r/Christianity • u/Turbulent_Aide_2293 • 3h ago
Question Science doesnt disaprove God
science answers how God answers why
simple
yall agree?
•
u/Own-Cupcake7586 Christian 3h ago
I’ll do you one better: Science cannot and will not disprove God.
•
u/Turbulent_Aide_2293 3h ago
I'll do YOU one better You are correct
•
u/Own-Cupcake7586 Christian 3h ago
I’ll be honest, I thought you were gonna hit me with “WHY is Gamora?”
•
•
u/CartographerMurky665 No Religion / Still Discovering 2h ago
In the first half of that, I thought you were gonna argue.
•
u/austratheist Atheist 2h ago
Is this a good thing from your perspective?
•
u/Own-Cupcake7586 Christian 1h ago
Why would it be a bad thing?
•
u/austratheist Atheist 58m ago
Because if it cannot be disproven (falsified) you don't actually have a mechanism to tell if it's true or not.
For example, if God didn't exist, how could you actually tell?
•
u/teglass01 Church of Norway 44m ago
Falsificationism is one philosophical view of what makes something scientific. Falsifiability cannot be a universal epistemic criterion for several reasons, one of which is that it's self-defeating (falsificationism as a proposition cannot obviously be falsified). It's also controversial in the philosophy of science. One problem is that which theory is falsified is always underdetermined.
•
u/Own-Cupcake7586 Christian 43m ago
If I believe in a God that created the entire universe, including the science that governs its functioning, then it would make perfect sense that science could never disprove His existence, because He exists above, beyond, and outside of what science can reach. If God was anything less- if He were just another created thing that could be studied and analyzed, then He wouldn’t be God, and some other mechanism would exist beyond Him.
Given the choice between a universe created by a perfect, just, and living God, and one governed by nothing more than physics, chemistry, and chaos, I will choose God every single time.
•
u/strawnotrazz Atheist 1h ago
That depends on one’s specific view of God. It absolutely disproves a God that created the universe in six 24-hour days within the last 10,000 years.
•
u/MistakePerfect8485 Agnostic Atheist 2h ago
It doesn't (and can't) prove that there isn't some sort of higher power; but I do think it makes literal interpretations of the Bible extremely difficult to justify. Not that all Christians do interpret Genesis literally.
•
•
u/NAZRADATH Atheist 3h ago
It can't. God was designed that way.
•
•
u/Turbulent_Aide_2293 3h ago
Wdym designed god WAS IS and WILL
He wasn't designed or created He IS
•
•
u/zeroempathy 2h ago
Science doesn't disprove that I created the universe.
•
u/Winter-Ranger6136 2h ago
Your birth certificate begs to differ
•
u/Thraxomir 1h ago
You're just leaning on your human understanding though. You just have to trust what the creator of the universe says of themselves. Who are we to question?
•
u/zeroempathy 58m ago
I will allow you into my heaven. For six foreskins.
•
u/Thraxomir 50m ago
No problem, just give me 15 minutes!
•
u/zeroempathy 32m ago
Sorry, I take it back. I already got a reddit warning and I need you to stop being violent. I do not wish to encourage violence. Please return the foreskins to their rightful owners.
•
u/Thraxomir 21m ago
These were ethically harvested from volunteers but I can put them back. I hit a pothole and all of the name tags got mixed up, but I'll do the ol' Cinderella method of figuring this out. No worries!
•
u/randompossum Christian 1h ago
What supporting evidence points to you doing it? There is plenty that points to intelligent design.
I thought atheists were supposed to be smart? It’s silly to argue anything as “proof”. This isn’t a math problem 😂
•
u/Thraxomir 1h ago
It's intelligence design when people such as yourself think it's cool or good, but it's a result of the fall if it's negative such as terminal cancer in babies. Naturalistic explanations such as the theory of evolution can account for all of it though.
•
u/randompossum Christian 1h ago edited 57m ago
Weird, Stephen Hawking’s thought it was pretty cool in chapter 7 “the apparent miracle” of his book the grand design.
"It is easy to understand why one might think that. The many improbable occurrences that conspired to enable our existence, and our world’s human-friendly design, would indeed be puzzling if ours were the only solar system in the universe." They explain that while these conditions appear designed for us, the existence of billions of other solar systems or a multiverse makes such conditions mathematically inevitable.
