Can God's Existence be Proven through Science?

[Sir Pwn4lot]

So how DID material matter come into existence, through itself?

1. Even if I said I don't know that wouldn't make your religion correct. Do you see how? I want to make this perfectly clear; Not knowing is always better than believing in something fallacious. If Science can't explain how the universe came into existence (Which it can, to an extent) then it doesn't mean superstition = win lol.

2. I'm not all that good at explaining it, nor am I a cosmologist (although I do know quite a bit about science, physics specifically), therefore I will let my good friend Lawrence Krauss explain it (He's one of the best physicists alive today)

[youtube:qyn70gt3]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo[/youtube:qyn70gt3]

 

[Carpathian]

Why should we look towards science, which changes as we go on in life, towards 'discovering' the conclusion that there is no God, when, in fact, people and everyday life continue to prove that there IS a God. Within every society, culture, and people there is a need, yearning and feeling that there is a higher source of Life. Even people who are agnostic and Atheist have to agree that this world is no accident. They might even go as far as to say "well we believe that aliens created us" why? Because we all need something to believe in. Not just that, to people, there is something to believe in. My conclusion, in order for a scientist to make a discovery, he has to first believe that it exist. A cure for cancer ( the scientist knows it's out there) so he tries his efforts to create a cure. In God, maybe, distinctively , he knows there is a reason for such a phenomenon as to why people experience the holy spirit, speak in tongues, heal the sick, and believe that a man came and proved he is God.

:amen

 

[ChattyMute]

Why should we look towards science, which changes as we go on in life, towards 'discovering' the conclusion that there is no God, when, in fact, people and everyday life continue to prove that there IS a God.

If people obviously proved there is a God/gods, then there would be no debate about it. The reason there is a debate is because there is no conclusive evidence "proving" God/gods.

Within every society, culture, and people there is a need, yearning and feeling that there is a higher source of Life.

Wanting something does not make it so. I don't want a God/gods anyways, so there goes that argument.

Even people who are agnostic and Atheist have to agree that this world is no accident. They might even go as far as to say "well we believe that aliens created us" why? Because we all need something to believe in.

If they said that, they wouldn't be agnostic or atheist. It was most likely an attempt at mocking someone. Some atheists and agnostics do want a higher power, but there are also many who don't. We do not all need to believe in a higher power. Some do, but just because those few doesn't mean the rest of us have to.

Not just that, to people, there is something to believe in. My conclusion, in order for a scientist to make a discovery, he has to first believe that it exist. A cure for cancer ( the scientist knows it's out there) so he tries his efforts to create a cure.

Many discoveries are by chance or accident, so it is not needed that they believe it exists.

In God, maybe, distinctively , he knows there is a reason for such a phenomenon as to why people experience the holy spirit, speak in tongues, heal the sick, and believe that a man came and proved he is God.

Yeah. People interpret there brain reactions as the holy spirit. People who speak in tongues are just babbling in my opinion, and it is just your opinion that they are speaking in tongues. Doctors heal the sick using science; it's not a phenomenon. There is a reason for all that. It gives comfort. Whether it is true or not, it can give comfort.

Anyways, your post, and mine, has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. Can God's existence be proven through science?

 

[Sir Pwn4lot]

[Science] changes as we go on in life

Yes, you're absolutely correct, Science does change as new evidence comes in, how stupid those evil scientists are to change their beliefs when they're proved completely and utterly wrong...

towards 'discovering' the conclusion that there is no God

Science can't answer that question. Science is completely Secular. Sure, it can show how it happened, but you can always say "YEAH! BUT GOD DID IT!" and Science (Or just logic in general) can't prove/disprove anything in the supernatural world until it goes there lol.

I suppose you might misinterpret this as Science saying there is no God, but really it just says there's no reason to believe there is.

when, in fact, people and everyday life continue to prove that there IS a God.

Care to provide any of this evidence?

Within every society, culture, and people there is a need, yearning and feeling that there is a higher source of Life.

True, people want to believe there is a God, that's not evidence that there is. I want to believe that Harry Potter is real.

Even people who are agnostic and Atheist have to agree that this world is no accident.

An accident implies it wasn't meant to happen, so yes I agree the universe wasn't an accident.

They might even go as far as to say "well we believe that aliens created us" why?

I already debunked this earlier. We don't believe that aliens created us we just don't say it's impossible. Clear?

Because we all need something to believe in.

True, if we didn't have a belief that it'll all be alright then we'd have probably gone crazy in our tribal evolution. People on their death beds are much more likely to convert than those who aren't, do they have any new evidence that the rest of us don't? No, it's just wishful thinking.

My conclusion, in order for a scientist to make a discovery, he has to first believe that it exist.

No, you have to believe that it's not impossible for it to exist though (Even this is disputable), you've again mixed up belief and knowledge lol.

I don't believe that spontaneous combustion is real, but if everyone around me started exploding into flames and after a thorough investigation there was no other reason for it then sure, I'd have made a discovery lol.

A cure for cancer ( the scientist knows it's out there) so he tries his efforts to create a cure.

No; based on past experiences with diseases and the nature of cancer he makes the observation that it's possible. He doesn't believe that there is one (Well he might, but he doesn't have to).

In God, maybe, distinctively , he knows there is a reason for such a phenomenon as to why people experience the holy spirit, speak in tongues, heal the sick...

Prove it.

and believe that a man came and proved he is God.

If you're implying that we should all start believing in Christianity because that's the only way to make the discovery then you're wrong. If you have some magical evidence then present it. Give up or lower your audible output to a level at which my sense of hearing is incapable of interpreting what you say

 

[jasoncran]

i have deleted those last two posts. i hate to warn.

