scientific proof of god

GuanYin

bonkey wrote:

Science and belief don't even address the same questions, so its ludicrous to suggest either can supply an answer for the other. Why do so many religious people have a problem making this distinction?

Spot on. Although I will say that a fair amount of people who'd call themselves scientists, or at least believe they posessed the ability to reason scientifically, can't make the distinction either.

Freddie59

bonkey wrote:

That would be dependant on whether or not there is a Divine Lord, and whether or not its in any way remotely connected to Christian beliefs, really.



The response I posted was targetted at the argument presented, not at the underlying belief which it implied. So your pithy comeback is somewhat misplaced.

If people want to believe in a God (or Gods) thats their choice. I have no issue with belief. If they choose to go further and believe in a Christian God...thats fine too. I'm not particularly enamoured of organised religion, but accept that its pretty-much inextricably linked to belief at present. However, once people suggest that they can scientifically prove that their belief-based position is correct, I (and no shortage of other people) will show that they are mistaken.

Science and belief don't even address the same questions, so its ludicrous to suggest either can supply an answer for the other. Why do so many religious people have a problem making this distinction?

jc

Well - science v God. No contest really. God wins hands down always. If you never believed in God (or A God) then surely you must beileve that there is a driving force behind all around us (and not just mother Nature!).

Many of us are quite content to believe in the divine and the notion of Him. But I take your point and must respect your views and beliefs also. I think it's called a Mexican standoff!;)

Freddie59

rsynnott wrote:

The only mainstream belief system that acknowledges both of them (Islam) considers Jesus to be a prophet, not the son of god.

But that's an Islamic perspective.:)

rsynnott

Freddie59 wrote:

Well - science v God. No contest really. God wins hands down always. If you never beielved in God (or A God) then surely you must beileve that there is a driving force behind all around us (and not just mother Nature!).

Sorry, no, why on Earth must I believe that?

bonkey

Freddie59 wrote:

Well - science v God. No contest really.

Correct....but not in the manner you suggest.

Science and God don't compete in any manner, so there is no contest.

God wins hands down always.

How? There is no contest to win. There are no areas where the two compete.

Many of us are quite content to believe in the divine and the notion of Him. But I take your point and must respect your views and beliefs also.

I think you'll find that my point (which you claim to take) is that belief and science are entirely, non-overlapping, seperate things. Not once on this thread, nor (I believe) on any thread dealing with this topic have I once clarified what my beliefs are.

And yet thread after thread after thread shows some religious-centric poster deciding that because I refuse to put God above science, instead maintaining that the two are seperate, they can draw inferences about my beliefs. As you've just done.

Which ironically only proves my point: Far too few religious-centric people seem capable of understanding what science is...or feel a need to wilfully misrepresent it.

I think it's called a Mexican standoff!;)

Only for those who either don't understand what science is, or who deliberately misrepresent it in order to further some related agenda.

Oh...I should also include those who don't understand what belief and religion are, but I generally find that those with strong belief-based or religious convictions take offence when I suggest that as an alternative

bonkey

Freddie59 wrote:

If you never beielved in God (or A God) then surely you must beileve that there is a driving force behind all around us (and not just mother Nature!).

rephrased:

If you never believed in God then surely you must believe in God.

Eh......No, Ted.

rsynnott

bonkey wrote:

How? There is no contest to win. There are no areas where the two compete.

I think they show Science V God on Eurosport on particularly slow days.

Son Goku

Freddie59 wrote:

(and not just mother Nature!).

You can easily believe that Mother Nature is the only driving force. There is no need for a ruling sentient entity in everybody's conception of the universe.

Freddie59

bonkey wrote:

rephrased:

If you never believed in God then surely you must believe in God.

Eh......No, Ted.

No. Read the post again. What I am saying is that if you never beileved in God then sureley you must believe that something (not God in your case) is driving everything. That clear enough for you Dougal?

Freddie59

bonkey wrote:

Only for those who either don't understand what science is, or who deliberately misrepresent it in order to further some related agenda.

In fairness Science has done quite a fair amount of misrepresenting in it's day.:o

GuanYin

Freddie59 wrote:

No. Read the post again. What I am saying is that if you never beileved in God then sureley you must beleive that something (not God in your case) is driving everything. That clear enough for you Dougal?

