What religion is scientifically proven?

[Commoner]

The golden nugget. Was waiting for that one. For what it is worth here is something to consider.

This material realm is subject to time. Under the influence of this time we are born, grow, dwindle and die. Time is an energy of God. Its something he employs in the material world. He is not subject to time. Thus he is not subject to birth and death. He is eternal. No one created him. Creation only goes on in the material world.

Then clearly god could not have created the universe or there was no need to.

Because either (1) no material world existed before the universe so there could have been no creation which "only goes on in the material world" or (2) there already existed a material world which allowed for the creation of our universe in which case you're back to the infinite regression.

Furthermore you've assumed that the laws that govern our world within the universe are the same laws that our universe as a whole (if that's even an appropriate description) is subject to. Any way you look at it, god is an unnecessary assumption. The truth value of the "god claim" therefore cannot be established by means of this kind of an argument.

 

[Autodidact]

i'm a lay person with no serious knowledge of science. Please convince me.

how can we believe that the universe or the single cell which is a million times more complex than a computer simply 'came about'

Well, basically you're talking about all of science, entire universities and libraries worth of knowledge, from cosmology to micro-biology. I guess you're either a person who takes a scientific view toward the world, or a mythological one. I'm in the former group. Generally speaking, I think science is the best tool we have for figuring out what's going on in the world. I think it's possible for us to learn a lot, though never everything, about how the universe got to be how it is and how redwood trees and slime molds came to be.

I will say this, once you start learning even a little bit about what science has learned about any particular subject, you realize very quickly that it's never that something just "came about."

Let me ask you a couple of questions to get us started:

Do you think science works?
What particular area or subject would you like to look at more closely?

 

[Jacksnyte]

Hello guys.

I wonder which religion is scientifically proven, i mean are the stuff written in hindu scriptures or the things that are in bible or in any other scripture of any religion scientifically proven. i guess what i am trying to say is, would you be rather believing in something that is scientifically proven or would you rather be believing in myths and majic. ..

Well, seeing as how Spirituality and Science aren't likely to blend in the near future, I just really don't see where this question is in any way relevant. (IMO, of course) The proving of a religion by science at this juncture is practically an oxymoron! (again, just my opinion, don't get all in a wad! )

 

[The Wizard]

Even though I consider science and spirituality working hand-to-hand under certain circumstances, it's like the equivelant of taking a metal detecter to the beach to find sea shells. It just doesn't work most the time-2 different areas of life and application in the first place. That is why most people just go in circles with their sci-metal detecter finding nothing... makes no sense to me... IMO.

 

[Martin John]

Then clearly god could not have created the universe or there was no need to.

Because either (1) no material world existed before the universe so there could have been no creation which "only goes on in the material world" or (2) there already existed a material world which allowed for the creation of our universe in which case you're back to the infinite regression.

Furthermore you've assumed that the laws that govern our world within the universe are the same laws that our universe as a whole (if that's even an appropriate description) is subject to. Any way you look at it, god is an unnecessary assumption. The truth value of the "god claim" therefore cannot be established by means of this kind of an argument.

God could not have created the universe?

Really not sure how you have concluded this from what I have written. Nor can I follow your logic concluding that 'God is an unnecessary assumption'

 

[Martin John]

Time is a number. It's not an energy, it's not "used" by anybody. It's just a number, just like "376" describes this post.

A clock is not 'time' its a instrument with numbers that measures time. With a clock or without a clock time has its effect

 

[Martin John]

So you have made an exception for god.
Now the question is why?
Why does god get a free pass and the universe does not?
I mean your argument can be boiled down to "anything complex has to have a creator".
Yet the complexity of the creator is exempt from the rule you use to support there having to be a creator.

Do you not see anything wrong with that?

Not at all. After all we are speaking about God. Please check the Dictionary for the meaning of God.

 

[Commoner]

God could not have created the universe?

Really not sure how you have concluded this from what I have written. Nor can I follow your logic concluding that 'God is an unnecessary assumption'

I wrote it down step-by-step...so, if you think I've made a mistake somewhere please point it out for me.

You made the assertion that: "Creation only goes on in the material world." Therefore, based on your premise, god could not possibly have created anything without there already being a material world present in which to "do the creating".

 

[waitasec]

Not at all. After all we are speaking about God. Please check the Dictionary for the meaning of God.

that is an explanation that explains absolutely nothing...

can you see why one would come to this conclusion after reading this post?

 

[McBell]

Not at all. After all we are speaking about God. Please check the Dictionary for the meaning of God.

Yes and since god is an exception, I say that so is the universe.
Of course, until someone can show that god actually exists beyond the concept...

 

[darkendless]

Yes and since god is an exception, I say that so is the universe.
Of course, until someone can show that god actually exists beyond the concept...

