Many militant Atheists advocate and believe science can prove or disprove anything especially disproving things in which they don’t want to believe in. A book called; “God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows God does not Exist” is a typical example. There were generally eight points highlighted in his book which are…
1. Creator of the universe.
2. Author of the laws of nature.
3. Occasionally violates his own laws by performing miracles.
4. Creator of all life on Earth including animals, and humans.
5. Provider of immortal souls for humans.
6. Source of morality.
7. Revealed Truth via Scripture and directly to certain persons.
8. Does not deliberately hide from humans who seek Him.
None of these eight points fit what secular scientists like to advocate and some like use for debate over the issue of allowing intelligent design in the public schools.
1) Science claims only deal with data that is observable therefore the designer (God) is excluded because it’s not observable.
2) Science claims only deal with data that is testable therefore the designer (God) is excluded because it’s not testable.
3) Science claims only deal with items which are repeatable, therefore the designer (God) is excluded because He performs unique events.
There is no doubt the likes of Victor J. Stenger who is a physicist and atheist is certainly falsifying his research in his book (God: The Failed Hypothesis). If the existence of God could be scientifically tested then he has given science a new meaning and his secularized friends must be lying or way off base when suggesting that science cannot test nor observe the supernatural.
Does this particular application of science from militant atheists that is applied to God are the same for the natural world? The answer is no, in fact the funniest part of the book is when Stenger suggests another universe as being the cause of the big bang which only pushes back a problem of origin. There is clearly no evidence for a second universe or any other universes. It’s neither testable nor observable, and certainly not repeatable.
He knows fully well, the big bang hypothesis has to be explained by coming from somewhere or from something, popping out of empty space would defy the laws of physics. So he accepts a concocted belief which is nothing short of story telling which in turn is not science! Generally storytelling is an acceptable practice in the secular world, because scientists in these type of situations cannot test their conclusions with observations.
Stenger however, has no verifiable evidence using traditional science methods of proving a second universe existing prior to our own either indirect or direct. Yet, he calls that science because in his view it accomplishes the lowest common required element which is, the proposal is naturalistic. Storytelling with a conclusion that happens to be naturalistic is still not science, neither is going outside the limitations of science trying to disprove the supernatural.
In creationism, indirect evidence is used in order to prove the existence of God as the Bible states that no man has seen Him. This indirect evidence comes from science which is observable and testable as samples of it are contained here in various articles. So how can science disprove the existence of a supernatural being directly when it is not confined by natural laws? Answer: It cannot, it’s that simple!