Can science prove the existence of God? (Synopsis)

Say we know of thousands of planets, and only one of them has intelligent life. This does not tell us that intelligent life cannot arise by chance alone.

If you have exactly one observed instance of an event (intelligent life on earth), then you cannot form a non-zero estimate of the lower bound on the chances that this event will occur. Only an upper bound can be inferred. Even for this, we don't really know the denominator accurately. So, there is no foundation for any estimate of the probabilities for life on other planets, for that life to be intelligent, or for that intelligent life to broadcast radio waves in a form that we could detect them.

We don't know how likely it is for self-replicating life to form, based on random chemical reactions. We don't know how likely is the evolution of sufficient intelligence to make radio transmitters.

One of NASA's Mars missions back in the 70s obtained results indicative of not just past life, but current life. It was agreed in advance that the experiment should have returned positive results only if current metabolism by soil microflora was occurring; that happened; a news conference was scheduled; then it was abruptly cancelled and the junior scientist in charge of that experiment was gagged. The best guess is that the higher-ups thought the truth would have been upsetting to the sort of little proto-snowflakes who would have accepted this kind of Murdochian tripe as a logical argument. Which makes you - or at least me - wonder, when they are now talking up simultaneously the "possibility" of life on Mars and that of life on a couple of the gas giants' moons, does that mean that they actually think they also have long-distance indirect evidence for life on those moons, and won't admit it lest James Inhofe have another temper tantrum?

As for intelligent life, this is doubtless much rarer than life, but life that generates radio transmissions must be enormously rarer still. There are lots of intelligent species on our planet, notwithstanding our recent ancestors' best efforts. Orcas and porpoises are highly intelligent, but as aquatic life forms, they will never learn to control fire, nor do they have appendages of adequate dexterity to do complex metalwork. (For those species that can communicate over hundreds or thousands of miles, a radio would be the last thing they wanted anyway.) For that matter, humans living five thousand or five hundred years ago were just as intelligent as we are, and they had invented plenty of useful technologies, but not radio towers. As for us, our broadcasts that could be detected from distant space are powered by fossil fuels; we're rapidly burning through those, and when they are depleted, Earth may well go dark again, notwithstanding the continued presence of hundreds of millions of intelligent tool-using animals.

Science will never prove, nor will it disprove, God's existence.

One perfectly habitable planet? That's cute.
But.. how about *60*?

See this amazing post by an astrophysicist:
http://planetplanet.net/2014/05/23/building-the-ultimate-solar-system-p…

Shuffle a deck of cards and tell me what the odds are they are in exactly the order that you find them in. You will find it is the same as the answer to the question, what are the odds that life arose on earth.

David at #4 said "Science will never prove, nor will it disprove, God’s existence."

First describe exactly what you mean by "God". Would the God that you have proposed leave some measurable trace? What would this trace be? If you can't think of one, then you are talking about a being who leaves no trace of its existence in the universe.

If, for example, the God you have described created humans as per Genesis, via Adam and Eve, then we would expect our genetic history to reflect that. It does not. Therefore, this particular version of God is disproven.

OK, so maybe that story was allegorical, but God surely has left some other evidence of existence. If there is no difference between a universe with or without God, it's not much of a God, is it? So test a different assumption. If a powerful god exists, there should be some way to tell, surely, even if the evidence is indirect.

The thing is, there is no evidence of any god, elf, ghost or other supernatural being whatsoever. A proof relies on a clear description of what is being tested by the proof. Without that clear statement of what is to be proved, or disproved, your statement is trivially true, but is not profound at all.

Why. Not how did it happen but why did it happen? For what purpose? Why do stars exist? Why should there be life?

where is the fictitious deity called god with all the pain, suffering and injustice in the world?

@jane #2: Several misconceptions, and lots of wonderfully unnecessary conspiracy mongering. A little bit of research, even as little as reading a few Wikipedia articles, would have given you sufficient actual facts to make your posting accurate.

The Viking "Labelled Release" experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_lander_biological_experiments#Labe…) did detect some signatures consistent with biological metabolism. Unlike your conspiracy theory, the results were published in peer-reviewed journals. Unfortunately, the results were _not_ conclusive. A particular experimental signature was expected (sequential and increasing emission of metabolites over the course of the experimental run), but was not seen. Instead, a single burst of metabolites was observed, with nothing thereafter. Recent analyses, including the discovery by the Mars Phoenix Lander, of perchlorates in the Martian soil, indicate that the Viking results are fully consistent with non-biological chemistry.

Our "deep space" broadcasts are not "going silent" because we are running out of fossil fuels. They are going silent because we have learned how to build more efficient, and less wasteful, transmission systems. Instead of throwing a significant fraction of our transmission power out into space, we can use lower power repeating systems, focused beams for point-to-point communication, and contained cable or optical fiber transmissions. There are serious analyses in the SETI community (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_for_extraterrestrial_intelligence) trying to take this into account, which throw significant doubt on our ability to detect "broadcasting civilizations", simply because the time window for such broadcasts may be fairly narrow.

Ethan,

I always look to your articles with eagerness. You often answer questions I have which no other science blogger seems to notice or care about. In this first response to one of your pieces, let me take this opportunity to thank you.

I am a man of faith who spent 22 years as a committed agnostic, and like you I have deep respect for those who don't share my current belief. It is easier to show that mutual respect, and a meaningful exchange is more likely to happen, when thinking men and women begin by assuming the best about each other when they disagree.

You took on a daunting challenge with responding to the WSJ piece. Books have been written on the subject. I will assume that you purposely chose not to address the myriad other independent physical constants necessary for our universe to even exist. I won't try to argue the entire Fine Tuning argument for the existence of God. Those who wish may Google.

My question for you is, "Why does anyone think that life on other planets would constitute a problem for the existence of God?" This subject is a red herring, and I was disappointed that the author of the WSJ piece even mentioned it.

My thanks and encouragement to you and all who comment on this article. I urge you all to be thoughtful and humble in your assessments of the subject. My experience has been that at some time in every man's life he is faced with a stark choice-- to finally accept or reject the possibility not only of a limitless Creator, but of a limitless, eternal, all-powerful Creator of time, space and matter who is even powerful enough to care deeply about each of us as individuals.

The logic here is equivalent to

q is infinitesimally likely, therefore q

I don't buy it.

Everything is it.
We are a part of it.
As more as our knowledges increases . . . we go nearer;
But will we reach it ?
Not easy . . . . Isn't it ?

The essay is good science, but fails to critique the WSJ article for a fundamental error: to discover that something happened (e.g. life) only where the conditions necessary for it to happen exist (e.g. the planet earth) is not evidence or argument for anything. Evolutionary biologists deal with this kind of philosophical error all the time.

To allow an uncertain faith to stand in as an answer where scientific knowledge is required does us all a disservice;

By the way theologians would in the same way say that to allow an uncertain scientific knowledge to stand in for faith would be disastrous. There is nothing absolutely certain science as neither empirical nor rational evidence is absolute.

"don’t let your faith close you off to the joys and wonders of the natural world"

Why can't I agree with everything you say in the article (and enjoy the wonders of the universe and even multiverse) and still invoke newton's third law to prove or at least suggest God: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction... so what kicked off the first action if it requires an action when there no was action?

or this "Energy can be neither created nor destroyed"... If it can't be created by physical means is the answer not metaphysical?

Jane---where to begin?
First, you seem to be referring to the Mars Viking life experiments. What you fail to mention is that while one experiment on the lander was consistent with the presence of active organic biological metabolism, another showed that organic material was absent. It all adds up to a big question mark, and the majority of scientific opinion remains doubtful about the presence of life on Mars. The junior scientist that you mentioned was an engineer, not a biologist, and remains one of the few dissenters on this topic. See this wiki entry for many more references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_lander_biological_experiments
The scientific disagreement is fully documented--it would take far more than James Inhofe to hush it up.

Estimates about the rarity of intelligent life and what constitutes intelligence in other species are debatable. In the absence of data, we can go round in circles forever, so we must go out and look further.

My own view is that there is certainly no evidence of intelligent life visible on the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal.

We have been transmitting radio waves since Heinrich Hertz in 1887, a little over 125 years, which means the evidence of our existence (based on radio waves) is limited to a 125 LY radius. On a galactic scale, that is still pretty much our backyard. I also have no expectation that intelligent life on other planets would be at the same level of development as we are. Where were we 50,000 years ago, where will we be 50,000 years from now? I am a person of faith, but I find what the WSJ articles posits to be absurd.

The empirically rigorous conclusion about deities is a) agnosticism in science, plus b) respect for diversity of personal beliefs.

1) Any entity having the characteristics of a deity could confound any experiment performed to ascertain its existence. Therefore no such experiment can be valid. A hypothetical deity could deliberately produce a false negative result (or an experiment could be flawed to produce a false positive result).

2) Inference is not sufficient because we do not have another universe with which to compare our own, to assess the effects of the existence of a deity upon a universe.

Assume that a universe with a deity has more love (or whatever other characteristic you choose) than a universe without a deity. Now consider the amount of love in our world. Could there be more love than there is? Yes. Could there be less than there is? Yes. Does our world have more love or less, than an equivalent world in some other universe? We don't have another universe for comparison.

3) One thing we do know empirically, is that humans vary in their propensity for experiences of contact with a deity, and in their degree of faith or doubt in the existence of a deity.

We can use survey research to map faith and doubt in societies. We can operationalize mystical experiences ("the experience of encounter with the deity or ground of being") and induce them reliably under controlled conditions (Griffiths). We can measure at least some of what occurs in a human brain when a person is praying or contemplating their sacred beliefs (numerous studies). We can also alter brain activity deliberately to produce the experience of deeply felt meaning in relation to something larger than self (Persinger).

We can reasonably conclude that faith and doubt are widely distributed in human populations, and we can infer that faith and doubt correlate with variable characteristics of human brains. This by itself does not "prove" (support) or "disprove" (falsify) the existence of a deity, but what it does do is demonstrate that both faith and doubt are _naturally occurring_ in humans. And that produces the conclusion that, as a matter of social policy, we must respect that diversity of faith and doubt, and protect the rights of each and every individual to hold their own place on that spectrum.

4) Belief in a deity can be orthogonal to science rather than oppositional to science. The places where I would locate the existence of a deity are a) creation of the universe itself (the answer to the "why does anything at all exist?" question), b) the transition from nonliving complex chemistry to rudimentary life, and c) the development of consciousness in living organisms (the traditional idea of the soul).

5) In fact, the major Abrahamic denominations do variations on (4), and thereby don't conflict with science. It is only a specific sect of American Christianity that seeks to promote beliefs about a deity that directly contradict scientific findings about nature (keyword search "dominionism"). Since dominionism is so politically ambitious (and successful), it has provoked a backlash against all forms of religious expression in relation to science, which IMHO is as much of a loss as if there was a professional taboo in science against listening to particular genres of music.

We who are working scientists and technologists, can do better than we have done, at building bridges between the worlds of faith and the worlds of reason. There is nothing to lose in terms of our empirical and logical rigor, and there is everything to gain in terms of encouraging the scientific literacy of the public and of elected officials.

What I find disturbing about these discussions is that there seems to be so much wiggle room that I could lose my size 11's...
The subject begins with one or the other, "life" or "intelligent life", being the target of the search...and promptly falls to dust when this difference is swept under the rug as "secondary" or "insignificant" or such.
Combine this with the vaguer y of "god" as an entity and we're pretty much guaranteed the argument will track very nicely along the MobiusStrip of 'getting nowhere fast'.

You might want to have a look at John Gribbin's "Alone in the Universe: Why Our Planet Is Unique" for another take on this. He says nothing about deities. However he points out that there are potentially many more ways that a planet could fail to have intelligent life than this analysis presents. There may be many planets with organisms like bacteria but the path from them to us requires a very special path indeed.

WSJ (Fox news for financials) article pandering to the deluded. Hmmmm, the theists are getting increasingly nervous. Oh my god (sic) the gaps are closing.

Hmmmm ...
philosophically the issue here is the definition of 'God'.
For some, God only exists IF the event breaches known explanation. This is the concept of God as a bad mathematician... he can only get his way by interfering in a process he created! There must be a God because nothing else explains X ...to my mind this is pathetic.
There are so many different concepts of God that an event that allowed anyone to propagandize their particular view of God would be a disaster of untold proportions.

This event Y cannot be explained by science therefore my fire breathing concept of God who punishes anyone who disagrees with me must be true...
I don't think any reasonable God would not have forseen such stupidity.

A refreshing perspective.

Science works withing the constructs of the scientific method and faith works withing the realm of ideas and beliefs.

This fundamental difference precludes one or the other from defining the opposite side of this divide. If you find yourself unable to obey this fundamental rule then you should examine your motives. I also suggest that you are living in fear and an unauthentic life. My reasoning is that you are fearful of what don't know and can't comprehend. That is a very painful way to live life as fear tends to limit how much one can enjoy life.

Another Earth, habitable for us? What about issues such as: the mass of the planet, a spinning iron core to generate magnetic fields to protect from solar winds, spin rate, large close moon to create tides, full spectrum sunlight, orbital period, etc., etc., etc. - ad infinitum. Finding another planet capable of sustaining human life is pretty far-fetched. Getting to it once we find it is even more far-fetched. At our current capability, if we left the Earth the day it was formed, we would have been able to traverse the Milky Way by now. It takes us 36000 years to travel one light year so - good luck.

1) The Universe was created.
2) The Universe requires a sentient observer for it's existence to be meaningful.
3) As far as we can prove, we are the only sentient observers.

Speculations of all kinds inevitably arise and continue till, human intelligence realizes its own limitation of perception and responses. An error in raising children is causing permanence of Fragmentation of intelligence. This is causing instability which is perceived as insecurity by the intelligence in mankind.

This insecurity is prompting questions on God or some probable authority, and the disturbed intelligence gets the comforting answers that are mere ideas. Theists, Atheists and all denominations are 'conditioned' to some knowledge, which is lifeless pieces of information.

Not that a silent or an undisturbed mind has answers for such questions, but only questions do not arise in it. gmybird.blogspot.in

"3. And finally, if we don’t find life in the places and under the conditions where we expect it, can that prove the existence of God?"

Is there a typo in that proposition? It makes no sense to me.

Re. Pronounce @ 23:

In short, one can't judge a symphony by the standards of sculpture, and vice-versa.

Though, I wouldn't conclude that all of those who make that mistake, are living in fear or living inauthentic lives. Some people naturally perceive the existence of a deity in the universe, some naturally perceive a universe with no deity, and the vast majority in-between are swayed one way or the other by their social milieu. The life that one has by one's own nature with some input from society, can be authentic or otherwise, depending on whether one is or isn't true to oneself and morally consistent.

Re. Sal @ 24:

If there is 1 habitable planet out of N star systems, then pick a number for N, and divide the total number of star systems in our galaxy by N. Try it as an honest exercise and then let us know what you find. The relative improbability of all of the right conditions lining up, given the sheer quantity of stars in our galaxy, still translates to a large number.

Our current capability is hardly the last word in space flight, any more than Conestoga wagons were the last word in crossing our continent. At a small single-digit percentage of the speed of light ("c"), we can reach any of a number of nearby stars in less than 1/10 of your estimated travel time for a single light year. That kind of speed is well within the range expected from new means of propulsion that are wholly within the current Standard Model in physics.