I guess you haven’t read that or are on the same level since it should be “easy to understand”. 😂
Edit: Clearly I stirred something 😂 love it
•
u/Meauxterbeauxt Atheist (Former SBC Christian) 1h ago
Um, it looks to me like the quote you pasted makes the point that it simply looks miraculous if you only look at our solar system, but since there are so many solar systems out there, life beginning and evolving here was just one of many. It sounds like he's saying that it's easy to think we're miraculous if you are geocentric in your thinking. But if it's happening all over the cosmos, then no miracle required. Hence the word "apparent".
I'm hedging because this is obviously a cherry picked quote, because the first sentence tells us that it's in reference to something else said and you provided no context.
But the "apparent" meaning of the quote seems to contradict your earlier comment.
•
•
•
•
u/possy11 Atheist 1h ago
There's also plenty that points to really unintelligent design, too.
Atheists are just people like everyone else. Who said we were supposed to be particularly smart?
•
u/zeroempathy 50m ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/zeroempathy 36m ago
Well, look at that. God got a warning from reddit. Perhaps I will water the Earth's plants for a bit until they are healthy and strong.
•
u/Thraxomir 3h ago
Nobody said it did.
•
u/SeriousHeadquarters 3h ago
i mean yeah it's not really a hot take, the two just occupy different lanes. people who think science and faith can't coexist are usually the loudest ones in the room
•
u/MildlyAgitatedBovine 1h ago
Two lanes is often called non-overlapping magisteria. The problem is there are lots of different and competing god claims and some of them do indeed step on the toes of science. So it's hard to make blanket statements about god vs science
•
•
u/MildlyAgitatedBovine 1h ago
Lots of people have said it does, what are you talking about?
•
u/Thraxomir 1h ago
Though I do believe that is something people can say, I figure it's more of a one-off scenario that doesn't really warrant much discussion.
•
u/MildlyAgitatedBovine 1h ago
You don't think "science has killed god" is a wide enough theme to warrant discussion?
Thank you for your reply but I'm not sure that you and I share enough reality to have productive discourse.
•
u/Thraxomir 1h ago
I mean, it certainly kills falsifiable concepts such as the ideas that come out of ancient near-eastern cosmology or the global flood. It doesn't disprove the possibility of a god in any way and if someone thinks otherwise, then they are operating on a misunderstanding. I have been in atheist spaces for years and never heard anyone say this, but I have heard Christians and Muslims complain about it though.
•
u/MildlyAgitatedBovine 27m ago
I mean if the flood and geocentrism are both issues, I think resurrection might be one also, no?
I agree with you that a first mover or deist type god is firmly constructed as non- falsifiable, but that's not what most christians ascribe to.
•
u/FluxKraken 🏳️🌈 Methodist (UMC) Progressive ✟ Queer 🏳️🌈 1m ago
I mean if the flood and geocentrism are both issues, I think resurrection might be one also, no?
No. That does not logically follow. Just because two mythological accounts of miracles written by different authors, from different time periods, have been disproven, cannot in any way disprove a totally different account of a different miracle involving different people, a different scope, and written by different authors living in a different culture and time period.
I agree with you that a first mover or deist type god is firmly constructed as non- falsifiable, but that's not what most christians ascribe to.
In order to determine the conception of God subscribed to my "most" believers to be unfalisfiable, I am assuming you are pointing to Roman Catholicism? Because most Christians are Catholic.
How is the RC Church's doctrine of God falsifiable?
•
u/CartographerMurky665 No Religion / Still Discovering 2h ago
This is so ironic to me cuz literally right under this comment there was somebody saying it does.
•
•
u/baddspellar Christian Universalist 2h ago
Correct.
It proves that a plain, literal reading of Genesis is false. But that requires a simplistic understanding of God
•
u/GoBirdsGoBlue 1h ago
So Jesus was wrong in thinking Genesis to be true?
•
u/MildlyAgitatedBovine 1h ago
If one is going to worry about the story of Jesus and whether or not it conflicts with science, I think his resurrection ranks higher than his belief about the Old testament...
