|
|
|
|
|
| Can Anyone Prove Scientifically That The Being Called God Exists?
Posted: 9/11/2008 10:22:26 PM |
I'm not aware of any scientific proof of the existence of God, nor am I aware of any scientific proof that he does not exist. If there was some sort of proof one way or the other, maybe I wouldn't be so confused about what to believe. Maybe Scorpiomover could email me the name of the guy he says proved God's existence and possibly help clear this up for me...
"God, the failed hypothesis" by Victor Stenger. Give it a read... | |
|
| |
| |
| |
| Can Anyone Prove Scientifically That The Being Called God Exists?
Posted: 9/11/2008 10:29:29 PM | It's unfortunate, but faith based systems greatest enemy has always been the inherent aversion to being grounded by empirical constants.
Faith systems have always lead to a bloating of existential interpretations. Polytheism at one point was so out of control, monotheistic systems had to be created. Was monotheism actually the solution? It appears to be expanding in the same fashion as it's predecessor. Limited resources needed by groups, who follow an increasing number of faiths, is leading to bigger and uglier conflicts.
What will be the successor to monotheism, or even theism in general? It has to happen eventually. Only a system which can articulate something on a level that lends itself to consistent understandings between vastly different cultures, can ultimately solidify faith.  | |
|
| Can Anyone Prove Scientifically That The Being Called God Exists?
Posted: 9/11/2008 11:07:59 PM |
I might also add that God will never be proven scientifically... for the sake of mainstream religions it would be nothing short of disaster The one doesn't logically follow the other. Proof of God's existence has nothing to do with any potential disaster to mainstream religions. Two separate matters.
To clarify I'm not asking because I need proof. Clearly I don't. I'm asking because I want people to think about whether or not God's existence can be proven scientifically and whether it's ever a reasonable question to ask a person to scientifically prove that God exists. Or to disprove that God exists.
there is also no tangible way to prove that love exists Maybe so. But it's irrelevant.
The Albert Einstein myth again? And this time in bold? It still doesn't make it any truer. Or relevant. 
For those who want to tell me or anyone else their miracle stories, thanks, but please leave it for another thread. The question isn't "Do you believe in God?" or "Do you believe God exists?" (I'd answer "yes" to both). It's "Can Anyone Prove Scientifically That The Being Called God Exists?" EACH word was chosen carefully. Please consider ALL of them when you read it and not reflexively respond. And that goes for the side issues of whether the "God" did or didn't act badly. It's irrelevant to this thread. | |
|
| Can Anyone Prove Scientifically That The Being Called God Exists?
Posted: 9/11/2008 11:48:47 PM |
It's "Can Anyone Prove Scientifically That The Being Called God Exists?"
I can't, But...... Rudolf Steiner's theories on Spiritual science could probably lead to what is classified as a proof based on the observations he applies.
Steiner emphasized that there is an objective natural and spiritual world that can be known, and that perceptions of the spiritual world and incorporeal beings are, under conditions of training comparable to that required for the natural sciences, but including extraordinary self-discipline, replicable by multiple observers. It is on this basis that spiritual science is possible, with radically different epistemological foundations than those of natural science.
| |
|
| Can Anyone Prove Scientifically That The Being Called God Exists?
Posted: 9/12/2008 12:50:15 AM | | No I don't think any one can prove scientifically that a god exists "but" that doesn't prove "she" doesn't just that we cant prove it "now.". The possibillity will always remain that She did. That she did not create the world 6200 years ago seems pretty clear and that jesus was a fictional character of the roman theatre that over time was confused with reality because people wanted to belive pretty clear also. | |
|
| Can Anyone Prove Scientifically That The Being Called God Exists?
Posted: 9/12/2008 2:51:13 AM |
I'm not aware of any scientific proof of the existence of God, nor am I aware of any scientific proof that he does not exist. If there was some sort of proof one way or the other, maybe I wouldn't be so confused about what to believe. Maybe Scorpiomover could email me the name of the guy he says proved God's existence and possibly help clear this up for me...