That means an "ark ship" with sufficient humans and other life onboard to begin on a new planet, could make a many-generational voyage to another star system. There are substantial engineering challenges but no new fundamental science needed.

So I have a question or two for you. All other factors equal, would you rather die tomorrow or some decades from tomorrow? And, can you name any long-lasting human civilization whose collective mythos ended with "and then we all chose to perish"...?

If you would make for yourself the choice to live, you cannot deny that choice to our distant descendents, who will face the prospect of the expansion of the sun rendering Earth uninhabitable. They deserve the right to choose to live, just as surely as you do. And that in turn requires interstellar migration.

Re. See @ 26:

I think the premise of the WSJ article is fatally flawed. The author was seeking to make an inference about the existence of a deity, based on information about other star systems and planets that we don't even have yet. I can't imagine a worse type of attempt to extract a big conclusion from an absence of data, but there it was, in a major newspaper. I suppose we should ask WSJ's editors if they expect to find General Tso's Chicken on the menu before they know which restaurant they are going to for lunch.

Whether Earth is one of many, or one and only, has no bearing on whether or not a deity exists. See also my comment at 18 above, for more.

Science can't tell us if there is or is not a deity; but science does tell us that humans naturally vary in their propensity toward faith or doubt. In the end, that's what each of us has: our own natural and socially-influenced tendency toward belief or doubt. So in the end, one should be true to one's nature.

So does this mean they've given up on the irreducible complexity thing? At least its something new.

Science is incapable of proving or disproving the existence of God, the first cause of the universe. Science can investigate the nature of the universe, the laws that govern it. Prior to creation, these laws and even time did not exist to study..

But, to base the existence of God on the answer to whether we are alone in the universe, or how long the odds of our existence is makes God small. The creator of this massive universe certainly has shown that He is capable of incredible intricacy in what ever way He chooses.

Human beings are so very complex. If a human was a machine, who could have invented it? In our world there is both good and evil, which can only be understood in the concept of God and Satin. Statistics could only explain some evil and only some good.

Whether or not there is a physical God doesn't matter. When we die we all turn into dust eventually, A human soul, sometimes called the human spirit is like an electric energy, where it goes when the body dies no one knows . Religion tells us it could be heaven or hell; but not in the physical sense. Likely these are different dimensions that mankind will never discover.

@G "… So in the end, one should be true to one's nature." Learning science and critical thinking changes one's outlook and the manner in which one debates issues, so one's nature is malleable rather than something that is inflexible.

I think a potential problem with being true to our nature is the comfort provided by relying on motivated reasoning and the plethora of other cognitive biases and logical fallacies (self-serving biases).

A difficulty I often encounter when talking about science with people who've chosen to be guided by their religion is that science neither promises them a life after death nor does it provide a divine reason for their existence. People want to feel that they are 'special' in some way without actually putting any effort into making themselves special in some way.

Brian Cox:

“Why does anyone think that life on other planets would constitute a problem for the existence of God?”

Because fundamentalist Christians keep saying that it would. Granted, there are many Christians and non-Christian believers who would disagree with them and agree with you, but the reason the point (that the fine tuning argument is bunk) keeps having to be made is because various people keep making the fine tuning argument.

G:

1) Any entity having the characteristics of a deity could confound any experiment performed to ascertain its existence. Therefore no such experiment can be valid.

It may be impossible to rule out 'the set of all possible deities' because some of them will be confounders, but it is certainly possible to take individual deity hypotheses and ask whether they are consistent with the world we see around us. Since the standard or most common deity-belief involves a human-centered, benevolent, omnipotent non-confounder, its reasonable to ask whether that hypothesized deity is consistent with the world we see around us...and the answer seems to me to be "no."

Brain of the Heart. Heart of the Brain.
Faith in the Science. Science in the Faith.

We're here.

That is all that matters.

Re G@ 28

If there are 1000 criteria for a planet to replace Earth, then one planet in N fits the bill. There are more than 1000 criteria so... well, do the math.

Even at 10X our current velocity capability it will still take 3600 years to traverse a light year. No planets within a light year that I know of but, let's pretend there is. If the Romans left for such a non-existent planet, at the fantasy speed, 1600 years before the birth of Christ, they'd arrive this year.

If we are not alone, we might as well be. And that is just fine as this universe was made for us and is made real by our existence and observation.

Origins. It's all about that. Science looks to the effect and determines the cause (causal). 'Theory' is a form of seeing (Theory = view) and is explanatory. The concepts of God or gods are Walls generally preventing the mental probing into the unknown (and hence the direction of Origin). On a day to day level the religion can be comforting and 'ground' oneself from fears. Hence we are told knowledge can be Faustian, forbidden i.e. do not go there and go about your business and pay your tithes. However, consider that the search for Origin(s) is a spiritual quest apart from dogma. Is Motherhood not something sacred even if you are without religion?. As an 'ansatz' if you were an observer to our beginning time (say at Big Bang) would you not be filled with wonder and awe to witness something so close to our origin. Would that be some sort of Divine or sacred event itself that the beauty of it all would overwhelm your self senses. And imagine if you understood something of it, then the concepts of Gods would be puny compared to that. The God or gods are only emerging (perhaps mental) concepts and not fundamental to beginnings.

You have convinced me that it is infinitely unlikely that the universe does not exist, much less our galaxy, much less our planet, much less my 70 year old self. As soon as I click "Submit Comment" I will cease to exist. As soon as I cease to exist, you will cease to exist. Prepare yourself for de-materialization. Three, two, one . . .

ERIC METAXAS is a mental midget. With such a small mind, it's a wonder he can even understand science. The fact is, we don't have nearly enough knowledge to formulate a reasonable answer to the question of God's existence. We are all guessing, trying to extrapolate our meagre understanding of the physical universe to arrive at some kind of metaphysical insight. Just off the top of my head, I can present a simple thought experiment to shoot down his assertion. Suppose we postulate the existence of a "multiverse" (a hypothetical physical phenomenon), where there is an infinite number of possible universes representing every possible combination of events in every possible order. Then it is inevitable that there will be universes where intelligent life exists, and universes where no intelligent life exists at all, and even universes that have unimaginably different physical laws. Guess which of those universes is ours. No God required.

@ #39 why would the "multiverse" preclude the existence of God?

@ #40
It doesn't preclude the existence of God. It just doesn't require God's existence. Don't use science to prove anything about God.

To think of God you must think of spirit, not particles or substance as we would know. Spirit such as Wisdom, Truth, and Love, each self knowing and all knowing, infinitely powerful and of one substance.

The universe runs like a fine tuned watch.Every watch has a "Watch Maker". His name IS God...

To humankind and all life on planet earth, the sun is God, as the sun is the very giver of life. The sun could also be called the creator of life on the earth, as all the living elements of the earth come into being as a direct consequence of the existence of the sun. If the sun were to quit, or leave the planetary orbit, all life on earth would cease. Thus, isn't God The Creator and Giver of Life? This fits the meaning of sol. Whether any other kind of God exists (than the sun, that is), will probably never be proven. Does any man care what a fly or mosquito may think of humankind? I doubt that any God would care what any man may think about God.

@41 I agree completely that you don't use science to prove anything about God. How can Hamlet prove Shakespeare? I think I misread your statement to mean that the multiverse precluded God. My bad.

Looking for God by exclusion is like looking for unicorns. If we are alone we are alone, it proves nothing. Being unique does not mean proving a deity. Looking for an explanation in the absence of evidence is futile. Prove God by showing God, or give up. Drawing a straight line from an erroneous assumption to a foregone conclusion is futile.

"God" and "intelligence" are both very slippery words. What or who is God? Are we intelligent or is intelligence just a human conceit? Furthermore, there are so many theories about the universe. Is it holographic? What about the multiverse? No, I don't think science can prove or disprove the "existence" (another slippery word) of God. Scientists, theologians or atheists, we cherry-pick our facts to back up our beliefs. "How can there be a God when there is so much suffering in the world?" makes an assumption about God. "The odds are so against life, there must be a creator" is at odds with the other likely possibility that even with odds of a billion to one, there is a chance for life as we know it to exist. Who knows? Maybe the universe is teeming with life, but it's outside our capacity to detect. In my opinion, scientists would be better off figuring out why we are such silly creatures who are rapidly killing our planet and seeking ways to get back in tune with nature than discussing whether or not they can prove the existence of God. It is in our power to understand nature. It's not in our power to figure out if God exists. That's sort of like trying to teach a fish how to speak English. We're not equipped for it.

NO is the answer for the question"can science prove the existence of god".god is a belief which comes from heart which doesn't rises any question but science is a search of logic and answers which comes from head always. it ask questions and confuses others.

Why am I being told that it is compulsory to "respect" these primitive superstitious beliefs?

Somebody above wants us to believe that "god" is "love and wisdom".
Sure.
The holocaust. Cambodia's killing fields. Good one, "god".
Either an all-powerful being that fails in its ethical duty to use its powers to avert evil, thus proving itself to be unethical, probably immoral. Or, this being isn't all-powerful. In which case - what's the point of inventing it?

Believers in these nonsenses are constantly trying to get people to take them seriously by pretending that science and irrational belief have some kind of equivalence. It's pathetic that anybody even wastes a nanosecond considering it.

Susendeer - beliefs don't come from the heart - the heart is a muscle that pumps blood, nothing more.
Beliefs arise in the head and "god" is an irrational belief.

“God” and “intelligence” are both very slippery words. What or who is God? Are we intelligent or is intelligence just a human conceit? Furthermore, there are so many theories about the universe. Is it holographic? What about the multiverse? No, I don’t think science can prove or disprove the “existence” (another slippery word) of God.

Again, though, I would make the point that while it may be impossible to rule out all possible God-conceptions, we can take each individual God-conception as it is pitched to us and knock it out of the park. Or at least point out why we can't hit it.

It is a fallacy to start with "not all God ideas are testable" (a true statement) and conclude from it "therefore the God idea submitted by mainstream Christianity [or some philosopher, or the person you're having a conversation with] is not testable." The latter doesn't follow from the former. I cannot test the 'set of all possible hypotheses,' true, but that doesn't stop me from testing individual hypotheses.

There's a better argument for science proving the non-existence of God. In the Bible, it says that "God" made a rainbow to communicate a concept of promise to Noah. Science has discovered that with a light source and a mirror, anyone can make a rainbow. The Bible - the only basis for any sort of craziness about God - contradicts itself more often than not. Why put faith in such a bad work of fiction?

don't forget, science is currently proving mechanisms for the possible existence of gods.very soon, quantum computers will be able to simulate universes very similar to ours. Now, isn't the creator of that universe its creater being God?for all of you who are dead set on disapproving the biblical stories, you're forgetting the big picture. The big picture is whether or not a God can exist and in fact whether they are extremely likely to exist. I encourage you all to read up on Nick Bostrom's theories it might open your eyes.

@eric, "… but that doesn’t stop me from testing individual hypotheses." This is true for individuals, but it misses the point that it is definitely not the remit of science to test every hypothesis that is thrown at it. It is always the proposer of a hypothesis who owns the burden of proof.

don’t forget, science is currently proving mechanisms for the possible existence of gods.very soon, quantum computers will be able to simulate universes very similar to ours.

That's a complete nonsequitur. The computational capability to model some universe says nothing one way or the other about whether that universe was created by a god or not. A simulation of middle earth is not 'provingmechanisms for the existence of' the Valar.

Pete A: totally agree. My point was that some theists appear to think that an inability to rule out all possible gods means science can't say anything of relevance about their particualr conception of god. That's a fallacy.

"That’s a complete nonsequitur. The computational capability to model some universe says nothing one way or the other about whether that universe was created by a god or not. A simulation of middle earth is not ‘provingmechanisms for the existence of’ the Valar."

My comment was directly to the point, I'm saying that our universe very likely is a computer simulation. Soon there will be billions upon billions of simulated universes exactly like ours including intelligent beings. If you believe that these things cannot be simulated you're simply a magical thinker and you need to join all the other theists. When there are billions of the simulated universes exactly like ours, are you going to say that ours is not likely one of them. If it is a 13 year old girl running those simulations, she is the creator god of those universes in every definition of Creator God that I know. Yes, if we created a Middle Earth in simulation, then that Middle earth does exist, it is a real thing. especially if that Middle Earth is populated with intelligent beings, are you going to tell all those intelligent beings that they do not exist.

I’m saying that our universe very likely is a computer simulation. Soon there will be billions upon billions of simulated universes exactly like ours including intelligent beings. If you believe that these things cannot be simulated you’re simply a magical thinker and you need to join all the other theists. When there are billions of the simulated universes exactly like ours, are you going to say that ours is not likely one of them.

Yes, for the same reason I accept there are bililons of bacteria but do not conclude the universe is a bacteria. I accept that we have built billions of bicycles but the universe is not a bicycle. In both cases, the underlying structure is radically different. Your similations will need to run on silicon chips moving electrical charges around; where are the silicon chips underlying the universe? Where's the charge flow? Do you have any evidence that supports the radical notion that there is a substrate to the universe running it as a simulation?

And the holographic universe idea doesn't count, because AFAIK it doesn't imply intelligence or design. It implies the fundamental structure is different from what we normally consider it to be, yes, but it doesn't require any being to 'run' the two-dimensional surface structure that produces our three-dimensional experience.

@eric, I agree. I sometimes wonder if "some theists appear to think that an inability to rule out all possible gods means science can't say anything of relevance about their particular conception of god. That’s a fallacy." can be far more easily attributed to plain stupidity, rather than it being worthy of promotion to logical fallacy status.

@Michael Evans, Even an infinitely powerful computer will not inform you that a hypothesis is shite unless the programmer specifically included a line of code to inform the user that their hypothesis is shite. I think that you argument is not just a non sequitur, it is (being polite) bizarre — good science fiction, perhaps.

"Yes, for the same reason I accept there are bililons of bacteria but do not conclude the universe is a bacteria. I accept that we have built billions of bicycles but the universe is not a bicycle. In both cases, the underlying structure is radically different. Your similations will need to run on silicon chips moving electrical charges around."

You don't seem to understand how quantum computing works. A very simple quantum computer will be able to perform more operations simultaneously than there are particles in the universe. That is a very confounding fact. quantum physics is proving our universe to be quite strange indeed.
I'm not saying billions of bacteria, I am saying billions of universes exactly like ours. We are dying to simulate the big bang. We soon will. How do you test if your simulation works.Put it on fast forward and run through about 14 years and take a look around. Does it look like ours? Did it evolve intelligent beings? There will be no stopping us from doing this, barring world catastrophes. Once we are simulating billions of these universes, that are exactly like ours, are you going to declare that ours is the one true "base" universe? You're then just another magical thinker.

"Even an infinitely powerful computer will not inform you that a hypothesis is shite unless the programmer specifically included a line of code to inform the user that their hypothesis is shite"

Nice language, these are simulations that start with a big bang, just like the one we're learning more and more about. The universe created just evolves... There is no need of a programmer to program every individual intelligent being or stream of water.

I did not expect this twist - I thought the fine-tuning argument was that this universe is designed specifically for human life, in which case it ought to exist at more than one small planet in one small solar system in a galaxy with a 100 billion solar systems in a universe with over 100 billion galaxies (that we know of). Now they're saying that the universe was designed specifically so only that one planet would have life in all this vast universe? That has to be the most arrogant thing I've ever heard. As Dr. Feyman said, "The stage is too big for the play." Get over yourselves. You haven't even discovered intelligent life on Earth. (See Eric Idle's song in "Monty Python's The Meaning of Life".

