Can science prove or disprove the existence of God?

www.catholic.com
Trent Horn answers a caller on Catholic Answers Live who says she does not believe in God because there is no scientific proof for his existence.
After his conversion to the Catholic faith, Trent Horn pursued an undergraduate degree in history from Arizona State University. He then earned a graduate degree in theology from Franciscan University of Steubenville and is currently pursuing a graduate degree in philosophy from Holy Apostles College.
Trent is a regular guest on the radio program Catholic Answers Live, a lecturer who speaks across the country on issues related to the Catholic faith, and the author of two books, Answering Atheism and Persuasive Pro-life, both of which are published by Catholic Answers Press.
If you are interested in booking Trent Horn for an upcoming event, please contact Catholic Answers at [phone]

[@user-hj8vd2od9h]

I admire how gentle and patient the staff at Catholic Answers are. For all the people tempted to judge this women, send up a gentle prayer for her instead. God Bless her heart!

[@Running_with_Faith]

This caller needs to sit down and breathe. Goodness she was frazzled.

[@jjones9452]

"Nobody is going to change anybodys mind..." - so how can she claim to follow science, which IS open to change based on the newly discovered evidence?

[@floriangeyer3415]

What a frustrating conversation. The cognitive dissonance is major.

[@sarahyoung232]

hahahaha Maria is very fleeting... constantly resorting to clichés in order to avoid the questions

[@zaviusfirerave]

She's just calling to be rude...She's not interested in having any intelligent discussion at all. I admire the patience of these men in Catholic Answers. I need to be more like them.

[@KA21601]

lol this lady bothered me.. she kept talking about herself and explaining things and it took forever for her to ask the QUESTION

[@IcePrincess619]

wow she's so confused.

[@zaviusfirerave]

+IcePrincess619 I think more like offended over simple philosophical questions.

[@Cardibot]

Trent horn looks so tired or he's either just pissed off at the caller lol

[@artpineda7709]

This lady needs to chill....

[@jericjaime2671]

Do not confused science as a thing, as if it can proved or disproved something. It is a tool and a method in search of truth;of what is real from abstract, true from false. We are, human beings by our rationality (reason) set the criteria ( standard) on what to accept as truth and real based on prima facie evidence ( self evident phenomenon, facts, patterns and characteristics). We are the one who put labels or names, description and definition to these occurring phenomenon. Out of these occurring phenomenon and patterns we draw other conclusion like god and other sort of things. The question of god with reference to it's "existence "is obviously a scientific question not a philosophical one. Extrapolation using philosophy is just extrapolation and does not confirm "existence" especially if the search for real and truthful is concerned. "Existence" synonymous to presence, real , genuine and can be measured, quantified, observed, verified and tested.

[@jericjaime2671]

If some apologetics defined god the other way around, it is an attempt to hide it from scientific inquiry. The entire point of honest intellectual discourse or quest is when you can't verify and test it, do not invoke a belief on it, postpone your belief. That is honesty and courage.

[@zaviusfirerave]

Why do women seem to think that their background has anything to do with the credibility of their philosophical arguments?

[@ellahope6494]

This young woman who says she loved the Catholic rituals didn't seem to know where Jesus instituted the Eucharist in John 6 51 55 in the Bible or John 20 19 23 confession or Matthew 16 18 Peter Jesus gave the keys to which is also in Old Testament meaning Authority. Remember Jesus was Jewish set his New Covenant up in fore filling old. Our Universal Church is very Jewish the forefilled on earth we will be here to Messiah comes again. The Church is full of meaning.

[@kdmdlo]

They got through the answer but, to be honest, I think the argument was lost to her. She couldn't follow the logic.

[@michaelamanansala1114]

i don't really know if this works for others but I'm a freshmen on software engineering and we talked about language how a computer can only understand binary language and we as software engineers translates that for the computer for it just does not understand language outside of "0 1 0 1". Isn't this how humans are? once it's outside of science, it's wrong or unacceptable. they believe something has a beginning, and they know the topic of cause and effect. something must have caused that beginning. How can something come from nothing? this follows Trent's typical question of why is there something instead of nothing? i know it's a small thing but it's just an opening thought, it makes sense to me hahaha

[@KevZen2000]

Mikee Manansala 1. There has never been anything exhibited to exist, which is "nothing." Common language of the word the absence of something, but not a metaphysical properly 2. To assume there was "nothing" prior to "something" existing, is a fallacy notion. It is impossible to create "something" from "nothing," which means something as always existed. The problem, is that religious people assume what it is, versus remaining agnostic about it. Nobody knows for sure, what it is, nor can you properly speculate on it, as insufficient data is present.

