# Scientific proof that theism is false **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 14, 2004, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-proof-that-theism-is-false/250242 "2004-06-14T04:28:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Shaolinrabbit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Shaolinrabbit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shaolinrabbit)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-proof-that-theism-is-false/250242/21 "2004-06-14T05:27:04Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > Well, that’s true of some people’s God, but it’s certainly not true of others’. Roughly half the people on this planet worship a God that’s very different from the one you just described. Hence the importance of definitions in these things. Ok, I was taking this to be a single god thread, my mistake. However, in the case of a single god, that god’s properties would not differ from one religeon to another in the way and means by which he would exist. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-proof-that-theism-is-false/250242/22 "2004-06-14T05:27:07Z")
> [@Zagadka](#): > > No skin off my teeth. Frankly, I couldn’t care less if you believed in god, leprechauns, aliens, me, or anything else. Neither did I set out to convince anybody otherwise. In fact, the last thread I created assumed that god did NOT exist and dealt with the impact of religion itself. If you don’t care about atheists’ lack of belief, why the burning need to hijack a thread that was simply asking atheists and theists alike what arguments from those they disagree with they nonetheless find most nearly convincing? ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-proof-that-theism-is-false/250242/23 "2004-06-14T05:27:12Z")
> [@BlackKnight](#): > > Ok, I’m trying to understand here - are you saying that **Marley23** is wrong because there’s no possible scientific evidence against the existence of god, due to “god” being ill-defined? :dubious: No, I’m waiting for his proof. I don’t know what he meant any more than you do. > [@](#): > > When people ask you how God affects your life, do you reply, “He doesn’t. His only property is that he’s non-physical”? First of all - not God, god. God is a force, not a person. Though some people may have tried to be clever and named their dog God, I can’t be sure. Second of all - of course not. God helps me feel spiritual peace, happiness, sadness, and bliss. It doesn’t protecet me when I drive my car or help me win the lottery. It focuses my energy and my emotion into myself. ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-proof-that-theism-is-false/250242/24 "2004-06-14T05:28:28Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > If you don’t care about atheists’ lack of belief, why the burning need to hijack a thread that was simply asking atheists and theists alike what arguments from those they disagree with they nonetheless find most nearly convincing? I don’t recall hijacking diddly squat. I merely said that the arguments I had heard were that there was no proof for god, to which **Marley** replied that that was because I wasn’t willing to hear it, to which I asked to hear it… well, you know the rest. ---
**Author:** ![Shaolinrabbit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Shaolinrabbit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shaolinrabbit)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-proof-that-theism-is-false/250242/25 "2004-06-14T05:30:31Z")
> [@Zagadka](#): > > First of all - not God, god. God is a force, not a person. That’s usually _measureable_. It has degrees of exertion, and usually doesn’t have a plan, per se… I was wrong. You need to define what you’re talking about. ::sigh:: ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-proof-that-theism-is-false/250242/26 "2004-06-14T05:37:06Z")
> [@Shaolinrabbit](#): > > That’s usually _measureable_. It has degrees of exertion, and usually doesn’t have a plan, per se… > > I was wrong. You need to define what you’re talking about. > > ::sigh:: God is a spiritual, metaphysical force, a type of energy. Like, kinetic energy, for emotion. It can’t be explained, or visualized - only felt. Men have tried, and obviously failed, to visualize and personify the forces. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-proof-that-theism-is-false/250242/27 "2004-06-14T05:39:51Z")
And many atheists would merely respond to that by saying that you haven’t convinced them of the existence of this “spiritual metaphysical force”. ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-proof-that-theism-is-false/250242/28 "2004-06-14T05:47:26Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > And many atheists would merely respond to that by saying that you haven’t convinced them of the existence of this “spiritual metaphysical force”. How do you convince someone of something that they can’t see? I can wrote postcards detailing the most marvelous feats of nature, but if you can’t see them, they don’t exist to you. I could be lying through my teeth. You need to be in the right place, at the right time, and have your eyes open. I can’t convince anyone to feel it, and I wouldn’t if I could. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-proof-that-theism-is-false/250242/29 "2004-06-14T05:47:55Z")
> [@Shaolinrabbit](#): > > Ok, first, let’s stop jerking his chain, shall we gentlemen? God when used in the singular almost universally refers to an omnicient, omnipresent, all powerful creator and tacit controller of the universe. Scientifically speaking, this is still a worthless definition as it only describes hypothetical _abilities_ and does not offer and tangible description or definition for what God _is_.It’s differentiated from leprecuans and unicorns, horrible examples from the great debates crowd BTW, in that God is not considered a physical animal or being that we can directly interact with, as his nature as creator and controller would make him seperate from and not constrained by the laws of space and time which we are, thereby making him scientifically non-observable and non-falsifiable as is everything else that exists outside of those boundaries, if anything. God in the singular is unique in human history in this regard and cannot be compared to mythological creatures. [/quote] Again, nothing but meaningless psychobabble and misses