# 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:** 15
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/281 "2013-11-08T06:40:45Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > I’ve heard of it but I never see these words in the bible. We were taught omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence as early as Sunday School (we didn’t get omnibenevolence in our church - it was assumed to be more implicit). While it’s possible your entire understanding of biblical matters comes from direct reading, it’s much more likely you have forgotten or ignored the matter when it came up in study over the years. ETA: Oh, and if the implicit point wasn’t clear - no, your POV isn’t convincing to Christians with scientific training, either. Your POV is more common among the strain of conservative fundamentalists and evangelicals who, I would point out, don’t represent all or even a majority of Christians in scientific arguments (though they, as you show, shout louder than most). ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 8:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/282 "2013-11-08T08:19:29Z")
> [@cornopean](#): > > you say that order arises from simple rules with no intelligence required. but this seems to beg the question. I can’t account for the existence of these rules w/o immediately being led to believe that some mind is behind it. As for an ant colony, religionists would assert that God created these animals with these instincts. A purely random, unguided universe can’t account for an ant colony. If we cannot account for the order and complexity of the universe without the existence of God, then we also cannot account for the order and complexity of God without the existence of an even bigger, more orderly meta-God, and so on. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 8:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/283 "2013-11-08T08:24:55Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > I’ve heard of it but I never see these words in the bible. Is or is not the deity you believe in Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnibenevolent? ---
**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, 9:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/284 "2013-11-08T09:23:28Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > Evolution is still a theory. If they had proof there would be no controversy. You must have blind faith to believe it. Evolution is the only way the entire field of biology makes any sort of sense. Without the unification that the theory of evolution provides, biology degenerates into a hodgepodge of trivia. Denying evolution would be like trying to make sense of chemistry while denying the existence of atoms – I’d be hesitant to even call the endeavor “chemistry”. The sheer amount of evidence in favor of evolution is mind-blowing. We can even see it occur in the lab, as I myself have seen when I was doing biochemistry research as an undergraduate. I should mention that I wasn’t trying to elucidate some facet of evolution that we didn’t quite understand. The process was so well understood from the molecular level up through the level of the organism that laboratory evolution was simply one of many tools in our toolbox. Imagine a carpenter denying the existence of hammers. I’m struggling to come up with a metaphor that can really capture the ridiculousness of what you’re proposing from my point of view. It’d be as though you earnestly were suggesting that there is no Mandarin language. Everyone who appears to speak Mandarin is really just making meaningless utterances at each other for reasons we have yet to understand. Chinese people act in some sort of strange synchrony as though they understand one another all due to an inherent and ineffable quality unique to the Chinese. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 10:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/285 "2013-11-08T10:38:10Z")
> [@cornopean](#): > > 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. Then your definition is simultaneously so broad as to be meaningless and completely fails to observe a very serious difference between my acceptance of science and my rejection of god. I do not blindly accept science. It _earned_ my trust. Even though I have not completely proven that empiricism and observation is perfect, I accept the basic premises required in using them for two reasons: 1. To the closest approximation I can offer, it has served me incredibly well - I mean, for fuck’s sake, I’m sitting here typing words on a big magic box that transports them all the way across the world, and then maybe later I’m going to tell that box to help me slay an evil witch who rains lightning from the sky and her master Dominus, the High Templar. 2. If I reject these premises, I have _nothing to stand on_. I literally cannot act in reality. Rejection of empiricism basically amounts to solipsism, and I welcome anyone who rejects it to try leaving for work by the window on the second floor rather than the doorway. > [@cornopean](#): > > 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. Except that morality is, like justice and love (which you appealed to earlier) and _abstraction of observations_. How do we know that murder is bad? Because we see it and think “man, this is bad”, and it is essentially hardwired into our psyche to think that - indeed, not thinking that is the sign of a psychopath. First principles are indeed not based on observation. However, they don’t get any further than “I think, therefore I am” without breaking down into intuitive assumptions. So… How else do we know things? How could you possibly know about a mind separate from a brain if you can’t observe it? How could you possibly know about a soul for which there can be no evidence? _What is your path to this knowledge_? > [@jstucker15](#): > > I