[@michaelamanansala1114]

KevZen2000 well if nobody knows for sure, we can try to find out. If something already existed, our assumption for the beginning of things is God. I've read some talking about eternal vacuum stuff(forgot the name specifically) relating to atoms(?) or something like that. And if it's the big bang theory, it needs to have a cause because if all universe existed "eternally" and had no beginning, then it shouldn't have exploded because eternally speaking, every combination should've already been tried. Anyway, I don't know much about science those are just things I read and since I'm a "in progress" programmer, I just found a similarity lol

[@wholesome122]

Assuming human progress is our absolute goal as a species and that morality comes from that rather than God would likely call for a eugenics based morality where we cull the weakest of the flock. However, we as a society, generally believe this is unethical regardless of religious involvement. There is no scientific reasoning or evidence to support any kind of love and nurturing for the weakest (outside of offspring), and yet it is something that most people feel is highly important. Also, there is the "is a human infant more important than an adult pig" question. Most people feel that the human infant is more important. However based on their immediate state, a pig would be more intelligent. So then we have to move into a potential of the object in which the human has more potential. But what if that human was infertile, mentally and physically impaired and could and does not develop past the intelligence of a pig. Does that render the pig more significant now? Most people, would still say no, the human is always more important. Morality cannot be fully explained by science.

[@danplatonov3807]

thank you for sharing, good point

[@clintronnow264]

@6:40 When God tested (tortured) Job, was that ethical? How is the doctrine of "Original Sin" ethical?

[@zoendie]

Clint Ronnow it was not God who tortured Job but the devil. I like your question! I believe science and religion used to walk together but then the seperated. Now science and religion are both killing Gods creation!

[@clintronnow264]

zoendie For the Jewish faith, Satan’s purpose in seducing man away from God poses no problem because Satan is only an agent of God. Jews don't have a boogeyman. As a servant of the Almighty, Satan faithfully carries out the divine will of his Creator as he does in all his tasks. Satan is one of the many angels mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. It is worth noting that the Hebrew word for angel is malach, meaning “messenger.” The same is true for the English word angel, derived from the Greek word angelos, which also means “messenger.” Throughout the Bible, an angel is a messenger of God who carries out the divine will of the Almighty. There is not one example in the Jewish Scriptures where any angel, Satan included, ever opposes God’s will. In essence, Satan is an agent of God, and has no free will or independent existence. In no part of the Bible is this principle more evident than in the Book of Job, where Satan’s role is prominent. In the first chapter of Job, Satan appears before the Almighty with a host of other angels. Satan suggests that Job’s righteousness was not fully tested. He argues that Job might lose his faith if he were confronted by personal pain and utter destitution. He proposes to God that Job serves Him simply because God protects him. Satan requested permission from God to test Job’s virtue. The Almighty grants this petition; however, He meticulously outlines for Satan what he may and may not do when testing Job. Satan obediently follows his Creator’s instructions. God removes Job’s protection, allowing Satan to take his wealth, children, and his physical health in order to tempt Job to curse God. Job’s faith is challenged, and by the third chapter he begins to struggle. He questions his Maker as to why he was created and, in a moment of despair, wishes aloud that he had perished in his mother’s womb. Despite his difficult circumstances, Job does not curse God, but rather, curses the day of his birth. And although he protests his plight and pleads for an explanation, he stops short of accusing God of injustice. Still, by the end of this unparalleled biblical narrative, Job’s virtue prevails over Satan’s unyielding blandishments. I feel sorry for the angel Satan. He had a really shitty job, which was to “break the barrel but not spill any wine” (Talmud, Bava Basrah 16a).

[@thejackanapes5866]

Ah the 3:30 area the God is Good fallacy Morality is evolved from Human interaction. What is "good" does no unnecessary harm, and contributes to the maximum well being possible. The more we learn about how humans respond to eustress and distress the more we learn about how science *can* demonstrate for us what is right and what is wrong for us. There is no one "way we should live" that can be dictated by a single source. Use harm and well being (health, happiness, safety) as your guide for right and wrong. Anything else if unquestioned is a gateway to fascist rule.

[@KevZen2000]

Science cannot disprove God, but it makes God unnecessary in explaining the Universe as we know it. Maybe there is or isn't a God, but it hasn't been necessary since the scientific revolution. Also, historically, where God has been used to explain the Universe, when science was able to test, God wasn't the explanation. Many times, it hindered progress in understanding it.