Why do most atheist believe that since science can explain something, then that must prove there is no God?

Question

is that logical...lets say you come across the statue of liberty 2000 years later and no record of what it is...you exam it and are able to explain everything about it...except why its there...are why question not important to atheists...doesn't that fall into nihilism...

Answer 1

Answering "why" with a god or gods that have no evidence is rather silly.  Basically, the Bible claims that God created the universe and this world in a specific order that we know has no relationship to how it actually happened.  It also claims that certain events like the flood and exodus happened, but there is no evidence that they ever did.  These and every other claim of a miracle that lack evidence show that the Bible is nothing more than historical fiction or mythology.

Answer 2

Science proves scriptures wrong. A god may well exist but there is no evidence for it.

Answer 3

Yes, in the "big picture", "why" is irrelevant.

The "universe" is impersonal and doesn't give a c**p about you, me, or anyone else on our little rock.

You have to find your own meaning in life, because outside of you, there is none.

Besides, "god" isn't really an answer now,... is it?

It's just a "feel good" myth to assuage a person's fear of death.

Answer 4

Not "something", life on Earth is what science explains, and it proves the Bible wrong since it contradicts Genesis.  The Bible being wrong doesn't prove there is no God, though.  Neither does it prove there is no invisible pink unicorn, yet the internal contradictions in both prove both impossible.

However, since the Bible is proven wrong, and the Bible is what proves God is impossible, does that mean God is possible?  OMG!  No.  God is defined by the Bible... so the definition of God is possibly inherently wrong.  But, in the end, it smells like sheep dip.

Answer 5

Look up "Occam's Razor". The atheist position is sound.

It is the *theist* that often assumes, when unable to explain something, that a deity did it. This is a form of the fallacy "argument form incredulity", in this case generally called the "God of the Gaps" argument. In fact, almost all arguments *for the existence of a deity turn out to be fallacies. What does that suggest to you?

Answer 6

You are saying there is a god, then prove it

I am saying, he is not there and i cannot prove negative..you should know it from junior high

Answer 7

Science can explain function, but it can not explain reason.

Question: "Why is the water boiling?"

Science:"The water absorbs the kinetic heat from the fire, causing the molecules to speed up, resulting in the gradual transformation from liquid to gas as the water heats up"

Reason: "I want to make some coffee"

Answer 8

Science is not what made me an atheist. A thorough study and understanding of history and religion did that. Science, in my case, was NOT needed in order to conclude that the deity you believe in is as non-existent as every other ever written about and worshiped!

Sure, having a sound understanding of scientific processes helps, but it's not the end all and be all to atheism.

Answer 9

Well, If you think atheists are a ignorant bunch, like what you mentioned in your nickname, you are wrong.

2000 years later, atheists may not be able to explain why is it there, but they will not pray and worship the statue of liberty and call it the goddess that created the universe, like what christians is doing now,

Maybe 2000 years later, some christians (if they still exist then) will call it statue of Mary and the Mother of Jesus and it is a miracle that it is even formed in the shape of a human being carrying a torch signifying it brought to the world "light" which means Jesus..... LOL.

Answer 10

Well, let's look at it this way.  Most of the "evidence" for gods stems from events that were previously unexplainable.  Once science explains them, that pulls the rug out from under the god argument.  Given that these "miracles" or unexplainable events are the only "evidence" presented for gods, the most logical course of action is to fail to believe in gods after those events are explained.

Answer 11

You just have NO clue at all about science.

If in a future, we find the Statue of Liberty, that would be a tangible objective item of evidence of something. Your evil deity has NEVER offered one stitch of tangible objective evidence, so you are comparing real things with UNreal things. Duh.

Science does show that the gawd of the babble is a fiction. Far too many tales in that crappy book have been well disproven to have any of it be at all believable.

Pony up some tangible objective evidence for your gawd; Until you do that, your claims for it remain MEANINGLESS.  

Answer 12

they don't, they just don't see it as a reason there is a god

some just take it to far, but you get those people everywhere.

Answer 13

"God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don't believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness, or why you only live to a certain length of time — life and death — stuff like that."

Richard Feynman

Answer 14

You are missing the point of what atheism is all about.  It is not about science vs, god.  Atheists do not believe in the concept of god,  That is about it.  Atheists ask why a lot. Atheists don't just sit there and say "It is god's plan" or "god did it" or anything like that.  They look for rational, logical explanations.  We call it science.  As for your example, I am sure the atheists are going to question why the Statue of Liberty is there instead of saying "oh, it must be some unknown person's work".

Answer 15

So, in 2000 years, when people can't explain why the statue of liberty exists, should they assume that God built it?  Atheists essentially apply the same logic, saying that the assumption that something occurred as a result of a supernatural force is unnecessary, as natural explanations are likely to be more accurate.  In this case, the natural explanation that humans built the statue of liberty is correct, and people 2000 years in the future would be wrong to assume it was placed there by God.  Evolution and life are no different in today's context.

Answer 16

Science can prove that we evolved from lower life. That in itself destroys the god myth.

Answer 17

Science can be used to prove almost anything that does exist..  It is not used to prove something that does not exist.

Answer 18

I really don't think most Atheists think that.

I tend to think most things that exist leave some type of evidence, and without some type of evidence, there is no reason to think something exists.

In 2000 years, if they don't come across any evidence of the Statue of Liberty, will they go to great lengths to describe what it was like and why it was there?