Scientific proof of god's existence

[spidergoat]

Abrahamic religions make certain claims. If these claims are not true, the hypothesis is also disproven. Some claims are:

Religion is the source of morality
Prayer makes a difference
Life is designed
The Earth was designed for humans
Humanity is the center of God's concerns
Life transcends death

The facts are:
Religion does not make people more moral (Christians are proportionally represented in prisons, but there are few atheists), religious people do bad things at the same or greater rate than the non-religious.

Prayer has never been shown to work in a double-blind study using the sincere prayers of believers and real sick people recovering from surgery.

Life does not have any of the attributes of designed things.

The anthropic principle explains why living things will tend to be found in environments suited to their existence (inherent observer bias).

The universe is extremely inhospitable to both life and space exploration.

Consciousness is the behavior of a physical object, the brain. Brain scans confirm this, therefore when the brain dies, that is the end of consciousness.

 

[Rav]

Could you give an example where science disproves a religion and how it does it?

Can I suggest you start a new thread asking that same question? You can even link to it in here. That way this discussion can remain on topic.

 

[Skeptical]

The Book of Mormon describes cities in the USA of great extent and substantial numbers. Archaeologists have never found the slightest trace of even one. I know this is not 'proof', but such proof is actually foreign to science anyway. This is very strong evidence that Mormonism is a load of old cobblers.

 

[NCDane]

The Book of Mormon describes cities in the USA of great extent and substantial numbers. Archaeologists have never found the slightest trace of even one. I know this is not 'proof', but such proof is actually foreign to science anyway. This is very strong evidence that Mormonism is a load of old cobblers.

There is not enough geographical detail in the Book of Mormon
to allow for precisely locating the urban civilizaions depicted.
However, what little is given indicates that if they existed they
were probably located in Mesoamerica, in the same general region
as the Toltec, Maya and others.

Mormon archaelogists are in fact now quite active in Mesoamerica,
and enjoy a solid professional reputation. I believe they recognize
that no currently identified Mesoamerican civilization may be considered
a candidate for those depicted in Mormon scripture. Those which
have so far been discovered existed several centuries too late.

 

[NCDane]

Can I suggest you start a new thread asking that same question? You can even link to it in here. That way this discussion can remain on topic.

I agree.

The threadstart premise concerned scientific proof of God.
The last several posts have adopted the exact opposite premise:
scientific: disproof of God.

Maybe a moderator can delete the off-topic posts and paste
them in a new thread.

 

[Keln]

Hmm, well proof for or against the existence of a God would be rather impossible I'd think. But one could infer that existence or non-existence based on clues in the natural world.

For myself, I consider the origin of life (evolution, etc) and the origin of the universe (big bang, etc) to, if not be correct theories, at least mostly correct. I only say that because the more we learn, the more our theories seem to require a little fine tuning.

What bothers me, specifically, is life itself, or the existence thereof and the observed path of evolution. I mean, Darwinian evolution is all well and good, but much of observed evolution (such as the leap in size of the human brain from our primate ancestors) doesn't make a lot of evolutionary sense. Why does any creature require such a complex brain? It serves no purpose from an evolutionary point of view, it is just a rather convenient thing we humans have that sets us completely apart from the rest of life on Earth.

Another thing that I have a hang up about with life is DNA. Sure, I have seen the arguments between die-hard atheists and religious people, but never is the question quite answered as such discussions either devolve into name calling or go off on tangents...where does DNA come from? How could something that is a lot like a complex computer code come from a mixed bag of proteins? Sheer chance or random happenstance? I think that is an extraordinary claim, which of course, as we all like to quote, requires extraordinary evidence. Of course, such a thing could happen I suppose, I just have a hard time believing it.

And evolution itself. Driven by natural selection and random genetic mutation (or genetic "drift" if you like). Natural selection is a process that is observable and quite well understood. It makes complete sense. When it comes to the other component, genetic mutation, that is questionable. Yes, mutations would have to occur. But are they random? We can observe random mutations. Many experiments have been done to see what mutations can occur and what their effect on an organism will be. And, as far as I know, they have all been either disastrous to the organism or had no effect. I could be wrong, but I have yet to read anything about such experiments producing an organism that is in some way improved or at least affected positively from a random mutation to its DNA. Microorganisms are probably the best sample we have since their life-cycles are so fast compared to other organisms. And we do see that they mutate in nature, as there is a different strain of bacteria or a virus that resists treatments or becomes infectious to organisms it didn't infect before. But is this driven by random mutation, or is there an aspect of its DNA at work that intelligently chooses mutations to benefit itself?

