# Does current science prove the existence of god?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-current-science-prove-the-existence-of-god/359619
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [June 6, 2006, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-current-science-prove-the-existence-of-god/359619 "2006-06-06T15:39:38Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@Bytegeist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bytegeist)
#### Post date: [June 6, 2006, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-current-science-prove-the-existence-of-god/359619/21 "2006-06-06T21:37:43Z")
> [@bonzer](#):
>
> More accurately, the Strong **Anthropic** argument.
When you’re right, you’re right. I wondered why Google wasn’t turning up a good summary page.
(I did know the correct term, once upon a time. Honestly.)
---
### Author:  [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)
#### Post date: [June 6, 2006, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-current-science-prove-the-existence-of-god/359619/22 "2006-06-06T21:44:01Z")
> [@John Mace](#):
>
> How would you distinguish that from a technologically advanced race of physical beings? You couldn’t.
How do you know that God _isn’t_ a member of an advanced race; from another universe, perhaps ?
---
### Author:  [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)
#### Post date: [June 6, 2006, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-current-science-prove-the-existence-of-god/359619/23 "2006-06-06T21:56:57Z")
There’s these wild ideas floating about the field of theoretical physics postulating sufficiently advanced races could create false vacua, manipulate them in such a way as to determine the physical constantants they will give rise to, and then simply allow them to evolve much like our own universe did. Perhaps they could even allow info. to tunnel into these baby universes from the parent universe so as to escape heat death, for instance, or at least procreate into a vacuum that would give rise to intelligent beings, and hence achieve a kind of immortality.
Whether or not this is a load of hooey I don’t know or really care anymore.
What matters, I suppose, is this concept of a powerful creator that, whilst vast in its abilities, is still fully constrained by the laws of its sector, and can only endow others with laws according to its own limitations. It is not omnipotent, only mighty. I think omnipotence may be a concept so profound or absurd as to fall into the catagory of _supernatural_. The alien breeder of universes is not like God, then, if God is understood to be a supernatural Being.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [June 6, 2006, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-current-science-prove-the-existence-of-god/359619/24 "2006-06-06T22:54:53Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#):
>
> How do you know that God _isn’t_ a member of an advanced race; from another universe, perhaps ?
I don’t, but I see no evidence that He is, so I’m comfortable concluding that to the best of my knowledge He doesn’t exist at all. You are, too, if I’m not mistaken.
---
### Author:  [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)
#### Post date: [June 6, 2006, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-current-science-prove-the-existence-of-god/359619/25 "2006-06-06T23:21:41Z")
> [@John Mace](#):
>
> I don’t, but I see no evidence that He is, so I’m comfortable concluding that to the best of my knowledge He doesn’t exist at all. You are, too, if I’m not mistaken.
Oh, definitely. I was speaking theoretically.
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [June 6, 2006, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-current-science-prove-the-existence-of-god/359619/26 "2006-06-06T23:41:15Z")
I think that, if we were able to prove that some god-like being exists, it would cause more problems than it would solve. Every religious group out there would have the last of their doubts removed, and every last one of the little zealots would believe theat it was _their_ god that had been proven to exist. If you think violence in the name of religion is bad _now_…
---
### Author:  [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)
#### Post date: [June 7, 2006, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-current-science-prove-the-existence-of-god/359619/27 "2006-06-07T05:42:44Z")
Studies on the power of prayer have been inconclusive to date, so I don’t think God really interacts with us. As for the existence of God, I don’t really know if there is any way to test that. If God doesn’t interact with us (and the prayer studies show he doesn’t) then I don’t really know how we could test for God’s existence.
---
### Author:  [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)
#### Post date: [June 7, 2006, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-current-science-prove-the-existence-of-god/359619/28 "2006-06-07T13:59:17Z")
The book referenced in the OP is Lee Strobel’s THE CASE FOR A CREATOR, which is a rehashing of the Anthropic Principle & the Design arguments. Definitely not proof, but I still believe deserving of greater consideration than many here would grant.
