Does Science Disprove God?

Ben Shapiro and Brian Keating discuss the extent to which science disproves the existance of god.

[Alaskan]

In my personal, humble, and totally unbiased opinion, he gave a very noncommittal answer

[coryandbuddythedog]

No one claims the Bible is a scientific document. God has no need to try and prove Truth to cynics who would refuse Him no matter what. The Bible states nature (and science) point to the reality of God.

[dooglitas]

He very masterfully evaded the question, which is the most important question in the universe.

[bobsacamono]

Science neither proves or disproves God.

[dickmanly]

"To KNOW there is NO God, You must have ALL knowledge in the universe."

[ladecouverteoulignorance]

The ultimate debate would've been Christopher Hitchens vs Ben Shapiro on economics, theology and political correctness.
RIP Hitchens...

[lme]

There is no evidence for any gods nor a consistent definition of what a god even is. You might as well have asked “Does science disprove the tooth fairy?”

[genojohnson]

Our society as a whole currently values knowledge over wisdom. Knowledge doesn't translate well into creating civility.

[Smackosynthesis]

If there was a creator, wouldn't they be outside their creation and not bound by its laws? For instance, if we created a.i. in a virtual world, everything they know of exists inside that world and if they saw no evidence of us meddling or created in their realm, they would reasonably not believe in us.

But we exist and created that world from outside of it, and weren't bound by it. They couldn't fathom what was beyond their world on a harddrive that we created.

[FruitNDoggie]

Even if The Bible doesn't cover the issue of creation or evolution heavily or explicitly, that doesn't mean that the issue is of non-importance theologically or that what it says as a whole wouldn't overlap or apply. The Bible expresses clearly that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, had a direct involvement with the creation and formation of the planet (along with all life on it), and a profound interest in humanity from our inception. This conceptualization of God is a stark contrast to what the theory of evolution and its timeline would suggest about the nature of God. God could still be all-powerful while using the much less direct method of evolution, but trillions of living things would have died well before man ever arose, let alone in the fully-developed form God had an interest in interacting with. What does this imply about all the living things before human beings showed up - were they without souls, are they doomed to eternal non-existence because their DNA just wasn't up to snuff and they hadn't met God's expectations in a process he set up and utilized? When God does decide to step in, what is He saving us from? At what point did we stop acting solely on instincts like animals and begin to have minds and a soul that could forsake our creator and behave badly? What sin have we committed, how have we displeased God to the point he now needs to send his son as a sacrifice on our behalf? I've never heard any Christian provide a satisfactory account theologically on how the evolutionary process would fit into God's plan. It's merely assumed and hand-waved away as just something we need to accept because other people say it's true. Based on how science is supposed to work, with experiments that we can reproduce and test multiple times, and there's no way they can recreate any number of the claims and events that are required to have happened for evolution to be true, I sure don't see how science has disproven anything about creation. Why should we tamper with and undermine the prior to evolution consistent and stalwart Christian theology for a diluted account that simply doesn't make sense? I choose to embrace God's wisdom, although I know I behave the fool in many other ways, instead of latching onto the knowledge proclaimed by man. Based on our track record, we've had a habit of loudly proclaiming things to be true yesterday, only to announce them as mistakes tomorrow.

[acent]

*facepalm*

It's really not that hard. And no, this guest isn't trolling anybody but himself and the extremely ignorant.

Clues (supposed godly signatures in cells, etc) is not proof of anything. That which is mentioned is barely even a clue. That's just us inserting God into anything we don't quite understand. Based on historical precedent, that approach has not once in 2000 years ever provided humanity with a correct answer. Not once, in thousands and thousands of instances, after the shrouds of mystery were replaced by understanding, was the answer ever, as previously assumed, "it's God".

On the other hand, it is also impossible to disprove God. If I asked you whether the Greek God Poseidon exists, you would likely say no. You're likely even 100% convinced Poseidon is a myth, yet can you prove he doesn't exist? No, in the exact same way, you can't. Assuming the universe is infinite, there will always be a place we have not yet looked, and that assumes Poseidon manifests physicaly in space and time, which the Christian God doesn't. The existance of God is not a disprovable hypothesis.

Rule #1 for any useful scientific hypothesis is that it must be disprovable! The more ways it's disprovable the better. As a hypothesis withstands hundreds or thousands of failed disproval attempts, the more trustworthy it becomes.

For some, the realization that it's impossible to disprove God may be taken as consolation, but in the scientific community that's exactly what makes the entire idea scientifically worthless.

That doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't have faith. You can believe whatever you want, but let's just stop with the dishonest, rooky, and pseudo scientific discussions.

[psyxypher]

"Disproves" is a strong word.
An Atheist doesn't take a stance on believing there is or is not a God. You wait for proof. In theory, that is.

[PLATOLOSOPHY]

Faith is something i’ve struggled with for a while. I really wish i could have even a short conversation with Ben to assist me in believing.

[GSpotter]

There are times when I feel this debate about Gods existence seems pointless. When my brother and I were young we would argue about what was in the boxes under the tree for days. Only to have all of those arguments made pointless on Christmas morning when the opening of those boxes ended all debate.

There will come a time when every single man on the face this planet will die and the debate of Gods existence for them will be over. The truth and facts will present themselves without doubt, making all of those years of painful debate moot. If you are unsure as to the existence of God, Just sit back and wait.... Death will alleviate all controversy.

[hideinfart]

Whoever makes the claim that God exists has the burden of proof. The problem is that all "proof" is strictly personal and thus subject to the countless biases we suffer from. Nobody has ever been able to prove the existence of God. And thus it'd be ridiculous to believe it.

[donaldreed]

Isn't belief in God more a matter of imagination than of rational inquiry? Arguing against such a belief is rather like arguing against "The Brothers Karamazov" because it's "fiction".

[thomasbaskys]

Science cannot disprove the existence of God. And yet, the fact that AOC is a Congresswoman, makes one ask, "What kind of God would let that happen?" 🤪

[gregjanusjr]

Same science that claims men and women are interchangeable just sayin

[THE-UNRAVELING-]

The smarter we claim to be the bigger fools we are. I look forward to Eternity.

[needtoknow]

I have a fundamental belief in the holy Bible as the word of god, written by man who were inspired. I study the bible daily. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors.
-sir Isaac Newton