So I question whether DNA isn't a bit more complex than we currently perceive. Perhaps it has the ability to not only drive its own evolution, but maybe to prevent or repair "bad mutations". And if this is the case, then it leads back to my original question of, where did such a complex thing, the basis of all life, come from? Mere happenstance? Extraordinary claim I think.

I could even argue about the universe itself. Why is our universe so filled with matter? Why not anti-matter? Why wasn't there an equal number of matter and anti-matter formed when the universe cooled, and then annihilated? Granted, most matter must have been annihilated in those early moments of the universe, leaving a very small amount of matter behind...but that means there was more matter than antimatter, which doesn't seem to follow theory, unless I misunderstand such theory of matter and energy.

Sure, none of this "proves" there is some creator or some such, but it does rather make it hard to definitively say "there is no God", or to even act as if such a notion is crazy, when it is no more preposterous, in my mind, than DNA popping out of nowhere. Sure, there could be a God, and sure DNA could have popped out of nowhere. Maybe science will answer this dilemma some day, but then maybe not.

As for the super natural, I look at it this way. By definition, something that is "super natural" is outside of nature. If nature is a system, then super nature is a separate system "above" or "outside" if nature. Nature, being the system we see, experience, are a part of, and can interact with. I would assume also, that nature, or a natural system, would be defined by its own set of physical laws and characteristics. Which would mean, by definition, that a separate system, a "super nature" would also have its own set of laws. And in that regard, I think it would be difficult, if not impossible, to scientifically prove anything about another natural system from the perspective of our natural system.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

I believe they recognize that no currently identified Mesoamerican civilization may be considered a candidate for those depicted in scripture. Those which have so far been discovered existed several centuries too late.

Civilization arrived very late in the Western Hemisphere, compared to the Eastern, where the first Mesopotamian cities go back to around 8500BCE. There are two good reasons for this:

• The New World continents have a north-south orientation, unlike the multi-thousand-mile east-west continuum of human habitation from North Africa to China. So even though the twin technologies of agriculture (farming and animal husbandry) were invented here at roughly the same time as in the Old World (ca. 9500BCE), it was much more difficult for neighboring tribes to trade knowledge, seeds and breeding stock across climate zones. This slow development of agriculture hindered their advancement from settlements to villages to trading networks to cities.
• They had no large herbivores to tame for riding and traction. The largest ruminant in South America was the llama, and the largest domesticated animal of any vertebrate class in Mesomerica was the turkey. This impeded their ability to travel as well as their ability to build. The Olmecs must be in the Guinness Book of Records for building an entire civilization with only human labor.

As a result, the first civilization didn't spring up in the Americas until the Olmecs, a mere 4,000 years ago. "Classical" civilizations were already flourishing all over Africa and Asia by then.

 

[spidergoat]

The success of the brain, first in mammals, then primates, then humans, seems self-evident.

DNA does protect portions of itself through the simple mechanism of redundancy. It's known as the evolution of evolvability.

Mutations are beneficial or negative only in relation to the circumstances of the organism. So, when we see a mutation that causes, for instance, red eyes in fruit flies, and it does no harm, we can speculate that there might be circumstances in nature that favor red eyes, thus proving the concept.

 

[Skeptical]

A comment about mutations.

It is often stated by various people that most mutations are harmful, and this is used by creationists as an argument against evolution. However, that statement is simply and totally wrong.

Most mutations, in fact, are sufficiently trivial in their effect to be called neither beneficial or harmful. The result of that is that mutations of this nature appear in a population and spread. They spread for the simple reason that the possessors of those mutations are actively reproducing.

End result is that a trivial mutation may increase to, say, 10% of a population. It may stay at approximately that level, having little or no effect, for a million years or more. It is only when a change in the environment affects that population, that the mutation becomes beneficial and increases via natural selection to be possessed by all.

 

[NCDane]

Civilization arrived very late in the Western Hemisphere, compared to the Eastern, where the first Mesopotamian cities go back to around 8500BCE.

I believe you are off by 2000-3000 years. The first known
urban civilization was Sumer, and I am quite sure it did not
originate as early as 6000BC

There are two good reasons for this: The New World continents have a north-south orientation, unlike the multi-thousand-mile east-west continuum of human habitation from North Africa to China. So even though the twin technologies of agriculture (farming and animal husbandry) were invented here at roughly the same time as in the Old World (ca. 9500BCE), it was much more difficult for neighboring tribes to trade knowledge, seeds and breeding stock across climate zones. This slow development of agriculture hindered their advancement from settlements to villages to trading networks to cities.

This does not explain why civilization failed to develop sooner
anywhere else in the world condusive to agricultural surplus.
Such would include extensive tropical areas of both North and
South America compass direction per se making no difference.

They had no large herbivores to tame for riding and traction. The largest ruminant in South America was the llama, and the largest domesticated animal of any vertebrate class in Mesomerica was the turkey. This impeded their ability to travel as well as their ability to build.