"God - I Proved Him Real...by P.I. Staker"
Other books by this author include:
Interrogating the Leprechauns for Fun and Profit
How to Serve Up The Flying Spaghetti Monster For Friends and Enlightenment
Invisible Pink Unicorns - The Dangerous Play-Pals
The Saucer People and What They Really Want With Our Women
Forum Moderators: Myth or Monster? - A Survivor's Story of Danger and Erotic Adventure
Vampires! Vampires! VAMPIRES!
| |
|
| Can Anyone Prove Scientifically That The Being Called God Exists?
Posted: 9/12/2008 4:00:02 AM | I find the whole prove that God exists debate funny.
It's like my laptop becoming self aware and stating that there is no proof that humans exists and then demanding that he and his fellow hardware prove it. Remember my lap top cannot see, hear or feel me and could very well reason that some well placed rocks on a sophisticated levy system are pushing the buttons on the keys. 
For those who want to tell me or anyone else their miracle stories, thanks, but please leave it for another thread.
Good luck with trying to get people to tell you what YOU want to hear -- that's an open mind!
I'm asking because I want people to think about whether or not God's existence can be proven scientifically and whether it's ever a reasonable question to ask a person to scientifically prove that God exists. Or to disprove that God exists.
How about some quotes, then? Awwwwe, come on . . .
If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true , but rather because of a series of chemical reactions… … Morality, tragedy, and sorrow are equally evanescent. They are all empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain, in turn created by too much pizza the night before. If there is no God, then all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water. This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality. If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. And nothing else. ~Douglas Wilson
If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts - i.e., Materialism and Astronomy - are mere accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It's like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset. ~ C.S. Lewis
An utterly fascinating illustration of this duping of ourselves is the latest arts building opened at Ohio State University, the Wexner Center for the Performing Arts, another one of our chimerical exploits in the name of intellectual advance. Newsweek branded this building "America's first deconstructionist building." It's white scaffolding, red brick turrets, and Colorado grass pods evoke a double take. But puzzlement only intensifies when you enter the building, for inside you encounter stairways that go nowhere, pillars that hang from the ceiling without purpose, and angled surfaces configured to create a sense of vertigo. The architect, we are duly informed, designed this building to reflect life itself-senseless and incoherent-and the "capriciousness of the rules that organize the built world." When the rationale was explained to me, I had just one question: Did he do the same with the foundation?
The laughter in response to my question unmasked the double standard our deconstructionists espouse. And that is precisely the double standard of atheism! It is possible to dress up and romanticize our bizarre experiments in social restructuring while disavowing truth or absolutes. But one dares not play such deadly games with the foundations of good thinking. ~ Ravi Zacharias
AND FINALLY -- DRUM ROLL PLEASE:
The traditional form of arguing for God's existence allows for the participants in the debate to stand on the sidelines, like two opposing coaches, in order to look at how their respective teams are doing out on the field. A distinction is maintained at all times between the participants on the field and the spectators along the sidelines. But a transcendental argument, on the other hand, is all-inclusive. A common mistake among those not familiar with this form of argumentation is to assume that it is the same kind of argument as one of the more traditional arguments. This in turn leads to misunderstandings and loud complaints when the transcendental players proceed to tackle the coach, water boy, trainer, and ESPN cameramen. ~ Douglas Wilson
| |
|
| Can Anyone Prove Scientifically That The Being Called God Exists?
Posted: 9/12/2008 4:15:01 AM |
Does evil exist?
The university professor challenged his students with this question:
" Did God create everything that exists"?
A student bravely replied, "Yes, he did!"
"God created everything?" The professor asked.
"Yes, sir," the student replied.
The professor answered, "If God created everything, then God created evil since evil exists, and according to the principal that our works define who we are then God is evil."
The student became quiet before such an answer.
The professor was quite pleased with himself and boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth.
Another student raised his hand and said, "Can I ask you a question professor?" "Of course", replied the professor.
The student stood up and asked, "Professor, does cold exist?"
"What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?" The students snickered at the young man's question.
