• 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!

Design a God Experiment

My Hypothesis Is:

  • That God Does Exist

    Votes: 7 38.9%
  • That God Does Not Exist

    Votes: 2 11.1%
  • That God Cannot Be Proven or Disproven

    Votes: 4 22.2%
  • (I'm not sure what experiment would even prove this)

    Votes: 5 27.8%

  • Total voters
    18

Samantha Rinne

Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
In response to this comment.

Theology is Falsifiable, thus, - Scientific.

So this handy 5th grade or so tutorial tells you how science experiments work.

https://explorable.com/conduct-science-experiments

1. You need to do testing (preferably repeated, by several other scientists after yourself)
2. You need to use the scientific method.
3. You need a hypothesis, either that God exists/does not exist/cannot be proved either way.
4. You need to set up an experiment which will entail trying to "observe" something that is not readily observed.
5. You need a control and something different from the control to be experimented on.
6. Then you need to get results and form a conclusion.

So how would you go about this? What would your experiment be like, what would your controls be, etc?

I'm asking, because while I can generally prove to myself to sufficient degree, I'm not actually sure the falsifiability thing the poster in the other thread is as easy as they think. Would this be a biological experiment? A psychological one? A psychics or astronomy experiment? Or something else?

Or like me, would you conclude that you can't even think of any experiment?
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Or like me, would you conclude that you can't even think of any experiment?

We, humanity, are very limited as is our technology. We can barely get off our rock at this time let alone refuted God in science. God is a philosophical issue at this time. Religions can have claims that can be addressed by science such as YEC claims. Showing a religion to be false is a different issue.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
1. God does exist
2. God is love (1 John 4:7-21)
3. Love exists
4. God does exist.

1. God does exist
2. God is an experience
3. 1 John 4:16 and Psalm 16:11 (Experience of love and fullness and joy)
4. Love, fullness, and joy exists
5. God exists

God is not a deity like Zues. He's always spoken of an experience. He is anthropomorphize "spirit of life" in which one who "submits" (I guess) to service and love etc, one gains the fullness, joy, and love which people define as god.

Scientifically, it's psychological, physiological, context, etc. It's not beakers and math or anything like that. Books, practices, idols, etc help one understand the nature of god(s) but to put god under a microscope is defeating the purpose in what most spirit-ual faiths propose of its followers.

You can translate god as energy, if one likes. We are all brought alive from birth 'till death in a form of energy. We feed off of it and the whole nineyards. Our experiences with god is how we interpret that energy (however we call it). Also, personal events, synchronicity, mystical feelings, visions, and dreams etc confirm "god/experiences" and as such, one has a personal relationship with it (for an interesting way to say it).

The only way I can think otherwise is if believers of all spirit-ual religions explain their personal experiences with god. If god is unique and exist, like fingerprints, the experiences must have some distinctness from one person and another. Since we are all human, god is the eye of the beholder. I'm not sure why people don't like explaining mystical experiences. They're not less important if its explained.

Anyway. I think god is looked at in the wrong way by people who want to prove god by science. If believers can explain god from 1. their own personal experiences 2. in their words, maybe there should be some uniqueness that shows one god over another. So far, I haven't seen it. Maybe I'm too human, I don't know.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
I have repeatedly posted.....and only GOD knows how many times...

there will be no proof

no fingerprint, no photo, no equation and no repeatable experiment

all you CAN do is think about it

and now I go further to say......sharpen your thoughts and feelings
your weigh scale and sword

KNOW what you think and feel
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
In response to this comment.

Theology is Falsifiable, thus, - Scientific.

So this handy 5th grade or so tutorial tells you how science experiments work.

https://explorable.com/conduct-science-experiments

1. You need to do testing (preferably repeated, by several other scientists after yourself)
2. You need to use the scientific method.
3. You need a hypothesis, either that God exists/does not exist/cannot be proved either way.
4. You need to set up an experiment which will entail trying to "observe" something that is not readily observed.
5. You need a control and something different from the control to be experimented on.
6. Then you need to get results and form a conclusion.

So how would you go about this? What would your experiment be like, what would your controls be, etc?

I'm asking, because while I can generally prove to myself to sufficient degree, I'm not actually sure the falsifiability thing the poster in the other thread is as easy as they think. Would this be a biological experiment? A psychological one? A psychics or astronomy experiment? Or something else?

