Disprove or Proove God's Existence Using Scientific Method

[HIC SVNT LEONES]

I would like to see if anyone can do this, from any religious or irreligious background, using something I used in third grade.

Scientific Method! The basis of all things involving proving or disproving the existence, probability or use of something.

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest

[Vladimir Lenin]

I would like to see if anyone can do this, from any religious or irreligious background, using something I used in third grade.

Scientific Method! The basis of all things involving proving or disproving the existence, probability or use of something.

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest

This is incredibly silly. An Omnipotent, Omniscient being could never be tested.

At the end of the day both Atheism and Theism come down to Faith and Belief.

[HIC SVNT LEONES]

This is incredibly silly. An Omnipotent, Omniscient being could never be tested.

At the end of the day both Atheism and Theism come down to Faith and Belief.

Indeed it could be seen as this! But then, you have to factor in other variables like.. Is God really Omnipotent and Omniscient? Perhaps it is one or the other, both, or neither.

[Vladimir Lenin]

Indeed it could be seen as this! But then, you have to factor in other variables like.. Is God really Omnipotent and Omniscient? Perhaps it is one or the other, both, or neither.

I guess to me it wouldn't be God if it wasn't.

[HIC SVNT LEONES]

I guess to me it wouldn't be God if it wasn't.

To some it isn't, some it is. But for all we know, if God exists, it could well and truthfully be something we can't comprehend as a God.

[Vladimir Lenin]

To some it isn't, some it is. But for all we know, if God exists, it could well and truthfully be something we can't comprehend as a God.

Well clearly God is beyond comprehension. It's impossible to test something beyond comprehension.

[Ragabash]

This is incredibly silly. An Omnipotent, Omniscient being could never be tested.

At the end of the day both Atheism and Theism come down to Faith and Belief.

Atheism has nothing to do with faith since it isn't disbelief but total lack of accepting such entity as divine being or truth. But otherwise you are correct. It's impossible to prove the negative.

"How do you prove you have -2 apples in your hand?"

[TWoxy]

"How do you prove you have -2 apples in your hand?"

I suppose you could try putting one in your hand and it would vanish, as would a second apple. The third one should not, as you are back to positive values. If this happens, you can conclude that, prior to placing any of the fruit in your hand, you had -2 apples.

[Gaidin]

I suppose you could try putting one in your hand and it would vanish, as would a second apple. The third one should not, as you are back to positive values. If this happens, you can conclude that, prior to placing any of the fruit in your hand, you had -2 apples.

Technically speaking the third one wouldn't be there either...as it would be 0. Not exactly positive here. :p

[TWoxy]

Technically speaking the third one wouldn't be there either...as it would be 0. Not exactly positive here. :p

Wouldn't we get to -1 after placing the first apple in the hand, then to 0 after placing the second apple in the hand? Therefore, wouldn't we get to 1 with the third?

[AqD]

This is incredibly silly. An Omnipotent, Omniscient being could never be tested.

Agreed. Therefore it should never be trusted. It's funny that people can actually believe in such a thing.
________
Glass Pipe Pictures

[Bovril]

Agreed. Therefore it should never be trusted. It's funny that people can actually believe in such a thing.

Morality, virtue, other people's consciousness, love, the future and all sorts of things can't be 'tested' or 'proved'.

[AqD]

Morality, virtue, other people's consciousness, love, the future and all sorts of things can't be 'tested' or 'proved'.

They're good wills. Good wills have their uses, but IMHO it's very silly to put faith on any of these things.

Selfishness, rationality, and balance of power are what can be relied on.
________
Medical Marijuana

[MasterOfNone]

Maybe I'm just too simple, but I just got on my knees and asked God to show me he was there.

He did.

Simple but seldom done by so many throughout the ages. This is why some people know God is there and others do not. James 1:5

[Bovril]

A) Summing up science in 8 easy steeps is nonsensical.
B) Applying 'the scientific method' to matters of theology is nonsensical.

By extrapolation, this thread is nonsensical.

[HIC SVNT LEONES]

A) Summing up science in 8 easy steeps is nonsensical.
B) Applying 'the scientific method' to matters of theology is nonsensical.

By extrapolation, this thread is nonsensical.

Forsooth! I hath byn smotten.


Actually, its quite acceptable to apply this. Science and Theology used to go hand in hand, and not until around the enlightenment, did they split. Some of our greatest scientists were religious folks, in seats of the Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant churches. Many muslims have given us great things in the fields of science and math as well, as for the other religions, I do not know.

[Ragabash]

Forsooth! I hath byn smotten.


Actually, its quite acceptable to apply this. Science and Theology used to go hand in hand, and not until around the enlightenment, did they split. Some of our greatest scientists were religious folks, in seats of the Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant churches. Many muslims have given us great things in the fields of science and math as well, as for the other religions, I do not know.

That doesn't make the science itself anymore religious. That it has been used by religious people and institutions does not mean the actual science goes hand in hand with theology.

You can research theology partly from scientific point of view but ultimatelly they will continue to remain separate.

[Bovril]

Actually, its quite acceptable to apply this. Science and Theology used to go hand in hand, and not until around the enlightenment, did they split. Some of our greatest scientists were religious folks, in seats of the Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant churches. Many muslims have given us great things in the fields of science and math as well, as for the other religions, I do not know.

So your main argument for aplying 'scientific method' to theological questions is that many scientists have been religious. Good effort, but your going to have to try harder.
Also, tell me about science and theology 'going hand in hand' before the enlightenment. Are you merely saying the same people got invovled in them or trying to claim they were the same discipline?

[Desperado †]

Forsooth! I hath byn smotten.


Actually, its quite acceptable to apply this. Science and Theology used to go hand in hand, and not until around the enlightenment, did they split. Some of our greatest scientists were religious folks, in seats of the Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant churches. Many muslims have given us great things in the fields of science and math as well, as for the other religions, I do not know.

That has nothing to do with proving if God exists! Religon is/was a very big part of civilisation, and it promoted scholars and helped many great discoveries along the way. But that dosen't mean that we can use this science to find out whether God exists or not! Beisdes, science is such a broad subject. These discoveries helped by religon weren't made to prove if God existed or not, they where things like inventing compasses e.t.c, which comes nothing near to our complex modern day science of trying to prove or disprove God.

[Ummon]

Define the question

Does a being who is omnipotent and omniscient exist?

Gather information and resources (observe)

The process is going on since the beginning of history.

Form hypothesis

This is where the process fails. In terms of probability theory your H1 must be something which can rejected with a certain likelyhood. Given that what you are trying to prove requires infinite observations (to be omnipotent, an entity must be able to perform and know every single thing) and that you have no way to identify the item you are trying to test, because being omnipotent and having a will of its own it may hide to your scrutiny indefinitely, here ends this unnecessary thread.