not at all
for instance you can't say that since the basis for pots is clay, pots have been in existence for as long as there has been clay
Scientific proof of god's existence
- Thread starter dbnp48
- Start date
- Status
for instance you can't say that since the basis for pots is clay, pots have been in existence for as long as there has been clay
There would have to be an ultimate basis, whether QM, actual stuff, 'nothing', or whatever, for cause and effect cannot go on forever, as not only would this be an infinite regress, but, practically, it would mean that the effect would take forever to result from the cause, never arriving.
So, 'forever there' is likely for the basis, plus perhaps even that this causeless prime mover should be infinite and everywhere as well as eternal, for what else would there be around. Yes, religion and science do seem to converge on some points, but then diverge, for there's nothing that can be prior to mindfully impose order on a causeless state, or even unmindfully, unless one proposes some brute force happenings that 'try' everything, such as QM taking all paths, in superposition, which is still not a God, but just the land of the law of no laws.
I'm going to have to play devil's advocate here. I don't believe in a personal God myself but this argument does not refute anything. A theist could simply respond by stating that God is outside of time and space, that he is the timeless and eternal state from which the universe was born. Aside from the assigning of personal characteristics to this greater reality, it is essentially no different to what has been proposed by many theoretical physicists.
"Who created God?" is a primitive objection.
A theist might respond to this by pointing out that the universe and the natural laws that govern it are simply an extension of God; that he is found everywhere in the same sense that you can find evidence of an artist everywhere in a painting.
Again, your argument doesn't disprove anything.
At most this argument simply casts some doubt on the integrity of scripture.
Reasonable enough.
I'm not certain of the entirety of the point you are making here.
I'm an agnostic atheist. Wikipedia summarizes the position as follows: "Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they claim not to know or be able to know whether any deity exists." Please keep this in mind when pondering my motivation here. I do not believe that it is possible to prove that God doesn't exist and that is the position I am defending here.
Welcome to the forums by the way
Last edited:
Thanks for the welcome, Rav, and, yes, an agnostic may hold that they don’t have enough information to determine God or not, yet they are still as free as they can be in their being, since there could then be no shame or blame if there were a God, which is just an aside, for it doesn’t get into proof, but plays a part in living.
To approach a near ‘proof’, then an agnostic has to weigh probabilities, noting perhaps that the two possibilities at not at all equiprobable in the first place, as that probably why belief was not jumped into in the first place, or even in any subsequent places.
Then, in practical life, one really does ‘decide’, by either going to church or not, believing or not, for it seems that one must life one way or the other, not balancing ‘half and half’.
Or…
Hail! Lord Byron’s golden mean extends: let us have wine, lovers, song, and laughter—water, chastity, prayer the day after. Such we’ll alternate the rest of our days—so, on the average, we’ll make Hereafter!
I’ll ponder for the other replies in a while, while also realizing that you are only a devil’s advocate, but not an advocate of a real Devil existing (joke).
To approach a near ‘proof’, then an agnostic has to weigh probabilities, noting perhaps that the two possibilities at not at all equiprobable in the first place, as that probably why belief was not jumped into in the first place, or even in any subsequent places.
Then, in practical life, one really does ‘decide’, by either going to church or not, believing or not, for it seems that one must life one way or the other, not balancing ‘half and half’.
Or…
Hail! Lord Byron’s golden mean extends: let us have wine, lovers, song, and laughter—water, chastity, prayer the day after. Such we’ll alternate the rest of our days—so, on the average, we’ll make Hereafter!
I’ll ponder for the other replies in a while, while also realizing that you are only a devil’s advocate, but not an advocate of a real Devil existing (joke).
Theories which magically adapt to any and every twist and turn, are not even interesting, but deists/theists will still go onto the ‘timeless’ thing. All I can say is that it would even take time to create time, which is my way of saying that the ‘timeless’ can’t happen.
As for ‘God’ being the mindless basis of all, being nature, or the cosmos itself, that is really just an overloading of the word God. What they still mean is ‘universe’, ‘nature’, or the physical basis.
However, there are some heavenly bodies in the Miss Universe contest, which they might come to call the Miss God contest, if the universe is seen as God.
In the lab or at their desk, I think physicists still call the universe the universe, or the cosmos, as well as still calling a rose a rose instead of by any other name. In short, they are just using a synonym, but it really isn’t, for it corrupts the meaning of the word ‘God’. Some are just saying that they have awe and wonder, and of course some may actually be believers.