The young man replied, "In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Everybody and every object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (- 460 degrees F) is the total absence of heat; all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have too little heat.
The student continued. "Professor, does darkness exist?"
The professor responded, "Of course it does".
The student replied, "Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present."
Finally the young man asked the professor. "Sir, does evil exist?"
Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course as I have already said. We see it every day. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. "These manifestations are nothing else but evil."
To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is not like faith, or love, that exist just as does light and heat. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."
The professor sat down.
The young mans name --- Albert Einstein (some say this isn't true, but the story is still worthy).
And yet Albert Einstein was an athiest. =) | |
|
| Can Anyone Prove Scientifically That The Being Called God Exists?
Posted: 9/12/2008 4:31:29 AM |
And yet Albert Einstein was an athiest. =)
Hmm, not really.
I get a fair amount of e-mail about Albert Einstein's quote1 on the homepage of Evidence for God from Science, so I thought it would be good to clarify the matter. Atheists object to the use of the quote, since Einstein might best be described as an agnostic.2 Einstein himself stated quite clearly that he did not believe in a personal God:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."
No personal God
So, the quick answer to the question is that Einstein did not believe in a personal God. It is however, interesting how he arrived at that conclusion. In developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that the equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. He didn't like the idea of a beginning, because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he added a cosmological constant to the equation to attempt to get rid of the beginning. He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life. Of course, the results of Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe was expanding and had a beginning at some point in the past. So, Einstein became a deist - a believer in an impersonal creator God:
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."
However, it would also seem that Einstein was not an atheist, since he also complained about being put into that camp:
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."
"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."
(http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.html)
But that's another debate
 | |
|
| Can Anyone Prove Scientifically That The Being Called God Exists?
Posted: 9/12/2008 4:32:02 AM | Well, I can't prove to you that God exists in a scientific sense. Nevertheless, I have faith that God exists:
By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible... And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him. (Hebrews 11: 3, 6) | |
|
| Can Anyone Prove Scientifically That The Being Called God Exists?
Posted: 9/12/2008 4:52:55 AM | Ameera -
Einstein believed in the einsteinian god. A god exists that is made up of nature and the planet. To him, god was everything and we were it's creation. But he did not believe in a sentient god. More so... He believed in nature as if nature gave birth to humanity. | |
|
| Can Anyone Prove Scientifically That The Being Called God Exists?
Posted: 9/12/2008 6:13:14 AM | | can you prove "scientically" how and why we are here? something created us and the universe, we did not just spontaneously appear..like the old addage, " which came forst, the chicken or the egg" we will not find out until we die if there is a god as we know him, but some people choose to believe, as some believe god is their favorite movie or rock star.. | |
|
| Can Anyone Prove Scientifically That The Being Called God Exists?
Posted: 9/12/2008 7:23:49 AM | RE msg 15 by clarence clutterbuck:
But it's all there in the tastefully pale tinted quote box cut 'n' pasted glory of msg No. 10. above: Well, I was quoting what Jewish Law says, about now, and for the last 2000+ years, and the Jews are the people of the Bible, certainly of the Old Testament that you were quoting. So what I said is true. What happened in the past is a little more difficult for me to comment on, as I wasn't there, so I don't have all the facts. Obviously if you can say anything about that time, then you must have been there. Either you have the secret of imortality, in which case please share it with us, or you have a time machine, in which case, take me back there to see it too.
Moses' exhortations suggest a certain indifference to the idea of consent that supports the conclusion that rape is being solicited. Read it again. You're reading far more into it than is there. You really aren't reading the text. I suggest you read the story of Dinah and Shechem in Genesis Chapter 34, and the story of the Concubine in the Valley in Judges Chapters 19-21. Rather a strong action against rape, but it makes the point effectively enough.
Scooby Doo himself would agree with this conclusion. I wouldn't trust anything from a "talking dog" that will do anything for a "scooby snack", but not for a tin of Chum.
