[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 51 KB, 800x600, marge_4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2795808 No.2795808 [Reply] [Original]

Why can't science disprove religion?

>> No.2795834

Because religion can just claim whatever bullshit they want and say "yeah but you can't disprove it".

>> No.2795829

Technically, science can't prove anything. It just happens to be right every time, because the simplest explanations that science so much loves, happen to be also the ones with the highest probability of successful prediction.

>> No.2795840

Cant disprove what doesn't exist. Oh it exists you say? Now that's something you need to prove in any sort of way before it can be disproved.

>> No.2795842

Because you can never totally disprove something. Ever.

>> No.2795843

Science proves Religion, Religion proves Science.

>> No.2795845

Because religion keeps shifting. Science is a slow process and you'd have to account for every occurrence in the universe to prove that there doesn't need to be any deities for it to function.

>> No.2795850

>>2795843
(this was a geuss, but it looks right)

>> No.2795851

Science is based on the study of things that are actually testable. Religious assertions are by and large not based in anything that we can actually know or test.

But, logically, if we aren't able to actually experience and analyze the thing, there's no good reason to believe that it exists, until legitimate data that suggests the contrary surfaces.

>> No.2795852
File: 41 KB, 358x477, lollllin.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2795852

>>2795808

>implying you can disprove a negative

>> No.2795858

>>2795808

Because science deal with physics, and religion is a metaphysical thing.

It would be like using chemistry to disprove physical theories.

>> No.2795857
File: 8 KB, 251x251, 1299827715810.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2795857

>>2795843
And you prove mental retardation

>> No.2795854

It can. And does.

>> No.2795863

Religion exists. Deities are something else. To disprove religion would be the equivalent of disproving social groups.

>> No.2795888

Because science is a mode of testing/observing/demonstrating empirical knowledge.

Philosophy, however, can point out that all knowledge is either rational or empirical, and that there is no understanding that isn't causal understanding, regardless of the possibility that acausality could even exist. The end result is that the concept of faith is either complete nonsense, or just a blind shot in the dark.

>> No.2795901

>>2795854

This gentleman is also somewhat correct. Moreso in that it can prove that the contrary is true to certain claims of specific religions, when those claims happen to involve testable ideas.

>> No.2795916

/sci/ - Religion & Homework

>> No.2795929

>>2795916

>OP asks a genuine question about the nature of science
>buttmad anon fag tries to shut down discussion

This is why there are so many people in the world who think science was made by Satan.

>> No.2795947

>>2795929
>implying it wasn't

>> No.2795956

> implying the burden of proof isn't ENTIRELY on the theists

>> No.2795957

In fact the theory of evolution, the existence of DNA, the history of religion, astronomy and billions of other things have proved that religions were wrong.

Nobody said it because of dangerous retarded madmen who believe in a Santa Claus for adult.

>> No.2795967

>>2795808
Because religion is good crowd control and keeps the retards in check.

>> No.2795973

For some reason /sci/ believes that religion is all about fanatical belief. For most people it isn't. In my country, the church does some really good things and keeps out of people's private affairs.

For a lot of people religion is just a way to provide a loose moral guidance. You can't deny - religion united man and made him create countries and states.

Essentially, science can't disprove religion because there isn't a need for it to do so.

>> No.2795986

>>2795929
men have always tried to reach up to God, or to the gods, for thousands of years, and those efforts were grouped together as "religions".

there are obviously, then, many false religions, because man cannot reach up to God. the last serious attempt to do so was at the Tower of Babel, and that effort had a great impact on mankind. we no longer spoke the same language. we no longer tried to build that tower. we no longer lived together but were dispersed throughout the world. we had our lifetimes capped at 120 years.

since then, men have given up trying to build towers to reach heaven, and instead have created tools to look deeper and deeper into the heavens. we now have photographs of breathtaking beauty and majesty from hubbel that our ancestors would have given their left arms for.

yuri gregarin famously was quoted as saying that he was up in space, and didn't see any God.

i think the ancient babylonians had it right; God's heaven is not above us, but it overlaps us, and their tower was designed to somehow cross into that dimension.

tl;dr most religions are wrong, but God is always right, and His ways are perfect

>> No.2795991

>>2795973

>For some reason /sci/ believes that religion is all about fanatical belief.

