mohsenhona

Why science cannot prove ‘There is no God’?

Rate this topic

81 posts in this topic

7 minutes ago, starlight said:

Guys, I am sorry but I can't stop myself from making off topic posts in this thread :grin:

13177465_1196805803677365_5872149624814757744_n.jpg

hahahahahaha, lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:bismillah:

On 5/10/2016 at 9:36 AM, Danish14 said:

I do not say that normal people cannot understand, I say that among normal men only believers will believer in miracles. And, I say that miracles are of two types. 

1. Miracles that are done by Allah (SWT) such as He concealed the birth of Hazrat Moses a.s so that paroh do not hurt him anyway.

2. Allah (SWT) also grants miracles to his chosen ones such as Prophets and our 12 Infallible Imams and that condition is reserved for pure ones who are infallible and are not inclined to any sin and who always have science at their finger tips. Moses's stick divided ocean into two halves for passage with the aid of God. Jesus brought dead into life with the help of Allah (SWT). Our beloved Prophet (PBUHHP) divided moon into two halves, Imam Ali a.s took the door of khyber on his hand which required 40 strongmen to move.

3. God also grants also miracles to certain human beings besides Prophets and infallible Imams but their criteria is also purity of soul and staunch belief in God some of these examples are like Hakeem Luqman a.s who was doctor and Allah (SWT) gave him such knowledge that he possessed cure of every disease except death and doubt.

In Quran, Allah (SWT) says that at the day of judgement Allah (SWT) will not speak to the wrong-doers. This is also true for this world because whoever have belief in Allah (SWT) will be rewarded by Allah (SWT) by any best gift such as gift of Islam which is biggest of miracles. So, it depends upon purity.

Salam Alaikom, albeit the topic is not about miracles just want to point that BASED ON WHAT DO YOU SAY IMAMS DO MIRACLES. May i ask what is the criteria of a miracle because what Imam ALI Peace upon Him did was not a miracle or was it! Than you drag it that others beside infallible God grant miracles! When is a extraordinary act called miracle? Is all extraordinary acts called miracle? Is all miracles extraordinary; is all extraordinary a miracle!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ali.Isa said:

:bismillah:

Salam Alaikom, albeit the topic is not about miracles just want to point that BASED ON WHAT DO YOU SAY IMAMS DO MIRACLES. May i ask what is the criteria of a miracle because what Imam ALI Peace upon Him did was not a miracle or was it! Than you drag it that others beside infallible God grant miracles! When is a extraordinary act called miracle? Is all extraordinary acts called miracle? Is all miracles extraordinary; is all extraordinary a miracle!

Praise be to Allah brother. Every good thing is extraordinary. I believe that there is no great miracle than Islam and Ahle Bait e Muhammad ( SAAWW ) because whatever they say is Haq. I do not know what people think about miracles but those whom Allah (SWT) loves, He (SWT) spreads His lover over them so whatever those greatmen wants Allah  (SWT ) does for them.

Edited by Danish14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/8/2016 at 2:49 AM, 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.   

There is nothing about the scientific method which would permit such an inference.

The statement "There is no God" is not subject to falsification, meaning it is not a valid hypothesis and, by extension, not a scientific statement.

Simply put, science has nothing to say about the existence or nonexistence of God.

Science narrowly concerns itself with the observable, measurable, and falsifiable and nothing else.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/8/2016 at 2:59 AM, 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?

The only statements that are scientifically valid are statements that can be falsified by experiments.

The statement "God does not exist" cannot be falsified and is therefore scientifically invalid.

Moreover, the statement "spaghetti monsters do not exist" is in no way, shape, or form a "scientific fact", as there is no such thing as a "scientific fact", at least, not in any technically rigorous sense.

Science as a discipline does not synthesize or assert facts per se, it merely attempts to falsify hypotheses, formulate laws, and elucidate theories, all of which are tentative and provisional.

A "fact", on the other hand, is something that is basically settled, but science, by definition, is never really settled.  That's why scientists are still testing substantial theories like evolution and general relativity, because they are always subject to revision pending new observations.

Like many atheists, you ironically have faith in the nonexistence of a deity and attempt to use science in order to support your faith-based belief system.

Or, put another way, atheism is somewhat of a religion for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/8/2016 at 3:11 AM, 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.  

That's not actually true.

Science does not prove hypotheses, it only attempts to falsify them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/8/2016 at 5:35 AM, 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.    

It's not a "fact" if it's possibly wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/8/2016 at 4:06 PM, eThErEaL said:

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

Belief doesn't require proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/8/2016 at 6:50 PM, 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.

There is no "proof" that God exists.  If there were proof of God's existence, then what would be the point of having faith?

Technically speaking, "proof" is something that only exists in pure mathematics, so it has little if anything to do with religion or science.

If you need some kind of rationalist concept to buttress your belief in God, then you should use "reason" or "logic", not "proof".

Ultimately, though, there is no proof that God exists, so it always comes down to faith.  But that doesn't mean that faith cannot be reasonable or logical either.


