Atlantis Online
October 04, 2022, 05:15:37 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Ice Age blast 'ravaged America'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6676461.stm
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

What Science Can't Prove

Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: What Science Can't Prove  (Read 454 times)
CortexUK
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 422



« on: November 01, 2015, 12:46:57 am »


What Science Can't Prove




If science can't even disprove the existence of unicorns, how can it disprove the existence of God?

I often hear the comment, "Science has proved there is no God." Don't ever be bullied by such a statement. Science is completely incapable of proving such a thing.

I'm not saying that because I don't like science, but rather because I know a little about how science works. Science operates on induction. The inductive method entails searching out things in the world and drawing generalized conclusions about those things based on observation. Scientists can only draw conclusions on what they find, not on what they can't find.

Science, by its very nature, is never capable of proving the non-existence of anything.

For example, can science prove there are no unicorns? Absolutely not. How could science ever prove that unicorns don't exist? All science can do is say that scientists may have been looking for unicorns for a long time and never found any. They might therefore conclude that no one is justified in believing that unicorns exist. They might show how certain facts considered to be evidence for unicorns in the past can be explained adequately by other things. They may invoke Occam's Razor to favor a simpler explanation for the facts than that unicorns exist. But scientists can never prove unicorns themselves don't exist.
Report Spam   Logged

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

CortexUK
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 422



« Reply #1 on: November 01, 2015, 12:47:23 am »

Since science, by its very nature, is never capable of proving the non-existence of anything, one can never accurately claim that science has proven God doesn't exist. That's a misuse of the discipline. Such a claim would require omniscience. The only way one can say a thing does not exist is not by using the inductive method, but by using a deductive method, by showing that there's something about the concept itself that is contradictory.

I can confidently say for sure that no square circles exist. Why? Not because I've searched the entire universe to make sure that there aren't any square circles hiding behind a star somewhere. No, I don't need to search the world to answer that question.

The concept of square circles entails a contradictory notion, and therefore can't be real. A thing cannot be a square and be circular (i.e., not a square) at the same time. A thing cannot be a circle and squared (i.e., not a circle) at the same time. Therefore, square circles cannot exist. The laws of rationality (specifically, the law of non-contradiction) exclude the possibility of their existence.

This means, by the way, that all inductive knowledge is contingent. One cannot know anything inductively with absolute certainty. The inductive method gives us knowledge that is only probably true. Science, therefore, cannot be certain about anything in an absolute sense. It can provide a high degree of confidence based on evidence that strongly justifies scientific conclusions, but its method never allows certainty.

If you want to know something for certain, with no possibility of error--what's called apodictic certainty in philosophy--you must employ the deductive method.

There have been attempts to use the deductive method to show that certain ways of thinking about God are contradictory. The deductive problem of evil is like that. If God were all good, the argument goes, He would want to get rid of evil. If God were all powerful, He'd be able to get rid of evil. Since we still have evil, then God either is not good or not powerful, or neither, but He can't be both.

If this argument is sustained, then Christianity is defeated, because contradictory things (the belief that God is both good and powerful in the face of evil) cannot be true at the same time. The job of the Christian at this point is to show there isn't a necessary contradiction in their view of God, that genuine love does not require that there be no evil or suffering, and that preventing such a thing is a non-function of God's power. I think that can be done, and I've addressed that issue in another place (see The Strength of God and the Problem of Evil).
Report Spam   Logged
CortexUK
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 422



« Reply #2 on: November 01, 2015, 12:48:24 am »

So don't be cowed or bullied by any comments that science has proven there is no God. Science can't do that because it uses the inductive method, not the deductive method. When you hear someone make that claim, don't contradict them. Simply ask this question: "How can science prove that someone like God doesn't exist? Explain to me how science can do that. Spell it out."

Some take the position that if science doesn't give us reason to believe in something, then no good reason exists. That's simply the false assumption of scientism.

You can even choose something you have no good reason to believe actually does exist--unicorns, or leprechauns, for that matter. Make that person show you, in principle, how science is capable of proving that any particular thing does not exist. He won't be able to. All he'll be able to show you is that science has proven certain things do exist, not that they don't exist. There's a difference.

Some take the position that if science doesn't give us reason to believe in something, then no good reason exists. That's simply the false assumption scientism. Don't ever concede the idea that science is the only method available to learn things about the world.

Remember the line in the movie Contact? Ellie Arroway claimed she loved her father, but she couldn't prove it scientifically. Does that mean she didn't really love him? No scientific test known to man could ever prove such a thing. Ellie knew her own love for her father directly and immediately. She didn't have to learn it from some scientific test.

There are things we know to be true that we don't know through empirical testing--the five senses-- but we do know through other ways. Science seems to give us true, or approximately true, information about the world, and it uses a technique that seems to be reliable, by and large. (Even this, though, is debated among philosophers of science.) However, science is not the only means of giving us true information about the world; its methodology limits it significantly.

One thing science cannot do, even in principle, is disprove the existence of anything. So when people try to use science to disprove the existence of God, they're using science illegitimately. They're misusing it, and this just makes science look bad.

The way many try to show God doesn't exist is simply by asserting it, but that's not proof. It isn't even evidence. Scientists sometimes get away with this by requiring that scientific law--natural law--must explain everything. If it can't explain a supernatural act or a supernatural Being then neither can exist. This is cheating, though.