Or like me, would you conclude that you can't even think of any experiment?

I can't think of any such experiment in application to any supernatural being. Which is why I don't believe in any.

What does it mean that you think you can sufficiently prove something "to yourself" as opposed to others? Is that just a way of saying that if you were an outsider looking in, you wouldn't believe the explanation being put forward? Doesn't that therefore indicate that your belief is probably biased and therefore untrustworthy?
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
I propose.....and have often done so here at the forum....

the ROTATION is the proof

if the primordial singularity had simply expanded
ALL we would see is ONE percussion wave
a hollow sphere of energy moving in equal proportions all at once

that is not what we see when we look up

so......the ROTATION would NEED to be in play......BEFORE the expansion begins

THAT would be the pinch and snap......of God's Fingers
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
1. God does exist
2. God is love (1 John 4:7-21)
3. Love exists
4. God does exist.

1. God does exist
2. God is an experience
3. 1 John 4:16 and Psalm 16:11 (Experience of love and fullness and joy)
4. Love, fullness, and joy exists
5. God exists

Replace "love, fullness, and joy" with literally any other word and the logic remains valid.

God is ice cream.
Ice cream exists.
Therefore God exists.

God is my pen.
My pen exists.
Therefore God exists.

So why have the word "God" at all? God is just a proxy here in all these syllogisms. What does calling any of these things "God" contribute to our understanding of them in any verifiable way?
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
A human lives on a stone planet, with a gas atmosphere that burns daily, produces light and you live.

So you own all information.

Information first says to self...everything before me.

Meaning as consciousness, when an atmosphere never existed.

Is God, sitting in a womb. No human, no machine, no theories, no consciousness, no false belief, no stories, and no egotism.

Therefore a human thinking would state, every condition in space sits just in space.

Space is a non body...empty and is named space for it owns no mass.

Mass that is sitting in space owns no space, why it sits in space, with space holding it.

History about God the planet/stone. Mind says, when God was burning in Hell as all angels were O that fell out of the eternal body leaving a space. Water the thin veil of eternal was changed, and became water.

Our life/consciousness exists due to holy water, natural light in gases.

The spirit of sacrificed first is stated to be a gas that burns and gives light for us...having nothing at all to do with us, for it is gas mass burning.

Whether the gases burn or not burn, we only know because we are living inside of an atmosphere. So we KNOW we are not God.

To detail information to self is to claim I KNOW. Knowing exists first before science fake/artificial thinking did.

Ask a human why they do not identify with their own self that they were the highest spirit in creation, consciousness and that as the highest spirit they were only visiting what they had caused?

Which would be a rational advice to self. Self human is a loving natural being.

I know.

Why I know.

Animals, not my life, not my body, not my spirit are also loving.

I know God the actual history reference of was never loving for God the fusion/fission changes burnt my life.

I know my Father and my human Mother both loving beings were before me.

Their whole adult life communicated recorded as loving beings affects my psyche as I grow.

Now if you ask a Satanist why he tried to convince everyone that our parents were aliens.....because he did. Yet when he talks parents he talks humans...and so is a proven coercive liar....that sort of male who today still tries to claim I can identify the highest human spirit love and have it destroyed by AI computer radiation studies...for I want love for my machine.

The Destroyer mentality...for I know because I was attacked by his choices.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Replace "love, fullness, and joy" with literally any other word and the logic remains valid.

God is ice cream.
Ice cream exists.
Therefore God exists.

God is my pen.
My pen exists.
Therefore God exists.

So why have the word "God" at all? God is just a proxy here in all these syllogisms. What does calling any of these things "God" contribute to our understanding of them in any verifiable way?
(9:22)

But ice cream actually exist. Just there is a lot of history, personal attachment, etc that come with the word. That doesn't change its nature regardless the nature and religion thereof.

Edit. It's historical. Tradition. Different cultures explain the "absolute mystery", energy, emotion, etc of life in various ways. The word god is a culture thing not universal.

There's a UU sermon on this. I'll post it. The minister give a better explaination of the idea of god/mystics experience etc.


If you're at the end of your rope, who/what would you call to save your life. What is your "god"?

Some people say love is their god. If they are hurt, they call out for love-for salvation, saving humanity, committed marriage, so have you.