And there's more where that came from. Don't force me to consume valuable threadspace with more acts of mindless cut 'n' pastery! I have no intention of wasting my time, by having to reply again and again to such posts. But I don't want to deny you your freedom to waste your time. If you want to waste threadspace, then that is a matter for POF mods, not me.
Amalekites sound like a shell bearing sea creature from the Cambrian era. I suppose that they might have had a lot in common with sea creatures, being that sea creatures often eat the weakest and most helpless of people. Mind you, Akkadians, Sumerians, Medeans and Babylonians all sound similar to Amalekites. Were they sea creatures?
RE msg 23 by some woman:
I'm not aware of any scientific proof of the existence of God, nor am I aware of any scientific proof that he does not exist. If there was some sort of proof one way or the other, maybe I wouldn't be so confused about what to believe. Maybe Scorpiomover could email me the name of the guy he says proved God's existence and possibly help clear this up for me... Sorry, but it won't make it any clearer. Therapists say that you cannot accept evidence that contradicts your actual beliefs, and I've seen this on the forum too many times to have faith enough in one person to expose a potentially damaging fact, that could damage that person's reputation and by extension his contributions to humanity in the area of science. If you doubt my concerns, then read msg 26 & msg 34. However, if you are here long enough, and you impress me of your objectivity and your good nature, as much as rune3 or sassyaquarius, I wil reconsider sending you the link.
| |
|
| Can Anyone Prove Scientifically That The Being Called God Exists?
Posted: 9/12/2008 7:59:41 AM | I'm not so sure you can scientifically "prove" God exists, but I do see one problem with the representation of facts.
#2, in my view contradicts #1.
I've been gone for a while now but many on this thread know that the God I would (and have) describe(d) as existing would be just like Spinoza's God. Nature Itself... Not aware until we were aware.
In my view, science by definition studies God or more accurately (accurately only for my own belief system) the Way of Life. In where science and the prophetical words of God (written by man) differ, I will choose to believe God before those who wrote.
If anyone can prove scientifically that God exists - proof, not inference or philosophical argument - please do so. I don't think you can.
I must admit... I'm skeptical too.
I wouldn't mind that link either, Scorpio... We've had disagreements before where I wasn't exactly tolerant to your side of things so I'll understand if I'm not to be trusted yet. | |
|
| Can Anyone Prove Scientifically That The Being Called God Exists?
Posted: 9/12/2008 11:28:54 AM |
there is also no tangible way to prove that love exists
--->Maybe so. But it's irrelevant. That depends on your definition of God, no.. ?
If to you God is *love*, then saying *love* cannot be proven tangibly is not irrelevant to the discussion. However, it is true that one cannot prove that God is in fact *love*... so I suppose in that sense it is irrelevant.. now my head hurts, lol..
The Albert Einstein myth again? And this time in bold? It still doesn't make it any truer. Or relevant. True enough, it isn't relevant to the thread since it does not prove God's existence. (I just enjoyed reading it)
Your condition #2:
God by definition is beyond the physical/natural universe and is not measurable, observable, or able to be experimented upon. assumes a monotheistic version of God and does not take other views into account..
For instance, as I said before.. I do not see God as separate from "his" creation.. to me we are all an indivisible portion of God (*love*).. which includes the physical realm as well...
But I still don't think that God can be proven viewing only the grossest level of reality.... | |
|
| Can Anyone Prove Scientifically That The Being Called God Exists?
Posted: 9/12/2008 3:03:37 PM | "Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness.
Einstein indeed! Erm... noooo
I’m going to take issue with this statement… well you knew I would, lol. Darkness is just as relevant as lightness because you cannot have one without the other AND given only apparent darkness, what you see/don’t see is subject to your power of vision. So what am I talking about here? The Hubble telescope was trained on a dark patch in space to look into infinity; the results were staggering! Not only is there light to be seen, but the very infancy of the universe was photographed… What this tells us is that darkness EXISTS, just as light exists, BOTH are relevant BUT both are also ILLUSIONARY. | |
|
| Can Anyone Prove Scientifically That The Being Called God Exists?
