God and Science don't mix, so don't try.

[Polorky]

I stumbled upon your 'Atheists have proven God does not exist. Right?' page and was mildly amused. I say mildly because it actually kind of annoys me when people misuse physics. I have an actual degree in physics but I have a feeling your article is aimed at people who have no idea about physics because although some of the ideas are correct they are totally irrelevant to the argument at hand.
Firstly I am an atheist but I have nothing against religion, my whole family are Christian. What I object to is the misuse of science to prove Christian ideals. Science cannot prove god doesn't exist, that I will freely admit. But by the same token there is no way that science can prove god does exist. God exists in the supernatural realm and there is therefore no test we can do to prove or disprove god. This is fairly obvious because if there was everybody would be either religious or atheist as god would have be proved or disproved. Christians love to try and use science to prove the existence of god but the truth is that if science could prove god's existence then god would just become another fact of the universe and any faith element in religion would be redundant. Therefore religion would become science fact and would then die out; the point of Christianity is to prove your faith in god, if there is hard evidence that god exists then you no longer need faith and even a dirty atheist like me could accept god exists as it would be a proven fact.
All this means that Christians really don't want to claim god's existence is proven by science because faith becomes redundant. Religion is only separated from science in that it is supernatural, if god is proven it becomes natural and is nothing particularly special. If however he is beyond human science and understanding then only the 'special' chosen can know it because they have the faith required.
In summary, the day god is proven by science is the day I become a Christian (again) however the day god is proven by science is also the day Christianity becomes irrelevant as a religion and becomes just another branch of science. This, I feel, is not really the outcome anybody wants although, thankfully, it is not a situation that will ever occur anyway.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

Welcome, atheist Polorky.

Gerald Schroeder, Ph.D., MIT, would disagree with you, God and science do mix! and very well at that. Here are some of Dr. Schroeder's books you may want to consult:

Genesis and the Big Bang
The Science of God
The Hidden Face of God

FL

[Gman]

In summary, the day god is proven by science is the day I become a Christian (again) however the day god is proven by science is also the day Christianity becomes irrelevant as a religion and becomes just another branch of science. This, I feel, is not really the outcome anybody wants although, thankfully, it is not a situation that will ever occur anyway.

By that same token, the day that Darwinian evolution is proven by science is the day I may become a atheist... Thankfully, it is not a situation that will ever occur anyway...

[Polorky]

In summary, the day god is proven by science is the day I become a Christian (again) however the day god is proven by science is also the day Christianity becomes irrelevant as a religion and becomes just another branch of science. This, I feel, is not really the outcome anybody wants although, thankfully, it is not a situation that will ever occur anyway.

By that same token, the day that Darwinian evolution is proven by science is the day I may become a atheist... Thankfully, it is not a situation that will ever occur anyway...

Darwinian evolution does not disprove the existence of god, there are plenty of Christians who believe in evolution so I don't know why there is so much hostility towards evolutionary theory. Also I think you will find evolution has been proved to a great degree by science. Of course this doesn't mean that it is 100% definitely correct its just the best scientific model we have at the moment given the facts we have gleaned from the earth. If something comes along in the future that disproves evolution, science will adapt much as it did when Einstein proved Newtonian mechanics only worked in certain circumstances. This is the nature of science, if something turns out to be wrong in certain circumstances it is rejected and new areas of inquiry are opened up instead of taking one point of view and then sticking your head in the sand.

[Gman]

Darwinian evolution does not disprove the existence of god, there are plenty of Christians who believe in evolution so I don't know why there is so much hostility towards evolutionary theory.

Right... Is that why you call yourself an atheist? You stated, "the day god is proven by science is the day I become a Christian."

[Kurieuo]

I stumbled upon your 'Atheists have proven God does not exist. Right?' page and was mildly amused. I say mildly because it actually kind of annoys me when people misuse physics.

I'm not sure in what way physics was misused.