 

[Carpathian]

[Science] changes as we go on in life

Yes, you're absolutely correct, Science does change as new evidence comes in, how stupid those evil scientists are to change their beliefs when they're proved completely and utterly wrong...

towards 'discovering' the conclusion that there is no God

Science can't answer that question. Science is completely Secular. Sure, it can show how it happened, but you can always say "YEAH! BUT GOD DID IT!" and Science (Or just logic in general) can't prove/disprove anything in the supernatural world until it goes there lol.

I suppose you might misinterpret this as Science saying there is no God, but really it just says there's no reason to believe there is.

when, in fact, people and everyday life continue to prove that there IS a God.

Care to provide any of this evidence?

Within every society, culture, and people there is a need, yearning and feeling that there is a higher source of Life.

True, people want to believe there is a God, that's not evidence that there is. I want to believe that Harry Potter is real.

Even people who are agnostic and Atheist have to agree that this world is no accident.

An accident implies it wasn't meant to happen, so yes I agree the universe wasn't an accident.

They might even go as far as to say "well we believe that aliens created us" why?

I already debunked this earlier. We don't believe that aliens created us we just don't say it's impossible. Clear?

Because we all need something to believe in.

True, if we didn't have a belief that it'll all be alright then we'd have probably gone crazy in our tribal evolution. People on their death beds are much more likely to convert than those who aren't, do they have any new evidence that the rest of us don't? No, it's just wishful thinking.

My conclusion, in order for a scientist to make a discovery, he has to first believe that it exist.

No, you have to believe that it's not impossible for it to exist though (Even this is disputable), you've again mixed up belief and knowledge lol.

I don't believe that spontaneous combustion is real, but if everyone around me started exploding into flames and after a thorough investigation there was no other reason for it then sure, I'd have made a discovery lol.

A cure for cancer ( the scientist knows it's out there) so he tries his efforts to create a cure.

No; based on past experiences with diseases and the nature of cancer he makes the observation that it's possible. He doesn't believe that there is one (Well he might, but he doesn't have to).

In God, maybe, distinctively , he knows there is a reason for such a phenomenon as to why people experience the holy spirit, speak in tongues, heal the sick...

Prove it.

and believe that a man came and proved he is God.

If you're implying that we should all start believing in Christianity because that's the only way to make the discovery then you're wrong. If you have some magical evidence then present it. Give up or lower your audible output to a level at which my sense of hearing is incapable of interpreting what you say

Did I say that? NOOOoooooo! Did I? I don'ts thinks I's recalls that I impliest thats there staturment. But What I did try to imply is, you guys need to accept the fact that there is a God. I don't care if you don't want to accept christianity. I suppose that's just one less I have to try to hurt my head over, aye? I mean, at the end of our lives what do we have to actually fear in death? I'd take heaven over...what is it you believe in after death again? Nothing?...ssssssss...wow......some afterlife..but yeah, I'd take heaven over...that? lol ( excuse my sarcasm, but I'm a sarcastic Christian) I'll pray for you, brother, because that's what I believe you are - a brother. Now, as for my magical evidence, the human mind. Ever saw a thought before?

 

[Sir Pwn4lot]

Did I say that? NOOOoooooo! Did I? I don'ts thinks I's recalls that I impliest thats there staturment.

Well sorry, I just thought that was what you were trying to say, my bad.

But What I did try to imply is, you guys need to accept the fact that there is a God.

Sufficient evidence=acceptance

I don't care if you don't want to accept christianity.

Orly? Seems like if you believe that I'm going to be horribly tortured for all eternity if I don't accept Christianity that you'd have to be amazingly evil not to want me to avoid that.

Plus, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't all other religion just as bad as Atheism? I presume Scientologists aren't going to Heaven either, after all, they didn't accept Jesus Christ either, in fact, they accepted a false God, surely that's even worse or at least just as bad, but correct me if I'm wrong.

I suppose that's just one less I have to try to hurt my head over, aye? I mean, at the end of our lives what do we have to actually fear in death? I'd take heaven over...what is it you believe in after death again?

It's not a matter of what you want, if there's no afterlife then there's no afterlife, it's impossible to know until we die. I don't believe because of my Atheism lol, because of the inability of scientific inquiry to determine what's there (Because of insufficient evidence) I believe nothing until you prove otherwise.

Nothing?...ssssssss...wow......some afterlife..but yeah, I'd take heaven over...that? lol ( excuse my sarcasm, but I'm a sarcastic Christian)

Because it being unpleasant totally makes it non-existent. 300,000 people don't die each day either, that's unpleasant. I don't mind you being sarcastic, you could swear at me for 20 minutes and I'd be happy with you.

I'll pray for you, brother, because that's what I believe you are - a brother. Now, as for my magical evidence, the human mind. Ever saw a thought before?

The teleological argument? I've always found it strange how you believe that simply because we exist there must be the Christian God and all is teachings are infallible lol.

Design does not imply a designer, it's just pure semantics (You've first assumed that it's design, and therefore assumed it was designed). Diamonds and snow flakes are both insanely complex and arise purely through natural processes.

If complexity = design then your God needs a designer. It's a losing battle, there are better arguments for the Christian God, use them, the argument from design is just [insert profanity here].

Thanks man.

 

[Carpathian]

Did I say that? NOOOoooooo! Did I? I don'ts thinks I's recalls that I impliest thats there staturment.

Well sorry, I just thought that was what you were trying to say, my bad.

But What I did try to imply is, you guys need to accept the fact that there is a God.

Sufficient evidence=acceptance

I don't care if you don't want to accept christianity.

Orly? Seems like if you believe that I'm going to be horribly tortured for all eternity if I don't accept Christianity that you'd have to be amazingly evil not to want me to avoid that.