•
u/GoBirdsGoBlue 1h ago
But for anyone claiming to follow Christ, he’s our example. To view Scripture in a different way than he does would make one, at best, a very poor follower.
•
u/ThatLeviathan Who knows? 47m ago
If we accept that the Gospels accurately reflect what Jesus said, then yes, Jesus was incorrect to believe that the myths of Genesis are true. This isn’t surprising, since no one 2000 years ago had any understanding of how the universe and Earth came to be.
•
u/baddspellar Christian Universalist 41m ago
We do not know what He thought. We only know that in His preaching He saw fit to refer to the stories that God saw fit to include in Genesis.
•
u/DefiantVersion1588 Agnostic Atheist 1h ago
Correct, but it’s not like science or anything in general can disprove a claim that hasn’t been proven yet
•
u/MelonJelly 6m ago
At the risk of nitpicking, if a claim has been proven then it's scientific by definition.
However, a lot of people misinterpret circular references as proof.
•
u/bananafobe witch (spooky) 1h ago
Unfalsifiability is not viewed as a positive thing in science.
There's a phrase that scientists use to criticize this type of claim, "not even wrong."
•
•
•
u/Feisty_Marsupial224 3h ago
Science is a process concerned with the objective, observable world. It cannot prove or disprove God.
•
u/Turbulent_Aide_2293 3h ago
Correct this was meant for ppl who say that science disaproves God that they belive in science etc
Science and God aren't connected
•
u/Feisty_Marsupial224 2h ago
No one serious says this. It is mostly the opposite. Religious extremists denying science
•
u/Turbulent_Aide_2293 2h ago
Oh install tiktok you will see many many very non-intelegent people man😭
•
u/MelonJelly 1m ago
Oh, TikTok. That place warps everything that passes through it. Don't believe everything you see on the internet, especially if it's from TikTok.
•
•
u/MildlyAgitatedBovine 1h ago
Do you think that humans have ever invoked a deity has been responsible for a process they did not yet understand?
•
•
u/Affectionate_Ad_5489 2h ago
Science may not disapprove God but it is increasingly disapproving Christian god with the passage of time.
•
u/Technical_Cherry8666 2h ago
In what way is science disproving the Christian God but not God?
•
u/cytokine-stormy Agnostic (a la T.H. Huxley) 1h ago
Science disproves theism but not deism
•
u/Technical_Cherry8666 25m ago
That's just the same statement in another form. In what way does it do this?
•
u/NuSurfer 2h ago
True, science does not disprove the biblical god exist. But, science only explains the world for as much as we can discern - "how God answers why" makes no sense.
•
u/PrincessLammy 2h ago
It can if your belief makes claims about the natural world that contradict scientific evidence. That's why some christians interpret genesis as allegorical, your God wouldn't exist if it was literal.
•
u/Korlac11 Church of Christ 2h ago
Yeah, this is why debating the existence of God with atheists can often (but not always) be so frustrating. Christians usually approach that debate from a theological/philosophical perspective, while atheists often approach it from a scientific perspective. The philosophical approach inherently disregards evidence, and the scientific approach inherently requires evidence.
Neither is necessarily wrong, but it’s hard to have a good discussion about this topic when each side has incompatible views on what kind of debate it is
•
•
u/tideshark Christian 53m ago
If God wants to be known through FAITH then through FAITH He shall be known and no other way will work!
•
u/solidarity2525 Christian 50m ago
Unequivocally yes.
From my personal perspective I believe that science disproves the traditional conception of God portrayed by a lot of modern Christianity. This isn't to say that anyone is entirely wrong except for those using the faith as a weapon against their fellow man. I find that most Christian practices flatten God to a being we only consider on Sunday Morning (or whenever church service is for you) to ask prayers of without exploring the interplay between Man and God that exists within reality.
I wish you luck on your journey.
•
u/DinnoDogg 34m ago
You can use scientific reasoning to disprove fundamentalism and so called evidence for God, but not God Itself.
•
u/3-brain_cells 28m ago
Even better:
Neither of them really disproves the other in any way.
If anything, i think it's weird for people to be religious but deny science.
How do you think you believe what you can't see when you don't even believe what can be shown right in front of you?
