Scientific Proof of God

[Bob the Unbeliever]

... The Absolute Lie is what can not ever be proven.

Ergo: your god, cannot ever be proven.

By your own words: An Absolute Lie.

GOOD! YOU IS FINALLY GETTING IT!

 

[shunyadragon]

Where is the evidence that the universe created itself, or that life popped forth from a random mix of chemicals ?

The objective verifiable evidence is the universe began as a result of natural processes, and the Laws of Nature. There is no concept of self Creation in science. Also, randomness does not cause anything. Life arose caused by Natural Laws and suitable environment. Natural processes based on Natural Laws are not random anything.

How many times is your cracked record going to repeat this nonsense You keep throwing these jellyfish against a slippery slope, and they do not stick.

 

[shunyadragon]

Science is defined as Truth-seeking. God is True God. So, He is in area of Science.

No science is defined by Methodological Naturalism and the falsification of theories and hypothesis based on objective verifiable evidence of the physical existence. It is not Truth-seeking. You need a crystal ball, magic wand and a divining rod for that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

God knows all. Thus, He knows, that He exists.

Thesis: X knows everything.
Corollary: X knows about the existence of himself.
Conclusion: The existence of X is proven.

Do you know why it is impossible for humankind to come to a common opinion about the existence of God? Because there are two Gods and the second one does not exist.

We mostly get un-natural un-compassionate feeling, when somebody tells us, that God exists and he knows it for sure. Such human makes us at least try hard to debunk him or to make him sound ridiculous by twisting and corrupting original wording his proof. But it is because there are two basic options among all religions (including Atheism): Existing God and Non-existing god (idol). We are stuck with lust to the second one, thus, we intuitively know, that our “god” is non-existing one. But keep in mind, that a thesis in Scientific Community is not premise and not assumption.

You are attempting to make a logical proof of God and not a scientific argument for God. A scientific argument would involve observation, hypothesis formulation and testing. In the case of God or anything supernatural, a scientific hypothesis cannot be formed and tested, since there is no physical evidence to observe.

I noticed that someone has already pointed out that your premises assume the conclusion and your argument is circular. Still, an interesting modern example of an ancient attempt.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

All of existences is evidence for God. This a fundamental problem of science. All "good" objectivity is determined by a "bad" subjective judgment. Most scientific people make the "bad" subjective judgment all of existence is not credible evidence for the existence of God.

This may be true. Who can know? There is no way to discern from the evidence of everything what there is about it that tells us, God.

I am not sure what you mean by "bad" subjective judgement by scientists. The fact remains that the physical world that we can observe does not have any evidence that can objectively be attributed to the divine.

The question also arises that if physical evidence demonstrates God, then He cannot be supernatural by that definition. The conclusion that would seem to naturally arise from such a demonstration is that what is demonstrated is a physical manifestation that is being mistaken for God.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Where is the evidence that the universe created itself, or that life popped forth from a random mix of chemicals ?

Where is the evidence that it is a claim that the universe created itself. I am unfamiliar with this outside of the repetition of it by creationists. It makes no logical sense that something could create itself. It would have to exist in order to create and if it has to create itself, it cannot exist. It is a logical impossibility. Something originating from nothing is not the same thing as something creating itself. I do not know that something can originate from nothing either, but they are two different statements. It appears that this may be the source of the creationist straw man about something creating itself.

 

[lukethethird]

Oprah Proof of God
Oprah, "watch this video"
after video, "how can you watch that video and say God does not exist?"
Therefore God exists.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Harumph!
My disproof is every bit as cromulent as the proof in the OP.
You cannot prove otherwise!
Ask @Polymath257....he knows advanced partial differtensile hyperboullion laser transmogrificational calculus, which allows dividing by zero.

I almost thought 'differtensile' was a real word I was unfamiliar with until I got to 'hyperboullion'. Over-excited broth.

Maybe they are real words now, though. How do I know?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Science is defined as Truth-seeking. God is True God. So, He is in area of Science.

Science is an objective inquiry, observation and study of the physical world using logical methods appropriate to the context of observation. It is a body of knowledge acquired by that methodology, including the set of theories that describe and explain the natural, physical world.

