Can science really disprove somethings existence?

[achilles12604]

Usually the argument goes something like this . . .

Theist: God exists.

Science: How do you know?

Theist: 1) origin of the universe, biblical history, personal experience, origin of life, etc

Science: And how do you know that the universe didn't just pop into being without God. Your personal experience doesn't count as evidence, and history can be wrong.

Theist: Well what makes you think God doesn't exist.

science: I am totally unable to detect any sign of him at all and science is the best method we have for detecting and studying things in the universe.

You don't need to answer. My point is very simply that bible thumpers and science thumpers sometimes have similar issues regarding their claims of total knowledge. Neither can truly get the whole picture alone.

But what picture is this? Lets say there is more to this world than science knows. How do we know this? What methodology do we deploy? And the point I’ve been banging on about over several threads the last few days is the only correct method for addressing reality is naturalism because only naturalism can meet the full set of criteria: prediction, verification, falsification and assigns a clear definition to all the signs it deploys in its answers. Any explanation that fails to meet this benchmark is intellectually vacuous. Regardless of the depth of conviction of any given non naturalistic belief.

However I detect that this point is not lost on you achilles because you make great attempts to rationalise your belief system, and I know you think that what is supernatural is only what science does not yet understand. That is easy for a full blown naturalist to admit. What we cannot admit is that the theist can fill in the gaps.

I guess this is where some degree of theistic faith comes in. Hey that gives me a thought. Is faith provable by science? For example, would science be able to determine someone's beliefs? If science is unable to determine someone's beliefs and faith, does that mean that the person's faith does not exist?

My questions for discussion.

Is science able to determine someone's beliefs without being told? Another possible question to clarify this point is can science prove that someone who is now dead, had beliefs while alive?

If silence is maintained and a person's beliefs can not be determined, does this mean the beliefs do not exist?

[jack8256]

Yes, science is based on proving things to as close to certain as possible. There has never, ever been any variefied proof for god. but still they persist.

Although I would like to add that I dont have anything against the main teachings of most relogions, hope peace and love. its the annoying, brain rotting part which defies scientific princeibles that annoyes me.

[Nameless]

Usually the argument goes something like this . . .

Theist: God exists.

Science: How do you know?

Theist: 1) origin of the universe, biblical history, personal experience, origin of life, etc

So the data set for your hypothetical theist is 'belief', as there is no data other than that to support his "knowledge". He wasn't there at the beginning of the universe (actually all of us are there at the 'beginning', but we are not speaking at that level..); biblical "history" is predominately spurious masculine fantasy and metaphor...; personal experience would have to be 'believed'; wasn't there to witness the "origin of life" (actually he is, but...)
So, the 'knowledge' of the theist is not 'knowledge' as much as 'belief'.
Like the scientist.

Science: And how do you know that the universe didn't just pop into being without God.

Your question displays bias. How does the theist 'know' that the universe 'popped' into being WITH god?

Your personal experience doesn't count as evidence,

Yes it does, it is called anecdotal evidence. Besides, any and all 'evidence/data' is a function of 'personal experience'.

and history can be wrong.

"Wrong"? According to what criteria? There are many perspectives, ones that do not agree with yours are 'wrong'?

Theist: Well what makes you think God doesn't exist?

science: I am totally unable to detect any sign of him at all and science is the best method we have for detecting and studying things in the universe.

Science examines nature, what it 'finds', it examines. If there is no 'evidence' to examine, there is no opinion either way. All that can be said is that I (some scientist) have found nothing to study, so I can have no informed opinion in the matter.

Also, science never 'proves' anything. It might 'disprove' a theory. That is what it does. It attempts to disprove, and if unsuccessful, at the moment, that theory is tentatively held until it can be 'disproved'.
'Belief' cripples many scientific minds, just like the theists minds.

Everything exists.
Existence is Context and Perspective.
Everything exists in one context or another.
All equally...
(unless you start to create artificial distinctions)
If you can conceive it, it exists (for you, of course).