Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 394. (Read 845654 times)

You're speaking here to the difference between the generally inductive process of the scientific method as a whole vs. the deductive process that occurs during individual scientific experiments.   Yes, you are correct that many scientific hypotheses are about unobservable phenomena, but those scientific hypotheses are always based upon the results of other empirical observations.  Those observations then lead us to inductively hypothesize about what caused the events that are observed.  

For example, when an apple falls from a tree and we see other things falling, we can inductively hypothesize that there is likely some unobservable law (gravity, as it turns out) responsible for these allowing these objects to 'fall'.  From that hypothesis we deduce an experimental design to test the strength of our hypothesis which is either accepted or rejected.

The observation of falling objects to create the hypothesis of a law that allows objects to 'fall' was, in itself, an informal experiment.  The hypothesis of this informal experiment is that if something is dropped then it will fall, and we've already tested that hypothesis informally because, on Earth, we always see things fall when dropped.  

What science cannot do, however, is test a purely abstract hypothesis, i.e. a hypothesis that itself was born out of non-empirical ideas.  For those hypotheses, we have the aforementioned, more abstract disciplines I spoke of earlier.  God as a hypothesis is purely abstract, and while such hypotheses are beyond the scope of science, they are not beyond the scope of philosophy.  From a philosophical standpoint, all you need to do to prove the existence of God is to ascribe a definition to God and logically argue whether such an entity must exist by necessity (or, conversely, that it cannot possibly exist, or perhaps even that it is not possible to conclude whether such an entity exists.

Speaking to my previous sentence, I personally like the approach taken by Christopher Langan who, instead of trying to inductively exploring the idea of God based upon evidence or trying to deduce God from a series of axioms, seeks to first remove layers of logical complexity in the Universe and see what remains when there are no more layers left to remove.  As it turns out, taking this approach, the case for God becomes incredibly strong.

Here's a nice article about scientific hypotheses: https://philosophynow.org/issues/74/Hypotheses_Forget_About_It

Funny; when you assign homework you are supposed to tell the student where to look for answers. Have you provided references? Have you called my phone number to ask me for some pertinent info?

Your dogma is not appreciated here unless you can back it up; you are annoying us and leading us away from the truth you try to promote.

Christ never put pen to paper. Without the writings of Christ, the integrity of the Bible is in question.

Well, people are always going to think they are right.

If they didn't think they were right, they wouldn't have been thinking that way in the first place. 

And to that point, I don't see much point in sitting around putting my 2 cents in when people aren't going to listen anyway.

Oh come man. Have some faith. (pun intended) New branches and disciplines of science are regularly being created as time goes by.  And also lots and lots of theories are postulated in science not by what we can see, but by what we can't see.  If I remember for a long time that was the case with dark energy and dark matter, thus the "dark" in their name.  Just because it isn't directly observable doesn't mean science can't dabble around the subject and rule out other reasonable possibilities one by one.    

I posted this back in the summer:


Shame it was ignored. Would of saved months of pointless arguing and anger.

As created beings we have limited knowledge and therefore cannot understand anything beyond what we were created to understand.  We were created within the limits of time with all things around us having a "beginning and an ending" but God is outside of time.  He "was and is and is to come."  He is eternal.   This eternal all knowing creator created us with limits in our knowledge and understanding but that said, many created beings think that they are "all knowing."  

1) Correct, science is not equipped to conclude about that which cannot be observed.  So yes, it's basically an irrelevant thread as there never could be empirical proof for God.  The debate should instead center around 'a priori' knowledge and not 'a posteriori' knowledge.

2) Correct, the continuing refinement of theories is why science is awesome for its intended purposes.

Good post, although the only thing I would say is that you should remove the "(yet)" from your post as empirical methods of study can never possibly conclude about that which cannot be observed.  For that we have philosophy, mathematics, and metaphysics.

And likewise religious people, you really don't have any business in here trying to use science to disprove science and prove religion.  That is just absurd.  Even if you are right, you just have made science stronger and not really furthered religion.  It is a game that at best you can tie at and at worst lose a lot.  

If you want to believe in the Bible, or Buddha's story, or the Quran, that is your choice.  Go ahead and believe in it, and just ignore all the scientist that will change their mind later anyway, but don't cherry pick some science and leave other science behind that contradicts with your tradition.  Take it as it is or leave it.  Religious people that try to use some science that doesn't contradict their tradition but ignore other science that does contradict their tradition just look silly.      

This whole debate is stupid.

1. Human science is soooooo premature that humans don't even know how big the universe is, how does gravity and electromagnetism work and many other very very simple and basic parts of physics.  If science can't even understand the physical world that is observable, it really has no business commenting on the unobservable (yet), and anybody trying to use it to prove or disprove God's existence probably doesn't realize how silly they look.  Like a monkey trying to understand the complex grammar of a Shakespearean play when all it knows is sign language signs for simple verbs and simple nouns.  

2. Science at this early stage is inevitably usually wrong about most things that have been "proven".  Scientist are always right in their own mind until 10 or 50 or 100 years later another scientist comes along and shows that were magnificently wrong in a few assumptions.  

I am not arguing that there is or isn't a God here.  What I am trying to say is using today's science to discuss this topic is about as stupid as using first century astronomy and mathematics knowledge to explain why the Earth is bigger than the sun, why the Earth is flat, and just how far away the sun is as it rotates around the Earth.

A few other things:

I was saying that you use inductive reasoning every day of your life, and if you didn't you'd be a vegetable.  For example, you wouldn't know how to make cereal in the morning, because taking a spoon, bowl, milk, and cereal and putting it all together is an inductive process.

Yes, you are using deductive reasoning when you make statements about the Universe based upon the Bible, but that deductive reasoning is horribly flawed.  You use the Bible axiomatically as your starting point and from there try to deduce true statements about the world.  The problem is that logic does not permit the use of axioms to prove themselves.  So, you can't just start with the assumption the Bible is correct because assuming the Bible is correct does not necessarily make it so.  If I started with the assumption that Humpty Dumpty is true and tried to deduce true statements about the Universe, you'd call me crazy.  However, it's no different than starting with the assumption that the Bible is true.


There is only *one* scientific method.  There will never be more than one scientific method.  Your statement here makes no sense.


Uh, *every* scientific theory is an abstract statement.


This is probably one of the best things about science.  As science is a method, science does not care what theories and conclusions are formed.  Science welcomes new evidence that overturns old theories. That's the beauty of it.  Science allows us to make more and more precise, refined theories as new evidence presents itself.  This is why we've come so far in technological development and in our understanding of isolated processes in the Universe.  This isn't a weakness, it's a strength.

Uh...wow.

It's ludicrous that you actually started your post with:


You deserve a myriad facepalms.  Dictionaries exist as a means of unifying understanding of what words mean so that people can communicate.

Do you remember Bill Clinton during that TV interview?  If not, here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0

This is more-or-less where you're going.  Seriously?  You're going to claim that your imaginary, made-up interpretation of science is superior to dictionary references?   Why not just go ahead and challenge what the words "the" and "dictionary" mean while you're at it?

If you're going to attack a dictionary reference, then you leave yourself open to be challenged on *every single word in every single post you've ever made*.

The scientific method has exactly one method.  There is absolutely no deviating from the scientific method or it's no longer the scientific method.

So, to summarize yet again, science is first and foremost a method.  But, we can use the scientific method to explore various scientific fields (referring to the first derivative) to yield scientific theories (referring to the second derivative).

Let me repeat that.  We can use the scientific method to explore various scientific fields to yield scientific theories.

Now do you see how all three emboldened terms are distinct?  I'm sure you would agree that "scientific method" is not the same as "scientific fields" which are also not the same as "scientific theories."

Anybody can go look up what a dictionary says. What's the point? Words are constantly changing in meaning based on common usage. That's why we don't use a dictionary from the time of King James. That's why we have legal dictionaries that remain much in the meaning of the dictionaries at the time of the formation of the country, while popular dictionaries have words that look the same but often have a completely different meaning.

Why do you think that I attack science? How paranoid can you get? Science itself (yes, the science of your dictionary definitions) has determined over and over again that many formerly held "beliefs" about Evolution are, indeed false. Many of the things of Evolution were even proven to be fraudulent. Sound familiar? Sounds like religion and government and politics in a lot of ways.

You seem to need to learn that strict science is YOUR friend. It is pointing you away from the foolish falsehoods of political "scientific" scammers, to the truth of the Bible, but by deductive reasoning. Soon there won't be any scientific methods left to test for Evolution scientifically. They will ALL have proven that Evolution is scientifically impossible. Ever notice how the attempted scientific proofs for Evolution have been getting more and more abstract lately?

Think before you speak.  Here's what you're constantly missing, even though I already quoted this for you:


I emboldened three phrases.  The first phrase corresponds to a *method*.  The second two are derivatives, with the first derivative referring to various scientific disciplines, and the second referring to a set of knowledge.  If you want to see it in a tidier format, just type "science definition" into Google and see what pops up.

Your mistake is that, over and over again, you keep blasting science only in terms of its derivatives, but never for its method.  This isn't about me "wanting a description" of anything.  I'm telling you what the actual definition is according to a dictionary reference, and how you have consistently failed to recognize that science is first and foremost a method. 

And do you know why you don't directly attack science as a method (even though you think you are)?  It's because you use the same method, albeit on a much more informal level, every day of your waking life.  It's called inductive reasoning.  Scientists use it, and you use it albeit on a much more informal level.

You need to learn that science is your friend.  Inductive reasoning can't provide you with comprehensive, absolute truths about the Universe, but without it you'd be a vegetable.

Well what gave the all knowing creator all of his knowledge?  You're not applying the same standards to your god that you are for evolution.  If you're going to make an argument at least make sure your own idea can stand up to it

We have seen evolution in labs right before our eyes.  Over time bacteria were able to evolve into getting energy from a food source that they could not use before (Source) 

But what if the creator of our universe just happened to be "all knowing?"  Then this creator would not have to be created.  For all the parts of our world to work so well together then someone or something smarter had to be involved in the design of it. This is just common sense.  Complexity does not increase over time by just "evolving" in any observable experimentation.

No, it is not.  If everything complex required a creator than your god would also have to have one, and it's creator have one....  By your logic it would be impossible for a creator to exist because it gets in a infinite loop of needing creators.

Your example of a computer needing code really doesn't work here, as the first organisms didn't have any at all.  Over time evolution made them grow in complexity by making the ones that did thrive, so really it's more like self-patching code by finding out what does and doesn't work.

Check out this video, it does a pretty good job of covering it

All information had to come from somewhere or something that had information.  For example, computer software had to be created by someone that had enough intelligence or information to put that information into the software code.  Even if the hardware of a computer just evolved by chance (which we all know is completely impossible) it would still be a box of metal with no ability to do anything of value.  Why?  It takes software for the machine to run and be useful.

The same could be said for the human body.  Even if the human body happen to evolve where did the information "code" of how our cells interact with each other come from?  It is highly complex and that complexity had to come from somewhere and from something more intelligent than the design of our bodies.  We had to be created by someone.  There is no other explanation. 

All that said, complexity is indeed proof of a higher intelligent being that created the thing that was less complex than the creator of that thing, person, being etc. . .

*facedesk*

All you have is the fine-tuned universe fallacy, which I've gone over so many times.  Complexity is not proof for a creator

the claim "god created all" could be engineering by another intelligent life form beyond our comprehension not a deity but a living life form. who knows.

Almost all of the scientific evidence that has been interpreted to point at evolution, can also point at climate and environmental adaptation.

The Youtube video "Molecular Machinery of Life" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ4N0iSeR8U - is one of many, many videos showing the operations in the cells. The kinds of operations shown are extremely complex. We don't see anything that is bringing this kind of "machinery" into existence. We have no evidence of the machinery being created from scratch. It is so complex that it would have taken the full 13 to 14 billion years that science wants to attribute to the age of the universe for it to come about by accident. And maybe that wouldn't have been long enough.

We as people and scientists are learning. We are adapting things of nature to work for us in many ways. Yet the complicated operations of a single living cell are way more complex that anything we can come close to inventing or making at this stage of the game.

The point is, we are so ignorant, that even if nature DID make life like it is, then nature itself would be God. What I mean is, the complexity of nature is here. It is so advanced beyond us, that whatever method it came into existence by, that method is God. And not only God, but GREAT GOD ALMIGHTY.

So, get it out of your head that there isn't any God. Rather, be logical and see that nature itself shows you that there has to be a God, even if it is only nature itself. And start looking for that God. If nature around us is what He can make, think of the great and wonderful things He will do for you when you acknowledge Him.

Denying God is like denying the facts of nature that science has discovered all around us.