I have an actual degree in physics but I have a feeling your article is aimed at people who have no idea about physics because although some of the ideas are correct they are totally irrelevant to the argument at hand.

Firstly I am an atheist but I have nothing against religion, my whole family are Christian.

Well I am a Christian and I have nothing against Atheists except their beliefs I consider to be wrong, and anything bad that arises from holding such beliefs seriously.

What I object to is the misuse of science to prove Christian ideals. Science cannot prove god doesn't exist, that I will freely admit. But by the same token there is no way that science can prove god does exist.

Maybe you should be targeting this towards Rich, the author? He can be contacted through the website.

My own opinion, is that "proof" is a matter a subjectivity. What is proof for some, may be considered irrelevant by others. Hence why a jury is made up of many persons. It is a myth to think there is one ultimate proof for anything. In fact, physical theories in science do not work this way, but work with evolving theories to do with the way the world around us works. As such, science (of the physical variety with which you appear to limit the term "science") can and does in fact witness God's existence for many. Science reveals facts which are seen to be harmonious with God. For many Christians, particularly for the Day-Age variety which is the position advocated by the God and Science website, science is supportive of a certain take on Scripture.

"Science" can, and has, also been used in arguments to disprove God's existence, or at least rule out a particular kind of God/gods.

To really believe science has no impact or vice-versa I think is quite naive.

God exists in the supernatural realm and there is therefore no test we can do to prove or disprove god.

I'd make a correction here to say God does exists in the natural realm, more specifically, the natural realm has its existence inside God.

If one restricts what is "natural" as being that of space, time, energy and the physical laws, etc operating in our universe, then indeed God also exists in a realm classified as supernatural (outside our "natural" order of things). But lets not kid around, even Atheists who ascribe to multi-universe theories then believe in the supernatural where anything is possible, including an infinite set of universes.

All this means that Christians really don't want to claim god's existence is proven by science because faith becomes redundant.

Biblical faith is based on evidence, nor contrary to it. In the Bible, particularly the Gospels, pay attention to whenever Christ calls someone to believe. You will see they are not called to blind belief, but rather to believe based upon evidence and reason. Of course many fideistic Christians would argue otherwise, but I think it clear in Scripture a blind faith is never taught. If God's existence is proven [to subjects] by science, then faith does not become redundant, rather it becomes complete.

Religion is only separated from science in that it is supernatural, if god is proven it becomes natural and is nothing particularly special. If however he is beyond human science and understanding then only the 'special' chosen can know it because they have the faith required.

I would really love to hear your definition of what is "natural". For all intents and purposes, I am happy to work with the common idea of what one usually means by this, however I rarely hear a rational or coherent definition of what "natural" means when used in the context of our world which hasn't been unnecessarily slanted in some way.

In summary, the day god is proven by science is the day I become a Christian (again) however the day god is proven by science is also the day Christianity becomes irrelevant as a religion and becomes just another branch of science. This, I feel, is not really the outcome anybody wants although, thankfully, it is not a situation that will ever occur anyway.

Have you heard of theology and philosophy? Physical sciences are relatively new to the scene. Let's not forgot the belief systems of those early initiators of modern science - the likes of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, and Pascal who were all Christian. As RTB points out, "The Christian worldview provided a basis for modern science both to emerge and to flourish. Christian theism affirmed that an infinite, eternal, and personal God created the world ex nihilo. The creation, reflecting the rational nature of the Creator, was therefore orderly and uniform. Further, humankind was uniquely created in God's image (Gen. 1:26-7), thus capable of reasoning and of discovering the intelligibility of the created order. In effect, the Christian worldview supported the underlying principles that made scientific inquiry possible and desirable." (The Historical Alliance of Christianity and Science)

As a side note, please respect the purpose of this board and the audience it is intended for which you agreed to upon registering.

K

[Anonymiss]

To really believe science has no impact or vice-versa I think is quite naive.

Agree.

