Jump to content
mohsenhona

Why science cannot prove ‘There is no God’?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

1. Science Doesn’t Have Absolute Knowledge

When you talk with atheists, and you ask them to prove that there’s no God, most will tell you that it’s logically impossible to prove that God doesn’t exist.

And they are absolutely correct!

2. It’s fascinating to note that the best argument for the existence of God comes from science itself.

3. Everything that was brought into existence had a cause

The universe began to exist at a certain point in time.

Since we know that it’s impossible that the universe created itself, then it must have had a Creator.

When atheists ask, “Well then, who created God? Someone must have created Him too.”

Then I answer, “No one created God. He is eternal, He has always existed.”

There must always be an uncaused first cause that created everything that began to exist.

4. You can’t measure God through science.

Science is the study of the physical and natural world.

But God, by definition, is not limited to the physical and natural world.

In fact, God lives outside of time and space.

Believe in God, He exists, and He loves you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4 May 2016 at 9:50 AM, mohsenhona said:

1. Science Doesn’t Have Absolute Knowledge

 

When you talk with atheists, and you ask them to prove that there’s no God, most will tell you that it’s logically impossible to prove that God doesn’t exist.

 

And they are absolutely correct!

 

2. It’s fascinating to note that the best argument for the existence of God comes from science itself.

 

3. Everything that was brought into existence had a cause

 

The universe began to exist at a certain point in time.

 

Since we know that it’s impossible that the universe created itself, then it must have had a Creator.

 

When atheists ask, “Well then, who created God? Someone must have created Him too.”

 

Then I answer, “No one created God. He is eternal, He has always existed.”

 

There must always be an uncaused first cause that created everything that began to exist.

 

4. You can’t measure God through science.

 

Science is the study of the physical and natural world.

 

But God, by definition, is not limited to the physical and natural world.

 

In fact, God lives outside of time and space.

 

Believe in God, He exists, and He loves you.

You should consider being an Atheist because there is no good reason you offered for why you should believe in God.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

You should consider being an Atheist because there is no good reason you offered for why you should believe in God.

Yes, sure you are right.

The only thing i wanted to do is to prove that science cannot discuss about God's existence or inexistence,

That's it. 

However we still need to prove Him from another way like intellect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, mohsenhona said:

Yes, sure you are right.

The only thing i wanted to do is to prove that science cannot discuss about God's existence or inexistence,

That's it. 

However we still need to prove Him from another way like intellect.

Science makes inferential statements about things which exist or which may exist.  So science can infer that god does not exist because such a hypothesis is just as good as believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

Science makes inferential statements about things which exist or which may exist.  So science can infer that god does not exist because such a hypothesis is just as good as believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.   

My topic is about why science cannot do so for every beings including God.

Please read it again carefully and impartially.:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, mohsenhona said:

My topic is about why science cannot do so for every beings including God.

Please read it again carefully and impartially.:)

But I am saying that Science can make statements about a being's existence.  It is a scientific fact that spaghetti monsters do not exist.   

You see now?

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

But I am saying that Science can make statements about a being's existence.  It is a scientific fact that spaghetti monsters do not exist.   

You see now?

Ok, we both agree that science to some extent can prove or disprove some beings. In fact it is undeniable.

But the question is, can it prove or disprove every beings' existence? 

Creationist say no and i posted the reason.

well, if you think that science can prove or disprove every beings' existence, so please share your information.

Thanks.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mohsenhona said:

Ok, we both agree that science to some extent can prove or disprove some beings. In fact it is undeniable.

But the question is, can it prove or disprove every beings' existence? 

Creationist say no and i posted the reason.

well, if you think that science can prove or disprove every beings' existence, so please share your information.

Thanks.  

So as I already explained, science is based on inferences.  It makes inferences about certain things.  Do you know what an "inference" is? We can make inferences about whether there is a Flying Invisible Spaghetti Monster even though we haven't looked at every single corner of the universe and even though it is invisible and cannot possibly be detected.  In the same way, science can make an inference that god does not exist.  This is because it is just as absurd to infer that there is a flying invisible spaghetti monster.  The fact of the matter is that we KNOW that an invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist, and we know this even though it cannot be detected.  It is a scientific fact that there are no invisible flying spaghetti monsters.  It is just an imagination and so is god.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

So as I already explained, science is based on inferences.  It makes inferences about certain things.  Do you know what an "inference" is? We can make inferences about whether there is a Flying Invisible Spaghetti Monster even though we haven't looked at every single corner of the universe and even though it is invisible and cannot possibly be detected.  In the same way, science can make an inference that god does not exist.  This is because it is just as absurd to infer that there is a flying invisible spaghetti monster.  The fact of the matter is that we KNOW that an invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist, and we know this even though it cannot be detected.  It is a scientific fact that there are no invisible flying spaghetti monsters.  It is just an imagination and so is god.  

