Irrefutable Evidence of God

9-10ths_Penguin · Aug 20, 2012

Luna,

Out of curiosity, what was your intent behind this thread?

Does what I said earlier address what you were after?

9-10ths_Penguin said:
Neither can I, but presumably, an all-knowing god would be able to figure something out.

lunamoth · Aug 20, 2012

9-10ths_Penguin said:
Luna,

Out of curiosity, what was your intent behind this thread?

My intent is basically to explore whether it is possible to conceive of scientific evidence for God. My position is that God is not testable and scientific evidence or proof cannot exist.

Does what I said earlier address what you were after?

It sounds to me like you also cannot conceive of scientific evidence for God.

Curious George · Aug 20, 2012

lunamoth said:
My intent is basically to explore whether it is possible to conceive of scientific evidence for God. My position is that God is not testable and scientific evidence or proof cannot exist.

And the problem with this as scientific evidence?

Curious George said:
Why not just one person with a direct line of communication. If there were a person that one could ask questions about any field of which the person in communication with God had no knowledge. The more questions and knowledge which scientifically proved valid would lend to that persons credibility. In this light we could view the person as a scientific theory, the validity of which built as time progressed. Certainly, there might be questions which we were told we could not have the answers because of the repercussions. Yet, as long as questions were continuously answered that persons credibility would increase. For instance, if a person could prove the Riemann hypothesis, account for all aspects of evolution, recount the world's history, the universe's cosmogony, offer a unified theory of physics, explain in detail how the brain functions and what gives rise to what we term mental illness, generate maps of the universe, explain interstellar travel, detail life as it exists on earth- if it exists elsewhere- and methods of communication, offer proficient methods and mechanisms to communicate with other animals on earth, recreate various extinct languages, offer a cure for HIV, HPV, Cancer, Parkinson's, etc., and much more- or simply offer a unified, comprehensible, non-faith based spiritual path that left no room for doubt.

I have a feeling that if such a person existed then we would see an end to religious debate.

lunamoth · Aug 20, 2012

Curious George said:
And the problem with this as scientific evidence?

Intellectually advanced alien.

McBell · Aug 20, 2012

lunamoth said:
Intellectually advanced alien.

Is that not the definition of god to Scientologists?

9-10ths_Penguin · Aug 20, 2012

lunamoth said:
My intent is basically to explore whether it is possible to conceive of scientific evidence for God. My position is that God is not testable and scientific evidence or proof cannot exist.

Then it sounds like you're making an appeal to ignorance: "we can't think of what the evidence might be, therefore it doesn't exist."

However, if you're right, and if it's impossible to test God or support the idea of God with scientific evidence, what does this say about the reasonableness of faith in God? What possible reason could you have to believe in a thing that's untestable and leaves no evidence?

lunamoth said:
It sounds to me like you also cannot conceive of scientific evidence for God.

I can't think of one individual piece of evidence that would "flip a switch" in my head and make me suddenly start believing in God, no.

I've touched on this before: my approach to the issue of God focuses on mental models. It seems to me that my mental model of how the world works (which does not include any gods) does a very good job of predicting things that happen. My mental model of how the world works already includes the idea that sometimes people can be mistaken, and sometimes people can suffer from sensory impairment or mental illness. Evidence that doesn't fit my worldview will cause me to change that worldview, sure, but the threshold for me to abandon my belief that no gods exist is probably lower than my threshold for me to abandon my belief that I'm sane.

For God to be the most reasonable conclusion, I would probably need significant evidence over a long period of time. Basically, I would need enough evidence that the predictions of a mental model that includes God would be significantly different from the predictions of a mental model that doesn't include God, and I would need to be able to test the predictions of both models enough times that I would be able to conclude that the "God exists" model fits the world around me better than the "God doesn't exist" model (including the "God doesn't exist and I'm just seeing things" sub-version of this model).

Willamena · Aug 20, 2012

9-10ths_Penguin said:
Then it sounds like you're making an appeal to ignorance: "we can't think of what the evidence might be, therefore it doesn't exist."

