Science Can Only Prove the Existence of God

[Melodeonist]

Yesterday I was thinking about this. Science is only capable of proving the existence of God.

Think of it like this: If you see a bird’s nest, then it would be logical to assume a bird made it. Now look at the big bang: Some scientists say it was created by a “singularity” or something, but who created the singularity? It had to be God.

Also, just take a look at how the universe is infinite. Look at how every creature is different from one another even within its own species. Everything is unique. Only God would be capable of creating everything to be unique. Think of the seemingly infinite amount of grains of dirt and sand, or the leaves on plants.

Maybe I’m a weirdo, but the more I just think about God’s creation with science, the stronger my faith becomes. Science can only prove God’s existence because it is simply studying how God created everything.

 

[Strydersroom]

Science can not prove the existence of Love

But some would say God is Love.

So it’s about Faith.

However, it is also not very wise to ignore science or scientific theories that can Prove or even Disprove certain biblical facts or fantasy.

 

[PraiseChrist]

If I’m correct, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says that man can have knowledge of God through light of human reason.

St. Thomas Aquinas’ ways are very good, and so are the works of Trent Horn, a Catholic Answers apologist

 

[PraiseChrist]

…]Disprove certain biblical facts or fantasy.

With all due respect, do you know a “fantasy” that science has disproven in the Bible?

 

[Rhubarb]

Science doesn’t prove anything. The results of empirical inquiry are always tentative.

 

[CeelosDeznos]

Yesterday I was thinking about this. Science is only capable of proving the existence of God.

Think of it like this: If you see a bird’s nest, then it would be logical to assume a bird made it. Now look at the big bang: Some scientists say it was created by a “singularity” or something, but who created the singularity? It had to be God.

Also, just take a look at how the universe is infinite. Look at how every creature is different from one another even within its own species. Everything is unique. Only God would be capable of creating everything to be unique. Think of the seemingly infinite amount of grains of dirt and sand, or the leaves on plants.

Maybe I’m a weirdo, but the more I just think about God’s creation with science, the stronger my faith becomes. Science can only prove God’s existence because it is simply studying how God created everything.

“Science” is actually just a method, an analytical means of understanding that which can be seen and gathered. It relies upon both empirical data or evidence and disinterested verification to support its findings.

As such, one cannot use the scientific method to prove or disprove God. Since God by definition is transcendent, one cannot see or gather empirical data of God. For science to have anything to say about God, yea or nay, we would have to have two things: 1.) a sample of God that can be studied and 2.) an agreed upon definition created by the scientific method that defines what qualifies as deity or God.

You can’t take samples of God. If you could then God would not be transcendent. Without empirical evidence, something to poke, measure, and test, you can’t say anything about your subject.

Science is a great tool. But it is the wrong tool to measure the validity of God. Think of a slide rule. It’s a great tool too. But can a slide rule be used to tell you how good a work of art is? Can it be used to measure how much you love your wife or husband and vice versa? Can it tell the difference between a slice of chocolate cake and pepperoni pizza?

No. It’s a great tool, even a scientific one. But it’s the wrong tool for the above jobs. In the same way, science is not a method that can be used to measure things that by definition are supposed to defy being measured. You can’t prove God with it.

As a footnote, the “Big Bang theory” was first developed in 1927 and by a Catholic priest, Monsignor Georges Lemaître. It doesn’t prove there is a God, but it proved something scientists did not believe until the Big Bang theory became established.

Prior to this scientific model, scientists believed the universe had always existed. They often scoffed at the Bible for stating there was a “beginning.” (Genesis 1:1) While Lemaître was not actually setting out to prove that there was a “beginning,” his scientific theory set the stage to prove that there indeed was and, as a side note, proved that Genesis was not incorrect.

And for those wondering, the word “theory” in scientific terms does not mean what it does in everyday vernacular. It refers to an established model that had been verified by test. In the vernacular “theory” means something that is still unproven, but in scientific terms that word is “hypothesis.”

 

[Hatikvah]

Yesterday I was thinking about this. Science is only capable of proving the existence of God.

Think of it like this: If you see a bird’s nest, then it would be logical to assume a bird made it. Now look at the big bang: Some scientists say it was created by a “singularity” or something, but who created the singularity? It had to be God.

Also, just take a look at how the universe is infinite. Look at how every creature is different from one another even within its own species. Everything is unique. Only God would be capable of creating everything to be unique. Think of the seemingly infinite amount of grains of dirt and sand, or the leaves on plants.

Maybe I’m a weirdo, but the more I just think about God’s creation with science, the stronger my faith becomes. Science can only prove God’s existence because it is simply studying how God created everything.

Wait, you would consider the universe to be infinite (in space)? That is, infinitely vast, without spatial end? That makes sense, and although we cannot fathom it, God certainly can and does. I was pondering this a few nights ago: is the universe infinitely vast?

 

[grannymh]

“Science” is actually just a method, an analytical means of understanding that which can be seen and gathered. It relies upon both empirical data or evidence and disinterested verification to support its findings.

As such, one cannot use the scientific method to prove or disprove God. Since God by definition is transcendent, one cannot see or gather empirical data of God. For science to have anything to say about God, yea or nay, we would have to have two things: 1.) a sample of God that can be studied and 2.) an agreed upon definition created by the scientific method that defines what qualifies as deity or God.

You can’t take samples of God. If you could then God would not be transcendent. Without empirical evidence, something to poke, measure, and test, you can’t say anything about your subject.

Science is a great tool. But it is the wrong tool to measure the validity of God. Think of a slide rule. It’s a great tool too. But can a slide rule be used to tell you how good a work of art is? Can it be used to measure how much you love your wife or husband and vice versa? Can it tell the difference between a slice of chocolate cake and pepperoni pizza?

No. It’s a great tool, even a scientific one. But it’s the wrong tool for the above jobs. In the same way, science is not a method that can be used to measure things that by definition are supposed to defy being measured. You can’t prove God with it.

As a footnote, the “Big Bang theory” was first developed in 1927 and by a Catholic priest, Monsignor Georges Lemaître. It doesn’t prove there is a God, but it proved something scientists did not believe until the Big Bang theory became established.

Prior to this scientific model, scientists believed the universe had always existed. They often scoffed at the Bible for stating there was a “beginning.” (Genesis 1:1) While Lemaître was not actually setting out to prove that there was a “beginning,” his scientific theory set the stage to prove that there indeed was and, as a side note, proved that Genesis was not incorrect.

And for those wondering, the word “theory” in scientific terms does not mean what it does in everyday vernacular. It refers to an established model that had been verified by test. In the vernacular “theory” means something that is still unproven, but in scientific terms that word is “hypothesis.”

“Science” is actually just a method is correct. Thank you. I will not debate this excellent description.

However, one of the basics of the scientific (inductive) method is to observe without prejudice.
I would think that philosophers, theologians, and ordinary curious people could observe nature, including human nature, without prejudice and find a base for the spiritual realm. For example, the ancient legends, myths, and shamans existing universally in some form are observable evidence that human persons have an inherent sense of the supernatural. This does not mean that the sense is always accurate. It means that the ordinary human could sense something beyond his own nature, something super-natural.

In the above scenario regarding human nature, the normal tools of natural science are momentarily set aside and the human gift of rational thinking takes over. I would think that a reasonable hypothesis regarding the possibility of the super-natural is proper. Personally, I believe it is important to keep science in its natural material realm. Yet, the human person is more than a decomposing anatomy. It is a tad foolish not to look up and see beyond the stars.