Plus, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't all other religion just as bad as Atheism? I presume Scientologists aren't going to Heaven either, after all, they didn't accept Jesus Christ either, in fact, they accepted a false God, surely that's even worse or at least just as bad, but correct me if I'm wrong.

I suppose that's just one less I have to try to hurt my head over, aye? I mean, at the end of our lives what do we have to actually fear in death? I'd take heaven over...what is it you believe in after death again?

It's not a matter of what you want, if there's no afterlife then there's no afterlife, it's impossible to know until we die. I don't believe because of my Atheism lol, because of the inability of scientific inquiry to determine what's there (Because of insufficient evidence) I believe nothing until you prove otherwise.

Nothing?...ssssssss...wow......some afterlife..but yeah, I'd take heaven over...that? lol ( excuse my sarcasm, but I'm a sarcastic Christian)

Because it being unpleasant totally makes it non-existent. 300,000 people don't die each day either, that's unpleasant. I don't mind you being sarcastic, you could swear at me for 20 minutes and I'd be happy with you.

I'll pray for you, brother, because that's what I believe you are - a brother. Now, as for my magical evidence, the human mind. Ever saw a thought before?

The teleological argument? I've always found it strange how you believe that simply because we exist there must be the Christian God and all is teachings are infallible lol.

Design does not imply a designer, it's just pure semantics (You've first assumed that it's design, and therefore assumed it was designed). Diamonds and snow flakes are both insanely complex and arise purely through natural processes.

If complexity = design then your God needs a designer. It's a losing battle, there are better arguments for the Christian God, use them, the argument from design is just [insert profanity here].

Thanks man.

Then again, everything isn't without fault. Good snowflake pick. God designed that one too Why is it that everything has to be random? The world fits so well together. It wasn't by any accident either.

Read genesis 1-2. This is enough proof for me. I'm not trying to bring you down, nor raise you up. I just want you to know that there is a God, and I truly believe it. I'll believe this to my grave. There isn't anything you can do to sway my opinion. You can present me with facts, but those facts will fuel my faith. You don't have any faith. I don't know if you ever did. So I can't expect you to understand what believing in something that you cannot see is like. That's a phenomenon that even science can't fully put a label on. Instead of disproving the world, why don't you try proving there is a God. After many evidences, then you can come back and complete the argument. However, my notion will not change. I am a born again Christian and the word is my foundation. :amen :biglol

Finding the answers to a question is more fun than already knowing

 

[Physicist]

Simpler is better

I am not sure I agree with you, even in this example. I could, for example, postulate that adultery causes an electrical imbalance in the adulterer that attracts lightning. Or, I could postulate a mad scientist who developed a machine to punish adulterers or space aliens conducting a social science experiment. While all of these would be a stretch, at least they would be consistent with our understanding of the physical world.

I suggest that you are implicitly inappropriately constraining how scientific models are constructed. On what precise basis do you exclude "invisible powerful beings" from your palette of options for the basic componentry of the world? Why are "strings" and "electrons" allowed, but "gods" not allowed?

Most objections to the inclusion of "divine agency" in scientific models of the world are grounded in the belief that such agencies are arbitrary and unpredictable. Well, that's true for some versions of "god" as a concept, but there is no principled reason why one cannot assert the exitence of a "god" who is entirely predictable in respect to its actions.

In physics, simpler explanations are generally better. While Newton's Laws or epicycles can predict to a high degree of accuracy the motions of the planets, Newton's Laws are far simpler and have more predictive power.

Upon occasion, scientists will propose some new entity, e.g. Higgs Field or Strings that have the potential to simplify our models and provide new predictive capabilities. These new entities are only tentatively accepted until verified by further experiments. Hence the pursuit of the Higgs Boson.

Suppose you wanted to postulate a God entity, called YHWH. You would have to describe its expected properties and show how it simplifies things. I can think of a whole bunch of questions. WHere did this YHWH come from? What are its properties? How does it interact with the known Universe. What predictions that can be tested does it make?

 

[ChattyMute]

Re: Simpler is better

In physics, simpler explanations are generally better. While Newton's Laws or epicycles can predict to a high degree of accuracy the motions of the planets, Newton's Laws are far simpler and have more predictive power.

Upon occasion, scientists will propose some new entity, e.g. Higgs Field or Strings that have the potential to simplify our models and provide new predictive capabilities. These new entities are only tentatively accepted until verified by further experiments. Hence the pursuit of the Higgs Boson.

Suppose you wanted to postulate a God entity, called YHWH. You would have to describe its expected properties and show how it simplifies things. I can think of a whole bunch of questions. WHere did this YHWH come from? What are its properties? How does it interact with the known Universe. What predictions that can be tested does it make?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far I'm aware that is generally how it works in all of science. That the simple conclusion is more likely to be true.

 

[nyc christian]

There are a lot of posts on here but let me add this:

I have had a lot of discussions on God and his existence with my college atheist buddies, teachers, strangers etc. I have come to understand that no matter what happens they wont change their mind unless they open their heart to Christ, have faith and keep an open mind.

My j.h. science teacher, a sarcastic man - would mock the class and say if God were to appear in the classroom he would bow down and worship him right there lol. He would challenge us to take him on; he really had it in for God. I would tell him what I told my other professors about miracles that I have seen and witnessed. Their response offcourse is that there has to be a rational explanation for the event dismissing it as a miracle.

