Science

[MosesStone1980]

Which scientific theory/theories absolutely refute the existence of God?

[thesometimesaint]

MosesStone1980:

There is none that I know of. Science makes testable theories about the natural world/universe. Religion is about the supernatural.

[Loran Blood]

Which scientific theory/theories absolutely refute the existence of God?

None. Science, properly understood, does not have the intellectual tools, methodology, or perceptual range necessary to such an undertaking.

I also seem to detect an umbilical cord here attached to a circular argument, do I not?

[Arkholt]

Which scientific theory/theories absolutely refute the existence of God?

Science cannot disprove God. Science also cannot prove God. Science cannot say anything definitive about God at all. Inferences can be made about his existence and how he may or may not be necessary for certain things to take place from the evidence available, but a purely scientific position on God would be agnostic.

[AddamS]

None. Science, properly understood, does not have the intellectual tools, methodology, or perceptual range necessary to such an undertaking.

Yet.

[Deborah]

Yet.

Since science only accepts what the 5 senses tell it it's not likely it ever will. Religion is more open minded, accepting the 5 senses as well as senses outside the ones we know about at this time.

[AddamS]

Since science only accepts what the 5 senses tell it it's not likely it ever will. Religion is more open minded, accepting the 5 senses as well as senses outside the ones we know about at this time.

Science recognizes many more than 5 senses. Those are just the ones we learned about in elementary school.

[elguanteloko]

Which scientific theory/theories absolutely refute the existence of God?

No amount of science can disprove anything, MS. "Proofs" are for logic and mathematics, not for science. Science offers evidence, not proof. Evidence is based on other rules like parsimony, usefulness, predictability, falsifiability, etc.

[JAHS]

Those involved in such a conversation about any evidence for or against the existance of god must first define who and what god is or should be. Since there could never be a consensus on any such definition, there could also not be any concensus on what would constitute an acceptable scientific theory to prove or disprove.

[BCSpace]

Those involved in such a conversation about any evidence for or against the existance of god must first define who and what god is or should be. Since there could never be a consensus on any such definition, there could also not be any concensus on what would constitute an acceptable scientific theory to prove or disprove.

Well we could, since this is an LDS board, take it from an LDS perspective. Therefore, we can start with God is a man, a homo sapiens. We should be able to immediately infer all sorts of things from that.

[ERMD]

Such question illustrates an incomplete understanding of science and proofs.

[urroner]

Well we could, since this is an LDS board, take it from an LDS perspective. Therefore, we can start with God is a man, a homo sapiens. We should be able to immediately infer all sorts of things from that.

So, is God strictly limited to a three spatial dimensional universe and can He exist within a universe of greater spatial dimensions?

I was once listening to a physicist talk about string theory and he said that some parts of string theory really isn't really science currently since we have no way of proving it or disproving it. He said that the math is there, but that is all we have right now. He said that it is more of a philosophy than anything else.

[MosesStone1980]

Such question illustrates an incomplete understanding of science and proofs.

I take your laconic rejoinder gratefully. You may have opened the clue to the mystery.

The reason I initially posed the question was based on various conversations I've read, over time, from people I knew who were members of the LDS church in High School, and have now decided on an agnostic/atheist "belief" system.

They constantly, and easily mock religious based on science, belittling it by referring to it as myth/fantasy; their reasoning invariably is that science evidence trumps faith so easily, that only the ignorant of the ignorant remain in their belief.

I was curious, in general, what scientific "proofs/evidences" seem to so easily dismiss religious belief?

Edited June 28, 2011 by MosesStone1980

[MosesStone1980]

I also seem to detect an umbilical cord here attached to a circular argument, do I not?

My question was not originally intended to be a circular argument.

I was looking for points of reference to study up on rebuttals.

My question may be overly general for its own undoing.

[cdowis]

It has always interested me on how a cloned human would affect this discussion. One major "task" for the creator is the birth process, putting a spirit into a body.

If a cloned human being has a spirit....... does anyone see an issue here?

Edited June 28, 2011 by cdowis

[elguanteloko]

I was curious, in general, what scientific "proofs/evidences" seem to so easily dismiss religious belief?

This is a completely different question from asking what proof would disprove God.

Anyways, in that case here's my take on it:

The reason why people dismiss religious belief so easily with science is because religious belief has so many times before been shown to be useless when using it as a guide to understand the physical world and how it operates. Religion just has failed too many times to deliver evidence and has been shown to be wrong too many other times when good evidence is presented against it.

For example: evolution, the age of the earth, global flood, the power of prayer, miracles in general, biblical inerrancy, etc. I realize not all these apply to Mormonism but, still, religion in general has lost too many times and has made too many outrageous claims for people not to ask for more evidence.

