• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Can Physics verify Absence of Real and True God?

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
Why can't you prove godlessness? Because it is impossible to prove the denial of the existence of Jesus Christ. Conclusion: atheism cannot be proven. So atheism is anti-scientific.

I am speaking about GNOSTIC ATHEISM only. The other atheisms are ill-defined.

Look, the question about 10 dollars in my pocket. Are there ten dollars now in my pocket? The possible answers are just two:
Yes. No. So, the variants are: Gnostic Theism, Gnostic Atheism. Other atheisms are ill-defined.

The only informative states for scientists, who investigate my pocket are: 1. Yes, there are ten dollars. 2. we do not know yet. A crazy man would mix faith and knowledge and invent 8 type of statements about ten dollars. But rational man says: Yes, there are 10, No, I do not know.

Try to find Savior through same talken with any physical object. Look, Higgs Boson was not discovered. What was found are products of his decay. God is Dark Energy, Paradise is Dark Matter.

You feel that it is not working. I feel it has already worked. I know why you are feeling it is not working:

Reason why proof of God will not get Nobel Prize

God is Dark Energy. Einstein's equations describe all things. Two are: Dark Energy and Dark Matter. Recall that Higgs Boson is not discovered yet, but the decay products are found. God has not got Nobel Prize, but God's influence on nature is proven -- Dark Energy.
The formula of Dark Energy is the second term on the left-hand side of:
Einstein field equations - Wikipedia
And its properties has features of following religious dogmas:
Omnipresence, Unchangeability of God.


My favorite number is 22. And we are almost in 2022 AD. I found out that God is Dark Energy in 2022 AD. This is my personal miracle year. I am Dmitri Martila, 1.December. 2022, [email protected]


@The Kilted Heathen wrote to me: "What evidence do you have that god is omnipresent and unchangeable? Helium shares those properties as well, perhaps helium is god. Or Oxygen."

Is it a joke? I am Christian, not pantheist. Discovery of Dark Energy got Nobel Prize.
 
Last edited:

Altfish

Veteran Member
Why can't you prove godlessness? Because it is impossible to prove the denial of the existence of Jesus Christ. Conclusion: atheism cannot be proven. So atheism is anti-scientific.

I am speaking about GNOSTIC ATHEISM only. The other atheisms are ill-defined.
Can Physics prove the absence of Fairies, or the Yeti, or The Loch Ness Monster?
No, it can't.
So not believing in Faries is anti-scientific.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Atheism is the denial of any supernatural form of existence, including any gods, despite so many atheists constantly insisting otherwise. I say this because "dis-belief" is not the same as being undecided. Belief and it's rejection are both actual philosophical determinations. Neither is being left undetermined or open to the other.

But that's not the question, here.

Humans have no means, physical or otherwise, by which we could determine the existence of any sort of god simply because our concept of God places it outside and beyond the reach of existence as we know it. So nothing within existence can tell us anything about what might lay beyond. In fact, we can't even comprehend how anything could lay beyond it. It's logically incoherent.

We are left with nothing but faith and imagination.
 

Ella S.

Dispassionate Goth
There are a variety of proofs for why specific concepts of God contradict certain laws of reality.

For instance, an omnimax God is logically impossible due to various omnipotence paradoxes, the Epicurean trilemma, etc.

A God who created the universe is both temporally and nomologically impossible. It's temporally impossible because causality is contingent upon the existence of time, so you can't cause time to come into existence unless time already existed. It's nomologically impossible because, among other issues, it violates the laws of thermodynamics; energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

So, under epistemic logic, we can say that we know for certain that God does not exist.

There are also defeaters for the Ontological Argument, the Teleological Argument, the Cosmological Argument, the Moral Argument, the Transcendental Argument, etc. In this sense, the existence of God has been logically disproven, since the arguments for God's existence have been refuted.

It's also possible to statistically show that the existence of a God is unlikely solely due to the fact that the existence of God is a supernatural and mythological claim. Every supernatural claim we have investigated has turned out to be false and mythological claims are notoriously unreliable, so it's likely that God does not exist.

So, under Bayesian epistemology, we can say that it's justified to claim that God does not exist and that this can be demonstrated through statistical proofs.

This is why I'm not a "lacktheist" that merely claims to lack a belief in God. I openly claim that there is no God and I really don't see how anyone could possibly provide a genuine counter-argument to anything I've said here unless they're going to fundamentally alter the rules of reality or revolutionize logic and the natural sciences.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Why can't you prove godlessness? Because it is impossible to prove the denial of the existence of Jesus Christ. Conclusion: atheism cannot be proven. So atheism is anti-scientific.

I am speaking about GNOSTIC ATHEISM only. The other atheisms are ill-defined.
All you have proved is that you don't understand science. But we knew that.:rolleyes:

Science does not deal in "proof". It deals in evidence. It is the absence of evidence for God that makes the concept not one that science can recognise.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I am speaking about GNOSTIC ATHEISM only. The other atheisms are ill-defined.
No, they are not. They are well defined:

Do you believe in God?

I don't believe in any gods.

Okay, we will put you in the atheist category.

If a person does not believe the Bigfoot stories he does not have to refute Bigfoot. If a person does not believe the myths of the Bible he does not have to refute the Bible.
 
Last edited:

Nimos

Well-Known Member
Why can't you prove godlessness? Because it is impossible to prove the denial of the existence of Jesus Christ. Conclusion: atheism cannot be proven. So atheism is anti-scientific.

I am speaking about GNOSTIC ATHEISM only. The other atheisms are ill-defined.
Isn't that like asking someone to prove nothingness?
 

Ella S.

Dispassionate Goth
To expand on the point made by @exchemist , science doesn't verify claims. It falsifies them. This is actually a key reason why logical positivism has been discarded in favor of critical rationalism in modern philosophy of science.

There are many good reasons for this, but I think the most straightforward explanation is this. To verify the statement, "All swans are white," you would have to either observe all swans or all non-white objects. Both of which are infeasible in practice. However, you can easily falsify the statement with a single non-white swan.

This is why hypotheses must be falsifiable to be accepted into science. God is not really falsifiable in this way, so his existence falls outside of the realm of science proper.
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
No, they are not. They are well defined:

Do you believe in God?

I don't believe in any gods.
Look, the question about 10 dollars in my pocket. Are there ten dollars now in my pocket? The possible answers are just two:
Yes. No. So, the variants are: Gnostic Theism, Gnostic Atheism. Other atheisms are ill-defined.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Look, the question about 10 dollars in my pocket. Are there ten dollars now in my pocket?
A better question....
Is there 10 dollars in any of the unknown number
of pockets you have in your vast wardrobe?
Show me the money! You haven't.
So I'm not a believer that you've got $10.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Look, the question about 10 dollars in my pocket. Are there ten dollars now in my pocket? The possible answers are just two:
Yes. No. So, the variants are: Gnostic Theism, Gnostic Atheism. Other atheisms are ill-defined.
No, let's say that you are a notoriously dishonest person. A proper answer could be "I don't believe that you have ten dollars in your pocket". That is a better analogy. Atheism and theism are about beliefs.
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
No, let's say that you are a notoriously dishonest person. A proper answer could be "I don't believe that you have ten dollars in your pocket". That is a better analogy. Atheism and theism are about beliefs.
The only informative states for scientists, who investigate my pocket are: 1. Yes, there are ten dollars. 2. we do not know yet.
 
Top