 

 

Edited by appeal_to_heaven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That reminds me of this discussion I had with some lawyers. I learnt that day that we all have our own definitions of everything. Of honesty, mercy, deception, belief, everything, even proof of course. I remember wasting time with a corrupt police chief, showing him proof, preparing for the meeting I had enlarged documents of proof and highlighted things for his convenience, but he was already sold to the criminals and kept babbling things like a politician and it all fell on deaf ears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The popular belief regarding science is that it is only concerned with positing completely natural/physical explanations of phenomena.  This is known as methodological naturalism.  If methodological naturalism is true, then the domain of Science is restricted to purely physical phenomena only, and so it cannot make any claims regarding the existence or non-existence of supernatural phenomena.

The problem with methodological naturalism is that it makes science not about seeking truth, but about seeking physical explanations, and the 2 are not the same thing.  Now this is okay if you understand that the domain of science is restricted, and that there is more to things than what Scientific theories say.  You need to supplement your view of the world with correct philosophy and religion to gain a more complete picture of things.

Edited by .InshAllah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, appeal_to_heaven said:

That's not actually true.

Science does not prove hypotheses, it only attempts to falsify them.

Scientists believe that General Relativity is true, that quantum mechanics is true, that plate tectonics theory is true.  The idea that its just about falsification is a myth made famous by the philosopher Karl Popper.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, .InshAllah. said:

The problem with methodological naturalism is that it makes science not about seeking truth, but about seeking physical explanations, and the 2 are not the same thing.  Now this is okay if you understand that the domain of science is restricted, and that there is more to things than what Scientific theories say.  You need to supplement your view of the world with correct philosophy and religion to gain a more complete picture of things.

Another problematic issue is the definition of Universe, and how it is only related to physical reality. It seems that the realm of thoughts/feelings (Subjective) etc is not even included to this definition. It seems that whatever can be described mathematically and manifested by senses (Objectively) is included to Universe:

The Universe can be defined as everything that exists, everything that has existed, and everything that will exist.[20][21][22] According to our current understanding, the Universe consists of spacetime, forms of energy (including electromagnetic radiation and matter), and the physical laws that relate them. The Universe encompasses all of life, all of history, and some philosophers and scientists suggest that it even encompasses ideas such as mathematics and logic.[23][24][25]

Edited by Dhulfikar
.InshAllah. likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On June 30, 2016 at 11:20 PM, appeal_to_heaven said:

There is nothing about the scientific method which would permit such an inference.

The statement "There is no God" is not subject to falsification, meaning it is not a valid hypothesis and, by extension, not a scientific statement.

Simply put, science has nothing to say about the existence or nonexistence of God.

Science narrowly concerns itself with the observable, measurable, and falsifiable and nothing else.

 

The invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster is falsifiable.  And so is a God who could possibly not exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On June 30, 2016 at 11:46 PM, appeal_to_heaven said:

It's not a "fact" if it's possibly wrong.

Gravity is a fact.   And yet it can possibly be wrong.  Tomorrow we could possibly discover a thing that could defy the so called "law" of gravity.  

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are commenting against methodological naturalism, and I can see why people would.  But it should be noted that, you cannot demonstrate the existance of non physical things, ie a metaphysical world.  And so, even proposing that such a thing exists, that metaphysical things are existant, is really a hypothesis.

Science, in the sense of methodological naturalism, will always dominate over metaphysical hypotheses because one can be demonstrated in a laboratory, the other can only be pondered in the mind. Though, I do agree with those who stated that, just because science can demonstrate truth in physical reality, it doesnt mean that there arent things that exist beyond what is physically apparent. So perhaps there are real metaphysical things, but we really wouldnt know for sure just because there is no way we could experience them.  Only in our minds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to gravity, or i suppose we could just say general relativity, it could only be wrong in the sense that newtonian physics were wrong.  That is to say, that it is and always will be truth in some scenarios, but with expanding knowledge, we discover areas beyond its means of usefulness. 

Sort of like a regular chair.  A regular every day chair, in truth will always be an object that we can sit on.  But if we were to discover 100 foot tall people that weighed 5000 pounds, the usefulness of that chair wouldnt exist and we would say that it is...a flawed chair.

So, general relativity and newtonian physics will never be..."wrong", they will always hold true.  It is just that, their truths are in regards to specific areas of experience and physical reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, iCambrian said:

People are commenting against methodological naturalism, and I can see why people would.  But it should be noted that, you cannot demonstrate the existance of non physical things, ie a metaphysical world.  And so, even proposing that such a thing exists, that metaphysical things are existant, is really a hypothesis.

Science, in the sense of methodological naturalism, will always dominate over metaphysical hypotheses because one can be demonstrated in a laboratory, the other can only be pondered in the mind. Though, I do agree with those who stated that, just because science can demonstrate truth in physical reality, it doesnt mean that there arent things that exist beyond what is physically apparent. So perhaps there are real metaphysical things, but we really wouldnt know for sure just because there is no way we could experience them.  Only in our minds.

