Can science disprove the existence of God?

[s13ep]

^ drivel

<yawn> ignore </yawn>
You sound quite the intellectual after having read the against argument, which was, "Wow - not only do you think you can read my mind, but you think you can read the minds of "everyone else reading"?" in response to, "Evidence leads to the answer "it's luck"; what is "luck" if not lack of probability and reasoning potential? In other words you believe that academic evidence leads to the answer "I cannot answer this, but we'll call it 'luck'"?!"

Referring to the fact "it's not an answer", it's a faith (in luck).

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

The arguments do not have to be philosophical in nature. However, you must have a reason to believe and your faith must be rational. You should not believe in something that is patently false from a historical, philosophical, logical or scientific point of view. Your faith must be based on reason. This is what the Bible teaches us. What do you understand for a Christian?

As before, the appropiate rational validation is that God is assigned to agency of decision. All proper subjective terms are defined in regards to agency of decisions. Beauty, love, good and evil, the soul, they are all about agency. Or so to say subjectivity has it's own logic, it's own rules, and you are not following the rules of it, in stead you are following the rules of objectivity, and all manner other rules.

To choose from the heart requires a way of choosing in which all emotions are united. It is not meaningless the way a choice is made. Obviously a dictatorship is very different from a democracy, but they are the same in that they both choose. Similarly on an individual level there are many different ways of choosing, which you dismiss as irrationality.

 

[leibowde84]

Jesus resurrection is historically supported by (1) the accounts that describe the empty tomb, (2) the origin of the apostles' faith, and (3) the accounts of the post-resurrection appearances. All of these three points are supported by historical documents. Islam's assertion that Jesus never died on the Cross is not supported by anything, except by Muhammad's "revelations", which date from the 7th century, seven hundred years after Jesus' death and resurrection.

Correct, science is NOT wisdom.

Where did she say this?

 

[leibowde84]

As before, the appropiate rational validation is that God is assigned to agency of decision. All proper subjective terms are defined in regards to agency of decisions. Beauty, love, good and evil, the soul, they are all about agency. Or so to say subjectivity has it's own logic, it's own rules, and you are not following the rules of it, in stead you are following the rules of objectivity, and all manner other rules.

To choose from the heart requires a way of choosing in which all emotions are united. It is not meaningless the way a choice is made. Obviously a dictatorship is very different from a democracy, but they are the same in that they both choose. Similarly on an individual level there are many different ways of choosing, which you dismiss as irrationality.

Why do you equate subjective descriptive terms like beauty with entities like God and the soul?

 

[s13ep]

Why do you equate subjective descriptive terms like beauty with entities like God and the soul?

"Science is literally knowledge."
Has all but one implication to the knowledge-less.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Why do you equate subjective descriptive terms like beauty with entities like God and the soul?

The term beauty also posits the entity of love existing. Beauty is a love for the way something looks.

 

[leibowde84]

The term beauty also posits the entity of love existing. Beauty is a love for the way something looks.

Ok, that's fine ... but, why do you equate subjective descriptive terms like "beauty" (as in, "I think the painting is beautiful") with entities like "God" (which identifies some kind of being)?

I agree that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". What might be beautiful to you, might be ugly to me simultaneously, and neither of us are correct or incorrect. But, I fail to see how the same situation applies to entities like God and the soul. We all might have our own subjective beliefs about God and/or the soul, but those beliefs are thought to refer to entities that exist apart from our beliefs about them. In other words, beauty, good, and evil are descriptive terms that describe something else. God and the soul are entities in and of themselves. So, can you explain why you think it OK to group them together in the way you do?

 

[Robert.Evans]

"Development over time" is expected if God doesn't exist.

... and it sounds like you're saying that the theists who claim that God is unchanging and perfect are wrong. Is that your intent?


Sounds like you don't understand the difference between a measurement and a wild unsupported claim.

The Source is unchanging, not the Image. The Image changes, that is why we are here. it would depend on exactly what you mean by unchanging. Most people understand a slice of reality, and don't like the whole.

Also, I am merely saying that if Intelligence is not involved, then it must be luck. I get no answer to this other than, I don't know, or false dichotomy- but with no examples to show why it is a false dichotomy.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I think I need to go back to something:


Let me unpack this argument a bit:

- God wants a sinless world.
- God could have created a sinless world from the outset.
- God fails to create a sinless world... so that he can show everyone how good he is at fixing things.
- In the meantime, people suffer because of sin and many people get doomed to Hell.

... and you call this just?

As with most people who don't believe, you make it too silly and too simplistic. Should I say about evolution that one moment we are a mouse and then a man...and we are supposed to believe this??