Intelligent life, when and if it exists, ought to understand that an incomprehensible entity of unknown origin and unknown means of operation ("god") has no explanatory value. Saying "I don't know how or why X occurred" and saying, "god made X happen" both convey the same amount of information. Therefore if some "god" exists it would have to prove its existence actively (say by spelling its name in the night sky with a phalanx of comets) rather than being provable by providing an explanation of the universe - because the "god" concept/hypothesis explains nothing. It's just an excuse for not having an explanation: the "god ate my homework" excuse.

In case that wasn't clear, let me beat the dead horse a bit more. Suppose you want to know how the universe came into existence and someone says, "The flub-stubber flub-stubbered it."

Q: What's a flub-stubber? A: I don't know.
Q: Where did it come from? A: I don't know.
Q: How does if flub-stub? A: I don't know.
Q. Why does it flub-stub? A: I don't know for sure, but I think it must be because it loves humans - at least, the right kind of humans, like myself.
Q: Why does it love humans? A: I don't know. Maybe because we're great, because it flub-stubbed greatness into us.
Q: Can you show it to me? A: No.

And so on. Have you been given any real explanation?

@JimV #62, many thanks for your clear example. Asking the pertinent questions "What?, Where?, How?, Why?, and When?" is the essence of critical thinking and the answers serve to reveal the level of explanatory power of the argument/hypothesis being presented.

Ignoring other universes (which we are unable to observe), around the time of the Big Bang the prior probability of 21st Century human life was zero and the prior plausibility was very close to zero. Now, the current probability of human life being exactly the way it is equals unity; the plausibility also equals unity. Example: if we roll a six-sided die, the prior probability of a particular outcome is 1 in 6; when the die comes to rest, the current probability of the outcome is unity and the probability of the other five possible outcomes is now zero. The prior probabilities have relevance prior to the outcome and cease to have relevance after the outcome.

This is why science looks firstly at the current evidence then works backwards through time to provide a reasonable explanation for the steps that actually occurred. Science has no need to waste time on explaining why none of the other myriad of possible outcomes did not actually occur.

Many of the arguments that I've heard promoting the existence of a god or gods use the distraction of prior probability and/or prior plausibility. Using this type of misdirection, I could similarly argue that the outcomes of all six-sided dice are determined by a dice god.

Thank you. I enjoyed the article. My personal thought on the subject is that proving or disproving alien life, or creating life in a laboratory, would not be sufficient evidence to prove or disprove the existence of a general creator. In fact, such evidence doesn't seem relevant for that purpose.

It starts with a bang. Did it? And just where did the matter or / and the energy for the 'bang' come from? you seem to get a little stuck at that point. What if there is no such thing as matter? What if there is no such thing as time? What if we do not exist? What if we are just a set of rules and principles.... ?

A relevant extract from Douglas Adams' "The Hitchhikers' Guide to the Universe" . . . .

The Babel fish is small, yellow, leechlike, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy received not from its own carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centers of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.
Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the NON-existence of God.
The argument goes like this:
`I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
`Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best-selling book, "Well, That about Wraps It Up for God."
Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation.

The more and more inhospitable planets that the Kepeler satellite finds, the more I read and hear on TV that Earth-like planets are in great abundance. This is exactly how people of faith respond to a growing set of data disproving their faith.

Another example of ignorance-of-data is that the author uses odds such as 1-in-100 or one-in-a-million for this or that having occurred in our past, giving rise to us. But, the odds for each event are much, much longer than that.

We are polar bears. Our very existence was dependent on the Ice Ages. What are the odds that a 4.5-billion-year warm planet would suddenly cool down for the last 2 or 3 million years, just as the Sun grows hotter than ever before?

What were the odds that homo-habilus would evolve in a mere 200 thousand years of repeated climactic upheaval, doubling brain size, when the previous million years (of stable climate and environment) made Lucy evolve into a dozen, small-brained creatures of the same height and character?

What are the odds that the Earth received the vast majority of the radioactive materials of all the rocky bodies in solar system? Without this, the Earth's core would have cooled 3 billion years ago just like Mars' did, and the planet's surface would be dust.

I could go on and on for days. The more you learn, the more you see that there were trillions of events and the odds of each are trillions to one. Multiply these together and you get a number with 24 zeros after it. One in a septillion.

There aren't that many stars in a multiple-verse.

In case you are drawing conclusions from my comment above, please don't. It sounds like I'm laying ground work for the need of a God to make all this happen. I'm not. It's all chaos.

The Universe does not revolve like clockwork, as one commentor said. It's complete chaos. There is no need for a clockmaker.

It's a known fact that the Sun will grow into a red giant and devour us (or melt us). Does that disprove God, or a Sun-God, as another commentor suggested?

Or, as Morgan Freeman said, when you pray to God for courage, does he grant you courage, or does he send hardship your way, giving you the opportunity to be courageous?

The planet-sizzling future of the human race will certainly require boundless courage.

Michael Evans:

Once we are simulating billions of these universes, that are exactly like ours, are you going to declare that ours is the one true “base” universe? You’re then just another magical thinker.

Yes, without any evidence that we are a simulation I will continue to believe we aren't one. You spent your entire response reiterating that you think quantum computing is going to be used to simulate universes. Let's say for sake of argument I accept that. It's a given - you don't need to spend any more time describing to me that future computers will be able to do this. What is your evidence that we are one such simulation? What is your evidence that there is some substrate on which this universe is 'being run'?

Robert Innes:

...just where did the matter or / and the energy for the ‘bang’ come from? you seem to get a little stuck at that point.

My understanding (from Hawking and Mlodinow) is that pretty much all energy can be given a sign (positive or negative) based on the type of work it does, and that our current understanding of cosmology is that the positives and negatives balance, leaving a net zero, which QM is perfectly capable of producing ex nihilo.
I believe this understanding is relatively recent: while we've known for almost a hundred years that QM rules can spontaneously produce counterbalancing positive and negative particles ex nihilo, the energy balance of the universe was thought to be positive until relatively recently, when dark energy was discovered (in the 1990s I believe). So before that, your question was a legitimate problem of science: we did not have an explanation for where the energy of the universe came from. But now we do: because everything balances out to zero, QM rules allow a system such as ours to be created ex nihilo; no input energy is needed.

After I read the Upanishads and Bhavagad Gita, I came to see God embodied in everything. I am part of God. You are part of God. The creation myth says that first there was the Self who divided and then went on to create all things. When you start to see yourself as part of the universe and not something outside it nor God as something outside yourself but something eternal that you are part of, science integrates perfectly. For example, DNA is a mechanism that is part of God and you. I am an eternal part of the universe.

instead of trying to "outdo" "nullify" "condemn" or "invalidate" ones reality, honor anothers. whats follows is long but good reading:

1 Before the beginning was a Cause and the entire purpose of the Cause was the creation of effect.

2 In the beginning and forever is the decision and the decision is TO BE.

3 The first action of beingness is to assume a viewpoint.

4 The second action of beingness is to extend from the viewpoint, points to view, which are dimension points.

5 Thus there is space created, for the definition of space is: viewpoint of dimension. And the purpose of a dimension point is space and a point of view.

6 The action of a dimension point is reaching and withdrawing.

7 And from the viewpoint to the dimension points there are connection and interchange. Thus new dimension points are made. Thus there is communication.

8 And thus there is light.

9 And thus there is energy.

10 And thus there is life.

11 But there are other viewpoints and these viewpoints outthrust points to view. And there comes about an interchange amongst viewpoints; but the interchange is never otherwise than in terms of exchanging dimension points.

12 The dimension point can be moved by the viewpoint, for the viewpoint, in addition to creative ability and consideration, possesses volition and potential independence of action; and the viewpoint, viewing dimension points, can change in relation to its own or other dimension points or viewpoints. Thus comes about all the fundamentals there are to motion.

13 The dimension points are each and every one, whether large or small, solid. And they are solid solely because the viewpoints say they are solid.

14 Many dimension points combine into larger gases, fluids or solids. Thus there is matter. But the most valued point is admiration, and admiration is so strong its absence alone permits persistence.

15 The dimension point can be different from other dimension points and thus can possess an individual quality. And many dimension points can possess a similar quality, and others can possess a similar quality unto themselves. Thus comes about the quality of classes of matter.

16 The viewpoint can combine dimension points into forms and the forms can be simple or complex and can be at different distances from the viewpoints and so there can be combinations of form. And the forms are capable of motion and the viewpoints are capable of motion and so there can be motion of forms.

17 And the opinion of the viewpoint regulates the consideration of the forms, their stillness or their motion, and these considerations consist of assignment of beauty or ugliness to the forms and these considerations alone are art.

18 It is the opinions of the viewpoints that some of these forms should endure. Thus there is survival.

19 And the viewpoint can never perish; but the form can perish.

20 And the many viewpoints, interacting, become dependent upon one another’s forms and do not choose to distinguish completely the ownership of dimension points and so comes about a dependency upon the dimension points and upon the other viewpoints.

21 From this comes a consistency of viewpoint of the interaction of dimension points and this, regulated, is time.

22 And there are universes.

23 The universes, then, are three in number: the universe created by one viewpoint, the universe created by every other viewpoint, the universe created by the mutual action of viewpoints which is agreed to be upheld – the physical universe.

24 And the viewpoints are never seen. And the viewpoints consider more and more that the dimension points are valuable. And the viewpoints try to become the anchor points and forget that they can create more points and space and forms. Thus comes about scarcity. And the dimension points can perish and so the viewpoints assume that they, too, can perish.

25 Thus comes about death.

26 The manifestations of pleasure and pain, of thought, emotion and effort, of thinking, of sensation, of affinity, reality, communication, of behavior and being are thus derived and the riddles of our universe are apparently contained and answered herein.

27 There is beingness, but man believes there is only becomingness.

28 The resolution of any problem posed here by is the establishment of view-points and dimension points, the betterment of condition and concourse amongst dimension points, and, thereby, viewpoints, and the remedy of abundance or scarcity in all things, pleasant or ugly, by the rehabilitation of the ability of the viewpoint to assume points of view and create and uncreate, neglect, start, change and stop dimension points of any kind at the determinism of the viewpoint. Certainty in all three universes must be regained, for certainty, not data, is knowledge.

29 In the opinion of the viewpoint, any beingness, any thing, is better than no thing, any effect is better than no effect, any universe better than no universe, any particle better than no particle, but the particle of admiration is best of all.

30 And above these things there might be speculation only. And below these things there is the playing of the game. But these things which are written here man can experience and know. And some may care to teach these things and some may care to use them to assist those in distress and some may desire to employ them to make individuals and organizations more able and so give to Earth a culture of which we can be proud.

Considerations take rank over the mechanics of space, energy, and time; By this it is meant that an idea or opinion is, fundamentally, superior to space, energy, and time, or organizations of form, since it is conceived that space, energy, and time are themselves broadly agreed-upon considerations. That so many minds agree brings about Reality in the form of space, energy and time. These mechanics, then, of space, energy, and time are the product of agreed-upon considerations mutually held by life.
The aspect of existence when viewed from the level of Man, however, is a reverse of the greater truth above, for Man works on the secondary opinion that mechanics are real, and that his own personal considerations are less important than space, energy, and time. This is an inversion. These mechanics of space, energy, and time, the forms, objects and combinations thereof, have taken such precedence in Man that they have become more important than considerations as such, and so his ability is overpowered and he is unable to act freely in the framework of mechanics. Man, therefore, has an inverted view.
Whereas, considerations such as those he daily makes are the actual source of space, energy, and time and forms, Man is operating so as not to alter his basic considerations; he therefore invalidates himself by supposing another determinism of space, energy, time, and form. Although he is part of that which created these, he gives them such strength and validity that his own considerations thereafter must fall subordinate to space, energy, time and form, and so he cannot alter the Universe in which he dwells.
The freedom of an individual depends upon that individual's freedom to alter his considerations of space, energy, time, and forms of life and his roles in it. If he cannot change his mind about these, he is then fixed and enslaved amidst barriers such as those of the physical universe, and barriers of his own creation. Man thus is seen to be enslaved by barriers of his own creation. He creates these barriers himself, or by agreeing with things which hold these barriers to be actual.

The idea that the Moon is affecting life came to a peak with the Rare Earth idea, something I take a very dim view to. You can pick factors that you claim is necessary for life and then make probability of life any value between 0 and 1 that you wish.

"But thus far, we’ve been unable to create life from non-life in the lab. So it’s not yet possible to say how likely it is".

"it is very likely that there is life on other worlds, and that there’s a very good chance — if we invest in looking for it — that we’ll be able to find the first biological signatures on other worlds within a single generation."

We don't need lab experiments to know that. If we look at how fast life emerged on Earth, we can test whether or not it is an easy and/or often attempted process by a simple stochastic process model. And it is.

Interestingly, the first putative fossils have just been found on Mars.

"A careful study of images taken by the NASA rover Curiosity has revealed intriguing similarities between ancient sedimentary rocks on Mars and structures shaped by microbes on Earth. The findings suggest, but do not prove, that life may have existed earlier on the Red Planet. The photos were taken as Curiosity drove through the Gillespie Lake outcrop in Yellowknife Bay."

[ https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/articles/2015/1/5/curiosity-spots-intrigu… ]

"Nora Noffke, a geobiologist at Old Dominion University in Virginia, has spent the past 20 years studying these microbial structures. Last year, she reported the discovery of MISS that are 3.48 billion years old in the Western Australia’s Dresser Formation, making them potentially the oldest signs of life on Earth.

In a paper published online last month in the journal Astrobiology (the print version comes out this week), Noffke details the striking morphological similarities between Martian sedimentary structures in the Gillespie Lake outcrop (which is at most 3.7 billion years old) and microbial structures on Earth."

- See more at: http://www.astrobio.net/news-exclusive/potential-signs-ancient-life-mar…

"Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God".

That is a theological claim. No one has any reason to accept an unsupported claim, especially not a generic skeptic.

The fact is that we if we test the existence claim as any other claim like the existence of gravity, the eistence of magic (as action or acting agency) fails. It is a law of thermodynamics since the 18th century, and if we make a simple yes/no binomial test we need but ~ 3000 examples - we did that long ago.

And that is for starters, there is 6-8 tests that say the same (no hidden variables in quantum physics, the immense dilution by inflation making specifically creationist magic worse than homeopathy, et cetera).

@David: Yours is a theological claim. No one has any reason to accept an unsupported claim.

@rob: Yours is a meaningless claim. No one has any reason to accept an unsupported claim.

"I am very open about not being a man of faith myself, but of having tremendous respect for those who are believers."