He says you can basically pick anything that we would call to/for if we have nothing else to go to. God could be yourself. Your consciousness. Gods. So have you. Im not sure why it needs to be secretive or mystic to be religiouus and the more mundane, the less it has attention. But, that's basically it.

If eating ice cream saved a person's live that would be their god.

How does one experience god (and recognize that experience) if it had nothing to do with "earthly" causes that influence them?
 
Last edited:

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
But ice cream actually exist.

Yes, and love and joy actually exist too. So why call them God, when we have perfectly good words for them?

Just there is a lot of history, personal attachment, etc that come with the word. That doesn't change its nature regardless the nature and religion thereof.

Edit. It's historical. Tradition. Different cultures explain the "absolute mystery", energy, emotion, etc of life in various ways. The word god is a culture thing not universal.

There's a UU sermon on this. I'll post it. The minister give a better explaination of the idea of god/mystics experience etc.

I understand that the term God has to do with tradition and culture. And that's exactly why something as simplistic as "God is love, therefore God exists" really doesn't meaningfully address the existence of what we actually mean when we say God.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
1. You need to do testing (preferably repeated, by several other scientists after yourself)
You first need a falsifiable hypothesis to test.
3. You need a hypothesis, either that God exists/does not exist/cannot be proved either way.
Are there only three possible hypotheses?
How could "God does not exist" be disproved? It seems to be an invalid hypothesis.
"Cannot be proved either way." Is this a hypothesis, or a philosophical position?
"God exists." is the only testable hypothesis.
4. You need to set up an experiment which will entail trying to "observe" something that is not readily observed.
I think there are more possibilities than this.
Why "...not readily observed?" Couldn't not observing something expected be useful, as well, or observing something readily observed?
5. You need a control and something different from the control to be experimented on.
No, you don't.
6. Then you need to get results and form a conclusion.
So how would you go about this? What would your experiment be like, what would your controls be, etc?

I'm asking, because while I can generally prove to myself to sufficient degree, I'm not actually sure the falsifiability thing the poster in the other thread is as easy as they think. Would this be a biological experiment? A psychological one? A psychics or astronomy experiment? Or something else?[/quote] I think you'd first need to clarify what it is you're trying to prove. Define "God," and decide what evidence for his existence would consist of.

Or like me, would you conclude that you can't even think of any experiment?
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Yes, and love and joy actually exist too. So why call them God, when we have perfectly good words for them?



I understand that the term God has to do with tradition and culture. And that's exactly why something as simplistic as "God is love, therefore God exists" really doesn't meaningfully address the existence of what we actually mean when we say God.

Well, yeah. It's the same as calling someone Jane instead of human being.

I edited above. To sum, it's the thing or person you call when you have no where else to turn. If your thing is love, and you have no where else to turn, you may turn to love. Whatever that internal thing that changed your live insofar to keep going back to it is what people call god.

It's literally the breathe of life.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
1. God does exist
2. God is love (1 John 4:7-21)
3. Love exists
4. God does exist.

1. God does exist
2. God is an experience
3. 1 John 4:16 and Psalm 16:11 (Experience of love and fullness and joy)
4. Love, fullness, and joy exists
5. God exists
I don't understand what all this means.
God is not a deity like Zues. He's always spoken of an experience. He is anthropomorphize "spirit of life" in which one who "submits" (I guess) to service and love etc, one gains the fullness, joy, and love which people define as god.
"God" is conceived of as a personage; a someone or something. An abstraction like "God is love," or "God is an 'experience'", while very poetic, is not how we usually think of him.

Scientifically, it's psychological, physiological, context, etc. It's not beakers and math or anything like that. Books, practices, idols, etc help one understand the nature of god(s) but to put god under a microscope is defeating the purpose in what most spirit-ual faiths propose of its followers.

You can translate god as energy, if one likes. We are all brought alive from birth 'till death in a form of energy. We feed off of it and the whole nineyards. Our experiences with god is how we interpret that energy (however we call it). Also, personal events, synchronicity, mystical feelings, visions, and dreams etc confirm "god/experiences" and as such, one has a personal relationship with it (for an interesting way to say it).

