scientific proof of god

Moriarty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction for an explanation, The Atheist.

Dades

Moriarty wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction for an explanation, The Atheist.

Thanks M.

Answers how gravity could be seen as "weak" part anyway.

Tar.Aldarion

The Atheist wrote:

Thanks M. theory.

Answers how gravity could be seen as "weak" part anyway.

Corrected.
Ah String theory, my favourite theory, I pray to almighty father in the north pole that they find gravitons and supersymmetry. I would party that day.
Anyway even if there are eleven dimensions and infinite universes...nothing about the start is explained, we would be even more confused if that is possible, which will always be the question that bothers me.

EDIT: just read this thread, it is hilarious(yet sad to see) to see people who know nothing about science comment on it, it really is.
I'm way too late to argue with everybody though...although...if I have the time... *winky smily!*

Zombrex

The Atheist wrote:

Is this not why wicknight was suggesting that if God existed we would be show his existence using science?

Kinda, but the point I was trying to make (i doubt I am going to get an answer to my quetsion) about Bonkey's unobservable universe is that it is not dependent on us observing the universe for the possibility to exist that it can be proven (bad word I know) through science.

If you existed inside that universe it would be as easy to show it exists as it would be to show this current universe exists.

Son Goku

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Corrected.
Ah String theory, my favourite theory, I pray to almighty father in the north pole that they find gravitons and supersymmetry. I would party that day.
Anyway even if there are eleven dimensions and infinite universes...nothing about the start is explained, we would be even more confused if that is possible, which will always be the question that bothers me.

Off Topic: Supersymmetry would be great (if it was N=1), but I'd have to say I'd be severely disappointed if gravitons were found.

With regards to the beginning, in General Relativity the Universe doesn't have or require a beginning, just thought I'd through that out.

bonkey

Wicknight wrote:

If you existed inside that universe it would be as easy to show it exists as it would be to show this current universe exists.

Which is little different to saying that "if god exists, God can prove God's existence, and hence God's existence would be proveable".

It still brings us nothing, and from our perspective is little more than an implicit admission that we cannot prove this.

Ultimately, its little more than a rewording of a universal negative. Because I cannot rule out that some intelligence somewhere may have a perspective that allows them to generate some proof, I cannot say something is unproveable. Thats ultimately all your argument boils down to.

For me, its all about perspective. If we cannot prove it and can prove that we cannot prove it, then from our perspective it is unproveable. Given that science, the scientific method and so on all require observation etc. they cannot be meaningfully seperated from the observer.

Kinda, but the point I was trying to make (i doubt I am going to get an answer to my quetsion) about Bonkey's unobservable universe is that it is not dependent on us observing the universe for the possibility to exist that it can be proven (bad word I know) through science.

I notice that to form this line of questioning, you'd have to interpret "(un)observeable" to mean "(un)observeable by us", but "(un)proveable" to mean "(un)proveable by anyone".

if you interpret the two consistently (either "by anyone" or "by us"), then you'll find that your argument disappears, which then begs the question to be re-asked - if it is unobserveable, does this mean its existence is unproveable, or that it does not and can not exist?

I side firmly with the former. You appear to side with the latter.

jc

Zombrex

bonkey wrote:

Because I cannot rule out that some intelligence somewhere may have a perspective that allows them to generate some proof, I cannot say something is unproveable. Thats ultimately all your argument boils down to.

Pretty much yeah, along with

"If something exists it is possible to show it exists within a scientific framework, simply by the fact that it exists"

I would also point that the an intelligence existing that can do something is irrelevent to the method of doing something being valid.

The scientific methods to determine the speed of gravity on earth is valid. As such it has always been valid, it was valid at the big bang and it will be valid at the end of time. It was valid 4 billion years ago when we were just protiens in a ocean, before anyone even knew what gravity was.

Of course we only find out that a method is valid after we have discovered it. But the method always exists, as so far as an idea can "exist"

bonkey wrote:

Given that science, the scientific method and so on all require observation etc. they cannot be meaningfully seperated from the observer.

