Slashdot Mirror
Science Cannot Prove the Existence of God
StartsWithABang writes: This past weekend, Eric Metaxas lit up the world with his bold article in the Wall Street Journal, Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God. As a scientific counterpoint, this article fully addresses three major points of that "case," including what the condition are that we need for life to arise, how rare (or common) are those conditions, and if we don't find life where we expect it, can we learn anything about God at all?
... violates how language works, when one defines a concept in language it's drawn from the environment, there is no "god" to point to in our environment. If I say house I can point to it, if I say car, I can point to it. The same cannot be said for god.
I'm curious. Are you saying that you can point to, say, love, beauty, or freedom? Or are you saying that they don't exist?
What a sad, empty life it would be, to live in a world without abstract concepts.
Scientific discoveries tend to make the universe seem even more amazing, and reveal even more limitations to human understanding.
To theists, the more amazing the universe is, the more obvious it is that God must exist. Similarly, the more limited humans are shown to be, the more obvious it is that God did it all.
That is why theists keep insisting that science makes their case for them. Emotionally they are right. Logically they are not.
Many theists also get this strange idea that something intrinsic to science makes the enterprise itself "out to disprove God's existence." Science doesn't disprove God so much as start by assuming God doesn't exist, and operate within the boundaries of what we can actually demonstrate (which will never be God). Some specific scientists want to disprove God's existence (good luck proving a negative!), but science itself just doesn't include God in the equation at all. Theists receive this very reasonable assumption of mechanism over intelligent agency as an attempt to disprove, and go on the counter-offensive, claiming that these attempts are self-defeating.
So, that is what is going on.
I contend that anyone who achieves true objectivity on this issue will opt for agnosticism and just leave the debate behind.
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says man, "[that article in the Wall Street Urinal says that science] proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
– excerpted from Douglas Adams (for the cretins in the audience)
And that's about the most intelligent thing a person can say on the matter.
Ones the subject of logic and evidence. The other is the subject of faith. Those that lack logic and evidence seem to be completely baffled by people of sciences inability to have any spiritual understanding what-so-ever. And those that lack faith seem to be completely baffled by those that are spirituals complete lack of logic. The 2 subjects have little to do with one another other and to try and prove or disprove Science or God with Science or God makes about as much sense as what Douglas Adams eloquently illustrates in his example.
It's like if I were to play you Beethoven 5th and say "Isn't that a fantastic peace?" and you were to turn to me and say "Music is nothing is superstition!" and then recite to me the Pythagorean theorem. And to make matters worse I then force you to listen to the Beatles and claim that "Octopuses Garden" clearly shows that Calculus is actually just a government conspiracy.
I personally hope there is a God and that science is the method to understanding of his design. If I'm wrong? Oh well. At least I got Christmas out of the deal.