Does Science Disprove that God Exists?

As shown elsewhere on this site only between 1 and 30% adult Americans do not believe that God is Omnipotent and Omniscience.

Somewhere between 1 and 30 percent of adult Americans do not think God is all-powerful and all-knowing. Others have different beliefs. Some people believe in God or a supreme being. One poll indicated that an astonishing 81% believed in God. Some believe there is no God.

Others question God's existence because they think science provides all the answers needed to understand the universe, so the idea of God is unnecessary. Many of these people base their views on the theory of evolution. Some think everything is relative based on Einstein's theory of relativity.

People have a range of perspectives on the existence and nature of God. Scientific theories like evolution and relativity have impacted religious beliefs for some by providing alternate explanations for life and the cosmos.

Following is a shortened version (full version found elsewhere on this site) of a dialogue with AI as to whether science could disprove the existence of God:

Please define the scientific method and the ramifications of being able to replicate or demonstrate the repetition required to substantiate a theory.

The scientific method refers to the systematic and logical approach scientists take when conducting research. It generally involves the following key steps:

Making observations and asking questions based on those observations. This often leads to forming a hypothesis - a proposed explanation that can be tested.

Gathering background research and information to inform the hypothesis and overall approach.

Designing and conducting controlled experiments to test predictions from the hypothesis. Experiments aim to establish cause-and-effect relationships by manipulating variables and controlling conditions.

Analyzing the data from experiments using statistical tests as appropriate. This allows patterns to emerge and conclusions to be drawn.

Interpreting the results and drawing conclusions. If the hypothesis is supported, it may become a well-substantiated theory that explains the phenomenon originally observed. If not supported, the hypothesis may be revised and tested again, or a new hypothesis proposed.

Publishing results in scientific venues so that methods and findings can be peer-reviewed. This scrutiny helps validate or invalidate claims.

A key component of the scientific method is replication - repeating an experiment using the same methods and getting a similar result. Replication shows that findings do not rely on just one scientist or lab, but are robust and reliable. It weeds out experimenter bias, errors, or any anomalies. The more a result is replicated across different settings, the more confidence the wider scientific community has in that finding reflects an underlying truth of nature rather than a one-off event.

The ability to replicate results reliably provides solid substantiation for theories that explain the natural world. If hypotheses cannot make testable predictions that are replicated in experiments, they remain speculative ideas rather than durable scientific theories. Replication is thus crucial for establishing the validity, legitimacy, and eventual acceptance of a claim within mainstream science.

In using this standard, can one prove the theory of evolution?

Yes, the theory of evolution meets the standards of the scientific method and has been reliably replicated and substantiated by multiple lines of evidence:

Observation - Scientists have observed evolution and its effects both in the lab and in nature. This includes observations of fossil succession showing transitions between ancient and modern species, as well as direct observations of evolution in organisms with short lifecycles like bacteria and insects.

Hypothesis - The theory of evolution originated when Charles Darwin proposed the hypothesis that species adapt and change over time through natural selection acting on variation among individuals. This provided an evidence-based mechanism to explain observations of biological change.

Experimentation - Evolutionary hypotheses have been tested and confirmed through both laboratory experiments and field studies. We’ve directly observed natural selection leading to adaptation in organisms. The field of experimental evolution uses microbes to show and manipulate evolution in action.

Analysis - Evolutionary change and relationships inferred from fossils, anatomy, biochemistry, and other evidence are quantitatively analyzed using statistics, computational methods, and mathematical models. The analysis supports the evolutionary origins shared by all life.

Replication - Crucially, patterns and processes consistent with evolution have been replicated and observed across biological disciplines, timescales, and species in diverse environments. These independent confirmations substantiate that evolution is a fundamental fact occurring throughout nature.

Peer Review - Evolutionary science is abundantly published and endorsed within the scientific community after thorough peer review and scrutiny. Disputes occasionally occur on mechanisms or historical details, but the overall core framework is universally accepted.

So, in line with the scientific method, the theory of evolution has abundant, multifaceted evidence and has both predicted and explained biological phenomena reliably for over 160 years since Darwin. It thus stands as the central, unifying theory of all modern biological sciences.

Later in the dialogue:

So how do you “confirm”: Decay rates have been independently confirmed as constant across various spans - from seconds to centuries to millennia, where tree rings and ice layers provide natural benchmarks. This consistency gives confidence decay equations reliably scale out to billions of years and is not speculative.

You raise an excellent point. We cannot directly experimentally validate constant radioactive decay on timescales of millennia or longer with controlled replication.

Nevertheless, multiple independent natural records provide strong empirical confirmation supporting the decay rate constancy beyond our human observational scope. A few key approaches provide confidence:

Historical records - Correlating radiocarbon ages from organic samples against temporally constrained tree rings or lake sediment layers shows ages accurately aligning with expected values many thousands of years back. This confirms decay modeled rates reflect reality at those time depths.

Isotopic consistency - Different radioisotopic dating systems applied to the same rock samples frequently align on matching ancient dates (e.g., argon/argon with uranium/lead). This cross-validates their steady decay across eons, making systemic deviations over time from known rates very unlikely.

Rock melting tests - Historic volcanic flows of a known age can be dated radiometrically, showing model-data agreement. This verifies assumptions on daughter isotope partitioning during melt crystallization.

Physics fundamentals - Quantum mechanics and statistical decay physics governing radioactivity have been proven in simpler experimental systems. Extension to geological dating merely applies these fundamentals on far grander scales.

In summary, we have strong empirical and theoretical backing for projecting laboratory decay principles to vast unobserved past expanses even without direct experimental replication. Combined supportive evidence makes variability in physical decay laws implausible based on the depth of verification where records do exist. So while extrapolation always has uncertainties, radiometric dating substantiation is exceptionally robust.

So science uses this data to substantiate their theories and call it “fact” when it only “proves” to them to a high degree of certainty.

You make an excellent point - in science, we cannot definitively “prove” theories in an absolute sense or label conclusions as unchallengeable facts. Rather, we gather substantiating evidence from multiple angles and conduct unbiased challenges through open scrutiny and attempts to falsify. Based on passing these gauntlets and aligning with known processes, certain well-established theories and models are elevated to positions we colloquially call scientific “fact”, but philosophically should more accurately be considered empirically supported high-certainty knowledge. Yet were new conflicting evidence ever discovered, science would revise perspectives appropriately.

So with dating the earth’s age, there is overwhelming reinforcing confirmation of immensity through concordance across radiometric clocks, genetic divergence markers, incremental fossil successions, and other metrics. But you rightly note, that there remains still a conceivable possibility of discovering problems with decay rate constancy assumptions or unknown measurement biases. With deep time reconstruction, we lack the means to conduct direct-controlled experiments in this domain. So absolute proof forever lies beyond our grasp.

Still, based on what verification we can gather from historical records and proxy consistency, the majority consensus within geology and physics affords immense deep time as a “factual” model provisional upon surviving continued challenges. The key is that informed experts regard remaining uncertainty margins as reasonably negligible (e.g., billions vs millions of years).

So colloquial usage of “fact” connotes the highest attainable scientific certainty and reproducibility, while allowing that in principle fresh evidence or analysis might cause serious revisions, even to deep expert consensus views.

It’s thus always prudent to speak about scientific “facts” as provisional knowledge rather than irrefutable truths.