If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   Fox News: "Science does not disprove God." And by Fox News, I mean the libby libs at Salon.com   (salon.com) divider line 169
    More: Ironic, Richard Dawkins, Fox News, Homo heidelbergensis, god, australopithecus afarensis, cognitive sciences, paleoanthropologist, physical anthropologist  
•       •       •

1313 clicks; posted to Geek » on 19 Apr 2014 at 3:44 PM (22 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



169 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-19 12:50:03 PM
Because you can't prove a negative. You can't prove god does not exist but you can prove god does exist.
 
2014-04-19 12:56:16 PM
We can't create consciousness, therefore god.
 
2014-04-19 12:56:26 PM

Ghastly: Because you can't prove a negative. You can't prove god does not exist but you can prove god does exist.


?
 
2014-04-19 12:57:26 PM
Science does not prove or disprove the existence of a god or gods. It's kind where that whole 'faith' thing comes in.
 
2014-04-19 01:01:56 PM

clancifer: Ghastly: Because you can't prove a negative. You can't prove god does not exist but you can prove god does exist.

?


You can't prove that unicorns with the voice of Morgan Freeman don't exist. You can potentially prove that they do, if they do. Nobody ever said science disproves God.

Common sense, maybe.
 
2014-04-19 01:13:53 PM
Christians can't prove Muhammad isn't God's prophet.
Muslims can't prove Thetans don't exist.
Scientologists can't prove Odin won't be swallowed by Fenrir.
 
2014-04-19 01:14:42 PM

clancifer: Ghastly: Because you can't prove a negative. You can't prove god does not exist but you can prove god does exist.

?


To prove god exists all you have to do is produce god. God shows up towering thousands of miles tall, says "Hey! Who does a guy have to smite to get a drink around here" and you've proved God exists. It is impossible though to prove that god does not exist because you can't prove a negative.

For example. I can prove space aliens exist by producing a space alien. I cannot prove that space aliens do not exist. Even if I had a telescope that would let me see clearly the tiniest detail over millions of light years in real time and began scanning the heavens and found no aliens all I have demonstrated is that aliens did not exist in the places I scanned at the times I scanned or that aliens possess a technology that renders then undetectable by my telescope.

That's why science does not set out to disprove things but to prove things.
 
2014-04-19 01:28:05 PM
And by "libby libs at Salon.com", Subby means "Some guy whose book they're excerpting."
 
2014-04-19 01:52:43 PM
No, but science can disprove many of the "factual" foundations of specific religions. Most of them, really.
 
2014-04-19 02:00:09 PM
This is hardly a testable hypothesis and by that... what exactly is the hypothesis?
 
2014-04-19 02:12:47 PM
Science does not, nor does it need to, address the existence of God.

It sure does tend to poke a few holes in some of those Bible stories, though.
 
2014-04-19 02:13:36 PM

scottydoesntknow: Science does not prove or disprove the existence of a god or gods. It's kind where that whole 'faith' thing comes in.


This.
 
2014-04-19 02:36:20 PM
The existence or non-existence of supernatural entities is by definition beyond the scope of the natural sciences.
 
2014-04-19 02:37:51 PM
Subby doesn't seem to understand how science, proof, or God work.
 
2014-04-19 02:54:32 PM

kxs401: Subby doesn't seem to understand how science, proof, or God work.


In mysterious ways.
 
2014-04-19 02:56:48 PM

Ghastly: kxs401: Subby doesn't seem to understand how science, proof, or God work.

In mysterious ways.


It's alright, it's alright, it's alllllriiiight!
 
2014-04-19 03:01:46 PM

Quasar: clancifer: Ghastly: Because you can't prove a negative. You can't prove god does not exist but you can prove god does exist.

?

You can't prove that unicorns with the voice of Morgan Freeman don't exist. You can potentially prove that they do, if they do. Nobody ever said science disproves God.

Common sense, maybe.


img.fark.net
Titty sprinkles
 
2014-04-19 03:02:09 PM

kronicfeld: No, but science can disprove many of the "factual" foundations of specific religions. Most of them, really.


