But by logical conclusions?
Hi @jahiddle! Welcome to the Forum.
Can you provide a little bit more of your own perspective to get the discussion started? What do you mean by “logical conclusions”, and how does it differ from “physical proof”?
I may have worded this subject wrong but I read an article here today - http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/is_god_real.html#conc and it seems that science can explain God’s existence as a logical conclusion due to proof of the harmony of the universe with life.
So maybe I should have said “can science prove the existence of God through logic via scientific proof”
Forgive me I’m still in learning mode!!!
No. At some point you would have to propose a premise that was not based on observable, calculable, empirical data (i.e. science), and you would be appealing to philosophy or metaphysics or unscientific meaning you have ascribed to statistical likelihoods. Then it wouldn’t matter if your logic was sound, an empiricist would reject the argument based on the premises.
If you’re granted certain premised, then the proofs for the existence of God, albeit non-scientific, proceed readily. Read St. Thomas Aquinas, “The Five Ways”. But as a general principle, it is the case that science can neither disprove nor prove the existence of God. The existence of God lies outside the domain of science, just as do many other aspects of our existence–values in ethics, esthetics and so forth. They cannot be subjected to quantitative verification or falsification in repeated measurements or data gathering.
1 Like
Science already has proven the existence of God.
Science has proven that the universe has a beginning. if the universe has a beginning, then it must have been created by God, just as the Bible says.
Even so some Christians try to say that God created it in 6 days which lets skeptics off the hook.
Really? Please send me the scientific publications with all the supporting data.
Here is a reference book that claims otherwise: Larry Krauss, “A Universe From Nothing -Why there is Something rather than Nothing”
The Big Bang Theory says that the universe has a beginning. Larry Krause thinks otherwise for what that is worth. I do not see where any other scientists agree with him.
Yes, no disagreement that the universe had a beginning. Present models have space expanding exponentially in size from t=0 to t=10^-34 seconds. This is called the inflationary epoch. Then a quantum fluctuation in free space created an expanding energy field that created all matter, radiation and dark matter - the Big Bang. By t=10^-15 seconds the universe was the size of our solar system within it an expanding sphere the size of a basketball of a high energy quark-gluon condensate. From this time forward we have a model that agrees with measurements to 0.1%. Expanding space came first followed by expanding matter and energy fields.
I think Bob and Christy have given definitive answers. I would just add that it is a mistake to conflate logic and science. Many things that are logically valid are scientifically false. Logic is a mathematical tool that does not take into account the truth value of premises. Science is empirical and depends on finding empirical truth based on objective repeatable observations. We know quite a lot of scientific facts that appear to be utterly illogical.
Quantum mechanics isn’t logical. A electron can be here or there, neither places, or both places.
This topic was automatically closed 3 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.