Can science refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt?

Is it possible for science to refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt?Has science in fact already achieved this?What exactly is the "god hypothesis"? What must such a hypothesis entail if it is to be able to be subjected to scientific enquiry (which after all is the very meaning of the term hypothesis)?
Is it even possible to apply the term "hypothesis" to such a concept as God/gods/deities/supernatural creators? Or are such concepts inherently beyond the restricted nature of scientific investigation?

• Does science provide the founding principles for atheism or not?
• Does science provide the founding principles for deism or not?

Do EvC members consider science to be the foundation upon which their own individual position is founded?
Where members do consider science to be the foundation upon which they base their beliefs, are such conclusions valid?Here at EvC we have a vast variety of beliefs. From biblical creationists to ardent atheists. With everything in-between. Including theists who neither seek nor require physical evidence for their beliefs and deists who claim that none is possible. The atheists, and I include myself in this category, seem almost without exception to consider their position scientifically valid. But is it?I want to try and split the usual pack of EvC anti-theists to examine the validity of our own beliefs. Are they consistent? Are they scientifically justified? How much do we actually agree with each other beyond a mutual non-theist position?Creationist assertions that their views are equally evidenced I am going to ignore as trivially refuted for the sake of this debate. This whole forum constantly and repeatedly examines those issues. I want this thread to explore a different question.What I am really interested in is - To what extent do atheists, deists and the most rational of theists require science to be necessary to their world view.And to examine how justified, in scientific terms, such world views actually are.Personal position: As regulars at EvC will be fully aware I am part of the full blooded atheist contingent. I am also a keen advocate of the scientific method and broad scientific position. And yes I do consider these to be related. However I have had a brief dalliance with deism and can see why some might default to this position.Is any position regarding the existence or non-existence of supernatural entities scientifically verifiable?
If not what is it about the atheistically and deistically minded that results in a correlation with their advocacy of science as the reliable method of investigation?Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Changed the topic title from "Beyond Reasonable Doubt?" to a variation (needed to shorten for it to fit) of the message 1 opening sentence: "Can science refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt?"Edited by Admin, : Limit bold text to just the list.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

How far removed from any physical effect on the universe at all are theists or deists willing to go regarding their particualr entity?I would also say that all scientific conclusions are tentative to some degree. Even the most well founded, generally accepted and unambiguous are potentially refutable. This does not mean that to all practical intensts and purposes some theories are "true". Nor does it mean all POV are equal.The question I ask is to what degree do atheists or deists consider the findings of science to support their view. Or, more to the point, do atheists and deists consider their views to be derived from science and if so is such thinking valid?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I think I agree.It all comes down to what extent the supernatural entity in question is supposed to have influenced, or continue to influence, the physical world.If the supernatural entity in question has never had any interracation with the physical world at all then such an entity would be wholly invisible to science.However any such entity which has had any physical effect at all, whether it be creation, supervision, answering prayers, instigating the initial laws requiredf for creation or whatever then such an entity is at least theoretically possible to deduce and examine via empirical means.Do any theists or deists really claim that their entity of coice has absolutely no physical role in the universe whatsoever?Is the atheist conclusion that no such thing is at all likely to exist, regardless of physical effect, borne of science or philosophy? And how does this relate to the broadly scientific advocacy of atheists?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

How could science meaningfully draw such conclusions whilst still adhering to the exacting standards of scientific evidence?Would not such a position effectively be just another religious assertion to all practical intensts and purposes?

Well yes. Hence the question as per the OP: If "god" is an advanced alien species then who, if anything, do they worship? Or have they concluded that all is ultimately the result of wholly natural processes? If they have concluded this is it even posible that this is a viable and evidence based conclusion?

The point of this thread as I intended it is to ask the question as to whether people think that their beliefs, or lack of them, are justified or even derived fom science.Can I assume from your responses that you think science is an inadequate basis upon wich to base conclusions regarding origins etc. etc.?If so, upon what do you base the beliefs that you do hold and in what way are they superior, more reliable or in some other way preferable to those that science is capable of providing?

Lets not drag this thread down the randomness of mutation in evolutionary theory path.Randomness in the wider sense is inherent in nature according to QM. Objections to this are invariably philosophical or aesthetic.So lets leave the question of randomness in nature at that and discuss the degree to which members consider their theistic/deistic/atheistic views to be derived from or verified by science.

How would you describe your position in terms of atheism/deism/theism?Are you any of the aforementioned or none of the above?What is your position regarding the EvC debate in it's widest sense?

That is interesting as that is not how you come across when confronted with more conventional theists. Fair enough. But to what extent is your position dependent on science and on what basis do you justify those aspects that are not scientifically derived?Would your position be the same regardless of science?
If not how might it be different in the absence of present scientific understanding?
If so is there any possible scientifc evidence that would change your view??Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Deleted irrelevant and inappropriate subtitle.

Hmmmm. If science were to consist of poorly defined concepts and meaningless labels plugged into the gaps in our knowledge on the basis that any answer is better than no answer at all, then your rather woolly "God = everything that ever was, is, or ever will be" would be a valid scientific conclusion.As things stand however a little more is required. Positive physical evidence that demonstrates the veracity of the theory in question above and beyond all other alternative explanations and competing theories. In the absence of any such evidence conclusions are to be considered unreliable. In the absence of conclusions that have been rendered scientifically reliable ignorance must be declared regardless of purely subjective preferences for one theory over another. This is the scientific way.Although you may think that this is all just a way of removing God from the equation it really is not. It is simply the method by which the most reliable and objective conclusions are logically reached. And given that there most certainly is not any "positive physical evidence that demonstrates the veracity of the God hypothesis above and beyond all other alternative explanations" it is simply untrue to say that science supports the God hypothesis.Now whether or not this means that the atheist or deist positions are any more valid in scientific terms remains to be seen. I hope to explore that question in this thread.