“Who made God” is a good objection, for if believers say there had to be Life to make Life, then surely there had to be LIFE to make Life, etc., but, of course, they halt too soon, begging the question and even calling it an answer.
It's not my primary disproof, but it still disproves beyond any reasonable doubt, for only a natural hand is seen, nothing beyond that, for an artist who didn't just paint and leave, since a Theity is supposed to be everywhere, directing each and every atom, even within a McDonald's French Fry, etc. Total absence of evidence then becomes evidence of absence.
If the Bible is wrong, then what of the supposed word of God. Some astute Christians have noted this and now say we have to consult expert symbolists to complexly interpret what was supposed to be written in plain text for the common man. Not a primary proof, though, but adds to the circumstantial evidence.
its more simple than that
if you have an eternal object as the source, its potencies are also eternal.
IOW if you have a creator that has as a contingent potency - "actual stuff" - (lets call it primary creation), then you have scope for a myriad of secondary creations (or, to run with the analogy, myriad of pots if you have clay and a potter)
[
POPS OF POTENTIAL I looked about, again, at the living lumps of clay. Wondering where the Potter was at the end of the day? Was he, too, back then, formed as a pot like me, by that grandaddy of all eternity—Possibility?
THE HAND OF THE POTTER SHAKES At the crossroads of his human experiment, God wondered where our human nature went. “Damn! I formulated it so perfectly in the lab, so why did it not turn out exceedingly fab? Adam and Eve failed, in the blink of an eye, so I sent the Commandments down from the sky, but ever did humans build the golden calves, diminishing my needed adoration into halves. So, I killed all experiments, but for Noah’s sake, for the Sapiens were all a big rainbow of my mistake. I’ll right the human course yet once again, to sail into those waters where it can never fail. What’s this! I see that all has again gone amiss; I’ll have Jesus preach the other check to kiss. Ah, human nature failed again; they put him to death; I must check my formulas again, to save the rest. I’ll send more prophets to shake the mixture up, plus Fatima. Oh, of this new life cast, they still crash and burn—I give up!”
POPS OF POTENTIAL I looked about, again, at the living lumps of clay. Wondering where the Potter was at the end of the day? Was he, too, back then, formed as a pot like me, by that grandaddy of all eternity—Possibility?
THE HAND OF THE POTTER SHAKES At the crossroads of his human experiment, God wondered where our human nature went. “Damn! I formulated it so perfectly in the lab, so why did it not turn out exceedingly fab? Adam and Eve failed, in the blink of an eye, so I sent the Commandments down from the sky, but ever did humans build the golden calves, diminishing my needed adoration into halves. So, I killed all experiments, but for Noah’s sake, for the Sapiens were all a big rainbow of my mistake. I’ll right the human course yet once again, to sail into those waters where it can never fail. What’s this! I see that all has again gone amiss; I’ll have Jesus preach the other check to kiss. Ah, human nature failed again; they put him to death; I must check my formulas again, to save the rest. I’ll send more prophets to shake the mixture up, plus Fatima. Oh, of this new life cast, they still crash and burn—I give up!”
That's not what I believe but since we are both just speculating I have no legitimate reason to challenge you on it.
I think that only the American's would be bold enough to do such a thing
The question may be useful in revealing a flaw in a particular argument but it still doesn't serve to disprove the existence of God and it is that assertion that I am addressing. I honestly believe that the existence of the question itself is simply indicative of our inability to comprehend a timeless state of existence. But is that evidence that such a state can not exist? Of course not. I may not be able to properly comprehend it myself but over time I have been able to form an approximate conceptualization in my mind. Realize however that I am not talking about God here, but rather a greater physical reality that we might one day be able to detect. It's no different really from suggesting that we might one day find compelling evidence that the theoretical multiverse is in fact real. And perhaps that is what I am really talking about, depending on which model (theoretical of course) we use.
I understand that the burden of proof is on whoever is making the incredible claim, but a certain burden of proof is also on the person who is claiming that it can be falsified. It might be irritating to see theists continually revise their arguments until they no longer conflict with science, but until we can convincingly falsify all iterations we can't make a final and factual determination regarding the existence of God.
Indeed, Rav, and I am one of those carrying forth the burden unto the two best arguments against: that the basis of the physical, or just the physical itself, had to be eternal; thus, no creation of it, cutting out God at the source, and the one about mind not being able to be fundamental. The others would just be icing on the cake, but we can't always hove our cake, and Edith, too.
Regardless, I feel that we have made great progress. It is also that emotions of some believers will tend to ignore this rational, logical progress, for strong emotions have a direct pathway into consciousness (a brain process) and can stain the brain all over.