was just using evolution theory and observation, not babbling bluster. Eh… No. Your understanding of evolution is the typical creationist understanding of evolution: totally lacking information on most subjects and completely wrong on most of what you think you do know. Where did you learn about evolution? Seriously, who taught you? Did your school fail you massively? Or did you just spend a lot of time on Answers in Genesis? Either way, I’m just going to ask you nicely. In this thread, you’ve had multiple people not just tell you you’re wrong, but provide extensive sourcing that you’re wrong. Because you are wrong. You’re wrong about the fossil record. You’re wrong about evolution being a dying breed. You’re wrong about what evidence for evolution exists. You’re wrong about the early evolutionary pathways of microorganisms. You’re wrong about basically you open your mouth about with regards to evolution. Please. _Stop talking about evolution until you understand what it is and what evidence is available_. Stop getting your information from shitty creationist websites; they know they’re wrong but perpetuate the information anyways, because apparently lying for Jesus is A-OK. I’m not saying you’re lying, just to be clear, but you seem very taken in by these arguments which are _demonstrably wrong_. > [@jstucker15](#): > > Changes within animals of the same kind. This detail works. Everything outside this doesn’t work. There are limits. > > Evolution is still a theory. If they had proof there would be no controversy. You must have blind faith to believe it. You’re arguing against one of the most widely-accepted scientific theories in the world. As previously stated, it’s taught at essentially every college in the world, accepted by basically every scientific association in the world, and forms the backbone for all of biology. Saying that “if they had proof there would be no controversy” is giving people _waaaay_ too much credit. [There are people who legitimately believe that the earth is flat](http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm). And creationism isn’t just a matter of scientific disagreement; for many people, when you point out how creationism is wrong, you’re attacking deeply held religious beliefs. There is proof, at least as far as any scientific theory can ever be proven. The evidence in favor is absolutely overwhelming. And that you don’t know or understand this > [@cornopean](#): > > this article tells how scientists can see thots in a person’s brain with an MRI. how does this show mind emerging from mere matter? Because if we can map the “mind” clearly to the brain, then any need for a supernaturalistic “mind” flies right out the window. We don’t _need_ to appeal to a “mind” outside of the brain. > [@](#): > > Let me be clearer. I am asking for an experiment in which scientists observed a mind (in other words, a reasoning object/being) emerge from matter. I present: every human being on the planet. > [@](#): > > this article tells how scientists were able to make rough reconstructions of what a person was viewing by watching computer scans. again…how is this mind emerging from matter? Because it’s showing that in fact, the “mind” you’re talking about is _nothing more than the movement of electrical charges within the brain_. That everything we associate with a “mind” can be reduced to activity within the brain. If you don’t understand why this is evidence of mind emerging from matter, then _no_ evidence will ever be good enough. Seriously, what kind of experiment do you expect? > [@](#): > > this article tells how a scientist can tell when a person is lying from a brain scan. Perhaps I wasn’t clear on what I was looking for but it seems to me that if you are going to assert that mind can emerge from matter, then you need an experiment in which you start with mere matter and mind emerges from it with no intelligent force being applied to it. is that fair? But again, this is _every human on the planet_. We have the brain. It’s matter. We have electrical charges that move within the brain. Those charges and the internal structure of the brain. Humans clearly have minds. What we consider those “minds” lines up perfectly with what we observe in the brain. I don’t know what else anyone can do to show you this connection. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 10:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/286 "2013-11-08T10:52:54Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > The evolution of the gaps argument has nothing to do with origin of life. It just ass/u/mes life came from non life and goes from there. jstucker15, you’re brand new here at the Straight Dope Message Board so I’m going to cut you some slack. In Great Debates we attempt to maintain certain standards for our posters and how they debate. Both posting as a quote and response to yourself and posting the exact same thing multiple times both violate those standards. In the future, please attempt a higher level of debate and discussion. Great Debates welcomes those who wish to witness for their faith - it’s in the mission statement for the forum - but we do expect them to be able to respond to questions coherently and respectfully. Had you been here longer your posting pattern would earn you an official warning. Enough warnings and your posting privileges could be removed. And we don’t want that. Jonathan Chance Moderator Great Debates ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/287 "2013-11-08T12:17:32Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > Evolution is still a theory. If they had proof there would be no controversy. You must have blind faith to believe it. Do you understand what the word “theory” means when scientists use it? Here is a common definition(this one from Wiki, but it will match most others): > [@](#): > > To be a scientific theory, a theory must be tested a large number of times, by many different scientists in many different places, and must pass the test every time. It must be stated exactly, often using mathematics. And it must fit in with all of the other scientific theories. ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/288 "2013-11-08T12:22:00Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > So, can you cite one single peer reviewed journal article that “proves” a “creator”? > No? > Funny, that. I am 100% sure there is a peer reviewed journal article somewhere that ostensibly proves God created the universe. There are peer reviewed demonology journals for fuck’s sake. Peer review is great and all, but it’s not really sufficient for proving… acceptable sciencosity. (Words are hard) ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/289 "2013-11-08T12:31:27Z")
