Scientific proof that God exists?

[odolvlobo]

Complexity of the universe, the Earth and life, ... It's too big and too complex to be anything other than a construct.

In order to back up that statement you have to show that a construct is the only possibility, and that there are no other possibilities, including inconceivable ones.

Otherwise, it is only your opinion and not a fact.

[digaran]

There is no scientific proof that God exists. The concept of God is based on personal faith and beliefs, which cannot be proven or disproven using science.

Who writes computer code? 🤔
Who wrote DNA code?🤔
These questions taunt me every night.😂

[BADecker]

Complexity of the universe, the Earth and life, ... It's too big and too complex to be anything other than a construct.

In order to back up that statement you have to show that a construct is the only possibility, and that there are no other possibilities, including inconceivable ones.

Otherwise, it is only your opinion and not a fact.

It's all around you. The simple way to say it is 'entropy'. Things gradually change from complexity to simplicity, not the other way around. When they appear to go from simplicity to complexity, it's because there is even greater complexity that "programmed" this appearance. In other words, there is lack of scientific knowledge about how deep the complexity goes.

This doesn't have anything to do with the fact that energy can't be destroyed or created. Rather, it has to do with the modality of the energy... the way it exists and reacts with and upon itself.

[odolvlobo]

Complexity of the universe, the Earth and life, ... It's too big and too complex to be anything other than a construct.

In order to back up that statement you have to show that a construct is the only possibility, and that there are no other possibilities, including inconceivable ones.
Otherwise, it is only your opinion and not a fact.

... entropy ...

Entropy refers to an entire system and not an isolated part. Energy coming from the sun powers the creation, sustenance, and evolution of life and all of its complexity.

[digaran]

Complexity of the universe, the Earth and life, ... It's too big and too complex to be anything other than a construct.

In order to back up that statement you have to show that a construct is the only possibility, and that there are no other possibilities, including inconceivable ones.
Otherwise, it is only your opinion and not a fact.

... entropy ...

Entropy refers to an entire system and not an isolated part. Energy coming from the sun powers the creation, sustenance, and evolution of life and all of its complexity.

Can you tell me the probability of life forming by itself/ accident in the given time of earth's age? How long does it take for elements to come together and form a living organism? If you knew the answer, you wouldn't have said that energy from the sun creates life.

If you put necessary elements that are needed to form as a living organism in a jar/ planet, it would take trillions of years for them to form, and that's just the estimate when we account for the probability. Earth is not that old.

[BADecker]

... entropy ...

Entropy refers to an entire system and not an isolated part. Energy coming from the sun powers the creation, sustenance, and evolution of life and all of its complexity.

So, why did you leave out the part I wrote about energy not being created or destroyed?

The fact of all energy existing, doesn't necessarily have anything to do with its simplicity or complexity. This means that entropy could be in an entire system, the system becoming simpler in its action and reaction with itself.

Our observations show that the forms that energy exist in are going from complex to simple... entropy.

[Koceila]

Logically science can not prove the existence or even the non-existence of what we call "god", the last one is supposed to be behind science and behind logic, it is the power above all powers and forces, even so, science disapprove tje idea that life came from one couple (adam and eve). Scientists says that life can not start from just one couple and it can not give all these species, about that Darwins theory is the closest theory of evolution 1nd not the existence.

[BADecker]

Logically science can not prove the existence or even the non-existence of what we call "god", the last one is supposed to be behind science and behind logic, it is the power above all powers and forces, even so, science disapprove tje idea that life came from one couple (adam and eve). Scientists says that life can not start from just one couple and it can not give all these species, about that Darwins theory is the closest theory of evolution 1nd not the existence.

Science shows us that it is very difficult if not impossible for two, different species to mate successfully. It's hard enough believing that evolution could have happened once because of the complexity involved. But twice at the same time so there would be a mate? Out of the question.

[Gaza13]

In my opinion this question is very ridiculous, scientifically it cannot be proven scientifically, I can provide a little proof that the greatness of Allah does exist.

Al furqan verse 53 & Ar Rahman 19-20


At-Tur verse 6
https://youtu.be/tpy4eNFrC4g

Surah Asy-Syuara verses 63-66
The Parting of the Red Sea at the Time of Prophet Musa

Pharaoh's body QS Yunus: 92
He died in the Red Sea with his soldiers while chasing Prophet Musa AS. And, his body was later saved by Allah SWT. His body was preserved and can be found today

QS. Ar-Rum: 20
Creating humans that can reproduce

Before science developed rapidly, the message of the Koran from Khalid had been printed for hundreds of years, until now you can see the proof. what i mentioned above. and many more, that's just a little description of what I know.

I may want to ask those who believe in science

- Analogize how night and day change?

- How can science prove that Air exists?

- You believe in the existence of the Spirit, can you prove how when we sleep, the spirit is released when we sleep?

