How do you respond to non believers who make this lazy claim? Where do you prefer to start?
If God does not exist, then how can God be disproven? You cannot disprove a negative.
Ask them for the proof! With great charity say, “Awesome! That would be an amazing discovery. Please show me your proof.”
When they fumble…
Remind them that just because the knowledge that science uncovers keeps expanding, we still only have a small portion of the knowledge we need to know how the universe works.
For example: Science can’t even really explain how gravity works- we can explain the effects, but not how it works. There are theories that objects distort space-time, but that just pushes the problem out even further - in that we don’t know how the mass of objects distorts space-time.
Usually the first thing I am told is that the big bang theory and evolution has disproved the creation story. Which usually means I have to disabuse my friends of their idea that the Bible is an old science textbook. I then try to explain the moral lessons we have to extract from the fall of man - that man is flawed, not perfect, by nature, and that civilization must be brilliantly fought for and maintained - which obviously strays into politics, because it flies in the face of the modern orthodoxy that the more licence people have, the freer they therefore must be.
Do not use this strategy. If you do, the day may come when they can explain how gravity works and since they heard a Christian once say “well science still doesn’t know how gravity works” they will then say “ah hah! Another victory for us”
It shouldn’t matter what new things they discover. Just because they discover how gravity works, it doesnt count in the slightest as evidence against the existence of God. How could it? Of course it works in a certain way, we already know that it obviously does. What difference does it make with regards to the question of God as to whether or not we’ve discovered the mechinism behind it?
Ha. If im not mistaken, a Priest created the the big bang theory.
You’re not. His name was Fr. Georges Lemaitre.
Ask them to explain the problem of evil. If the world is a completely physical place and all actions are based on perceptions of physical reality, why do we have evil?
Why do people do completely horrendous inexplicable things all the time that have absolutely no benefit to anyone, including themselves?
In a physical, rational universe there would be no evil.
That’s right, we don’t have evil. Evil is a figment of imagination, as the unbeliever will quickly point out; and these things that benefit nobody can’t objectively be called horrendous or evil at all. This would be entirely subjective labeling not supported by empirical evidence, for science does not tell us how to value a thing, only the nature of the thing. It tells us why we hurt, but not that hurting is bad. Things that we don’t like may happen to us by chance, or by foolishness, or by the will of others, but we aren’t justified in calling those bad or evil except as subjective opinion. All meaning and value arises through thought processes that rely on non-physical, subjective evidence.
That said, science has not disproved God, and atheists who make this claim are not particularly good ones. Science simply has not required God in order to find answers for how things work and why things happened or how things came to be. As for the “First Cause,” this question currently exists beyond the reach of science and there are many speculative hypotheses that may some day be testable and are, in the eyes of science, as reasonable or more reasonable than a personal, benevolent deity. One such theory is that we all exist in a simulation, and some physicists are proposing ways to test that.
Now, whether or not the universe exhibits signs of intelligent purpose in its design: Science currently thinks this is doubtful, since the nature of things (even complex, thinking things) is well explained already by emergent complexity theory which requires nothing more than simple, random combinations of basic particles, selective forces extant in the system, and sufficient time. Emergent systems are not the same as complete, random chance systems, nor are they directed by intelligent means.
This is a very easy thing to prove.
In my experience, atheists are utterly devoid of logic or reason when trying to disprove God, and there is always a way to respond to them.
When they bring up the Big Bang theory, the argument you can use is the causation proof.
Here’s an example of a conversation you could have with an atheist scientist.
You: So, how did life start?
Atheist: Life came through evolution, through the resources the earth provides
You: So, where did the world come from?
Atheist: The world came from the coming together of particles and other matter which was cast out by stars due to supernovas.
You: Where did the stars come from?
Atheist: Stars come from star nurseries where hydrogen comes together and is compressed until it gets compact enough to burst into flame and become a star.
You: Well, where did the hydrogen come from?
Atheist: Hydrogen came from particles that were flying about in the universe so fast that they could not bond; after a few million years, they slowed down enough to bond and become hydrogen atoms.
You: Where did the particles come from?
Atheist: Particles came from the big bang.
You: How did the big bang start?