---
### Author:  [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)
#### Post date: [June 7, 2006, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-current-science-prove-the-existence-of-god/359619/29 "2006-06-07T16:31:35Z")
> [@seoulsoul](#):
>
> The Pastor seemed dedicated and motivated by a desire to help others.
>
> But then, in his sermon he brought up the book[“the Case for a Creator”.](http://www.leestrobel.com/) And he said it was irrefutable evidence for the existence of god. I thought “wow, I should check this out”. I did check it out, and it turned me off to all the previous experiences I had had with this particular church.
Alas, many pastors know little about science, philosophy, or reasoned debate. A lot of pastor jobs require organizational/management/leadership skills _and_ social/relational/helping people skills _and_ intellectual/knowledge/scholarship expertise, and it’s hard to find people who excel at all three.
> [@](#):
>
> Does current science prove the existence of god?
I’m not sure it even matters, since even if science could prove God’s existence, you’re still a long way from all the characteristics and attributes and things that Christianity, or many another religion, teaches about God.
---
### Author:  [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)
#### Post date: [June 7, 2006, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-current-science-prove-the-existence-of-god/359619/30 "2006-06-07T16:33:27Z")
> [@FriarTed](#):
>
> The book referenced in the OP is Lee Strobel’s THE CASE FOR A CREATOR, which is a rehashing of the Anthropic Principle & the Design arguments. Definitely not proof, but I still believe deserving of greater consideration than many here would grant.
Mind giving your rebuttal to the arguments against these that have been given both here and in many other threads? While you’re at it, do you see these arguments supporting the case for the god you believe in, or some god in general?
---
### Author:  [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)
#### Post date: [June 7, 2006, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-current-science-prove-the-existence-of-god/359619/31 "2006-06-07T16:39:34Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#):
>
> How do you know that God _isn’t_ a member of an advanced race; from another universe, perhaps ?
Who created _them_, then? 🙂
---
### Author:  [@vetbridge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vetbridge)
#### Post date: [June 7, 2006, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-current-science-prove-the-existence-of-god/359619/32 "2006-06-07T16:42:41Z")
> [@Loopydude](#):
>
> I think if God simply chose to do something starkly obvious and incredibly outlandish in broad daylight, repeatedly, perhaps even on-demand for impious and nitpicky sceptics the world over, many would throw in the towel and say, yes, as far as I’m concerned, there’s a God
David Copperfield is God?
[http://breakingnews.iol.ie/entertainment/story.asp?j=184794088&p=y84794794](http://breakingnews.iol.ie/entertainment/story.asp?j=184794088&p=y84794794)
---
### Author:  [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)
#### Post date: [June 7, 2006, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-current-science-prove-the-existence-of-god/359619/33 "2006-06-07T17:22:20Z")
Does Mr. Copperfield lack a brain, or is he on some level at least aware of the can of worms he’s opening with that nonsense?
---
### Author:  [@vetbridge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vetbridge)
#### Post date: [June 7, 2006, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-current-science-prove-the-existence-of-god/359619/34 "2006-06-07T17:23:17Z")
> [@Loopydude](#):
>
> Does Mr. Copperfield lack a brain, or is he on some level at least aware of the can of worms he’s opening with that nonsense?
BLASPHEMER!!!
---
### Author:  [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)
#### Post date: [June 7, 2006, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-current-science-prove-the-existence-of-god/359619/35 "2006-06-07T17:45:19Z")
Here’s the [wiki entry](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_for_a_Creator) for _Case for a Creator_. It appears to consist of a bunch of interviews with ID proponents and Discovery Institute stooges. According to the wiki article, Strobel only interviews ID supporters (most of whom are uncredentialed in any relevant scientific field) and does not talk to anyone who is not a creationist. This is typical of Strobel. I have not read this particualr book but I have read some of his other “Case for…” books and his MO is always the same. He interviews “experts” who consist only of evangelical Christians. He seeks no rebuttals. He never interviews anyone who will not support what he already believes. He extropolates fallacious conclusions from contrived “evidence” (e.g. extropolating a specifically Christian God from the anthropic principle).