Which is one reason I enjoy reading your blog.
Your at least decent about it.
Thanks

@Patricia Seagrove,
I hope that you also praise God for providing you with a system of DNA replication that gradually shortens the ends of your chromosomes (aka the ageing process), which absolutely guarantees that you will never become an eternal part of the universe. NB: Some species do not suffer this DNA replication deficit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomere

This stuff usually happens when scientists with poor or no training in religion or religious folk with poor or no training in science start musing about God and Science.
First, the issue that started the musing is the lack of evidence of other life in the Universe. Knowing Physics, the best answer to that issue is - because we project ourselves into the search for something fundamentally alien. Fundamental principles of Physics imply that life will emerge and be increasingly complex wherever it can do it in any way possible. Consequence of that is that such life will be vastly different from place to place, from chemistry on which it is based to fundamental higher concepts we take for granted. Only way to find it is what we are not doing - looking for anomalies of any kind, definitely not looking for the evidence of human concept of communication or such. (Say, that there is indeed intelligent species out there based on same type of biochemistry. Just, they evolved on some parasitic branch. By fundamentals of such species open communication would be anathema, they'd actively hide... or intelligent ocean of Solaris sci-fi and it's, plausible, insane concept of communication, as it is one itself).
Second, the fundamental definition of God by Religion(s) is typically something that have created this Universe and everything from some "outside". Transcendental outside. We are by religious definition "inside" and capable of observing/measuring "inside". We are not, by definition, able to scientifically say anything about transcendental "outside". Irrelevant to Religion, may I add. The only thing Science can say about transcendental is - if it is plausible according to the best known scientific facts. Current understanding of the BigBang leaves door open. Does not and can't prove or disprove. It is possible but we do not know and can't scientifically know.

Science will never prove, nor will it disprove, God’s existence.

Neither is true.

A deist god, if it exists, creates no event by which it can be proven to exist. But nobody really believes in that sort of god, so that's not really a problem.

As for all the other gods, there's plenty of proof they don't exist as defined by the religious texts describing god.

Flood? Must leave traces for thousands of years. So if a god is supposed to have flooded the earth, then the lack of that flood evidence disproves that god.

And so on for the others.

E.g. Zeus on Mt Olympus? Go to the top of Mt Olympus, look for Zeus and his home. No god and no house? Zeus Disproven.

Second, the fundamental definition of God by Religion(s) is typically something that have created this Universe and everything from some “outside”. Transcendental outside. We are by religious definition “inside” and capable of observing/measuring “inside”. We are not, by definition, able to scientifically say anything about transcendental “outside”.

That may be typical in the ivory tower, but its not typical on the US street. Typical on the US street is the belief in a God that is capable of intervening and showing itself in a detectable manner. Pillar of smoke by day, mana from heaven, dead people getting up and walking, etc.

@ Wow #77

as far as the Flood... or floods in that region of the world in those periods... there are plenty of archeological evidence that the area of Mesopotamia and surronding regions were flooded in the past.. weather through caspian sea, or tsunami... or whatever. It wasn't once and it certainly wasn't caused by God. But what ended in epic of Gilgamesh and later in hebrew bible, was based on natural floods which were devastating surely as they are today, so no wander people would remember and write about it.

i agree with you on the rest... just the flood was a bad example, they did occur :)

as far as the Flood… or floods in that region of the world in those periods… there are plenty of archeological evidence that the area of Mesopotamia and surronding regions were flooded in the past

Which would be fine evidence for a flood that only covered a small area.

However, the christian god flooded the entire world. Since that would have left worldwide evidence, rather than local evidence, the flood example *in the bible* DID NOT OCCUR.

I'm afraid you're wrong on it being a bad example.

Unless you're going to allow ret-conning of the bible to fit facts. Sorry :-^

well if we want to be precise then it wasn't a christian god but a Hebrew god. Interesting point tough... very little to no god in new testament.. more of a "Meet the Nazarethians" type of show :D

No, SL, it's the same god.

If we're going to be precise.

The same god.

I'm also really interested in the proof that science gives. I understand that most tend to believe that it proves the lack of existence of a god, but I also sometimes wonder if it does the opposite. I've researched this topic and come up with basically nothing until this discussion. I look up extra-terrestrial life that we have found and, although that we have not found very complex forms of life, we did find plant life on mars. I found this on http://marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2001/019/colossal-trees… and really enjoyed reading about it. Its worth a read! Really cool to know that we have found life on mars.

I understand that most tend to believe that it proves the lack of existence of a god, but I also sometimes wonder if it does the opposite.

Templeton Foundation keeps trying different schemes to get a successful experiment that is the opposite.

So far every attempt has failed, therefore the proposition (there is a god active in the universe, as per christian dogma) is disproven.

The only gods not disproven are ones that don't do anything *AT ALL* and ones not yet proposed (in other words, every religion so far has it wrong).

God. The method to prove the existence of Him is neither Science or common theories of evolution, assumptions and thought over matter. Either you believe or you don't. Faith is something you cannot see, but you hope in. That my friends is a relational and personal experience you will discover only when you decide to believe or when you die!

@ Wow #82

is the same god, but is the same god to muslims as well. Hebrews, christians and muslims all believe in same santa clause. My issue is that you singled christian tradition for floods, when in fact it's not their tradition, they just assimilated a much much older story.. in fact some 3000 years older.

Sinisa,

You are undoubtedly right, the Flood is originally a Hebrew story adopted by Christians. However, in a modern context, it is by and large only fundamentalist Christians who continue to argue for the literal truth of a worldwide flood. Most other Christian denominations and most Jews would argue for an allegorical interpretation of Genesis, not a literal one.

A scientific statistical analysis of the coded information found within the KJV Bible, might do the trick to provide scientific proof.

Go to http://goo.gl/38qhp and click on the yellow flashing words "Watch / Listen".

Requests were made to have it analyzed, but the scientific community decided to base their conclusions entirely upon assumption instead, and thus they ignored it in an instant. Thus, if something is trash, it may go viral. But if it is not trash, it goes into the trash can. What a backward world this is.

@ Sean T

I might be very wrong, but I'm pretty sure that even the most fervent fundamental preacher now days doesn't believe in literal truth of it all. I deeply believe it's all just social engineering and crowd control. Just like politicians. Some amish somewhere might really believe it. But I really doubt preachers believe it. Not really, not when they are "off duty".

SL, given that all we have are the words coming out of people about their beliefs and the proofs of validity thereof, I do not accept you can make the claim "I’m pretty sure that even the most fervent fundamental preacher now days doesn’t believe in literal truth of it all.".

You CAN claim that of "prominent" eccelsiastical figures, such as the Archbishop of Cantebury and the current Pope. That, however, is partly because they've had to work through the arguments *without presupposition of their error* to attain their rank. And they have to work with others, and it's rather hard to claim persecution and repression of religion whilst you're banging on about all the other heathen religions are wrong.

Aside: please note, however, that "respecting religion" doesn't include Boku Haram, who are just as deserving of their faith being treated as valid as any other religious movement.

You cannot make claims about anothers' belief with your own belief. It doesn't work that way.

Sean P:

But if it is not trash, it goes into the trash can. What a backward world this is.

However, I have only your word that it isn't trash, whereas it appears to be unsubstantiated trash to me: a load of semi-technical bafflegab pretending to be science when it's merely science-y.

Given KJV has been extensively edited (and not the most major one being the editorial hatchet that was the Nicean Accord), and that the english used in the current KJV and the original KJV aren't the same, makes a frequency analysis unreliable unless you undergo special pleading that "it's valid only today because God knew it would be this way!!!", which is merely another load of trash.

Explain: Why should the analysis work? Why only the KJV? Why only the version analised?

Most other Christian denominations and most Jews would argue for an allegorical interpretation of Genesis, not a literal one.

And then religion goes down the same plughole that "God of the Gaps" sank.

Why should the flood be allegorical and not "Original Sin"? And without Original Sin, what did JC ever do for us? (cue python skit...).

Why should the god not be allegory too?

And so on.

Religion tells you nothing about reality or truth. It tells you about *people*. Especially in religion when you analyse which bits they take (Leviticus re Gay Sex) and which bits they don't bother with (Leviticus and Shellfish).

Because God is just the voice in our heads, our personal morality, not an external one. But Religions make it a real thing so that the voice in one person's head becomes the word for *EVERYONE'S* head.

@ Wow #82

is the same god, but is the same god to muslims as well

So therefore changing your earlier claim re: the exclusion of that god from christianity, but "saving face" by trying to claim an "equal error" on my part..?

Yes, the same one there too. And therefore the muslim god is disproven by the complete lack of evidence of an 8000 year old flood worldwide, but evidence of floods on a regional scale of at least as great antiquity.

Ergo: God *can* be disproved by science. As soon as your god concept has an effect on this reality (e.g. putting a soul in a body), it can be tested and proved wrong, if it is. However, god cannot be proven by science, since god would be merely another "law of nature", and in science just as conditionally true.

Perhaps the misconception of a god is exactly that - an all knowing - all seeing god - the singularity that supposedly looks over us, judges us and, dare I say, controls us. A unitary god cannot be everywhere in the universe at the same time; cannot be aware of every being, every thought in the universe at the same instant. The concept of a god has been used through the ages to bring fear into the heart of humanity so that control became easier - you 'sin' you get punished; very easy lessons.
If one considers another view, perhaps we (all humanity) are the actual godhead. When any group of people think the same way about a subject, it becomes easier to achieve whatever the goal is for that group. What we have is a lot of disjointed groups, each of their own ideals, trying to force their respective ideologies onto other similar thinking groups, but not wanting to understand those groups views.
The idea of a common 'force' (humanity working together with nature) is not such a difficult thing to achieve in time. It just requires time to get us to think together & retain our individuality. We have a long way to go, yet the answer is on our doorstep. For each individual, there is a process of learning the right path to follow to end in the same place as every other individual. (starwars basics - may the force be with you).
So, how do you prove the existence of 'a' god? You won't. Humanity has to work together to BE.

If one considers another view, perhaps we (all humanity) are the actual godhead.

No, I think you're creating a gestalt being out of the inevitable consequence of a social animal able to communicate complex information.

We ascribe simplifying labels to people, but nobody believes the same bits of the bible and discards the same bits, despite all calling themselves "Christian".

Boku Haram and ISIS show how "Muslims" identify themselves with the same labels, but preclude other self-identified muslims from that term.

Even within the same congregation, there are as many opinions of what their religion means as there are congregants.

Trying to make it one being afflicts that poor, unsuspecting victim of the most massive case of schizophrenia ever devised.

Wow,

You won't get any arguments from me defending religion. My point about the flood being treated as allegorical by most religious groups who claim adherence to the bible was meant specifically to address SL's post questioning why it is that only Christians get heat because of the lack of evidence for the flood. AFAIK, it is primarily fundamentalist Christians who insist on the literal flood (I do admit to a lack of knowledge of the beliefs of the kookier sects of Islam and Judaism, so I could be wrong, but in any case it is the wack-job Christians who are far more influential in society anyway). Denying the flood certainly does not make belief in the god of the bible any more plausible. It just means we cannot use the lack of evidence for the flood as an argument against those beliefs; other arguments must be used in those cases.

@ WOW
the question was related to science proving the existence of god.
For the being, deity, thing, whatever it is conceived to be by the individual who may believe in such an 'entity' to be everywhere in the universe, interpreting all thought of all beings in the same instant is not possible.
No, I'm not creating anything, just giving some food for thought. In simplified terms, if humanity doesn't get its act together, life as we perceive it today will go down the plughole very soon.

PJ your first line is correct, but the follow on paragraph does not correlate in any way, shape or form with it.

As for food for thought, you seem unhappy and wish I had not "eaten this food for thought" and commented myself. If your comments were not to be thought about, then it was "calorie free food for thought" and should never have been posted, being a waste of time.

I think that al the amazing things God created for us is enough evidence to prove that he is real...no further investigation is necessary.

I agree, there is no need for a further investigation.

I think that al the amazing things God created for us is enough evidence to prove that he is real

Dumbass.

You have to assume he exists to create them to use their existence as proof he exists. Which means you're assumed the answer to prove the answer.

Ergo: you're a dumbass.

Even if life is found on another planet, it doesn't disprove the existence of God. I don't understand the argument from this perspective. Can you explain how finding life on another planet disproves His existence?

"Even if life is found on another planet, it doesn’t disprove the existence of God. "

It does disprove the one that made only the earth and the people on it in his own image. Or cares only and especially about those hairless monkeys.

So almost every god almost every single person thinks of as BEING god.

Which is close enough to disproving god for anyone other than a sophist.

Oh, and why is it male? It doesn't reproduce, so is asexual.

The question is: Can science prove the existence of God?

It doesn't ask if science currently can, just if science can.

I can envision a scenario where there is a technological singularity, which is predicted by many futurists to occur in our lifetime. If such a singularity happens, technology will advance beyond all of the abilities and knowledge possible to be obtained by humans in our lifetime and then *keep going*. What happens then is unclear, as it's hard to say if AI will become autonomous, self-aware (aware that it is aware) and so on.

If a machine can surpass the knowledge obtainable by humans, can it obtain all knowledge of the unknown? Will such knowledge enable it to develop without limitations, beyond the limits of time and space? Will it continue to grow in power until it is all-powerful? Can it do anything?

This brings us to the question of whether there is only the Unknown, or also the Unknowable. And, what such an entity (not necessarily limited to autonomous machine, but possibly organic computer, and then perhaps some form that is not confined to physicality). Are thoughts and spirit a form of science?

In a way science can possibly prove the existence of God by being the path that God takes to appear to recreate itself in the confines of our physical, linear dimension.

I guess we will find out around 2030ish. Since Jesus appeared on the earth and lived to about 35 A.D. then that would jibe with the 2000 years thing that he said. He might have been the offspring of superintelligent life (son of God) and this is all part of a greater plan to reveal more to us, to spur our evolution as a species. Nobody can really know.

"It doesn’t ask if science currently can, just if science can."

Yup.

"I can envision a scenario where there is a technological singularity"

I don't see that that's necessary to answer the question, nor a prerequisite for actually doing so for any viable meaning of the word "prove". And doesn't change the problem if you use non-viable meanings (e.g. prove an undefined god doesn't exist, since defining what it is would be a prerequisite).

We have already proven many gods don't exist. Some of the earlier ones just by being able to climb the mountain where the gods were supposed to have their house.

Others by looking at the actual world and universe we're in (so the earth is not flat like a tent floor, under a "glass" dome with water outside it).

All science can do is to investigate the claims today and answer the claims in the future that arise when the current claims are proven unsupported by reality.

One thing we do know for sure is that we don't have to wait until 2030 (and when it comes round and still no zombie jew turns up, which you may find offensive, but at least I'm not calling them space jews, will just become another date we'll have to wait for in the future) since the claims made were that he would reappear within the lifetimes of the people who followed him.

One thing you may have noticed is they're all dead now. And been dead for a long time. And it needed no science for that, either. Just a calendar.

"Are thoughts and spirit a form of science?"

In about the same way as waffles are a form of science. IOW not unless you demean the meaning of "a form of science", in which case the answer could be yes, but so would my rephrasing of it.

I am in agreement with Ethan on this sbject, "Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God, but if we use our beliefs as an excuse to draw conclusions that scientifically, we’re not ready for, we run the grave risk of depriving ourselves of what we might have come to truly learn.”
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/02/12/comments-of-the-week…

I am in agreement with Ethan on this sbject

You mean where he says:

What a small God to have! A God that can be (and likely will be) squeezed out into non-existence simply by discovering more about the natural Universe is a God that is just screaming to be disproved. Indeed, a great many Gods (and stories about Gods) have been scientifically disproved in exactly this fashion, although proof is not necessarily enough for its believers.

?

Sure, he agrees with me that you're misrepresenting him and he doesn't agree with your claims.

But you still love to lie your arse off, don't you, teabaggie.

