Scientific proof that God exists?

[Vod]

There are many, many scientists who believe in God, are intelligent, and are curious.

That's about as true as your fairy tale.  It's impossible.

[1715633547]

1715633547

[BADecker]

There are many, many scientists who believe in God, are intelligent, and are curious.

That's about as true as your fairy tale.  It's impossible.

Sounds like you are missing a big chunk of the scientific world. But, it helps to understand where you are really coming from, a little.

[Vod]

Sounds like you are missing a big chunk of the scientific world. But, it helps to understand where you are really coming from, a little.

I have no idea what your scientific world consists of.  I can only analyze reality.

[BADecker]

Sounds like you are missing a big chunk of the scientific world. But, it helps to understand where you are really coming from, a little.

I have no idea what your scientific world consists of.  I can only analyze reality.

Well, perhaps if you stop analyzing, and start reading statistics...

First worldwide survey of religion and science: No, not all scientists are atheists - https://phys.org/news/2015-12-worldwide-survey-religion-science-scientists.html

Study: 2 Million U.S. Scientists Identify As Evangelical - http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/february-web-only/study-2-million-scientists-identify-as-evangelical.html

Does anyone have any statistics on the number of scientists (Ph.D.-level researchers) who are Christian? - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3150/are-there-any-statistics-that-show-how-many-scientists-are-christians-or-otherwi

There are many more studies. Google it.

[Vod]

There are many more studies. Google it.

No thanks.  I am curious - not gullible.

[BADecker]

There are many more studies. Google it.

No thanks.  I am curious - not gullible.

All right. So you have your own religion that includes only part of reality. But, at least we know it now.

[Vod]

There are many more studies. Google it.

No thanks.  I am curious - not gullible.

All right. So you have your own religion that includes only part of reality. But, at least we know it now.

Nope, I am not religious.

But if it helps your fairy tale to believe I am, go nuts. 

[BADecker]

There are many more studies. Google it.

No thanks.  I am curious - not gullible.

All right. So you have your own religion that includes only part of reality. But, at least we know it now.

Nope, I am not religious.

But if it helps your fairy tale to believe I am, go nuts. 

So, part of your religion is non-religion. Number 6 at http://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion?s=t: "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice."

[Vod]

So, part of your religion is non-religion. Number 6 at http://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion?s=t: "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice."

Nope, I am not religious.

But if it helps your fairy tale to believe I am, go nuts.  

[BADecker]

So, part of your religion is non-religion. Number 6 at http://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion?s=t: "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice."

Nope, I am not religious.

But if it helps your fairy tale to believe I am, go nuts.  

According to the definition of religion which I quoted on the previous page, the more adamantly you push your non-religion ideals, the more you make a religion out of it.

I was just the messenger to show you the definition. The more you are in denial, the stronger your religion becomes.

[Vod]

The more you are in denial, the stronger your religion becomes.

Well, I've said I'm not religious many times.

Your fairy tale, your rules I guess.

 

[BADecker]

The more you are in denial, the stronger your religion becomes.

Well, I've said I'm not religious many times.

Your fairy tale, your rules I guess.

 

In other words, you have been quite religious at saying you are not religious.

[Vod]

In other words, you have been quite religious at saying you are not religious.

If that is your fairy tale, then yes. 

[Astargath]

You have to define what complexity means. The fact that something is complex doesn't mean it was created by a superior being. The complexity in a human being is formed in it's core by atoms, which are also formed by electrons, protons etc etc which aren't really complex. Together they can make up something pretty complex but that doesn't mean anything. You are just assuming everything. You are also assuming that it has to be a god because it's our best definition which makes no sense. It's a made up definition. Any other god, aliens, other superior beings could fit in that category as well.

The fact that you are unable to use a dictionary, doesn't mean I have to define anything. Get a family member or roommate to look "complexity" up for you in the dictionary.

Once you have the definition of complexity firmly embedded in your mind, then make one of those atoms you are talking about. No, I don't mean manipulate one. I mean make one. Like, create it. Why would I want you to do this? Just so that you can see that parts of an atom are not nearly as simple as our names for them.

Again invoking some sort of authority. Just because humans can't make certain things doesn't mean a god created them. You jump from, this is complex to this is complex therefore a god must have created it. What I'm saying is that an atom only is less complex than a full human body for example. And the parts that make the atom are less complex than the atom itself and if you keep digging you get to the least complex part.

Also humans can manufacture matter. We can turn light into subatomic particles for example.

But you can't do it without some complexity.

Suddenly you like to play with complexity. Did you forget entropy? More complex doesn't come from less complex. This means that our complex life, emotion, thought, intelligence, etc., came from something more complex in the past. So, whatever placed the complexity into the universe when it started the universe, had all these qualities in greater amount than we have.

When you look at the great complexity around, you realize that the intelligence to make this complexity is way beyond anything that we could understand. Putting all the "qualities" that exist together in such a complex form indicates God.

