It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Can Modern Science Prove The Existence Of God?

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 05:10 PM

Originally posted by NRA4ever333

I have never met a truly scientific person who did not at least admit to the existence of some form of intelligent designer.

posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 05:18 PM
reply to post by Silvestri_Hiberni

Sorry all, am getting used to this site so messed up a little there.

posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 03:24 PM
reply to post by Silvestri_Hiberni

Did you have a comment? If so, I am not quite sure what you where trying to say.

posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 02:53 PM

Originally posted by NRA4ever333
We can only understand what our brains are capable of understanding. Members of the ape family can use simple tools, but they are incapable of understanding fission. So to, (In our current evolutionary state) we may simply be incapable of understanding or fathoming anything about this intelligent designer. In fact, most will admit that there are a great many things in the universe that we are just incapable of understanding. To assume we are advanced enough to understand everything about the universe (or multiverse) is vain at best, and terribly depressing if true.

I believe you hit the nail on the head there. I also believe that one reason people don't want to believe there is a God is so they can feel a little more justified about themselves.

I think God made everything right so that our natural passons came from Him and it is not fulfilling those passions that makes us wron, but the warping of them..

posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 09:07 PM
There's evidence for spirits but is there evidence for a supreme being? No
How would you prove any entity is supreme. Can't be done.

posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 03:25 AM
No. Science was never meant to be a panacea. And... you can't take a miracle and place it under a microscope.

posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 05:14 PM
reply to post by Sargoth

Why does a being have to be supreme in order to create something? The only argument I am making here is for an intelligent designer, nothing more.

Please read more carefully.

posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 05:48 PM
reply to post by Beneia

Why limit what we can discover with scientific method?

Should the world still be flat? Is a round world too much for you?

The intention of science is to understand all things in the natural universe (at least everything our brains can comprehend). Our new Ideas are always being improved upon, retooled or tossed out entirely. If you are close minded in science, you will be left behind. Most scientists will tell you there is no true way to prove a hypothesis, and no such thing as a scientific fact.

In as little as five years we will make drastic and exciting new universal discoveries. In ten years, most modern theories about the natural universe will be rethought, or rewritten, and in fifty years our present understanding of the universe will be almost entirely obsolete. The rate in which these ground breaking new discoveries are occurring is accelerating with each generation.

Lastly; whoever said creation had to be a miracle? What part of my argument suggested that? It is clear to me that the intelligent designer uses natural processes in its/their work. It may be true that we do not yet understand all of these processes, but that does not make them “miraculous”.

It may even be that this being/beings is the mystical entity of our religions, but it/they still obviously used natural processes in their creation, and even if this being/beings do work miracles, that is not what I am discussing here.

If you had actually read the post you would find that I am stating that many of the natural processes themselves are significant evidence.

The evidence I see for it/them is the existence of mater, the catalyst of the big bang, the seeding of life and the obvious tipping of the scales found in fossil record.

posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 11:39 AM
The definition of God is a Supreme being. Much lower beings can be creators. Don't know how we can prove it.

[edit on 16-7-2009 by Sargoth]

posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 12:24 PM
Thanks for this thread! Despite all of the crazies talking about trans-dimensional hyperspace slugs and the like on here, it's nice to have an actual, intelligent discussion.

A couple of general comments:

Re: science proving the existence of god. The scientific method, as currently formulated, cannot prove anything; it can only provide data which either support a hypothesis or demonstrate that a hypothesis is false. I think you're getting at this anyway from your discussion, but a better title for the tread might have been "Can science actually disprove the existence of god," as so many scientists claim.

Re: the arrogance of scientists. I think you have a very good point here, in that scientists often dismiss discussion of anything like this out of hand, without actually considering it. Unfortunately, this isn't scientific at all.. I think, though, that this is something of a gut reaction, since most of the people bringing up these ideas do not have a damned idea what they are talking about, and are wasting time (unlike you). So, it is unscientific, but also somewhat understandable given our current cultural situation.

Now, to address a couple of your specific points...

In fact, most will admit that there are a great many things in the universe that we are just incapable of understanding. To assume we are advanced enough to understand everything about the universe (or multiverse) is vain at best, and terribly depressing if true.

