Topic: Why Science Does Not Disprove God - page 10. (Read 7917 times)

Of course science doesn't disprove God. But scientists aren't the ones with the burden of proof in the first place.

Yeah, this is just epistemology 101. Science is concerned with theory, and empirical evidence. Faith is concerned with plugging the gaps in human knowledge left by the questions to which we cannot get answers.

Anyone who tries to argue that science disproves the existence of God understands neither science, nor Godness (yes, I might have made that word up).

I expected a little bit more from Time, but then again, their tracks record in the brain department has not been inspiring.

One of the answers is: because god is a construct of a human brain, that is placed in an area, where ignorance begins as a placeholder universal answer for the yet unknown.

On the same topic, I have a favourite quotation whenever someone tries to say that atheism is just another religion:

They are so stupid... And still trying to prove or disprove something that couldn't  be proved or disproved.  

You can't "disprove" existence of Cthulhu or Flying Spagetty Monster through using a scientific approach. Science can't disprove existence of God because this statement does not apply to scientific knowledge. These two areas couldn't be overlapped, any attempt to merge scientific and religious knowledge doesn't make any sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Science is science, religion is religion. That's the point here.

I will feel more stupid going to bed after reading that.  Thank you.

[...]
Why did everything we need in order to exist come into being? How was all of this possible without some latent outside power to orchestrate the precise dance of elementary particles required for the creation of all the essentials of life? The great British mathematician Roger Penrose has calculated—based on only one of the hundreds of parameters of the physical Universe—that the probability of the emergence of a life-giving cosmos was one divided by 10, raised to the power 10, and again raised to the power of 123. This is a number as close to zero as anyone has ever imagined. (The probability is much, much smaller than that of winning the Mega Millions jackpot for more days than the Universe has been in existence.)

The “Scientific Atheists” have scrambled to explain this troubling mystery by suggesting the existence of a multiverse—an infinite set of universes, each with its own parameters. In some universes, the conditions are wrong for life; however, by the sheer size of this putative multiverse, there must be a universe where everything is right. But if it takes an immense power of nature to create one universe, then how much more powerful would that force have to be in order to create infinitely many universes? So the purely hypothetical multiverse does not solve the problem of God. The incredible fine-tuning of the Universe presents the most powerful argument for the existence of an immanent creative entity we may well call God. Lacking convincing scientific evidence to the contrary, such a power may be necessary to force all the parameters we need for our existence—cosmological, physical, chemical, biological, and cognitive—to be what they are.

http://time.com/77676/why-science-does-not-disprove-god/