It doesnt matter if God would have appeared to my j.h. teacher, that wouldnt be proof to him or any other atheist/agnostic. They would go on to say that it was an optical illusion, mirage or imaginary. If they dont want to believe; nothing will change their minds. In medicine they would say that the eyes can be faulty and deceive us. For example when one receives a blow to the head that can cause a shock to the part of the brain that controls sight and sound as a result one can see spots and hear a ringing sound yet those images and noises are not real - they are real only to the person who took the blow. Lets say God where to stay long enough for mankind to see him every group would want a piece of him to prove he is not real. Mathematicians/logicians like Godel would ask him if he could sin if he were to answer yes than he is not God because he has sinned if he cant sin than he is not God because that would be proof that he is not perfect. Philosophers would also question the senses etc.

He already walked among us as Jesus the son, did most people believe? they doubted even when he did miracles right before their eyes. They accused him of blasphemy and tried to kill him. Nothing has changed.

 

[sheshisown]

In order to look at this question completely ~ and fairly, may we ask the OP the reverse of the original question?

Since theories are constructed from elementary theorems which consist in empirical data about observable phenomena ~ then the theory that no God exists must be provable, to be scientific.

Therefore, may I ask:

Can you describe God's non-existant properties, or show how God does not simplify things? How about proving that no Self-Existant God has ever interacted with the known Universe? What predictions can you make that can be tested ~ to prove your assumptions that there is No God as Christians and the Bible purport?

Sir Pwn4lot said;
Not knowing is always better than believing in something fallacious. If Science can't explain how the universe came into existence (Which it can, to an extent) then it doesn't mean superstition = win

I agree with you~ that ignorance is better than ignoring evidence. May I ask you to prove that the universe came into existance scientifically? Or do you hold to a faith rather than science in actuality? Or can you (prove empiracly) that the Universe was NOT created by a Supernatural Being?

Again Sir Pwn4lot said;
Ultimately everything in the natural world (The universe) that can affect us in any way shape or form is either natural or supernatural but in natural form.

Sorry ~ I cannot understand which you are saying.. Are you saying that anything super-natural... ie above or beyond the KNOWN phenomena are really only natural phenomena in some kind of disguise?

Also SirPwn4alot said;
Anything else doesn't affect us in the slightest, or at the very least unless we enter the supernatural realm.

So IS there a super natural realm or no? Can you PROVE that a supernatural realm exists~ or does not exist?

Also may I refer to this remark?

Sir Pwn4lot said;

Evidence is the ONLY way to determine truth, without it everything is on equal footing.

SO ~unless it can be PROVED that there is NO God ~ you have NO evidence of absolute truth that God DOES NOT exist~ by Whom all humanity was created, and to Whom all humanity must give an account~ I say, your evidence is as lacking as that of a Christian who believes in the existence of God by faith. I would say that we are on equal footing~ because we are both believing ~by faith. :shades

sheshisown~

 

[Sir Pwn4lot]

Then again, everything isn't without fault. Good snowflake pick. God designed that one too

Yes, but it occurs purely through naturalistic processes, it rises out of the properties of water. Sure, God may have created those naturalistic laws (I don't deny that God could have started it all lol, but we have no evidence of this and therefore no reason to believe it). It's an unfalsifiable argument, you could say that a giant turtle made it all and it'd have the same credibility of what you propose.

So wait, are you saying that it has nothing to do with the properties of water? God comes and crafts each one? Or, (A position I'm fine with) did God make the properties in the first place?

Why is it that everything has to be random? The world fits so well together. It wasn't by any accident either.

Assumption: the world is random. Who said the world is random lol? Random implies that you close your eyes and pick some numbers from a hat. I've already said that Science hasn't make a concrete statement on how it all began, but that doesn't automatically mean that your religion is correct lol.

Read genesis 1-2. This is enough proof for me.

That's not proof, it's the proposition itself.

I'm not trying to bring you down, nor raise you up.

Okay, nor am I asking for it.

I just want you to know that there is a God, and I truly believe it.

I know you believe it, but your belief is not evidence for that belief anymore than the existence of Satanists means that God is evil.

I'll believe this to my grave. There isn't anything you can do to sway my opinion.

You can be surprised, I was once like you (Although not quite as fundie)

You can present me with facts, but those facts will fuel my faith.

"When you circumvent the logic; the problem of evolution seems to disappear" - Kirk Cameron

Faith is independent of facts/evidence, it's belief without evidence and often in the face of contradictory evidence. Therefore I do not pretend that your faith will acknowledge the facts, but that your intellectual honesty just might.

You don't have any faith. I don't know if you ever did.

I was a Christian about 7 on the fundie scale (Where 10 is Kent Hovind style and 0 is synonymous with Atheism) for a good 15 years.

Sure, I don't have any faith now (At least not the kind of faith you're thinking of), but I have in the past.

"I contend that we are both Atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts

Ask yourself that question: "Why do I reject all the other Gods?"

So I can't expect you to understand what believing in something that you cannot see is like.

It's not that I cannot see God, I cannot see the air but I know it's there because my other senses allow me to. The problem is that it doesn't effect reality in any way, shape or form, and that's a problem when you're trying to prove it.

That's a phenomenon that even science can't fully put a label on.

You mean faith? It's called superstition (You know, that stuff we had before Science?).

Instead of disproving the world, why don't you try proving there is a God.

I would like nothing more than to do so, for it would be the most amazing discovery the world has ever made. I'm not opposed to the idea of God, I just have no reason to believe it.

Disproving the world? Where do you get that idea from lol?

After many evidences, then you can come back and complete the argument. However, my notion will not change. I am a born again Christian and the word is my foundation. :amen :biglol

You write somewhat exasperatedly, and it makes it hard to determine exactly what your contention is. Are you saying that I should present my evidence against God? In that case I don't have to, the burden of proof is on you to prove he exists, not on me to prove he doesn't. if you want to go down this road then you can have a fun time disproving all the other Gods then.