True, but it is incorrect to assume we have to be the observers.

We could not see the back of the moon for millions of years. Light was still banging off the back of the moon though. The method to observe, map, study, the back of the moon is constant.

As I said before, even if the human race had never existed, even if no intelligence had ever or will ever exist in the universe, the methods to show through science the rotation of the planets, the effects of electrons in metal, the changes of hygrogen into helium in stars are all still valid and will work.

Take another example. I know the quickest method to get from my house to the local Spar. If I die, or if I never existed, or if humanity was wiped from the face of the earth tomorrow in an orgy of nuclear war, the quickest method to get from my house to the local Spar is still the quickest method to get from my house to Spar. In fact it was the quickest method before I even realised it was the quickest method, when I was back walking the long route.

What I am saying is that one cannot say that God, if he/she/it exists, lies some how outside of science, outside of the definition of the natural world/universe, because that doesn't make sense. If something that exists can lie outside of the natural existence then the definition of what is natural existence is wrong.

bonkey wrote:

I notice that to form this line of questioning, you'd have to interpret "(un)observeable" to mean "(un)observeable by us", but "(un)proveable" to mean "(un)proveable by anyone".

Well no, not really, that was your defintion of it.

bonkey wrote:

I side firmly with the former. You appear to side with the latter.

Actually that was The Athesist.
I haven't made any comments on the possibility that such a thing could exist.

The Atheist wrote:

Then this parallel universe might as well not exist.

Dades

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

just read this thread, it is hilarious(yet sad to see) to see people who know nothing about science comment on it, it really is.

You better not be talking about me...

Can people who know nothing about photography not comment on a photograph?

Gegerty

Who cares you're still going to die and no God can help you there. Lets sort out the World and enjoy what we DO know about the universe. Eventually we'll get some proof in favour or against and that day will come quicker if we sort out a whole load of other sh*t first.

Personally I think our whole existence is to work something out and just like ants on the ground we have no idea of the bigger picture and never will.

Tar.Aldarion

The Atheist wrote:

You better not be talking about me...

Can people who know nothing about photography not comment on a photograph?

Nah man, wasn't talking about you. More the people with em ...'interesting' viewpoints.

Off Topic: Supersymmetry would be great (if it was N=1), but I'd have to say I'd be severely disappointed if gravitons were found.

With regards to the beginning, in General Relativity the Universe doesn't have or require a beginning, just thought I'd through that out.

Why praytell would you be disappointed?

One of the possiblities is that there was no beginning and as I can't think of a possible way there could or couldn't have been a beginning...it rather annoys me.

bonkey

Wicknight wrote:

What I am saying is that one cannot say that God, if he/she/it exists, lies some how outside of science, outside of the definition of the natural world/universe, because that doesn't make sense.

It makes perfect sense if you use all of those terms in the sense that they are mean to be understood with relation to science.

Of course, now we've come full circle to the whole issue of whether or not you've actually checked up what "natural" means in the scientific sense given that you effectively admitted earlier that you didn't know what that meaning was when I insisted that this is how I was using the term and you refused to look it up.

Lets see...

If something that exists can lie outside of the natural existence then the definition of what is natural existence is wrong.

This is not consistent with how the term "natural" is used in the scientific sense. So either you haven't looked that up, or have done so and disagree.

In either case, your resultant definition of science is non-standard, and therefore your conclusions about what science can and cannot do must also be. I have no problems agreeing that a non-standard definition of what science is can lead to whatever conclusions you like in terms of what science can do.

jc

Zombrex

bonkey wrote:

Of course, now we've come full circle

Agreed .. I think the last time we where here I asked you for the definition of "natural" that you were using and all I got was "The standard one", but you refused to expand on what you believed that actually was.

So as you said, full circle....

Son Goku

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Why praytell would you be disappointed?

It would mean that gravity is just another Quantum Field like the other three forces, which would be a severe let down after all the weirdness it indicates, like inducing decoherence, being nonlinear and its role in parameterising the other fields.

