# 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:** 8
**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, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/141 "2013-11-08T00:58:41Z")
> [@cornopean](#): > > that’s easy. the reliability of our senses. causing pain to other people is wrong. the very idea that we only know what we can observe is not based on science. How do you know your senses are ‘reliable’ ? I wonder if there is some thing we can do to decide that that is true … ‘causing pain to other people is wrong’ - go ask a dentist if that is necessarily ‘true’… beyond that - we learned that thru observation as well - observation of our own ‘reactions’ to stimuli as well as reactions of others. Science is about observation - everything we ‘know’ is based on some form of observation. ---
**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, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/142 "2013-11-08T00:59:42Z")
> [@cornopean](#): > > But would you say that science proves the existence of God? How do you ‘prove’ the existence of something - lets start with something simple - say, a chair. Walk me thru it… ---
**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, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/143 "2013-11-08T01:04:31Z")
> [@simster](#): > > lets start with something simple - say, a chair. > > Walk me thru it… … well, if you insist, but it’s gonna hurt. ---
**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, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/144 "2013-11-08T01:05:40Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > … well, if you insist, but it’s gonna hurt. if only my senses were reliable - maybe we can check that too… ---
**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, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/145 "2013-11-08T01:06:29Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > This is a very common Creationist/ID claim, and is rebutted [here](http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB015.html). To sum up, DNA likely evolved from a simpler predecessor like RNA (and even simpler molecules), which could replicate without proteins. but scientists have never seen DNA come from proteins…so why do they believe it? what kind of science is that? > [@](#): > > Another common Creationist/ID claim. Rebutted [here](http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF003.html). Essentially, information “assembles” itself, without any intelligent guidance, all the time in the natural world. again…I presume this is all observable? > [@](#): > > No we can’t. There’s not a single shred of evidence that points to an intelligent designer to the exclusion of other explanations like evolution, and evolution has a mountain of evidence behind it (and ID has none). Ok…so here we have two theories: First, God assembled the information in DNA. Second, DNA assembled from non-intelligent forces. These are the two options. Can you fault someone for regarding the first theory as more rational than the second? The second just seems absurd to me and alot of other people. Noone has ever seen DNA assemble from non-intelligent forces, so it doesn’t seem scientific to us. It might seem that way to you, but would you at least admit that there is nothing inherently irrational about the first theory? ---
**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, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/146 "2013-11-08T01:07:31Z")
> [@simster](#): > > How do you know your senses are ‘reliable’ ? I wonder if there is some thing we can do to decide that that is true … > > ‘causing pain to other people is wrong’ - go ask a dentist if that is necessarily ‘true’… beyond that - we learned that thru observation as well - observation of our own ‘reactions’ to stimuli as well as reactions of others. > > Science is about observation - everything we ‘know’ is based on some form of observation. do you deny the existence of first principles? ---
**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, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/147 "2013-11-08T01:10:12Z")
> [@simster](#): > > How do you ‘prove’ the existence of something - lets start with something simple - say, a chair. > > Walk me thru it… well for a material object like this, it would be sufficient to just show someone. Make them see what you see. ---
**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, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/148 "2013-11-08T01:10:51Z")
> [@cornopean](#): > > first, very few religionists believe the earth is 6000 yrs old. Many millions do. [Nearly half of Americans](http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx) are creationists who thing that humans were created only a few thousand years ago. > [@cornopean](#): > > second, can science tell us why the life of an ape is less valuable than the life of a human? Because we’re the ones defining “value” in the first place. The ape probably has another opinion on the matter. > [@cornopean](#): > > and as for religion, the reason there must be God is b/c there is now something. if there is something now, then there must be an eternal being capable of bringing something out of nothing. Again, that’s pure nonsense. There’s no reason to consider that to be true, and no reason to think that any eternal something has to be a “god”. > [@cornopean](#): > > all cultures hold that some things are right and other things are wrong. can science help us figure out who is right? Certianly. It can tell us the likely consequences of our actions, which lets us judge whether or not a behavior is desirable. as opposed to religion, which can’t help us at all is figuring out right and wrong; it just makes baseless assertions, and insists people make moral decisions according to things that don’t exist. Science has its limits as far as addressing moral issues goes, but is better than religion which contributed nothing to the problem. > [@cornopean](#): > > It is more rational to believe that matter came from mind. Nonsense. What was that “mind” made out of? ---
**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, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/149 "2013-11-08T01:11:14Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/150 "2013-11-08T01:13:08Z")
> [@cornopean](#): > > but scientists have never seen DNA come from proteins…so why do they believe it? what kind of science is that? Gross concept error. DNA evolved from simpler molecules, which were able to replicate without proteins. > [@](#): > > again…I presume this is all observable? Yes. Complex systems, with lots of “information”, for spontaneously in the natural world _[all the time](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization)_. > [@](#): > > Ok…so here we have two theories: > > First, God assembled the information in DNA. > > Second, DNA assembled from non-intelligent forces. > > These are the two options. Can you fault someone for regarding the first theory as more rational than the second? The second just seems absurd to me and alot of other people. Noone has ever seen DNA assemble from non-intelligent forces, so it doesn’t seem scientific to us. It might seem that way to you, but would you at least admit that there is nothing inherently irrational about the first theory? Your opinions on the absurdity are irrelevant. There is no evidence or even any necessity for involving God. For me to believe God was involved, I’d have to see some evidence of God’s existence. So far, I have not seen any. ---
