Not exactly. You see the problem is that for science to disprove God you would have to exactly define god and divine action.
Of course, religious people will not commit to a definition. God is whatever they please it is, and they change their interpretation of God constantly in order to fit with their world.
Religious people very rarely change their interpretation. Different people have different interpretations. That is not the same thing.
It would be rather easy to disprove god when someone would define a divine act. Then we would just measure those. Notice they don't exist, or do. Do some statistical calculations to get a probability of god's existence.
So go ahead. if you want science to prove the existence of god, define god and divine actions in accuracy without ambiguity.
Most Christians recognize the presence of God in the natural world, and as part of it, so technically the acts of God should be indistinguishable from "science". IOW, God created the science, and exerts His Will through it.
That's your problem, right there, Jan.
I believe in things based upon the evidence. I don't reject evidence because of beliefs.
But of course you see it your way, because you have the flawed mindset of a theist.
It is overly insulting to say someone has the "flawed mindset of a theist". Can't we discuss ideas around here without resorting to insults. In fact, isn't there some kind of famous quote regarding the weak argument being the one that DOES resort to insults?
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. The converse is not true.
No proof is required to show something doesn't exist.
Proof is required if something is claimed to exist.
(no the bible is not proof or even evidence)
This seems like perhaps the most common "defense" of atheism. "We don't have to prove anything because we aren't making a 'positive' claim." Frankly, given the historical precedence of faith in one or more gods, I would think it just as fair to say the burden of proof lies with the atheist. He is the one making the relatively new claim (that there is no god). For my part, I think it is an equal requirement. If either side wants to convince the other, then they need to provide proof.
Does anyone else find it odd that Christians think they have a monopoly on the word "god"? Are we discussing "god" as a concept or the anthropomorphic "Jehovah/Allah/YHWH"?
Once again it brings up the question of "If there is but one god, and I don't believe in your concept of god... am I an atheist?"
This is a just plain silly statement. I haven't read anything in this thread to suggest that Christians think they have a monopoly on the word "god". If anything, Christians are in a habit of distinguishing their God from other gods through the use of capitalization. The reason for this is because other gods - those that are part of a pantheon - are commonly known by a proper name. Jehovah/Allah/Yahweh is commonly known simply by the word God. No one thinks they own the word; it's just a matter of language and semantics.
Indeed it does, and of course, monotheists disbelieve in the pantheon of other deities for the same reason atheists don't believe in theirs. This makes monotheists uncomfortable, effectively holding atheist, and theist opinions at the same time.
Since you are NOT a monotheist, I don't see how you are in any position to make claims about anything making monotheists uncomfortable.
Can you prove that I don't have an invisible elf in my yard.
Statements like that have enough testable parameters that they can be proven. Most Christians define God in such a way that testable parameters can be established, but they are all regarding the change in a person that Christians credit God with. Since this is a subjective thing, few atheists are willing to accept it. Instead, they insist on testable parameters that no one has credited God with, and so of course nothing can provide evidence. It's like the "no true Scotsman" argument. If you are going to only allow a God that follows the parameters you accept, and any that fail said parameters will be rejected, then you are simply creating your own definition of God that frankly doesn't mesh with the definition most Christians provide. In this way, atheists try to frame arguments in such a fashion that they are impossible to "disprove", and that is a logical fallacy. Shame on those who would claim such faith in logic and proof to resort to such fallacies just so they can "be right".
Why do modern educated theists who now believe that evolution is factual try to fit it in with their religion.
The same reason scientists try to fit THEIR findings into their hypotheses. 'Cause that's just what an intelligent person does.
It doesn't explain how the universe came to be. Should we just throw our hands up on that one, and say god did it and walk away.
You don't know human nature very well if you believe that's going to happen.
Ha! That is SO not true. If you are so inclined, a thirst for knowledge and understanding is going to push you to discover and understand more regardless of whether you believe in a/God or not.
Face it people, everything is particles. There is no God, no sin, no heaven, no hell, nothing to be guilty of just for being a living being. Get over it and live in the modern world, it's great. We can have stem cells rebuilding all our parts, we can have computer chips in our brains,we can live forever. Through science, we can create everything that religions promise but can't deliver.
Everything else can be achieved through the natural science of mediation as practiced in Buddhism. This includes awareness of self, well-being, happiness, mental health, and a positive outlook on life.
Since Christianity as a religion promises things that are not of this world (or even universe), modern science most definitely CANNOT deliver. It's like living underwater, and claiming that hydrodynamics can get you up a mountain. They are two separate things, with no overlap. Travel on land requires one kind of knowledge; travel in the water another. Physical knowledge will get you anywhere in the universe; Spiritual knowledge will get you through a Spiritual realm (assuming it exists - Obviously, if it doesn't exist, it is a wasted effort - but it doesn't infringe upon the Natural world either way).
