Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 385. (Read 845809 times)

I didn't mean to use different standards. And I don't know that I did. The evidences existing in the universe suggest that God exists way more than they suggest that He doesn't exist. It isn't because I say it. It is simply found in the ways that the universe works.

A simple allegory might be, if you saw smoke way off in the distance, it would suggest that there was fire way off in the distance. But it might be a volcano. Or it might not be smoke, but only a dust cloud that happened to look like smoke. Evidence for fire, but no proof of fire.

However, as the smoke was simply stated above, it would suggest fire way more than a lake. There might be a lake there. But the smoke doesn't suggest it. Until we get there, we won't really know. But if we want to surmise about it, the conclusion would be fire.

In my previous posts about the machine-like quality of the universe, all I am saying is that machines have makers. The machine-like quality of the universe suggests a maker way more than anything else. And the maker of anything as great as our universe would fit the definition of "God." Until we get there, we won't know proof positive.



Yes. Now if you could only apply that kind of thinking to yourself. I mean, how much bigger can the picture get than the universe?



Perhaps there is no way to validate the Bible. But there are methods that have been used to almost validate it. And the methods used validate the Bible way more than scientific experiments validate evolution. Why? When you consider all the historical and traditional info surrounding the Bible, you come up with a book that can't exist as the Bible exists. Yet the Bible exists all over the world, in many translations, and is believed by millions. No other religious writing carries anywhere near that kind of combined strength.

Scientific experiments that seem to validate evolution, either validate other ideas that are non-evolution ideas as well, or they are completely non-practical for fitting in the way the universe operates, making them lab experiments only.

There are so many strange and marvelous things in the universe, that something like Spiderman might exist, even though the comic books don't prove him.



Someone might say, "I don't know if God exists, and I don't know if He doesn't exist." This isn't atheism. Atheism is believing God doesn't exist. Check out http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism?s=t for the definition.

Since we don't have scientific proof that God DOES exists, and we don't have scientific proof that He DOESN'T exist, believers IN God, and believers IN NO God are simply opposed religions.

If you don't want to be in a religion, stop believing that God doesn't exist. Simply don't believe either way. At least, stop expressing that you believe that God doesn't exist. Atheism is a religion even though the atheists don't realize it.

You're incorrect when you state it's not possible to prove that a limit of theorization exists and what it might be.  We've already demonstrated it's possible.  As an analogy, draw a tesseract on a sheet of paper and you gain insight into the limits of 3-dimensional spacetime.  The method for exploring these limits involves invoking a higher-language to discuss lower-order languages.  This higher-order language would be hologrammatically the same, but with total syntactic precedence over all lower-order languages.  The reason we can draw a tesseract at all as a model of a 4th-dimensional object is because we invoked our own higher-order language.  In other words, we assumed the vantage point of a 5th-dimensional being observing a 4th-dimensional object in the same way that a 3rd-dimensional being observes a 2nd-dimensional model of a 4th-dimensional object.

So a theory of theories requires a 'prime' language, so-to-speak, which would be hologrammatically the same as all lower-order languages but infinitely greater in that all lower-order syntax conforms to syntactic precedents set by the 'prime' language.

First, if anything is real enough to be considered real, then it must be a part of the real Universe.  To that extent, reality is the only thing relevant to us and the only thing we should care about, and it's nonsensical speculation to discuss what, if anything, could exist beyond the real Universe that could provide sufficient explanatory power to explain the real Universe.

So, what choice do we have other than to describe reality in terms of itself?  Consider that we are real beings theorizing about reality as a whole or about real parts of the whole.  Accordingly, all theories are already self-referential in terms of reality, but only vary in terms of their level of generality.

The theory posited by Langan (simplified) is that the Universe is essentially a self-reifying theory.  So far as I've been able to explore it, it's a sound theory.  You can find it at www.ctmu.org.

Not possible. This limit only exists once you become aware of it. Attempts to contain this limit within a binding set of laws/definitions only lead to perpetual self-questioning and is not recommended lest you should go off on a tangent unbeknownst to yourself.





Regarding the above quote, I've never heard of this guy and I don't want to be rude but right off the bat there are so many things inherently wrong with his proposition that I don't even know where to begin. Suffice it to say that any theory that resorts to 'logical tautologies' for support is a blatant display of desperation. I must say however, that the last line of his text (due to the use of these words 'cognitive, theoretic') paints a slightly more humble picture of the thought processes at play here

Great response.

You mention:


Correct, but this isn't necessarily a problem.  All a limit suggests is that it's the best that we can possibly do, and so if we can identify what that limit actually is, we will have a theory that is at the highest possible level of generality.  However, you seem to claim that such a theory will introduce an unsolvable paradox in which the theory both explains itself but does yield enough explanatory power to explain itself.  For this, I'll respond by quoting Christopher Langan:

The author's thesis should be considered; he shows you that "it can be shown that You Know What has the widest array of facts on its side and has the best chance of being proved correct in the end" and "Like domesticated plants and animals, humans stand well outside the classic Darwinian paradigm."