The only way I can think otherwise is if believers of all spirit-ual religions explain their personal experiences with god. If god is unique and exist, like fingerprints, the experiences must have some distinctness from one person and another. Since we are all human, god is the eye of the beholder. I'm not sure why people don't like explaining mystical experiences. They're not less important if its explained.

Anyway. I think god is looked at in the wrong way by people who want to prove god by science. If believers can explain god from 1. their own personal experiences 2. in their words, maybe there should be some uniqueness that shows one god over another. So far, I haven't seen it. Maybe I'm too human, I don't know.[/QUOTE]
No. God is conceived of as a "he." He has a personality, desires, likes and dislikes, preferences, emotions. This does not describe energy or an abstraction.
God is a person.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Yes, and love and joy actually exist too. So why call them God, when we have perfectly good words for them?



I understand that the term God has to do with tradition and culture. And that's exactly why something as simplistic as "God is love, therefore God exists" really doesn't meaningfully address the existence of what we actually mean when we say God.

Because god is used for a deity or something "bigger" than who that person is externally.

So, love in itself is earthly. But when you put it and see it bigger than yourself, it becomes "your god." God is a title (in abrahamic tradition) superiority, power, mystery, and other.

If ice cream were their god, they'd probably use the term god (like king) instead of ice cream (name) because they are respecting its title and role.

Others, like JW would call god by its name (Sherbert) rather than god or ice cream because that denotes a personal relationship with the (i.e. person being) rather than a title that can be applied to anything outside of "the bible."
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I don't understand what all this means.
"God" is conceived of as a personage; a someone or something. An abstraction like "God is love," or "God is an 'experience'", while very poetic, is not how we usually think of him.

Scientifically, it's psychological, physiological, context, etc. It's not beakers and math or anything like that. Books, practices, idols, etc help one understand the nature of god(s) but to put god under a microscope is defeating the purpose in what most spirit-ual faiths propose of its followers.

You can translate god as energy, if one likes. We are all brought alive from birth 'till death in a form of energy. We feed off of it and the whole nineyards. Our experiences with god is how we interpret that energy (however we call it). Also, personal events, synchronicity, mystical feelings, visions, and dreams etc confirm "god/experiences" and as such, one has a personal relationship with it (for an interesting way to say it).

The only way I can think otherwise is if believers of all spirit-ual religions explain their personal experiences with god. If god is unique and exist, like fingerprints, the experiences must have some distinctness from one person and another. Since we are all human, god is the eye of the beholder. I'm not sure why people don't like explaining mystical experiences. They're not less important if its explained.

Anyway. I think god is looked at in the wrong way by people who want to prove god by science. If believers can explain god from 1. their own personal experiences 2. in their words, maybe there should be some uniqueness that shows one god over another. So far, I haven't seen it. Maybe I'm too human, I don't know.
No. God is conceived of as a "he." He has a personality, desires, likes and dislikes, preferences, emotions. This does not describe energy or an abstraction.
God is a person.[/QUOTE]

The "nature" of god isn't described as a person. The role of god is.

Scripture says god is love. Love in itself isn't a being in and of itself. However, biblically, love does a lot of things for people and through people. Most believers see love as a "person" (aka a source). When referred to as an abstract concept, they call it paganism. But the fact that love (the experience of being born again, etc) isn't a person would mean god in and of itself isn't a person.

Love meaning spiritual fullness (or lack of better words) not earthly love between two humans. The love that changes a believers lives forever to where he or she is in service to god.

I'm not one to ask for proof. If god isn't an experience of love, grace, and faith then What exactly is god? The being must have a nature if it isn't the faith and experience in which believers have in order to serve him.

Usually, believing and experience god are internal in nature. If god is external, what is god?
 

Samantha Rinne

Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
I can't think of any such experiment in application to any supernatural being. Which is why I don't believe in any.

What does it mean that you think you can sufficiently prove something "to yourself" as opposed to others? Is that just a way of saying that if you were an outsider looking in, you wouldn't believe the explanation being put forward? Doesn't that therefore indicate that your belief is probably biased and therefore untrustworthy?

What it means it that I have a series of anecdotal events that are too bizarre to be explained rationally (and believe me I tried, with roughly 200+ pages of notes for a straight year). But none of this resemble a science lab experiment. It would be enough to convince an agnostic, maybe. But not a scientist.
 
Top