# 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:** 17
**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, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/321 "2013-11-08T19:50:23Z")
> [@El\_Kabong](#): > > [QUOTE=jstucker15] > Evolution is still a theory. If they had proof there would be no controversy. You must have blind faith to believe it. I know I’m wasting my time responding to someone who is so closed-minded, but are you saying you are completely unaware of the fossil record in sedimentary rocks, to name just one blindingly obvious thing that demonstrates evolution exists? Meanwhile, there is a theory of electricity. As far as I can tell, I do not have to have blind faith in it for a light to work when I switch it on [/QUOTE] **Isaac Asimov** — “Creationists make it sound as though a ‘theory’ is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night.” ---
**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, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/322 "2013-11-08T20:06:45Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > Correct. But neither can religion, which states that actions that God doesn’t like will result in future punishments. So instead of morality being a collection of human opinions it’s God’s opinion. And since God is unaccountable this amounts to a celestial dictatorship. It would be wise to follow the received wisdom, but it’s never clear to me why God is made of morality. > > Idealistically, I would hope people’s morality is independent of whether punishment is possible. That’s one of the things that turn me off Christian “altruism” altogether. If you’re helping Granny cross the street because ultimately you hope it gets you a ticket to the Nice Place, then that’s really no different from helping Granny cross the street for a fiver. It’s mercenary goodness, and that’s not altruistic in the least. Altruism and generally being a decent bloke is \*supposed \*to be its own reward, according to the Gospel of Kobal. Even if that, too, is kind of selfish, since you’re doing good to feel good about yourself, and avoid doing bad because you know you’ll just feel rotten. Ah, narcissism, is there no problem you can’t solve ? ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/323 "2013-11-08T20:35:17Z")
> [@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? > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Yes. One word. “Sociopaths”. > What do I win? > [@cornopean](#): > > Is a sociopath a good thing or an evil thing? what answer does the scientist give to this? For the purposes of your challenge, it is irrelevant whether a sociopath is a good thing or an evil thing. It is a thing the existence of which is not accounted for by [del]your[/del] “religion’s” assertion that _“God imprinted His morality on the soul of human beings”_. This kind of conversation works best if you match up the answers you get to the questions that you ask. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/324 "2013-11-08T20:40:30Z")
> [@cornopean](#): > > 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 [not] result in salt and pepper.\*\* Then you have to believe the truth that people have minds with which to understand what you are claiming. > > assertion corrected (for coherency, and presumably to match the poster’s intent) by me **–kd99** No you don’t. You just have to be prepared to investigate matters every time you _DO_ get salt and pepper out of that reaction. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/325 "2013-11-08T21:11:02Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > Life proves there is a creator. For life to come from non-life is impossible. > > Scientist use the think that cells were formed when amino acids in some pond assembled themselves into a cell. Now they know better. > When we look at how proteins are constructed, the chances of getting an average viable protein 150 amino acids long by chance is next to impossible. The order of amino acids has to be correct so the chain can be rolled up into a 3 dimensional protein. If the amino acids are out of order then connections can not be made during roll up and the amino chain will be is destroyed. > > But if by chance we got very lucky, you only have one protein. The simplest cell needs over 600 proteins. And the cell needs to be able to replicate itself before we can even talk about evolution. > > The cell creates all the proteins it needs from instructions buried in the DNA. To manufacture these proteins the cell uses molecular machines which are themselves made from proteins (chicken and egg problem). There are molecular machines that unrival the DNA at certain points so other molecular machine can read it producing RNA. Then another molecular machine transports the RNA to the outside of the nucleus to another molecular machine that generates the amino acid chain from the RNA. Then another molecular machine transports it to a molecular machine that rolls it up into a 3 dimensional protein and then another molecular machine transports the protein to where it is needed. > > The problem should become clear. Where did these molecular machines come from when the chances of amino acids assembling themselves into proteins are almost non existent. And how do these machines know how to work together to keep the cell alive. Without DNA the cell can not manufacture proteins and without proteins the DNA is useless. > > Where did the DNA come from? The