the point besides. The point we make in bringing up other mythical/supernatural entities is not to make a physical comparison but an _evidentiary_ one. There is no more _evidence_ for your God- however you define it- than there is for the leprechauns, therefore there is no more reason to believe it. And frankly, the endless qualifiers about “non-observabilty,” “non-falsifiability” and Non-physicality are just valueless tautologies, not properties. Frankly saying something an entity is “non-physical” is semantically the same as saying it doesn’t exist. > [@](#): > > Evidence that the universe may exist without god or creator or origin of some basis remains in question. You have this statement backwards. There is no evidence that the universe requires a God. That is the default presumption. Saying the evidence is “in question” is silly. In point of fact, the default presumption (that no God is required) is, so far, _not_ in question. > [@](#): > > The burden of evidence is on the atheist according to some, and on the believer according to others. No, it’s on the believer, period. The assertion that “X exists” places no burden on anyone except the person making the assertion. > [@](#): > > If one takes Hawkings new tack that the universe has always and will always exist, IIRC, then the burden is with the believer. On Hawkings old tack, it would be with the athiest, once again IIRC. Nothing Hawking has ever written presumes any necessity for a deity or places any burden on atheists. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-proof-that-theism-is-false/250242/30 "2004-06-14T05:53:30Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > And many atheists would merely respond to that by saying that you haven’t convinced them of the existence of this “spiritual metaphysical force”. I would also add that the phrase “spiritual, metaphysical force” is still scientifically meaningless and contains no information. ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-proof-that-theism-is-false/250242/31 "2004-06-14T05:56:23Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I would also add that the phrase “spiritual, metaphysical force” is still scientifically meaningless and contains no information. The phrase “craberry juice tastes good” is also (next to) scientifically meaningless, and contains the information that it is cranberry juice. Doesn’t me that I can’t enjoy it. ---
**Author:** ![BlackKnight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eb8c5e/32.png) [@BlackKnight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlackKnight)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-proof-that-theism-is-false/250242/32 "2004-06-14T05:57:14Z")
> [@Zagadka](#): > > God helps me feel spiritual peace, happiness, sadness, and bliss. It doesn’t protecet me when I drive my car or help me win the lottery. It focuses my energy and my emotion into myself. Now we’re getting somewhere. We now have another property of god: it has an affect on you. In particular, an emotional one. We’ve also been informed that god is not a person. It’s not exactly a definition, but at least it’s a little more fleshed-out. Would you accept as god anything that met these properties? If there were two things that were both non-physical and both affected you emotionally, would they both be god in your eyes? Or is there some other property by which you can distinquish god from not-god? If god is non-physical, how can it affect physical things? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-proof-that-theism-is-false/250242/33 "2004-06-14T06:00:05Z")
I think you are misreading that other thread, Zagadka. They are saying that there is no proof or even evidence of god. What you are asking for is for them to try and prove a negative…impossible. Its like the ‘if god is all powerful, can he create a rock so big even he can’t lift it’ bullshit. Here’s what was said: > [@Mr. Blue Sky](#): > > As an atheist, I have never heard a good arguement in favor of theism. > > But that’s just me. Basically he’s saying he’s never heard a good arguement in FAVOR of theism (or to extrapolate I suppose you could say ‘god’). I.e. there is absolutely no scientific proof or evidence at all that god exists. There is no theory that requires a god at all in fact. This doesn’t PROVE that god does NOT exist…it merely states that there is no proof or evidence that he/she/it DOES. Get it? > [@Zagadka](#): > > Ditto, I’ve never heard of a good one against theism. Usually ,“there’s no proof” or “you’re mentally ill.” > [@Marley32](#): > > Yeah, ‘there’s no proof’ is a pretty weak argument. This is an interesting topic, but I’m not sure how the answers will turn out. And by way of proof, I’m agreeing with Mr. Blue Sky. Marley32 is agreeing with Mr. Blue Sky…i.e. that there is no evidence/proof that there IS a god. Ok, he could have frased it better, but thats all he’s saying here. > [@Mr. Blue Sky](#): > > As for the “proof” thing, I’m afraid it’s almost impossible to get around this. > > Theist: “There is a God.” > MBS: “Proove it.” > Theist: “Just look around, There’s proof of God’s existance everywhere you look.” > MBS: “That’s rather vague.” > Theist: “You just have to believe.” > MBS: “Well, I don’t. You’ll have to convince me.” > Theist: “How can I do that?” > MBS: “Give me some solid evidence.” > Theist: “Just look around, There’s proof of God’s existance everywhere you look.” > [@Marley32](#): > > So… you don’t accept proof at all. Obviously all arguments are unconvincing if that’s the case. I can see your confusion…this isn’t exactly a modle of clarity here. But again, going back to his earlier statements its pretty clear that Marley32 ISN’T saying there is proof that god does not exist…merely saying there is no proof that he/she/it do. Hopefully Marley32 will put in an appearence to clarify him/herself. To answer your OP (which has actually already been answered), there simply is no way to prove a negative. If you never read it, read Carl Sagons Demon Haunted World, where he talks about the Invisible Pink Unicorns and you’ll understand several of the previous posters examples and why they made them. So, there is no scientific proof that god does not exist. However, there is absolutely zero proof or evidence from a scientific perspective that he/she/it DOES exist, no reason that he/she/it has to exist…so we can draw some tenitive conclusions from that (IMO). My conclusion is that either god does not exist at all (highest probability to me), or that he/she/it exists but has no noticable, measurable or detectable effect on the observed Universe…and therefore is irrelevant, or he/she/it does have a measureable effect but our science simply hasn’t progressed enough to get even a hint of it (least probable IMO). YRMV. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-proof-that-theism-is-false/250242/34 "2004-06-14T06:04:38Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I think you are misreading that other thread, Zagadka. Fair enough. **Marley** still said that I “don’t accept proof at all” - **MEB** suggested we make another thread. As a refute of me “not accepting proof at all,” here I am, accepting proof. All we’ve established is that we’re all talking about different things, and that one person’s experience is never the same as another person’s. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-proof-that-theism-is-false/250242/35 "2004-06-14T06:05:36Z")
How can we even begin to talk about “scientific proof” that God doesn’t exist when pointing out the difference between _proof_ and _evidence_ is referred to as “nitpicking”? Science is extraordinarily nitpicky by its nature. Proof is usually a math concept or at least a logical process. Further, definitions of _God_ don’t quite jell either. Are we talking about The Great Cosmic Glue or The Oblong Blur or The Singularity or Satan’s nemisis who smites people? The first three would be impossible to disprove or prove and the fourth one is not worth the time. I once had within my brain the right _word_ that would forever put the debate to rest. It would reveal to all a full understanding of and peace with the Concept of The Great Blurry Cosmic Glue Singularity of the Light. But then my husband sighed in his sleep and tugged at the covers and the word escaped forever. ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-proof-that-theism-is-false/250242/36 "2004-06-14T06:05:42Z")
Thank you for your explanation though, **xtisme** ---
**Author:** ![Call\_me\_Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/90ced4/32.png) [@Call\_me\_Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Call_me_Frank)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-proof-that-theism-is-false/250242/37 "2004-06-14T06:25:46Z")
[QUOTE=Shaolinrabbit] If one takes Hawkings new tack that the universe has always and will always exist, IIRC, then the burden is with the believer. QUOTE] Sorry for the hijack, but could you shoot me a cite for that? It sounds interesting and I’d like to read more… ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-proof-that-theism-is-false/250242/38 "2004-06-14T07:00:20Z")
> [@Zagadka](#): > > Any proof at all, keeping in mind that lack of proof is not proof for the negative. Wrong. Lack of evidence is perfectly enough to assume nonexistence. Until you get that, there are no good answers for you. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 10:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-proof-that-theism-is-false/250242/39 "2004-06-14T10:09:25Z")
> [@](#): > > What you are asking for is for them to try and prove a negative…impossible. This is a myth. I can prove beyond reasonable doubt that there is _not_ an enormous silverback gorilla in the room with me right now. I think the phrase “you can’t prove a negative” should be replaced by “you can’t provide physical evidence **for or against** non-physical entities”. All this talk of “evidence” solely concerns [epistemic modalities](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_logic), _ie._ physical demonstrations of existence. By saying that “no physical evidence exists for God’s existence”, one is simply reiterating the near-tautology that God is **not physical**. Exploring the existence of _metaphysical entities_ falls within the purview of [ontology](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology). One _can_, as I do, contend that everything [supervenes on the physical](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/) and refuse any [ontological commitment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_commitment), but this cannot by any means be considered a ‘default’ belief system given the number of bullets one must bite and logical hoops one must jump through in order to present a convincing explanation of traditionally metaphysical entities (_eg._ truth, mathematics, creativity _etc_) in solely **physical** terms. All an atheist can do is provide a **feasible explanation** for the universe and everything in it, including human thought. This does not _disprove_ or provide evidence _against_ God - it merely makes him **unnecessary** according to the principle of Ockham’s Razor: _In explaining a thing, no more assumptions should be made than are necessary_. (Similarly, one might adopt a pan-theistic position that _everything is God_ and that the physical is an Ockhamly unnecessary ‘illusion’.) ---
**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:** [June 14, 2004, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-proof-that-theism-is-false/250242/40 "2004-06-14T10:50:16Z")
> [@Zagadka](#): > > [quote=John Mace > I assume you mean lack of evidence, not “lack of proof”. Can you tell us how you prove that something doesn’t exist? Start with leprechauns, and tell us how you’d go about proving they don’t exist.[/quote] > Nitpick nitpick nitpick. > > Please don’t reply unless you actually have something interesting to say. **John** ’s comment is more than a nitpick; your basic premise is fundamentally flawed; nobody can prove the _non-existence_ of a supernatural force, but the lack of proof of its existence does not automatically mean it _must_ exist. ‘There exists a supernatural force’ is the affirmative assertion, for which supporting evidence should be presented; lack of evidence, as you say, means nothing much one way or the other, but “There exists a supernatural force \*because you can’t prove otherwise”, or “If there is no supernatural force, it should be possible to prove it” is just an [Appeal To Ignorance](http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ig.htm) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-proof-that-theism-is-false/250242.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-proof-that-theism-is-false/250242.md?page=3)