Does science prove gods existence?

[Charlemagne_III]

It cannot be by science that we know we are sinful, but rather by the direct experience of our sins. The same goes for virtue. So the most common type of knowledge we have each day of our lives, the knowledge that good and evil truly exist, has no foundation in science, but rather in our very human nature. The knowledge of God also does not originate in science, but in that same human nature crying out to know its Maker. The knowledge of immortality is not rooted in science, but in the same longing to be with our Maker through all eternity. There is no type of scientific knowledge so important as these types, which are not rooted in science; nor is science even needed to establish these truths, and can never get in the way of establishing them except by a perverse attempt to do so, as when Richard Dawkins says that the theory of evolution made atheism respectable.

 

[Hee_Zen]

One problem is that you are begging the question by defining “ontological” to be identical to “natural,” at the start. You claim naturalism states “all ontologically existing things” are “physical in nature,” - which is fine, as a claim - but to establish it, as a claim, you simply go on to state dogmatically that abstract objects do not exist “ontologically,” but concede they “exist” in some manner.

Naturalism is simply a worldview - nothing more. It would be subject to refutation, if such a refutation could be established. Ontological existence simply means that such existence is independent of observers. The further claim - namely that “abstract objects” do not have ontological existence is not “dogmatic”, since it can be established in a rational manner. It is rather amusing to see the adjective “dogmatic” to be used in a pejorative manner by theists. Obviously they fail to realize that under the naturalistic worldview there is NOTHING that is dogmatically uttered. “Dawg-mah”-s only appear under some theistic worldviews. So if you use “dogmatic” in a pejorative manner, you only make a negative assessment of theism.

So you concede abstract entities do “exist” they just don’t exist physically. Uh, huh. And that shows what, exactly?

Abstract “entities” are mental constructs, which do not exist in the absence of some beings who are able to create abstractions. There is no such “thing” as “behind”, for example. For the concept of “behind” there are at least three actual objects need to exist: two objects in a certain physical configuration, and an observer, for whom one of the objects “hides” (fully or partially) the other one. “Behind” does not exist objectively (so it is not an ontological object), it only describes a certain physical configuration of actual objects.

Ontological does not mean “physical” but to use it as if it does is not proving anything.

You misunderstand it. You are free to attempt to substantiate “non-physical ontologically existing objects”, if you can. What I am saying that you cannot use “abstractions” for this purpose. Information does not exist in the absence of entities who can process that information. If, by some unlucky even the whole human race would disappear and only the books remained, then the “abstract object” Hamlet would cease to exist. The books would survive, but the information contained within would not.

Your screen-name insinuates that you hold Plato in high regard. His basic worldview stipulated that he considered “abstract” existence as primary, and the physical manifestations of these abstract objects as “crude” approximations of the “ideal” objects. I have a question about this worldview: "every morning (hopefully) you go out to the toilet, and produce not-particularly good-smelling heap of waste - which tries to approximate the ideal “stench” of the ideal “excrement” (I would prefer to use the normal, 4-letter version for being more explicit, but you will have to substitute it for yourself…) so what is this “ideal dump”, and where does it “reside”? It is the pinnacle of irrationality to consider “abstractions” as primary, and the ontological basis for those abstractions as secondary.

 

[Peter_Plato]

It is rather amusing to see the adjective “dogmatic” to be used in a pejorative manner by theists. Obviously they fail to realize that under the naturalistic worldview there is NOTHING that is dogmatically uttered. “Dawg-mah”-s only appear under some theistic worldviews.

I took the liberty of colour-coding two “dawg-mahs” of the atheistic world view above, showing that both the dogmatic claims above are also false. In fact, the first is false for much the same reason that "This proposition is false” is false, that is "precisely since it is self-contradictory.” The second is made false by the first. Hence, both are false.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Abstract “entities” are mental constructs, which do not exist in the absence of some beings who are able to create abstractions. There is no such “thing” as “behind”, for example. For the concept of “behind” there are at least three actual objects need to exist: two objects in a certain physical configuration, and an observer, for whom one of the objects “hides” (fully or partially) the other one. “Behind” does not exist objectively (so it is not an ontological object), it only describes a certain physical configuration of actual objects.

Your screen-name insinuates that you hold Plato in high regard. His basic worldview stipulated that he considered “abstract” existence as primary, and the physical manifestations of these abstract objects as “crude” approximations of the “ideal” objects. I have a question about this worldview: "every morning (hopefully) you go out to the toilet, and produce not-particularly good-smelling heap of waste - which tries to approximate the ideal “stench” of the ideal “excrement” (I would prefer to use the normal, 4-letter version for being more explicit, but you will have to substitute it for yourself…) so what is this “ideal dump”, and where does it “reside”? It is the pinnacle of irrationality to consider “abstractions” as primary, and the ontological basis for those abstractions as secondary.