DNA is an extremely large digital program that is compacted into the nucleus of a cell. This does not even come close to what man has accomplished so far. If you found a large digital program on earth that was so miniaturized as this, wouldn’t you think we are not alone? > > What’s the Minimum DNA Amount for Life? > A team of researchers wanted to know. They did this by tinkering with a bacterium called Mycoplasma genitalium, which is the simplest known organism. Its genetic code is about 580,000 letters long and spells out 480 protein producing genes plus 37 kinds of RNA. After the researchers knocked out various protein coding genes they got the estimated genes down to 265 to 350 that are essential for life under laboratory conditions - an extremely favorable environment that would not be found on the early earth. > > What is the size of a gene? 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? > What are the chances of getting these genes in a structure along with the various molecular machines to get at the genes? > > DNA is an extremely information rich system that can not be explained by chance. > > The living cell is irreducibly complex on every level. All the parts have to be in place to have a replicating cell. It can not be build little by little until Mount Improbable is reached. > > SETI is looking for intelligent life in the universe by searching for signals that are polarized or with coded information. By this criterion they infer intelligence. Complexity and high improbability. > We can infer an intelligent designer of life by the extreme complexity and impossibility. > There is no doubt God exists. Welp, that settles _that_. [Now, he’s](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=16829335#post16829335) [said it](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=16829335#post16829651) [three times.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=16829335#post16829670) Saying something three times must _prove_ it’s true. :rolleyes: Put away the test tubes and alembics, guys. That was some pretty nice sciencin’ you had goin’ on there, but when you’re licked, you’re licked… ---
**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, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/326 "2013-11-08T21:32:30Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Welp, that settles _that_. [Now, he’s](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=16829335#post16829335) [said it](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=16829335#post16829651) [three times.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=16829335#post16829670) Saying something three times must _prove_ it’s true. :rolleyes: I was hoping for Beetlejuice. ---
**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, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/327 "2013-11-08T22:05:13Z")
To sum up, here are the questions that seem to have arisen in this discussion: 1. Is scientific knowledge the only kind of knowledge that is possible to us? 2. Can science tell why it is wrong to cause people pain? 3. Is there such a thing as “first principles”? 4. Assuming there are, does science prove them to be true? 5. Can science tell us why this world exists? I am sure there are more. I thank everyone for the good discussion. I certainly learned alot from it. ---
**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, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/328 "2013-11-08T22:17:53Z")
> [@cornopean](#): > > To sum up, here are the questions that seem to have arisen in this discussion: > > 1. Is scientific knowledge the only kind of knowledge that is possible to us? > 2. Can science tell why it is wrong to cause people pain? > 3. Is there such a thing as “first principles”? > 4. Assuming there are, does science prove them to be true? > 5. Can science tell us why this world exists? > > I am sure there are more. I thank everyone for the good discussion. I certainly learned alot from it. And here is the question you refused to answer: Exactly _what_ god are you referring to in the OP? Is your god omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent? ---
**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, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/329 "2013-11-08T22:22:54Z")
> [@cornopean](#): > > To sum up, here are the questions that seem to have arisen in this discussion: > > 1. Is scientific knowledge the only kind of knowledge that is possible to us? > 2. Can science tell why it is wrong to cause people pain? > 3. Is there such a thing as “first principles”? > 4. Assuming there are, does science prove them to be true? > 5. Can science tell us why this world exists? > > I am sure there are more. I thank everyone for the good discussion. I certainly learned alot from it. Here’s another one. “If you dispute these, why won’t you explain why?” You quite intently avoided answering. If you think there are ways other than observation and empiricism to gain knowledge, what ways are that? ---
**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, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/330 "2013-11-08T22:23:19Z")
> [@cornopean](#): > > To sum up, here are the questions that seem to have arisen in this discussion: > > 1. Is scientific knowledge the only kind of knowledge that is possible to us? > 2. Can science tell why it is wrong to cause people pain? > 3. Is there such a thing as “first principles”? > 4. Assuming there are, does science prove them to be true? > 5. Can science tell us why this world exists? > > I am sure there are more. I thank everyone for the good discussion. I certainly learned alot from it. If those are the questions you came away with - you didn’t learn much. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/331 "2013-11-08T22:25:40Z")
