What "science" disproves higher beings?

Post Reply New Topic

It was stated, in a very flawed thread started by AspieOtaku, that "There is no god and science has proven it he is make believe!" I challenged this, and although I have poked countless holes the logic and he has admitted defeat multiple times (and backtracked on every admission btw), my challenge still goes unanswered, all while he continues to troll and bash religions in general. So I'm bringing it to a new thread to focus in on this challenge rather than jumping around the point:

The challenge
Prove, using science and science alone, that there is no higher being, keeping in mind the following:
1 - Science must be considered "peer-reviewed". No basement-dwelling aethiests like the above thread was littered with. I'm talking PhD-certified scientists proving there is no higher being. Direct links (or usable citations) to PhD-level content must be provided to back up any claims.
2 - Any science that is based on things originating from religious texts (e.g. praying, baptism, afterlifes, etc.) cannot be included. Why? Simple: if science really has proven there is no God, then this makes a direct assumption that said books are pure fiction.
3 - Along the lines of point 2, Anything targeting a specific religion is invalid for this challenge. Why? Again, simple: just because one religion is wrong does not mean higher beings don't exist. The science must target any and all higher beings. We can debate the authenticity of a particular religion all day every day for the rest of our lives. I'm solely interested in researching this claim that has been made and not backed up as of yet.
4 - Science is NOT the same thing as philosophy. Just because something seems logical does not make it provable. The burden of proof is on the philosopher, and in this case, since the philosopher himself has miserably failed to deliver, I am genuinely curious if anyone else is even able to.

Anyone out there capable of meeting this challenge? Keep in mind: I'm starting up a church, so this is very relevant to my interests.

Science isn't concerned with the supernatural. The existence or non-existence of gods is irrelevant to science unless they physically influence the universe in an observable and measurable way.

It's impossible to confirm the non-existence of one or more deities, but since no conclusive evidence exists to suggest the existence of one or more deity, concluding no deities exist is reasonable, even if it can't be proven. Burden of proof is on those making the claims.

tl;dr - It's impossible to prove you don't have a dragon in your garage, but I'm quite certain you don't have a dragon in your garage.

It's generally safe to ignore what AspieOtaku says, he likes making bold statements he can't support to irritate people.

However, here's what science (or at least, empiricism) has to say about god(s):

- Billions of people search for god(s), and have done so for thousands of years
- Despite this highly detailed search, no high-quality evidence has been found about god's existence
- There is no consensus about the nature of any god(s) due to this lack of evidence
- Therefore, there is probably no god, and if there is then it doesn't affect our lives, otherwise we'd have found some evidence by now

If you like, then experiment with substituting phrases other than "god" into that summary. Try "unicorns", "Santa Clause", "the sun", "the Higgs Boson", "qi", or "gravity".

Copernicus and Galileo didn't pick a fight with believers, believers picked a fight with them.

The reality is the hypothesis of a creator, don't necessitate religion or any of the doctrine which goes with it, which we know is full of errors and contradictions.

So a creator theory doesn't validate a belief system, that would also need to be proven.

Well of course science cannot measure a 'being' that is neither observable or measurable TO a Supernatural extent.

HOWEVER, the problem I see is the suggestion that GOD is a noun rather than interconnecting FORCE or VERB of all that is aka Mother Nature True, WHICH science now with its MODERN advancements definitely DOES NOW PROVE.

IT'S JUST A MATTER OF HOW one defines the word GOD as God is NOT GOD's word.

Truly to me, this is something that a three-year old can understand with perception as I most definitely did perceive IT aka GOD without words at age 3.

My personal opinion evidenced by science in the way different minds function per nurture and nature, is that some folks Just cannot perceive GOD AT ALL.

But a force is not necessarily fair. A FORCE THAT CONNECTS ALL THINGS PER THE Interdependent relationship of all that is aka Mother Nature True aka GOD DOES EXIST WITH CONCLUSIVE PROOF FROM SCIENCE, NOW.

All that's left is determining additional special features of GOD for science IN THE REAL WORLD, NOT IMAGINATION OF SUPERNATURAL NOUNS.

Well considering omniscience is one of the traits god is purported to have and that even using quanta the smallest possible form of matter as a storage media with no supporting infrastructure to maintain it would require a system a billion times more massive than the universe itself to contain that much information he either doesn't exist or exists in a form we haven't discovered yet.

Either way science can't prove something doesn't exist and can't prove the existence of something it can't detect.

I don't think there is anything to disprove that a higher being exists, but people are free to believe what they want (I'm Catholic but I don't mind atheists, so I don't know how they can say for certain that there is no God or any higher being)

The supernatural can be studied by science. After all, if you can see a ghost, it's probably emitting/reflecting photons. Similarly, Gods are suitable for study by science when they are said to influence the physical universe. And after all, what good is a God that can't? This being said, only specific Gods can be dismissed as untrue beyond a reasonable doubt. A higher being could be just an animal that's smarter than people, and I'm pretty sure those exist somewhere.

Like the belief in the sun being a god but dismissed and disproven as a star aka a big burning ball of gas in outer space by astronomers.

If you "see a ghost" there's a reasonable explanation for the phenomenon experienced, and it's not that you saw a ghost.
The supernatural isn't actually being explained by the science, only a natural phenomenon that was incorrectly described as supernatural.




Not sure there's any disagreement between our points here.



No argument.



This wouldn't fit most people's definition of a deity. Deifying an object doesn't count either, since the deified object will still lack "god-like" qualities.
Additionally, if you can name an animal with greater reasoning and intellectual capabilities than man, please do. Neither bottle-nose dolphins, bonobos nor chimpanzees qualify.

is this some desperate attempt to shift the burden of proof?
you can't come to us with something that isn't even well defined and has not had a shred of evidence provided for it and challenge us to disprove it.
you are the one making the claim that requires substantiation, and we remain skeptical until your claim has met its burden of proof.

You can't scientifically prove something doesn't exist, there is evidence of existence and the absence of evidence. Not being able to prove something doesn't exist doesn't constitute evidence that it does exist however.

Sometimes absence of evidence is evidence of absence, when evidence is expected to exist but doesn't.

Hes just butthurt from my thread and acting in a irrational manner and afraid of athiest's because of the fear of his work his efforts in a magical imaginary invisible bearded man in the sky not existing has a much higher probability that that of existing. Dont be surprised hell resort to trolling or make some attempt to distract or side trackyou as an attempt to dismantle his belief and faith he is merely desperate that is all. Its a common response to super religious creationists when they are cornered and have no way out and it is rather entertaining indeed.

Last edited by AspieOtaku on 17 Nov 2014, 7:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Otaku, you realize you can be a Christian (Catholic in my case) and still believe in evolution, right?

I see no contradictions in believing in both. I believe how old the earth is and how old the universe is, same with the dinosaurs existing millions of years before man.

You obviously havent attended the many churches I have attended in the past and they all say that evolution is a lie and that the Earth is only 6-10000 years old and that man lived with dinosaurs and the caniverous dinosaurs ate plants until the forbidden fruit was eaten and use the whole carbon dating argument which is easily debunkable when carbon dating isn't used to date the age of fossils or rock. They simply go by if its not in the bible its not true and totally false.