Interestingly, there may be psychoanalytical reasons as to why you transitioned from speaking of a relational term like “behind” to a not so relational one like “ideal dump.” Be that as it may, however, this last point demonstrates something of the lack of grasp you have for abstract concepts such as Platonic forms.

Forms were not intended to be “reduced” in the way that you have, but, of course, reductionism seems to be your method of choice.

The idea of waste relates formally to the idea of integrated systems and where they get their impetus for motion. Energy, motion or impetus for change must come from somewhere and like any system, there may be “waste” that results from inefficiencies. Plants, for example, give off oxygen as a waste product from the processes of photosynthesis. That waste product is used by animals to allow conversion of food into energy. Formally speaking, how “waste” is managed by the designed integration of complementary systems in the overall “organism” would be the point of an “abstraction” such as the “ideal dump.”

In other words, the “ideal” dump would be one that could be efficiently used to facilitate functions within a different but connected or supporting system. A less than “ideal dump” would be one that could not be so used and instead would be unusable by any connected system. In other words, a useless and merely “unusable dump.” The fact that we can make a distincation between the two means the Platonic idea is alive and well, and not to be wasted or dumped merely because some have a tendency to replace Platonic ideals with crude reductive and steaming approximations of them.

Even in philosophical systems the “form” of foul smelling and useless thinking can be distinguished from that which is very beneficial to understanding. In other words, there exists cr** even in highly abstract philosophical systems. Though it may not be detected sensibly, it still could stink AND be piled high, metaphorically speaking. Ergo, cr** is a legitimate abstract idea that can be ontologically generated, so to speak.

 

[Winterwolf00]

The problem here is that your claim that science is the best method for finding truth depends upon another premise -** that truth is merely what works. **How was that decided? Not scientifically, because that is both a metaphysical and epistemological claim about the nature of truth. You can’t use science to establish epistemological or metaphysical premises like “truth is what works,” therefore science isn’t a method of “finding truth,” though it may be a method of finding what works. But that is not the same as what “truth” is, unless you want to prove that, but again that can’t be done scientifically, it must be done using epistemology or metaphysics, which both trump science as methods for determining what truth is and how we can be certain about it.

Now you may simply want to insist that truth, by definition, is “what works,” but, it seems to me, that cannot be done without some serious question-begging on your part.

False.
Science is what works best to FIND truth.
Know the difference.

Now you may simply want to insist that truth, by definition, is “what works,” but, it seems to me, that cannot be done without some serious question-begging on your part.

None of this is what I said.

 

[Winterwolf00]

Prayer, aka communication with God.
If you limit truth to only that which you can reason, the problem becomes evident. If you admit of truth outside yourself, you have to look at a relationship.

If you want to know the truth about a person, do you consult a manual, or do you engage in communication?

You first have to show me that there is a person to talk to in the first place.
Can you?

 

[Peter_Plato]

False.
Science is what works best to FIND truth.
Know the difference.

None of this is what I said.

Sure, science is the best way to find consistencies in the physical world. If you suppose those consistencies are ALL that constitute “truth,” then you might have warrant to make your statement about science being the best way to FIND truth. Unfortunately, the assumption that consistencies in the physical world are all there is to “truth” is an unsupported claim and certainly one that cannot be shown merely by appealing to the consistencies in the physical world. That would be begging the question. See the difference?

 

[Peter_Plato]

You first have to show me that there is a person to talk to in the first place.
Can you?

Can you use science to do that? Is “personhood” a scientifically provable state? Of course not. Which is why you asked for it.

Clearly, YOU suppose it isn’t. So why would YOU require someone to prove what YOU won’t accept, even though it is YOU who have set the requirement for proof at the same instant as dogmatically denying that the proof is possible? Loaded question, no?

 

[Winterwolf00]

Can you use science to do that? Is “personhood” a scientifically provable state? Of course not. Which is why you asked for it.

**Clearly, YOU suppose it isn’t. **So why would YOU require someone to prove what YOU won’t accept, even though it is YOU who have set the requirement for proof at the same instant as dogmatically denying that the proof is possible? Loaded question, no?

Assuming things on someone elses’ part isn’t a good way to start.
I don’t suppose any such thing so I’m not sure where the rest of your comment came from.

I asked if you can prove this:

You first have to show me that there is a person to talk to in the first place.
Can you?

Shall I take your question dodging as a no?

 

[Winterwolf00]

Sure, science is the best way to find consistencies in the physical world. If you suppose those consistencies are ALL that constitute “truth,” then you might have warrant to make your statement about science being the best way to FIND truth. Unfortunately, the assumption that consistencies in the physical world are all there is to “truth” is an unsupported claim and certainly one that cannot be shown merely by appealing to the consistencies in the physical world. That would be begging the question. See the difference?

It’s not an assumption, that is what we have observed to be true.
I don’t think you understand how science works.

 

[Al_Moritz]

It’s not an assumption, that is what we have observed to be true.
I don’t think you understand how science works.