Regardless, I feel that we have made great progress. It is also that emotions of some believers will tend to ignore this rational, logical progress, for strong emotions have a direct pathway into consciousness (a brain process) and can stain the brain all over.
I just read all of your posts in this thread,
There is and will never be (Call it my prophecy) Proof that god does not exist. Would you mind telling me the motive you have for trying to prove he "does not" exist. Are you not In-Fact trying to prove to yourself he does exist be searching for paradox's?
Your questions are ofcourse valid things one would normaly ask though, I am just explaining to you that you will not come to any proof of him not existing.
Peace.
Actually according to this philosophical outlook, even the living entity is eternal (much like the "actual stuff" you alluded to earlier).... the details however are about who or what is contingent on what
Not sure why you are so convinced humanity is a failure
We're not, really; just 'normal' for the stage we are at; was only remarking how we are not at all of God's image, but, then again, the Guy even broke His own commandments, so perhaps we are.
Already did, through self-contradiction. Now you have to undo all that, plus provide a proof of His existence.
Are you joking, you think because I believe in god I dont know how scientific debates are conducted.
You are stating you have scientific proof he dos not exist. so you have to produce your evidence to support your Model/theory/Hypothesis.
But I seriously don't need your proof of god or diss-proof of him I was just trying to teach you that you wont come to solid evidence of god's non existence. I can just tell you that your entire Hypothesis is Bunk because how do you know this universe isn't subject to its own confined rules and laws of physics. but outside this "Box" totaly different laws applied, time does not exist and god is eternal without birth and will see no death, having infinite creational will and potential. Space is also a figment of your limited perceptions there is no distance only gaps between occupied space outside of the box it is endless and limitless in all aspects.
Im not trying to learn from you im trying to save you soem time as I went down this road when i was like 16.
Peace.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
One single invention, music, makes us a fabulous success! Music is the most wonderful thing in the universe.
Since The true voice of god is the King and true duplex of musical expression you are in a sense correct ^_^.
His sound can become manifest through vibrations and form into Anything he wills. Go ahead and ask him if thats true or pretty close tot he mark. what does your intuition tell you about my "Wild" statement ^
Humans are a wonderful success for Trillions of reasons.
Peace.
Mind if I cut in? :-D
Religion and Science will continue to cross paths no matter what anyone does.
There will always be casual and indirect connections that "those that wish to see" will always see... It is that WISH that makes it so hard to get a clear idea through.
If we talk about the Earth... and a place called Calvary... and evidence of wood buried in the ground... wood that carbon dates to exactly 2011 years ago.. suddenly we will be overrun with nutjobs asserting that the remnants of Christs Cross has been found and jump to the next (il)logical conclusion that he died for our sins.. blah blah blah...
People see what they want to see...
Some people look harder before they believe what they are seeing.
Re disproving God.
It is true that it is impossible to disprove deity or deities. However, there is no reason why a specific definition of God cannot be disproved.
For example : there are some who define the deity is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent. Such a deity would never permit the agony and terror of millions of innocent young children, which is part of the world today. This disproves that specific model of deity.
(This is a scientific process. A hypothesis is presented - in this case a model of deity. The hypothesis is used to generate a testable prediction. In this case, we predict that this model of deity will prevent cruelty to innocent children. The prediction is tested, and the test may disprove the hypothesis, which in this case, it does.)
Of course, there are millions of possible models of deity, and they remain to be disproved. The deity may, for example, be cruel, or uncaring, which fits with what we know of the world.
However, even though it is impossible to disprove all possible models of deity, it would be simplicity itself for a deity to prove his/her/its existence, if that was its desire. It does not. Why not?
It is true that it is impossible to disprove deity or deities. However, there is no reason why a specific definition of God cannot be disproved.
For example : there are some who define the deity is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent. Such a deity would never permit the agony and terror of millions of innocent young children, which is part of the world today. This disproves that specific model of deity.
(This is a scientific process. A hypothesis is presented - in this case a model of deity. The hypothesis is used to generate a testable prediction. In this case, we predict that this model of deity will prevent cruelty to innocent children. The prediction is tested, and the test may disprove the hypothesis, which in this case, it does.)
Of course, there are millions of possible models of deity, and they remain to be disproved. The deity may, for example, be cruel, or uncaring, which fits with what we know of the world.
However, even though it is impossible to disprove all possible models of deity, it would be simplicity itself for a deity to prove his/her/its existence, if that was its desire. It does not. Why not?
- Status