Which of these is a scientifically correct statement?

Question

1- There is a God

2- There is no God

3- A statement about the presence, or otherwise, of God cannot be made.

This is a follow-up to a question I answered here

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Al486td3yyaUs7dZYkA7W8Lsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20080827095335AAGH94K&show=7#profile-info-AA11264399

Please explain logically how your answer is true.

Answer 1

1 and 3 are definitely wrong. 2 is close, but I'd leave 0.000...001 of a chance that it's not absolutely right, just in case. But it's so close as to be a certainty for all practical purposes.

Answer 2

Actually none of the above would be the best answer.  Science by definition is involved with analyzing and interpreting observations via experiments or directly observing natural phenomena.  It can not address issues of faith that deal with supernatural phenomena (and certainly if God exists He *is* a supernatural phenomena) so science in and of itself can not answer the question at all.  Number three would be pretty close to this but I would rather say that a statement about God cannot be made on the basis of scientific observations but instead must be determined by other means.  Many people (including myself, and I am working on my PhD in Cell Biology/Neurobiology) see evidence of God's existence in the grandeur and order of the universe, but this is of course a subjective opinion and can not be proved as scientific fact for the reasons I stated before.  

Answer 3

1 -There is a God. God created Science that's why Science is so amazing..Nothing else could create such an amazing concept as science..

People who believe there is no God is also not sure with their entire heart and soul ..they would insist they are but they always think what if.. Atheist is only little insecure  people who is looking for attention from God..

The people with little faith is always the ones that says God has to proof himself before they believe..but they so blind they don't see He is proofing himself over and over again.and really why should He. People with little faith in God just has little faith in general , in themselves in others etc..they don't believe that the impossible can be done. Because well they don't have faith..

Answer 4

In order to have science, there must be three things

1) it must be observable with the five senses

2) it must be disprovable (anything is provable)

3) it must be reproducible

Because this is true science, God can not be determined by science.  

But, that being said, we know that when we try to approach the speed of light, it requires all power (because mass increases as we approach that speed), it requires being everywhere (because again, mass increases), and time stands still.  This would, then, suggest another dimension in which we can not be, ergo God is.  

Answer 5

Science is by definition the study of the testable, the repeatable and the falsifiable.  So, science cannot answer any question about God or about origins.  

Science also cannot answer questions about evolution, because clearly to the evolutionist, evolution cannot be falsified.

Answer 6

Edit:

I would have to go with #3 for a scientifically correct statement.

Answer 7

3. Since one cannot logically prove a negative, this eliminates 2 as a scientifically correct statement (not to say it isn't correct - just unprovable.) Since there has never been (to my knowledge anyway) a scientific proof of 1, that eliminates that possibility. (Again, no clear indication of whether right or wrong, just unproven.) This logically leaves only 3 (a flawed, but closest to correct answer).

Answer 8

1 Think about this: There can't be a building without a builder. A pile of bricks and dynamite could never build a building. Earth had to be created by someone. That someone is God.

For more info go to www.AnswersinGenesis.org

Answer 9

As much as I'd like to say 2, it's not a scientifically correct statement.

3 isn't correct because a STATEMENT about the presence of god can be made, but not proven.  

Answer 10

You're actually missing one.

4- A valid theory must match the observations. God does not match the observations. Therefore, God is not a valid scientific theory.

That doesn't mean in any way that it is not a valid theological theory. Only that it is not a valid scientific theory.

One thing I would like to mention to all theists is that God, if the bible is meant to be taken literally, is not a valid scientific theory, or a logical conclusion.

If the bible is not meant to be taken literally, then why should mention of God be taken literally? However, that is another question all of its own. If you like, you can e-mail me with your opinion.

Answer 11

2, much like the statement "there are no leprechauns".

edit: Agnostics lack a belief in a diety, and therefore they *are* atheists.

Answer 12

first, to be scientifically you need proof.

there is a good.... we have no proof

there isn't a god... we have no proof

A statement about the presence, or otherwise, of God cannot be made... since we have no proof we can't assume something is there.

So id say the correct answer is statement 3

Answer 13

None of them are scientifically correct.

The correct statement would be;

"There is no scientifically verified evidence to support the hypothesis of a supernatural deity."

That statement is true because, there is no scientifically verified evidence to support the hypothesis of a supernatural deity.

