Can Science Disprove God?

A quick answer to the question "Can Science Disprove God?
-----------

[Xendrius]

I stopped being an atheist in 2008 because I didn't have enough faith.

[arnoldwagner]

Personally, I think that the more we learn about science, the more it points to a creator.

[chuckshreds]

This is Great!!! Thanks Frank Turek. You're a blessing from God!

[michaelkarimian]

Truly one of my heros when it comes to apologetics. Thank you Frank Turek, the Holy Spirit speaks through you. 😇😇😇

[MrFossilabgfyth]

No, you can't prove nor disprove God using science. Exactly Frank 💯

[stevenwiederholt]

I have 2 small simple questions for our Materialist Friends
1. How do you get Something from Nothing?

2. How do you get Life from Non-Life?




Bonus question
What Happened To The Body?

[PM-rhyq]

Frank just easily gives evidence and questions that God is real. And I’m glad that Frank is doing this! And I believe that Jesus God and the Holy Spirit are happy of what he does.

[ruthadiscipleofjesuschrist]

Oh i didn’t know Todd and Frank were friend, that’s the set of Wretched, right?

[Imaginathor-k]

I think science is trying see into how life came into existence

[heathereads]

This video was very confusing to me because it was filmed on set at Wretched... is Frank Turek affiliated with Wretched?

[panmeilungdaini]

That studio looks like Wretched though.

[Prisoner]

I am an agnostic and I have a question, frank says that the universe must be the work of a mind because the laws of nature are extremely "precise". How does he define the criteria to call something "precise".

For example, if someone shoots an arrow 500 meters away from someone with an apple on his head and successfully hits the apple, then we can say this person was extremely accurate because we know that the hability needed to do that is extremely high, and we can say that because almost no one can do that kind of precise shot.

So shooting an apple with an arrow in that case would a very precise action. We can compare his shot with thousand of other people who have failed to successfully do shots from such long distances.

Then, we know how hard it is to hit that apple and we also know where do the arrows of the rest of the people land. Do we can see the distribution of arrows and number of successful shots, thus we can calculate the probability of successfully hitting the apple, and since the probability of hitting the Apple is very low, we can say that someone who constantly hits the apple is a very precise archer.


But we can't do the same with the laws of nature and the properties of the universe.

All we know are the values of laws of nature, but we don't know what is the criteria for "selecting" the laws of nature, we have no idea how hard or how improbable it is for the universe to have the laws of nature we observe.

Frank says the laws of nature are very precise, but how is he calculating the probability for the laws of nature to get that value?

To know how precise the laws of nature are, we need to know the total combination of "successful apple hits" (how many combinations of the values of the laws of nature permit the universe to have life, like ours does) with the total combination of values the laws of nature can take.

So, if 60% of the combination of the laws of nature permit life, then the probability of having life existing is veeery high.

But you may say "there are infinite number, so the laws of nature can take infinite values, which means there is basically Probability of life existence, it would take a very little change in the value of one law of natore or parameter of the universe to make the universe explode or be incapable of harnessing life"

That is not true, you have to prove that the laws of nature can take unlimited values, maybe the laws of nature can only take very few values.

So, you can't say that a "minuscule change will mess up the universe and the existence of life, because" a miniscule change" is not an absolute value, it is relative to how much can the value change in total, so, if a law of nature changes in points but the number of values this this law of nature can take in order to permit the existence of life is
Then this change is almost not minuscule like frank.

This mean you can't say that any change of value is small or big if you don't know what is the biggest change it can take.

If grscity can take values from 0.00005 to 0.00004 then a change of is a lot

[claudiaquat]

Frank has it backward. It is a chaotic universe that would require a god to hold it together. The universe we see around us proceeds on the basis of simple laws without any apparent intervention.

[zeddicuszorrander]

To say that science DOESN'T disprove the Biblical god, and science CAN'T disprove the Biblical god are two totally different ideas.

Throughout history, every time Christianity was presented with evidence that refutes biblical claims, Christians merely reinterpreted the Bible to match the current scientific theory.

"Oh, we had it wrong. This is figurative. Oh we really had it right the entire time. Let's go back to a literal interpretation. Well, here you just don't understand the context in light of the entire Bible."

These are things we here every day from Christians. The problem is that instead of bringing evidence to that supports the Bible, Christians just mold the science to fit the Bible then claim "This is what the Bible meant the entire time. God just didn't make it clear." Well, that's a problem. If god wanted to give proof he is the true god, then those proofs would have been clear in the beginning, and not just being fluid with whatever current scientific idea appears to be right.

[zxx]

atheists are saying that the DNA were caused by randomness, it would take
out of 798⁹⁹⁸²²⁹ for that to occur
not only you need the letters to put in order <-that's where cause and effect comes in
but where does the letters come from?
John 1 tells me: God is the Word.

[civone]

“Science cannot bury god but it can bury atheism” I still don’t understand why even intelligent people can’t understand that atheism is not a positive claim...there’s literally NOTHING to bury...it’s not the claim that a god doesn’t exist. It’s you saying there’s a god and me saying I don’t believe you...that’s it! I’m not saying god doesn’t exist, I’m saying, I don’t believe your claim.

[markd]

thank you Frank,
I would love for you to go into earth having a mind just like the universe(AI) I would love for you to address the Archangels..
God is real without God your soul has no realm..
anyone not believing in God you are caught in the matrix of this planet.
with respect, love

[danielake]

@Frank Turek ... there is no rover on mars!!

[flyguy]

Wait you’re going to compare god to Henry Ford...someone who we actually have pictures and video footage of?! Maybe if Henry Ford existed 2000 years ago and was only spoken about in one book...

[mrpensive]

Darn I didn't know he believes in Nasa putting stuff on planets 60 million miles away😏 but any way science still doesn't disprove God