And, since she said nothing of the sort, you don't think this is a strawman?

9-10ths_Penguin said:
However, if you're right, and if it's impossible to test God or support the idea of God with scientific evidence, what does this say about the reasonableness of faith in God? What possible reason could you have to believe in a thing that's untestable and leaves no evidence?

A priori hypotheses also cannot be tested by science. Does that make them unreasonable? I pity the bachelors.

s2a · Aug 21, 2012

Willamena said:
What does "begs of all and any incredulities" mean?

Just to be fair, and remind ourselves and anyone reading along, you cite my reply to what you said:
To define God/Tao/Brahman is to lose God/Tao/Brahman in the definition. There is no evidence of something best not defined.

Afterwards, I offered:

"Jabberwocky.

(no offense, but that begs of all and any incredulities...and smacks of self-imposed censorship and willful ignorance to boot)

Just saying

Perhaps I misunderstood your purposed meaning, (most of which I confess seemed like some nonsensical jabberwocky to me), but as I took it to convey was that any attempts in defining a god or spiritual entity is to effectually negate that definition. It reminds me of he selling line from The Matrix

No one tell you what the Matrix is

Its an absurdly proposed conundrum. If if I try to explain it, youll therefore never come to understand what it is.

Forgive my saying so, but thats philosophical mumbo-jumbo gobbledygook.

It is.

Ie, No one can understand it, therefore, it is

Jabberwocky.

On top of that, to assert that anyone claims to understand and seeks to define what it is, either doesnt know what theyre talking about or is and obvious liar/fool

seems to me most akin to, as I offered self-imposed censorship and willful ignorance.

I still see it that way

Self-imposed censorship when we use langauge is precisely what I'm talking about, and willful ignorance too. When we point at a tree and say, "Look, a tree," in what are we investing belief?

?

Maybe Im lost yet again. Generally speaking, any definition of a thing, or a concept, provides just a common reference from which most agree upon as meeting that definition. Just as a rose is a rose, a tree is pretty much a tree for most folks there is little ambiguity or lacking understanding in pointing to a tree for what it is.

In something real encapsulated by the word "tree," or in the power of the word "tree" to encapsulate something real? Is it something real we learn to see in kindergarten, or is it "tree"?

Youll forgive me if I avoid the path of rationale that questions reality as real, or only subject to self-perception/illusion.

Now let's look at the words "four times four." Is it something real we learn to see?

Well, if I can present you with sixteen beans set before you in four groups of four, then group them all together as one, then yes

You can call that presentation of assembled beans a definition of the mathematical equation of 4 times 4 or not as you please I suppose, but its sum of its parts remain the same, whatever or however you wish to define them in words.

[PS. Apologies for tardy reply, but as you knowpriorities and such typically rule the day, as in a measured 24hr period, or one revolution of our planet relative to a singled point, or, well, you know, however you understand a day to be defined :]

IAMIAM · Aug 21, 2012

lunamoth said:
What would it be?

I personally can't think of any scientific evidence that could convince me of God.

God isn't in the realm of science in my opinion. Us trying to define God scientifically is like a tissue cell of the stomach wall trying to describe a human. Does the cell even know the human exists?

This does not mean you cannot sense God...

But first, what is Man?

Can we all agree on what we are yet? We have an idea, but we haven't any agreement on what it is yet. Therefore, Man is just a word which represents an idea. An ever growing idea at that.

So, if man is just an idea, where are you having these ideas?

In the mind? What is the mind? Well that is just an idea as well. We have yet to reach agreement on exactly what the mind is. So, the mind is just an idea as well.

Therefore, Man is a word, words represent ideas, ideas are formed in the mind, the mind is just an idea.

Man is an idea within an idea within an idea... to infinity.

s2a · Aug 21, 2012

IAMIAM said:
God isn't in the realm of science in my opinion. Us trying to define God scientifically is like a tissue cell of the stomach wall trying to describe a human. Does the cell even know the human exists?

This does not mean you cannot sense God...