No, but when you don't take religion to the fanatical extreme, it is ultimately pointless, and without fanatical belief, there would be no religion today. If everyone was a so called "moderate", then religion would have died out a long time ago, as there wouldn't have been enough people willing to propagate it and act as preachers, proselytizers, etc.

>> No.2795993

>>2795967
in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, i am going to have to respectfully disagree with that statement.

>> No.2796060

Science has not proven that God does not exist. But there is no single religious text on earth that has no elements scientifically false. All religions are false.

Maybe one day we find a God but he has nothing to do with a religion currently known. This is proven.

Sorry. The cake is a lie.

>> No.2796066

>>2795808
because we know jack shit about the universe
/thread

>> No.2796108

>>2795808
This is far to broad of a statement to even contribute anything anywhere ever. Religion? Science? Do you not understand the amount of fields involved within each study? Its endless, please do specify, are we talking Christianity? Buddhism? Islam? Scientology? Judaism? Hinduism? Shinto? Sikhism? Bahai? Jainism? Satanism? Name one, and through scientific evidence I will prove, to the best of my ability, the fallacy of each.

>> No.2796139

There is a theory that is very difficult to prove if God is all knowing, all good, and all powerful - it's called:

The Problem of Evil

Whatever way the religious try to square it - there can be only one logical assumption, that God does not exist.

But this is scientific, it's more than that: it's logical...

>> No.2796153

>>2796139

God makes man. God is good. Men can choose to be good or evil. Men are given free will.

God does not intervene.

This does not make God evil.

That argument is silly and less than logical.

How do you even quantify evil?

>> No.2796176

>>2795808

Because the core tenets of any religion cannot be empirically determined. /thread.

>> No.2796200

>>2796139
quite the contrary; the existence of evil proves that there indeed is a God who is good, and the epicurean notion that God can't or won't eradicate evil is reliant on God submitting Himself to mankind's timetable.

i assure you, God is ready, willing, and able to eradicate evil, and will do so, and has told us exactly how He will do so, and He will do it on His timetable, not ours

>> No.2796217

>>2795808
Science doesn't disprove anything. Why would you think it would be able to disprove religion?

>> No.2796236

>>2796200

ITT: Someone who actually understands Epicurus ubiquitous quote.

*faints*

>> No.2796246

Why can't science disprove religion?
It's because you can't disprove something that is already wrong, and something that is subjective and does not exist.

>> No.2796250

>>2796153
If the god you're referencing is the Christian god, then free will does not exist.

>> No.2796278
File: 7 KB, 133x210, cockgoeswhere.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2796278

>>2796246
Woo, time to break her in i guess(the reaction image, shitbrain)

And already.. You can't last five seconds /sci/. Five fucking seconds.

>> No.2796304

science has disproved alot of religions

>> No.2796511

you can disprove religion, and it's been done many many times in the past. Religion though is subject to natural selection.
Those myths and beliefs which can be definitively disproved fall by the way side while those that can side step scrutiny get disseminated.
now a days religion has evolved into a kind of ethereal metaphysics that always exist jut outside of our perception. you can't falsify a theory whose main point is that its an impossibility to observe any of its phenomenon (The after life, invisible forces, an spirit god). On the other hand a theory like "God is a physical man who is 100 feet tall and lives in a golden palace on mount Olympus" is very easy to prove one way or another, and it has been.

>> No.2796619

>>2796200
Except that makes it benevolent the same way brutal child molesters are benevolent.
I.e. the term loses all meaning as it relates to human beings. Its simple enough to propose an omnipotent utterly alien intelligence just beyond our ability to comprehend, but why oh why would anyone think this was a good thing?