What would you say to that? The answer is hardly worth printing, but these are the kind of comments I see all the time about theology

 

[Robert.Evans]

I don't think you have the first clue of what I believe.

luck??

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Ok, that's fine ... but, why do you equate subjective descriptive terms like "beauty" (as in, "I think the painting is beautiful") with entities like "God" (which identifies some kind of being)?

I agree that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". What might be beautiful to you, might be ugly to me simultaneously, and neither of us are correct or incorrect. But, I fail to see how the same situation applies to entities like God and the soul. We all might have our own subjective beliefs about God and/or the soul, but those beliefs are thought to refer to entities that exist apart from our beliefs about them. In other words, beauty, good, and evil are descriptive terms that describe something else. God and the soul are entities in and of themselves. So, can you explain why you think it OK to group them together in the way you do?

Love is also an entity in as far as one can speak of entitities for subjective terms. Beauty posits love, the love for the way something looks. And you don't agree with this, that is nonsense, because you don't agree with the logic of reaching a conclusion about what the agency of a decision is by choosing the answer. That is subjectivity, and that you don't do. Otherwise you would have no problem in reaching the conclusion whether or not God exists by choosing the answer, which may as well result in choosing the answer that God does not exist, which would then count as a logically valid answer.

What you say is just nonsense and you know it. I mean to anybody reasonable, where should we put the soul and God, in the category of objective terms, or in the category of subjective terms, it is very obvious where they belong. You are just fighting tooth and nail to put God and the soul in the objective category, without argumentation.

Again, you've got no logic. You have words with vague definitions stuck together. No clear logic that for an opinion there must be 2 options to choose from, and it must be about the agency of a decision, and for a fact there is only 1 valid answer, which is the exaustively accurate model of what the fact is about. That's a logical construct without any contradictions in it. You present no alternative construct for consideration, you present words stuck together which can be interpreted many different ways, and most notably they can be interpreted as that good and evil is fact.

 

[gnostic]

Ok, that's fine ... but, why do you equate subjective descriptive terms like "beauty" (as in, "I think the painting is beautiful") with entities like "God" (which identifies some kind of being)?

I agree that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". What might be beautiful to you, might be ugly to me simultaneously, and neither of us are correct or incorrect. But, I fail to see how the same situation applies to entities like God and the soul. We all might have our own subjective beliefs about God and/or the soul, but those beliefs are thought to refer to entities that exist apart from our beliefs about them. In other words, beauty, good, and evil are descriptive terms that describe something else. God and the soul are entities in and of themselves. So, can you explain why you think it OK to group them together in the way you do?

The problem is that he is trying to redefine the word - "subjective" - to something else.

Despite how many times you explain to him that what he describe doesn't match with the word's definition(s), he will persist. Mohammad doesn't like to be proven wrong, and he will not and cannot learn from his mistakes, no matter how times you try to politely explain this to him.

I gave up trying to explain anything to him, especially if I disagree with him. But he not in my IGNORE LIST, just because we disagree with him; he is in that list, because he began lying about what I saying (twisting words).

BUT THE LAST STRAW was when he began me of being a Nazi and Social Darwinist, even when I told him that I am not and to stop doing that. And I wasn't the only one he called a Nazi and Social Darwinist.

He had being unapologetic offensive to me. That's the only reason why he is in that list...and he is the only one that small list. I have never put anyone in that ignore list before him.

I really don't my being wrong, and I will freely accept them and would unconditionally apologise for any error I have made, hoping that I would learn from my experiences and not repeat them. But there are no hopes that would happen.

Keep up the good works leibowde84. Don't give in to him, even if he start insulting you.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

The problem is that he is trying to redefine the word - "subjective" - to something else.

Despite how many times you explain to him that what he describe doesn't match with the word's definition(s), he will persist. Mohammad doesn't like to be proven wrong, and he will not and cannot learn from his mistakes, no matter how times you try to politely explain this to him.

I gave up trying to explain anything to him, especially if I disagree with him. But he not in my IGNORE LIST, just because we disagree with him; he is in that list, because he began lying about what I saying (twisting words).

BUT THE LAST STRAW was when he began me of being a Nazi and Social Darwinist, even when I told him that I am not and to stop doing that. And I wasn't the only one he called a Nazi and Social Darwinist.

He had being unapologetic offensive to me. That's the only reason why he is in that list...and he is the only one that small list. I have never put anyone in that ignore list before him.

I really don't my being wrong, and I will freely accept them and would unconditionally apologise for any error I have made, hoping that I would learn from my experiences and not repeat them. But there are no hopes that would happen.

Keep up the good works leibowde84. Don't give in to him, even if he start insulting you.