1. Why is “God” the only conceivable answer for any particular event, process or entity whose origin a person doesn’t understand? ---
**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, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/332 "2013-11-08T22:30:04Z")
6a. And which claimed God is the one that’s necessary to explain any Gaps? ---
**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, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/333 "2013-11-08T22:34:58Z")
> [@cornopean](#): > > . . . 1. Is scientific knowledge the only kind of knowledge that is possible to us? > 2. Can science tell why it is wrong to cause people pain? > 3. Is there such a thing as “first principles”? > 4. Assuming there are, does science prove them to be true? > 5. Can science tell us why this world exists? . . . There are other kinds of knowledge: personal kinds, relevant only to individuals. I know my family loves me. Science simply wouldn’t be interested. Science (sociology) can investigate the social consequences of various moral codes. Science can’t tell you anything about “wrong” because that’s not a well-defined term. There are philosophical first principles, such as “reality exists” and “other people have minds” and “knowledge is possible.” Science generally accepts these for pragmatic reasons. Science can, in a rough way, investigate what would follow if certain first principles were ignored, but, again, this is more a job for philosophy. Science can’t tell you anything about “why.” The question is not rigorously definable. Science is very good at telling us “how.” Science is pretty good at explaining causes and effects. “The hammer fell because of gravity.” That’s about as close to “why” as science gets. ---
**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, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/334 "2013-11-08T22:36:52Z")
1. The next time you pull a stunt like this, do you have any intention on staying on topic and actually responding to questions that directly correspond to your own op? ---
**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, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/335 "2013-11-08T23:09:01Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > And here is the question you refused to answer: Exactly _what_ god are you referring to in the OP? Is your god omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent? Yes all of those. ---
**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, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/336 "2013-11-08T23:10:01Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Here’s another one. “If you dispute these, why won’t you explain why?” You quite intently avoided answering. If you think there are ways other than observation and empiricism to gain knowledge, what ways are that? reason and revelation. ---
**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, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/337 "2013-11-08T23:25:14Z")
It’s been pointed out to you, many times, that reason does not lead to a generic God, let alone a specific one. “Revelation” is meaningless and there are most likely millions of such “revelations” through the ages, all of them contradictory. It is not a source of knowledge, in any sense of the word. Try again. ---
**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 9, 2013, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/338 "2013-11-09T00:15:36Z")
> [@cornopean](#): > > reason Okay. Make any statement based purely on logical deduction beyond “I think, therefore I am”. I will accept that as a premise, and anything else you can somehow find that is not based on empirical observation. How far does pure reason get you? > [@](#): > > revelation. Revelation is not a path to truth any more than psychosis is. ---
**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 9, 2013, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/339 "2013-11-09T00:19:18Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Okay. Make any statement based purely on logical deduction beyond “I think, therefore I am”. I will accept that as a premise, and anything else you can somehow find that is not based on empirical observation. How far does pure reason get you? Pure mathematics? I think you can argue that you can get mathematics from logic alone. ---
**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 9, 2013, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/340 "2013-11-09T00:26:26Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Pure mathematics? I think you can argue that you can get mathematics from logic alone. I’m not sure if this is the case, especially given that mathematics is demonstrably incomplete. I welcome you (or anyone else) to provide the deductive reasoning required. But that would be something. However, that something is purely an abstract logical construct whose link to the real world is more coincidental than anything else. Mathematics does not “exist” in the real world in any meaningful sense. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301.md?page=18)