You're asking too much. Be prepared to be massively underwhelmed. I wager my house its reasoning you've see countless times before I just predicted the future, i proclaim myself God

 

[McBell]

You're asking too much. Be prepared to be massively underwhelmed. I wager my house its reasoning you've see countless times before I just predicted the future, i proclaim myself God

The ineresting thing is that he is trying to use the whole "complexity" thing to prove god exists.
It just does not work outside the choir.

It has been shown that there is no creator needed for the universe to exist.
Now that does not mean there is no creator.
It only means that a creator is not required.

This fact is in direct conflict with his "complexity" claim.
It shows that merely making the claim that complexity requires a creator unless that complex thing is the creator and because he has put some unsubstantiated "God" title on said creator, said creator gets to render the whole "complexity" argument completely worthless.

yet he sees absolutely no problems with his "complexity" claim because of his use of some unsubstantiated "god" title.

 

[darkendless]

The ineresting thing is that he is trying to use the whole "complexity" thing to prove god exists.
It just does not work outside the choir.

It has been shown that there is no creator needed for the universe to exist.
Now that does not mean there is no creator.
It only means that a creator is not required.

This fact is in direct conflict with his "complexity" claim.
It shows that merely making the claim that complexity requires a creator unless that complex thing is the creator and because he has put some unsubstantiated "God" title on said creator, said creator gets to render the whole "complexity" argument completely worthless.

yet he sees absolutely no problems with his "complexity" claim because of his use of some unsubstantiated "god" title.

Complexity wouldn't necessarily infer a God, most likely the opposite. However, when have the godful ever been receptive to arguements outside their own?

 

[Meow Mix]

The ineresting thing is that he is trying to use the whole "complexity" thing to prove god exists.
It just does not work outside the choir.

It has been shown that there is no creator needed for the universe to exist.
Now that does not mean there is no creator.
It only means that a creator is not required.

This fact is in direct conflict with his "complexity" claim.
It shows that merely making the claim that complexity requires a creator unless that complex thing is the creator and because he has put some unsubstantiated "God" title on said creator, said creator gets to render the whole "complexity" argument completely worthless.

yet he sees absolutely no problems with his "complexity" claim because of his use of some unsubstantiated "god" title.

Teleological arguments have always been the most bizarre to me. While on one hand I can appreciate looking at a pretty sunset or the night sky and being very impressed and enthused by the universe, I've never felt compelled to believe that ergo it must be created by a superintelligence.

The reasoning behind it is just brutally contorted, too. As Dawkins pointed out, there's something wrong with the reasoning that "the universe seems complex and specific, therefore it must be created." This would mean the creator is more complex and specific, however, and by the same reasoning would require a creator itself if the reasoning is sound.

Of course, complex systems can be formed via very simple rules -- but the point here is that the theist erroneously ascribes specificity to the system, wherein they doom themselves to the inescapable logical conclusion that their "ergo, it is created" conclusion must also apply to their creator. Conveniently, they always skip this step. :sarcastic

 

[crocusj]

Not exactly. Vox populi cannot always prove a argument. My point here is that by logical inference we see that every thing in our house including our house, every piece of clothing we have, every pavement we step on, every car, plane, train we get on... is created by someone.

So on this basis 'I personally' do not think it is a bad assumption to consider that their might be a creator behind this whole cosmic manifestation

The clay in the bricks, the cotton in the clothing, the lime in the paving, the rubber in the tyres, the fuel in the jet, the iron in the rails were not created by anyone so on this basis is it not a fair assumption to consider this whole cosmic manifestation a natural phenomenon.

 

[Jacksnyte]

The clay in the bricks, the cotton in the clothing, the lime in the paving, the rubber in the tyres, the fuel in the jet, the iron in the rails were not created by anyone so on this basis is it not a fair assumption to consider this whole cosmic manifestation a natural phenomenon.

It is all natural phenomena. It is impossible to do anything outside of nature. Birds, wasps, gophers, beavers, ants, spiders, prairie dogs, meerkats, etc. all build things. Is it un-natural for them to do so? Chimpanzees use tools: is that un-natural? Humans also build things and create things. This is no less natural than what the animals mentioned, as well as a myriad of others, do.

 

[AbdullahReed]

Peace be with you. I'm a logically minded person. The proof that God exists is not absolute, like in terms of .... the way God knows Himself. That is not available to a human. But certainty is available, inasmuch as a human can be certain about anything.

For us humans, we can only get to a point where the senses, the mind, the heart, and our every conviction agrees that there is a God. It is no more difficult than believing that the sun is in the sky, but you have to be open minded and use intelligence.

Even after faith, we are still bound, by philosophy, to the PHILOSOPHICAL POSSIBILITY that there is no God, but that possibility no longer agrees with our sensorial reality. Eventually, it is just philosophy, not a realistic option.

If that was a valid criterion, then you would also have to disprove that rice is made of gold, and that the earth is a hexagon, before you believed anything. THOSE ARE PHILOSOPHICALLY POSSIBLE, but they just ain't so. Common sense knows it.