Social darwinism, nazism, communism are all reasonably argued as examples of fact encroaching on opinion. They are therefore appropiate subject at issue when discussing the validation of subjectivity. I have demonstrated how the encroachment works, and that you are doing the same sort of thing. That's just argumentation. That you don't like to be part of that, then you have to actually validate subjectivity. But what you actually do is dismiss subjectivity in ruthless ways without argumentation.

 

[gotham_girl]

Which god are you talking about here?

The Christian God.

I think that question was rhetorical, to show that it can have no correct answer. There are so many religions, monotheistic and polytheistic. Hinduism alone claims to have 330 million Gods. If science had to disprove the existence of all these gods of different faiths, science would have to abandon all other research.

You say that you're talking about the Christian God. You can say that as you, being an individual, are entitled to an opinion. Science, however, is not allowed to take sides. That is the beauty of science in the first place. It is objective.

The answer to your question is that science doesn't need to disprove religion. Religion needs to prove its own claims. The burden of proof does not lie with science.

 

[gnostic]

The answer to your question is that science doesn't need to disprove religion. Religion needs to prove its own claims. The burden of proof does not lie with science.

Well, at least they (science) don't have to, with supernatural, spiritual or divine claims.

Miracles, spirits, gods are all based on faith (in belief) and superstition.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Which god are you talking about here?

Precisely correct! Until we know something about the nature of the god you are trying to prove, or something about how that god is supposed to work, science can have nothing to say. But for most of the claims that I have seen about gods in the past, science can be quite revealing about the unlikelihood of those claims.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I come from South America. The people that were native to the place in which I was born (near the Amazonian jungle) had a pre-Columbian theology that closely matched that of the ancient Hebrews: an omnipotent and kind creator that could not be represented by anything created and an evil spirit who rebelled (Satan) and had a host of rebels that followed him. Furthermore, they believed in a paradise that was thought to be located beyond the Atlantic. So, the idea of a creator God is virtually everywhere, even in the most isolated human populations.

Umm, from what I've read and anyone who is more knowledgeable of the "ancient Hebrews" can correct me. There was not a concept of "Good/Evil" in "Ancient Hebrew", when it came to God. There was God, and there were angels under Gods command that were commanded to do things like tempt people, bring about disease, or bring about death. The Hebrew Bible's description of Angel's are instruments, some caused death (The children of Egypt), some tempted (Ha Satan in Job), some waged war (the angel that appeared to Joshua and Israel), some made deals (The Angel who fought against Jacob), and some caused disease (The angel who struck Sennacherib's army with disease--though historical information seems to indicate that didn't happen). But yeah overall a rebellious spirit doesn't seem like something the Ancient Hebrew's would have believed in until maybe after the 600 BC or so?

But again, I might be wrong and there are those who are still involved in the Jewish faith who can surely correct me.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I still have faith that Saint Dawkins or one of his descendants will prove the non-existence of God.

 

[Demonslayer]

I still have faith that Saint Dawkins or one of his descendants will prove the non-existence of God.

The last straw will come when we create life in a lab. Once we do that, the very last reason for belief in a creator God will be eliminated.

 

[notexceling]

Proving God is easy with simple arthmetic

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12....
Our numerical system has potentially a never ending amount of numbers. The more you count, the more we can plus another one.
Potentially an infinite amount...
But in truth....
Only one number does exist
The number "1"
E.g 1 + 1 + 1 = 3
That is because "1" explains itself and every other number.
In fact, every number is a repetition (more precisely a reproduction) of the number "1".
Not only does it explain every whole number but it also explains every type of number.
For example a fraction or a decimal point is a "part of "1"".
50% =
1/2 =
0.5 OF 1