I think I agree with much of what you are saying.I too think science either refutes or makes redundant and trivially unnecessary the existence of all current and historical gods. I had not really considered your rather novel idea that a future form of the "god hypothesis" might be more amenable to scientific investigation. Whilst I think the prospect is intriguing it seems unlikely. But I do like the idea.Where science does not (yet?) provide answers to questions regarding nature the insistence by theists that their particular unevidenced assertion should be deemed superior to any other unevidenced assertion just smacks of subjective wish fulfilment and provides little reason to accept any one assertion over any other. Better to stick to the standards of science and remain knowingly ignorant than just lower the standards of evidence to get an answer for the sake of an answer.I also think that ignorance in science is a driving force for progress, technology and increased understanding. Even if we never unlock the secrets of the universe through science, even if the path has no reachable end, the journey itself is in many ways just as important.There are many of us, deists and atheists, here at EvC who have fully formed opinions as to why the theistic position is not, or even cannot be, scientifically evidenced or valid in any objective sense.
However what I am interested to know is to what extent deists and atheists are of the opinion that their own position is, or is not, supported by science.

In terms of the scientific method this would be called a hypothesis rather than a conclusion. Scientific conclusions are based on verified hypotheses. If no testing takes place then no verification is possible. If you want to define your God in terms of the physical universe then that is up to you. By this definition your God was created in the Big Bang about 15 billion years ago by any scientifically verified standard of evidence. This is more pantheistic than theistic however and not, I don't think, what you really mean. Your God hypothesis is wholly unsupported by scientific evidence as previously explained. Assuming that by "God" you do not just mean the universe. I am sure that you are very confident. But just saying "God is everything" is no more defined, meaningful or evidentially supported than saying "the omniverse is everything". Meaningless labels that tell us nothing.If you are able to express your "God hypothesis" such that you can detail the physical observational tests that we can do to verify or refute that hypothesis including empirical predictions regarding as yet undiscovered physical phenomenon which must logically exist if the hypothesis in question is actually true - Then we might be getting somewhere.If you are unable to do that then lets stick to the main purpose of this thread which is to examine to what extent non-theistic positions consider themselves to be supported by science.

I very broadly agree in the wider context. I would also describe myself as an atheist. But just to play devils advocate........The default position of science is ignorance. In the absence of reliable or adequate evidence we have at best untested hypotheses that border on mere guesses and at worst just plain good old fashioned ignorance.For example take any of the contentious unknowns of current scientific understanding. Abiogenesis, cosmological beginnings pre the planck time, the existence of a multiverse etc. etc. etc. No scientist worth the name would decalre these things to be anything other than unknowns that require investigation before any reliable conclusions can be drawn.Is the question of God or gods really any more or less of an unknown than these sort of questions?If not why are we not equally scathing of these ideas as we are supernatural godlike entities? Should the scientific default position be an acknlwedgement of ignorance regarding such matters? In which case agnosticism not atheism could be said to be the position derived from science?I don't hold this position and have my own answers to these questions but I am interested in the your views and the views of others who consider themselves to be atheists or deists.

Hi Onfire
Good to have you on board.I agree with much of what you say regarding the nature of atheism, the nature of science and the nature of religious conclusions. BUT unlike you I do think that there is a correlation between the non-theist and the scientific view points that demonstrates a more fundamental link between the two.That is not to say that, as some of our more hardcore theistic members seem to think, that science sets out to "prove" atheism or that science in itself is in any way atheistically inclined. Not at all. Such views are a complete misunderstanding of what science is and what it sets out to do.However I don't think it is mere coincidence that the EvC atheist and deistic contingents are also the keenest advocates of science here. Nor do I think this correlation of positions is unique to EvC members alone.But I am still thinking through why it is that this correlation exists. Hence the starting of this thread to explore that very question. I don't have all the answers and my opinions are not fully formed on this matter but for what it is worth here is my thinking so far:If it is not science per se that supports an atheistic point of view then is it the principle of evidence based objective investigation that underpins such views?
It is certainly on the basis of such principles that I personally dismiss irrational, un-evidenced, subjective and desperately improbable notions of God and gods.But what is science if not evidence based objective investigation into the physical world?
Is evidence based objective investigation even possible with respect to anything other than the physical world?Thus I find that the principles on which I reject religion are the same broad principles on which I advocate science.So while I wholly accept that it is perfectly possible to be both a scientist and remain a theist I think it very unlikely that an atheist would not be a keen advocate of science. Of course different people have different reasons for their beliefs and atheism is no exception. But I think most thinking atheists would cite objective evidence based investigation, in some form, as a founding component of their point of view.Thus I would say atheism is, in practical terms at least, intrinsically linked to science. Even if the reverse, i.e. that science is intrinsically linked to atheism, does not necessarily follow and in fact does not actually appear to be true.Hence I would expect the vast majority of atheists to be "pro-science" in position whilst not necessarily expecting the vast majority of scientists to inevitably be atheists.How the deistic position fits into all of this, if at all, is something I am interested to explore. Any deists in the house.....?

ICANT
I am as ever happy to discuss the origins of the universe and related questions with you. But not in this thread. No. We just demand the same standards of evidence, prediction and verification as we would do any other theory or hypothesis.