Can Science prove/disprove God?

Often times I have heard people say that “Science has proven God”, or “Science is our way of proving God”. But how much credibility does this claim actually have?

None. None at all. Science is used to find natural explanations for why the Earth and universe is the way it is. Science makes no claim on the supernatural, and if God is outside of the universe (big step from living in the sky!) then there is no way Science can make any claim on his existence. Likewise Science can not ‘disprove’ God, we can disprove things about the Bible, like the creation story and the worldwide flood, but overall we cannot prove or disprove a divine being who is not in our universe.

Often times people try to put God into any part of Science that we don’t know, “God started the Big Bang”, or “God made Evolution work”. But this is the God of the gaps argument, and it is a logical fallacy. Using this approach, God is defined as a shrinking collection of our own ignorance. As we fill in the gaps of our knowledge we find no need for a God.

For the most part God himself cannot be proven to not exist, likewise we cannot prove Zeus does not exist, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But we know that something probably doesn’t exist if it is self contradictory, and that notion applies quite well to a being like a God, who is said to be omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omnipresent. These terms not only bring up MANY contradictions among themselves, but they are also incompatible with the Bible and reality. It would be so much easier to believe in the Christian God if he was not this ultimate, incompatible being. Consider the claim that God is all-good and thus both perfectly merciful and perfectly just. If he is perfectly just, he makes sure that everyone gets exactly what’s coming to them. If he is perfectly merciful, he lets everyone off. But he can’t do both, so the notion of a supreme being may be internally inconsistent.

Overall Science itself cannot prove/disprove God, but philosophy and logic could easily make a being like God extremely unlikely to exist, and if it is unlikely that he exists then why bother believing in him?


6 thoughts on “Can Science prove/disprove God?

  1. Being unlikely as a basis for not believing its existence gives one on a very shaky ground. Most scientific truths are found in unlikely situations. Think about Higgs boson. What about neutrino with a highly unlikely chance of interacting with other particles? Particles like these are rarely observed and hence fit the “unlikely”. What about life in other “galaxies” or existence of at least one planet that can harbor human life outside the Solar System?

    While I agree that Science is not about proving or disproving God’s existence, philosophy can be used to get to the same conclusion. Science therefore can be a kind of appreciation of God’s Creation much like one would analyze the music of Beethoven or the painting techniques of van Goh or perhaps the techniques of the Drunken Master or Bruce Lee would make his heart bigger. Scientific inquiry into the natural world can be a statement such as “God, I’m your fan!”


    • I agree that using probability alone is not a good argument, but the logical and philosophical arguments against God’s existence are credible, and in some cases have no decent rebuttal, such as the whence cometh evil argument.


      • Whence comes evil is a trivial case. Evil is a deprivation of some good; just as darkness is absence of light, and coldness as absence of heat. Evil is therefore a result of free will. By freely willing to move away from certain good, evil sets in. Just as when the body refuses nutrition, it becomes ill or sick; so is a creature refuses what is good for him/her/it that he/she/it suffers.


      • I am yet to see how “logical” and “philosophical” the arguments really are. Putting the adjectives does not make them so. One has to see them at work.


        • The whence cometh evil argument uses God’s omnipotence and omnibenevolence with the problem of evil.

          “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
          Then he is not omnipotent.
          Is he able, but not willing?
          Then he is malevolent.
          Is he both able and willing.
          Then whence cometh evil?
          Is he neither able nor willing?
          Then why call him God?”

          Other arguments include things like “can God create a rock that he cannot lift?” – when answered with both ‘yes’ or ‘no’ God is not omnipotent.
          Further reading:


          • God is the source and origin and cause of all that is true. If we impose non-truth and expect Him to create non-things, it will go against his very Nature and He cease to be God as He Is. Do you expect Him to create a problem He cannot solve? Perhaps this is equivalent to solving the Universe using the entire Universe as the computing tool.

            Just as sin cannot be found in God, so are absurdities.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s