NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm making this a separate thread because it does not fit in with either of the other religious discussions going on...

I have several points in this post, all of them related.
1) Religion and the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven.
2) Religion and science operate in different spheres and do not necessarily contradict.

Part 1:

Why God cannot be disproven.

God is, in the nature of his definition, "beyond physical laws" and can be "above logic." Any argument that "proves" his existence has to assume that the same laws of logic and reality that apply to us apply to Him - and that assumption is invalid.

Part 2:

Why God cannot be proven.

Well, there's no a priori reason. But all proofs of God's existence so far assume things about him, assume things about perfection - and ultimately, are only convincing to those that already believe in God, since they assume things about him that make no sense if he doesn't exist. I've yet to come across a proof of God that doesn't have flaws.

But ultimately, if God can be proven by logic, then logic applies to him, and hence he can be disproven by logic - unless you maintain that logic applies to him only in some cases, which makes sense to believers but will put nonbelievers up in arms because of the contradictions.

For every "proof" of God's existence or nonexistence, a refutation can be found or thought up.

It comes down to beliefs. Being Atheist (believing God does not exist) is as much a belief as believing any certain God exists. Neither can be proven or disproven (and both sides are fairly sure that theirs is the position that makes sense).

Point 3 -

Religion and science are separate and deal with different issues.

Science is based on what we can observe and quantify. All science can (or at least should) be traced back to evidence, observation, experiment. Theories are only good as long as they agree with experiment, logic and mathematics are only "true" insofar as they help us make validated predictions about observations. Nothing can be "proven" conclusively - since observations are imperfect - but if a model or theory describes reality well enough to make predictions that are confirmed, then it is considered true (until, of course, a better model comes along and expands on the previous one). Nothing is to be taken for granted unless the world can be shown - by experiment and observation - to work that way. Even logic gets thrown out when it doesn't agree with observations - Quantum Physics is in many ways downright illogical.

Science is based on doubt - nothing can be taken as true until the evidence shows that it is. And not only once, but many times - the central feature of a good scientific study is replicability, another scientist should be able to do the same experiment and get the same result.

Religion is based on faith. It deals with spiritual realms that Science cannot touch, since there are no possible tests or observations that can be done to prove or disprove God.

The two are separate. Science cannot "disprove" religion; just because animals evolved doesn't mean there isn't a God. However, nor can Religion deny scientific "truths" - animals evolved, this is based on observable evidence. The universe expanded from a small point volume - though we currently have no idea why it expanded from there, where all that matter came from, or why the expansion happened the way it did, there is plenty of evidence suggesting (though, of course, not "proving") that it definitely did expand from a small volume.

And, of course, this does not disprove God. Nothing can. Religion is a matter of faith. Science is a matter of evidence. The two can coexist peacefully, as long as they do not try to apply their methods to the domain of the other.

Not much to add, really, except the notion that IMO the concept of faith relies entirely on assuming the existence of God WITHOUT any evidence of it. The universe is a better place if God exists - so I believe it does. (I personally do not, but I see it as my disability).

*cough* Babel Fish *cough*

Proof denies faith, and God is nothing without faith. Any argument which could prove he exists would therefore prove that he doesn't. ;)

I think every idea is based on basic beliefs-including science theory.If the products of those beliefs are build by consistent logic,there is not much room for discussion.What I understand from word "prove" is to find contradictions in the logic,so if there are not contradictions in the logic the product idea is proven,else its disproven.Saying that I find the idea of "god" contradictory in itself-you all know the simple argument:"If things need to be created then what created god" the contradiction is that god is supposed to be ultimate,absolute(in the three main religions that is).I can also find more spesific contradictions in the dominant religion in my country(islam).
I think the only religious idea which does not contradict itself is pantheism which is not all too different different than atheism.
So I think god(s) can be disproven(but not all of them).

I do not believe in the existance of god(s). There is no evidence of their existance therefore I have to conclude that there is no god. I will concede there is the possiblity of one or more gods, but, if they do exist, they're probably off playing with a new planet by now, having gotten tired of humanity's petty squablings.

You can't prove or disprove invisible coin-eating dwarfs that gobble your quarters nearly every time you drop them on the carpet, but you don't see anyone blathering on about that either...