Posted: 9/12/2008 5:19:24 PM | Another question might be "Can anyone prove scientifically why the will of their god says things must be a certain way". Because it looks like one of the main reasons why religions fragment into more groups over time, rather than merge into one.
I don't really think the belief in god has as much impact on the events of the world as the differing beliefs in god's will does. | |
|
| Can Anyone Prove Scientifically That The Being Called God Exists?
Posted: 9/12/2008 6:21:40 PM | | To Msg One, You have answered your own question " by definition"- not all definitions of God assume he is beyond the physical/natural universe, some assume he is within it; the only real natural bit there is surrounded by the artificial creation he has brought into existence- IT might be possible to measure gods footprint so to speak if we knew what we were doing, had been around X trillion years ago, were X trillion years in the future, or were X trillion times smaller. So while it may be possible that there is scientific evidence of God we are unable to access/ interpret it aright. | |
|
| Can Anyone Prove Scientifically That The Being Called God Exists?
Posted: 9/12/2008 6:55:01 PM | With science? I do not think such a thing will ever occur, however, within me , I certainly have experienced "proof" of Gods existence.
This insatiable desire that I feel inside so often that is so utterly unsatisfiable with anything in this world, leaves me no choice to believe that I do not belong here..And if not here, than where? And more importantly, with Whom?
No indoctrination can ever be blamed for that longing that is indescribable..at least not in words. | |
|
| Can Anyone Prove Scientifically That The Being Called God Exists?
Posted: 9/12/2008 8:21:14 PM |
Ameera -
Einstein believed in the einsteinian god. A god exists that is made up of nature and the planet. To him, god was everything and we were it's creation. But he did not believe in a sentient god. More so... He believed in nature as if nature gave birth to humanity.
Gotcha -- thanks for offering more info.
I think all beliefs in " God" are like different road signs pointing to the same destination. | |
|
| Can Anyone Prove Scientifically That The Being Called God Exists?
Posted: 9/12/2008 8:39:59 PM | No, you cannot prove that God exists. Even if you could, what good would it do? People either believe or they do not.
Even if you could prove He exists, there are those who would deny, maybe for a price like Judas Iscariot, the Roman Centurions who witnessed the Angels roll the stone from the Tomb of Christ.
As for love, what does that prove? That as well has its price, limits there fore does not really exist for some. By some, I am not just referring to non believers either, many who claim to believe in Christ, do not exemplify his example of showing love.
I can prove to my self that he exists, no one else though. That takes acceptance by the individual. A right given by God to us all, whether to believe or not by God. | |
|
| Can Anyone Prove Scientifically That The Being Called God Exists?
Posted: 9/12/2008 8:47:50 PM | I have to disagree with your claim that God cannot be investigated scientifically, at least as he is conceived by many believers. Given your two premises, that science cannot address the unknowable and that God is fundamentally unknowable, then it naturally follows that the scientific method cannot test for God's existence. However, the problem is that though God is often conceived of as immaterial and supernatural, he is also described as capable of interacting with observable reality, either by interfering with life, producing miracles, tinkering with the laws of physics, coming back in human form, etc.
Given THAT conception of God, then we have plenty of reason to doubt his existence, solely through the science. All the expected observations we'd expect to make given an omnipotent, morally perfect being who cares about humanity and created the universe is dashed when we actually take a gander at things like the existence of evil, obvious "flaws" in design, the magnitude of the universe compared with the magnitude of humanity, and so on.
Perhaps the biggest stake to the heart, though, is that, as you suggest, the idea of a supernatural entity being capable of interacting with the natural world rather than being strictly unknowable is nonsensical on its face. In fact, the very concept of asserting the existence of a being we cannot even name or know anything about is an exercise is gibberish. Either way, we'd have reason to doubt.
If you make God an entity that can indirectly be observed, then the evidence points against you. And if you make God something unknowable, then you've essentially defined god out of the picture, painting him as an empty void you can say nothing about, conceptually indistinguishable from nothingness itself. So basically if the science doesn't take care of the God, the philosophy will. | |
|
|
| Page 2 of 7
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 |
|
Home
login 