**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, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/151 "2013-11-08T01:15:06Z")
> [@cornopean](#): > > do you deny the existence of first principles? 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. ---
**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, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/152 "2013-11-08T01:15:44Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Many millions do. [Nearly half of Americans](http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx) are creationists who thing that humans were created only a few thousand years ago. do you know the difference between believing in creation and believing the earth is 6000 yrs old? > [@](#): > > Because we’re the ones defining “value” in the first place. The ape probably has another opinion on the matter. so apes are less valuable than humans b/c we are the ones making the decision? so might makes right? Then were the Nazis right b/c they decided that Jews were less valuable? > [@](#): > > Certainly. It can tell us the likely consequences of our actions, which lets us judge whether or not a behavior is desirable. as opposed to religion, which can’t help us at all is figuring out right and wrong; it just makes baseless assertions, and insists people make moral decisions according to things that don’t exist. Science has its limits as far as addressing moral issues goes, but is better than religion which contributed nothing to the problem. so is the rightness and wrongness of a given action is determined by its consequences? > [@](#): > > Nonsense. What was that “mind” made out of? mind is not made of any kind of matter. mind does not equal brain. ---
**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, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/153 "2013-11-08T01:15:58Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > Some claim evolution is no longer a theory and has been proven true with nothing in the fossil record to back them up. [God of the gaps fallacy.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps) When come back, bring better argument. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/154 "2013-11-08T01:16:22Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > I would think if evolution were true the fossil record would have millions of small changes of millions of species. The fossil record does show this. There are countless examples of gradual change in species. > [@](#): > > They are hard pressed to find one and if they say they found it, it later turns out to be another hoax. This is false. > [@](#): > > The creation account in the bible matches what is found in the cambrian fossil layer. This is also false. > [@](#): > > Evolution is a 19th century science that has seen its day. 21st century science will continue to expose this lie. Wrong again. The evidence for evolution only gets stronger. Molecular evidence, in particular, has been the overwhelming clincher. The DNA nearly perfectly matches the fossil record. Evolution is stronger than ever, and Creationism/ID have nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/155 "2013-11-08T01:16:50Z")
> [@cornopean](#): > > So let’s be clear on what sort of evidence would be needed. What would this world look like if it were created by God? Living about a mile from the Hayward Fault, it would probably not have chunks of land sliding around, creating earthquakes and tsunamis that kill tens of thousands. What kind of crappy design is that? > [@](#): > > but all science is based on faith…right? at the bottom, we have to make certain assumptions about reality or science would be impossible. how do you justify these assumptions or presuppositions with the scientific method? Nope. All these assumptions get checked all the time through experiment and experience. We don’t need faith in gravity when we test this hypothesis every time we drop something or trip. The computer you write on has millions of transistors switching each second, and that you get expected results is a test of all sorts of stuff, including quantum theory. ---
**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, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/156 "2013-11-08T01:17:19Z")
> [@cornopean](#): > > well for a material object like this, it would be sufficient to just show someone. Make them see what you see. can you ‘make’ someone see what you see? but - even outside of that - so - its an object - it has properties - and is observable. Now - do this with your ‘god’. go on - take your time - we’ll wait. ---
**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, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/157 "2013-11-08T01:19:28Z")
> [@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. but if I am correct, you believe that a God is the best explanation of what we see in the world today. The atheists believe that their creation story is the correct one. But all science can do is give us the data that we need to explain. It’s kind of like a mystery. we sit around and examine all the clues and try to figure out who done it. The evidence causes us to believe this or that but…there is no scientific proof. do you agree? ---
**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, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/158 "2013-11-08T01:20:37Z")
> [@simster](#): > > can you ‘make’ someone see what you see? > > but - even outside of that - so - its an object - it has properties - and is observable. > > Now - do this with your ‘god’. > > go on - take your time - we’ll wait. No I can’t show you God. that is what I have been arguing all along. and if observable things are all there is, then we are certainly doomed to agnosticism. ---
**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, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/159 "2013-11-08T01:21:19Z")
> [@cornopean](#): > > but if I am correct, you believe that a God is the best explanation of what we see in the world today. The atheists believe that their creation story is the correct one. This is tautological. EVERYBODY believes their own creation story is the correct one, no matter what they believe. What was the point of this statement? ---
**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, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/160 "2013-11-08T01:21:54Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Living about a mile from the Hayward Fault, it would probably not have chunks of land sliding around, creating earthquakes and tsunamis that kill tens of thousands. What kind of crappy design is that? first of all, poor design is still designed. some people thing Windows 8 is a disaster…but noone argues that therefore it must have assembled from non-intelligent forces. at any rate, believing that DNA was designed is perfectly rational. believing that it assembled itself might be equally rational. but science can’t prove one to be irrational and the other to be rational. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301.md?page=9)