I don't agree with dismissing religion so fast and in such a way but you get the point. Secularism has been gaining ground so much these days because of the successes in science and the lack of success of religion in delivering good overall results.

[cdowis]

The reason why people dismiss religious belief so easily with science is because religious belief has so many times before been shown to be useless when using it as a guide to understand the physical world and how it operates. Religion just has failed too many times to deliver evidence and has been shown to be wrong too many other times when good evidence is presented against it.

Good insight.

Another issue is that it is often illogical, doesn't make sense, too many unanswered questions.

When I talk with a "confident" atheist who knows little about Mormonism, he walks away from the discussion with a little less confidence. He tries to zing me with the old arguments, and discovers that I have reasonable answers that make sense. He may not agree with them, but they are internally consistent.

[elguanteloko]

Good insight.

Another issue is that it is often illogical, doesn't make sense, too many unanswered questions.

When I talk with a "confident" atheist who knows little about Mormonism, he walks away from the discussion with a little less confidence. He tries to zing me with the old arguments, and discovers that I have reasonable answers that make sense. He may not agree with them, but they are internally consistent.

I'm curious. What are those "old arguments" from atheists and your answers that are internally consistent?

[Log]

I was curious, in general, what scientific "proofs/evidences" seem to so easily dismiss religious belief?

Oh, that's easy. Darwinian evolution renders the supernatural superfluous; Occam's Razor dispenses with the rest. Didn't you get the memo?

See my signature.

Edited June 28, 2011 by Log

[elguanteloko]

Oh, that's easy. Darwinian evolution renders the supernatural superfluous;

In what way?

Occam's Razor dispenses with the rest. Didn't you get the memo?

Occam's razor is all the more interesting because William of Occam was a priest and had no problem with saying God's existence is accepted on faith, not on reason.

See my signature.

?

[rameumptom]

No amount of science can disprove anything, MS. "Proofs" are for logic and mathematics, not for science. Science offers evidence, not proof. Evidence is based on other rules like parsimony, usefulness, predictability, falsifiability, etc.

Actually Science disproves theories all the time. It is "proving" a theory to be absolutely true in all cases that science cannot do.

[thesometimesaint]

Science is all about facts and theories. Facts don't change, but the theories that explain the facts can/do. IE. Gravity exists, that is a fact. The theory(explanation) of how it exists is subject to change.

See: Newtonian physics vs Einsteins space time vs Quantum Mechanics. All three work, but the explanations do differ.

Edited June 28, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[Nofear]

Science is all about facts and theories. Facts don't change, but the theories that explain the facts can/do. IE. Gravity exists, that is a fact. The theory(explanation) of how it exists is subject to change.

Nitpick: If one uses the more colloquial and accepted definition of fact: "An observation upon which all competent observers can agree," then facts do change. Example, "It is a fact that I am not spinning around the earth at over 500mph." No competent observer would disagree during the reign of Aristotelian physics. After Galileo the fact changed to "It is a fact that I don't feel like I am spinning around the earth at over 500mph." The point being that what we often refer to as facts in colloquial and not-so-colloquial speech would not qualify as facts under your definition (indeed, I dare say most of them would not). But I do not disagree with the sentiment you are expressing (i.e. realism).

[thesometimesaint]

Nofear

A nitpic on your nitpic. The earth is spinning on its axis a little more than 1000 miles per hour. We're just along for the ride.

I agree that mine is a oversimplification. That's the trouble with any message board. We have to explain complex ideas in pretty simple terms or we loose out of sheer boredom.

[Nofear]

Which scientific theory/theories absolutely refute the existence of God?

Einstein came to a poignant realization later in life as exemplified by this exchange with Heisenberg (source):

Heisenberg: "One cannot observe the electron orbits inside the atom. [...] but since it is reasonable to consider only those quantities in a theory that can be measured, it seemed natural to me to introduce them only as entities, as representatives of electron orbits, so to speak."

Einstein: "But you don't seriously believe that only observable quantities should be considered in a physical theory?"

"I thought this was the very idea that your Relativity Theory is based on?" Heisenberg asked in surprise.

"Perhaps I used this kind of reasoning," replied Einstein, "but it is nonsense nevertheless. [...] In reality the opposite is true: only the theory decides what can be observed."

(translated from "Der Teil und das Ganze" by W. Heisenberg)

It is a profound truth to say that only the theory decides what can be observed. Understanding it will significantly impact one's understanding of science.

The atheist argument is not truly that scientific theories "disprove" God but rather the assertion that the scientific theories before us offer an complete and adequate enough explanation of reality that God's role is moot and unnecessary. Unfortunately, such reasoners often fail to recognize the understanding of Einstein's sentiment ("only the theory decides what can be observed").