Gravity goes from being a property of spacetime, to just being another field in a flat background.

bonkey

Wicknight wrote:

I asked you for the definition of "natural" that you were using and all I got was "The standard one", but you refused to expand on what you believed that actually was.

Thats simply not true.

I provided you with the information I searched google with, and pointed out that in several of teh hits off the first page exactly this term was discussed and clarified and that my understanding was in agreement with those.

You have consistently ignored this information, and consistently portrayed it instead as my refusal to answer your question.

You may also recall that when this whole "what do you mean by natural" thing started, I asked you at the same time if you could provide me with a reference for your chosen definition of science that did not have the rider about "natural" alongside it. This request did[/i[ get ignored, unlike your request to me about my understanding of the term.

Not only that, but your lack of awareness of the consistent useage of the term "natural" in the definition of what science addresses only suggests that you didn't know it was a standard qualifier at the time. Now that you've apparently accepted it is a standard qualifier, I'm staggered that you continue to show a refusal to go and check up what it means, either using the approach I offered, or any other, and instead stick to what you've decided it means.

AS I said - if you want to use a non-standard definition, thats fine, but you'll come to a non-standard conclusion.

jc

Zombrex

bonkey wrote:

You have consistently ignored this information, and consistently portrayed it instead as my refusal to answer your question.

You haven't provided me with any information. You haven't even provided me with a link to where you are getting your definition.

You simply said Google it, which it ridiculous and I think against the charter of Humanities. I mean I might as well say "Well I have been proven completely right and if you Google it you will see I am"

How this is easier than simply printing the definition you are using I have no idea ...

But ok lets see what the first 5 hits from Google for "Natural Phenomen" are -
http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=natural+phenomena&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

1 - Natural Phenomena Named After Frank Zappa - ok, not very helpful

2 - Weather/Natural Phenomena - ok, only good if you want weather

3 - Natural Phenomena - umm, maybe, no wait it's a page about forests

4 - THE NATURAL PHENOMENA OF ANTIGRAVITATION AND INVISIBILITY IN ... - Less said about that the better

5 - Costa Rica - Natural Phenomena: Earthquakes, floods, etc. Costa Rica earthquakes, nope no good

bonkey wrote:

If you want to know more, then google your own definition and you'll have no problems finding out what my meaning of the term is based on the hits you get from the first page alone.

If you google my own definition you get back links to the definition all over the web. Not very helpful, I already have the definition of "science"

bonkey wrote:

You may also recall that when this whole "what do you mean by natural" thing started, I asked you at the same time if you could provide me with a reference for your chosen definition of science that did not have the rider about "natural" alongside it. This request did[/i[ get ignored, unlike your request to me about my understanding of the term.

It didn't get ignored, I said I took out the "natural" bit because you obviously had a different definition than what I would understand as natural, and you were using this as a technicality as to why science cannot deal with God, along the lines of the definition of science is "natural phenomona" and God is super-natural so therefore science cannot deal with God. I spent a number of posts trying to get your definintion of "natural" and "super-natural" out of you, and explaining that "super-natural" doesn't actually mean anything logically. But to no avail.

bonkey wrote:

Not only that, but your lack of awareness of the consistent useage of the term "natural" in the definition of what science addresses only suggests that you didn't know it was a standard qualifier at the time.

Your point boils down to you saying I don't know what "natural" really means, where as you do, yet you refuse to provide where your definition comes from, or even what it is.

Thats like saying I know you are wrong because I have the correct answer but I am not going to explain how I know it or even show you what the answer is. Hardly a convincing argument.

You have completely ignored my questions as to how something can exist yet fall outside the definition of natural phenomona. I mean we can't even start tackling that question until you provide what you understand to mean as "natural", but if you ever do, the next question would be ok if that is natural, what is outside that set of things.

