Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Religion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

still_one

(92,187 posts)
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 11:41 AM Nov 2017

Can science prove God doesnt exist? [View all]

Scientists now know that the universe contains at least two trillion galaxies. It’s a mind-scrunchingly big place, very different to the conception of the universe we had when the world’s major religions were founded. So do the astronomical discoveries of the last few centuries have implications for religion?

Over the last few decades, a new way of arguing for atheism has emerged. Philosophers of religion such as Michael Martin and Nicholas Everitt have asked us to consider the kind of universe we would expect the Christian God to have created, and compare it with the universe we actually live in. They argue there is a mismatch. Everitt focuses on how big the universe is, and argues this gives us reason to believe the God of classical Christianity doesn’t exist.

To explain why, we need a little theology. Traditionally, the Christian God is held to be deeply concerned with human beings. Genesis (1:27) states: “God created mankind in his own image.” Psalms (8:1-5) says: “O Lord … What is man that You take thought of him…Yet You have made him a little lower than God, And You crown him with glory and majesty!” And, of course, John (3:16) explains God gave humans his son out of love for us.
These texts show that God is human-oriented: human beings are like God, and he values us highly. Although we’re focusing on Christianity, these claims can be found in other monotheistic religions, too.

Not a human-oriented universe
If God is human-oriented, wouldn’t you expect him to create a universe in which humans feature prominently? You’d expect humans to occupy most of the universe, existing across time. Yet that isn’t the kind of universe we live in. Humans are very small, and space, as Douglas Adams once put it, “is big, really really big."

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/11/can-science-prove-god-doesnt-exist/

My personal view is the size of this "non human-oriented universe", neither proves or disproves anything. In fact the theist might argue that it is the "uniqueness" of the human condition that proves the existence of God.

I would argue that approach also neither proves or disproves the existence of God.