Well, as a scientist (or maybe "junior" scientist at this point), I think you are spot on. There is simply no way that our brains, which evolved for a specific set of problems, will be able to perceive and know everything there is to know about the universe. Computers and analogy have certainly expanded our ability, but I doubt we have what it takes to understand everything. When you look at the disconnect between quantum physics and relativity, for example, it seems quite clear to me that we have missed something more fundamental.

However, as something of a "futurist" as well, I do believe that, though improvement of ourselves as a species, the development of faster and better computer techniques, etc., that we will, if we survive, at some point in the future, be able to fully understand the universe. I fully acknowledge, though, that this is a personal belief, and not anything I can prove.

[continued next post...]

posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 12:39 PM

The last problem with evolution without intelligent design is complex organs, and systems. We can see this in insects. Insects have the same primitive nervous, and respitory systems for millions of years. Decent with modification usually affects the phenotype of the species through its morphology. Leaving advanced systems and organs unaffected. In Darwin’s own works he expressed this by talking about the eye.

Well, the whole 'irreducible complexity' argument has been pretty well debunked. The issue of the eye has been pretty well threshed out. We have examples of various stages of the eye, and we know that the eye has actually evolved several times in different phyla. For example, the eyes of coleoid cephalopods are largely similar in overall structure to vertebrate eyes, despite having evolved separately. Their nearest relatives, the nautilus, actually has a very different kind of eye, one which works rather like a pinhole camera.

"What good is half a wing?!" the ID proponents scream, and people like me look at them with pity and say "Well, pretty good if you're a flying squirrel." Likewise with half an eye. If you're a jellyfish or clam, simple eyespots that allow you to determine which way is up, and if a predator is overhead, are pretty darn good. When we think about human eyes, too, we have to consider why the human eye tends not to work very well. There are tons of people who need glasses to see well, and the solution to the problem is quite simple. If eyes truly were designed, then why are they so crappy, even though the problem is easy to fix?

Regarding abiogenesis:

But let’s say, for arguments sake, that it works “in theory”. If life was created from a collection of amino acids, which formed complex proteins, which miraculously created the first prokaryote, then why did it only happen once? Amino acids and proteins may have been rare in primeval earth, but with life covering the planet the building blocks of life are everywhere. It should (in theory) happen all the time now, but it only happened once.

Well, a few things here. First, once the first prokaryotes formed and began to exploit their environment, they would have had a profound advantage over other, "pre-prokaryotes," which may well have been quite a yummy stack for the prokaryotes.

Second, I think it is possible that it did happen more than once, but that our prokaryote ancestors had some sort of advantage over other forms, and eventually squished them out of existence. That's pure speculation, of course, but it is still possible that it did happen more than one.

Finally, with regards to the current Earth, we have a rather different environment, in terms of atmospheric composition, etc. So, the Earth as it currently stands simply might not have the right conditions to produce life. I really don't think we know enough about abiogenesis to say this with any certainty, but it is possible. Further, as I said above, if some sort of "pre-prokaryote" did arrive today, it would likely be gobbled up as a yummy protein treat. This last "prediction" is potentially testable, which is interesting...

[continued next post]

posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 12:54 PM
See the thing is, science can offer an intelligent design theory that doesn't include any kind of "God" (which is essentially undefinable, anyway). That is, the intelligence in question doesn't necessarily have to be some spooky sueprnatural entity. It can essentially be any intelligence capable of what is basically "remote viewing" and "telekinesis." And according to some ongoing research, that includes human beings.

Reality is defined by perception (per the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum reality), and remote viewing is remote perception/imagination, not inhibited by time or space. Couple that with telekinesis, which is the mind directly manipulating matter (which we all do all the time, even to type these messages on this board), and you have all the ingredients to create a multi-dimensional, expanding universe, that includes manipulation of matter to create life from a molecular level up. It kind of puts a different spin on Einstein's notion that "imagination is more important than knowledge."

Of course, it might not be humans doing the creating. It could be the combined and overlapping perceptions of all living things in the universe. Or the dreams of a baby. Or maybe some alien baby out in some other galaxy with a brain the size of a planet. Or something else.