- You know the Human fingerprint, how is it formed, how does science think?

[sashapan]

I think that God is an old name, rather it is the center of a higher intelligence, the control of the entire universe, unequivocally, that someone created us..., that someone creates everything, and we are not alone in this universe, there is life on other planets too

[nicolas222]

The existence of God is a matter of faith and belief, and there is no scientific proof that God exists. While some people may argue that there are scientific proofs for the existence of God, such as near-death experiences, light, time, and matter/energy, these arguments are not universally accepted by the scientific community. Some scientists have attempted to formalize the existence of God using mathematical theorems, but these arguments are not conclusive and are often debated. Ultimately, the existence of God is a matter of personal belief and cannot be proven or disproven by science.

[BADecker]

The existence of God is a matter of faith and belief, and there is no scientific proof that God exists. While some people may argue that there are scientific proofs for the existence of God, such as near-death experiences, light, time, and matter/energy, these arguments are not universally accepted by the scientific community. Some scientists have attempted to formalize the existence of God using mathematical theorems, but these arguments are not conclusive and are often debated. Ultimately, the existence of God is a matter of personal belief and cannot be proven or disproven by science.

You are looking at it from the wrong direction. Consider the complexity of the universe; we don't know it all, but what we know is exceedingly complex.

Then try to find a way that the universe could exist without God. You can't.

The universe is a complex machine made up of multitudes of smaller complex machines. Machines have makers. The Maker of the universe machine is great enough that He fits our definition of "God Almighty."

[odolvlobo]

Then try to find a way that the universe could exist without God. You can't.

That's a poor argument and you risk your credibility when you make that argument.

The argument is called "god of the gaps". You are claiming that because we don't understand how something works, it must be the work of a god. That argument has been shown to be wrong a countless number of times -- lightning, earthquakes, floods, etc. Consider a magic trick where the magician produces a rabbit from a hat. You can't conclude that it can only be a supernatural act of magic just because you can't figure out how the magician does it.

It is also circular reasoning. You can't say that the universe can only exist through a god without first showing that a god actually exists. If the existence of a god is necessary for the existence of the universe, then you can't use the existence of the universe to prove that a god exists.

[BADecker]

Then try to find a way that the universe could exist without God. You can't.

That's a poor argument and you risk your credibility when you make that argument.

The argument is called "god of the gaps". You are claiming that because we don't understand how something works, it must be the work of a god. That argument has been shown to be wrong a countless number of times -- lightning, earthquakes, floods, etc. Consider a magic trick where the magician produces a rabbit from a hat. You can't conclude that it can only be a supernatural act of magic just because you can't figure out how the magician does it.

It is also circular reasoning. You can't say that the universe can only exist through a god without first showing that a god actually exists. If the existence of a god is necessary for the existence of the universe, then you can't use the existence of the universe to prove that a god exists.

You didn't quote the rest of what I posted.

"God of the gaps" doesn't have anything to do with it. My claim had to do with the fallacies in standard scientific theory understanding of all kinds of things regarding the operation of the universe and life. Those things seem to be the standard by which you make your argument. We aren't getting deep enough into it in the posts here to even know what we are referring to.

The universe, itself, shows that God exists. The simple science of the combined existence of Complexity + Cause and Effect + Entropy as they exist together is impossible without God.

Further, the simple idea of machine universe - a complex machine made up of many complex machines - expresses God. Machines have makers. A machine as complex as the universe has to have a Maker far greater than the machine universe. As I said before, such a Maker matches our definition of God Almighty.

[odolvlobo]

Then try to find a way that the universe could exist without God. You can't.

That's a poor argument and you risk your credibility when you make that argument.
The argument is called "god of the gaps". You are claiming that because we don't understand how something works, it must be the work of a god. That argument has been shown to be wrong a countless number of times -- lightning, earthquakes, floods, etc. Consider a magic trick where the magician produces a rabbit from a hat. You can't conclude that it can only be a supernatural act of magic just because you can't figure out how the magician does it.
It is also circular reasoning. You can't say that the universe can only exist through a god without first showing that a god actually exists. If the existence of a god is necessary for the existence of the universe, then you can't use the existence of the universe to prove that a god exists.

You didn't quote the rest of what I posted.
"God of the gaps" doesn't have anything to do with it. My claim had to do with the fallacies in standard scientific theory understanding of all kinds of things regarding the operation of the universe and life. Those things seem to be the standard by which you make your argument. We aren't getting deep enough into it in the posts here to even know what we are referring to.
The universe, itself, shows that God exists. The simple science of the combined existence of Complexity + Cause and Effect + Entropy as they exist together is impossible without God.
Further, the simple idea of machine universe - a complex machine made up of many complex machines - expresses God. Machines have makers. A machine as complex as the universe has to have a Maker far greater than the machine universe. As I said before, such a Maker matches our definition of God Almighty.