I know your belief will not change in the face of evidence, for faith is belief in spite of contradictory evidence.

Finding the answers to a question is more fun than already knowing

That's why science is so good, because "GOD DID IT" isn't really an answer.

My j.h. science teacher, a sarcastic man - would mock the class and say if God were to appear in the classroom he would bow down and worship him right there lol.

If it was in a public high school then you should have reported him, because it's unconstitutional for him to endorse either religion or non-religion. If not then he can say what he likes.

Well, I wouldn't. You have to make sure it's not a delusion or something (If it was in private), but a part from objections like that yeah I'd probably accept it. The problem is that wouldn't prove the supernatural form of God, only the form he took when he came down (The natural form)

He would challenge us to take him on; he really had it in for God.

People like that annoy me.

I would tell him what I told my other professors about miracles that I have seen and witnessed.

He rightly refused them, personal experience isn't evidence for anyone else, only yourself, and even that is sketchy, if you saw a dinosaur walking down the street an no one else did you'd have to think that it might have been some sort of hallucination.

Their response offcourse is that there has to be a rational explanation for the event dismissing it as a miracle.

No, if you're just saying you saw it then there's no reason for anyone else to believe it, especially such an extraordinary claim. Personal accounts are the worst kind of evidence (In fact they border on not being evidence at all)

It doesnt matter if God would have appeared to my j.h. teacher, that wouldnt be proof to him or any other atheist/agnostic.

It'd be a big deal for me, I'd most likely start believing (But not claiming, I'd likely be an Agnostic Theist unless he told me something obscenely unlikely, like every lotto draw for a year or something)

I simply hold Theism to the same standard I do anything else.

They would go on to say that it was an optical illusion, mirage or imaginary. If they dont want to believe; nothing will change their minds.

Personal accounts are terrible evidence, if you gave us something more or we experienced it for ourselves then sure, we'd likely accept it. Look at it from our perspective without the Jesus Goggles: If you got up one morning and saw a T-Rex walking down your road, and on later inquiry nobody else saw it the logical path of action would be skepticism (Not that it wouldn't be in the first place).

It's such an amazing claim (FAR, FAR, FAR more extraordinary than evolution or abiogenesis (Not that I fully accept that yet, the hypothesis isn't a theory yet), and therefore requires more evidence. 1st hand personal account is not sufficient to that end.

In medicine they would say that the eyes can be faulty and deceive us. For example when one receives a blow to the head that can cause a shock to the part of the brain that controls sight and sound as a result one can see spots and hear a ringing sound yet those images and noises are not real - they are real only to the person who took the blow.

They're not even real to that person lol. They're just inventions of the brain, like when you dream. I daresay that you're not really Harry Potter when you dream you are lol.

Lets say God where to stay long enough for mankind to see him every group would want a piece of him to prove he is not real.

Burden of proof fallacy: you have to prove him, I don't have to disprove him.

Mathematicians/logicians like Godel would ask him if he could sin if he were to answer yes than he is not God because he has sinned if he cant sin than he is not God because that would be proof that he is not perfect.

No, it just means he can't be the Christian God specifically. There's nothing that prevents a God from being evil, it's just your belief that he isn't. Even Satan is a quasi-God in the way that he's really just a fallen angel (Aren't angels omniscient?)

Philosophers would also question the senses etc.

Dunno what you mean by this. Elaborate.

He already walked among us as Jesus the son, did most people believe? they doubted even when he did miracles right before their eyes. They accused him of blasphemy and tried to kill him. Nothing has changed.

If he came up to me and turned water into wine I would surely (After an investigation and several repeat trials) accept that he has some ability that we do not. That doesn't necessarily mean he's God, and it certainly doesn't mean that all his moral teachings are correct.

I'm not accepting that those miracles occurred and then saying "Well that's not good enough!" I don't accept them to begin with, if I saw them myself then sure, I'd likely believe them. The problem I have isn't the claim itself, it's the evidence you use to support it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far I'm aware that is generally how it works in all of science. That the simple conclusion is more likely to be true.

This is correct, it's called Occam's Razor. It only works for arguments when there is equal evidence. For example, if you come home from work and find that your wife is missing it's more logical to suppose that she's gone to the shop than she's been abducted by kidnappers. However, if you find a note left by a kidnapper detailing a ransom then it's perhaps proper to conclude that she was abducted, even though it's the more complex contention.

 

[Sir Pwn4lot]

**Sorry for the double post, but the maximum allowed characters is 15,000**

In order to look at this question completely ~ and fairly, may we ask the OP the reverse of the original question?

Since theories are constructed from elementary theorems which consist in empirical data about observable phenomena ~ then the theory that no God exists must be provable, to be scientific.

Therefore, may I ask:

Can you describe God's non-existant properties, or show how God does not simplify things? How about proving that no Self-Existant God has ever interacted with the known Universe? What predictions can you make that can be tested ~ to prove your assumptions that there is No God as Christians and the Bible purport?

I cannot express how much I agree with you. If you want to say that there is no God then you have to provide evidence for this (impossible since you cannot disprove an omnipotent being, or really any being, you can't prove that Santa, fairies or Jesus doesn't exist), but you make the false assumption that that's what Atheists believe (Or at least that's the impression that I got from the comment), you've mixed up knowledge and belief.

Atheists don't necessarily believe that there is no God, that would only be Strong Atheists (A VERY small percentage of all Atheists), we just don't accept your claim, we don't claim there isn't one.

I agree with you~ that ignorance is better than ignoring evidence. May I ask you to prove that the universe came into existance scientifically? Or do you hold to a faith rather than science in actuality?