Why must you believe that?

Freddie59

bonkey wrote:

Science and God don't compete in any manner, so there is no contest.

Just as well. Himself would romp home.:)

Zombrex

Freddie59 wrote:

Well - science v God. No contest really. God wins hands down always.

Not really ...

If God (or gods) exist, then he/they are as much a part of science as the theory of light or electromagnetic engery. If God exists, he is a law of nature, a law of science. X will happen if Y happens unless G (god) happens. Pure and simple.

If there is actually a God then that still falls totally within the realm of science, because science is simply the study of things.

If God doesn't exist then there is no contest either.

So in reality there is no "Science vs God" debate

What there is is a "science vs the teaching of certain religions" debate, because certain religions teach certain things that contradict what we know from science about the universe (such as the Earth is not the centre of the universe or even the solar system).

Freddie59 wrote:

If you never beielved in God (or A God) then surely you must beileve that there is a driving force behind all around us (and not just mother Nature!).

Thats like saying if I give you a box and I don't tell you what is in it and you don't believe there is a cat in it, you still must believe there is some form of animal in it.

That is nonsense, you have no idea whats in the box and any belief in what is in the box is based on your own wishes and hopes for what is, rather than any logical information. There could be a microwave oven in the box, or hell the box could be empty.

The smart thing (in my opinion) to do is that instead of guessing about what is in the box, or what you believe is in the box, you simply ask "whats in the box" (maybe give it a little shake and see what happens)

... thats what science does.

bonkey

Freddie59 wrote:

What I am saying is that if you never beileved in God then sureley you must beleive that something (not God in your case) is driving everything.

Why not god in my case? I refer you back to where I've pointed out that you're making unfounded assumptions about my beliefs based on nothing more than your refusal (or inability) to accept my point that science and belief/religion are not in conflict or competition with each other. It might be convenient for you to believe that I don't believe in a God, but I have never said whether I do or not. It has no bearing on my stance whatsoever, because I understand that the two do not conflict.

furthermore...why must I believe in an ultimate driving force? Indeed, from a logical perspective , I would argue that such an argument is based on one of three requirements:

1) If everything must be "driven", then so too must this "ultimate driving force" (udf), which undermines the possibility of it being a udf in the first place.

2) If this udf is not driven, then not everything must be driven and the need for a udf no longer exists.

3) The udf created and drives itself. This too eliminates the need for a udf, as it allows for creation without a udf performing said creation. Thus, not everything must be driven and the need for a udf no longer exists.

As you'll see, the "need" for a force behind it all actually logically devolves into a self-inconsistent situation. Hardly something I "must" believe in.

That clear enough for you Dougal?

Almost Ted.

If you could just explain what the distinction between "something that is driving everything in the universe" and "God" is, we'd have no misunderstanding whatsoever.

See...I've seen far too many people come at this point to let it slide...they argue that something must be driving everything, and then quietly mention that this something is what we've attributed Godhood to.

So knock yourself out. Explain to me how an all-powerful creator responsible for everything is not God, as well as how it can be a requirement without causing the logical self-inconsistency that I've pointed out above and we'll all be happy.

Otherwise, my paraphrasing of your statement remains entirely accurate - you're simply referring to God in a different manner as the (only) alternative to God.

Wicknight wrote:

What there is is a "science vs the teaching of certain religions" debate

Well said. The problem has always been religions making "divinely inspired" pronouncements which science later shows to be nothing but fiction born in ignorance.

Its kinda hard to maintain that you have a direct channel to God and that the teachings of your religion are fully correct when you've made gaffes like this. I mean....if an all-powerful, all-knowing God "misled" us on these issues....why should the other teachings be seen as infallibly true? They could be misleading fiction born in ignorance too.

Where religious beliefs have tread into scientific territory, science will not just crawl away with its tail between its legs leaving us to believe that the sun is the centre of the universe, that Adam and Eve really were our genetic forebears, that its turtles all the way down, or whatever.

jc

bonkey

Freddie59 wrote:

In fairness Science has done quite a fair amount of misrepresenting in it's day.:o

Unlike religion, science does not claim to be the absolute truth.

Dades

If there is a "driving force behind all around us", personally I reckon he is DUI, or a 'Learner' at best.

:v:

Freddie59

Wicknight wrote:

Not really ...

If God (or gods) exist, then he/they are as much a part of science as the theory of light or electromagnetic engery. If God exists, he is a law of nature, a law of science. X will happen if Y happens unless G (god) happens. Pure and simple.

If there is actually a God then that still falls totally within the realm of science, because science is simply the study of things.

If God doesn't exist then there is no contest either.

So in reality there is no "Science vs God" debate

What there is is a "science vs the teaching of certain religions" debate, because certain religions teach certain things that contradict what we know from science about the universe (such as the Earth is not the centre of the universe or even the solar system).



Thats like saying if I give you a box and I don't tell you what is in it and you don't believe there is a cat in it, you still must believe there is some form of animal in it.

That is nonsense, you have no idea whats in the box and any belief in what is in the box is based on your own wishes and hopes for what is, rather than any logical information. There could be a microwave oven in the box, or hell the box could be empty.

The smart thing (in my opinion) to do is that instead of guessing about what is in the box, or what you believe is in the box, you simply ask "whats in the box" (maybe give it a little shake and see what happens)

... thats what science does.

Yeah that's science alright........a load of b*******s presented in fancy language. Same old $hite - different century. Thye've been trotting that rubbish out for years.:eek:

Freddie59

bonkey wrote:

Unlike religion, science does not claim to be the absolute truth.

That's because it can't even begin to understand, let alone explain, the Divine mystery of our Almighty God. Small minds and all that.....;)

rsynnott

Freddie59 wrote:

Yeah that's science alright........a load of b*******s presented in fancy language. Same old $hite - different century. Thye've been trotting that rubbish out for years.:eek:

You still haven't shown why one must accept the idea of a driving force behind the universe.

Freddie59

rsynnott wrote:

You still haven't shown why one must accept the idea of a driving force behind the universe.

I don't have to. I'm as likely to prove that to you as you are to prove to me that there isn't one!:rolleyes:

The burden of proof is on the claimant.

amp

BACK ON TOPIC.

The topic of this thread is "scientific proof of God". I suggest that those that do not wish to stay on topic do not post here.

Moriarty

(aren't all the above posts on topic? ish?)

bonkey

Freddie59 wrote:

That's because it can't even begin to understand, let alone explain, the Divine mystery of our Almighty God. Small minds and all that.....;)

Is it so hard to accept that the reason science does not address certain questions is because they are not scientific subjects in the first place.

Is it so difficult to understand that there cannot be a scientific proof of the existence or non-existence of God or Gods, because it is not a question that science addresses.

It is not a scientific subject.

jc

Crucifix

Freddie59 wrote:

That's because it can't even begin to understand, let alone explain, the Divine mystery of our Almighty God. Small minds and all that.....;)

Science isn't an entity, it can't aspire to understand anything.

larryone

bonkey wrote:

Is it so hard to accept that the reason science does not address certain questions is because they are not scientific subjects in the first place.

Is it so difficult to understand that there cannot be a scientific proof of the existence or non-existence of God or Gods, because it is not a question that science addresses.

It is not a scientific subject.

jc

Unless you redefine what science is...
Science seeks an answer to the question: why?
Religion says that you dont need to ask the question.

The two should be left as seperate.

Freddie59

Deleted User wrote:

The burden of proof is on the claimant.

You're not in court.....:eek:

Freddie59

Freddie59 wrote:

You're not in court.....:eek:

Fair enough

God, the driving force behind our universe, is in fact a three headed infinitely fat biker goldfish, with a coke addiction, who likes to spend his days swimming in a giant pool of slightly gone off orange juice. He is called Kazushi.

As he is God, anyone who speaks ill of the Great Lawd Kazushi should be put to death and shall surely spend all eternity in hell/roscommon.

This is true because no-one can prove it to be false.

rsynnott

But that's correct, isn't it? The Christians picked up on the three-headed thing.

Crucifix

rsynnott wrote:

The Christians picked up on the three-headed thing.

Ha ha ha, imaginery rep right there.