Please use science to prove God exist

[Bird123]

Um. Define God so we know "and" start or test on what we are trying to find proof for.

If there is no definition from the other side (not the religious), an idea of some sort so that scientific test can be used, how do you expect to find god with proof?

Ex. If there is no car in front me, then that car does not exist. What car? Are there properties of this invisible car that I can use to start my investigation that it doesnt exist regardless the claims that it does?

Science discovers it's proof based on the physical laws of this universe. It has yet to reach a point to expand further, even though quantum physics, in time, might lead the way.

God is a Spiritual Being. To find physical proof will be impossible except for the evidence left by God's actions. In time, it will be possible to back trace these actions directly to God, however the knowledge gap stands in mankind's way. Patience. Science will discover God before Religion does simply because science searches for the unknown and corrects mistakes along the way. Religion discovers very little claiming they already know it all.

We are all Spiritual beings trapped in our physical bodies. Discover this and who you really are. This is a good starting point. It seems that at a very early age we are seduced with all the sensory input coming from this physical world into believing the physical world is all there really is.

The easiest real proof one can have of God is when one actual discovers God. In this time-based causal universe God's actions can be seen. Now, discover what actually is, whether or not it is what you want.

Assuming God exists, one must assume everything must add up completely. If it doesn't, it's probably the ideas of mankind or religion. Next, Ebb and flow of true knowledge. Example: If I were to make a car, every car must have some kind of engine, steering, braking, a place to sit. The universe and God are the same.

The acquisition of knowledge and discovering what this world and God are really all about will lead you to God. Look. God will point your way. From here, your conversation with God will be your choice. I say that because I find few people who really want to find God. Here, I point a good starting point to your journey to discovery. Do you Really Want Proof??? It awaits you.

 

[Cephus]

Belief in God has never been 'objective.' We can observe nature objectively, but the human experience of God is thoroughly subjective - it reaches beyond what science can do, just like our experience with art and music.

God either exists or God does not exist. God cannot exist for some people and not for other people. That makes God objective. If God only exists for people who believe in him, that makes him an imaginary friend. Is that what you want to admit believing in?

 

[Kartari]

I've debated this topic for many years on another forum, and I do not expect there is any proof to be found. The best response one can give to the OP concedes that there is no way to prove God's objective existence. Other responses always include one or more logical fallacies and misunderstandings of the facts.

Atheists like myself on that forum have repeatedly pointed out a few crucial facts in those debates. One is that a plethora of very vaguely-defined deity concepts are put forth. Perhaps each theist's mind in the world contains a unique theistic concept. Even when we narrow it down to the monotheistic term "God," we still get a wide array of ideas, ranging from the immaterial dictator to the abstract pantheistic intelligence. Without sufficiently defining a concept, it is impossible to sufficiently define a means of proving that concept.

On top of this problem, it is noteworthy to observe that not one theistic concept can be demonstrably shown to exist beyond the confines of the human imagination. While one or more deity concepts might potentially exist in reality, there is no means of proving a single one of them. No matter what specious reasoning is put forth by theists in my experience, I can always identify reasonable alternatives that require fewer, if any, sheer assumptions. Therefore, we must concede (if we are to be honest) that as far as humanity can discern, deities are only known to exist within the human imagination.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It seems that at a very early age we are seduced with all the sensory input coming from this physical world into believing the physical world is all there really is.

The idea of there being something beyond the physical world is also very seductive.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Something doesnt pop up from nothing. Something cannot disapear into nothing.

This happens all the time.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

This happens all the time.

Explain?

I havent read about anything popping from nonwhere...just things that were created from already existed things. Sounes fiction.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I've debated this topic for many years on another forum, and I do not expect there is any proof to be found. The best response one can give to the OP concedes that there is no way to prove God's objective existence. Other responses always include one or more logical fallacies and misunderstandings of the facts.

Atheists like myself on that forum have repeatedly pointed out a few crucial facts in those debates. One is that a plethora of very vaguely-defined deity concepts are put forth. Perhaps each theist's mind in the world contains a unique theistic concept. Even when we narrow it down to the monotheistic term "God," we still get a wide array of ideas, ranging from the immaterial dictator to the abstract pantheistic intelligence. Without sufficiently defining a concept, it is impossible to sufficiently define a means of proving that concept.