This has liltte to do with understanding how science works – and while I can’t speak for Peter Plato: since I am a scientist myself, who probably knows a whole lot more about science than you do, you might think twice before lecturing me about science *).

And Peter is right, it is an assumption and an unsupported claim. It is not what we have observed to be true. You cannot prove with science (the natural sciences), which only studies the physical world, that there is nothing outside the physical world, and that the physical world is all there is to truth – no matter how excellent science is in exploring and explaining the physical world.

In a 1998 statement titled Teaching about Evolution and Science, the American National Academy of Sciences said:

“At the root of the apparent conflict between some religions and evolution is a misunderstanding of the critical difference between religious and scientific ways of knowing. Religions and science answer different questions about the world …] Science is a way of knowing about the natural world. It is limited to explaining the natural world through natural causes. Science can say nothing about the supernatural. Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral.”

If you want to contradict the American National Academy of Sciences on the limitations of science, you better think twice before you do so.

It appears to be you who doesn’t understand how science works.

---

*) and yes, I accept all mainstream science, including evolution. I also assume, based on strong evidence, an origin of life by natural causes. I even have written an extensive overview article on the topic, with more than 100 references from primary scientific literature, for Talkorigins.org, a leading evolution website.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Assuming things on someone elses’ part isn’t a good way to start.
I don’t suppose any such thing so I’m not sure where the rest of your comment came from.

I asked if you can prove this:

Shall I take your question dodging as a no?

That all depends upon what you mean by “prove.”

You might have in mind something like “give evidence for.” However, in order to give evidence for anything requires a proper definition of what it is that you are trying to show exists. Obviously, to establish what subjective existence is in itself cannot be a scientific issue.

The subjective existence of another is an even more vexing issue for science.

So, my point would be that science is not the best method for ultimately knowing the truth since it cannot be used to ground the “knowing” of anything in the first place or what it means to “know” at all.

Again, since science depends upon truths established by philosophy and logic to make any believable case whatsoever, it cannot be the “best” method for knowing the truth.

 

[Peter_Plato]

It’s not an assumption, that is what we have observed to be true.
I don’t think you understand how science works.

There is a very subtle equivocation occurring in your claim. You appear to be using “observed to be true” to mean “come to know to be true” and therefore infer that “knowing” means the same as “observing.”

observation |ˌäbzərˈvāSHən| noun
1 the action or process of observing something or someone carefully or in order to gain information

We “observe" that the Sun rises in the morning; however, we have come to “know," based upon the logical consistency of evidence, that the Sun - contrary to our “observation” does not rise in the sense we, strictly speaking, “observe" that it does.

Likewise, a cloudless sky is “observed” to be blue, but there is no sense in which it is true to say, “The sky is blue,” except in that we observe it that way, though “in truth” we know that it is not really blue, despite our observation. So our “observation” is not quite the same as what we have “come to know” by an accumulation of evidence – evidence which, itself, is not strictly speaking “observed,” but, rather, inferred or concluded from a body of collected data and “observations" using a variety of instrumental means.

Do you still suppose I don’t understand how science works?

 

[Jerbear]

Science by definition cannot prove nor disprove the existence of a divine being. Science is the study of the natural world, science and scientists used to be known as natural philosophy and natural philosophers. Science cannot deal with anything in the supernatural such as a divine being.

That’s not to say that one cannot witness something in life that they believe to be a miracle and evidence for God’s existence, but it is impossible for science to even deal with the notion of God.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Science by definition cannot prove nor disprove the existence of a divine being. Science is the study of the natural world, science and scientists used to be known as natural philosophy and natural philosophers. Science cannot deal with anything in the supernatural such as a divine being.

Yes, what the American National Academy of Sciences says, see above.

 

[PRmerger]

Noone is saying that science is either a perfect or ultimate method of finding truth.
But it IS the best we have available.

Unless you can provide some studies that demonstrate that science is the best method we have for discerning truth, what you have asserted is, ironically, a faith-based statement.

Can you provide a better one?

We Catholics use Fides et Ratio.

Using only 1 or the other is like using only 1 wing to fly to the heavens.

As Pascal said (paraphrasing): 2 errors–to exclude reason, and to exclude all but reason.

That’s a smart paradigm!

 

[PRmerger]

You first have to show me that there is a person to talk to in the first place.
Can you?

peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

 

[Winterwolf00]

peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

The list of debunked and ridiculous arguments, yes I’ve seen it.
Perhaps you could post just one in your own words?

 

[PRmerger]

The list of debunked and ridiculous arguments, yes I’ve seen it.
Perhaps you could post just one in your own words?

Why don’t you refute one in your own words?

How about this one:

Whatever begins to exist needs a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore it had a cause.

This cause is God.

Where is this argument false?

 

[Winterwolf00]

Why don’t you refute one in your own words?

How about this one:

Whatever begins to exist needs a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore it had a cause.

This cause is God.

Where is this argument false?

Thank you, that makes things much more simple.
First question.

The universe began to exist.

How do you know this?