Disproving millenia old games of telephone isn't difficult. Whether or not there's any basis behind that game is harder to figure out.
 
2014-04-19 03:03:02 PM

Doctor Funkenstein: Ghastly: kxs401: Subby doesn't seem to understand how science, proof, or God work.

In mysterious ways.

It's alright, it's alright, it's alllllriiiight!


I guess there are worse earworms.
 
2014-04-19 03:06:39 PM

Doctor Funkenstein: Ghastly: kxs401: Subby doesn't seem to understand how science, proof, or God work.

In mysterious ways.

It's alright, it's alright, it's alllllriiiight!


You. Bastard.
 
2014-04-19 03:10:20 PM
Heh - sorry about that.  If it's any consolation, that's going to be rattling around in my head for the foreseeable future, too.
 
2014-04-19 03:27:35 PM
*sigh*

Science doesn't set out to prove or disprove anything (although the results of applying the scientific method usually does prove or disprove something). Science discovers, investigates and describes that which is observed within our universe. If God was discovered to be a part of this universe, then science would include it within its body of knowledge.
 
2014-04-19 03:55:49 PM
Science? Pshaw.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-04-19 03:56:05 PM

Ghastly: Because you can't prove a negative. You can't prove god does not exist but you can prove god does exist.


You are one of the dumbest assholes on the planet... you CAN prove a negative. Under strict lab conditions monitoring air pressure, heat, and light exposure I can prove which elements will react with each other and which won't. Once I change one of the conditions the results may change but that doesn't change the results of the original test.

If 2 elements won't react with each other I have proven a negative you halfwit farking coont.

I am tired of militant atheists like you... just as bad as militant theists.
 
2014-04-19 03:58:11 PM
It's almost as if there's a category of ideas called "metaphysics".
 
2014-04-19 03:59:50 PM
Were you there?
 
2014-04-19 04:00:57 PM
Science and faith are not intrinsically at odds.

Dogma and science, yeah. Fair often--because a 6000 year old Creation doesn't jibe with the evidence.

I am a theist--not Christian, though being raised in the South and across America, I went to Sunday Schools galore to fit in--and science only makes me appreciate the wonder of this existence all the more. Faith and science aren't mutually exclusive, though some ministries and church's and temples and teachers see contravention of their teachings as being at odds with science.

Science and religion are only at odds with one another when you try to use them to answer the same question sets. Science is for questions of How. How things work. How can we get from point A to B faster and safer? Religion answers questions of Why. The intentional sense of Why. It's not the ONLY way to ask those questions, but faith does set things up for those questions. Science, not so much. Science is mum on questions of intention of existence. You can get by not asking those questions, but some folks do want answers, and they find some meaning within those structures.

The problem lies in thinking that science directly counterdicts faith. Dogma? For damn sure in a lot of cases, but somehow the faithful have gotten used to a heliocentric solar system, and they can survive a Universe older than 6000 years. Faith sees far more challenge from how folks treat one another, than it does from science. Maybe if you stop using your faith as the be all, end all to every question, you might find things run smoother. You can't use a screwdriver for all tasks with tools. Use the proper tool, for the appropriate task. Science is a tool. Faith is as well. Use the right tool, for the appropriate question set...
 
2014-04-19 04:01:50 PM
It's like a 10 year old coming to grips with the fact that Santa isn't real. "But....WHO ATE ALL THE COOKIES?"

Dear Religion: You want to save yourselves? Stop making it about laws and what's real or not, what theories are correct or not. Start making it about peace, love, and understanding. All the parts that are supposed to be the best of what you offer? Push those.
 
2014-04-19 04:02:43 PM
i.imgur.com

^ I dare you to disprove this, scientists.
 
2014-04-19 04:03:55 PM

jeffjo52: Ghastly: Because you can't prove a negative. You can't prove god does not exist but you can prove god does exist.

You are one of the dumbest assholes on the planet... you CAN prove a negative. Under strict lab conditions monitoring air pressure, heat, and light exposure I can prove which elements will react with each other and which won't. Once I change one of the conditions the results may change but that doesn't change the results of the original test.