God seemingly is, so the next question would be Can anything else fall outside of the definition of natural phenomona? This is the point I have been trying to get to, but since we don't even have a start point it is rather pointless

bonkey wrote:

I'm staggered that you continue to show a refusal to go and check up what it means, either using the approach I offered, or any other, and instead stick to what you've decided it means.

Because searching the dictionary provides this

"All non-artificial phenomena", which would seem to include God (if he exists)

Wikipedia says
"is all matter and energy, especially in its essential form", which would also include God (if he exists)

Searching Google provides web pages about Costa Rica. So can you see where I would be a bit confused when you say "Just Google it"

micromegas

The Atheist wrote:

Okay. Clear as mud.

As you were...

Haha. I love that saying.

bonkey

Wicknight wrote:

You simply said Google it,

No, I didn't. As you even quoted me below, I said to google your own definition.

But ok lets see what the first 5 hits from Google for "Natural Phenomen"

Your definition was not the two words "natural phenomenon". So you're still not doing what I suggested which is to search for the definition you supplied me with.

- Take your definition as originally posted.
- Copy it to the clipboard
- Go to www.google.com
- paste the contents of your clipboard into the search-terms box.
Hit the search button on the screen, causing google to run a search against what I told you to search again - your definition, and not some arbitrarily chosen subset of terms from it.

Is that clear enough?

Would it have made you feel better if I did this, checked each fo the links, filtered down to the ones that did contain the discussion, and asked you to read them? Is google that difficult to use? I won't ask whether or not you have the time and/or effort to invest, because you've spent far longer insisting that I haven't given you any information and am refusing to answer the question than it would have done to actually take my advice, google your definition, and do some reading.

If you google my own definition you get back links to the definition all over the web. Not very helpful, I already have the definition of "science"

Disingenuous. If you google your definition, you get back links to where the definition is used all over the web. I'd be surprised if someone explained what the terms of the definition meant somewhere other than where the term was used. It would seem like a logical starting place to me.

As of the time I told you how to find out what the term "natural" meant in this regard, over half the links on the first page of a search done against your definition all discussed this point.

Do you think I should look for a definition of the term somewhere it isn't used?

It didn't get ignored, I said I took out the "natural" bit because you obviously had a different definition than what I would understand as natural,

And this is my point all along. Its not about how you undersdtand the term natural. Its about how the people who decided this term was apt to the definition of science believe(d) it should be interpreted. To learn what this is, you need to look up where others have explained it, and adapt their meaning.

Again, looking for where the definition is used and explanied on the web would seem like the obvious starting place for me, but apparently you think that looking for where the definition is used is a pointless place to check.

and explaining that "super-natural" doesn't actually mean anything logically.

Logically? I thought we were talking about whether or not it meant anything scientifically. The definition of science inherently addresses the issue of supernatural vs natural, whilst you insist that one is a logical non-entity. How you can conclude the correctness of your understanding of what science is from this is beyond me.

Your point boils down to you saying I don't know what "natural" really means,

No, it boils down to me saying you don't know what it means when used in this context, and pointing out your absolute refusal to go and check it up. I refuse to believe its an inability to actually use google.

Thats like saying I know you are wrong because I have the correct answer but I am not going to explain how I know it or even show you what the answer is.

Huh? I've given you - and anyone else reading this - instructions on how to fnid the meaning I'm looknig for. You'll find it discussed in no shortage of places where your definition is used, and hence a google is the best way of finding it. Multiple locations - as a search-engine provides - should show there is a consistency of agreement in the meaning of the term, buit which is not in agreement with your useage.

I haven't refused to anyone to explain this. I just have refused to be your cut-and-paste engine. I believe that anyone who knows what I'm talking about will not need to look things up, as they will see you are misusing the term. Anyone who doesn't already know will be better served by acquiring the knowledge themselves given the information of how to find it. That way they can choose how much or how little to read around the issue, how many differing points of view to take, and can see objectively how much general agreement there is in the useage of the term, that agreement being at odds with your insistence of its meaning.

Hardly a convincing argument.