Strobel is one of the worst popular apologists your ever going to find (it’s a tight race with Josh McDowell). Despite his pretext of Journalistic inquiry, he’s really just a proselytizing blow hard preaching to the choir.
The answer to the OP is if science had proven the existence of God, you would have heard about it already. It wouldn’t be something you would have to find out about from persusing the Christian section of Barnes & Noble.
---
### Author:  [@Bytegeist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bytegeist)
#### Post date: [June 8, 2006, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-current-science-prove-the-existence-of-god/359619/36 "2006-06-08T15:08:40Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#):
>
> The answer to the OP is if science had proven the existence of God, you would have heard about it already.
Seems like they’re [still looking](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3546973.stm) though.
---
### Author:  [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)
#### Post date: [June 8, 2006, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-current-science-prove-the-existence-of-god/359619/37 "2006-06-08T16:38:33Z")
At the end of the book, does God disappear in a poof of logic?
---
### Author:  [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)
#### Post date: [June 8, 2006, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-current-science-prove-the-existence-of-god/359619/38 "2006-06-08T17:28:30Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#):
>
> Who created _them_, then? 🙂
Well, if they have god-level technology, they have time travel; perhaps they travelled back in time and created themselves. 😃
---
### Author:  [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)
#### Post date: [June 8, 2006, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-current-science-prove-the-existence-of-god/359619/39 "2006-06-08T17:33:39Z")
Rather than poorly put together pseudo-scientific rants such as “the case for god”, I would recommend [Just Six Numbers](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465036732/qid=1149787861/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-8767006-7086443?s=books&v=glance&n=283155).
---
### Author:  [@ululate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ululate)
#### Post date: [June 9, 2006, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-current-science-prove-the-existence-of-god/359619/40 "2006-06-09T02:13:11Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#):
>
> According to the wiki article, Strobel only interviews ID supporters (most of whom are uncredentialed in any relevant scientific field) and does not talk to anyone who is not a creationist. This is typical of Strobel. I have not read this particualr book but I have read some of his other “Case for…” books and his MO is always the same. He interviews “experts” who consist only of evangelical Christians. He seeks no rebuttals. He never interviews anyone who will not support what he already believes.
I’ll go you one better by quoting Strobel’s “expert” in The Case For Faith. Strobel presents a point of view he got from a rabbi; the “expert”, who is Christian, responds as follows:
“Kreeft raised an eyebrow. _‘For a rabbi, that’s hard to understand, because the distinctively Jewish notion of God is the opposite of that,’_ he said.”
That’s the first chapter. Second chapter, Strobel talks to another expert; also a Christian, and also weighing in on Judaism. See, it’s one thing to doubt the other miracles that Jesus performed, but coming back from the dead was a different _ **kind** _ of miracle: one it’d be harder to convince his Jewish disciples that he’d performed, and so one which by definition has extra evidence backing it. Because, well, _“Jewish beliefs precluded anyone’s rising from the dead before the general resurrection at the end of the world,”_ and so the fact that they were swayed _“despite their predisposition to the contrary”_ is especially cool.
So what did I learn from the second chapter? That neither Strobel nor his “expert” read the Old Testament, what with that being one of Elisha’s signature miracles and all – which is Strobel’s usual level of competence, like Dio said. But the _ **first** _ chapter? Chronicling that a Jew and a Christian say different things about what the Jews believe, and that he listens to the Christian over the Jew? That’s something special. That’s downright _ **helpful** _. That’s a frickin’ _ **disclaimer** _.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-current-science-prove-the-existence-of-god/359619.md?page=1)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-current-science-prove-the-existence-of-god/359619.md?page=3)