If 2 elements won't react with each other I have proven a negative you halfwit farking coont.

I am tired of militant atheists like you... just as bad as militant theists.


Well that satisfies my irony quota for the day.
 
2014-04-19 04:04:05 PM

jeffjo52: Ghastly: Because you can't prove a negative. You can't prove god does not exist but you can prove god does exist.

You are one of the dumbest assholes on the planet... you CAN prove a negative. Under strict lab conditions monitoring air pressure, heat, and light exposure I can prove which elements will react with each other and which won't. Once I change one of the conditions the results may change but that doesn't change the results of the original test.

If 2 elements won't react with each other I have proven a negative you halfwit farking coont.

I am tired of militant atheists like you... just as bad as militant theists.


Good luck. Fark is full of lazy Atheists who don't even fully understand the science behind their worldview. Nor do they bother to reproduce the results themselves. Rather, they have faith in their fellow man that the conclusion drawn are indeed correct.
 
2014-04-19 04:08:05 PM

jeffjo52: Ghastly: Because you can't prove a negative. You can't prove god does not exist but you can prove god does exist.

You are one of the dumbest assholes on the planet... you CAN prove a negative. Under strict lab conditions monitoring air pressure, heat, and light exposure I can prove which elements will react with each other and which won't. Once I change one of the conditions the results may change but that doesn't change the results of the original test.

If 2 elements won't react with each other I have proven a negative you halfwit farking coont.

I am tired of militant atheists like you... just as bad as militant theists.



Read his next comment. You proved that those two elements won't react in any of the conditions you've tested, but it's possible (no matter how unlikely) that those elements will react in a condition that hasn't been tested. You can be almost certain, scientificaly certain (5 sigma) that what you've tested represents all other cases, but there is that tiny sliver of impossible doubt that exists.

The heavens can be exhaustively searched for a sign of God, every phenomenon known to humans could be explained flawlessly, all of human history could be catolouged in minute detail, but hey, I swear that I left my burrito on the counter and not the island, maybe God moved it?

I think you may have misinterpreted what he intended his original point to be, or made it too strict and comprehensive.
 
2014-04-19 04:08:58 PM
Science may not disprove gods but its findings certainly make them irrelevant.
 
2014-04-19 04:11:22 PM
Science only disproves hypotheses that are subject to test by the scientific method.  God is a metaphysical or supernatural concept and not subject to proof or disproof by experimental evidence.

You can, for example, study the behavior of a human brain when it is exposed to music or readings from the Scriptures of various religions. You can do experiments on meditators or religious fanatics. You can expose the brain to electro-magnetic stimulation as the Canadian scientist Michael Persinger did, with the result that he was able to replicate a number of religious or supernatural sensations such as the feeling of a malevolent or benevolent presence or of being part of something warm and oceanic. But you can not prove God exists or does not exist, or even what God might be if he did exist because these are sentiments that are subjective or cultural artifacts which are not subject to verification.

Religionists reject science when it disproves a cherished prejudice or belief (say the existence of an evil or superior race or the rightness of a hatred or fear) but they crace scientific validation and constantly corrupt logic and facts in order to get the stamp of approval of science. They even go so far as to become cranks of the sort who claim their own pseudo-scientific nonsense is real science and that scientists are totally ignorant in their own fields of expertise and endeavor.

But religion and other metaphysical systems are entirely beyond the proper study of science except as psychological or social phenomenon.

Science can knock the mythical underpinnings out from under racism or religion, but it can not verify the realtiry of made-up entitities or concepts or validate subjective and privy experience. Any evidence that it brings to bear on any subject including its own proper subjects is tentative and often culminative unlike religious "evidences" which are deemed infallible by Believers in the face of logic and fact and any kind of criticism or denial.

Scientists are not Believers although they can be just as stubborn and prejudiced as other men or women are.
 
GBB
2014-04-19 04:11:30 PM
So, what you're saying is that Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster might really be out there?
 