Professor Dawkins, who thinks that the existence or non existence of God is clearly a scientific hypothesis, casts doubt on the idea that the question can be answered using Science “…Despite such well-financed efforts [the Templeton Foundation’s double-blind trials to test whether remote prayer would speed the recovery of heart patients], no evidence for God’s existence has yet appeared.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl…

That lack of evidence from those trials is fatal for the test to comply with the norms of Science, for a central property of Science is falsifiability. While a scientific theory or hypothesis can be disproved, it can never be proved.

"casts doubt on the idea that the question can be answered using Science "

Except he doesn't, you're still misrepresenting others for your own ends, teabaggie.

BAD DOG.

All he's saying there is that the tests have proved god wrong, but, as Ethan says (also in that link you pointed to): "although proof is not necessarily enough for its believers."

But I guess you're one of those believers whose proof is never enough if it doesn't show you right, eh?

Ethan has already explained that Science will never know everything about the natural world, much less a supernatural one.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/02/10/why-science-wil…

"much less a supernatural one"

That was your addition, teabaggie.

You're lying again! BAD DOG!

And as Ive already shown he does say that god can prove science. I'll quote it again out of that blockquote I gave above, since oyu missed it last time:

a great many Gods have been scientifically disproved in exactly this fashion

You really don't bother reading do you, teabaggie, you go straight to the conclusion without any of that pesky reality getting in your way, don't you.

Ethan was quite explicit, “The total amount of information accessible to us in the Universe is finite, and hence, so is the amount of knowledge we can gain about it. There's a limit to the amount of energy we can access, the particles we can observe and the measurements we can make. There's a whole lot left to learn and a whole lot that science has yet to reveal, and many of the present unknowns will fall in the near future. But some things we will likely never know. The Universe may yet be infinite, but our knowledge of it never will be.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/02/10/why-science-wil…

Yes, he WAS *quite* explicit. here it is again:

A God that can be (and likely will be) squeezed out into non-existence

So he says, quite explicitly you are wrong and you are abusing his words with a quotemine.But you have nothing of yourself to argue your case, so you have to parade an argument from authority in its case, but your authority himself says you are wrong, so you have to resort to deception and lies.

BAD DOG!

Teabaggie here is so desperate to keep their faith in an existent god he's willing to push it off into the irrelevant and powerless areas of reality to make it so.

At least most christians refuse to neuter and emasculate their god like this, but teabaggie doesn't even have respect for their "almighty creator", let alone the truth or reality, things we all can agree actually exist as things or ideas.

Stephen Jay Gould has also weighed in on the subject, “… To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth million time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists …”
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/gould_darwin-on-trial.html

But the other two "expert witnesses" you brought forward also, when you looked at what they said in their entirety rather than your cherry pick, disagreed with what you claim from them.

Why are you taking this third one as right when you've been wrong about the other two, teabaggie???

Especially when your link is titled "Impeaching a Self-Appointed Judge", wherein he crituques a christian scientist's book that tries to prove Darwin was wrong or bad or some other weird shit.

Not about whether god could be proven by science or not.

You're misrepresenting scientists when your own arguments fail.

BAD DOG!

It is pleasing to me that most participants in an intellectual conversation can engage each other without emotional attachment. The quest for knowledge and understanding does not depend on associating replies with opportunities to insult or even condescend. It is a mark of honor and demonstrates true respect for others who seek a greater understanding and I would like to commend all who foster this ability.

Moreover the topic isn't "Does Stephen J Gould think that science can prove the existence of god?".

Please try to stay on topic, this is a real hot button for you when you fail to make a case and want to set yourself back in dominance. You misrepresent yourself too, it seems.

BAD DOG!

"with opportunities to insult or even condescend. "

However when a fuckwit is being a fuckwit, it matters not whether your sensibilities are offended. Get offended. It is meaningless. Either stop being a fuckwit or, if it's another, demand that they clean up their act and stop being an arsehole.

Simples.

SØrce,

As a judge ruled in 1863, “Res ipsa loquitur.”

*shrugs*

I was pointing out something that I uphold and commend. It's off topic anyway so sorry for that. To each their own. I'm not referring to anyone in particular but it's unfortunate to have to read degraded speech that conjures up banal images when engaged in an intellectual conversation. I thought that was a known. I guess it depends what one's motivations are. Mine are never to offend, I try to treat others how I would like to be treated when they have resigned to degrading themselves. There's not much more to say about it, sorry to derail this potentially good conversation.

SØrce,

" ... I thought that was a known. ..."

It is, but some ignore it.

"but it’s unfortunate to have to read degraded speech that conjures up banal images"

Since you're the one doing the conjuring, that's really only your fault, though. Try not conjuring up banal images. Especially if yuore trying to pretend to be serious.

"It is, but some ignore it."

Not really. Nobody outside your head knows what or why you conjure up as internal images.

I really don't feel the need to avoid you distressing yourself out at your expense. If you want to be butthurt, teabaggie, feel free, I won't stop you.

I won't stop not worrying.

And again, since he's been dead for a good long time, I don't think he's got anything to say about this blog, teabaggie.

Someone smarter would have put some point down rather than quotemine someone dead and hope everyone else works out what it means. Not someone lazy and dishonest like you, though, teabaggie. You do you.

Oh, btw, source, I was not speaking of any specific event or person, but it applies to everyone and everywhen. Please do try not to manufacture offence by adding context never supplied.

Ethan has also addressed the limits of Science,
“All of this is true:
Even if every particle in existence was known and measured to an arbitrary accuracy, much about the past and future would still be unknowable.
Even if everything about our observable Universe’s past and future were known, there is still the unobservable Universe which goes beyond our own.
And even if we knew all about the unobservable Universe, there’s still a region of time — before the Big Bang — that contains information that is unknowable, and appears irrelevant for all the things we can observe.”
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/02/12/comments-of-the-week…

And he's addressed the question of whether science can prove the existence of god, which is not "Can science measure and know about everything in the universe" which, because of inflation and now dark energy, is impossible because vast regions of the universe are forever beyond the expanding light horizon of our vision.

Oh, on whether science can prove the existence of god? He says yes:

A God that can be (and likely will be) squeezed out into non-existence

BAD DOG, lying on the carpet in front of guests! And now I have to clean that mess up in case some poor innocent treads in that crap.

BAD DOG.

teabaggie has a chickenshit god, so terrified of reality it retreats behind every barrier and never works in this universe and never could.

At least honest religious people, even Boku Haram, don't demand their god hide from view... But you're a special kind of christian shithead, aren't you, teabaggie.

I suppose that if one arbitrarily constrained the attributes of a deity to be limited to those testable by the tools available to Science, then such a straw man (“God of the gaps” in the vernacular) will, unsurprisingly, be knocked down and disposed of. Such sophomoric behavior will suffice to satisfy some.

And the only way you can claim science can not prove the existence of god is by tying him up in powerlessness and lack of point, teabaggie.

No definition of god says "And has no effect, nor has ever had any effect, on this universe".

But you want dictionary definitions when you want to hide, not when you're trying to peddle your bollocks.

Of course, the topic is not whether God does, or does not exist, but rather “Can science prove the existence of God?”, which is quite different.

BTW teabaggie, huge irony there. To protect your god you've castrated him into nonexistence behind impenetrable walls of noninterference (impenetrable even for gods), the ultimate god of the gaps. As Ethan said:

What a small God to have! A God that can be (and likely will be) squeezed out into non-existence simply by discovering more about the natural Universe is a God that is just screaming to be disproved. Indeed, a great many Gods (and stories about Gods) have been scientifically disproved in exactly this fashion, although proof is not necessarily enough for its believers.

You accept his words, but only if you can abuse them for your own selfish personal ends, teabaggie.

BAD DOG.

"Of course, the topic is not whether God does, or does not exist, but rather “Can science prove the existence of God?”, which is quite different."

Of course it is ALSO not whether science can measure everything in the universe.

That, also is quite different.

But you don't give a shit for the difference when you wan to post, do you, teabaggie.

In this delightful interview with Professor Weinberg, he touches several times upon the intractable mystery of the natural world and the limits of human understanding, which unavoidably include the limits of the scientific method.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ep3I0_cr3Oo

I will stand up for my standards by not participating in a thread where there are negative interactions taking place, and I am surprised that anyone else would feel motivated to have a mature discussion with folks who can't respectfully do the same. I'd bet money that if moderators had time to troll with the same enthusiasm as Wow does, they'd want him banished. Don't bother responding to me Wow, I won't be back to read your remarks.

SØrce,

"... Don’t bother responding to me Wow, I won’t be back to read your remarks."

You will miss nothing at all.

... and so another potential participant in "Starts With A Bang" leaves, due to a hostile, brutish environment.

Sure, stand up for yours, but don't expect me to care if I don't agree with them.

You are 100% allowed to be offended. Go wild. Not my problem. And that's just it. It's not my problem.

My gripes are about the content, not the delivery.

And again teabagger, this isn't about the limits of observation of the natural world. It's about whether science can prove the existence of god. So far every argument you've "tried" fails miserably.

And every attempt to preempt someone else's higher intelligence or standing has been a flat bust.

Science can. The only ones whining it can't are christians, and very few of them, since most of them accept it can be done too. Indeed every prayer is an attempt to prove their god, and for the believer, it proves it does.

There are only a few christian retards who demand that their god hide from ever affecting reality and be forever hidden.

IMO because they know that there's no such thing as god, but they're too chickenshit themselves to face up to it, so they palm their cowardice onto their imaginary friend they call "god".

Let us not forget what Dr. Heisenberg had to say about the limits of human understanding, which inevitably include the limits of the scientific method.

“What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.” -Werner Heisenberg
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/02/02/heisenbergs-astrophy…

Lets not forget you've lied about what others have said many times, teabagger, before this. And that quote doesn't even address the question, even tangentially, neither does it support your claim about it.

Another flat bust from your lying keyboard, teabaggie.

BAD DOG.

Let us keep in mind that the topic is not whether God does, or does not exist, but rather “Can science prove the existence of God?”, which is quite different.

Remember what Thomas Jefferson said about the religious arguments:

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.
―Thomas Jefferson

And teabaggie here has whole heaps of fuck all to talk about, therefore definitely deserves every heap of scorn and ridicule handed to him.

Even if others pretend butthurt over it and fakeflounce off.

As Ethan says about every day life “… the greatest hallmark of science isn’t digging into your conclusions and finding all the evidence you can to support them; it’s to constantly challenge them, to attempt to knock them down, and to see where your present knowledge can be superseded or improved.” ( http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/01/31/how-thinking-like-a-… ) is applicable here. The assumption that the range of scientific inquiry extends to evaluating the existence of God falls apart when faced with the current lack of evidence to corroborate the hypothesis. In this absence of evidence situation the question “Can science prove the existence of God?” is similar to the question “Can science prove the existence of the Aether?”

The answer to both questions is No, due to the lack of evidence.

Well the one going off on tangents all the time is you, tebaggie.

So, yes I agree with you you are a shithead and need to keep on-topic. That you cannot is merely a result of your incompetent mendacity.

I remain in agreement with Ethan on this subject when he posted, “Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God, but if we use our beliefs as an excuse to draw conclusions that scientifically, we’re not ready for, we run the grave risk of depriving ourselves of what we might have come to truly learn.”
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/02/12/comments-of-the-week…

From the mouth of the moron, in the space of less than a minute:

As Ethan says about every day life

and earlier:

Let us keep in mind that the topic is not whether God does, or does not exist, but rather “Can science prove the existence of God?”, which is quite different

But teabagged troll here doesn't give a shit for reality or honesty or even the topic of the subject.

They just gotta complain because they're being wrong in the internet, and that, to them, is unpossible.

So the moron screams at the trees and flings shit about his home, trying to scare away the nasty man who won't let him masturbate in public.

Dr. Dawkins, who thinks that the existence or non existence of God is clearly a scientific hypothesis, casts doubt on the idea that the question can be answered using Science “…Despite such well-financed efforts [the Templeton Foundation’s double-blind trials to test whether remote prayer would speed the recovery of heart patients], no evidence for God’s existence has yet appeared.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl…

The lack of evidence from those trials is fatal if the test is to conform to the norms of Science, for a central property of Science is falsifiability. While a scientific theory or hypothesis can be disproved, it can never be proved. In this absence of evidence situation the question “Can science prove the existence of God?” is similar to the question “Can science prove the existence of the Aether?”

The answer to both questions is No, due to the lack of evidence.

I remain in agreement with Ethan on this subject

So when he said

What a small God to have! A God that can be (and likely will be) squeezed out into non-existence simply by discovering more about the natural Universe is a God that is just screaming to be disproved. Indeed, a great many Gods (and stories about Gods) have been scientifically disproved in exactly this fashion, although proof is not necessarily enough for its believers.

You stopped agreeing with him on this subject, and you're still lying your shitheaded little mind off, aren't you teabaggie.

What a useless mangy scrotum of a man you are.

But every man is the person they hear in their head, and yours is chicken shit.

Your death cult has you paralysed with fear, hasn't it, teabaggie?

Dr. Siegel has already explained that Science will never know everything about the natural world, much less a supernatural one.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/02/10/why-science-wil…

"Dr. Dawkins, who thinks that the existence or non existence of God is clearly a scientific hypothesis"

Therefore clearly says that science can prove the existence of god, teabaggie. But you can't just let it lie, you have to blather on about the failures as if they somehow "prove" that science can't prove god's existence.

"Dr. Siegel has already explained that Science will never know everything about the natural world,"

But again, the subject is not about can science know everything about the natural world, but whether it can prove the existence of god.

And it can, teabaggie.

But you're so full of crap it can't stay on your side of the keyboard.

Sad.

Dr. Siegel was quite explicit, “The total amount of information accessible to us in the Universe is finite, and hence, so is the amount of knowledge we can gain about it. There's a limit to the amount of energy we can access, the particles we can observe and the measurements we can make. There's a whole lot left to learn and a whole lot that science has yet to reveal, and many of the present unknowns will fall in the near future. But some things we will likely never know. The Universe may yet be infinite, but our knowledge of it never will be.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/02/10/why-science-wil…

"much less a supernatural one."

Where does he mention the supernatural, you fuckwitted retard?

Dr. Gould has also commented on the subject, “… To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth million time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists …”
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/gould_darwin-on-trial.html

copypaste from 115

"Yes, he WAS *quite* explicit. here it is again:

A God that can be (and likely will be) squeezed out into non-existence

So he says, quite explicitly you are wrong and you are abusing his words with a quotemine.But you have nothing of yourself to argue your case, so you have to parade an argument from authority in its case, but your authority himself says you are wrong, so you have to resort to deception and lies."

Lame you moronic twat. Try harder to find something new or fuck off to the dump thread.

Dr. Siegel has addressed the limits of Science,
“All of this is true:
Even if every particle in existence was known and measured to an arbitrary accuracy, much about the past and future would still be unknowable.
Even if everything about our observable Universe’s past and future were known, there is still the unobservable Universe which goes beyond our own.
And even if we knew all about the unobservable Universe, there’s still a region of time — before the Big Bang — that contains information that is unknowable, and appears irrelevant for all the things we can observe.”
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/02/12/comments-of-the-week…

copypaste from 118:

"But the other two “expert witnesses” you brought forward also, when you looked at what they said in their entirety rather than your cherry pick, disagreed with what you claim from them.

Why are you taking this third one as right when you’ve been wrong about the other two, teabaggie???

Especially when your link is titled “Impeaching a Self-Appointed Judge”, wherein he crituques a christian scientist’s book that tries to prove Darwin was wrong or bad or some other weird shit.