If as you say below the Olmec relied of human labor then so must
the much more urban Maya and Aztec. And if all three of them could
have done what they did without draft animals then the theory that
such animals are a vital component of civilization is falsified.

The Olmecs must be in the Guinness Book of Records for building an entire civilization with only human labor.[/list]As a result, the first civilization didn't spring up in the Americas until the Olmecs, a mere 4,000 years ago. "Classical" civilizations were already flourishing all over Africa and Asia by then.

Per Wiki the Olmec did not enter the archaeological record until
ca.1500BC, and earlier relatively advanced Mesoamerican cultures
go back to ca. 2500BC.

BTW that is earleir than I thought, and leaves much more open
than I thought some window of possibility for the events of the
Book of Mormon.

Maybe now would be a good time to repeat that I am an atheist.

 

[Skeptical]

There is an awful lot of doubt about what are the oldest cities and how old they are.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-the-oldest-cities-in-the-world.htm

I quote :

In spite of controversy, a list of the oldest cities might resemble the following:


"Byblos in present-day Lebanon may date back as far as 5000 BCE and is considered by many to be the oldest continuously populated city.
Damascus in Syria has existed at least since 3000 BCE.
Varansi in India also dates back further than 3000 BCE.
Medinat Al-Fayoum in Egypt is possibly dated at 4000 BCE.
Gaziantep in Turkey dates back to 3650 BCE.
Hebron in Israel is dated at 3500 BCE.
Athens in Greece dates to about 3000 BCE.
Arbil and Kirkuk in Iraq have dates of 2300 and earlier than 3000 BCE respectively.
Adana in Turkey and Jerusalem in Israel were established around 2000 BCE.
Hama in Syria was established before 2000 BCE.
Luxor/Thebes in Egypt also dates to 2000 BCE.
Jaffa, Israel, and Aleppo, Syria are both about 3800 years old."

 

[mathman]

The thread started with the question about proving or disproving the existence of
God. Now it seems to have segued into the question of the validity of religions. The questions should be kept apart. If a religious belief includes an assertion that the world is flat, it is a disprovable statement. However, God's existence doesn't depend on any specific set of beliefs, so it must be looked at separately.

 

[Rav]

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one who actually cares about threads staying on topic. Glad to see that I'm not alone.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

I believe you are off by 2000-3000 years. The first known urban civilization was Sumer, and I am quite sure it did not originate as early as 6000BC.

There are a variety of definitions of "civilization."

• Jericho is regarded by many as the world's oldest continually inhabited city, but surely for some indeterminate time at the beginning of its existence it was just a village, then a town.
• Some define "civilization" as "the building of cities," going back to the Latin root of the word and the Romans' definition. Cities require people to live in harmony and cooperation with total strangers, and this results in the invention of government to keep order and of money to manage complex time-displaced exchanges of goods and services ("transactions") among people who don't know each other.
• Others define "civilization" as a network of settlements that trade and maintain peace with each other. This would qualify the culture of the Native Americans east of the Mississippi at the beginning of the Christian occupation as a civilization.

This does not explain why civilization failed to develop sooner anywhere else in the world condusive to agricultural surplus. Such would include extensive tropical areas of both North and South America compass direction per se making no difference.

It isn't just the the minimal surplus of a single farming and herding village that facilitates the transition to civilization. Farmers and herders trade ideas with each other. They swap seeds and rootstocks of their successfully cultivated and hybridized robust and high-yield crops, and they swap breeders from the bloodlines of their successfully bred robust, docile, fecund and feed-efficient livestock. You just can't do this if once you travel very far from home you encounter people who live in a different climate zone where your plants and animals won't thrive. This limitation on your skill with agricultural technology limits your surplus and even makes you more vulnerable to famine caused by diseases that target one species or one gene pool.

If as you say below the Olmec relied of human labor then so must the much more urban Maya and Aztec. And if all three of them could have done what they did without draft animals then the theory that such animals are a vital component of civilization is falsified.

That was one single continuum of civilization. The Olmecs built it, then their culture declined and the Maya took over leadership, then the Paleolithic Aztecs walked down from California, overthrew the Maya, and put themselves in charge.

And to this day, there are no large herbivores native to Mesoamerica. It was the Spaniards who brought cattle, horses, goats, sheep, pigs and burros/donkeys/asses.

There were, of course, elk, moose, deer, mountain goats, antelope and bison north of the Rio Grande. But the people of that region had only barely transitioned into the Neolithic Era. They had cultivated corn and beans and had domesticated a few smaller animals like turkeys and rabbits, but they were not quite ready to try to tame a moose or a bison.