*cough* Babel Fish *cough*

Proof denies faith, and God is nothing without faith. Any argument which could prove he exists would therefore prove that he doesn't. ;)

But that's assuming that the statement "God is nothing without faith" is true. ;)

I do not believe in the existance of god(s). There is no evidence of their existance therefore I have to conclude that there is no god. I will concede there is the possiblity of one or more gods, but, if they do exist, they're probably off playing with a new planet by now, having gotten tired of humanity's petty squablings.

I could not agree more, although with the rise of reality television, perhaps god(s) are enjoying it as much as we are today, altough i can see how it could get boring after billions of years. :)

I think every idea is based on basic beliefs-including science theory.If the products of those beliefs are build by consistent logic,there is not much room for discussion.

And all these beliefs are rooted at some level in perception and empiricism. Of course this leads to science - reason makes it easy if you're patient and critical enough.

As for religion and empiricism? One would be hard pressed to find a religion (exc. Scientology) which managed to run for an extended length of time on beliefs that someone 'just made up'. Pragmatism also helps make a 'valid' religion.

It just so happens that science is considered more solid than faith because seeing the proverbial burning bush is an experience/observation that can be shared, while the voice of God going with it almost certainly isn't.

I will concede there is the possiblity of one or more gods, but, if they do exist, they're probably off playing with a new planet by now, having gotten tired of humanity's petty squablings.

You realize that, for all we know, the universe could have been created five milliseconds ago with all our petty squabblings, dinosaur fossils and whatnot? :D So the gods could have just started amusing themselves with our little disputes... [sorry if i got the tenses all messed up].

Yes, and perhaps everything we percieve could merely be figments of our imagination, or perhaps an evil demon trying to fool us (or me. how do I know that the rest of you exist?). But that just gets us into Des Cartes and philosophy... anyways, any belief, even a belief in science, requires some sort of assumption. In science the basic assumption is that what you can see and feel, and what you can deduce from there with tools, observation, and prediction, is real. It's generally trying to be as little of a leap as possible, and considering most people don't go through a day worrying about wheather or not the entire world they know of exists or not, it's a basic assumption anyone makes.

I'm sorry, it's 7:00 in the morning here, so that probably didn't make too much sense.

Lets all be friendly agnostics :D

any belief, even a belief in science, requires some sort of assumption. In science the basic assumption is that what you can see and feel, and what you can deduce from there with tools, observation, and prediction, is real.

Agreed, but I couldn't resist. It so neatly underlines complete futility of all attempts to solve the question of God's existence by logic and reasoning.

A thread starting post that actually sounds sensible to me.

Uhm. I do belief I simply have to say; I agree.

Lets all be friendly agnostics :D

That sounds exeedingly sensible to me. *Is happy to be Agnostic*

*cough* Babel Fish *cough*

Proof denies faith, and God is nothing without faith. Any argument which could prove he exists would therefore prove that he doesn't. ;)

did you not read the opening statement?

he clearly explained how proof can't really denie faith or vice versa

Well I think it can be good that religion exist because it can give people something to believe in and also tells how to interact with other people (in a hopefully friendly way). It also explain thing that science can't like for example that happen then you die, of course the body dies and diseaper but science can't prove or disprove if their are a soul or if it lives on.
But of course it can be alot of smaller or bigger problems of the religion both with the followers (like for example no sex before marriage or stoning then someone is cheating and also creating fear of going to some terrible place then you die if you been bad). And also to none believiers like for example withcburning or banning of gay marriage or abortion. But in a modern seculare country this problem should be possible to deal with and to create respect for both human right and beliefs and disbeliefs amongst all citizens.

...but science can't prove or disprove if their are a soul or if it lives on. Assuming a soul does exist, and it has anything to do with your body, then its existence would be very likely detectable (if not provable). Why? Well, your body is physical, therefore, for your soul to direct your body, it must have some way of interacting with your physical body. So, we should be able to detect 'soul rays' or something.

Of course, it's another matter if someone looks or not.

You guys are so dumb, did anyone ever think that God cannot be proven or disproven because he wants it that way? ;)

Great topic. Makes a lot of sense!

Lets all be friendly agnostics :D

I'm not agnostic (I'm Christian) but I'll be more than happy to be friendly!