But first, what is Man?

Can we all agree on what we are yet? We have an idea, but we haven't any agreement on what it is yet. Therefore, Man is just a word which represents an idea. An ever growing idea at that.

So, if man is just an idea, where are you having these ideas?

In the mind? What is the mind? Well that is just an idea as well. We have yet to reach agreement on exactly what the mind is. So, the mind is just an idea as well.

Therefore, Man is a word, words represent ideas, ideas are formed in the mind, the mind is just an idea.

Man is an idea within an idea within an idea... to infinity.

We are animals.
Hominids.
Mammals.

But perhaps most pointedly, a unique species of one.

Number of species on Earth tagged at 8.7 million
Most precise estimate yet suggests more than 80% of species still undiscovered.

There are 8.7 million eukaryotic species on our planet give or take 1.3 million. The latest biodiversity estimate, based on a new method of prediction, dramatically narrows the range of 'best guesses', which was previously between 3 million and 100 million. It means that a staggering 86% of land species and 91% of marine species remain undiscovered.

Soo...what is "man"?

A species that has been around (with a bit of debate) somewhere between 2 millions years to 100,000 years (dependent upon specified classification).

Singular species are more likely to go extinct (without much notice by the entirety of nature), than say beetles, or jellyfish, or flowers.

Allow me to put forward another idea.

Insects will be here long after our unique species is gone.

Chew on that.
I know they will...

IAMIAM · Aug 21, 2012

s2a said:
Soo...what is "man"?

A species that has been around (with a bit of debate) somewhere between 2 millions years to 100,000 years (dependent upon specified classification).

I do not fall into the category of "Man" by your definition then.

There is no way for me to prove that an hour ago I or anything else existed. For all I know I could have been created a second ago with a memory of a past and the appearance of age. All I know is now.

s2a · Aug 21, 2012

IAMIAM said:
I do not fall into the category of "Man" by your definition then.

There is no way for me to prove that an hour ago I or anything else existed. For all I know I could have been created a second ago with a memory of a past and the appearance of age. All I know is now.

Well...then you have my sympathies and best wishes, whenever you arrive within this realm

IAMIAM · Aug 21, 2012

s2a said:
Well...then you have my sympathies and best wishes, whenever you arrive within this realm

No sympathies are necessary, I am over joyed with my realm.

So over joyed, I could not find the appropriate smilie to to represent it!

SLAMH · Aug 21, 2012

s2a said:
I offered my answer to that question here...

See if that would work for you too ...

I don't have any problem with the existence of God, creative power behind the universe (Call it whatever you want). My problem is what was his purpose, was it really to test us and evaluate our conduct ?. And how essentially he is going to punish those who fail and reward those who succeed, and by which criterion ?. Hell and heaven or successive incarnation till one is qualified to depart from temporal mortality to eternal immortality or any others criterion suggested by different religions. So, your proposal would also work for me to either hold tightly to my religion or even convert to other religions. Otherwise, I would rather approach my religion with skepticism, I think.

Heathen Hammer · Aug 21, 2012

s2a said:
I offered my answer to that question here...

See if that would work for you too ...

This definitely would work for me

Koldo · Aug 21, 2012

IAMIAM said:
God isn't in the realm of science in my opinion. Us trying to define God scientifically is like a tissue cell of the stomach wall trying to describe a human. Does the cell even know the human exists?

This does not mean you cannot sense God...

But first, what is Man?

Can we all agree on what we are yet? We have an idea, but we haven't any agreement on what it is yet. Therefore, Man is just a word which represents an idea. An ever growing idea at that.

So, if man is just an idea, where are you having these ideas?

In the mind? What is the mind? Well that is just an idea as well. We have yet to reach agreement on exactly what the mind is. So, the mind is just an idea as well.

Therefore, Man is a word, words represent ideas, ideas are formed in the mind, the mind is just an idea.

Man is an idea within an idea within an idea... to infinity.

God is a word...

