The Argument
There are many fundamentally important things we all rely on which science can’t prove. It cannot prove logic. It cannot prove mathematics. Science cannot even prove the validity of science itself. We know these are vitally important things but we don’t expect science to prove them. Why is it any different with god?
How to debunk it
- We might not be able to scientifically prove logic or mathematics (which is a form of logic), and no—strictly speaking science cannot prove itself by any means external to itself. But what we can do is demonstrate the validity and effectiveness of these things. It’s like asking for evidence to prove that we should value evidence or a reasoning process to prove the importance of reason. These are fundamental, bedrock concepts that cannot be proven but can be demonstrated.
- God, according to monotheist believers, is a singular, conscious, personal, supernatural entity. A non-demonstrable, supernatural deity has absolutely nothing to do with concepts like logic, mathematics and science. If he did, there would be nothing to worship, just like we don’t worship the other concepts.
- There are only two types of claims that cannot be proven, falsified or otherwise demonstrated: claims that are simply made up (literature, art, fantasy, fairy tales, etc.) and claims that are completely subjective (personal tastes, emotional connections, etc.). To say that something is non-scientific and cannot even be demonstrated is to say that it’s either made up or subjective and personal—both of which seem to be the case with the idea of a supernatural deity.
- If we’re going to accept that Yahweh or Allah are outside the realm of proof, falsifiability and demonstration, then Zeus, Odin, Ra, Vishnu, Quetzalcoatl and all other deities will get the same free pass. Trying to blur the boundaries of reason, evidence and demonstration gets you nowhere. If you can sneak one deity through this line then anyone can sneak any deity, monster, ghost or mythical character through as well. It brings you right back to where you started.
Not true. the claim that God stands beyond the bounds of material proof and falsifiability is not a retreat from logic but a deeper realization of the very nature of existence. Science ..logic and mathematics are tools to interpret the material world,….. but they are incapable of explaining the foundational roots from which these tools themselves arise….God is not a hypothesis among hypotheses as you clim…nor an idea that can be measured by criteria devised by humans. Insisting on placing Him within the framework of science is like trying to measure light with a sound meter it is a conflation of entirely different levels of existence.
As for the argument that an unproven God equates Him with mythical deities… it reflects a shallow understanding. Monotheistic religions present God as the source of all rationality…..all logic and all natural laws. rejecting this claim does not indicate intellectual advancement but reveals a narrow perspective that fails to distinguish between contemplative philosophy….which explores metaphysical realms…and the material intellect confined to sensory boundaries….demanding proof of God through material evidence misclassifies the question itself….God is not an idea within the system of science but the very foundation that makes the question possible in the first place.
First, thank you for reading and commenting.
The first problem with the ideas you present here is that they are merely claims, applied quite arbitrarily to the deity you happen to like. I, or anyone else, can just as easily claim those things about other deities.
The second problem is that you have placed (only claimed, in fact) this deity so beyond human methods of verification that you contradict yourself on your own terms. If there’s no way to objectively verify anything about this deity then there’s no way for you to claim to know anything about him, including his mere existence.