Atheist: Well, this theory is still rather speculative, but, uh… We think that there is really a multiplex system of membrane universes floating about in another dimension, and that whenever two of those membranes collide, it creates a big bang in another universe.
You: Where in the world did the membranes come from?!?
You: For that matter, how did time start? What started gravity? Why are all the forces in our universe just right for the support of life?
You see, there is zero evidence to support the non-existence of God, and there is massive evidence to prove he is here.
If you ever encounter a person who says God can’t exist because of such an such, just ask where that “such and such” came from, and keep going until they can’t answer.
A chain cannot go on infinitely upward without being held by something that is not held by anything. If you see a long train passing, and thousands of cars go by, you assume there is a locomotive on the end, not that the cars just go infinitely out in both directions.
If you want some more, I’ll post more.
I don’t think that science will ever be able to disprove god. Tell anyone who says that science will ONE DAY be able to disprove god that science will never be able to explain why and the reason for living. Only how certain things come to be/function. Actually I think science will soon be able to prove god. But I don’t need science to prove it. He certainly shows up to those who truly believe in him and try to do/do his will first. There was actually a study done that showed that when nuns prayed they accessed certain part of the brain that monks and yoga followers could not access when they meditated. Some believe believe that this part is specifically for prayer with god. This is a very vague explanation but Im sure you could find the study online.
Yes. The reason science can’t disprove God is because it is out of its league; science is for the purpose of learning things about the material world, and since God is a spiritual being, only Theology can address things concerning Him.
True, but theology makes claims about how the non-material world (assuming there is one) interacts with the material world. On some of these claims, science can show how they are unlikely to be true. Doing so doesn’t disprove a non-material world, but definitely counts as a strike against it being capital-t Truth.
The atheist can’t find God for the same reason that a thief can’t find a policeman.
Atheism is a crutch for those who cannot bear the reality of God.
Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God.
If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts - i.e., Materialism and Astronomy - are mere accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.
A heathen philosopher once asked a Christian, ‘Where is God’? The Christian answered, ‘Let me first ask you, Where is He not?’
God exists whether or not men may choose to believe in Him. The reason why many people do not believe in God is not so much that it is intellectually impossible to believe in God, but because belief in God forces that thoughtful person to face the fact that he is accountable to such a God.
Robert A. Laidlaw
Science can tell us how to do many things, but it can not tell us what ought to be done.
That’s an interesting way of looking at it. Can you give me an example?
#1. It hasn’t.
#2. Science usually uses inductive reasoning and therefore is more or less in a game of probability. The more responsible assertion would be, “Thus far from the evidence way have in the physical and life sciences I infer from the data such a low probability of the existence of God that I would say the existence of God is improbable.”
It would seem to me the person(s) making the definitive assertion displayed in the title of your thread does not really understand how science goes about as a process to arrive at decisions.
They also seem unable to differentiate between hypothesis, theory, and law.
Generally things that exhibit regularity, that we can express mathematically, and that we can make predictions about (with some accuracy) we often will label “laws.” The “theories” are usually constructed to explain laws and/or facts we observe in the physical world. A “hypothesis” is no more than a conjecture.
What’s stated in the title of your thread is a hypothesis and mere conjecture.
Backing me up on my claim about this is the fact there is no “No God and no Christ” theory in science.
Bear in mind a scientific theory should not–in all best scenarios–contradict other laws and theories in science, nor should it create a great tangled web of confusion. So, I’m not sure it would be of any help in science to create a Theory of no God and no Christ.
Thinking about it… I’m trying right now to imagine someone testing the hypothesis “God causes X under conditions Y.” That just opens a whole can of worms.
I am going at this from a semi-secular point of view, there has to be a god,christian god is irrelevant as this is a point of view. The big bang theory is not possible without a god. As there has had to be something there for eternity, something cannot come out of nothing. Whether it was a random explosion or not there had to be something, what else but god?
I also think that in science the use of “unlikely” means low probability of something deemed possible.
Very true, indeed, and that was what I was thinking, but I wished to see if he could provide an example.
Do you mean the Jesuit Priest who demonstrated the most satisfying theory of creation that Albert Einstein had yet seen? Short answer: Yes.