2014-04-19 04:14:53 PM

Quasar: clancifer: Ghastly: Because you can't prove a negative. You can't prove god does not exist but you can prove god does exist.

?

You can't prove that unicorns with the voice of Morgan Freeman don't exist. You can potentially prove that they do, if they do. Nobody ever said science disproves God.

Common sense, maybe.


^This.  There's absolutely no evidence that God (or some sort of ultimate creator) exists...but if there were at all, scientists would test it just as they test everything else.  Science has, however, disproven many elements of the Bible.  Disproving the Bible isn't the same thing as disproving God.  There's a difference that many people don't seem to understand.
 
2014-04-19 04:16:58 PM
Why is it that the religious always feel the need to set up and then attack this strawman?? Nobody is trying to prove your invisible friend doesn't exist.

Science doesn't give a rat's ass about any of the 1000's of gods that man has invented. There is no scientific field of Fairy Tale debunking. There is no class called "Proving Magic is Fake 101".

Science does often show that the claims of religions are wrong like some people's claims of a 6000 year old Earth. But not because the scientists cared about what cave men wrote in a magic book. It happened because they were searching for the truth in their field and whatever they came up with happened to contradict the cave men.
 
2014-04-19 04:19:22 PM

GBB: So, what you're saying is that Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster might really be out there?


It is possible. It cannot be 100% disproved.

Don't bet the house on it though.
 
2014-04-19 04:23:01 PM
Really, I would love to see a proof of the existence of God.  It would finally put to rest the damned question, AND it would finally force his believers to live up to his ideals.  Maybe they could even get him to clarify that new vs. old testament thing.

Of course, it could be Allah, Or the god of Budda...or FSM, which would be a terrific outcome.

I suggest real scientists faced with a good proof of the existence of God would simply start believing in God and continue on with their lives.

On the other hand, a proof that god did NOT exist would NEVER, ever be accepted by the believers.
 
2014-04-19 04:23:18 PM

Ghastly: Because you can't prove a negative. You can't prove god does not exist but you can prove god does exist.


This needs clarification before the thread goes off the rails:

First off, it's not technically true that a negative assertion cannot be proven. I'll get back to this in a bit.

Now, in order for an assertion or claim to be scientifically valid, it must be falsifiable. Positive assertions ("prove it is") are easier to disprove than negative assertions because a positive assertion only needs to check one condition for conclusive proof (usually direct observance). Negative assertions must check every condition in the entire Universe for conclusive proof, and that's impossible since we are unable to check every condition in the entire Universe.

The positive assertion only requires knowledge about the positive assertion to be affirmed. The negative assertion requires infinite knowledge of everything everywhere to be affirmed, and we can never affirm it since there will always be knowledge beyond our grasp.

examples:

"Prove that there are purple dragons". One needs to only find one, either present or in the past, to prove this assertion.

"Prove that there are no purple dragons." One needs to look at every square inch of every planet, every galaxy, every geological time period, every dimension, and every fabric of existence to prove this conclusively. And even if this could be done, the dragon could still be invisible, or hiding, or really small, or moving around so you'd need to check everything all over again to make sure there are none anywhere all the time forever. And it still doesn't disclude the possibility of them existing in the future. As you can see, this requires infinity levels of knowledge, testing, and checking to affirm with a high degree of certainty. Basically, omniscience.

Negatives with infinite parameters cannot be proven because they're too open-ended.

But you CAN prove a negative with limited parameters. "Prove there are no 10 foot visible purple dragons in my garage between 3:00pm and 3:10pm tomorrow afternoon" -- yes, we can prove that because the parameters narrow it down to finite limits that we can test for. It is not small, it is not invisible, the location and time are known and observable, and we can check to see if my assertion is true.

But something like "Prove God does not exist" is meaningless. Proving the negative of anything supernatural is meaningless. Science is not interested in that which it cannot falsify. This includes all religious claims.

So it's wrong to say science is anti-religion or trying to get rid of it. At the most, it just considers religion irrelevant to investigative inquiry.
 