The question is, would you accept an intelligent design theory that doesn't require (or imply) the need for an undefinable God?

posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 12:57 PM
Regarding the big bang:

The proportional way in which, the galaxies are spreading out break the second law of thermal dynamics. (See below)

I'm not sure I follow this, as I don't see the spread of galaxies creating entropy. If you're addressing the speed of light issue, I think (although this is not my area of expertise) that our current understanding is that the farthest galaxies appear to be moving faster than the speed of light, as measured by red shift, but are in fact not. Also, if the universe is expanding such that the actual fabric of spacetime is stretching, the speed of light issue may well not apply, as it effects particles, not the structure of space, as such.

While the original mass breaks the first law of thermodynamics. (See below)

It's important to realize, though, that the laws of thermodynamics are formulated based on our current understanding of the universe and its laws. At the big bang, this laws didn't exist as such. In the moments after the big bang, as matter and energy began to condense out of whatever hazy cloud was there, so too were the laws of our universe condensing out of that same cloud. So the existence of energy doesn't necessarily violate the laws as they were at the time of the big bang. There is also something about this, I think, with Planck lengths and vacuum energy, but I'm not knowledgeable enough about that to say anything.

the existence of the universe as we know it and all life depends on the perimeters, and values of the universe. (Protons, expansion rate, total mass.) With even the slightest of deviation, existence becomes impossible.

Well, this is interesting speculation, but I think it actually disproves that there was a designer. If an omniscient, omnipotent being was to create a universe for us, he could have done a lot better, and not been tied to this physical constants at all. It simply could have been a plan that stretched forever, plenty of room for people, etc.

Instead, we live in a universe which is largely hostile to life as we know it. Life can only exist at on a planet, at a distance from a star such that liquid water forms. Most of the universe is completely and totally empty, and even in our own solar system, most of the real estate is simply not habitable by humans. Even then, our little planet is not entirely safe, given the number of comets and asteroids roaming about the solar system, not to mention potential gamma ray bombardment from a near-Earth supernova, etc.

There was recently a study (can't find the link) which argued that, if you look at the parameters of our universe, it is actually perfectly tuned to create black holes. It was argued that, as a black hole is created, a new universe is formed, inheriting to some extent the laws of the previous universe. Thus, you get a sort of 'universe evolution', where universes that can produce more black holes have more offspring, etc. Again, not my specialty, so I'm not sure I've expressed that bit coherently or completely, but that's the gist as I understand it.

Thanks again for this discussion!

[edit on 16-7-2009 by suomichris]

posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 02:09 PM
Hey OP I want to contribute to your thread but I want to do it from a entirely different angle if you will permit me.

You ask
"Can Science Prove The Existence of God".

I think we first need to define what you mean when you say "God".

If you mean the God that is referenced in the Bible then I would have to say I think Science cannot prove the God of the Bible to exist SIMPLY because the God of the Bible is not only Omnipotent but Omniscience as well as having Omnipresence. It means God has absolutely no limit.

We nee to define what a "God" is.

Is the "God" able to know EVERYTHING that could possibly every happen ever and instantly with nothing more than a mere thought change any of these events? Than the Idea of a "God" in that sense becomes so ridiculous as to be completely unfathomable.

If there is absolutely no limit to what you can do that means that you have already done everything that ever Was, Is or Will Be so there exists ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO because it has ALREADY BEEN DONE!

At that point the very need for the God itself to exist would cease to exist.

Kind of F.U.B.A.R. huh?

posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 05:52 PM
As a Response to the Question in the title of this thread:

No, Science can never prove nor disprove the existence of god.

I'll give you an example of why this is so.

Let's say that God himself (Itself, whatever) came down to earth, and Said to all people's of the planet simultaneously:


This, in itself would not actually be PROOF of gods existence. (Scientifically speaking)

IF he then turned off the sun, turned all the seas to blood, and transformed the entire moon into a big cupcake.

This would not prove the existence of god either.

There could be an almost limitless amount of reasons that these occurrences actually transpired.

An extremely advanced alien species, with transformational technology on a massive scale, capable of harnessing the entire power output of a star or galaxy could theoretically produce these same feats of "Magic"

We could all be in one large computer simulation.

You could be hallucinating... something in the water...

There is only one real way to PROVE the existence of god scientifically.

And that is to *BE* god, and Know that you are God.

Everything else is not knowledge of God's existence, but a presumption of gods existence based upon phenomenon that you do not understand.

And if you do not UNDERSTAND these phenomenon, then you don't KNOW what caused them... And Science *MEANS* knowledge.

Without Knowledge, you do not have Science.