Not about whether god could be proven by science or not.

You’re misrepresenting scientists when your own arguments fail.

BAD DOG!"

Lame, you moronic shit-for-brains. Try something new or piss off.

I suppose that if one invests sufficient effort to constrain the attributes of a deity to be limited to those testable by the tools available to Science, then such a straw man (“God of the gaps” in the vernacular) will, unsurprisingly, be knocked down and disposed of. Such sophomoric behavior will suffice to satisfy some.

copypasta from 120:

And he’s addressed the question of whether science can prove the existence of god, which is not “Can science measure and know about everything in the universe” which, because of inflation and now dark energy, is impossible because vast regions of the universe are forever beyond the expanding light horizon of our vision.

Oh, on whether science can prove the existence of god? He says yes:

A God that can be (and likely will be) squeezed out into non-existence

BAD DOG, lying on the carpet in front of guests! And now I have to clean that mess up in case some poor innocent treads in that crap.

---

Your retarded claims are no less retarded when you repeat them, fucking moron, quite the opposite.

Now find something new of piss off.

In this thoughtful, frank, and candid interview with Professor Weinberg, he touches several times upon the intractable mystery of the natural world and the limits of human understanding, which include the limits of the scientific method.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ep3I0_cr3Oo

copypasta from 130:

And the only way you can claim science can not prove the existence of god is by tying him up in powerlessness and lack of point, teabaggie.

No definition of god says “And has no effect, nor has ever had any effect, on this universe”.

But you want dictionary definitions when you want to hide, not when you’re trying to peddle your bollocks.
--

More lame repeat bollocks, retard. Fuck off to the dump thread with you.

Dr. Heisenberg also commented about the limits of human understanding, which inevitably include the limits of the scientific method, and thus its inability to anwer the question Ethan posed above.

“What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.” -Werner Heisenberg
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/02/02/heisenbergs-astrophy…

copypasta;d from 140, you twat, it's been already stated and found as moronic as you are:

And again teabagger, this isn’t about the limits of observation of the natural world. It’s about whether science can prove the existence of god. So far every argument you’ve “tried” fails miserably.

And every attempt to preempt someone else’s higher intelligence or standing has been a flat bust.

Science can. The only ones whining it can’t are christians, and very few of them, since most of them accept it can be done too. Indeed every prayer is an attempt to prove their god, and for the believer, it proves it does.

There are only a few christian retards who demand that their god hide from ever affecting reality and be forever hidden.

Dr. Siegel commented about every day life “… the greatest hallmark of science isn’t digging into your conclusions and finding all the evidence you can to support them; it’s to constantly challenge them, to attempt to knock them down, and to see where your present knowledge can be superseded or improved.” ( http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/01/31/how-thinking-like-a-… ) is applicable here. The assumption that the range of scientific inquiry extends to evaluating the existence of God falls apart when faced with the current lack of evidence to corroborate the hypothesis. In this absence of evidence situation the question “Can science prove the existence of God?” is similar to the question “Can science prove the existence of the Aether?”

The answer to both questions is No, due to the lack of evidence.

And again you're of topic you moronic christian cultist, with a repeat of the same bullshit you failed with before, only deepening the failure.

Fuck off to the dump thread.

Ethan block this shithead, please.

If you keep him here, he'll only clog every thread with his shitposting. And if it's monetising this site, then you're making a mockery of this site, your work and science.

Even if this is some feculant retard whose daddy owns part of the site and whose only care is to troll the shit to get postcounts up again, letting him post makes SWAB meaningless.

The thread is about whether science can prove the existence of god, not the aether, you trollfucker.

And of course, the topic is not whether God does, or doe not exist, but rather “Can science prove the existence of God?”, which is a quite different question.

And eric, notice how as soon as teabaggie comes in to this thread, it suddenly becomes infested with shit again.

There's a common thread here...

I think Dr. Siegel provides very good advice on this subject when he posted, “Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God, but if we use our beliefs as an excuse to draw conclusions that scientifically, we’re not ready for, we run the grave risk of depriving ourselves of what we might have come to truly learn.”
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/02/12/comments-of-the-week…

So you agree you're a fucking retard and off topic? Go to the dump thread and stop shitposting the same off topic bollocks, teabagged troll.

You lying little shitbag.

Fuck, your mum must be really sad what her little boy has "grown up" to be.

A fucking retard.

Dr. Richard Dawkins, who arguse that the existence or non existence of God is a scientific hypothesis, casts doubt on the idea that the question can be answered using Science “…Despite such well-financed efforts [the Templeton Foundation’s double-blind trials to test whether remote prayer would speed the recovery of heart patients], no evidence for God’s existence has yet appeared.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl…

The lack of evidence from those trials is fatal if the test is to conform to the norms of Science, for a central property of Science is falsifiability. While a scientific theory or hypothesis can be disproved, it can never be proved. In this absence of evidence situation the question “Can science prove the existence of God?” is similar to the question “Can science prove the existence of the Aether?”

The answer to both questions is No, due to the lack of evidence.

Ironic: teabaggie asking people to make up their own mind when he's only ever borrowed other people's minds and even then had to lie about what they thought.

A more idiotic shithead there is not, not even ragbag media, or denier on AGW.

Fuck, even chelle was vaguely coherent.

Our bloger has already explained that Science will never know everything about the natural world, much less a supernatural one.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/02/10/why-science-wil…

More repeats of the same lying crap you posted earlier, teabaggie.

What a lame fucking life you have., you trollfucked idiot.

Our blogger was quite explicit about the limits to science, “The total amount of information accessible to us in the Universe is finite, and hence, so is the amount of knowledge we can gain about it. There's a limit to the amount of energy we can access, the particles we can observe and the measurements we can make. There's a whole lot left to learn and a whole lot that science has yet to reveal, and many of the present unknowns will fall in the near future. But some things we will likely never know. The Universe may yet be infinite, but our knowledge of it never will be.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/02/10/why-science-wil…

Well, here we have more shitposting from the creotard masquerading as "John", aka jkeyes1000, a christian apologist who got his ass handed to him on the internet by Brian Dalton and now infests this site like an intestinal worm.

But it's not his fault: the death cult he worships has terrified him from early childhood. He just cannot think or accept reality.

Dr. Gould has commented about sciences inability to prove or disprove the existence of God, “… To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth million time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists …”
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/gould_darwin-on-trial.html

And teabaggie is running off with the goalposts again, because this isn't about the limits of science.

But the fuckwit can't manage a coherent case so shitposts instead.

And ethan lets it.

I suppose that if one arbitrarily limits the attributes of a deity to be those testable by the tools available to Science, then such a straw man (“God of the gaps” in the vernacular) will, unsurprisingly, be knocked down and disposed of. Such sophomoric behavior will suffice to satisfy some.

And repeating the bullshit is still bullshit you feculant idiot. Go scream in the dump thread you troll.

Ethan block this shithead, please.

If you keep him here, he’ll only clog every thread with his shitposting. And if it’s monetising this site, then you’re making a mockery of this site, your work and science.

Even if this is some feculant retard whose daddy owns part of the site and whose only care is to troll the shit to get postcounts up again, letting him post makes SWAB meaningless.

Dr. Siegel has addressed the limits of Science, which (of course) pertain to its inability to prove or disprove the existence of God.
“All of this is true:
Even if every particle in existence was known and measured to an arbitrary accuracy, much about the past and future would still be unknowable.
Even if everything about our observable Universe’s past and future were known, there is still the unobservable Universe which goes beyond our own.
And even if we knew all about the unobservable Universe, there’s still a region of time — before the Big Bang — that contains information that is unknowable, and appears irrelevant for all the things we can observe.”
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/02/12/comments-of-the-week…

Ethan block this shithead, please.

If you keep him here, he’ll only clog every thread with his shitposting. And if it’s monetising this site, then you’re making a mockery of this site, your work and science.

Even if this is some feculant retard whose daddy owns part of the site and whose only care is to troll the shit to get postcounts up again, letting him post makes SWAB meaningless.

And his repeats merely cement the fact the moron has no clue and doesn't want to get one.

His arse is clearly full of SOMEONE'S cock.

Or his mouth.

In this interview with Professor Weinberg, Steven touches several times upon the intractable mystery of the natural world and the limits of human understanding, which include the limits of the scientific method, which (of course) pertain to its inability to prove or disprove the existence of God.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ep3I0_cr3Oo

Ethan block this shithead, please.

If you keep him here, he’ll only clog every thread with his shitposting. And if it’s monetising this site, then you’re making a mockery of this site, your work and science.

Even if this is some feculant retard whose daddy owns part of the site and whose only care is to troll the shit to get postcounts up again, letting him post makes SWAB meaningless.

And his repeats merely cement the fact the moron has no clue and doesn’t want to get one. His head is filled with the shit he spews everywhere.

Dr. Werner Heisenberg also commented many years ago about the limits of human understanding, which inevitably include the limits of the scientific method, and thus its inability to anwer the question Ethan posed above.

“What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.” -Werner Heisenberg
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/02/02/heisenbergs-astrophy…

Since retardo is in perpetual retard loop:

“A universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference. “
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl…

re:@#2019, since there have only been red herrings, non sequiturs and other assorted deceptions and no actual logical argument against them, 1808 and 1809 (synthesised together in 1849) remain valid due to no counterargument

Dr. Siegel has commented about every day life “… the greatest hallmark of science isn’t digging into your conclusions and finding all the evidence you can to support them; it’s to constantly challenge them, to attempt to knock them down, and to see where your present knowledge can be superseded or improved.” ( http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/01/31/how-thinking-like-a-… ), and it is quite applicable here.

The assumption that the range of scientific inquiry extends to evaluating the existence of God falls apart when faced with the current lack of evidence to corroborate the hypothesis. In this absence of evidence situation the question “Can science prove the existence of God?” is similar to the question “Can science prove the existence of the Aether?”

The answer to both questions is No, due to the lack of evidence.

Wrong, retardo.

Ethan block this shithead, please.

If you keep him here, he’ll only clog every thread with his shitposting. And if it’s monetising this site, then you’re making a mockery of this site, your work and science.

Even if this is some feculant retard whose daddy owns part of the site and whose only care is to troll the shit to get postcounts up again, letting him post makes SWAB meaningless.

And his repeats merely cement the fact the moron has no clue and doesn’t want to get one. His head is filled with the shit he spews everywhere.

Dr. Siegel’s advice on this subject when he posted, “Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God, but if we use our beliefs as an excuse to draw conclusions that scientifically, we’re not ready for, we run the grave risk of depriving ourselves of what we might have come to truly learn.” Should be listened to and followed.
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/02/12/comments-of-the-week…

All to hide his lies and foolishness!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmgKfjr7T8Y

(see his mug at 0:44!)

Professor Richard Dawkins, who argues that the existence or non existence of God is a valid scientific hypothesis, casts doubt on the idea that the question can be answered using Science “…Despite such well-financed efforts [the Templeton Foundation’s double-blind trials to test whether remote prayer would speed the recovery of heart patients], no evidence for God’s existence has yet appeared.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl…

The lack of evidence from those trials is fatal if the test is to conform to the norms of Science, for a central property of Science is falsifiability. While a scientific theory or hypothesis can be disproved, it can never be proved. In this absence of evidence situation the question “Can science prove the existence of God?” is similar to the question “Can science prove the existence of the Aether?”

The answer to both questions is No, due to the lack of evidence.

It was wrong the first time, and remains wrong each of the half dozen times you reposted the same retarded post, teabaggie.

Ethan block this shithead, if you keep him here, he’ll only clog every thread with his shitposting. And if it’s monetising this site, then you’re making a mockery of this site, your work and science.

Even if this is some feculant retard whose daddy owns part of the site and whose only care is to troll the shit to get postcounts up again, letting him post makes SWAB meaningless.

And his repeats merely cement the fact the moron has no clue and doesn’t want to get one. His head is filled with the shit he spews everywhere.

Dr. Siegel, our blogger has already explained that Science will never know everything about the natural world, much less a supernatural one.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/02/10/why-science-wil…

It won’t make a jot of difference how many ways I, Ethan, or anyone else shows you are wrong.

Ethan block this shithead, if you keep him here, he’ll only clog every thread with his shitposting. And if it’s monetising this site, then you’re making a mockery of this site, your work and science.

Even if this is some feculant retard whose daddy owns part of the site and whose only care is to troll the shit to get postcounts up again, letting him post makes SWAB meaningless.

And his repeats merely cement the fact the moron has no clue and doesn’t want to get one. His head is filled with the shit he spews everywhere.

Our blogger, Dr. Siegel, was quite explicit, “The total amount of information accessible to us in the Universe is finite, and hence, so is the amount of knowledge we can gain about it. There's a limit to the amount of energy we can access, the particles we can observe and the measurements we can make. There's a whole lot left to learn and a whole lot that science has yet to reveal, and many of the present unknowns will fall in the near future. But some things we will likely never know. The Universe may yet be infinite, but our knowledge of it never will be.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/02/10/why-science-wil…

Will you ever stop lying, teabaggie?

Ethan block this shithead, if you keep him here, he’ll only clog every thread with his shitposting. And if it’s monetising this site, then you’re making a mockery of this site, your work and science.

Even if this is some feculant retard whose daddy owns part of the site and whose only care is to troll the shit to get postcounts up again, letting him post makes SWAB meaningless.

And his repeats merely cement the fact the moron has no clue and doesn’t want to get one. His head is filled with the shit he spews everywhere.

Dr. Stephen Gould has commented about science’s inability to prove or disprove the existence of God, “… To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth million time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists …”
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/gould_darwin-on-trial.html

Repeating lies doesn't make them any less of a lie, teabaggie.

Ethan block this shithead, if you keep him here, he’ll only clog every thread with his shitposting. And if it’s monetising this site, then you’re making a mockery of this site, your work and science.

Even if this is some feculant retard whose daddy owns part of the site and whose only care is to troll the shit to get postcounts up again, letting him post makes SWAB meaningless.

And his repeats merely cement the fact the moron has no clue and doesn’t want to get one. His head is filled with the shit he spews everywhere.

I suppose that if one constrains the attributes of a deity to be limited to those testable by the tools available to Science, then such a straw man, “God of the gaps” in the vernacular, will unsurprisingly, be knocked down and disposed of.

Such sophomoric behavior will suffice to satisfy some.

But you tried that before and it was shown to be a lie, tebaggie. Indeed so reliable are you that you're spamposting the same debunked rerard screed from just 20 minutes ago that I haven't actually read anything you posted, just waited 3-5 minutes and asked ethan to dump your ignorant and troll-shit arse off the site so that ACTUAL discussion can take place without you retarding up the place with your ignorance.

Ethan block this shithead, if you keep him here, he’ll only clog every thread with his shitposting. And if it’s monetising this site, then you’re making a mockery of this site, your work and science.

Even if this is some feculant retard whose daddy owns part of the site and whose only care is to troll the shit to get postcounts up again, letting him post makes SWAB meaningless.

And his repeats merely cement the fact the moron has no clue and doesn’t want to get one. His head is filled with the shit he spews everywhere.

Our blogger, Dr. Siegel, has addressed the limits of Science, which directlyrelate to its inability to prove or disprove the existence of God.
“All of this is true:
Even if every particle in existence was known and measured to an arbitrary accuracy, much about the past and future would still be unknowable.
Even if everything about our observable Universe’s past and future were known, there is still the unobservable Universe which goes beyond our own.
And even if we knew all about the unobservable Universe, there’s still a region of time — before the Big Bang — that contains information that is unknowable, and appears irrelevant for all the things we can observe.”
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/02/12/comments-of-the-week…

All those experts and none of them agree with you. But you won't let reality limit you, not even repeating it an eighth time.

