Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 390. (Read 845569 times)

Nope, it's still not acceptable.

I make no such preconception.  In the latter half of my referenced post, I even state it's probably not a good idea to have any preconceived notions about God at all.  Still, you are correct that an omnipotent entity would be a free entity, even free to be able to force constraints upon itself such that it is infinite and finite simultaneously. Jesus is an example.

Still, it doesn't matter.  It doesn't matter with regards to my position because I asserted that 1) no empirical proof of a monotheistic god could ever exist, and that 2) there needn't be any.

If we witnessed a talking, burning bush, you can't conclude from that that it is a monotheistic god, even if it tells you "I'm God!" a million times.

I agree with much of this, maybe most of it. A couple of questions that I have revolve around these points.


My question here is, can't there be some evidence, even though it is not conclusive evidence?



Isn't the machine quality of the universe and life, especially when the "machinery" is advanced as it appears, and there is the presence of simple, almost non-machinery as well, a consideration?

The fact that there are tremendously "advanced" forms of complex machinery (life) in the universe...

and the fact that there is absolutely nothing but pure guesswork regarding how these advanced "machines" came about (because they are so advanced that we simply don't have enough of a handle on the idea to do more than guess)...

combined with our own active operating machine making activities that show that (usually) the more advanced machine makers among us make more advanced machines - remember, all of our machine-making abilities come from what we observe and use as already found in the universe, and we are really only scratching the surface in the amounts and ways that we use the machines of the universe...

at this stage of our development, wouldn't this be evidence for a real God?

As you say, it wouldn't be proof. Yet I would consider it to be a gigantically large chunk of evidence, evidence so great as to get me to start examining any records that I could to see if the "probable" God hadn't left us a more direct and clearer record of Himself.

Consider how great the nervous system and brain combination of a human being are from the Isaac Asimov sci-fi quote at: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9656564 .

Your stance is based upon the assumption that a monotheistic god cannot choose to take physical form (ie. a burning bush) and in fact keep such a form if it so desires indefinately. If we all agree that a truely omnipotent being could do anything if it so wills it, then it must be true that this includes taking form of a teapot or FSM. Although we might believe it to be improbable or even rediculous that god would actually choose to do this, it does not make it impossible. Therefore, I believe the FSM analogy is acceptable, however unpalatable.

Yeah, that was either this thread or the 'Christian BS' thread lol.

Yes, I believe the FSM analogy is invalid when referring to a monotheistic god, but would be applicable to polytheistic gods.

The defining characteristics constituting polytheistic gods are such that they described as finite.  They are stated to be real and inhabiting a real space that is greater than they are.  They are real actors in a real Universe, and so accordingly there should be real evidence of their finite existence if they do indeed exist.  Accordingly, FSM analogies are relevant to polytheistic gods.  The general purpose of the FSM argument is to demonstrate that it's silly to believe in the existence of something simply because you imagine that it could exist.  We can imagine polytheistic gods to exist, and for imaginary reference we can look to, for example, the portrayal of ancient Greek gods.  

The defining characteristics of a monotheistic god are very different.  Monotheistic gods are not finite.  They are described as omnipotent, and accordingly there is nothing greater or more comprehensive than a monotheistic god (i.e. if monotheistic gods are not bound by Universal law, then it follows that they operate at an equal or higher order of operative syntax).  Because monotheistic gods are at least as comprehensive as the real universe, it is impossible to imagine a monotheistic god, and therefore impossible to ever find evidence to constitute proof for the existence of such an entity.  Specifically, it is impossible because our scope of observation would need to be at least as comprehensive as the entire Universe.

As a result, the question posed in the subject heading of this thread (i.e. " Scientific proof that God exists?" can be answered in two words -- "Not possible."

The take-home message from everything written to this point is this:  It's a terribly unsound conclusion to deny of the existence of God because of a lack of evidence, because whether or not God exists there will (and can) never be any evidence for it.

Now, with regards to 'a priori' and 'a posteriori' knowledge:  Polythestic gods as well as the FSM could be proven true via 'a posteriori' knowledge (i.e. by way of evidence).  In other words, we can imagine a scenario in which we would know for certain by way of observation that polytheistic gods or the FSM exist.  If a giant monster made of spaghetti flew into your room through an open window, you would be able to claim proof for the existence of the FSM.  If some jacked guy wearing a diaper started throwing down lightning bolts everywhere, you would be able to claim proof for Zeus.

There is no possible way, however, to imagine a scenario in which we would know for certain by way of observation that a monotheistic god exists, so looking to 'a posteriori' knowledge for an answer will never get you anywhere.  So, how do we determine if a monotheistic god exists?  Well, we can look to 'a priori' knowledge for an answer.  'A priori" knowledge is independent of observation, and therefore is grounded in the abstract.  A math proof lends to 'a priori' knowledge.  A sound logical argument lends to 'a prior' knowledge.  Axioms are 'a priori' knowledge.

The debate about the existence of God should be a logical one founded upon sound ideas.  So, the type of 'a priori' proof needed for the existence of god is a theory that demonstrates that God either must or must not exist by logical necessity.  But, it would be a mistake to just take some arbitrary definition of God and prove whether that definition exists (to do so would be to commit an inductive fallacy, for how would you ever know that you were right about the thing that you just proved?). So, it's probably not the best route to even start with any preconceived notions about god.

Instead, I think a better approach would be to start with a theory of theories, as such a theory would explain not only all other theories that have, are, or ever will be, but also itself.   Such a theory could never be superseded or dismissed by any other, since any other theory that attempts to explain the 'theory of theories' would actually be that same theory!

To answer your question about what 'a priori' knowledge would constitute proof for the existence of a monotheistic god, I think that if a theory of theories demonstrates that theories -- which are inherently mental and must require an intelligent theorizer -- are solely responsible for all real physical and abstract phenomena including other theories, then I think this is proof for a monotheistic god.

there is truth in this

I will agree that there are some that believe a simple prayer or apology is all that is required and that they get a "free pass" to commit atrocities thinking that they are somehow covered by God's grace.  Some people refer to this as "cheap grace" and most would say a person that does that is not really converted.  God looks at our hearts and He says that He "knows a tree by it's fruit."  The easiest way to tell if someone is truly a Christian is to check and see if they have evidence of the fruit of God's Spirit in their lives:  Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, faithfulness, self-control.  If someone just says a prayer and continues to sin without any remorse they are not saved.  They are not a true follower of Christ.  How could someone that has truly grasped the gravity of their sins continue to hammer nails into the hands of Jesus on the cross?  This is in essence what is taking place.  Granted, it isn't like we never sin, but with each sin comes a feeling of remorse and repentance and prayer that God will continue to work out the selfish desires that once ruled our hearts and minds and fill us with the things He wants us to dwell on.  It is a constant journey of wrestling with sin which will take place until we are finally freed from this sinful state we are living in, but one in which a true Christian will strive to be like Jesus more and more each day and that is why the fruit will finally show the "tree" for what it really is inside.

From what I can gather, the guy who wrote this is comparing modern domesticated plants with older wild plants, and saying that there was a very drastic jump between the two. Is he implying that, rather than an "intelligent designer", there was an "intelligent tweaker" that changed the plants very quickly or created new plants alongside the wild ones that already existed? It's a poorly written article in my opinion, I'm finding it hard to see the points the author tries to make (although they may be valid).

I shall have another look in the morning, I'd appreciate a more coherent source if you have one, cheers  

It would be dishonest to fail to mention the characteristics that certainly DO NOT point to natural selection. It is only fair that our discussion incorporates all of the biological facts.

Evidence for Creation by Outside Intervention

Darwinists, Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents are unable to explain anomalies in the emergence of domesticated plants, animals and humans.

@the joint

I think it was earlier in this thread that you were discussing the FSM analogy and how it was invalid when referring to a monotheistic god, as a monotheistic god relies on a priori as opposed to a posteriori knowledge. I've been thinking about this a little and I still don't fully understand where you're coming from, I was hoping you could be a bit more specific as to what sort of a priori knowledge a monotheistic god would require, as opposed to a polytheistic god.
 

Now this is a different topic, but I think what cooldgamer said here is key to debunking what a lot of creationists believe - that "the diversity of life and the fact that we exist is so unlikely (even impossible) that it could only have occurred with the help of an intelligent designer."

Although I don't believe in the "big crunch" theory (this has been disproved by the Hubble telescope/redshift analysis recognising that the current Universe is actually accelerating outwards rather than slowing down, leading to the "dark energy" theory), I believe this idea that it could only have happened by design to be a logical fallacy. We don't even need multiple universes for this to be a valid point.

We can only comment on our current existence as this is the only data point we have. As far as we know, of the millions of life-forms we know to exist (let alone the ones that may or may not exist elsewhere in the Universe), humans are the only life-form to actually advance enough to question our own existence. If we had more than one data point (for example if we found self-aware life on another planet), then we could start to estimate the probabilities. Until then, we can only say "It's quite unlikely, and probably requires a planet to be X distance from a star, the planet to be tilted to create seasons/climate patterns, an atom like carbon/silicon that can form many atomic bonds and complex molecules etc. etc."

To say that, for example, a cell is so complex that it 100% MUST have been designed, is fallacious in my eyes. And when we look at life in detail, we find certain characteristics that certainly point to natural selection - ways in which we are flawed by evolution. Things like, why do humans have an appendix and a coccyx, the path of the recurrent laryngeal nerve, blind mole rats, wings on flightless birds etc.

Now of course all of this (exhaustive though it may be) does not prove evolution 100%, it certainly supports the previous idea that creation is not the only possible way that all this diversity could have occurred, and that evolution from a single common ancestor is certainly possible, if not probable.

Assuming for a second that atonement is true, the unfortunate result is likely apathy.  BADecker epitomizes this apathy as he is too lazy to incorporate new information into his existing cognitive schemas.  If people live with the idea that someone else is responsible for their wrongdoings, then along with it comes the idea that people aren't responsible for their right doings.  It becomes an excuse to not try to do or be better.  Couple that with an undeserved sense of righteousness and self-importance that comes from believing you have privileged access to some divine knowledge and you have the makings a perfect sociopath, e.g. BADecker who has no problem condemning people with a smile on his face.  It's perversion of morality to the highest degree.

When you believe that an apology to God is all that's needed to reconcile an entire life of wrongdoing, you get people that commit hideous atrocities (e.g. condemning homosexuals for being born a certain way) with no intention to stop them.

Your "proof" of God's existence and "coming" will be revealed WITHIN YOU for there is where exists the kingdom of God... WITHIN YOU!

I will earn my spiritual unity by accessing the knowledge of God within me. This knowledge will help me to follow God's laws responsibly.

Christ never once wrote down that he was your savior. This "savior" theme comes from Paul, who was never a "follower of Christ".

So how do you expect to save yourself? 

Nothing we can do in our own power is enough to pay the penalty for our sins, so I am very thankful that Christ has taken my sins and paid the penalty for them.  I just don't understand why others cannot see what a gift that is.

All “SAVIORS” are by identification and definition “PHONY”.

If there is going to be any “saving” going on--you will do it for yourself.

Christ has taken responsibility for YOU?

...I doubt that.  You're talking about a story written within the first couple of pages of the best selling book in the world.

Interesting thing is, few seem to recall that it was the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

As the eternal party pooper, I'm afraid I have this to say on the matter: Proof exists for anyone who wishes to have it.
Proof is the succulent, seasonless, ever-present fruit hanging from the tree of knowledge. From newborns to centenarians, all are equally well-equipped to pluck it with ease 

Did Tommy Lee get an Oscar? Some real life people understand it even better than he says it.

Jesus says that He is the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. For a long time I didn't understand what that really meant. But Isaiah 65:17,18 explain it very well:
In other words, the only things that will be left of this whole universe will be the things found in Jesus. He is the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. There isn't any middle, the time that exists now, the universe that exists now. Now will be gone in its entirety.

Where's the justice in it all? Does anyone really know? Can anyone really explain it?

Those who really want to be gone are welcome to be such. All they need do is ignore or downplay God/Jesus. Me, I would rather live. I would rather be in the new heavens and new earth, filled with joy.

For you, your call.

Has anyone seen the movie, The Sunset Limited? I caught the end of it the other day and was amazed by how much of what Tommy Lee Jone's character said resonated with me. I put together a few quotes from the movie. (Not too sure about the exact order it was said in.)




Found a short Youtube clip of this. Enjoy.
The Sunset Limited - Ending Scene

Or is it because they left God when they were born here, and are going back to God when they die.