What's so special about "1" is it is also complete
1 = 100%
In maths, when something is complete It MUST have a bound and an end.
In maths this is signified with brackets ( )
( <------bound, beginning
) <------end, finish
*****(We do not use the brackets because we consider it common knowledge.)
In maths we rarely use it but Brackets explain grouping pairs or completion in maths. That is why brackets are done first in arithmetical equation
e.g
(3+2) x (3+1) = 20
or
(5) x (4) = (20)
5 x 4 = 20
One is 100% completely bounded and ended to itself.
(1) or (100%)
Hence this instantly means "(1)", the number "1" is the finite because of is finite restriction.
ANYTHING that can be calculated is.
Instantly our universe becomes finite (1) even if it has potentially infinite possibilities (∞).
∞ = infinity.
A concept not a number meaning boundless/endless
Unrestricted (beyond brackets)
This is what has come to be known as potential infinite, even though it's just studying the ∞ possibilities within (1).
If we accept (∞) as anything more it would be the greatest oxymoron in the history of mankind.
There is also another restriction of the number (1)
That is because by itself can not do much.
It needs a medium or a language to communicate.
multiple, divide, square root Etc are all fancy and group methods of doing the core symbols of maths.
Addition and subtraction
+ -
Just like (1),
(+|-) addition and subtraction can explain themselves and every other type of calculations.
Example
(1+1+1) + (1+1+1) = (1+1+1+1+1+1)
So inside every (1) we have (+|-).
E.g
Man = (1)
And he has (+|-) within himself.
Think of anything Positive and negative, Addition subtraction, Time space, Proton electron, Good Bad, Right Wrong, Light Dark
We can even say
Yin Yang for good measure
All we have is equal and opposites and one can not exist without the other. Black exists because of white and vice versa.
Think of anything, chemistry, biology, physics even non scientific subjects like morale; you can even say from a materialistic morale point of view, water is our greatest asset, the reason for life yet, our greatest restriction.
Anything from a positive and a negative within a finite position can be explained quite easily.
(+ -) within (1)
Now to make it interesting..........
Scientifically we know we are living in 1 x (E=mc2), we are restricted.
My question is say we calculated everything that exists in our (1) universe.
Hypothetically lets say
everything = (100)
What would be
1 + (100) = ?
It can not be 101
Reason
Everything has already been calculated and it equalled (100)
Let me rephrase the question
from my brief explanation above what would be
1 + (finite)
1 + (maths)
1 + (1)
1 + (universe)
1 + (everything)
1 + (100%)
1 + (E=mc2)
1 + (+|-)
????
It must be something outside of the bound and end (brackets)
Our concept of this is called
Absolute (meaning 100%)
Infinity
∞
A CONCEPT (NOT A NUMBER) beyond all bounds "(" and ends ")"
So in an equation
1 + (1) = ∞
Or as explained before the core language of (1) is maths (+|-)
The theory of Absolute Infinity
1 + (+|-) = ∞
Even though I have not surpassed our laws of mathematics, it displays something beyond mathematics.
What so special about this equation?
LETS GET INTO SCIENCE:
__________________
Quote: "If an object tries to travel 186,000 miles per second, its mass becomes infinite, and so does the energy required to move it. For this reason, no normal object can travel as fast or faster than the speed of light."
So if something exceeds this limit (1) its mass becomes infinite.
1 + (1) = ∞
__________________
Mathematics studies the (+ | - ) laws to understand the (1) value.
Science studies the (1) value to understand the ( + | - ) laws.
__________________
Quantum Mechanics states for nothing to create something, laws must be in place for nothing to produce something.
The equation covers this aspect quite easily.
A law is something that governs its subjects. It is not an actual physical entity and can not be expressed as the value 1.
It is however an addition which must preexist our mathematical restrictions, as quantum mechanics states.
+ ( + | - ) This is the equation of Quantum mechanics,
And this (+|-) is what governing physics studies
__________________
RELIGION
It explain outside of our brackets
God is complete 1
100%
Yet he is incomprehensible
∞
It explains that we have the option of either choosing a + path or - negative
If on the day of judgment "=" (The day of TOTALLING/Tallying/equal sign)
our good deeds out way our bad
1 + ( + > - ) = + ∞
You will end up in eternal positive or heaven
Respectively
1 + ( + < -) = - ∞
Hell
God 1 = ∞
Created +
Everything (+ - )
and he only gives + "good" to all creation
and everything (1) was made in pairs (+ - )

__________________
Prisca Theologia
+(+|-) Atheist, understand natural law exist and Quanta
(∞)=∞ Pantheist, the universe is God
(1)=∞ Buddha said, look within yourself (1) and find your personal (∞) nirvana.
( 1 + (+|-) = ∞) Christianity,
father 1=∞
holy spirit +
son (+|-)
Exterior brackets trinity
(holy spirit is the deliverer of the law, the son is earthly bound (+-) son)
Even though Jesus can have potentially have an (∞) possibilities within him, he can never be God. That is why he always said the father ∞ is greater than I (1)
Islam
Surah 112
Say he is one
1
on all whom depend +
he begets not, (+)
nor is begotten (-)
(+|-)
and none is like him ∞
---->It is everywhere (on every page in every Surah) in the Quran .<--------
Cantor actually coined the word “transfinite” in an attempt to distinguish the various levels of infinite numbers from an Absolute Infinity 100% ∞ , an incomprehensible concept beyond mathematics itself, which then Cantor effectively equated with God (he saw no contradiction between his mathematics and the traditional concept of God)
I'm merely saying the same thing. It doesn't matter if you call this concept Allah, God, Absolute Infinite. Whats important to understand is that a concept beyond anything calculable (including all the potential infinities) does exist, as Cantor proclaimed.