Is the existence of God a scientific claim?

[JustSomeGuy]

Recently I've been thinking about the whole science vs religion argument and pondered if an omnipotent and omniscient being can even be subjected to scientific tests and proven or disproven using the scientifc method. I'll expand on my question:

Is the existence of God a scientific claim?

A. If so, how can science be used to prove or disprove the existence of God?
B. If not, what other method can be used to prove or disprove the existence of God?

Or perhaps, it's impossible for us to prove or disprove the existence of God because such a being likely transcends the physical world.

I can't imagine there being any evidence for a God unless that god actually provides us with evidence, thus making the whole science vs religion debate pointless. I mean, it's not like we can just observe space looking for heaven with a telescope.

[Solitary]

To your question---NO!---just like all the other gods of history, and even now with the Hindus, or any other imaginary creatures. It is impossible to prove something doesn't exist---like trying to find a non existent black cat in a dark room.  Science can only make a claim about thing with overwhelming evidence backed up by reliable evidence and sound reasoning and critical thinking. This question is not only hypothetical based on assumptions, but rhetorical.  Solitary 

[Sargon The Grape]

Is the existence of God a scientific claim?

No.

[Moralnihilist]

Science is not concerned with the mythical. Science is concerned with the physical.

[Munch]

Science doesn't need god, not when we have t-1000s and freakin sharks with freakin lazer beams  attached to their heads.

[Mike Cl]

I can't imagine there being any evidence for a God unless that god actually provides us with evidence, thus making the whole science vs religion debate pointless. I mean, it's not like we can just observe space looking for heaven with a telescope.

The existence of god is not provable via the scientific method.  But that does not make the debate pointless.  Why?  Because the religious 'prove' that god exists daily--only that proof is not by using the scientific method--or any other method except 'take my word for it' type of proof.  And then they act on that proof as though it were true--even The Truth.  And all too often that leads to violence and destructive thought and deeds.  The more the religious believe, the more stupid become.  And the more dangerous.  For out world to have a decent chance of becoming a fair and equitable place to live, religion has to be relegated to the nonsense it really is.

[SGOS]

Science doesn't deal with the supernatural.  It cannot do experiments to test for things that cannot be tested.  Not can it test for things that don't exist.  Also, the entire scientific community is engaged in a secret conspiracy to piss off theists.

[Aletheia]

Is the existence of Santa a scientific claim?

A. If so, how can science be used to prove or disprove the existence of Santa?
B. If not, what other method can be used to prove or disprove the existence of Santa?

Or perhaps, it's impossible for us to prove or disprove the existence of Santa because such a being likely transcends the physical world.

------------------

Is the existence of Zeus a scientific claim?

A. If so, how can science be used to prove or disprove the existence of Zeus?
B. If not, what other method can be used to prove or disprove the existence of Zeus?

Or perhaps, it's impossible for us to prove or disprove the existence of Zeus because such a being likely transcends the physical world.

------------------

Is the existence of Shiva a scientific claim?

A. If so, how can science be used to prove or disprove the existence of Shiva?
B. If not, what other method can be used to prove or disprove the existence of Shiva?

Or perhaps, it's impossible for us to prove or disprove the existence of Shiva because such a being likely transcends the physical world.

------------------

Is the existence of Flying Spaghetti Monster a scientific claim?

A. If so, how can science be used to prove or disprove the existence of Flying Spaghetti Monster?
B. If not, what other method can be used to prove or disprove the existence of Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Or perhaps, it's impossible for us to prove or disprove the existence of Flying Spaghetti Monster because such a being likely transcends the physical world.

If you would not waste your time on other speculations dreamed up by man's imagination then why give special attention to this particular speculation dreamed up by man? This is essentially mental masturbation - it feels good but isn't the best use of the mind.