First, you didn't answer my question: ' if you think that science can prove or disprove every beings' existence, so please share your information.

Second, inferences might be wrong as some of them were within the years. So science does NOT give us confidence about it's result. 

Third, you mention that we KNOW inexistence of Flying Spaghetti Monster. But this is not true for God. Honestly we don't KNOW that God DOESN'T exist. As Russell one of the greatest and most distinctive atheists in an interview with White confesses: “I don’t think something as God doesn’t exist … I cannot prove that there is no God.”

Fourth, can science speak about every kinds of beings? Maybe there are some kind that exist but are not physical. How can science speak about existence and inexistence of such a being? Does it have the proper tool or lab to do so?

Fifth, if we don't find something it does not mean that it does not exist. Science only can claim that i couldn't find God and i couldn't experiment it in my lab. I think, if one scientific fact to choose to be true, it would be this. Science cannot study God as it studies other beings.

Sixth, Every science must speak about its subject. What is the science’s subject? Is it to recognize the kinds of existence? Or kinds of one sort of it?

Science only speaks about different beings of physical kind of existence, but how about metaphysical kind of existence?

Seventh, if the existence of a being is proven intellectually, then science must accept because the legitimacy of science comes from intellect as well. So intellect has the upper hand. Yes the only thing can do is to show some evidences that make the intellect consider, then the intellect itself decides to revise or not. All in all science doesn’t decide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

So as I already explained, science is based on inferences.  It makes inferences about certain things.  Do you know what an "inference" is? We can make inferences about whether there is a Flying Invisible Spaghetti Monster even though we haven't looked at every single corner of the universe and even though it is invisible and cannot possibly be detected.  In the same way, science can make an inference that god does not exist.  This is because it is just as absurd to infer that there is a flying invisible spaghetti monster.  The fact of the matter is that we KNOW that an invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist, and we know this even though it cannot be detected.  It is a scientific fact that there are no invisible flying spaghetti monsters.  It is just an imagination and so is god.  

 

Wait are you serious? Since when were you an atheist, dude?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mohsenhona said:

First, you didn't answer my question: ' if you think that science can prove or disprove every beings' existence, so please share your information.

 

Second, inferences might be wrong as some of them were within the years. So science does NOT give us confidence about it's result. 

 

Third, you mention that we KNOW inexistence of Flying Spaghetti Monster. But this is not true for God. Honestly we don't KNOW that God DOESN'T exist. As Russell one of the greatest and most distinctive atheists in an interview with White confesses: “I don’t think something as God doesn’t exist … I cannot prove that there is no God.”

 

Fourth, can science speak about every kinds of beings? Maybe there are some kind that exist but are not physical. How can science speak about existence and inexistence of such a being? Does it have the proper tool or lab to do so?

 

Fifth, if we don't find something it does not mean that it does not exist. Science only can claim that i couldn't find God and i couldn't experiment it in my lab. I think, if one scientific fact to choose to be true, it would be this. Science cannot study God as it studies other beings.

 

Sixth, Every science must speak about its subject. What is the science’s subject? Is it to recognize the kinds of existence? Or kinds of one sort of it?

 

Science only speaks about different beings of physical kind of existence, but how about metaphysical kind of existence?

 

Seventh, if the existence of a being is proven intellectually, then science must accept because the legitimacy of science comes from intellect as well. So intellect has the upper hand. Yes the only thing can do is to show some evidences that make the intellect consider, then the intellect itself decides to revise or not. All in all science doesn’t decide.

 

I think you are misunderstanding me.

I know that inferences are probabilistic and can therefore turn out to be wrong (that is why I asked you if you know what an inference is).  This is why science can possibly be wrong when it says that it is a "fact" that the spaghetti monster does not exist.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

I think you are misunderstanding me.

I know that inferences are probabilistic and can therefore turn out to be wrong (that is why I asked you if you know what an inference is).  This is why science can possibly be wrong when it says that it is a "fact" that the spaghetti monster does not exist.    