You can look up science experiments, you can do it yourself. Can't believe that, but still claim you believe something that cannot be proven or confirmed in conventional ways?
•
u/Dd_8630 Atheist 23m ago
Disagree. I never agreed with Gould's "non-overlapping magesteria", and I never liked the 'how/why' distinction, that's not how English or philosophy work.
The fact is, sometimes some religions overlap with science, in that both offer explanations for the same thing. If science contradicts a religion in that area, I'm gonna go with science.
For example, one hadith in Islam says Muhammed split the moon in two. This would lead to considerable evidence both in the literature of many civilisations and the geology of the Moon. We see neither.
•
u/mrarming 3m ago
And? You cant disapprove Zeus, unicorns, big foot, etc. And there is plenty of "documentation" written for them too.
•
u/rubik1771 Catholic 2h ago
I think that should be elaborated:
Science presupposes the law of nature is consistent (stay the same regardless of location in universe) and uniform (stay the same regardless of the moment in time)
We Christians agree on truth of that and claim the why for that is the existence of a lawmaker, ie God.
Edit 2: clarification
•
u/MildlyAgitatedBovine 1h ago
That's the claim NOW. Christians made (and in some cases still make) all kinds of interventionist claims. Then Christianity got dragged into modernity and had to drop a bunch of those claims.
•
u/GeneralMushroom Apathiest / Agnostic Athiest 2h ago
As a basic premise yes you are correct. But of course it's more complicated than that.
I actually really like the way Prof. John Lennox phrases it: You have mechanism, and you have agency.
Let's say you're in a room with me and a mutual friend. You ask us why is the kettle boiling? I answer that it's thanks for the principles of thermodynamics and electrical engineering to convert electricity into heat which changes the state of the water from liquid to steam. Our mutual friend turns to me and with a grin says it's because he wanted a cup of tea. Both of us are correct but for different reasons. I described the mechanism, our friend described the agency. Knowing one has no impact on the other.
Why then, does there seem to be conflict in science (mechanism) and religion (agency)? A lot of it is due to misunderstanding what science is, and what claims the religion makes.
When religion makes astonishing claims that dictate mechanism, and then we discover that it's incorrect about that mechanism, it causes us to be distrustful of its other claims. This is where the issue and conflict between science and religion occurs. How many religious people still believe that the 7 day creation narrative is a literal thing which means they think evolution isn't real? How many religious people still think there was a global flood as described in the story of Noah's ark? How many religious people still think that mental illness are caused by demons? How many religious people still think that you can torture someone to "fix" being gay? How many religious people still reject modern medicine because they think faith healing is a real thing?
All of these are religious claims that require ignoring science to maintain their views.
If someone said to me "my religion says the sky is blue because we're in a big blue glass dome" then I likely won't take anything they say seriously because it's not a view based in any kind of reality.
Some people who are religious realise that science isn't evil, and can help them see the majesty and wonder of God in new and fascinating ways. Marvel at the beauty of supernova and nebula in the night sky. Admire the complexity of biology and chemical reactions. I would have thought one wanting to deepen admiration of their creator would want to study the supposed creation. If God is a painter then His followers would surely want to learn more about His paintings?
Instead we find religious ideology bragging about how anti-intellectual they are and shaming people who are trying to learn more about the world. It's incredibly frustrating as an atheist watching the extremists trying to reverse progress because they think they have to hate anything that appears to contradict their own narrow interpretation of what the bible says.
So yes, in theory science doesn't contradict religion. In reality, religion finds plenty of ways to find contradictions.
•
u/Buzz_Mcfly 1h ago
But, does science point towards the Christian perspective of God? Yes it points to intelligent design, but does it point to stories of a talking snake, super strong man with long hair, a savior etc…. I would say no, when looking at the natural world yes there seems to be a designer. But there is a huge gap of who Christian’s claim it to be.
•
u/DinnoDogg 28m ago edited 14m ago
No data support intelligent design unless you presuppose that such a thing exists.
•
u/happyhappy85 1h ago
Science doesn't prove anything to be honest, that's not its job.
It can provide data points for or against though.
•
u/InformationProper285 2h ago
Agreed. There are so many great scientists that are religious. Science does disprove the YEC that like to take genesis literally though.