I didn't quote the second part because I didn't address it. I simply wanted to point out that I think you should avoid the first part because its obvious flaws will reduce the credibility of anything that follows.

As for the second part, the result of your claim that "every machine has a maker" is that your god exists simply because you define it as the "first cause".

In short, you have defined a god as the "first cause" and named it God, so therefore it exists. I agree that your logic is irrefutable. It exists because you have conceived it, but the existence of a concept is not the same as a the existence of a physical manifestation in reality. And even if this first cause is real, it certainly doesn't support anything else attributed to your god.

[nik268279]

Reasoning on this topic is quite complicated, because everyone has their own God, and not about what is in their head, namely the topics of religion. Everyone was assured from birth in the image of a certain God, and therefore it is inappropriate to prove the word.

[BADecker]

~


You didn't quote the rest of what I posted.
"God of the gaps" doesn't have anything to do with it. My claim had to do with the fallacies in standard scientific theory understanding of all kinds of things regarding the operation of the universe and life. Those things seem to be the standard by which you make your argument. We aren't getting deep enough into it in the posts here to even know what we are referring to.
The universe, itself, shows that God exists. The simple science of the combined existence of Complexity + Cause and Effect + Entropy as they exist together is impossible without God.
Further, the simple idea of machine universe - a complex machine made up of many complex machines - expresses God. Machines have makers. A machine as complex as the universe has to have a Maker far greater than the machine universe. As I said before, such a Maker matches our definition of God Almighty.

I didn't quote the second part because I didn't address it. I simply wanted to point out that I think you should avoid the first part because its obvious flaws will reduce the credibility of anything that follows.

As for the second part, the result of your claim that "every machine has a maker" is that your god exists simply because you define it as the "first cause".

In short, you have defined a god as the "first cause" and named it God, so therefore it exists. I agree that your logic is irrefutable. It exists because you have conceived it, but the existence of a concept is not the same as a the existence of a physical manifestation in reality. And even if this first cause is real, it certainly doesn't support anything else attributed to your god.

I understand. It's quite difficult to stay on track and avoid reality at the same time.

"I can't believe it. I just can't believe it." This is what people often say when some unexpected happening happens right in front of them. So, it is easily possible for people to not believe in God. It's a matter of wanting to not believe in God.

You might say the same thing for me in reverse. But if you read up on the latest science findings, you will find that scientists are coming to understand that God exists. They might not use the word "God," of course. But what they describe is something that matches what God is.

Reasoning on this topic is quite complicated, because everyone has their own God, and not about what is in their head, namely the topics of religion. Everyone was assured from birth in the image of a certain God, and therefore it is inappropriate to prove the word.

That's what scientific proof is all about. Many people hold themselves as God. They forget that they can barely do anything... or that there was a time that they didn't exist, and therefore couldn't have come into being by their own will. They want to suggest that there isn't any such thing as personal soul/spirit, but they still think that they are God.

No matter the religion, everybody realizes that there is God, way down in their inner subconscious.

[Salahmu]

Is actually incredible how two different colors of water separated on the same sea, the mystery behind it is actually unknown to us because many believes God exist while others believes on their own God,  a scientist called "Atheist" On his scientific research with is his own proof he believes God those not exist.

[sirazimuth]

......The Maker of the universe machine is great enough that He fits our definition of "God Almighty."

All you did is shift the question "from who made the universe?" to "who made your imaginary sky fairy god?"
And you cant tell me who/what created your "almighty" god.
(well you probably will, but it will be all your typical supernatural godswill mumbo jumbo, complete with silly holy babble quotes)
It must be turtles all the way down.

[BADecker]

......The Maker of the universe machine is great enough that He fits our definition of "God Almighty."

All you did is shift the question "from who made the universe?" to "who made your imaginary sky fairy god?"
And you cant tell me who/what created your "almighty" god.
(well you probably will, but it will be all your typical supernatural godswill mumbo jumbo, complete with silly holy babble quotes)
It must be turtles all the way down.

Where was God before He made the universe? Certainly He wasn't in the universe, then.

We have the physics laws of the universe, by which the universe operates. We know what some of these laws are, but we haven't figured them all out, yet.

If the laws of this universe operated in the place that God exists and existed before He made the universe, God would have been in the universe before He made it.  But God was outside of the universe before He made it.

In a simple way, it's like when you build a house. You are outside of the house before you build it. You can be inside or outside after you build it.

The point is that God's habitation is different than this universe. It doesn't follow the laws of this universe. And nobody created God, because God always existed and always exists. That's why when talking to Moses He said, "I am that I am." Even God's name is "I AM," because God has always existed and always will exist.

God kinda likes you. I mean, even God enjoys a little bit of entertainment now and again.