So you agree that science cannot prove or disprove God's existence FOR SURE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

But I am saying that Science can make statements about a being's existence.  It is a scientific fact that spaghetti monsters do not exist.   

You see now?

To tell you the truth, science is a tool of observation, experimentation and analyzing. It is a methodology taught us by Allah (SWT) to give a theoretical shape to the laws of nature in our language. However, most of the ignorant people have misunderstood as some sort of religion because if you ask them do you believe Islam they will say we believe science. So, one must tell them that brother Islam is science but because you do not have in depth of knowledge that is why you do not realize it. 

1. Science has a limited sphere just like us humans we cannot listen less then our listening capability and we cannot see more than our sense of sight such as bacteria are invisible to us without microscope.

2. Secondly, I ask you  eThErEal that I am sitting behind a computer who am I. Am I robot ? or a teenage of age 18 or youth of 32 or old person 65. Science is failure here coz she does not see me here. I am something to be reckoned with because I am doing this work that is evidence.

3. Like the above point 2, this universe is being managed by a supreme-intelligent being but since science cannot see it science cannot deny it because science see as to how that supreme being is managing universe. universe activity is not flying spagthie. believe that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is plenty of proof. We have discovered some scientific laws which are governing things from the atom to the universe, and all science rests upon these laws. Pray tell, who created these laws of science? Did they come into being on their own? Why don't these laws change?

Personally, for me its the personalities of the Hashimites. As they have certainty in God and took nothing of this world then its true and there is indeed an afterlife, heaven and hell. If they were politicians then they would have acted like politicians but they didn't, at all.

Edited by Darth Vader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Darth Vader said:

There is plenty of proof. We have discovered some scientific laws which are governing things from the atom to the universe, and all science rests upon these laws. Pray tell, who created these laws of science? Did they come into being on their own? Why don't these laws change?

Personally, for me its the personalities of the Hashimites. As they have certainty in God and took nothing of this world then its true and there is indeed an afterlife, heaven and hell. If they were politicians then they would have acted like politicians but they didn't, at all.

Thee law does not  change because it is eternal, the law of the universe is god.  Not the invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

Thee law does not  change because it is eternal, the law of the universe is god.

That made no sense.

Again, who created the eternal and unchanging laws of science?

Edited by Darth Vader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Darth Vader said:

That made no sense.

Again, who created the eternal and unchanging laws of science?

 

it is uncreated.  it is god.  That is what a god is by definition... no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

Anyway, what makes anyone of you believe in your god?  None of you have any proof.  

Hahahaha, working of universe and it's balance is itself proof that God is managing it. What proof do you have for a person what he keeps in his heart for you? You see his actions if such person has friendly smile on his face he has friendly intents for you in his heart. You cannot see feelings but you understand from actions that such feelings are there. God has scattered all such signs in universe that you may know him. 

Edited by Danish14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OFF TOPIC, but I still felt like sharing this:

There are four causes of infidelity and loss of belief in Allah: hankering after whims, a passion to dispute every argument, deviation from truth; and dissension, because whoever hankers after whims does not incline towards truth; whoever keeps on disputing every argument on account of his ignorance, will always remain blind to truth, whoever deviates from truth because of ignorance, will always take good for evil and evil for good and he will always remain intoxicated without righteous guidance. And whoever makes a breach (with Allah and His Messenger) his path becomes difficult, his affairs will become complicated and his way to salvation will be uncertain.

Similarly, doubt has also four aspects absurd reasoning; fear; vacillation and hesitation; and unreasonable surrender to infidelity, because one who has accustomed himself to unreasonable and absurd discussions will never see the Light of Truth and will always live in the darkness of ignorance. One who is afraid to face facts (of life, death and the life after death) will always turn away from ultimate reality, one who allows doubts and uncertainties to vacillate him will always be under the control of Satan and one who surrenders himself to infidelity accepts damnation in both the worlds.   - NAHJUL BALAGHA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew that these are words of Imam Ali a.s. Jazak-Allah brother. I have read this before in urdu. 