That's not what I said, ignorance would imply that you're ignoring the truth, which isn't the case. It's more like uncertainty; not knowing. Not knowing is better than accepting something false.

I don't have to prove that the universe came into existence scientifically, I don't know how that happened (Not me, anyhow, the video posted above with Lawrence Krauss goes a fair way into explaining it for a short video). The point of my comment above is that not knowing is better than accepting something on insufficient evidence.

I don't know, but just because I don't have the answer doesn't mean you automatically do. You have a possible, however unsupported hypothesis as to how the universe came into existence and so do I (Well, mine has a nice amount of evidence, but not enough to transform it into a theory). My answer to you is that I don't know, it's as simple as that.

Or can you (prove empiracly) that the Universe was NOT created by a Supernatural Being?

Logical fallacy - Burden of proof fallacy: I don't have to disprove that the Christian God created the universe, YOU have to prove he did. If you want to go down this path then have fun disproving all the other Gods, along with being guilty until proven innocent. Well, good luck with that.

If, however, you wish to have a shred of intellectual honesty then you'll realize that the burden of proof is always on the person presenting the claim.

Sorry ~ I cannot understand which you are saying.. Are you saying that anything super-natural... ie above or beyond the KNOWN phenomena are really only natural phenomena in some kind of disguise?

You know when Jesus supposedly came down to Earth? That was a verifiable human form, if he did it today we could prove that he did, but what we couldn't prove is that his claims about Heaven are correct, ie: you can't prove his supernatural form, only the form he took while he was on Earth. In order to prove the supernatural you must go to the supernatural realm (If it exists)

So IS there a super natural realm or no? Can you PROVE that a supernatural realm exists~ or does not exist?

Think of it like this; you're in a room, you have been your entire life (Just for the sake of argument) and a man enters this room; you can now prove that he exists in your room. But now he claims that he's the richest man on Earth outside the room, and has over 1000 girlfriends. This is ultimately unverifiable until you leave the room and investigate.

The same can be said for God, you can prove that he exists when he comes into your room (The naturalistic universe), but you can't prove his claims about the outside world (The supernatural realm, you'd call it Heaven/Hell), without first going there.

SO ~unless it can be PROVED that there is NO God ~ you have NO evidence of absolute truth that God DOES NOT exist

I'm not claiming he doesn't exist, I'm only rejecting your claim that he does. It's entirely possible that he exists, just as much as it's possible that Allah, Buddah, or any other countless Gods exist.

You've mixed up knowledge and belief again. See my thread.

by Whom all humanity was created, and to Whom all humanity must give an account~ I say, your evidence is as lacking as that of a Christian who believes in the existence of God by faith. I would say that we are on equal footing~ because we are both believing ~by faith. :shades

It doesn't take faith reject your claim, because faith is defined as believing something regardless of evidence/on insufficient evidence. Rejecting a claim takes no faith because you don't take up a belief, you reject your one.

Also, I'd like to point out that I don't claim/believe that your belief is wrong (That there is no God), think of it like this: That same man in the previous analogy asks you if you believe him, the correct answer is "No". He then asks you if you believe he's wrong, the correct answer is "I don't know, it's entirely possible that you are the richest man in the world, I'm not saying that you are or that you aren't"

I hold the same position to your God.

 

[veteran]

The materialist cannot disprove God's existence. Nor can one of Faith prove His existence to another that chooses not to believe. During this world time according to God's Word, He has setup this dividing line so those of Faith would be distinguished between those who refuse to believe on Him and the witnesses He left us all.

There are many scientists in the world today that are also of Faith, believing God exists. So if empirical science ever could disprove God's existence, it sure has failed miserably to convince many of its own practiioners.

So when supposedly educated people in the field of science have to resort to rhetoric that assumes one is silly just for believing in God, they have totally left the debate, and instead are disrespecting the men and women of science that have made major contributions in all ages while also believing in God.

 

[ChattyMute]

[quote:3b6i8rvp]Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far I'm aware that is generally how it works in all of science. That the simple conclusion is more likely to be true.

This is correct, it's called Occam's Razor. It only works for arguments when there is equal evidence. For example, if you come home from work and find that your wife is missing it's more logical to suppose that she's gone to the shop than she's been abducted by kidnappers. However, if you find a note left by a kidnapper detailing a ransom then it's perhaps proper to conclude that she was abducted, even though it's the more complex contention.[/quote:3b6i8rvp]
Yes. Simplest answer based on all the evidence. I knew it applied in several areas, but I didn't knot what it was called. Except in volution is it called the theory of parsimony.

 

[nyc christian]

"SirPwn4lotwrote"

"No, if you're just saying you saw it then there's no reason for anyone else to believe it, especially such an extraordinary claim. Personal accounts are the worst kind of evidence (In fact they border on not being evidence at all)


yet our judiciary system accepts them.

"SirPwn4lotwrote"

They're not even real to that person lol. They're just inventions of the brain, like when you dream. I daresay that you're not really Harry Potter when you dream you are lol.

Exactly but his eyes did see it, there is no denying that, atleast to him. But lets take this a step further because if we could make a nerve connection between the sensitive receptor cells of the ear and the area in the brain linked with sight it would be possible to see sounds. Lets say that everyone gets that procedure done, would the images we see with sound be real ? or would it just be real to us. Taking that into consideration is what we see with our human eyes reliable or is that also just real to us. There are birds that can see colors better than we can. When we try to deny God and make so many rules to prove his existence then we have to question our own abilities.

"SirPwn4lotwrote"
No, it just means he can't be the Christian God specifically. There's nothing that prevents a God from being evil, it's just your belief that he isn't. Even Satan is a quasi-God in the way that he's really just a fallen angel (Aren't angels omniscient?)