Abdullah Reed

 

[crocusj]

Peace be with you. I'm a logically minded person. The proof that God exists is not absolute, like in terms of .... the way God knows Himself. That is not available to a human. But certainty is available, inasmuch as a human can be certain about anything.

For us humans, we can only get to a point where the senses, the mind, the heart, and our every conviction agrees that there is a God. It is no more difficult than believing that the sun is in the sky, but you have to be open minded and use intelligence.

Even after faith, we are still bound, by philosophy, to the PHILOSOPHICAL POSSIBILITY that there is no God, but that possibility no longer agrees with our sensorial reality. Eventually, it is just philosophy, not a realistic option.

If that was a valid criterion, then you would also have to disprove that rice is made of gold, and that the earth is a hexagon, before you believed anything. THOSE ARE PHILOSOPHICALLY POSSIBLE, but they just ain't so. Common sense knows it.

Abdullah Reed

Pish.

 

[Wombat]

I wonder which religion is scientifically proven,

Dear Why_Islam
"Assalaamu 'alaykum"

I have some sympathy for your desire for “proof” and “scientific proof”...but I believe you are making a common error and confusing ‘evidence’ and ‘proof’ and further confusing what is “scientific proof”.
If an individual is charged with a crime we gather evidence and subject that evidence to reason and cross examination...there may be sufficient evidence to convince a judge/jury the case is proven. In some (rare) cases there may be a conviction on the 'balance of probability' when the jury feels it lacks sufficient evidence, has no proof, but feels obliged to convict to protect the community. A jury need only go 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

In law there may be abundant evidence but still no proof.

The same is true of science...you may have lots of evidence for a particular hypothesis but not enough to ‘prove’ the theory. And most importantly, while you may be swayed by probability as an individual juror, in terms of science probability just doesn’t come into it...unless it is statistical probability.
The quote you provide in #3 is a good one-
"Do not the unbelievers see that the skies (space) and the earth (matter) were joined together (as one unit of creation) and we ripped them apart?" The Quran, 21:30

I have used it myself in the last couple of weeks (which may explain why some are reluctant to discuss it or are sick of it ;-). I also have problems with that particular translation...but no matter.

The point is that such quotes are ‘evidence’...and you can (and should) discuss and argue and examine such evidence, confirm it or refute it...you may end up building enough unrefuted evidence that you are persuaded that, on the balance of probability, the case is true...You may even conclude that there is sufficient evidence that, >for you<, the case is ‘proven’.....that’s cool....that’s ok.

But when you take it ten steps further and claim it is “scientifically proven”....no....it is not...you have misunderstood and misrepresented the nature of science and scientific proof.

There is indeed sufficient ‘evidence’ to convince you, me, millions of others that God exists.

And I believe a great case can be made >on the balance of probability< for Gods existance.

But there is no ‘scientific proof’ of God or any particular religion and I doubt there ever will be.

All the best and good luck...it's a tough crowd, you'll need it.

 

[Wombat]

Teleological arguments have always been the most bizarre to me. While on one hand I can appreciate looking at a pretty sunset or the night sky and being very impressed and enthused by the universe, I've never felt compelled to believe that ergo it must be created by a superintelligence.

The reasoning behind it is just brutally contorted....

Ahhhh...That only appears to be the case because you have not as yet encountered-
WOMBAT &#8216;INTELLIGENT DESIGN&#8217; (Pty Ltd, Patent Pending)...&#8221;Clear, simple and easy to use&#8221;!

The male urinary tract is &#8216;smooth bore&#8217; all the way along- a &#8216;gun&#8217;. Guns are notoriously inaccurate, a projectile leaving the barrel of a gun can end up anywhere. Equipped with such &#8216;guns&#8217; our prehistoric forefathers would have, for millions of years, been urinating on their feet...or anything else in >broad< range. Such conditions however would have constituted no &#8216;Natural Selection&#8217; Evolutionary impediment...the man who smells of Bison guts is no less attractive for urinating on his feet.

In terms of reproduction, if &#8216;accuracy&#8217; is an issue, the participants are >doing it wrong<.

Therefore...there is no Evolutionary reason why the male urinary tract ought not remain, all the way along and throughout history, as an inaccurate smooth bore gun.

However, God in His/Her wisdom foresaw the male imperative desire to leave his mark and write his name in the snow. Thus God provided, at the very end, the tiniest twist of &#8216;rifling&#8217; that enabled both accuracy and the birth of competitive range. It was therefrom that the &#8216;wall&#8217; was invented to see who could pee up it the highest and thus &#8216;Civilization&#8217; inspired.
:faint:

Such &#8216;Intelligent Design&#8217; is undeniable and irrefutable and I will hear no more of &#8220;reasoning behind it is just brutally contorted&#8221;.

Good day to you.