On top of this problem, it is noteworthy to observe that not one theistic concept can be demonstrably shown to exist beyond the confines of the human imagination. While one or more deity concepts might potentially exist in reality, there is no means of proving a single one of them. No matter what specious reasoning is put forth by theists in my experience, I can always identify reasonable alternatives that require fewer, if any, sheer assumptions. Therefore, we must concede (if we are to be honest) that as far as humanity can discern, deities are only known to exist within the human imagination.

Taking this from "those who ask for proof of gods existence" And Not "those who say it cant be found" (tonthe latter, why ask the question)

Im talking to the former. What test can you, ones who ask for proof, that will bena starting point to fine the answer you want? How would you define God to start this investigation?

Im not talking to people who say there is no proof. They always answer that.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Explain?

Most of the particles in particle physics don't exist as physical entities (they mediate interactions, like an incomprehensible "aether" joining things which don't touch without being there), and most of those which do pop into existence and then vanish so quickly a central difficulty in particle physics is being able to measure/observe them before they disappear. Hence the set of radical views on what is "physical" which includes the view that probabilities are physical:
Photons aren’t real (but virtual photons are!)

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Guys

Taking this from "those who ask for proof of gods existence" And NOT "those who say it cant be found" (to the latter, why ask the question? This is not for you)

Im talking to the former. What test can you, ones who ask for proof, want that will be a starting point to find the answer you want? How would you define God to start this investigation?

Im not talking to people who say there is no proof. They always answer that. Im talking to the people who Want proof.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Most of the particles in particle physics don't exist as physical entities (they mediate interactions, like an incomprehensible "aether" joining things which don't touch without being there), and most of those which do pop into existence and then vanish so quickly a central difficulty in particle physics is being able to measure/observe them before they disappear. Hence the set of radical views on what is "physical" which includes the view that probabilities are physical:
Photons aren’t real (but virtual photons are!)

To The naked eye? Or just disapear as if material can do that?

I cant understand physic terminology. All I know is what thing can pop from nonwhere (not appear from the naked eye nor from space)

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

To The naked eye?

Oh no. In order to see anything with our eyes, photons must "bounce" off that object and pass through our pupils to our retina generating action potentials (neural "firing"). Put simply, to see with our eyes we need light. The problem is that hitting a particle with a photon (which is itself a particle) will fundamentally disturb it. So we can't "see" any particles with the naked eye.
I'm talking about measurements such as those performed using the LHC at CERN: measurement systems which allow us to detect the dynamics of systems smaller than electrons, that allowed the 2012 announcement of the discovery of the Higgs Boson, and that were developed using and which are instrumental in expanding the standard model.

Or just disapear as if material can do that?

Most material does that. Actually, in a very real sense most material isn't material ("virtual particles", which are very real in that they are causally efficacious, but which also aren't merely massless but have no physical existence at all, despite being real).

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Oh no. In order to see anything with our eyes, photons must "bounce" off that object and pass through our pupils to our retina generating action potentials (neural "firing"). Put simply, to see with our eyes we need light. The problem is that hitting a particle with a photon (which is itself a particle) will fundamentally disturb it. So we can't "see" any particles with the naked eye.
I'm talking about measurements such as those performed using the LHC at CERN: measurement systems which allow us to detect the dynamics of systems smaller than electrons, that allowed the 2012 announcement of the discovery of the Higgs Boson, and that were developed using and which are instrumental in expanding the standard model.


Most material does that. Actually, in a very real sense most material isn't material ("virtual particles", which are very real in that they are causally efficacious, but which also aren't merely massless but have no physical existence at all, despite being real).

Thats confusing. I can see light disapearing as its not made of mass. Gass, I can see that disapearing but water madeup the gass probably still exists too. As for things like a chair, unless we cut it up in such small particles that it just doesnt exist anymore?

Or are you talking about non material things like light, gass, vapor, etc which are not existant as a whole but a collection of "things" that make it existant to us?

Things (rather than things without mass) popping from no where sounds like fiction. Disney of some sort.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Thats confusing. I can see light disapearing as its not made of mass.

Often, when light (photons) disappear it's related to electrons or some other physical particle disappearing (and photons often appear when electrons and so forth vanish).

As for things like a chair, unless we cut it up in such small particles that it just doesnt exist anymore?