Perhaps “scientific rigor” is the term you’re looking for? ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/290 "2013-11-08T12:34:19Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Perhaps “scientific rigor” is the term you’re looking for? “Sciencosity” is a more awesometacular term, though. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/291 "2013-11-08T12:47:01Z")
> [@Jragon](#): > > “Sciencosity” is a more awesometacular term, though. I believe however that semantic precedent points towards “scienciness” as the proper neologism. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/292 "2013-11-08T12:53:25Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > Evolution is still a theory. If you are seriously trying to learn about this subject and not just spouting mindless assertions from ignorant sources, it would be the best investment of your life to read [_Only a Theory,_ by Kenneth R. Miller](http://www.amazon.com/Only-Theory-Evolution-Battle-Americas/dp/0143115669/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1383914786&sr=8-1&keywords=miller+kenneth+only+a+theory) (who is a theist, BTW). Since Amazon has copies for as little as 75 cents plus shipping, poverty cannot be an excuse for ignoring it. > [@](#): > > You must have blind faith to believe it. How ironic. You were referring to the “belief” in evolution, but I think it applies much better to your beliefs in god(s). ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/293 "2013-11-08T13:20:43Z")
> [@cornopean](#): > > Ok that’s fair. Let me just define God then as a being who is outside of the universe of space and time. You mean he is nowhere? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/294 "2013-11-08T13:25:14Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > You mean he is nowhere? It’s like describing a dog by saying it lives in a doghouse. All we have to do is spend no time looking nowhere, and we’ll find his god. Every time a religionist uses the term “outside space and time” to stop inquiries as to the whereabouts of their particular deity, they should be called on it. ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/295 "2013-11-08T13:32:39Z")
God is in the TARDIS’ broom closet. ---
**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, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/296 "2013-11-08T13:46:33Z")
> [@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. > [@jstucker15](#): > > I’ve heard of it but I never see these words in the bible. Thanks jstucker15 - this explains your background well enough for me to understand your level of knowledge. > [@Jragon](#): > > God is in the TARDIS’ broom closet. a fictional critter in a fictional broom closet? is that like a double negative ? ---
**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, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/297 "2013-11-08T13:49:18Z")
If anything, jstucker is making me even _more_ atheist, since what belief has done to the quality of his arguments is something I would rather avoid. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/298 "2013-11-08T14:19:11Z")
> [@simster](#): > > Thanks jstucker15 - this explains your background well enough for me to understand your level of knowledge. This really is an American thing. How is it possible there is so much ignorance in your country? Doesn’t your government check schools curriculums? Do you not have a basic set of knowledge and skills that have to be taught or can schools just teach whatever they like? Does ‘land of the free’ mean you are free to teach your children any old bullshit? Is **Der trish** right? Does about half your country still believe in creation? If your country is producing so many people who really have so little basic knowledge, something is wrong with your educational system. Seriously wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/299 "2013-11-08T14:41:59Z")
Well, it’s worth noting that in many places, local education boards have worked very hard to try to devalue education and push creationism, lawsuits or not. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/300 "2013-11-08T14:58:14Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > If your country is producing so many people who really have so little basic knowledge, something is wrong with your educational system. > Seriously wrong. Nothing wrong with the public education system, but when they go to church on Sunday, they learn that God tells them otherwise. Powerful stuff, that God shit. And the parochial system has a problem by definition. Some may not be able to reconcile _facts_ with TRUTH (that’s spelled with a capital cross). > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Well, it’s worth noting that in many places, local education boards have worked very hard to try to devalue education and push creationism, lawsuits or not. Which has failed every time it’s tried. I don’t know what that proves, either. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301.md?page=16)