I gave you what you needed to find as much as you wanted about what I was saying. You have superbly demonstrated how much you want to know by your constant refusal to take any initiative in actually looking it up.

I'm not maknig a convincing argument. I'm saying you're misinformed, and my interest here is not in educating you, but in discussing the point at hand. I've told you how to educate yourself so the discussion could continue, but all I've met in response is truculent refusal. Do you see yoru truculence as somehow being a convincing argument?

You have completely ignored my questions as to how something can exist yet fall outside the definition of natural phenomona.

The definition of what constitutes natural phenomena, when used in context of the definition of science clearly delineates this. I've told you how to find this information. I've told you that your insistence that "supernatural" == "bunkum" is at odds with this information.

Again, what more do you need?

I haven't refused to do anything except play the kindergarten schoolteacher who does all the work for you.

God seemingly is,

You've been insisting all along that God either doesn't exist, or else God is a natural phenomenon. Now you're saying God "seemingly is" not a natural phenomenon. So what seemingly is God?, should God exist? Surely not supernatural, given that you've asserted isuch a thing doesn't exist.

so the next question would be Can anything else fall outside of the definition of natural phenomona?

Thats not the next question until we get agreement that God - should God exist - is not a natural phenomenon. Other than your "seemingly" comment above, you've flat-out rejected this notion, so I don't see how we can meaningfully progress to any next question. Are you shifting stance and accepting that God (should God exist) is supernatural?

This is the point I have been trying to get to, but since we don't even have a start point it is rather pointless

We have a start-point. The start point is that you stop using yoru hand-picked interpretation of a term, and instead look up how it is meant to be understood. Once we're both on a common ground, we can progress.

Wikipedia says
"is all matter and energy, especially in its essential form", which would also include God (if he exists)

Would it? How? Thats highly presumptive, wouldn't you say? You're making assumptions about the nature of God and/or energy/matter with no observational basis (direct or indirect).

Your assertion that God would be included is highly unscientific in nature, being based on conjecture and assumption rather than on observation, experimentation, theory, or anything else scientific.

And didn't you only early state that God "seemingly is" something which falls outside the realm of natural phenomena and want to move on to the next question. Now you're back once more saying that God would have to be a natural phenomenon if God exists. So which is it?

Or when you said "seemingly", did you mean something other than its conventional, accepted meaning?

So can you see where I would be a bit confused when you say "Just Google it"

Thats why I didn't say that. I said google your definition, as you even quoted me as saying.

As I mentioned before in relation to something else, this isn't just pedantry on my part. This is being precise.

Zombrex

bonkey wrote:

Thats why I didn't say that. I said google your definition, as you even quoted me as saying.

Bonkey if you Google my definition you get back 290,000 pages, most of which seem to contain the definitino of science

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=The+observation%2C+identification%2C+description%2C+experimental+investigation%2C+and+theoretical+explanation+of+phenomena.&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

I have scanned the first 10 or 15 and I cannot find anything the goes into the definitions of "natural" as opposed to super-natural or any defintion that would lead one to believe the God (or anything) can fall out of the the definition of natural

I can only conclude from that you don't actually have a definition to begin with, and all this was just a round-and-round method to get out of providing a definition. I mean it is a pretty weak argument to say its in Google, go find it yourself. I must try that on politics some day ... :rolleyes:

Anyway, I've better things to be doing with my time ... when you get round to finding a definition of natural you are happy with come back to me ..

bonkey

Wicknight wrote:

Bonkey if you Google my definition you get back 290,000 pages, most of which seem to contain the definitino of science

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=The+observation%2C+identification%2C+description%2C+experimental+investigation%2C+and+theoretical+explanation+of+phenomena.&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

I have scanned the first 10 or 15 and I cannot find anything the goes into the definitions of "natural" as opposed to super-natural or any defintion that would lead one to believe the God (or anything) can fall out of the the definition of natural

Well, I took your link, ran it, took this link from the first page of results, and now copy and paste the following comments from that page.