You can talk like you are getting away from it. But you can't get away from it.

So I'm guessing the creator of god has to be much more complex as well, right?

You are the one that said you are guessing. If you are really guessing, than what you posted is right. If you are not, then it is wrong.

Is it not time to get on topic and discuss the scientific proof for (or against) God? Like many others, you have lots of room in the forum to post all kinds of religious threads about God. Why continue to do it in this one scientific thread about God? Are you really trying to state that science is a religion for you?

So you agree that god has a creator? Interesting.

I didn't say or imply that I think that God has a creator. You know it, yet you seem to claim that I said or implied such. Just goes to show your deceptiveness.

But what created god then? Since he is so complex as you claim, then something even more complex must have created him, right?

Science definitely has shown us that God controls complexity. But I haven't seen any science that has shown that God was created. Have you researched it?

It didn't at all. Science only shows us that there was a beginning to the universe, everything after that are just assumptions on your part. Saying it was god. It could have been a lot of other things, so no, science hasn't shown us that. Why don't you just admit your belief in god is purely based on faith and try desperately to prove his existence with science when you know you won't be able to.

If you want to stop at entropy, perhaps science only shows a beginning. But when you add complexity through cause and effect, science definitely shows us God.

No it doesn't. As I said, that points to multiple different possible causes and who knows how many more there are that we haven't thought of. It doesn't necessarily have to be god. It could be gods, could be any other creature that is complex enough to create a universe, a simulation etc etc. Just because you can't think of any other possible explanation it doesn't give you the right to say it's god.

Multiple gods is out because they would have to be acting in such great concert, that they would essentially be one... like one corporation.

If we have a universe simulation, the complexity would be even greater. Because there is intelligence now, and there is entropy that has lowered the IQ from what it was thousands of years ago, that which put it all together would have been considered by people back then, to have greater intelligence than present people could understand it to have.

Scientifically speaking:
I don't know if it had two heads or any heads.
I don't know if it had hands.
I don't know if it had a beard.
I couldn't tell you if square would fit it.

There are thousands of questions that could be asked about it that we don't have scientific answers to. But the thing that it fits is what a God would have to be. And not just any idea of God. But an extremely great God, way beyond human understanding, just like the majority of the vast universe is beyond the understanding of mankind.

Perhaps if there were no intelligence in the universe, maybe then there wouldn't be any God. But because we have intelligence that has decreased over the millennia because of entropy, not only was the intelligence of man greater back then, but the intelligence of that which made the universe is far greater.

Intelligence smacks of reasoning ability. And reasoning ability that is as far beyond mankind as that which it would take to make a universe like ours, silently shouts "GOD" to anyone who can think.

See how you just dismiss ideas because you want to? ''Multiple gods is out because they would have to be acting in such great concert, that they would essentially be one... like one corporation.''

No it's not out. Why would they need to act in a great concert? They would just need to act like humans act when they are building a bridge or a tower. I don't see how that disproves the idea of the possibility of different gods making this universe. All your scientific ''proof'' points out to a complex intelligent creator and that's it. You jump from that to god. I agree that if someone built the universe it had to be someone intelligent enough, obviously but that doesn't mean it's a god. It could just be a being that exists outside of our universe who is just far more advanced than us. We have advanced so much in the last years, imagine where humanity will be in 1000 years or in 1 million years, maybe we will create universes as well.

[BADecker]

See how you just dismiss ideas because you want to? ''Multiple gods is out because they would have to be acting in such great concert, that they would essentially be one... like one corporation.''

No it's not out. Why would they need to act in a great concert? They would just need to act like humans act when they are building a bridge or a tower. I don't see how that disproves the idea of the possibility of different gods making this universe. All your scientific ''proof'' points out to a complex intelligent creator and that's it. You jump from that to god. I agree that if someone built the universe it had to be someone intelligent enough, obviously but that doesn't mean it's a god. It could just be a being that exists outside of our universe who is just far more advanced than us. We have advanced so much in the last years, imagine where humanity will be in 1000 years or in 1 million years, maybe we will create universes as well.

This is a picture of a rose:




"Rose" in English. Other languages say: roos, Poзa, 玫瑰, rosas, τριαντάφυλλo, Ua tia, and many, many, more.

If the word "God" is too generalized, or too religious-like, or too familiar, or for some other reason unacceptable, we can say: Supreme Being, Great First Cause, Creator, Absolute Being, All Powerful, Prime Mover, World Spirit, or any one of a great number of other word/terms for the powerful being that science shows was the starter of the universe.

For an idea of other ways to say "God," some without the religious connotations that arise in the minds of some people, see: http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/god.

[Astargath]

See how you just dismiss ideas because you want to? ''Multiple gods is out because they would have to be acting in such great concert, that they would essentially be one... like one corporation.''