Tell me, are you in an institution? Because you sure as shit have to be.

Ethan, ban this shithead.

“What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.” -Werner Heisenberg
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/02/02/heisenbergs-astrophy…

Dr. Heisenberg commented many years ago about the limits of human understanding, which inevitably include the limits of the scientific method, and thus its inability to answer the question Ethan posed above.

Yet more repeat of the same bullshit.Ethan block this shithead, if you keep him here, he’ll only clog every thread with his shitposting. And if it’s monetising this site, then you’re making a mockery of this site, your work and science.

Even if this is some feculant retard whose daddy owns part of the site and whose only care is to troll the shit to get postcounts up again, letting him post makes SWAB meaningless.

And his repeats merely cement the fact the moron has no clue and doesn’t want to get one. His head is filled with the shit he spews everywhere.

Our blogger has commented about that “… the greatest hallmark of science isn’t digging into your conclusions and finding all the evidence you can to support them; it’s to constantly challenge them, to attempt to knock them down, and to see where your present knowledge can be superseded or improved.” ( http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/01/31/how-thinking-like-a-… ), and it is quite applicable here.

The assumption that the range of scientific inquiry successfully extends to evaluating the existence of God falls apart when faced with the current lack of evidence to corroborate the hypothesis. In this absence of evidence situation the question “Can science prove the existence of God?” is similar to the question “Can science prove the existence of the Aether?”

The most plausible answer to these questions is No, due to the lack of evidence.

And you're not reading either your posts or mine, teabaggie.

Ethan block this shithead, if you keep him here, he’ll only clog every thread with his shitposting. And if it’s monetising this site, then you’re making a mockery of this site, your work and science.

Even if this is some feculant retard whose daddy owns part of the site and whose only care is to troll the shit to get postcounts up again, letting him post makes SWAB meaningless.

And his repeats merely cement the fact the moron has no clue and doesn’t want to get one. His head is filled with the shit he spews everywhere.

Dr. Siegel’s advice on this subject, “Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God, but if we use our beliefs as an excuse to draw conclusions that scientifically, we’re not ready for, we run the grave risk of depriving ourselves of what we might have come to truly learn.”

Dr. Stephen Gould‘s advice on this subject, “… To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth million time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists …”

Dr. Dawkins’ advice on this subject, “…Despite such well-financed efforts [the Templeton Foundation’s double-blind trials to test whether remote prayer would speed the recovery of heart patients], no evidence for God’s existence has yet appeared.”

Science, in those published opinions, is unable to prove the existence of God.

Way off topic retardo. I guess you have to complain about your idiocy again, huh? The topic is whether science can prove the existence of god.

It can.

And your quote mines and lies don't hide that fact, that nugget of reality that has you trying to bury the truth under your piles of bollocks.

Ethan block this shithead, if you keep him here, he’ll only clog every thread with his shitposting. And if it’s monetising this site, then you’re making a mockery of this site, your work and science.

Even if this is some feculant retard whose daddy owns part of the site and whose only care is to troll the shit to get postcounts up again, letting him post makes SWAB meaningless.

And his repeats merely cement the fact the moron has no clue and doesn’t want to get one. His head is filled with the shit he spews everywhere.

Dr. Siegel’s advice on this subject when he posted, “Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God, but if we use our beliefs as an excuse to draw conclusions that scientifically, we’re not ready for, we run the grave risk of depriving ourselves of what we might have come to truly learn.” seems eminently reasonable. I think it should be listened to and followed.
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/02/12/comments-of-the-week…

Retardo teabaggie here wants to cry off "We haven't found god yet" to mean "Science cannot prove the existence of god".

Because he's a moron.

Ethan block this shithead, if you keep him here, he’ll only clog every thread with his shitposting. And if it’s monetising this site, then you’re making a mockery of this site, your work and science.

Even if this is some feculant retard whose daddy owns part of the site and whose only care is to troll the shit to get postcounts up again, letting him post makes SWAB meaningless.

And his repeats merely cement the fact the moron has no clue and doesn’t want to get one. His head is filled with the shit he spews everywhere.

Professor Dawkins, who argues that the existence or non existence of God is a valid scientific hypothesis, casts doubt on the idea that the question can be answered using Science “…Despite such well-financed efforts [the Templeton Foundation’s double-blind trials to test whether remote prayer would speed the recovery of heart patients], no evidence for God’s existence has yet appeared.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl…

Dr. Dawkins’ observation on this subject, based on facts, is persuasive. The lack of evidence from those trials is fatal if the test is to conform to the norms of Science, for a central property of Science is falsifiability. While a scientific theory or hypothesis can be disproved, it can never be proved. In this absence of evidence situation the question “Can science prove the existence of God?” is similar to the question “Can science prove the existence of the Aether?”

The answer to both questions is No, due to the lack of evidence.

And that's a repeat of the same shit lies, teabagged.

Ethan block this shithead, if you keep him here, he’ll only clog every thread with his shitposting. And if it’s monetising this site, then you’re making a mockery of this site, your work and science.

Even if this is some feculant retard whose daddy owns part of the site and whose only care is to troll the shit to get postcounts up again, letting him post makes SWAB meaningless.

And his repeats merely cement the fact the moron has no clue and doesn’t want to get one. His head is filled with the shit he spews everywhere.

Our blogger, Ethan, has already explained that Science will never know everything about the natural world, much less a supernatural one. This clearly relates the question he posed above.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/02/10/why-science-wil…

Without evidence, what Science can say honestly is limited.

Since reality isnt anything you care about, teabaggie, Ethan block this shithead, if you keep him here, he’ll only clog every thread with his shitposting. And if it’s monetising this site, then you’re making a mockery of this site, your work and science.

Even if this is some feculant retard whose daddy owns part of the site and whose only care is to troll the shit to get postcounts up again, letting him post makes SWAB meaningless.

And his repeats merely cement the fact the moron has no clue and doesn’t want to get one. His head is filled with the shit he spews everywhere.

Dr. Siegel’s advice on this subject when he posted, “Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God, but if we use our beliefs as an excuse to draw conclusions that scientifically, we’re not ready for, we run the grave risk of depriving ourselves of what we might have come to truly learn.” seems eminently reasonable. I am persuaded that it should be listened to and followed.
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/02/12/comments-of-the-week…

I commend it to all those who are interested.

Claiming science is limited merely is arguing god is necessarily and irrevocably in the gaps, forever retreating, and it doesn't even mean that science can't prove the existence of god when you so neuter them.

And Ethan knows and said exactly this, but you are so blinded by hatred, terror and bigotry, teabaggie, that you will not condone anything that disrupts the plans of the death cult you are inculcated in.

Ethan block this shithead, if you keep him here, he’ll only clog every thread with his shitposting. And if it’s monetising this site, then you’re making a mockery of this site, your work and science.

Even if this is some feculant retard whose daddy owns part of the site and whose only care is to troll the shit to get postcounts up again, letting him post makes SWAB meaningless.

And his repeats merely cement the fact the moron has no clue and doesn’t want to get one. His head is filled with the shit he spews everywhere.

Professor Dawkins, who has argued that the existence or non existence of God is a scientific hypothesis, has cast doubt on the idea that the question of the existence or non existence of God can be answered using Science, “…Despite such well-financed efforts [the Templeton Foundation’s double-blind trials to test whether remote prayer would speed the recovery of heart patients], no evidence for God’s existence has yet appeared.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl…

Dr. Dawkins’ observation on this subject, based on facts, is difficult to argue with. The lack of evidence from those trials is fatal for the test to conform to the norms of Science; a central property of Science is falsifiability. While a scientific theory or hypothesis can be disproved, it can never be proved. In this absence of evidence situation the question “Can science prove the existence of God?” is similar to the question “Can science prove the existence of the Aether?”

Had either experiment produced evidence to corroborate the hypothesis (the existence of the Aether, the existence of God), then there would have been much to talk about, but as we all know, such was not the case in either instance.

I’m persuaded that the answer to both questions is No, due to the lack of evidence.

Every claim you've tried has failed, every authority you've had to lie about to make pretend they supported you, and they all failed.

And now you're repeating the same debunked bullshit and think this a good idea?

Ethan block this shithead, if you keep him here, he’ll only clog every thread with his shitposting. And if it’s monetising this site, then you’re making a mockery of this site, your work and science.

Even if this is some feculant retard whose daddy owns part of the site and whose only care is to troll the shit to get postcounts up again, letting him post makes SWAB meaningless.

And his repeats merely cement the fact the moron has no clue and doesn’t want to get one. His head is filled with the shit he spews everywhere.

Dr. Siegel, was quite clear about the limits of scientific knowledge, “The total amount of information accessible to us in the Universe is finite, and hence, so is the amount of knowledge we can gain about it. There's a limit to the amount of energy we can access, the particles we can observe and the measurements we can make. There's a whole lot left to learn and a whole lot that science has yet to reveal, and many of the present unknowns will fall in the near future. But some things we will likely never know. The Universe may yet be infinite, but our knowledge of it never will be.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/02/10/why-science-wil…

If, as Dr. Siegel suggests, scientific knowledge about the natural world is finite, and the natural world has no known limits, then why should Science be expected to prove the existence of a supernatural entity?

Without evidence, Science appears to be unable to prove that God exists.

Science can prove the existence of god. Having proved that several don't exist is not disproof, but reality is no more what you realise than truth is, isn't it, teabaggie.

Ethan block this shithead, if you keep him here, he’ll only clog every thread with his shitposting. And if it’s monetising this site, then you’re making a mockery of this site, your work and science.

Even if this is some feculant retard whose daddy owns part of the site and whose only care is to troll the shit to get postcounts up again, letting him post makes SWAB meaningless.

And his repeats merely cement the fact the moron has no clue and doesn’t want to get one. His head is filled with the shit he spews everywhere.

Dr. Stephen Gould has commented about science’s inability to prove or disprove the existence of God, “… To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth million time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists …”
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/gould_darwin-on-trial.html

That’s a reasonable position for a scientist to adopt, and one I find persuasive.

What's unreasonable is your inability to tell the truth, teabaggie. So strong you can't help but repeat your lies as if somehow they'll work rather than fuck things up for everyone else.

Ethan block this shithead, if you keep him here, he’ll only clog every thread with his shitposting. And if it’s monetising this site, then you’re making a mockery of this site, your work and science.

Even if this is some feculant retard whose daddy owns part of the site and whose only care is to troll the shit to get postcounts up again, letting him post makes SWAB meaningless.

And his repeats merely cement the fact the moron has no clue and doesn’t want to get one. His head is filled with the shit he spews everywhere.

With enough effort, I suppose one could constrain the attributes of this or that deity to be limited to those testable by the tools available to Science (the gods and goddesses of the Hellenic world serve as possible examples here). Such a straw man (“God of the gaps” in the vernacular) will, unsurprisingly, be knocked down and disposed of.

Such play may satisfy some, but not, I suspect many.

But no effort you make will change reality and make that anything other than an already debunked ass-pull, teabaggie.

Ethan block this shithead, if you keep him here, he’ll only clog every thread with his shitposting. And if it’s monetising this site, then you’re making a mockery of this site, your work and science.

Even if this is some feculant retard whose daddy owns part of the site and whose only care is to troll the shit to get postcounts up again, letting him post makes SWAB meaningless.

And his repeats merely cement the fact the moron has no clue and doesn’t want to get one. His head is filled with the shit he spews everywhere.

Our blogger, Dr. Siegel, has addressed the limits of Science. These limits directly relate to Science’s inability to prove or disprove the existence of God.
“All of this is true:
Even if every particle in existence was known and measured to an arbitrary accuracy, much about the past and future would still be unknowable.
Even if everything about our observable Universe’s past and future were known, there is still the unobservable Universe which goes beyond our own.
And even if we knew all about the unobservable Universe, there’s still a region of time — before the Big Bang — that contains information that is unknowable, and appears irrelevant for all the things we can observe.”
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/02/12/comments-of-the-week…

For those who, like me, find those claims easy to accept, the notion that Science can, using scientifically legitimate methods, prove the existence of God, seems unrealistic.

… particularly in the absence of corroborating evidence.

Repeating the same fucking lie after its been debunked is the action of an arsehole, teabaggie. Science can prove the existence of god and you are shit scared, you death cult whackjob.

Ethan block this shithead, if you keep him here, he’ll only clog every thread with his shitposting. And if it’s monetising this site, then you’re making a mockery of this site, your work and science.

Even if this is some feculant retard whose daddy owns part of the site and whose only care is to troll the shit to get postcounts up again, letting him post makes SWAB meaningless.

And his repeats merely cement the fact the moron has no clue and doesn’t want to get one. His head is filled with the shit he spews everywhere.

During this interview, Professor Weinberg touches several times upon the intractable mystery of the natural world and the limits of human understanding, which includes the limits of the scientific method, which unavoidably relate to its inability to prove or disprove the existence of God.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ep3I0_cr3Oo

There's no "unavoidably" about it, retard.

Ethan block this shithead, if you keep him here, he’ll only clog every thread with his shitposting. And if it’s monetising this site, then you’re making a mockery of this site, your work and science.

Even if this is some feculant retard whose daddy owns part of the site and whose only care is to troll the shit to get postcounts up again, letting him post makes SWAB meaningless.

And his repeats merely cement the fact the moron has no clue and doesn’t want to get one. His head is filled with the shit he spews everywhere.

Dr. Werner Heisenberg commented many years ago about the limits of human understanding, which inevitably includes the limits of the scientific method, and thus Sciences’ inability to answer the question Dr. Siegel posed above.

“What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.” -Werner Heisenberg
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/02/02/heisenbergs-astrophy…

The only lack of understanding is yours of reality, you moron.

Ethan block this shithead, if you keep him here, he’ll only clog every thread with his shitposting. And if it’s monetising this site, then you’re making a mockery of this site, your work and science.

Even if this is some feculant retard whose daddy owns part of the site and whose only care is to troll the shit to get postcounts up again, letting him post makes SWAB meaningless.

And his repeats merely cement the fact the moron has

Dr. Siegel, our blogger, has commented about thinking like a scientist, “… the greatest hallmark of science isn’t digging into your conclusions and finding all the evidence you can to support them; it’s to constantly challenge them, to attempt to knock them down, and to see where your present knowledge can be superseded or improved.” ( http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/01/31/how-thinking-like-a-… ), and it is quite applicable here.

The assumption that the range of scientific inquiry successfully extends to evaluating the existence of God falls apart when faced with the current lack of evidence to corroborate the hypothesis. In this absence of evidence situation the question “Can science prove the existence of God?” is similar to the question “Can science prove the existence of the Aether?”

I think the answer to both questions is, due to the lack of evidence, No.

Ethan disagrees, as you've been told, but you're just a lying sack of shit, aren't you, teabaggie. There's no "think", only your belief, your fervent and unshakeable unscientific belief, teabagie.

Ethan block this shithead, if you keep him here, he’ll only clog every thread with his shitposting. And if it’s monetising this site, then you’re making a mockery of this site, your work and science.

Even if this is some feculant retard whose daddy owns part of the site and whose only care is to troll the shit to get postcounts up again, letting him post makes SWAB meaningless.