Some attributes of Science:
...

* Is evidence based (backed up by independent observations of nature)
* Consequently, can only deal with issues that have some direct manifestation in the natural world
* Examples:
o Cannot directly address issues of matters outside the natural world (i.e., whether or not a god or gods exist; whether a particular political or philosophical position is "better" in a non-tangible way, etc.)
...
# Is NOT the same thing as "ontological naturalism" (the statement that supernatural entities do not exist). Potentially, one can believe in supernatural entitities, but as long as you don't invoke them as explanations you are doing Science. However, once you DO invoke them as explanations, you have abandoned Science because you have introduced elements which are immune to independant investigation.


"Clearly" this is saying nothing about the natural world and whether or not God (should God exist) is part of it.

Oh, except for saying that the argument about God's existence is not one which can be addressed as part of the natural world, which is....strangely enough....exactly what I've been saying.

Notice also the bit which points out that science is not based on the insistence that the supernatural does not exist? The supernatural is irrelevant to science. Again, what I've been saying, and in disagreement with your insistence that there is no supernatural.

I can only conclude from that you don't actually have a definition to begin with,

You've caught me out. I made it all up, and then created all these webpages to argue the same as me, and somehow managed to ensure that some would appear in your first page of results but invisibly to you.

Also, seeing as you quoted wikipedia earlier on, one would imagine it wouldn't have been a huge stretch to look up "supernatural" there, although I guess because the artcle is only linked to directly from the results from your search, rather than being a direct hit on the first page itself, and that I didn't actually tell you to look there, its not obvious enough.

Anyway...what did it have to say on the subject....

In this, the most common view, the term supernatural is contrasted with the term natural, which presumes that some events occur according to natural laws, and others do not, because they are caused by forces external to nature. In essence, the world is seen as operating according to natural law "normally," until a force external to nature (such as God) intervenes. Some believe strongly in the forces beyond the natural realm; but others have a strong belief in the powers of nature and only nature.

Hmmm. Clearly what I've been saying, and what you've been disagreeing with.

Strange how all these sites are agreeing with my made-up, unsupported understanding of the terminology, and are disagreeing with your interpretation.

The information is there, Wicknight. Its not hard to find, unlike arguments using your definition of science that claim God is part of the natural world. Just because you want to pretend that its not there and that I've asked some gargantuan task of you rather than provide my own explanation doesn't change that.

At this point, the only thing being really called into question is your capability of actually finding the information you're looking for. You've supplied nothing supporting your own interpretation and show an unfailing inability to find what I located without breaking a sweat even when I was using your results from google (although, admittedly, I also went so far as to follow a single hyperlink on the pages when it seemed highly relevant).

On the basis of this alone, you should consider who's claim to have a proper understanding of the terminology is more likely to be correct - the person who shows they can research something given some clues, or the person who erroneously insists the information pointed at doesn't exist and that a "scanning" of 10 or 15 results is enough to show this.

Consider whether or not this likelihood is changed by the person who insists the inforamtion doesn't exist also claiming their own viewpoint holds water despite not showing any linkage at all to support their own interpretations, whilst claiming the opposing one doesn't hold water because no direct linkage has been supplied.

So I await your direct linkage with eagerness.....or else I can assume - as you have done - that your unwillingness to provide direct linkage means it is just a meaning you've made up yourself.

Given that you're so opposed to actually asking other posters to be willing to put some effort into finding things, it is all but inconceivable that you would use such a tactic regarding the support of your own argument.


So step up Wicknight.

Show you can live by the standards you would hold others to. Or will you instead show that all your distress and upset at being asked to do some of the resaearch work yourself was nothing but bluster and that you believe I was perfectly entitled to point you at google because its what you would do yourself.

I must try that on politics some day

With the level of detail I gave you, it would meet the requirements of the charter perfectly. The rules for that forum regarding linkage were specifically written to prevent people using the "Spoon feed me, or your argument cannot be said to hold up" line of reasoning that you've employed here.