But in this case we are Talking/Testing for the perfect, omnipresent God from the Bible (King James VErsion)



nyc christian wrote:Philosophers would also question the senses etc.

Dunno what you mean by this. Elaborate.

Well philosophy doesn’t really deal with the existence or non existence of God. But what I meant is that philosophers would also doubt and question the senses of who ever saw God. Stating that our senses are not reliable hence they fail. When we touch something is it really there? Is it a dream etc. Then if you go to platos "the cave" the point here is that how do we know these are not reflections of what really is out there in space/universe and all we see are shadows of what truly exists.

Even if we use science to prove God, science in itself is faulty. There are cells in the body that scientists/doctors cant explain what their functions are. Medicine/Science have these names for the various things they cant explain or prove like “idiopathic†yet we don’t question science we rather believe in it. What about dark matter thats another name for “i don’t know†yet people get awards for talking about it and developing theories. Science cant even get the dates right on fossils lol some teens just discovered that the early man from the middle paleolithic and the Mousterian time periods are older than what text books and science believed. They got to rewrite those texbooks lol. Had we had this discussion a year ago you would say that I would be wrong because science proved that this was the correct date. So why should we rely on that empirical data. Im not against science, im just making a point here.

If none of us can create a single independent idea, independent meaning an original idea that does not come from what we have seen in our life time, how do you explain the fact that we all know and understand the idea of God (a perfect God). Whether you believe in God or not, you understand the concept of the Christian God (like you called him).

 

[Sir Pwn4lot]

The materialist cannot disprove God's existence.

Correct, I cannot disprove God's existence, but it's not my job to, the burden of proof is on you to prove him.

Nor can one of Faith prove His existence to another that chooses not to believe.

So in order for me to believe I have to believe? If you can't provide some evidence then I have no reason to believe. I propose the same thing about Krishnah, therefore you are wrong and Krishnah is God!

During this world time according to God's Word, He has setup this dividing line so those of Faith would be distinguished between those who refuse to believe on Him and the witnesses He left us all.

I don't "refuse" to believe him, if you give me some evidence I will, it's as simple as that.

There are many scientists in the world today that are also of Faith, believing God exists. So if empirical science ever could disprove God's existence, it sure has failed miserably to convince many of its own practitioners.

Again, we don't have to disprove anything, YOU HAVE TO PROVE IT. Secondly, here are the statistics for belief amongst scientists:

BELIEF IN PERSONAL GOD 1914 1933 1998

Personal belief 27.7 15 7.0
Personal disbelief 52.7 68 72.2
Doubt or agnosticism 20.9 17 20.8

So when supposedly educated people in the field of science have to resort to rhetoric that assumes one is silly just for believing in God, they have totally left the debate, and instead are disrespecting the men and women of science that have made major contributions in all ages while also believing in God.

You're not silly for believing in God, there's just no reason to. I'm not saying there is no God, I reject your claim that there is because the evidence you have presented is terrible/almost non-existent. Just because they're scientists doesn't mean everything they believe is correct lol.

yet our judiciary system accepts them [personal accounts]

If you go into a trial and say "I saw him kill the man" then there isn't a chance in hell he'll be convicted. Personal account makes up very weak evidence, and only serves as a corroborating tool for the actual evidence; forensics and the such.

Besides, this isn't even what you've given us. If you took me back in time to a week after the resurrection and Peter told me himself that it all happened it'd be one thing (And not even all that convincing, people claim this sort of thing all the time, hundreds of thousands of cult followers are willing to go to their deaths defending their belief, for example)

But you haven't even given us that, all you've given is a bunch of sketchy and often contradictory stories written 25 years after the event, in most cases 4th or 5th hand accounts, hundreds of Chinese whispers and mistranslations later.

If you were on a jury with an 85 year old man who supposedly killed a man when he was 18 years old, and the only 'evidence' you have is a book written 25 years after the murder occurred, and in it a man claims that the accused killed him, but this accuser wasn't the person who actually saw the murder, he was just the 4th person to hear the story that was spreading at the time, and theres no other record of this man actually existing or even writing the book at all; would you convict him?

Exactly but his eyes did see it, there is no denying that, atleast to him. But lets take this a step further because if we could make a nerve connection between the sensitive receptor cells of the ear and the area in the brain linked with sight it would be possible to see sounds. Lets say that everyone gets that procedure done, would the images we see with sound be real ? or would it just be real to us. Taking that into consideration is what we see with our human eyes reliable or is that also just real to us. There are birds that can see colors better than we can. When we try to deny God and make so many rules to prove his existence then we have to question our own abilities.

I didn't get half of what that procedure you were talking about was, but I'll reply anyway. If only you saw the T-rex walking down the road you'd think it was a delusion, same with your claim about a conversation with God, if you want something enough it happens (in psychology at least), this is why people see their dead parents after they're gone, and people see mirages in the desert when they're dying of thirst.

Well philosophy doesn’t really deal with the existence or non existence of God.

Yes it does. have you ever read a Socratic Dialog?

But what I meant is that philosophers would also doubt and question the senses of who ever saw God.

Yes, most philosophers are intellectually honest, what's your point.

Stating that our senses are not reliable hence they fail.

Within reason our senses aren't reliable, if you had 100 people corroborating your T-Rex walking down the street then it's fair to say that it actually happened. This is the basis of logic: repeating your experiments.

When we touch something is it really there? Is it a dream etc. Then if you go to platos "the cave" the point here is that how do we know these are not reflections of what really is out there in space/universe and all we see are shadows of what truly exists.

It's not an extraordinary claim that the table is in front of you, plus you have hundreds of people corroborating that.

