Does Science Disprove God?

Does science disprove God? If you’re a young earth creationist who thinks the Bible has to be taken literally, then absolutely. Sorry about your luck. Still, I did not, actually, start writing this post to give a science lesson or talk about how great the scientific method is. I think there are some good arguments to be had on the science vs. religion debate. Meanwhile, many religious people see no problem compromising their religion in order to accept science.

What’s my point? There is a lot of material on the science vs. religion argument. There is, however, very little popular material on the improbability of a deity on other grounds. One does not necessarily need to have science in order for atheism to be rational. When one combines omnibenevolence, omnipotence, omniscience, and being the greatest possible being, it becomes clear that the western monotheistic god does not make sense. Can God create a rock so big he can’t lift it? If he can’t, then he’s not omnipotent. If can, then he can’t lift the rock, so he is, once again, not omnipotent. If God knows suffering is happening and can do something about it (omnipotence), then how can he be omnibenevolent? Now, I’m not saying theists don’t have responses to the previous questions, but I think they are faulty. Furthermore, there are more of these types of issues when discussing God.

My point: Can science disprove God? Answer: Perhaps, but it doesn’t need to in order for a deity to be unlikely.



  1. Pingback: Does Science Disprove God? | Christians Anonymous

  2. I think the question we should be asking is, “Can people prove the existence of a god?” When you make a claim, most people expect you to prove that claim. I can say that I have a purple kitten on my head, but I must prove to you that I have it. I can’t say “Well, prove to ME that I don’t have a purple kitten on my head!” That kind of logic doesn’t really work. If someone makes a claim, they have to back it up. Anyways, well written article! It’s just that I don’t think that Science has to disprove anything, as its not it’s burden to bare.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Well, I do agree with your comment for the most part. (Thanks, also, for reading.) I think I spoke poorly when using the phrase does science disprove God. Normally, the burden of proof IS on someone making a positive claim. However, many people use the Big Bang and Evolution to say that religious scriptures are, clearly, wrong, and they go on to say God doesn’t exist. This is what I was aiming to get at. There is a lot of popular work on this. My point then, is that it is not always necessary to use science in these discussions. The actual western monotheistic concept of God appears, to me and others, to be logically incoherent. I hope my reply adds clarification.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s