Atheists, how does science disprove god?

[BasketCase]

Science can't disprove the existence of God. If you don't know whether something exists and have no way to find out, you can't prove that it doesn't exist, either.

Science is simply a way of showing that things can happen without The Man waving his almighty Hand and making them happen. I myself have seen evolution work: systems growing and evolving with no outside interference.

 

[Mise]

@Keirador, just to clarify:
We have certain hypotheses that could explain the existence of everything in the universe (such as the big bang) which don't require God or any other supernatural entity. Are you saying that these scientifically plausable but unproven theories are just as (in)valid as "God did it" or 6-day creationism? I would argue that, since the big bang conforms to our current understanding of science, and God and especially 6-day creationism does not, the big bang theory is more likely than the others. For God or 6-day creationism to fall in line with science, we would have to expand science such that there are superfluous principles (to the ones we have proven as per our current understanding); this is where the application of Occam's Razor is significant.

 

[civ2]

Mise
Actually "for science to fall in line with Creation".
Science is and always will be upgrading.
You can't be sure in anything since tomorrow might come a new scientist that will disprove your version by his own.
And he will be right until anybody else comes and so without an end.
Thus science is unstable and unfinshed forever.

 

[Turner]

Which is better, IMO, then to rely on words in a book.

Anyone can write words in a book.

Anyone can say "this is the word of god." (I've done it myself.)

Science relys on proof, and other people being able to reproduce it. And Science readily admits that it may be wrong. It's not afraid to change it's stance when evidence shows that previously held beliefs were not accurate.

 

[Mise]

Mise
Actually "for science to fall in line with Creation".
Science is and always will be upgrading.
You can't be sure in anything since tomorrow might come a new scientist that will disprove your version by his own.
And he will be right until anybody else comes and so without an end.
Thus science is unstable and unfinshed forever.

Whereas, when the bible is proven wrong, you deny it and continue to claim that it's right...

In fact, throughout history the bible has had to be "re-interpretted" such that it falls in line with science. Think of how we now know the earth is round, and that the earth revolves around the sun (not the other way around), and that the stars are actually suns in other solar systems. The bible has had to be re-interpretted to fit in with these new developments constantly.

 

[civ2]

Earth being round OR flat is mentioned nowhere in Bible.
This was a medieval theory of non-jews which means it is as stupid as a "human-god".
Now what is the center and what turns around is a simple thing - think of Einstein's relativity.
And think of a double star - no phisical center but both go round each other.
So why solar system should have a phisical center and if yes why not Earth?

 

[Mise]

Earth being round OR flat is mentioned nowhere in Bible.
This was a medieval theory of non-jews which means it is as stupid as a "human-god".
Now what is the center and what turns around is a simple thing - think of Einstein's relativity.
And think of a double star - no phisical center but both go round each other.
So why solar system should have a phisical center and if yes why not Earth?

Ok, you really need to learn some physics, in particular, about gravity...

 

[civ2]

The theory of gravity was created assuming Earth goes round Sun.
If we assume otherwise - we could create some other still applicable theory.
I mean not the simple "apple falls due to gravity" but theory about space gravity and loss of weight.

 

[Mise]

The theory of gravity was created assuming Earth goes round Sun.
If we assume otherwise - we could create some other still applicable theory.
I mean not the simple "apple falls due to gravity" but theory about space gravity and loss of weight.

Ok, here's how gravity works. Two bodies are attracted to each other and orbit around their centre of mass. The Sun is 332,950 times heavier than the earth, so the centre of mass of the two bodies is much much closer to the sun than the earth. In fact, due to gravitational attraction from other planets in the solar system, it is effectively at the centre of the sun.

In a binary star system, where there are two stars of roughly equal mass, the centre of gravity will be roughly half way between the two stars. The stars orbit around their common centre of mass.

The moon orbits around the earth, because the moon is far less heavy than the earth.

 

[civ2]

This would be right IF:
The Solar system would be stable at least for a second and then start rotating.
But even in astronomy things don't happen suddenly - it takes many millions of years.
So Earth and any other planet might have had such high speed in the beginning that it might rotate in any way it wants.
You know that most planets orbit in a very different manner and their axes are very different too.
Which means they couldn't appear from a dust of gas since they would have exact types of orbiting.
Afterall - if there was a bang then everything would "runaway" in exactly the same speed and manner and the universe would be a huge "cristal" of stars and galaxies with absolutely simmetrical formation.
No variety of systems or stars.

 

[Mise]

I honestly don't see how that is relevant, much less true.

 

[Turner]

If the solar system were 'stable' for at least a second, and then started rotating, the solar bodies would fall into the sun because of the sun's gravity.

The solar bodies rotate around the sun because of balance. After four billion yeas of this, things are quite balanced here. They were trying to escape, but were pulled back because of the sun's gravity. A balance was struck, and now they continuosly fall just far enough to be pulled back in another direction.

You have some interesting thoughts on how this stuff works. But I think you need to rethink your position on them.

 

[civ2]

Mise
WHAT made disbalanse in the singular point?????

 

[FriendlyFire]

That is correct

the massess body of planets produce there own gravitation fields and orbital motion
Your senario would work where gravity interferance is null.

 

[plarq]

If I'm allowed to use Civ-Model.I dare say Scientific Advance rendered God obsolete.By the word "obsolete",I don't mean God is dead,I just mean it's much less important than before.So why use science to disprove god,and why use god to revise science?!

 

[civ2]

Because humans were created not for studying science!!!

 

[plarq]

Because human were not created!

 

[civ2]

Same as monkeys.

 

[carlosMM]

Same as monkeys.

indeed, monkeys were NOT created. You got 1 point for this correct answer.

 

[Rik Meleet]

The Evolution <-> Creationism part of this thread is split off to somewhere else. Stop that discussion in this thread and stay on topic.