Unfortunately, without observable phenomena, science is incapable of being applied. God, being supernatural and not objectively observable, cannot be evaluated by science.

 

[dianaiad]

Nope.

The question of WHETHER God Is...cannot (at least at the moment) be proven one way or the other.

The universe, however, whether it was created deliberately by a thinking entity that is God, is here. It exists. Examining its processes is within the realm of science. It's what the scientific method was formulated FOR.

When someone uses the existence of the universe to prove that God Is...or is not...s/he is completely missing the point.

Right now, for me, the point is that the mathematical stuff you guys are putting in here are interesting. Until you go and insert numbers in them. I hate being reminded of why I never could have been an astronaut.

 

[dianaiad]

I almost thought 'differtensile' was a real word I was unfamiliar with until I got to 'hyperboullion'. Over-excited broth.

Maybe they are real words now, though. How do I know?

At least I know what 'cromulent' means without having to look it up again. This time.

 

[Revoltingest]

I almost thought 'differtensile' was a real word I was unfamiliar with until I got to 'hyperboullion'. Over-excited broth.

Maybe they are real words now, though. How do I know?

I'm a big fan of neologisms....& nonlogisms.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm a big fan of neologisms....& nonlogisms.

I rather like them myself. You are very good at creating them and in some cases they are good enough to get by on first blush.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm a big fan of neologisms....& nonlogisms.

I should have said that I grok that.

 

[Stevicus]

Oprah Proof of God
Oprah, "watch this video"
after video, "how can you watch that video and say God does not exist?"
Therefore God exists.

Well, if Oprah says it, I guess that settles it.

 

[Revoltingest]

I rather like them myself. You are very good at creating them and in some cases they are good enough to get by on first blush.

IOW sneaky.

 

[Revoltingest]

I should have said that I grok that.

You just did.

 

[Revoltingest]

You just did.

My favorite neologism origination ever....

 

[Stevicus]

God knows all. Thus, He knows, that He exists.

Thesis: X knows everything.
Corollary: X knows about the existence of himself.
Conclusion: The existence of X is proven.

Do you know why it is impossible for humankind to come to a common opinion about the existence of God? Because there are two Gods and the second one does not exist.

We mostly get un-natural un-compassionate feeling, when somebody tells us, that God exists and he knows it for sure. Such human makes us at least try hard to debunk him or to make him sound ridiculous by twisting and corrupting original wording his proof. But it is because there are two basic options among all religions (including Atheism): Existing God and Non-existing god (idol). We are stuck with lust to the second one, thus, we intuitively know, that our “god” is non-existing one. But keep in mind, that a thesis in Scientific Community is not premise and not assumption.

I don't think anyone really knows one way or the other. Realizing that the universe is a pretty big place (larger than Texas), there can be any number of speculative guesses as to how it all came to be. Not just in terms of the universe itself, but also humans and how we managed to end up on this miniscule rock inside a tiny air bubble floating around in the cosmos.

Sometimes, looking at religion, not all of it focuses on the existence of God, but it also strives to find meaning for humanity's existence. Religion makes Earth and humanity the center of the universe, with God existing as some kind of overseer or caretaker who loves us and has plans for us. He is said to have created the entire universe, but He is only interested in little ol' us.

I suppose anything is possible, but the only thing that anyone really knows for certain is that the universe exists, at least as far as the substance as perceived by our physical senses is concerned. As to why it exists or whether there was some intelligent design to it all - that's just guessing.

But one could just as easily guess that there was no design to it all. One might suggest that the entire universe is just some bizarre failed experiment. Maybe the whole thing is an accident, and humans are just some lingering waste product. Perhaps we're in some extra-dimensional equivalent of a sewage treatment plant.

I could come up with some real wild guesses as to how the universe came into being, and none of them would be any less valid than anything that anyone else could come up with.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You just did.

You are right, but I mean instead of the answer I initially provided. It would have been better in response to a post regarding neologisms than the one that I did initially provide.

I take it you got that, but I am on a roll.