But yes, the only thing you can know with absolute certainty is that you exist; I think therefore I am. Anything further than this involves some sort of assumption.

Even if we use science to prove God, science in itself is faulty. There are cells in the body that scientists/doctors cant explain what their functions are.

That's not a fault of science, that's a fault of the evidence we currently have. If we had absolute knowledge and couldn't figure out what they were then yes, it'd be a fault of science.

This is analogous to saying that science was faulty in 1000AD because we didn't know about Newtonian Mechanics or Relativity. It's not the fault of science, you just don't have enough evidence.

Medicine/Science have these names for the various things they cant explain or prove like “idiopathic†yet we don’t question science we rather believe in it.

We're not disputing that these things exist, we just don't know what their functions are. It's fair to say that they exist, just not to say you know what their function is without evidence to support your claim.

What about dark matter thats another name for “i don’t know†yet people get awards for talking about it and developing theories.

No, they get awards for developing hypotheses, there's a difference. Dark matter isn't proven by any means, it's just a possibility, that's how the scientific method works, you observe some facts (Galaxies have much more mass than they should), then you formulate an unproven explanation (A hypothesis: Dark matter), you then work on proving this hypothesis, when you have proved it and your hypothesis has passed through the peer review process it's called a theory.

Scientists don't claim that they know dark matter exists, only that it's a sufficient, yet unproven explanation.

Science cant even get the dates right on fossils lol some teens just discovered that the early man from the middle paleolithic and the Mousterian time periods are older than what text books and science believed.

1. I didn't hear about this, source your assertions or don't bother posting at all.

2. That's the good thing about science, unlike religion when it finds something that contradicts what it believed it CHANGES, it doesn't stick it's fingers in it's ears and go NA NA NA NA NA.

If Science didn't change as evidence came in then it wouldn't be science, it'd be religion.

Had we had this discussion a year ago you would say that I would be wrong because science proved that this was the correct date. So why should we rely on that empirical data. Im not against science, im just making a point here.

Science doesn't claim that everything it says is 100% truth, that's why they're called theories lol. What it does claim is that it's the best/most rational thing to believe with the evidence we have before us.

Whether you like it or not, at this time pretty much everything science says is the most correct thing we could possibly believe with the evidence presented. There is no better explanation.

If none of us can create a single independent idea, independent meaning an original idea that does not come from what we have seen in our life time, how do you explain the fact that we all know and understand the idea of God (a perfect God). Whether you believe in God or not, you understand the concept of the Christian God (like you called him).

The fact that people believe in God doesn't make him real lol, people dream up things like Krishnah, Buddah, Santa Claus and fairies all the time, and a lot of people believe in them.

God is an evolutionary adaptation that makes people ignore the fact that they're going to die. It's the same thing with robbers, when you're walking down the alleyway at night your mind assumes that the rustle behind the trashcan is a mugger, this helps you run away from the threat.

The same thing can be said for the belief in some sort of afterlife, our minds know that there is a robber behind that trashcan, so it assumes that there's a way out so we don't go insane.

The human mind needs to know, if it doesn't it invents an explanation to cure that curiosity, the same thing happened with sun gods that explain why the sun rises and sets, and the flat earth hypothesis, which explains why we perceive the world to be flat. The fact that people have invented one of these mechanisms to explain what happens after we die means about as much as the flat earth hypothesis lol.

 

[nyc christian]

lol your last reply was a bit sarcastic and the tone on your email was a bit aggressive. Dont ask me to source, go and do the research yourself. You shouldnt have answered, you just showed me that you dont know much about medicine, philosophy etc. I wont bother replying because that would mean I would have to teach you and break everything down for you.


Sir Pwn4lot

The human mind needs to know, if it doesn't it invents an explanation to cure that curiosity.

All of the examples you stated are ideas of things that we have seen, santa clause = a man that brings gifts to everyone in one night all of these are a compilation of things we have seen, sun god = a god from the sun etc. All of those are not independent ideas because they are all things that we have seen. what we invent as you say is all derived from what we have seen in our life time. You would have to state an original idea of something no one has seen or heard of -that would be an original idea. Even abstract art is not an original idea because it comes from colors and shapes we have seen. You didnt answer my question because you probably dont even understand the simple concept and explanation that I posted of what an "independent/original idea is" =independent meaning an original idea that does not come from what we have seen in our life time". Never mind you just got served and you dont even know it lol

 

[Hawkins]

Can we prove God's existence through science? Specifically, the collection of non-scriptural facts that point directly to God?

Truth is evidence independent. Evidence is for a human brain (or rather human belief system) to recognise a truth. There's always a gap between what's inside a human's brain (belief system) and what the truth itself is. When the gap is reduced to 0, our brain hits a truth, yet we can never be sure about if it's truly a 0. That's where the Matrix advocate is coming from.

Because each and every human belief system is unique, that's why what's evident to someone may not be evident enough to another.

Science is a bit special. Science is about the discovery of existing natural rules. These natural rules can predict precisely for your brain (belief system) to reckon them as the truth. For example, water will decompose into oxygen and hydrogen. You can use this rule to predict that water everywhere inside this universe will decompose so. Before each and every experiment you can expect that the result is so, or to say that no experimental results can falsify your prediction, no experiments can falsify this rule.

As a result, the so-called empirical evidence is actually an imaginary evidence which possesses the effect of fooling a certain mass of people's belief systems to belief in something is a truth.

God is to give tailored evidence to everyone's belief system to allow it to choose to believe that whether He's a truth or not. He will not give the so-called non-existing 'empirical proof' to a mass of atheists, as people will not need the required faith this way. And without the required faith they can't be saved.