. Is this the take home message? > > The ancient religious people were selected by evolution–although it doesn’t exist and is a dead theory–because the Abrahamic God, who is the Creator and has been proven to exist, is stronger than pagan gods, who don’t exist, so people that chose God were more fit than people who believed in pagan gods, who in turn were more fit than people who didn’t believe in any gods. My God is stronger than your god. > > I’m convinced. It is obviously irrational not to believe in things science can’t disprove. > > Oh. Cells are made up of more than amino acids and DNA, and there are things called ribozymes. What’s the latest on the RNA World, anyways? The scaffolding of the cell is made of proteins (chains of amino acids). All the molecular machines, enzymes and so forth are made from protein. The last time I checked origin of life studies, RNA wasn’t cutting it. I am going to sign off. To sleepy. ---
**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, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/276 "2013-11-08T06:12:21Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > The scaffolding of the cell is made of proteins (chains of amino acids). Wrong. Cytoplasm and a phospholipid bilayer. ---
**Author:** ![dasmoocher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/277 "2013-11-08T06:14:06Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > All the molecular machines, enzymes and so forth are made from protein. So, granted that a ribosome has some protein components, what type of molecule performs the catalytic peptidyl transferase activity in a ribosome? . ---
**Author:** ![Ronald\_Raygun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c67d28/32.png) [@Ronald\_Raygun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ronald_Raygun)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/278 "2013-11-08T06:14:41Z")
> [@cornopean](#): > > do you believe that faith is, by defn, irrational? do you have faith in the laws of logic? do you believe the laws of logic are true? are you able to demonstrate that they are true empirically? Faith and reason occupy two different spheres. If something were able to be believed by reason alone, one wouldn’t need to believe in it on faith. So, yes, faith is by definition irrational. This is not to imply that I’m a wholly rational being, nor is it to imply that irrationality is wrong in some sense. What are these “laws of logic”? I’d like a little more clarification before I answer. > [@](#): > > well the three major religions have roughly the same concept of a God. In what sense is the God of Christianity similar to the Hindu pantheon? > [@](#): > > scientists have observed mind developing out of matter??! where? I was conceived and born. My father observed the whole process. Admittedly, he’s an engineer and not a scientist. > [@](#): > > ok…so let’s suppose a given action will result in the death of 15 children. Is that a bad consequence or a good consequence? (and please base your answer on science) 🙂 “Good” and “bad” are complex judgments that require context. I don’t have enough information to say whether this was good or bad. As a really dumb counterexample, let’s say that there are 100 sick children, and the given action is me discovering a cure that manages to cure 85 of them. The other fifteen are non-responsive and die. Is this a good or bad consequence? It seems plausible to me that our hardwired notions of what is good or bad can ultimately be explained by some future combination of studies in neurology, experimental economics, and evolutionary psychology, but I don’t know enough about any of those fields to say how far away we are from that point. > [@](#): > > Well this is your opinion, and it isn’t very scientific. Lots of people claim that religion has greatly improved their life. The worst moral monsters in history were committed atheists. It was people who believe in God who ended slavery. All the great scientists were theists; first in Islamic societies, then in Christian society. It was people who believe in God who hid the Jews in WW2. etc. etc. I’m going to narrow in on the claim that all great scientists were theists. Do you mean to say that the following were not great scientists? Svante Arrhenius John Stewart Bell Hans Bethe Niels Bohr John Conway Francis Crick Pierre Curie Auguste de Morgan (the logician!) Paul Dirac Thomas Edison Paul Ehrenfest Richard Feynman Joseph Louis Gay-Lussac Jacques Hadamard Stephen Hawking Roald Hoffmann Joseph Lagrange Pierre-Simon Laplace Andrey Markov Thomas Hunt Morgan John Nash Alfred Nobel Frank Oppenheimer Linus Pauling Ivan Pavlov Sir Roger Penrose Henri Poincare Carl Sagan Erwin Schroedinger Claude Shannon Stephen Smale Leonard Susskind Alfred Tarski Alan Turing Eugene Wigner > [@](#): > > and the basis of the moral claims that Christians make is the character of the God they believe in. Again, you may not like it, but there is nothing irrational about it. in fact, your passion against theism is actually quite…religious. Scientists typically don’t display this kind of zeal and passion. I don’t like the word “irrational”. I understand that there has been much reasoned (i.e., rational) thought about what sorts of ethical and moral consequences arise assuming the truth of Christianity. There are many different conceptions of the Christian god, and so moralities among different denominations vary. How do you cope with this inconsistency? In what sense is the Christian god “good”? ---
**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, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/279 "2013-11-08T06:22:11Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > According to the bible the Jews kept adopting the pagan religions around them. This was considered very bad. Christendom has the same problem of graphing pagan religious thought into their religion. It makes the bible incomprehensible. The Bible is “incomprehensible” because it’s a collection of nonsense. But it isn’t nonsense because of “pagans”, it’s nonsense because it’s a religious book. And you didn’t answer if you think Catholics are Christian or not. You do know that Catholicism has accepted that evolution is true? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/280 "2013-11-08T06:22:15Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > I’ve heard of it but I never see these words in the bible. Fancy that. Theology isn’t in the Bible. I guess Thomas Aquinas was just making it all up. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301.md?page=15)