And his repeats merely cement the fact the moron has

Dr. Siegel’s advice on this subject is, “Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God, but if we use our beliefs as an excuse to draw conclusions that scientifically, we’re not ready for, we run the grave risk of depriving ourselves of what we might have come to truly learn.”

Dr. Stephen Gould‘s advice on this subject was, “… To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth million time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists …”

Dr. Dawkins’ advice on this subject is, “…Despite such well-financed efforts [the Templeton Foundation’s double-blind trials to test whether remote prayer would speed the recovery of heart patients], no evidence for God’s existence has yet appeared.”

Science, in those published opinions, is unable to prove the existence of God.

They seem to be sharing the same opinion, and opinion I share – that science is unable to prove the existence of God

The assumption that the range of scientific inquiry successfully extends to evaluating the existence of God falls apart when faced with the lack of evidence to corroborate the hypothesis.

In this absence of evidence situation the question “Can science prove the existence of God?” is similar to the question “Can science prove the existence of the Aether?” I am persuaded that the answer to both questions is No, due to the lack of evidence.

You don't have a thought of your own, do you you idiotic retard? It is 100% as valid to claim in the absence of evidence, god can be proven to exist by science.

Ethan block this shithead, if you keep him here, he’ll only clog every thread with his shitposting. And if it’s monetising this site, then you’re making a mockery of this site, your work and science.

Even if this is some feculant retard whose daddy owns part of the site and whose only care is to troll the shit to get postcounts up again, letting him post makes SWAB meaningless.

And his repeats merely cement the fact the moron has

The references:
For Dr Siegel:
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/02/12/comments-of-the-week…

For Dr Gould:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/gould_darwin-on-trial.html

For Dr Dawkins:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl…

Their comments makes sense to me.

It’s the lack of corroborating evidence that persuades me that Science is unable to prove the existence of God.

Dr. Siegel’s advice on this subject when he posted, “Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God, but if we use our beliefs as an excuse to draw conclusions that scientifically, we’re not ready for, we run the grave risk of depriving ourselves of what we might have come to truly learn.” seems eminently reasonable. I am persuaded that it should be listened to and followed.
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/02/12/comments-of-the-week…

That seems to be a reasonable approach to the topic..

The topic isn't about the natural world, retard.

Ethan block this shithead, if you keep him here, he’ll only clog every thread with his shitposting. And if it’s monetising this site, then you’re making a mockery of this site, your work and science.

Even if this is some feculant retard whose daddy owns part of the site and whose only care is to troll the shit to get postcounts up again, letting him post makes SWAB meaningless.

And his repeats merely cement the fact the moron has no clue and doesn’t want to get one. His head is filled with the shit he spews everywhere.

Professor Dawkins, when arguing that the existence or non existence of God is a scientific hypothesis, has cast doubt on the idea that the question of the existence or non existence of God can be answered using Science, “…Despite such well-financed efforts [the Templeton Foundation’s double-blind trials to test whether remote prayer would speed the recovery of heart patients], no evidence for God’s existence has yet appeared.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl…

Dr. Dawkins’ observation on this subject, based on facts, is difficult to argue with. The lack of evidence from those trials is fatal for the test to conform to the norms of Science; a central property of Science is falsifiability. While a scientific theory or hypothesis can be disproved, it can never be proved. In this absence of evidence situation the question “Can science prove the existence of God?” is similar to the question “Can science prove the existence of the Aether?”

Had either one –ideally both – of the experiments produced evidence to corroborate the hypothesis (the existence of the Aether, the existence of God), then there would have been much to talk about, but as we all know, such was not the case in either instance.

I’m persuaded that the answer to both questions is No, due to the lack of evidence.

And all that says is that there has been no proof, not proof it can't be found, retard.

Despite all the evidence you are wrong, you refuse evidence,only seeing that evidence you demand to be seen. Just like Ken Ham.

Ethan block this shithead, if you keep him here, he’ll only clog every thread with his shitposting. And if it’s monetising this site, then you’re making a mockery of this site, your work and science.

Even if this is some feculant retard whose daddy owns part of the site and whose only care is to troll the shit to get postcounts up again, letting him post makes SWAB meaningless.

And his repeats merely cement the fact the moron has no clue and doesn’t want to get one. His head is filled with the shit he spews everywhere.

Our blogger, Dr. Siegel, has explained that Science will never know everything about the natural world, much less a supernatural one. That clearly relates the question he posed above.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/02/10/why-science-wil…

Still no evidence to support the hypothesis that Science can prove the existence of God.

And that is again offtopic bullshit since this is about god not the limits of science you retard. No evidence to support your insistence science cannot prove the existence of god, but you don't bother thinking, do you you shithead.

Ethan block this shithead, if you keep him here, he’ll only clog every thread with his shitposting. And if it’s monetising this site, then you’re making a mockery of this site, your work and science.

Even if this is some feculant retard whose daddy owns part of the site and whose only care is to troll the shit to get postcounts up again, letting him post makes SWAB meaningless.

And his repeats merely cement the fact the moron has no clue and doesn’t want to get one. His head is filled with the shit he spews everywhere.

Dr. Siegel was quite clear about the limits of scientific knowledge, “The total amount of information accessible to us in the Universe is finite, and hence, so is the amount of knowledge we can gain about it. There's a limit to the amount of energy we can access, the particles we can observe and the measurements we can make. There's a whole lot left to learn and a whole lot that science has yet to reveal, and many of the present unknowns will fall in the near future. But some things we will likely never know. The Universe may yet be infinite, but our knowledge of it never will be.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/02/10/why-science-wil…

If, as Dr. Siegel suggests, scientific knowledge about the natural world is finite, and the natural world has no known limits, then it is unrealistic to expect Science to prove the existence of a supernatural entity?

In the absence of any, much less any corroborating evidence, Science appears to be unable to prove that God exists.

He was quite clear that you are wrong, retard.

Ethan block this shithead, if you keep him here, he’ll only clog every thread with his shitposting. And if it’s monetising this site, then you’re making a mockery of this site, your work and science.

Even if this is some feculant retard whose daddy owns part of the site and whose only care is to troll the shit to get postcounts up again, letting him post makes SWAB meaningless.

And his repeats merely cement the fact the moron has no clue and doesn’t want to get one. His head is filled with the shit he spews everywhere.

Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, commenting about science’s inability to prove or disprove the existence of God, had this to say, “… To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth million time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists …”
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/gould_darwin-on-trial.html

That’s a reasonable position for a scientist to adopt, and one I find persuasive.

And you merely repeat your earlier bullshit misrepresentation about people far FAR smarter than you to pretend that you're not a fucking moronic nutcase.

Ethan block this shithead, if you keep him here, he’ll only clog every thread with his shitposting. And if it’s monetising this site, then you’re making a mockery of this site, your work and science.

Even if this is some feculant retard whose daddy owns part of the site and whose only care is to troll the shit to get postcounts up again, letting him post makes SWAB meaningless.

And his repeats merely cement the fact the moron has no clue and doesn’t want to get one. His head is filled with the shit he spews everywhere.

And here's Bill Nye, discussing the question of God, “You can’t know.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/22/bill-nye-on-belief-in-god_n_46…

And you're bullshitting again, since Bill Nye says that all he needs to change his mind is evidence.

You've already been told this a thousand times, teabaggie, but like all the other experts you've misrepresented because you have no intelligence of your own, they too disagree with you.

Because you are WRONG, teabaggie.

Just plain old wrong.

You can't know if string theory is correct.But we find out by using science. Something you are too retarded to try.

By the way, peeps, the entire text of the link retardo profundo gave here is as follows:

Bill Nye the Science Guy was on HuffPost Live to talk science, of course; but also to talk about creationism and his upcoming debate with Christian leader Ken Ham at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky.

Host Josh Zepps relayed a question from a community member that asked Bill Nye if he believed in God. Watch the video above to see Bill Nye’s answer, and watch the video below to see why creationism ‘frightens’ Nye.

Hmmm. Where is any quote from Bill? And why did teabaggie only "quote" three words. Can't know what, teabaggie? Can't know that some thing is intelligently designed?

You've lied about Ethan's point, you've lied about Dawkin's quote, lied about Gould's position and also Nye's.

Why the fuck should anyone believe your reinterpretation of someone else's point of view? But you can't find an actual reason for what you believe without evidence, so you pretend to have back up. Pretend is the operative word, though.

Dr. Siegel’s commented on this subject when he posted, “Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God, but if we use our beliefs as an excuse to draw conclusions that scientifically, we’re not ready for, we run the grave risk of depriving ourselves of what we might have come to truly learn.” seems eminently reasonable. I am persuaded that it should be listened to and followed.
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/02/12/comments-of-the-week…

That seems like a reasonable, honest attitude to me.

Mr. Nye's opinion was expressed in only three words, "You can't know." (00:18), but in the absence of any corroborating evidence, both quotes refer back to the same position: Science cannot prove the existence of God.

That's still a crock of horse shit you fucking liar.

Ethan block this shithead, if you keep him here, he’ll only clog every thread with his shitposting. And if it’s monetising this site, then you’re making a mockery of this site, your work and science.

Even if this is some feculant retard whose daddy owns part of the site and whose only care is to troll the shit to get postcounts up again, letting him post makes SWAB meaningless.

And his repeats merely cement the fact the moron has no clue and doesn’t want to get one. His head is filled with the shit he spews everywhere.

So we have at least three people who, at one time or another, practiced science daily, Dr. Gould, Dr. Siegel, and Mr. Nye. Each of them has commented on the existence of God, and each has stated clearly that the existence of God cannot be proved.

Mr. Nye said, “You can’t know.” That’s pretty unequivocal; he doesn’t feel the need to identify the tools or techniques employed.

Dr. Siegel posted, “Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God, but if we use our beliefs as an excuse to draw conclusions that scientifically, we’re not ready for, we run the grave risk of depriving ourselves of what we might have come to truly learn.” This not only answers the question he posed above, but also contains a caveat to not let our unproven beliefs blinker our better judgement.

Dr. Gould suggests that the question of the existence of God is not one to admit of a scientific response, much less a claim about it, “… To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth million time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists …”

Professor Dawkins, while arguing that the existence or non existence of God is a scientific hypothesis, casts doubt on the idea that the question of the existence or non existence of God can be answered using Science, “…Despite such well-financed efforts [the Templeton Foundation’s double-blind trials to test whether remote prayer would speed the recovery of heart patients], no evidence for God’s existence has yet appeared.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl…

Dr. Dawkins’ observation on this subject, based on the null results returned by the double-blind trials funded bt the Templeton Foundation, is difficult to argue with. The lack of evidence from those trials is fatal for the test to conform to the norms of Science; a central property of Science is falsifiability. While a scientific theory or hypothesis can be disproved, it can never be proved. In this absence of evidence situation the question “Can science prove the existence of God?” is similar to the question “Can science prove the existence of the Aether?”

Had either one of the experiments produced evidence to corroborate the hypothesis (the existence of the Aether, the existence of God), then there would have been much to talk about, but as we all know, such was not the case in either instance.

I’m persuaded that the answer to these questions is No, due to the lack of evidence.

Our host has explained that Science will never know everything about the natural world, much less a supernatural one. That clearly relates the question he posed above.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/02/10/why-science-wil…

Still no evidence to support the hypothesis that Science can prove the existence of God.

Without evidence, what Science can say honestly about the thread topic is severely limited.

What he's explained is that you're wrong, retard. And you're resorting to lying about it with disdain for reality because YOU JUST CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH.

Ethan block this shithead, if you keep him here, he’ll only clog every thread with his shitposting. And if it’s monetising this site, then you’re making a mockery of this site, your work and science.

Even if this is some feculant retard whose daddy owns part of the site and whose only care is to troll the shit to get postcounts up again, letting him post makes SWAB meaningless.

And his repeats merely cement the fact the moron has no clue and doesn’t want to get one. His head is filled with the shit he spews everywhere.

Our host has been quite clear about the limits of scientific knowledge, “The total amount of information accessible to us in the Universe is finite, and hence, so is the amount of knowledge we can gain about it. There's a limit to the amount of energy we can access, the particles we can observe and the measurements we can make. There's a whole lot left to learn and a whole lot that science has yet to reveal, and many of the present unknowns will fall in the near future. But some things we will likely never know. The Universe may yet be infinite, but our knowledge of it never will be.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/02/10/why-science-wil…

If, as Ethan suggests, scientific knowledge about the natural world is finite, and the natural world has no known limits, then it is unrealistic to expect Science to prove the existence of a supernatural entity?

In the absence of any, much less any corroborating evidence, Science appears to be unable to prove that God exists.

Yes, and he's clear that you are wrong, retard. What, though, do you intend to achieve with spamposting the same debunked lies, shithead?

Ethan block this shithead, if you keep him here, he’ll only clog every thread with his shitposting. And if it’s monetising this site, then you’re making a mockery of this site, your work and science.

Even if this is some feculant retard whose daddy owns part of the site and whose only care is to troll the shit to get postcounts up again, letting him post makes SWAB meaningless.

And his repeats merely cement the fact the moron has no clue and doesn’t want to get one. His head is filled with the shit he spews everywhere.

Dr. Siegel posted about this subject, “Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God, but if we use our beliefs as an excuse to draw conclusions that scientifically, we’re not ready for, we run the grave risk of depriving ourselves of what we might have come to truly learn.”

Dr. Gould also posted about this subject, “… To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth million time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists …”

Dr. Dawkins commented about the notable lack of evidence to support the idea that science can prove the existence of God, “…Despite such well-financed efforts [the Templeton Foundation’s double-blind trials to test whether remote prayer would speed the recovery of heart patients], no evidence for God’s existence has yet appeared.”

Science, in those published opinions, is unable to prove the existence of God.

They seem to share the same opinion, an opinion I share – that science is unable to prove the existence of God.

The assumption that the range of scientific inquiry successfully extends to evaluating the existence of God falls apart when faced with the lack of evidence to corroborate the hypothesis.

In this absence of evidence situation the question “Can science prove the existence of God?” is similar to the question “Can science prove the existence of the Aether?” I am persuaded that the answer to both questions is No, due to the lack of evidence.

Still lying about what has been said because you can not condone being wrong at all ever anywhere, retarded teabaggie?

Ethan, ban this shithead.

Dr. Siegel’s advice on this subject when he posted, “Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God, but if we use our beliefs as an excuse to draw conclusions that scientifically, we’re not ready for, we run the grave risk of depriving ourselves of what we might have come to truly learn.” seems eminently reasonable. I am persuaded that it should be listened to and followed.
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/02/12/comments-of-the-week…
In the absence of any corroborating evidence, it is difficult to see how those who practice science would arrive at any concluion other than science cannot prove the existence of God.

Ethan’s advice on this subject when he posted, “Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God, but if we use our beliefs as an excuse to draw conclusions that scientifically, we’re not ready for, we run the grave risk of depriving ourselves of what we might have come to truly learn.” seems eminently reasonable. I am persuaded that it should be listened to and followed.
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/02/12/comments-of-the-week…

And here’s Bill Nye, discussing the question of God, “You can’t know.” (00:18)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/22/bill-nye-on-belief-in-god_n_46…

That seems like a reasonable, honest attitude to me.
Mr. Nye’s opinion was expressed in only three words, “You can’t know.” (00:18), but in the absence of any corroborating evidence, both quotes refer back to the same position: Science is unable to prove the existence of God.