Unfortunately such a theory can never come to exist, at least not in the sense you're alluding to. At best, you'll get the snake to eat it's own tail which is always acceptable assuming you're 100% innocently content with your theory of theories. The fundamental flaw in your reasoning is this: An ultimate theory that apprehends all other theories will always be bound by theorist's/designer's own limits. The 'everything' that your theory encompasses will always be what 'everything' is to you and not necessarily what 'everything' is.
It should also be noted that if you have not given yourself up completely to your own theory, something that theoretically would only be achievable through complete innocence, then you're back to square one with the original feeling of inadequacy that pushed you to look for a theory of everything in the first place.

You can't make our position have to abide by one standard and then say yours doesn't.  There may be some sort of a higher power that doesn't abide by these for all we know, but there is absolutely no proof of that.  'Goddditit!' is not a valid argument no matter how many times you repeat it

No scientific evidence so far proves god.  The Joint made a good point saying that some things could be considered evidence, but anything can be interpreted anyhow if you take a narrow snippet of it instead of the big picture.

There is no way to validate what is written in the bible, which is the only place you could source these 'impossible to exist' claims (although I have a feeling if I researched the specifics it would have already been debunked).  Spiderman comics don't prove that Spiderman exists, The Bible doesn't prove that God exists.

You cannot disprove god, and I never claimed to be able to.  Atheism is not a religion, it is a lack of belief in a diety until we are presented with something that proves otherwise.  If you claim to know for certain that there is no god that is just as ignorant as claiming to know for certain that there is one.

Why do you think that "Something more complex had to have created your god," when we don't know enough about God, or anything potentially outside of our universe? Is it simply because you say so? Are you god enough that you just know it?



This is really great. Not many people can believe in much of anything without some kind of evidence. Why do you ignore the evidence that I have presented, especially since the evidence incorporates the whole scientific realm of man?



The people who study the historical and traditional record about the Bible, have come to the conclusion that it cannot exist as it does. You can extrapolate for yourself what this means.



Yet, since the greatest evidence - that which I have presented in my previous post above - suggests that there is a way high higher intelligence than man, the only two ways to make the idea of there not being a God to have any strength are: 1) prove there is no God; 2) formulate a religion around pure atheism.

There's evidence, but what are you evidencing?  A lack of absolutely conclusive evidence for something means that you can't conclusively decipher whether it or does not constitute evidence for whatever you think it might be.

Imagine for example that every moment of your real life is actually an advanced computer simulation, and then outside of that simulation you're some brain in a jar hooked up to wires that's transmitting the simulation.  If that were the case, then perhaps everything that you evidence now is the product of a computer programmer.  But, since there is no way to observe outside the simulation while being in the simulation, you have no idea whether you're evidencing the product of a programmer, God, or any other number of things.  However, the programmer can conclusively state that everything you evidence is part of simulation, and this is because his scope of observation is greater than the entirety of the simulation itself.  But since the scope of observation of a participant in the simulation is contained within that simulation, he will never have access to evidence from which he can draw conclusions about the true nature of the simulation.

Here we go in this endless loop again.  Something more complex had to have created your god, to have created the universe, to have created us... you're simply stopping the chain of needing more complexity and saying 'because god'. 

I never claimed to know if there is a god, I simply counter your arguments that there is proof/evidence for one.  I choose not to believe based on a lack of evidence.  There are some people that believe there is a higher power since we don't know for certain, and that is a respectable position.  What is not, on the other hand, is believing that you know who the one true creator is based on a book thousands of years old and you're going to burn for eternity if you don't believe in him.

The idea that there is not a god makes no less sense than the idea that there is one.

Okay, here it is again.

Man looks at universe and sees complexity.
Man copies universe and makes complexity.
Mans' complexity is not as complex as universe' complexity.
Man is intelligent, having a great mind.
Why is not the universe that developed the complexity that man uses, and greater, not intelligent? with even a greater mind?

Is it the universe that is the mind? Is there a universe Creator? We simply don't know scientifically. Yet ALL of our "smarts" come from observing and copying the universe in one way or another.

It is the idea that there is NOT a God that is starting to not make sense.

...what?  The universe is extremely complex, but that's not a 'god-like' quality

But it is evidence that there is something that has God-like qualities, even if it is only a living, thinking, virtually breathing universe.

Yet, the universe seems to have fantastically marvelous and great machine-like qualities. And we know from our own doings and observations that machine-making only exists in the higher species (man makes a lot of machines, and chimps and monkeys make crude machine tools). Yet mans' machines (at least so far) can't compare in quality, quantity, and magnitude to the machines that he sees around himself in the universe. So, why do we strive to leave the idea of God out of the picture, when there is great possibility that the machines of the universe were made?

It's not evidence for a god either.  Same difference, used the wrong word.

Exactly. We can't prove that he exist either.

I don't think we will ever be able to prove God doesn't exist.

Wrong! Why? We know that there is science. We use it all the time. We don't have conclusive scientific evidence one way or the other about the existence of God. So, IF God exists, and IF He is the creator of all things, then He IS the most important Cause of science that there is. Why shouldn't we continue to consider God along with science until we can prove that He doesn't exist?

You know, you have a way of twisting things. You're statement, above, "Complex life is in no way proof for a god," is a totally acceptable statement. But you haven't ever answered the question. What kind of evidence is it? You keep saying "proof" when we all know there isn't any proof. Does lack of proof mean that there can't be any evidence whatsoever?

The idea of something making God is unfounded. Why? Because we don't know enough about God from the evidence to suggest that He has any kind of need for being made. And the evidence is so inconclusive that there is no way to say that He WAS made.