Therefore, Science can neither Prove, nor Disprove God's existence... Q.E.D.


[edit on 16-7-2009 by Edrick]

posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 06:19 PM
Yea, I have a degree in physics and I also believe in God, so people like Richard Dawkins can take their mess and shove it. He is too dumb to understand.

posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 11:24 PM
reply to post by TurkeyBurgers

Well if you read the entire post you would know that I made it clear that “God” is indefinable. It can only really be expressed in this way as a designer. Not necessarily omnipotent or omniscient. Only that it is a being capable of creating life.

Secondly; if God does exist as expressed by biblical accounts then you are potentially talking about an infinite being, of infinite potential, with infinite power, which has existed for an innumerable time span. To attempt to explain “God” in any logical expression, you would be placing this being within the confines of the human understanding, which is theoretically impossible, as human understanding is finite and the being discussed in the Bible is infinite.

In other words, no matter how many clever riddles about “God” that I hear, I am still taken back by the vanity and pride of mankind. To imagine that you can understand such a being in any possible way, or the motives behind it’s actions is ludicrous.

posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 11:29 PM
reply to post by Edrick

If you had read the actual content (instead of judging a book by its cover) you would have understood that it was merely an eye catching title.

The post is about the extreme improbability of our universe and the life in it coming from nothing. It does not actually “prove” anything; it only shows that by the current scientific understanding of the universe our existence is so improbable as to be considered impossible without design.

posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 12:20 AM
reply to post by suomichris

Thank you for your reply. I am sorry I was not able to answer sooner, but most weekends I am out of town.

I was happy to hear from someone who gave my post this much thought and consideration.

I too believe that one day we will be able to understand this universe, but no matter how much we understand we will never be able to know how much we do not understand.

As for the complexity of evolution, perhaps I can better explain:
Wings are a great example. Yes I have heard the ½ a wing argument, but this isn’t it. That is an argument for more of a direct creation without evolution argument, my argument states that evolution did occur but it needed direction.

The idea that several different phylum and classes of organisms all separately evolved similar advantages independently through random mutation seems ridiculous to me. Dinosaurs/Birds, Mammals, Reptiles, and several classes of insects all obtaining flight separately and without design seems like an impossible coincidence to me.

Similarly the Idea that we all acquired so many similar senses even though other, senses were available seem farfetched. For example; cephlopoda, mollusca, anthropoda, and deuterostomia all seem to have evolved eyesight at different stages, yet the miraculous outcome was still the same. Like wings, how did so many different classes miraculously receive the same gifts through a random act of nature?

While we do live in a universe of infinite possibilities, and this extreme, and unlikely coincidence could just be. I refuse to accept that based on the extreme improbability.

Next, on Abiogenesis;
I can also admit that if it happened once through chance and random chaos it could have happened again and was simply out competed; how a random string of nucleotides and proteins can form a fully functioning/synthesizing prokaryote is, admittedly beyond my understanding. Even single celled organisms are extremely complex. Without some kind of design It does not seem possible for it to happen. Even if we were to create life from chemicals in a lab, we would almost certainly be forced to guide the proteins into synthesizing a cell. Through randomness it just doesn’t seem very likely, and as the least likely hypothesis given I cannot accept it.

As for the laws of thermodynamics;
I guess I can understand what you are trying to say. Much of the natural laws of our universe exist because of the influence of space-time. Without the universe, space-time would not exist, and thus most of the physical laws. But I see no evidence that laws involving the creation of energy could be affected thusly. I suppose we would have to go back before the quark-gluon formed to witness the effects space-time has on thermodynamics, so this one may be unanswerable for now.


While it is true that this universe is imperfect, I never concluded that the intelligent designer had to be perfect. But even if it were, its views, wants, and plans would almost certainly be to alien and complicated of a concept to understand.

Once again, great reply.

posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 10:08 PM
reply to post by NRA4ever333

Attributing Complexity to design is fallacious if you are unsure how this transpired.

Saying that The Eye's complexity makes it a possible proof of design, without understanding Genetics, Genetic Drift, Chemistry, Mathematics, etc, etc, etc... is unscientific.

IF you don't know how something came into being, then (Scientifically) you say "I don't Know". you would never attribute the creation of something that you are unsure of, to something that you have no proof of.

As that is not science.... it is Faith, and Religion.


top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in