Science by itself cannot demonstrate the existence of anything.  We say things like 'Science proves the existence of subatomic particles' but that is only if we assume metaphysical truths such as:  the external physical world is real, we aren't dreaming/hallucinating etc.  A lab experiment doesnt prove much if the lab is just a dream.  In other words, Science presupposes metaphysical truths.  If these are unjustified then the claims of Science are unjustified.

So either you need to expand your beliefs regarding what can and cannot be 'proven', or else you shouldnt believe in the claims of science.  

Dhulfikar likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, .InshAllah. said:

Science by itself cannot demonstrate the existence of anything.  We say things like 'Science proves the existence of subatomic particles' but that is only if we assume metaphysical truths such as:  the external physical world is real, we aren't dreaming/hallucinating etc.  A lab experiment doesnt prove much if the lab is just a dream.  In other words, Science presupposes metaphysical truths.  If these are unjustified then the claims of Science are unjustified.

So either you need to expand your beliefs regarding what can and cannot be 'proven', or else you shouldnt believe in the claims of science.  

Yea fair enough.  There is a form of baseline assumptions that come with just about any thought we have.

.InshAllah. and Dhulfikar like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about this statement of fact that the word is not the thing, whether that thing is a thing strictu sensu or an idea or a feeling or anything else. You take an apple and you ask what is this and those who speak English will say that an apple and those speak other languages will use the term corresponding to it. And the fact is still is that the word used in any language is not that object or thing or stuff that is called "apple" in the English language. Exactly the same applies to the term god, and so anything we say or we think is by definition false, because no body can know anything about the thing in itself and it remains just about what can be touched and manipulated through science, i.e., through our minds. I do believe in god because otherwise absolutely nothing has any sense and this life is not worth anything. I find that all the essentials that are needed are in the quran, and so some people will believe and have faith and others will not. It has always been like this and it will therefore probably always remain like this, until the end of time. 

I frankly even tend to believe that science itself is just pure illusion. It allows us to get whatever it allows us to get in this world, and we may call this that it allows to get "power", whether it is over nature or over each other. I sometimes believe that science has given humanity more harm than good, but I'm not really sure because I consider seeking knowledge as an essential eibada. And that said all I can say is allahu aalam. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we have to distinguish between knowledge and science. Science is a tool of observation, experimentation and analyzing which now is used in human sciences like sociology, political science and so on. But there are many things that can’t be measured by science like the existence of God, wisdom and so on.

So Science is the study of the physical and natural world, but Allah isn’t limited to physical world. For knowing the existence of Allah or non-existence, the attributes of Allah and so on we need other ways like intellect, narrations, revelation, Sayings of infallible Imams and so on which is called knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello dear. 

In fact, the existence of God is so obvious that it does not need science :

The ways to knowing and comprehending God can be summed up in the following ways:

1. Reason and intellect, like the argument of the necessary and possible being.

2. Through experimentation and sensation, such as the argument from design.

3. The way of the heart or the argument of fitrah (genesis, innate disposition towards virtue and knowledge)[ii],[iii]

The easiest and the best way to understand and know God is the argument of fitrah whereby a person refers to his own God-gifted nature as well as to his inward where he sees God without any rational argument or any experimentation. Thus he reaches God through the way of the heart.

 

 - Just because this way utilizes experimentation doesn’t mean it is devoid of any reasoning and rationality, what is meant when it is said that it is experimental is that one of the premises of the argument is such, which is to observe the different phenomena of this world.

[ii] - Ma’arefe Eslami, vol. 1, pg. 41

[iii] -  For further information see: Understanding God; Adopted from Question 479 (website:520.

http://www.islamportal.net/question/who-god-and-how-it-possible-prove-his-existence‎

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 04/05/2016 at 4:50 PM, 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.

This argument is very weak. Not only is the burden of proof on who makes the claim, but it is practically impossible to prove a negative.

If you don't understand why, then here is an analogy:

A: I have a bunch of dancing and singing monkeys in my backyard, but I am the only one who can see and hear them. Prove me wrong.

B: *speechless*

Similarly, when you believe in God and tell us to prove he does not exist, we simply can't. 

Also, you can never disprove atheism, as atheism is lack of belief (i.e religion), and not the lack of a God. TL;DR God may probaby exist to some atheists and this question would he rendered redundant.

Edited by Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Fish said:

This argument is very weak. Not only is the burden of proof on who makes the claim, but it is practically impossible to prove a negative.

If you don't understand why, then here is an analogy:

A: I have a bunch of dancing and singing monkeys in my backyard, but I am take his he only one who can see and hear them. Prove me wrong.

B: *speechless*

Similarly, when you believe in God and tell us to prove he does not exist, we simply can't. 

Also, you can never disprove atheism, as atheism is lack of belief (i.e religion), and not the lack of a God. TL;DR God may probaby exist to some atheists and this question would he rendered redundant.

Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of God. Atheism could easily be disproved through rationalism.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.