153 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Proving something doesnt exist is quite difficult Roland99 Nov 2017 #1
Then I would pose the question, what were the odds that a human prescence would come into being still_one Nov 2017 #6
You mean whether life sprang from chaos? That's an easy calculation: DetlefK Nov 2017 #16
In fact it's easily larger than zero. docgee Nov 2017 #23
That is what Le Chateilier principle states with a system coming to a state of equilibrim still_one Nov 2017 #34
re DetlefK Nov 2017 #42
It's a small number Lordquinton Nov 2017 #25
100% chance of humans coming into being on this planet. Cuthbert Allgood Nov 2017 #41
Deal out a set of bridge hands. Voltaire2 Nov 2017 #47
The universe is so vast, humans are insignificant. Humans have way over inflated egos IMO. n/t RKP5637 Nov 2017 #2
"So if it is just us...it feels like an awful waste of space." shanny Nov 2017 #32
It's all relative, humans lack the capability to comprehend the universe. n/t RKP5637 Nov 2017 #37
This whole debate bores me vlyons Nov 2017 #3
I don't know, is Buddism a religion or a philosophy, or both? still_one Nov 2017 #9
Buddhism is NOT a religion. It is a practice. vlyons Nov 2017 #46
None of those things are needed for a religion marylandblue Nov 2017 #53
Perhaps you don't know what is meant by spiritual materialism vlyons Nov 2017 #58
I think you don't understand what I mean by religion marylandblue Nov 2017 #60
I get the point you're making. trotsky Nov 2017 #64
"While some forms of Buddhism "... yet another no true Scotsman argument. Voltaire2 Nov 2017 #91
Alas there have been times when Buddhism fell into a degenerate cult vlyons Nov 2017 #94
I'm not entirely clear on how you're defining "religion". Act_of_Reparation Nov 2017 #103
I use my dictionary's 1st definition vlyons Nov 2017 #104
For what it's worth Pope George Ringo II Nov 2017 #105
I think Act of Reparation's definition makes more sense marylandblue Nov 2017 #108
I don't have a problem with the definition part. Pope George Ringo II Nov 2017 #109
Thank-you vlyons Nov 2017 #110
I've read a lot of Buddhist literature particularly Zen marylandblue Nov 2017 #111
I'm mostly in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition vlyons Nov 2017 #112
Thanks, maybe I will read that marylandblue Nov 2017 #152
I prefer a sociological or anthropological definition over ethnocentric colloquialisms. Act_of_Reparation Nov 2017 #107
Here here! Kleveland Nov 2017 #20
There there... MineralMan Nov 2017 #71
It has the trappings of religion marylandblue Nov 2017 #27
We can't prove the non-existence of unicorns either. trotsky Nov 2017 #4
You can't prove a negative. PoindexterOglethorpe Nov 2017 #5
I don't see any evidence of a God(s) that take a personal interest in human beings. Girard442 Nov 2017 #7
Many seem to have to have something to grasp to in life, even if non-existent, for their survival RKP5637 Nov 2017 #39
That's not how science works. DetlefK Nov 2017 #8
It is much easier to prove something observable than non-observable still_one Nov 2017 #12
Well, Goedel tried his hand at a philosophical proof of God. DetlefK Nov 2017 #17
Interesting. I am going to have to look Goedel up, thanks still_one Nov 2017 #26
Here is Goedel's proof, essentially as he presented it. Jim__ Nov 2017 #62
+++++++++++++++ this will take me some time to get through still_one Nov 2017 #65
It's a version of the ontological argument marylandblue Nov 2017 #66
I agree that it takes some time to get through. Jim__ Nov 2017 #92
I wouldn't know the answer to that, but FM123 Nov 2017 #10
I like that still_one Nov 2017 #13
Exactly. Mariana Nov 2017 #75
That quote predates Sagan and he did not approve it marylandblue Nov 2017 #82
To those that "be-lie-ve", no explanation will shake them... Moostache Nov 2017 #11
Now you are talking faith, which I guess is what the belief in a god is all about anyway still_one Nov 2017 #14
I make a distinction between belief and faith.... Kleveland Nov 2017 #22
I would call that spirituality rather than faith marylandblue Nov 2017 #83
Perhaps a god exists only in one's mind Angry Dragon Nov 2017 #15
Can you prove that God exists in your mind? DetlefK Nov 2017 #18
That is like saying that you love someone Angry Dragon Nov 2017 #21
The universe is impersonal WhiteTara Nov 2017 #19
I can't disprove there is a stealth slimy green ghoul under my desk about chomp my nads. docgee Nov 2017 #24
Turtles all the way down still_one Nov 2017 #36
Its jock itch. See a doctor. Voltaire2 Nov 2017 #50
There are a few things that need to happen first Lordquinton Nov 2017 #28
Thus I formulated an image based upon observations Lordquinton Nov 2017 #29
That's exactly right. trotsky Nov 2017 #31
Excellent. I would have come to the same exact conclusion. docgee Nov 2017 #43
LOL! MineralMan Nov 2017 #72
Of course not. Proving a negative, unicorns, probabilities-- we've been through all of this, but... TreasonousBastard Nov 2017 #30
Before we try to prove or disprove God, does anyone know WHAT God actually is? Doodley Nov 2017 #33
Good point. People's concept of God may mean different things. One person may view God as an actua still_one Nov 2017 #35
There is no god until there is one. Iggo Nov 2017 #38
We can prove the events in Genesis did not happen marylandblue Nov 2017 #40
An interesting article. guillaumeb Nov 2017 #44
... trotsky Nov 2017 #45
I would argue based on my beliefs. guillaumeb Nov 2017 #52
So no facts, then. trotsky Nov 2017 #54
Do you understand the difference bewteen faith and science? guillaumeb Nov 2017 #55
