Science is UNPROVABLE but God is TRUTH

When you get into debates with atheist, they're always asking you to prove the existence of God. The irony is, they try to act like science supports their atheism when it doesn't. Also science is UNPROVABLE!

Science is an a posteriori truth which means it's contingent and unprovable. Here's an article that explains it well.

You've heard of our greatest scientific theories: the theory of evolution, the Big Bang theory, the theory of gravity. You've also heard of the concept of a proof, and the claims that certain pieces of evidence prove the validities of these theories. Fossils, genetic inheritance, and DNA prove the theory of evolution. The Hubble expansion of the Universe, the evolution of stars, galaxies, and heavy elements, and the existence of the cosmic microwave background prove the Big Bang theory. And falling objects, GPS clocks, planetary motion, and the deflection of starlight prove the theory of gravity.

Except that's a complete lie. While they provide very strong evidence for those theories, they aren't proof. In fact, when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility.
www.forbes.com...

So again, atheist are asking you to prove the existence of God but they put their faith in science that's unprovable. It's contigent because it could be true today but a discovery next year shows it wasn't the truth.

You can use possible worlds to illustrate this. You can imagine possible worlds with different physics, different constants or different algebraic numbers. This also goes to Godel's Incompleteness Theorems. They say:

First Incompleteness Theorem: "Any consistent formal system F within which a certain amount of elementary arithmetic can be carried out is incomplete; i.e., there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F."

Second Incompleteness Theorem: "For any consistent system F within which a certain amount of elementary arithmetic can be carried out, the consistency of F cannot be proved in F itself."
en.wikipedia.org...

This is why Stephen Hawking the atheist, gave this lecture:

Gödel and the End of Physics

Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory, that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind. I'm now glad that our search for understanding will never come to an end, and that we will always have the challenge of new discovery. Without it, we would stagnate. Gödel’s theorem ensured there would always be a job for mathematicians. I think M theory will do the same for physicists. I'm sure Dirac would have approved.

yclept.ucdavis.edu...

Hawking said our search for understanding will never come to an end but that requires an eternal being. How can you have never ending search for understanding without an eternal being that understands?

You could also listen to Nobel Prize winner Roger Penrose talk about Godel:



So science is unprovable and incomplete.

So the next time you're debating an atheist or materialist that's asking you to prove God exists and they're trying to use their lack of understanding of science to support their arguments, let them know it's them that believe in what's unprovable.

Let me say that again:

So the next time you're debating an atheist or materialist that's asking you to prove God exists and they're trying to use their lack of understanding of science to support their arguments, let them know it's them that believe in what's unprovable.

Contingent truth is in contrast to necessary truth.

Transcendent Truth is necessary in all possible worlds. So contingent truth would be a shadow or a particular as Plato calls it of Transcendent Truth. You can imagine a possible world where all truth exist. You can't imagine a world where all false exists because there's basic truths like 2+2 is 4 or 3 sides to a triangle. But even if you accept the hypothical that a possible all false world could exist it would then be TRUE that an all false world exists and you still have Transcendent Truth.

Transcendent Truth has to be God-like and have knowledge of all things and of all truths.

This is why the Bible talks about THE KNOWLEDGE of good and evil. This is a transcendent statement about truth. It's about knowing the truth of good and evil and knowing the truth about the difference between good and evil.

So this is proof a God-like being is a necessary truth in all possible worlds unless you can show evidence that a possible world can exist without Transcendent Truth.

Jesus said I am the Way, the Truth and the Life.

I make these scientific or metaphysical arguments but at the end of the day it comes down to belief and faith that Jesus died for your sins and the sins of the world. This isn't a head issue but a heart issue.

a reply to: neoholographic

god will cease to exist if proven, science won't.

It's called epistemology. For the same reason we cannot prove God exists the atheist cannot claim that He doesn't. It comes down to metaphysics.
1. Anything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

If we can conceive of a maximally great being then by definition He must exist in all possible worlds. We live in a possible world.

Because an infinite regress (actual infinite) would result in this universe having already ceased to exist we can know that there is an uncaused first cause.

What the OP is going for is the Moral Argument.

1. If absolute moral values and duties exist, there must be a moral law giver.
2. Absolute moral values and duties exist.
3. Therefore a moral law giver exisits.

a reply to: neoholographic

This is interesting because I recently watched some videos about metaphysics and possible worlds. It will be interesting to see if anyone can come up with a possible world where transcendent truth isn’t necessary.

It's not possible.

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.a reply to: Romeopsi

I see you didn't even take your time to understand what Science means.
This is sad, because it makes everything else you say also unbelievable.
Science doesn't need to be proven. It's a method to find out things we don't understand.
This method is adaptable to new findings and should take those into account, unlike your rigid belief in a book.

You don't believe in science, you use it to find out if what you believe in is real.

All the above is of course it's original meaning, corrupt people not included.
Meanwhile you don't take human corruption into account when you adhere without flexibility to your book, which has been rewritten many times, had things added to further scare the minions into obedience.

Only free of religion can you become truly spiritual, but if we were free of the scientific method, we'd end up back in caves, scared of shadows.

Yes. This is the truth. Science is a method not a thing. Also there is no proof that the universe has a beginning, so there is not necessarily a need for a creator, unless they are the two are the same which reconciles the conundrum.

a reply to: Hecate666

Science is important if we'd like to measure the world around us with applied physics while theoretical physics on the other hand are expiremental. Like Quantum Mechanics. I suppose God cannot be measured and Infinite.