Per Wiki the Olmec did not enter the archaeological record until ca.1500BC, and earlier relatively advanced Mesoamerican cultures go back to ca. 2500BC.

Those other "advanced cultures" did not clearly satisfy the definition of "civilizations." The Olmecs had invented bronze. It's quite possible that in this case the writers are using metallurgy as the key technology that defines civilization, even though in my view there were plenty of older cultures in the Old World who built cities of stone and wood using only stone tools.

 

[Keln]

A comment about mutations.

It is often stated by various people that most mutations are harmful, and this is used by creationists as an argument against evolution. However, that statement is simply and totally wrong.

Most mutations, in fact, are sufficiently trivial in their effect to be called neither beneficial or harmful. The result of that is that mutations of this nature appear in a population and spread. They spread for the simple reason that the possessors of those mutations are actively reproducing.

End result is that a trivial mutation may increase to, say, 10% of a population. It may stay at approximately that level, having little or no effect, for a million years or more. It is only when a change in the environment affects that population, that the mutation becomes beneficial and increases via natural selection to be possessed by all.

Well, evolution is obviously at work, so arguing against it is kind of silly. My questions do not pertain to whether evolution happens or not, but more of "why". And the mutations that are not beneficial are the ones that are forced upon an organism, generally from radiation (which is used in experiments). So, we can assume that natural, beneficial mutations are not occurring due to something like ionizing radiation, but rather, some mechanism of DNA itself. At least, that is how I view it from all that I have read on the subject. But I am not a biologist, so I could misunderstand DNA entirely.

What I do feel comfortable in saying about DNA is that it is quite a complex thing to come about from random happenstance, and that is what causes me to question the whole "God" thing. Or at least, to not be quite as convinced in atheism as it's religious zealots are.

And yes, atheists are definitely religious in their fervor. I can't help but chuckle when ever I see arguments between theists and atheists. It is like two sides of the same coin.

 

[spidergoat]

Evolution isn't random, that's the whole point. Fervor in favor of scientific knowledge is quite a different thing than fervor for some irrational, unsupported point of faith.

 

[NCDane]

There are a variety of definitions of "civilization."…

No need that I can see to go into the issue of the definition.

It isn't just the the minimal surplus of a single farming and herding village that facilitates the transition to civilization…

I should not have to refine the thought by using qualifiers
such as “long-term” and “large-scale” since obviously a few
bumpkins with extra seed are not going to produce a city
like Babylon in a few years, or even a few centuries.

That was one single continuum of civilization.
I do not believe so. The Olmecs built it, then their culture declined and the Maya took over leadership, then the Paleolithic Aztecs walked down from California, overthrew the Maya, and put themselves in charge.

To what extent the Olmec were predecessors of the Maya
I do not know.

I do know that the Maya Classical Period ended before 1000CE.
I am quite sure the Aztec arrived at the site of their final homeland
centuries later, and had nothing to do with the Maya decline. I do
not even think there was much if any geographical intersection of
Aztec and Maya areas of cultural and political dominance. The Maya
were concentrated in the lowland forests of what are now Yucatan,
Guatemala and Honduras, while the Aztec were concentrated 100s
of miles NW on the central Mexican plateau.

And to this day, there are no large herbivores native to Mesoamerica…

And Mesoamerican civilization arose without them.

The Olmecs had invented bronze.

I do not believe this is correct. Googling reveals they made mirrors
of iron ore mineral, but I am not sure those could be considered the
product of true metallurgy

It's quite possible that in this case the writers are using metallurgy as the key technology that defines civilization, even though in my view there were plenty of older cultures in the Old World who built cities of stone and wood using only stone tools.

I have never seen a citation for the use of metal tools by any
American Indian culture. Their only metallurgy may have been
associated with jewelry. I have read that it was steel more
than gunpowder which give Cortez and Pizarro their decisive
advantage.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Did i not prove this with a simple mathematical addition formular before?,

0+0=0 this is your proof.

 

[Rav]

Did i not prove this with a simple mathematical addition formular before?,

0+0=0 this is your proof.

Stop being lazy. You can't expect everyone to have read your posts in other threads. It is only because I have that I understand what you're actually saying.

The idea that something can not come from nothing isn't proof of the existence of God. It only demonstrates that something has always existed.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Stop being lazy. You can't expect everyone to have read your posts in other threads. It is only because I have that I understand what you're actually saying.

The idea that something can not come from nothing isn't proof of the existence of God. It is only demonstrates that something has always existed (and will always exist).

Yes and that which is eternal and unchanging is the most high, if your heart is hard you will not see what is right infront of you.

Also lazyness is not doing work for yourself while asking another to provide it for you. also sorry but i thought it was easy to see what that formula states.


peace.