Scientists haven't proven God doesn't exist; they've merely assumed it in many cases. They've foisted this truism on the public, and then operated from that point of view. They act as if they've really said something profound, when all they've done is given you an unjustified opinion.
Report Spam   Logged
CortexUK
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 422



« Reply #3 on: November 01, 2015, 12:49:00 am »

This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. It is made available to you at no charge through the faithful giving of those who support Stand to Reason. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only. ©1997 Gregory Koukl

For more information, contact Stand to Reason at 1438 East 33rd Street, Signal Hill, CA 90755
(800) 2-REASON • (562) 595-7333 • www.str.org
Report Spam   Logged
the Cresent & the Cross
Full Member
***
Posts: 20



« Reply #4 on: November 01, 2015, 12:51:03 am »

Science and religion are different aspects of life. Science hasn't really proven the existence of ethics, or morality or lack thereof, or any sort of thing, beyond the same sort of questions people ask about the existence of God. Is it possible to scientifically prove I am a good person? You can look at my record of trustworthiness, reliability, generosity, probably even throw a brain scan in there, but what does that prove?. "Why did you help that guy out of the tree?" "Because it was the right thing to do." "No, give me a scientific and provable reason for helping him down." I agree that science can't and won't disprove God, but it really doesn't have any business trying to do so. Likewise, you can't philosophize your way to (M1 x M2) / r2.
Report Spam   Logged
TheCosmicMind
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 519



« Reply #5 on: November 01, 2015, 12:53:56 am »

I don't think it is science's remit to disprove anything.

Who, in their right minds, would fund scientists to investigate whether unicorns, goblins, fairies, pixies, gremlins, hobgoblins (whatever they are!) exist or not?

Notwithstanding, I do have  much sympathy with your viewpoint. But, when it comes to whether something exists or not, we are forced into the realm of the physical, where the  'existence' of something depends on the current views of scientists who use current technology to investigate what is out there, so obviously, they can only receive  results which they can analyse and which accord with their current education and research.
Report Spam   Logged
Purgatory
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 222



« Reply #6 on: November 01, 2015, 12:57:15 am »

Myths such as the silverback gorilla used to be?
Report Spam   Logged
HawkLord
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 228



« Reply #7 on: November 01, 2015, 12:59:25 am »

It wasnt a myth to the locals was it?
Report Spam   Logged
Jonna Herring
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4561



« Reply #8 on: November 01, 2015, 01:02:28 am »

At least science made an effort to study something like gorillas (silver backed ones) based on actual reality and previous studies whereas imps, faeries, etc were invented by ignorant, illiterate people who were all too happy to blame anything and everything on imaginary things.
Report Spam   Logged
Treppanierolumenarch
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 53



« Reply #9 on: November 01, 2015, 01:04:47 am »

Quote
Myths such as the silverback gorilla used to be?

Exactly.

Science does not accept anything 'exists' until it has been discovered and quantified. There may come a time, when science, begrudgingly says, in the light of quantum theory (and all that stuff), admits, 'Well, actually, these things might exist, albeit on a different plane to what we are accustomed to.
Report Spam   Logged
Holy War
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3864



« Reply #10 on: November 01, 2015, 01:06:48 am »

I'm still trying to find someone out there actively trying to disprove that there is/are a god(s). 

I happen to know a lot of scientists who are spending untold hours trying to tackle some very deep and meaningful questions and not a one of them is trying to disprove god(s).
Report Spam   Logged
Helmut
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 233



« Reply #11 on: November 01, 2015, 01:08:40 am »

In science you don't start off with the assumption that something exists. In science one looks for the evidence that something exists. So, from a scientific perspective one seeks to provide evidence to support existence, not to go forth and just believe something exists then look for ways to disprove said existence.
Report Spam   Logged
DecoNoir
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 117



« Reply #12 on: November 01, 2015, 01:10:21 am »

Maybe I'm missing something here, but am I seeing "You can't disprove it!" being used as some kind of trump card here? Absolutely not! If you want people to accept something exist its up to you to prove it, or at the least gather evidence supporting it exists. Believers don't just get to sit on their asses and expect the rest of the world to follow.
Report Spam   Logged

I reject your reality, and substitute my own! Mostly because yours is boring as hell.
Ünlüsoy
Full Member
***
Posts: 26



« Reply #13 on: November 01, 2015, 01:14:18 am »

It is impossible to disprove an idea that has no basis in reason or physical attributes. If you cant test it, quantify, measure its effective parameters,or reproduce it, then the Scientific Method does not apply.

You know, the world has so much more to thank the Scientific Method for in the last 100 years, than any and every Religious doctrine combined for the last 4 thousand years.
Report Spam   Logged
Sphere of Influence
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1832



« Reply #14 on: November 01, 2015, 01:16:48 am »

Quote
Maybe I'm missing something here, but am I seeing "You can't disprove it!" being used as some kind of trump card here? Absolutely not! If you want people to accept something exist its up to you to prove it, or at the least gather evidence supporting it exists. Believers don't just get to sit on their asses and expect the rest of the world to follow.

Extraordinary claims...etc etc
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy