Has science disproved God? Deconstruction of 3 assumptions of science:

1: science is the only way to establish truth

This is something known as scientism, and this claim is self defeating. The claim itself cannot be proved scientifically Additionally science is limited in that it: .is limited to observation .is morally nuetral .cannot delve into the personal .cannot answer why things happen .cannot address some metaphysical questions .cannot prove necessary truths

Morally neutral:

Science is morally nuetral. While scientific conclusions can help to inform some moral decisions, it cannot provide a basis for what we consider good or bad. Science tells us what is not what ought, you cannot get an ought from an is. For example, science can tell us what happens when you penetrate someone’s skin with a knife, but not wether this is immoral. The physical damage could be due to an important life saving surgery for example.

You cannot test the personal:

Science relies on testing ideas. Science can only deal with third person data, but personal attributes such as feelings and experiences, which are first person data.

Science cannot answer ‘why?’:

Let’s say you find a cake on the table. Science can test the cake and draw conclusions about how the cake was baked, but cannot answer why the cake was baked, perhaps for a birthday

Cannot answer some metaphysical questions:

Questions such as why do conclusions in deductive reasoning necessarily follow from the previous premises? Or why is there something rather than nothing? Cannot be addressed via science.

Necessary truths:

Science cannot prove necessary truths such as mathematics and logic. One cannot scientifically prove a conclusion follows from its premises. This is not derived from empiricism.

Assumption 2: It works therefore it’s true

It does not logically follow that just because something works it is true. The phlogiston theory is a good example of this. Chemists used to propose a theory that all combustible objects was an element called phlogiston, and when a combustible object burned, it would release phlogiston, and the more combustible a material was, the more phlogiston it contained. This theory worked well and it allowed the discovery of Nitrogen( called phlogisticated air at the time). However this phlogiston theory was found to be false, despite its utility.

Assumption 3: science leads to certainty

This assumption demonstrates a lack of understanding about the philosophy of science. One of the unresolved issues in science is the problem of induction This essentially is an extrapolation based off limited observations, for example: ‘The bodybuilders I have spoken to have increased muscle mass as a result of eating a lot of animal protein, therefore all bodybuilders in the past increased muscle mass by eating a lot of animal protein’ Here, the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premise and some vegetarian bodybuilders have gained muscle in the past. The problem with inductive arguments is an extrapolation and this is always a problem in science as scientists are always limited in observations. The history of science shows many examples that highlight its dynamic nature. Prevailing theories in every field of science are very different from past eras. For instance, at the beginning of the 20th century, the Newtonian model of the universe was assumed, however this was proven to be fallacious by Einsteins relativity model. With the Quran, it was once seen as contradicting with science as it stated that the sun was in orbit while science used to say the sun was stationary. However, scientific discoveries showed that the sun was actually in orbit Now something else to keep in mind is that science assumes methodological naturalism, so cannot prove something supernatural. People sometimes ask why there’s no scientific evidence for supernatural claims in religion like the existence of God, but this is circular reasoning, as it is using science which assumes methodological naturalism, to prove naturalism(due to no scientific proof of supernatural) Dogmas in science https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sF03FN37i5w&pp=ygUNRG9nbWEgc2NpZW5jZQ%3D%3D