14 minutes ago, starlight said:

OFF TOPIC, but I still felt like sharing this:

There are four causes of infidelity and loss of belief in Allah: hankering after whims, a passion to dispute every argument, deviation from truth; and dissension, because whoever hankers after whims does not incline towards truth; whoever keeps on disputing every argument on account of his ignorance, will always remain blind to truth, whoever deviates from truth because of ignorance, will always take good for evil and evil for good and he will always remain intoxicated without righteous guidance. And whoever makes a breach (with Allah and His Messenger) his path becomes difficult, his affairs will become complicated and his way to salvation will be uncertain.

Similarly, doubt has also four aspects absurd reasoning; fear; vacillation and hesitation; and unreasonable surrender to infidelity, because one who has accustomed himself to unreasonable and absurd discussions will never see the Light of Truth and will always live in the darkness of ignorance. One who is afraid to face facts (of life, death and the life after death) will always turn away from ultimate reality, one who allows doubts and uncertainties to vacillate him will always be under the control of Satan and one who surrenders himself to infidelity accepts damnation in both the worlds.   - NAHJUL BALAGHA

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Danish14 said:

Hahahaha, working of universe and it's balance is itself proof that God is managing it. What proof do you have for a person what he keeps in his heart for you? You see his actions if such person has friendly smile on his face he has friendly intents for you in his heart. You cannot see feelings but you understand from actions that such feelings are there. God has scattered all such signs in universe that you may know him. 

No, a working universe is nothing but proof of a working universe.  The working universe is god.  The same reason you give for why your god does not need a creator is the same reason why the universe does not need a creator because the universe itself is god.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • Just because they both have a noha called Badshah Hussain, the nohas are not similar to each other and the reciters cannot be compared. Both have their own style and people like them. 
    • Feel kindness toward your neighbors and friends, and make dua for them. When you see them, smile and be friendly. InShaAllah they will change their attitude toward you. 4th Imam AS - Supplication for his Neighbours and Friends (Supplication - 26) http://www.duas.org/sajjadiya/s26.htm
    • I don't disagree with anything you're saying, i'm just saying every place has its good and bad, and people often refer to the west as evil all the time, it is not in many ways, like the ways I pointed out. Things like socialist policies in education, health and social security/pensions are very islamic principles. A lot of the West's policies come from judeo-christian values, which aren't very different from Islam. Yes, it is true they have dropped a lot of religious laws now, like allowing abortions and lgbt marriages, but some laws have still stuck around that have roots in abrahamic tradition. No society can claim to be perfect. Iran is an islamic country, but I'm sure a lot of stuff happens underground too, and I'm sure there is still corruption within the government. Ultimately, bro, there is no perfect society, what's important is that you can practice islam freely and to the best of your ability and I think it is possible in many of the western countries, not possible in many of the sunni majority nations. 
    • well, for me personally right now...  I don't know how to prove hadith.  I sincerely honestly dont. Just because a hadith doesn't contradict the Quran doesnt mean its not fabricated.  People intending to twist and corrupt need merit or truths to spin a lie.  One can use something true in the quran like say Umar,   who says I believe in this verse " [verse]" and a good follower of it, but you don't know if he did, for example. It's difficult, and dang near impossible to "follow" and prove those hadiths are true (well, really impossible). I'm just thinking here and presenting my ideas. I would think A hadith that doesn't comtradict the Quran is off to a good start in terms of authenticity.  Reading hadith to understand historical context even if its not authentic actually may be beneficial.  It may explain and connect dots, for understanding why things happened the way they did. Though I've proven (in my personal perspective my long essay of a post) that Muhammad SAW did not err in delivering the message, but may have very well have subjectively  "err'd" in other matters (like when Allah indicates directly that the prophet may be disobeyed by women if they determine his command was not good) (60:12) And then you have 9:50 above, do you think its a good idea to follow any hadiths?  Maybe read them to gain historical understanding but follow them? Eh, its up to you or anyone to make that determination for themselves. I can't judge.   
    • A westernized version of islam? What does that actually mean?  The only interpretation/things I can think of are negative.  Does it mean a version of islam where western culture and values are integrated into it? I do not see the need for that. In the middle east, where you see muslims lacking in any area it is not because they do not apply "good" western values, its because they are applying the bad things of their own culture, meanwhile not caring about what Islam says. Dishonesty, cheating, poor work morale, back talking, not caring for the poor, being unfair, corruption in politics, these are things you might find in the middle east, but they are not because islam is lacking anything, it is because people are not adhering to it, why? Because that would take effort and sincerity. I do not think islam per say is lacking anything and that it needs to change a single inch in any direction. Times change, that is true, but humans does not.
×