It is illogical to try to prove a negative since we are unable to look throughout the entire universe in order to rule out the existence of a something proposed to exist. It is logical to prove a positive, in that evidence is available to justify investigating further the claim that that something exists. In your case, you require evidence to support the plausibility of a claim before you will waste your time on flights of fancy -- except when a particular speculation is something you want to exist - feel that it must exist. 

[AllPurposeAtheist]

I was about to prove to you that Katie Perry is in fact at this moment giving me a blowjob, but my camera isn't working and she refuses to tell everyone it's true.. See how fucked up this unprovable shit is? 

Isn't that right Katie?


Yes darling! 



OK, just because my grandma was a devout Catholic I'm going to confess.. Katie Perry really isn't giving me a blowjob right this moment, but I can't prove it..

[hrdlr110]

You've just mentioned your grandmother and bj in the same sentence!  Lol

[AllPurposeAtheist]

You've just mentioned your grandmother and bj in the same sentence!  Lol

My grandfather was a Catholic too.. I'm forgiven.
YOU on the other hand used Lol improperly.

[trdsf]

Short answer: no.

Long answer: Belief in a god is an inherently non-rational decision.  It is saying, in essence, "Hey, I don't know how the universe works, and rather than either accept it at face value or go into one of the sciences in order to research the question, I'm just gonna decide that it was made that way by an entity whose existence is defined as being non-provable by all objective measures and most subjective ones."

There's a further complication, too: Clarke's Law applies to the aliens who use advanced technology as well as to the technology itself.  If a sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, a sufficiently advanced but strictly biological entity supported by sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from what is commonly called a god.

[Hydra009]

Long answer: Belief in a god is an inherently non-rational decision.  It is saying, in essence, "Hey, I don't know how the universe works, and rather than either accept it at face value or go into one of the sciences in order to research the question, I'm just gonna decide that it was made that way by an entity whose existence is defined as being non-provable by all objective measures and most subjective ones."

It's amazing to me that the whole let's-play-make-believe-and-confuse-it-with-reality thing is so insanely popular yet we also have amazing scientific breakthroughs and high technology.  Countries giving out awards for scientific accomplishments at the same time they're hosting stonings or exorcisms.  Isn't that just incredibly bizarre and counter-intuitive?

[SGOS]

It's amazing to me that the whole let's-play-make-believe-and-confuse-it-with-reality thing is so insanely popular yet we also have amazing scientific breakthroughs and high technology.  Countries giving out awards for scientific accomplishments at the same time they're hosting stonings or exorcisms.  Isn't that just incredibly bizarre and counter-intuitive?

This question has been looming in my mind for at least a couple of years.  It is indeed an astonishing phenomenon.  It appears that the society of mankind can be separated into two categories; Those with the curiosity to investigate using science and logic, and those who still reason as stone age cavemen.  I've asked myself why does stone age thinking and all of it's imaginary spinning of wheels still exist in the 21st Century, and I think it's because it is simply the state of the art in mankind's evolutionary progress.  6000 years isn't enough time to expect anything but minute changes in man's mental development.  Perhaps cognitive ability isn't even necessary as a survival tool.

We look around and see remarkable progress in mankind's achievement, but we owe that to a relatively small group of highly intelligent and industrious thinkers.  The rest of society might be wearing designer jeans, but they do so only because of the small group.  It's easy to forget these are primitive people with the same genetic make up that existed 10,000 years ago.

Not to say these hangers on don't have the capacity to reason.  They do, but thinking is not our default state and it counter intuitive enough to be ignored.  Thinking is probably not even the default state of the leadership, but they took the time to consider the merits of organized thought and then acted accordingly.  They have broken free of the default state.  I do not include politicians in the group of leaders.  They are just part of the drone class.

It's also quite common during bloody revolutions of our more recent past that the brightest are near the top of the list to be selected for execution.  I suppose some of their genetic material gets past along, but even if their genes do get passed on, each of their subsequent generations needs to relearn the art of organized thinking on their own, and most won't bother to learn how it's done.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So much wishful thinking in religion.