No it's not out. Why would they need to act in a great concert? They would just need to act like humans act when they are building a bridge or a tower. I don't see how that disproves the idea of the possibility of different gods making this universe. All your scientific ''proof'' points out to a complex intelligent creator and that's it. You jump from that to god. I agree that if someone built the universe it had to be someone intelligent enough, obviously but that doesn't mean it's a god. It could just be a being that exists outside of our universe who is just far more advanced than us. We have advanced so much in the last years, imagine where humanity will be in 1000 years or in 1 million years, maybe we will create universes as well.

This is a picture of a rose:




"Rose" in English. Other languages say: roos, Poзa, 玫瑰, rosas, τριαντάφυλλo, Ua tia, and many, many, more.

If the word "God" is too generalized, or too religious-like, or too familiar, or for some other reason unacceptable, we can say: Supreme Being, Great First Cause, Creator, Absolute Being, All Powerful, Prime Mover, World Spirit, or any one of a great number of other word/terms for the powerful being that science shows was the starter of the universe.

For an idea of other ways to say "God," some without the religious connotations that arise in the minds of some people, see: http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/god.

As I said, anything complex enough, by your definition and proof, could be the creator of the universe. There is no point in calling it a god. This thread was started by a religious person and his god was the christian god just like yours. I agree that a powerful being could be the creator of the universe (could) but even if he is, he definitely is not any of the gods in any of the religions we have. He is not a personal god, he doesn't look after us, he doesn't care about us. So it really doesn't matter, at least not now.

[BADecker]

See how you just dismiss ideas because you want to? ''Multiple gods is out because they would have to be acting in such great concert, that they would essentially be one... like one corporation.''

No it's not out. Why would they need to act in a great concert? They would just need to act like humans act when they are building a bridge or a tower. I don't see how that disproves the idea of the possibility of different gods making this universe. All your scientific ''proof'' points out to a complex intelligent creator and that's it. You jump from that to god. I agree that if someone built the universe it had to be someone intelligent enough, obviously but that doesn't mean it's a god. It could just be a being that exists outside of our universe who is just far more advanced than us. We have advanced so much in the last years, imagine where humanity will be in 1000 years or in 1 million years, maybe we will create universes as well.

This is a picture of a rose:




"Rose" in English. Other languages say: roos, Poзa, 玫瑰, rosas, τριαντάφυλλo, Ua tia, and many, many, more.

If the word "God" is too generalized, or too religious-like, or too familiar, or for some other reason unacceptable, we can say: Supreme Being, Great First Cause, Creator, Absolute Being, All Powerful, Prime Mover, World Spirit, or any one of a great number of other word/terms for the powerful being that science shows was the starter of the universe.

For an idea of other ways to say "God," some without the religious connotations that arise in the minds of some people, see: http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/god.

As I said, anything complex enough, by your definition and proof, could be the creator of the universe. There is no point in calling it a god. This thread was started by a religious person and his god was the christian god just like yours. I agree that a powerful being could be the creator of the universe (could) but even if he is, he definitely is not any of the gods in any of the religions we have. He is not a personal god, he doesn't look after us, he doesn't care about us. So it really doesn't matter, at least not now.

I don't think there is enough scientific knowledge about the Creator that science shows, to definitely say that He/It is NOT the God of one or more of the religions. Certainly, the God of the Bible contains all the characteristics of the Being that science shows. The difference is that the God of the Bible shows a lot more things about God than science does about the Creator that it shows. Why is that so? Because science hasn't advanced to the point where it understands much of anything about God, and because God has revealed Himself to people through religion and other means. To say much more would be getting into religion.

Be all that as it may, the word "God" still fits what we see in science in at least some important aspects of the meaning of "God." So, the scientific proof stands even if many or most of the religious gods/Gods are somewhat lacking or somewhat beyond science in various ways.

[CursedSanta]

i read a sentence yesterday in curch. its like ''my only knowledge is i don't know anything except jesus paid our sins with his life'' it was antiscientic. in my opinion you cant proof god with science and cant proof science with god. one day people will find all answers of questions. and they will say god is who knows everything, than im god

[HotCold]

There is no such thing as scientific proof for God because science needs testability and falsifiability. Science can only deal with what is perceivable by the senses, that is, with matter. God is not composed of matter and thus you can't scientifically study God. But keep in mind, there is no scientific proof for science either. All of science rests on philosophical axioms and once we bring philosophy into the picture, we can provide proof for God's existence.  

[BADecker]

There is no such thing as scientific proof for God because science needs testability and falsifiability. Science can only deal with what is perceivable by the senses, that is, with matter. God is not composed of matter and thus you can't scientifically study God. But keep in mind, there is no scientific proof for science either. All of science rests on philosophical axioms and once we bring philosophy into the picture, we can provide proof for God's existence.  

There is no such thing as outer space. Sure, we see something. But we can't put our hands on it to test if it really exists, right?

Cause and effect, entropy, and complexity combined prove that God exists.