[cslewislover]

My own opinion, is that "proof" is a matter a subjectivity. What is proof for some, may be considered irrelevant by others. Hence why a jury is made up of many persons. It is a myth to think there is one ultimate proof for anything. In fact, physical theories in science do not work this way, but work with evolving theories to do with the way the world around us works. As such, science (of the physical variety with which you appear to limit the term "science") can and does in fact witness God's existence for many. Science reveals facts which are seen to be harmonious with God. For many Christians, particularly for the Day-Age variety which is the position advocated by the God and Science website, science is supportive of a certain take on Scripture.

K

This is just what I was thinking as I read through Polorky's post. Thanks for all your thoughtful remarks, and the link to that apologetics site, too. In an apologetics book I have here at home, there is even proof for a recent large-scale "satanic miracle," so it depends on what kind of science and what kind of proof a person will accept. Much of the science in anthropology, for example, is not of the testable variety.

[Anonymiss]

In an apologetics book I have here at home, there is even proof for a recent large-scale "satanic miracle,"

Interesting. Could you in short describe it to me.

[cslewislover]

In an apologetics book I have here at home, there is even proof for a recent large-scale "satanic miracle,"

Interesting. Could you in short describe it to me.

Ok, I guess I'll go ahead and type the whole thing in.

" . . . a famous Hindu miracle happened in our own time. On September 21, 1995, a miracle began in new Delhi and quickly spread around the globe. Apparently a man dreamed that the Lord Ganesha, a Hindu god who is portrayed in the form of an elephant, desired milk. The man went at once to the temple, not even waiting for daybreak, and convinced the priest to allow a spoonful of milk to be offered to the stone statue. As both men watched, the milk was consumed by the statue. It continued to accept offering of milk for the rest of that day. By that time word of the miracle had not only brought New Dehli to a standstill as people dropped whatever they were doing to make milk offerings, but all of India flocked to the temples. Offerings of milk were accepted by statues of other gods as well, not just Ganesha. Also, the statues varied in material, some were stone, and some were copper. Then, twenty-four hours after it began, the miracles in India stopped. During the next several days, the miracle was repeated around the globe in places such as New York, Los Angeles, and Canada" (p 227).

"In this miracle we see the source of the miracle attributed to one or more god in Hindu's pantheon. The purpose of the miracle is unknown, and no good resulted from the miracle (except for those who sold milk)" (p 228).

The author's conclusion about this miracle contains the general way a person can assess whether miracles are from God or not (italicized).

"Because Hinduism teaches that God is ultimately impersonal, miracles can have no purpose and no message can be conveyed through a prophet or any other way. . . . Also, the miracles found in Hinduism do not display a benevolent character. Rather, Hindu miracles are self-aggrandizing, magnifying the doer of the miracle instead of a God who wishes to make Himself known and bring about good. Ultimately, Hindu miracles are meaningless and lack goodness" (p 228).

From Holman QuickSource: Guide to Christian Apologetics, by Doug Powell (2006).

[CliffsofBurton]

Wait. I want to know why you call that a "Satanic miracle." Ganesha (pronounced GAN-eesh) is not in any way, shape, or form, any part of ANY Satanic religion I have ever heard of. Please explain.

[cslewislover]

Wait. I want to know why you call that a "Satanic miracle." Ganesha (pronounced GAN-eesh) is not in any way, shape, or form, any part of ANY Satanic religion I have ever heard of. Please explain.

Satan and his fellow angels are in rebellion against God and his plans. So any miracles - supernatural events like that - that are not of God, would necessarily have to have been performed by Satan or his fellows. Satan wants to deceive people and lead them away from God and Jesus. If power, or miracles, or anything like that is demonstrated in a religion that is not of God, then it comes from somewhere else, and the only option is Satan and his fellow angels.

[CliffsofBurton]

Ok. Thanks. Just wondering.

[Mannix]

Science cannot prove god doesn't exist, that I will freely admit.

