How science has already proven that god does not exist.
One of the most basic premisse of science is methodological naturalism, meaning that all explanations for the natural world are natural, unless proven otherwise. And this is not a "scientific dogma", it was adopted simply because it works, as everything else in science.
So, for science gods and any supernaturalism does not exist, untill proven otherwise.
Silly rabbit. Everyone knows you can't prove a negative.
Science has merely recused itself from having an opinion about God because its methods do not apply to the unobservable and unrepeatable. So science has to sit on the sidelines while we use other methods to learn things about that which may forever be outside its reach.
All that explains or interferes with nature is in the interest of science. And you can prove the nonexistence of something that was hypothesized simply showing that there is already a better explanation that makes the existence of that something unnecessary. Read about phlogiston, the luminiferous ether.
Science has disproved God as well as already disproved the luminiferous ether, phlogiston, the planet Vulcan, the atom Thomson, ultra-mundane corpuscles, vis viva, elan vital, calorie fluid, miasma, ciclol, and many others fail hypotheses.
Your idea of "proof" seems to be coming up with a "better" explanation that makes the existence of something unnecessary. Of course, "better" is subjective.
I'll help you. One definition of "better" is that used by Occam's Razor which says the simplest possible explanation is preferred for the reasons stated below.
But I'm an engineer and I specialize in making things more complicated than they need to be.
One need not assume that the Designer of the universe feels any need to simplify it down to your current level of understanding.
Since we can't possibly know what the Technical Requirements are for the Universe, we are unable to state whether the most simple or "natural" explanation meets all the requirements or whether it has been over simplified due to our lack of knowledge of the true "specs".
Therefore, you are stuck with only being able to say "I have found an explanation I like "better" for nature as I currently understand it.
This, of course, proves nothing about the actual state of reality at all.
In fact science has no way to have absolute certainty of anything because all its conclusions are falsifiable. For example, when science says phlogiston does not exist, it is not for it to be 100% sure that it does not exist, but because it is more prudent to consider that it does not exist until proven otherwise. The inexistence is the rule and the existence is the exception, and that the existence of phlogiston is not necessary to explain absolutely nothing of the natural world. The same can be said about God, it is a hypothesis to "explain" things of the natural world, but nowadays it is no longer needed. All supernaturalism is unnecessary for science.
"unnecessary for Science"
... which says nothing about what else may exist that Science has recused itself from studying.
You have a hidden assumption that if Science can't study it, it can't exist.
Foolish mortal. :o)
Science will never have absolute certainty about anything, not even if the sun will rise tomorrow, or if the airplane will fly or fall. But it can tell you what is prudent and reasonable to believe. That is why you can travel by plane.
Science is all about reasonable beliefs, not about absolute certainties.
We finally agree about something! Progress!
Hmmm... sounds like dogma to me.
I am an atheist/deist.
As far as I know science is one thing.
Application of the scientific method in search of truth.
It is a tool.
It cannot prove/disprove a negative.
I assure you X-rays existed before we could measure them. So did atoms. So did quarks and other sub-atomic particles.
Many things exist we cannot measure. Science is not about negation.
It is only about explaining that which we observe with the best data and testable hypothesis we have at the time.
That is it. Anything beyond that introduces BIAS and is not the scientific method and is not science. It is simply someone trying to use an APPEAL TO AUTHORITY and hijack the word "science" for their own purposes.
For science existence is the exception, and inexistence is the rule. That's why phlogiston, Vulcan Planet, luminiferous Ether are all inexistent for science, althout in the past they were all sciencific hypothesis.
for science, if the existence of something new was hypothesized to explain something, but later a new explanation made this existence unecessary, that new existence is discarded as false (existence is the exception, inexistence is the rule).
Dogma. Doesn't fit the scientific method. It is an appeal to your authority or someone elses. I don't buy into them. Give me a guy with 20 degrees saying it, and I still don't buy into it.
Science is a tool. It is not an opinion or a belief.
The scientific method is not a dogma, it is only a methodology that science uses simply because it works and brings good practical results. The same for the claim that "no explanation for the natural world is supernatural" (methodological naturalism). None are dogmas.
I didn't say the scientific method is dogma. I was referring to the other things you were talking about. I don't believe the scientific method is dogma.
In fact I believe the scientific method is the only thing relevant to science, and the things it PROVES.
Scientific method is a tool. It ignores bias and opinions.
The rest of the things you were referring to as science are not. They were not determined by experimentation and using the scientific method. Instead they exist based upon belief and thus bias. Thus, why I call them dogma.
dwinblood, absolutely any conclusion or scientific methodology is based on experimentation and practical results, including the scientific method itself. If the scientific method did not bring practical results, it would have to be changed, or would become a scientific dogma. And that is precisely why the methodological materialism is not a dogma, it is a practical conclusion of science because it works.
Dogma is something you blindly accept, regardless of anything. While methodology is something that you take based on observable and confirmable practical results.
Explain Quantum Entanglement then? Or even harder Quantum Superposition
God of the gaps?
You should change the title to: "How the existence of god is irrelevant for science" or something. It would be more apropriate :)
NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria) is a fallacy. In fact science is concerned to understand all of the natural world, and everything that affects it, even if this interference is supernatural. That is, the science is concerned with the supernatural, provided this is a supernatural interfering in nature or in its understanding.
A more accurate title would be: How science is agnostic to God's existence.
If the God hypotesis somehow explains or interferes in the natural world, so science will never ever be agnostic regarding this hypotesis.
god does only exist in our hypocrite mind, even science can't help us.
We will never know, because we are all hypocrites.
Hypocrisy, a side effect of civilisation, is what god needs.