That reminds me: why is it that you can sit in a chair? That is, why don't you just pass through it? It's not because of anything material. The chair is almost completely empty space. The reason is largely due to photons ("pieces" of light that have no mass), although even without these technically other "things" without mass would prevent you from simply passing through the empty space that makes up most of the chair.
However, if we manage to make particles (massless or with mass) travel fast enough we can break into the invisible structures that keep you from moving through the empty space that makes up most of the chair. You've heard of lasers. You may or may not know that the word is an acronym which stands for "Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation". It's just light, but "supercharged" so that it can actually move things around, heat them up, cut them, etc. Being able to cause particles to behave in this "supercharged" way allows us to break them apart to reveal their structures.
It turns out that most of what makes up the structure of matter consists of physical particles that aren't material and material particles that appear out of nothing and material particles that vanish into nothing.

Or are you talking about non material things like light, gass, vapor, etc which are not existant as a whole but a collection of "things" that make it existant to us?

Gases are made up of things like oxygen, nitrogen, and other atoms. They are absolutely physical (as opposed to e.g., virtual particles, which are real but not physical). What I am referring to are material, physical particles that appear from nothing and material, physical particles that vanish completely. Electrons do this.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What I am referring to are material, physical particles that appear from nothing and material, physical particles that vanish completely. Electrons do this

What is considered as nothing? Id assume nothing holds no mass, electrons, particles, no oxygon, nytrogyn, no thing or particles. Space.

I havent seen space on earth u less we have black holes. Thats why I think that particles (anything) would have always existed.

If I blew into my left hand and catch my breathe, say its possible I can hold it for more than a sec..

In my right hand I hold a pencil.

When I unfold my left hand, the air (whatever air is made up), carbyon bioxide, etc spreads out with the rest thats "already" in the aif. It didnt disapear. It joined with its peers.

The pencil, I can chop that up into the smallest piece and it would still exist just in different form.

They both changed forms but they still exist.

Id say the same with particles and anything with physica that has some type of mass or "thing" that takes up space.

Whatever does not take up space and we can see it is the thing, thats the only thing i can see pop from no where. As long as it occupies space, cant see that.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

What is considered as nothing?

Good question, but one that is tricky considering that 1) modern physics isn't exactly intuitive and 2) I'm not the best (and might be the worst) at simplifying concepts when trying to explain them. Intuitively, for something physical to "appear" from nothing would mean that something tangible appears out of the intangible. The problem is that what is tangible (the "stuff" that we can feel, that we regard as physical) is mostly not material. It consists of forces or of virtual particles or of "particles" which have no mass or substance.
But by "nothing" I do not mean non-tangible.

Id assume nothing holds no mass, electrons, particles, no oxygen, nitrogen, no thing or particles. Space.

Sure, we can use space here as a model for nothing. In that case all of the time matter pops into existence out of space.

I havent seen space on earth unless we have black holes.

Black holes exist. But they are not "space". What space "is" happens to be a deeply philosophical question (a common answer is that "space" is a series of relational properties; another is that everything is made up of "hunks" of spacetime). It is beyond the scope of this thread or the issue of whether things can come from nothing.

Thats why I think that particles (anything) would have always existed.

This relates to the issue you raised observations using the naked eye. Most of what happens in reality we can't see. Instead we require a vast variety of devices, from regular ol' microscopes to kilometers of underground tunnels specially designed to smash particles together, in order to measure/"observe" what happens at scales beyond that we can see with the naked eye. It turns out that what happens at this scale doesn't conform to what we would expect based upon what we observe in our everyday experience.

When I unfold my left hand, the air (whatever air is made up), carbyon bioxide, etc spreads out with the rest thats "already" in the aif. It didnt disapear. It joined with its peers.

The pencil, I can chop that up into the smallest piece and it would still exist just in different form.

I'll try to give the simplest example I can think of here. It isn't really "simple", but it involves terms that are familiar: photons and electrons. Electrons we know from chemistry classes as physical things in atoms that orbit a nucleus. They are clearly material, physical things. Photons are things we experience all the time, only we don't realize it as we don't see "light" as made up of parts. However, it is fairly intuitive that light isn't material (when we switch on a light, we don't feel as if we were hit by it).

It is also intuitive to think that, since we interact with other physical things, naturally the particles which make up physical things interact. And they do. However, many interactions between atoms cause electrons to vanish. At one moment, we have the matter that is the electron. In the next moment, that is gone. Completely. At the same time, maybe a photon appears: a massless particle that didn't exist a moment ago but now does, while a particle with mass is gone forever and none of its mass remains anywhere.

Id say the same with particles and anything with physica that has some type of mass or "thing" that takes up space.