Actually, I think it can. By definition, God is the creator. This is, for most religions, where he gets its legitimacy. I mean, if God is not the creator of the Universe or, at least, of the Human, why should we listen to him? Therefore, if you prove that the Univers came into existence without the help of a creator and if you prove similarily that the man evolved without God interference then you have just proven that God doesnt exist.
People who say that science doesn't deal with God are not wiling to upset religious people but deep down, they know that science can disprove God the same way that it disproved theory about the shape of the earth or the origin of diseases.

But by the same token there is no way that science can prove god does exist. God exists in the supernatural realm and there is therefore no test we can do to prove or disprove god. This is fairly obvious because if there was everybody would be either religious or atheist as god would have be proved or disproved.

Of course science can prove that God exist.

For example, if tomorrow we found a way to create ,from very simple molecules, life, we will be able to have a rough idea of the odd for this life to have come about by itself. If the chance are good, then with our knowledge of our planet, we might find that actually, life on earth was a very probable event and therefore, no need for a creator (and so no God). On the other hand, and this is actually what science discovery tend to show, if life is extremely complex and require a complex set of procedure to come about, then the chances that life might have arised on earth are too low to be credible. Therefore, the next step is to see if life might have come from out of space via the meteorites (after all it might exist other planets were the condition for life to arose without external help might exist). If the odds are still against it, then the only explanation will be the existence of an intelligent creator.

Please remember that science is not limited to physics or biology. Archaeology is a science as well and when people come across pyramids they don't necessarily assume that it came about only via natural causes.
We are "soon" going to be able to create robots able to think by themself. Imagine that in 3 centuries, left on their own and without a human being to be able to explain them where they are coming from, they decide that they should restrict their investigation and only look for "natural" explanations to their existence.
Do you think that they will ever find the answers that they are looking for?

[Echoside]

Science cannot prove god doesn't exist, that I will freely admit.

Actually, I think it can. By definition, God is the creator. This is, for most religions, where he gets its legitimacy. I mean, if God is not the creator of the Universe or, at least, of the Human, why should we listen to him? Therefore, if you prove that the Univers came into existence without the help of a creator and if you prove similarily that the man evolved without God interference then you have just proven that God doesnt exist.
People who say that science doesn't deal with God are not wiling to upset religious people but deep down, they know that science can disprove God the same way that it disproved theory about the shape of the earth or the origin of diseases.

But by the same token there is no way that science can prove god does exist. God exists in the supernatural realm and there is therefore no test we can do to prove or disprove god. This is fairly obvious because if there was everybody would be either religious or atheist as god would have be proved or disproved.

Of course science can prove that God exist.

For example, if tomorrow we found a way to create ,from very simple molecules, life, we will be able to have a rough idea of the odd for this life to have come about by itself. If the chance are good, then with our knowledge of our planet, we might find that actually, life on earth was a very probable event and therefore, no need for a creator (and so no God). On the other hand, and this is actually what science discovery tend to show, if life is extremely complex and require a complex set of procedure to come about, then the chances that life might have arised on earth are too low to be credible. Therefore, the next step is to see if life might have come from out of space via the meteorites (after all it might exist other planets were the condition for life to arose without external help might exist). If the odds are still against it, then the only explanation will be the existence of an intelligent creator.

Please remember that science is not limited to physics or biology. Archaeology is a science as well and when people come across pyramids they don't necessarily assume that it came about only via natural causes.
We are "soon" going to be able to create robots able to think by themself. Imagine that in 3 centuries, left on their own and without a human being to be able to explain them where they are coming from, they decide that they should restrict their investigation and only look for "natural" explanations to their existence.
Do you think that they will ever find the answers that they are looking for?

i wasnt aware that "odds" and what is "probable" indicated proof of something. Also, I am not sure how you could "prove" the universe came into existence without a creator when the creator could have easily caused whatever event or occurence science would use as proof.