Copies of translations of collections of old books based on the campfire mythologies of bronze age nomadic goat herders are not evidence.

Answer 14

None of the above.

1 & 2 have no way to empirically or experimentally prove them.

3 is just plain silly. One can make any statement one wishes about God.

And FYI: God is the author of science. He is NOT its subject.

Answer 15

2 - Because on the basis that every culture has a God and usually a different version, it seems self-evident that the God belief is built within people. The less science the culture has, the more things they attribute to their God(s). Every child fears the dark and the loud noises that are unfamiliar and misunderstood, and so it stays into adulthood.

Answer 16

3 -  because although you cannot prove through scientific theory that God exists, there are also no tests available to dis-prove his existence . We can prove false the idea that the moon is made of cheese by going there and testing it's soil. But the acceptance of a God, or lack thereof, goes beyond the realm of science.

Did I get an A teacher, did I??? :-)

Answer 17

2

there is no proof a deity (or deities) exist

once you have a natrual explanation for things you no longer need a super natural explanation or the GODDIDIT! theory

Answer 18

2

3 is a contradiction.

The last sentence in your edit is also a contradiction.

And the first sentence in your edit is just plain thoughtless.  A "belief" can be wrong.

Answer 19

3- a statement about the presence, or otherwise, of god cannot be made. (not to be mean but it was a sort of easy question)

Answer 20

None. A scientifically correct statement would be:

No evidence has ever been offered in favor of the existence of God(or unicorns or leprechauns), and until that time, lack of belief is the rational choice.

Answer 21

3 would be the most scientifically correct answer.

All scientific paradigms will eventually fail. That's their nature. the third answer makes the a safe but logical statement vs a solid fact with no give whatsoever.

Answer 22

Scientifically probably 2 or 3, but truthfully only #1 could be possible.

Faith = a knowledge and belief in that which is unseen.

Answer 23

It would depend upon your definition of "God". In the Christian sense - the omniscient, omni-present, omni-powerful being that created the universe etc. - I would say could be scientifically disproven by an absence of evidence more than specific evidence against it.

If you make it a broader definition of "a" god - some being that we have not yet seen or comprehended - I don't think you can logically argue for or against something that hasn't been discovered yet.

Answer 24

My first instinct as a scientist is to say (2), but (3) is the most logical and defensible statement.

Answer 25

Since you do not distinguish between "a revealed deity" and "a non-revealed" deity, the correct answer is 3.

However, if you make the distinction, then the existence of a revealed deity is in fact provably false.

Answer 26

All three, science is a process used to evaluate and learn. Just run each of the three through the process to determine whether they are true, false, or if we are unable to verify using modern methodology.

1) No evidence to prove this empirically, has been tried though.

2) Second side to the coin that is question one, so far no test has shown the presence of god, so we can advance it from hypothesis to theory.

3) We can test whether a statement can be made, and it seems like statement 2 can be established experimentally.

Answer 27

2.

3 is clearly false - there is no reason whatever that science cannot be used to make such observations, nor for it to seek evidence one way or the other. Any grounded hypothesis is capable of scientific test, and the hypothesis that god exists is perfectly grounded.

1 may be true, but is unsupported by evidence.

This leaves 2 as the most reliable answer.

Answer 28

2. There is no God. There is no evidence to suggest there is a deity. There is no reason to believe there is a God.

Answer 29

69. One can only make a statement about the probability of a God or gods existing but cannot make any absolute assertion as to its existence or non-existence.

Answer 30

As some have pointed out, statement 3 is self-contradictory.

Statements 1 and 2 are hypotheses.  There is little evidence for or against these hypotheses, since some people's definition of "God" makes him unapproachable through evidence.  Clearly statement 1 is demonstrable in principle: if a God appeared to the world and wrote a holy text across the stars, then most people would concede that such a being did exist.  That, however, has not happened to my recollection.  Some people's former definition of God (e.g. the source of lightning) has been discredited by scientific evidence.  

Answer 31

Scientifically

i guess 2 is correct

cos one who knows science will not believe that god created us as he'll know the story of evolution........

he'll not believe abt the h**l and heaven theory cos he knows wat happens all after death is just decaying and nothing much

one who believes and understands science wud merely pray to god just cos of the fact that right from birth he has been made to believe in prayers and God as such is a concept to control humans and make them more disciplined in the name of god fearing :)