Yes, I understand why people like you want to make sure they wall off their religious claims... trotsky Nov 2017 #56
A giant leap on your part. guillaumeb Nov 2017 #67
What leap? Lordquinton Nov 2017 #73
Then why haven't you defined your god yet? trotsky Nov 2017 #106
I have already stated what I feel the Creator is. guillaumeb Nov 2017 #116
But none of that is a definition. trotsky Nov 2017 #117
It is a definition. guillaumeb Nov 2017 #119
No, it's just not a definition that provides any sort of info pertaining to what your creator is. trotsky Nov 2017 #121
guillameb seems to think all definitions are personal and arbitrary marylandblue Nov 2017 #124
"then we can't have a decent debate" trotsky Nov 2017 #125
You are probably right, but it sure seems he could offer a better defense marylandblue Nov 2017 #126
There is a difference between a description of an object and a thinking entity. guillaumeb Nov 2017 #128
Thinking entities can't be observed or analyzed? Act_of_Reparation Nov 2017 #143
Human beings are thinking entities. trotsky Nov 2017 #145
I believe that distinction is breaking down. marylandblue Nov 2017 #81
So you reject evolution. Voltaire2 Nov 2017 #49
Feel free to explain how you added 2+2 to equal 534. guillaumeb Nov 2017 #51
"the Creator may well have created numerous sentient species" Voltaire2 Nov 2017 #57
Busted. n/t trotsky Nov 2017 #63
No, it does not, unless you reserve to yourself guillaumeb Nov 2017 #68
What spark? Voltaire2 Nov 2017 #76
Interesting reframing, or misreading, on your part. guillaumeb Nov 2017 #84
You noted the misquote, but did not answer "what spark?" marylandblue Nov 2017 #85
I am still waiting for your answers to my earlier questions. guillaumeb Nov 2017 #86
What questions of yours are you waiting for me to answer? marylandblue Nov 2017 #87
You keep adding to your list of claimed offenses, guillaumeb Nov 2017 #96
I think you have me confused with someone else marylandblue Nov 2017 #98
Nope, you don't get to demand that anymore Lordquinton Nov 2017 #88
Sorry, due to your reframing, guillaumeb Nov 2017 #95
Lolololololololololo Lordquinton Nov 2017 #97
fine you are still replacing (speculatively for other planets) evolution with a deity. Voltaire2 Nov 2017 #90
No, I am NOT replacing evolution. guillaumeb Nov 2017 #93
Why does the Big Bang need God to cause it? marylandblue Nov 2017 #99
I have stated that I believe that the Creator initiated the Big Bang. guillaumeb Nov 2017 #114
So when you said this: Voltaire2 Nov 2017 #100
#2. guillaumeb Nov 2017 #115
But your first statement IS a denial of evolution. trotsky Nov 2017 #118
So my belief is that the Creator initiated the spark, or ignited the Big Bang, and allowed..... etc. guillaumeb Nov 2017 #120
So you are retracting the other claim? trotsky Nov 2017 #122
Nice try. Or not. guillaumeb Nov 2017 #129
So yes, you are. trotsky Nov 2017 #146
See #129 guillaumeb Nov 2017 #148
What does the big bang have to do with evolution? Lordquinton Nov 2017 #123
So I cannot reconcile that statement with your first statement. Voltaire2 Nov 2017 #130
Reread what I wrote. guillaumeb Nov 2017 #131
So is that "no" your god did not intend the universe to be as it is? Voltaire2 Nov 2017 #133
Are you abandoning your earlier line of questioning? guillaumeb Nov 2017 #134
I am trying to understand what you meant. Voltaire2 Nov 2017 #135
Again, youseem to have misread what I wrote. guillaumeb Nov 2017 #137
what you wrote: Voltaire2 Nov 2017 #138
Read this: "may well have created" guillaumeb Nov 2017 #139
this is what I meant by "run away". Voltaire2 Nov 2017 #140
On your part? guillaumeb Nov 2017 #144
Oh I understand what you meant. guillaumeb Nov 2017 #149
So put it together and does it go something like one of these three? marylandblue Nov 2017 #142
Please note I pointed out you have defined other's beliefs Lordquinton Nov 2017 #147
It should be noted, I didn't retract that claim. trotsky Nov 2017 #150
You seem confused. eom guillaumeb Nov 2017 #151
Whatever you need to believe, g-man. n/t trotsky Nov 2017 #153
Boy that's clever. Act_of_Reparation Nov 2017 #59
The Bible is an attempt to define the Creator, and to define the relationship guillaumeb Nov 2017 #69
BTW Genesis doesn't give us a recipe for fettuccine alfredo either. trotsky Nov 2017 #61
previously you dismissed these as bronze age myths eom marylandblue Nov 2017 #70
I an not a literalist, but that is not what I am saying. eom guillaumeb Nov 2017 #74
The text has any meaning you want it to have, therefore it is irrelevant. marylandblue Nov 2017 #79
The improbability of gods argument goes back Voltaire2 Nov 2017 #48
You can't prove a negative the OP is bogus wasupaloopa Nov 2017 #77
Maybe God exists but human religion falls short HopeAgain Nov 2017 #78
This may be so marylandblue Nov 2017 #89
It can't prove A god somewhere doesn't exist. EvilAL Nov 2017 #80
No, nor can science prove that 'god' does exist. elleng Nov 2017 #101
Of course Eris exists OhZone Nov 2017 #102
No, BUT science will eventually prove that a god is not necessary for the universe to exist, and no AtheistCrusader Nov 2017 #113
Not Science, Logic: The notion of omnipotence is self-contradictory. malchickiwick Nov 2017 #127
why is a god required to be omnipotent? Voltaire2 Nov 2017 #132
Excellent point. And there is ample evidence that any creator of this universe is incompetent. malchickiwick Nov 2017 #136
I agree with that. But as far as proof of "no god" - that remains difficult. Voltaire2 Nov 2017 #141
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Can science prove God doe...»Reply #0