Koldo · Aug 21, 2012

lunamoth said:
My intent is basically to explore whether it is possible to conceive of scientific evidence for God. My position is that God is not testable and scientific evidence or proof cannot exist.

What do you mean by 'God'?

9-10ths_Penguin · Aug 21, 2012

IAMIAM said:
God isn't in the realm of science in my opinion. Us trying to define God scientifically is like a tissue cell of the stomach wall trying to describe a human. Does the cell even know the human exists?

This does not mean you cannot sense God...

If you can sense God, then you can test for God.

If you can test for God, then God is within the realm of science.

Willamena · Aug 21, 2012

s2a said:
Just to be fair, and remind ourselves and anyone reading along, you cite my reply to what you said:
To define God/Tao/Brahman is to lose God/Tao/Brahman in the definition. There is no evidence of something best not defined.

Afterwards, I offered:

"Jabberwocky.

(no offense, but that begs of all and any incredulities...and smacks of self-imposed censorship and willful ignorance to boot)

Just saying

Perhaps I misunderstood your purposed meaning, (most of which I confess seemed like some nonsensical jabberwocky to me), but as I took it to convey was that any attempts in defining a god or spiritual entity is to effectually negate that definition.

No, what I said wasn't about the definition, or negation. But this negation of definition could only be possible if you believe in the power of a word to encapsulate something real, so that answers that.

s2a said:
It reminds me of he selling line from The Matrix

No one tell you what the Matrix is

Its an absurdly proposed conundrum. If if I try to explain it, youll therefore never come to understand what it is.

Forgive my saying so, but thats philosophical mumbo-jumbo gobbledygook.

It is.

Ie, No one can understand it, therefore, it is

Jabberwocky.

Indeed.

Good thing I didn't say that.

s2a said:
On top of that, to assert that anyone claims to understand and seeks to define what it is, either doesnt know what theyre talking about or is and obvious liar/fool

seems to me most akin to, as I offered self-imposed censorship and willful ignorance.

I still see it that way

Good thing I didn't say, either.

s2a said:
?

Maybe Im lost yet again. Generally speaking, any definition of a thing, or a concept, provides just a common reference from which most agree upon as meeting that definition. Just as a rose is a rose, a tree is pretty much a tree for most folks there is little ambiguity or lacking understanding in pointing to a tree for what it is.

Now I'm lost. "Definition" can be assigned even if there's only one person in the entire universe. It doesn't rely on populations or "might makes right" mentalities.

s2a said:
Youll forgive me if I avoid the path of rationale that questions reality as real, or only subject to self-perception/illusion.

That's always a good policy. I employ it, myself.

s2a said:
Well, if I can present you with sixteen beans set before you in four groups of four, then group them all together as one, then yes

You can call that presentation of assembled beans a definition of the mathematical equation of 4 times 4 or not as you please I suppose, but its sum of its parts remain the same, whatever or however you wish to define them in words.

[PS. Apologies for tardy reply, but as you knowpriorities and such typically rule the day, as in a measured 24hr period, or one revolution of our planet relative to a singled point, or, well, you know, however you understand a day to be defined :]

Problem with that is that if I present you with sixteen beans neatly arranged into four groups of four, I have done so because I have already learned what "four times four" can be symbolized by in the world. I already had that definition. Before I learned it, I couldn't have done that. I couldn't have made it "real."

AmbiguousGuy · Aug 21, 2012

Koldo said:
God is a word...

Yep. So if we see a thing which seems like the doings of advanced aliens, all we need do is label those aliens as 'God.' Then we have found scientific evidence of God.

The question of whether God exists is nonsensical, in my view. The question is, "What is God, if anything?"

Without first defining God, it's hard to expect to actually find Him, no matter how we search.

Irrefutable Evidence of God

1/10 Subway Stalinist

Will to love

Veteran Member

Will to love

mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler

1/10 Subway Stalinist

Just me

Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator

Member

Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator

Member

Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator

Member

Active Member

Nope, you're still wrong

Outstanding Member

Outstanding Member

1/10 Subway Stalinist

Just me

Well-Known Member