God encompass infinite intelligence and encompass the ever expanding cosmos.
While man on the other hand are born with cognitive defects, limited to and for this universe unless one dreams.

Brutal. Savage. Rekt.

a reply to: neoholographic
I make these scientific or metaphysical arguments but at the end of the day it comes down to belief and faith that Jesus died for your sins and the sins of the world. This isn't a head issue but a heart issue.

This is what it boils down to.

Though, I base my faith on evidence, that evidence is personal.

Heb 11:1  Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

I agree, fam. But it still comes down to personal experience: one has to venture to gain in science and spirituality.
I mean, look at "Above Top Secret".

Not everyone has encountered a cryptid, or poltergeist, or even had a dream, or ever lived through something they had only known as fiction until that moment. Maybe they ignore out of apathy? Wyrd.

Clearly, some people don't want to explore the temporal, the infinite, any of it. Not even for the benefit of mankind lol.

Jesus loves you. Click click boom.

Unprovable?

You typed all of that out on a computer and posted it on the internet, both brought to you by science. You drafted your OP while enjoying your central heating/air, courtesy of science. Internal combustion engines that get you from point A to point B, science again. Every modern convenience we enjoy is a result of provable science.

For one to be so wrong on a topic, tells me one does not have a grasp on what science is.

a reply to: neoholographic

Science itself, will prove to you...God Exists...and that's "Truth".

Without the proof, we believe, with proof, we deny. Science straightens all our assumptions real, false, imagined.

Your post is difficult to comprehend. First, I think you are confusing Science with Math, but then you also try to put everything in one bag, which is a fallacy known as "poisoning the well". I think that I know what you are trying to do, and in certain game of language you could be right, but you are choosing the worst tools to get there.

Then, the question that I would ask you is: If everything comes down to belief and faith in Jesus, why are you discussing Science?....

With this line of logic does that mean every single god from every religion is real? Or is it only the Christian god that's real and all the others aren't?

I mean wouldn't the idea of being genetically engineered be more feasible then one single omniscient being in a plane of existents that we can't perceive

And if being genetically engineered is more feasible.. Then there would be an entire race of "gods" and it wouldn't be because they have the random power to "snap" us into existence but through their advanced "science".

a reply to: Romeopsi

It will be interesting to see if anyone can come up with a possible world where transcendent truth isn’t necessary.

What the heck is "transcendent truth"?
Is that like "It's 3:00 here, but not there, and it's only 3:00 for a second, and then it's not 3:00 anymore"?

How is this "transcendent truth" necessary in our world? Does a zebra, a shark or a pine tree need it?

God is proof you have a great imagination. Man made God in his own image. He depends on your belief to exist, otherwise he fades away. Read "Jitterbug Perfume" by Tom Robbins and all will be revealed to you. Amen.

a reply to: Hecate666

All the above is of course it's original meaning, corrupt people not included.
Meanwhile you don't take human corruption into account when you adhere without flexibility to your book, which has been rewritten many times,

Are you talking about a religious book or a science book?
What you wrote applies to both.

originally posted by: WeDemBoyz
Unprovable?

You typed all of that out on a computer and posted it on the internet, both brought to you by science. You drafted your OP while enjoying your central heating/air, courtesy of science. Internal combustion engines that get you from point A to point B, science again. Every modern convenience we enjoy is a result of provable science.

For one to be so wrong on a topic, tells me one does not have a grasp on what science is.

Science didn't do ANY of those things.
Human beings did, using our ability to create, given to us by God.
Science is not a thing. Science is not god. Science does not create.
Science is a tool.
A tool we use to try and understand how God created everything.
Being made in His image, we also have a desire, and a need to create.

a reply to: neoholographic

Not my saying, but still very true…

Tear all and burn all religious books and words every made. In 1000 years none of them will be back in the same way or with the same words.

Do the same for science and math text books and in 1000 years they’d all be back, with the same facts and same tests proving the same hypotheses.

So yeh… God is unproven and ultimately, not real.

Science isn’t a ‘thing’. It’s a way of working which establishes a methodology to create repeatable processes to establish the facts and truth behind a given statement to an observation.

Want proof? What are you writing your ATS posts on? What do you make your phone calls with? How does your car work? How do w3 know what medicines do for the body? scientific process.

Where’s your God? Why does he help celebrities win Oscar’s, according to their speeches, or tell a preacher he needs a private jet, yet allows children to be abused?

Yeh. Science is unprovable, but your God is truth.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
Science didn't do ANY of those things.
Human beings did

Very true, using the scientific method devised over hundreds of years of critical thinking and logical thought.

using our ability to create, given to us by God.

There is zero evidence to that statement. And if God gave us that ability, why is is so flawed, so small, so under developed?

Science is not a thing. Science is not god. Science does not create. Science is a tool.

Agreed.

A tool we use to try and understand how God created everything.

No. A tool to try to understand the physical world around us, the observable. Not the super natural, which doesn’t exist.

Being made in His image, we also have a desire, and a need to create.

Everything you’ve said is completely unproven and impossible to evaluate.

However, with science, we can evaluate the world around us. Seems weird your made up God would create a tool which cannot prove he exists.