2014-04-19 04:26:32 PM

jeffjo52: Ghastly: Because you can't prove a negative. You can't prove god does not exist but you can prove god does exist.

You are one of the dumbest assholes on the planet... you CAN prove a negative. Under strict lab conditions monitoring air pressure, heat, and light exposure I can prove which elements will react with each other and which won't. Once I change one of the conditions the results may change but that doesn't change the results of the original test.

If 2 elements won't react with each other I have proven a negative you halfwit farking coont.

I am tired of militant atheists like you... just as bad as militant theists.


i18.photobucket.com
 
2014-04-19 04:26:46 PM
God did exist, but he died and sank while being towed to an ice cave. People were using His body as an amusement park for a while, but I'm pretty sure it's just His skull orbiting Earth now.
 
2014-04-19 04:29:14 PM

Farking Canuck: Science doesn't give a rat's ass


That's because science is not sentient. Anthropomorphism is no way to go through debates, son.
 
2014-04-19 04:29:19 PM
"Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist,'" says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing."

Douglas Adams HHGTTG
 
2014-04-19 04:30:14 PM

make me some tea: Science does not, nor does it need to, address the existence of God.

It sure does tend to poke a few holes in some of those Bible stories, though.


It goes even a step further.  Science cannot by definition cannot comment on or prove/disprove the existence of God because science does not deal with the supernatural.  It's amazing how many YECs cannot grasp this.
 
2014-04-19 04:31:27 PM

hubiestubert: Religion answers questions of Why.


No it doesn't.
 
2014-04-19 04:33:46 PM

hubiestubert: Science and faith are not intrinsically at odds.

Dogma and science, yeah. Fair often--because a 6000 year old Creation doesn't jibe with the evidence.

I am a theist--not Christian, though being raised in the South and across America, I went to Sunday Schools galore to fit in--and science only makes me appreciate the wonder of this existence all the more. Faith and science aren't mutually exclusive, though some ministries and church's and temples and teachers see contravention of their teachings as being at odds with science.

Science and religion are only at odds with one another when you try to use them to answer the same question sets. Science is for questions of How. How things work. How can we get from point A to B faster and safer? Religion answers questions of Why. The intentional sense of Why. It's not the ONLY way to ask those questions, but faith does set things up for those questions. Science, not so much. Science is mum on questions of intention of existence. You can get by not asking those questions, but some folks do want answers, and they find some meaning within those structures.

The problem lies in thinking that science directly counterdicts faith. Dogma? For damn sure in a lot of cases, but somehow the faithful have gotten used to a heliocentric solar system, and they can survive a Universe older than 6000 years. Faith sees far more challenge from how folks treat one another, than it does from science. Maybe if you stop using your faith as the be all, end all to every question, you might find things run smoother. You can't use a screwdriver for all tasks with tools. Use the proper tool, for the appropriate task. Science is a tool. Faith is as well. Use the right tool, for the appropriate question set...


Religion doesn't answer questions.  It tells people what to do.
 
2014-04-19 04:33:54 PM
jeffjo52: militant athiest waah

ah ya know I think the tentacles are gonna git ya some evening, when you're grabbing a beer outta the fridge or maybe when you're asleep or...something.

be afraid, be very afraid.
 
2014-04-19 04:40:55 PM
You could argue that intelligence is inherently derivative and not creative -- in the sense that you can't imagine a color you've never seen -- that intelligence cannot exist without context and therefore the basis of existence cannot be intelligence in any meaningful sense -- but that's hardly science.
 
2014-04-19 04:44:17 PM

alaric3: The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist,'" says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."


But this is not a true premise. Proof does not deny faith. Requiring proof denies faith. You can have faith, and you can have proof that backs that faith. Faith is denied only if proof must come first. The author is creating a false dilemma, that you must have either proof *or* faith.

Nowhere does God base His existence upon the faith of men. This isn't a true premise, either.

And that's why everybody thinks Douglas Adams is profound, especially the people who've never actually read his books.
 
Displayed 50 of 169 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report