Electrons have mass and take up space. They are constantly vanishing without a trace, their mass gone forever. We've known this for decades, and modern technology (such as the devices you use to access this site) depend upon it being true.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Good question, but one that is tricky considering that 1) modern physics isn't exactly intuitive and 2) I'm not the best (and might be the worst) at simplifying concepts when trying to explain them. Intuitively, for something physical to "appear" from nothing would mean that something tangible appears out of the intangible. The problem is that what is tangible (the "stuff" that we can feel, that we regard as physical) is mostly not material. It consists of forces or of virtual particles or of "particles" which have no mass or substance.
But by "nothing" I do not mean non-tangible.

Sure, we can use space here as a model for nothing. In that case all of the time matter pops into existence out of space.


Black holes exist. But they are not "space". What space "is" happens to be a deeply philosophical question (a common answer is that "space" is a series of relational properties; another is that everything is made up of "hunks" of spacetime). It is beyond the scope of this thread or the issue of whether things can come from nothing.


This relates to the issue you raised observations using the naked eye. Most of what happens in reality we can't see. Instead we require a vast variety of devices, from regular ol' microscopes to kilometers of underground tunnels specially designed to smash particles together, in order to measure/"observe" what happens at scales beyond that we can see with the naked eye. It turns out that what happens at this scale doesn't conform to what we would expect based upon what we observe in our everyday experience.


I'll try to give the simplest example I can think of here. It isn't really "simple", but it involves terms that are familiar: photons and electrons. Electrons we know from chemistry classes as physical things in atoms that orbit a nucleus. They are clearly material, physical things. Photons are things we experience all the time, only we don't realize it as we don't see "light" as made up of parts. However, it is fairly intuitive that light isn't material (when we switch on a light, we don't feel as if we were hit by it).

It is also intuitive to think that, since we interact with other physical things, naturally the particles which make up physical things interact. And they do. However, many interactions between atoms cause electrons to vanish. At one moment, we have the matter that is the electron. In the next moment, that is gone. Completely. At the same time, maybe a photon appears: a massless particle that didn't exist a moment ago but now does, while a particle with mass is gone forever and none of its mass remains anywhere.


Electrons have mass and take up space. They are constantly vanishing without a trace, their mass gone forever. We've known this for decades, and modern technology (such as the devices you use to access this site) depend upon it being true.

I really have to take time deciphering what you say. For now, i need a electrical connection to pop up and connect my nook to my keyboard. It keeps saying paired but with error preventing connection. As a result, Im typing with one hand. Help?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

God either exists or God does not exist. God cannot exist for some people and not for other people. That makes God objective. If God only exists for people who believe in him, that makes him an imaginary friend. Is that what you want to admit believing in?

Well, I certainly won't believe in your strawman - constructing a God that obviously I do not believe in.

You're correct - either God exists, or he doesn't exist - but that doesn't mean that God exists in such a way that you can verify God's existence in a multi-disciplinary or even logically acceptable method. For you, if you demand proof for God's existence that is impossible, that would be an imaginary friend to you - I suppose - according to the argument that you've presented.

 

[Bird123]

The idea of there being something beyond the physical world is also very seductive.

One thing I have had pointed to me is that mankind including myself carry such a narrow view. Perhaps, that is why so many can only see the physical. Talk with some of the very youngest of children for many of them know both physical and spiritual.

We have all known God whether or not a person realizes this. We have all basked in God's Unconditional Love. Perhaps, when we see this physical world, that is why it is seductive, the idea of a spiritual existence beyond this physical world. Once, having no needs, one does not want to have any needs forever. Spoiled perhaps?? It's understandable and yet sometimes the roughest road will end up with the best view. Kiddies rarely want to go to school, however after it's done most are glad they did. Knowledge and wisdom takes work to acquire.

 

[Firestorm77]

How do you know God is an immaterial being? How did you determine this? How did you test it to see if it is true?

The universe has a beginning, and it makes sense to me that was it brought into existence through intentional planning and intelligence. This would explain why our universe is ordered, beautiful & fine-tuned.

An example of fine tunning of low-entropy at the beginning of universe by Roger Penrose

objectively verified, specifically because they know that if science could examine their claims, science would reveal just how empty and absurd religion really is.

Can you objectively verify that our universe is not a computer simulation?

 

[Firestorm77]

You got me up to here. The universe cannot exist from nothingness. Something doesnt pop up from nothing. Something cannot disapear into nothing. Universe (space as a whole) has already exist because there was always something here to define it as such.

There are cosmological models in which the universe can be created by quantum tunneling from literally "nothing" ie no space, time & matter. Although "nothing" is still subject to the laws of quantum mechanics.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982PhLB..117...25V